Sunday 7 October 2012

Anytime or Never

Who can I talk to about Breaking Bad?

It's arguably the best TV show ever, yet hardly anyone's watched it, or, more annoyingly, those who have are all at different points in the series, making it impossible to discuss without spoilers.

To me, this is just a fact of how entertainment is consumed in the age of multiple channels, on-demand access and Internet downloads. Seeing things at the same moment in time as friends, almost never happens. It's a pity as part of the fun of a series, beyond watching it, is experiencing it - anticipating it and taking time to discuss it with others, particularly for such a nuanced show as Breaking Bad.

Anyway, it has been suggested that this kind of dialogue over shows has not disappeared, it's just been relocated, moved from interpersonal space into cyberspace. Social interactions have evolved, removing the boundary of space and time, you can drop in and out whenever you want, contribute as much as like, from wherever you are - in much the same way as you can view shows, you can comment on them: on your own schedule. Failure to see this, it appears, is like old media's failure to coexist alongside new media.

Personally, I don't see it that way. Surely, just as time slipped viewings make the water-cooler debate awkward for fear of spoilers, so must open threads on the Internet make cyber discussion impossible without them, or even more limited, as at the time of writing you can't gauge how clued in your audience may be. Posting a comment with a plot point would reveal itself in everyone's timeline, whether they were ready to see that detail or not. It would be like somebody walking through the office freely shouting the endings to everyone's favourite shows.

So, in person or online, we are limited to oblique references, and vague statements of general encouragement to others, to: keep watching, it's very good. Or, am I wrong, is there some place we can get together and share our excitement or insights into our weekly viewings?

If you know let me know, I'm keen to get more out of my favourite shows by seeing in them, what everyone else has seen in them.

Sunday 18 March 2012

Flawed messengers reveal real hope

This Daisey story and KONY2012 make me sad. Sad because of the terrible issues they highlight, but also sad because, in contradiction to their intentions, they've given comfort to the neigh-sayers by being misguided/misleading.

We are often told (by cynical people) that we live in a cynical world, one where nobody could tear themselves away from their touch-screens long enough to care about anybody else - not even people they know, must less ones that they don't know. In fact, we're great at finding rationals to not care, to not help others: they brought it on themselves, I suspect the funds don't get fairly distributed, why help other nations out when we've got our own problems, why help our own people out they're just feckless.

Every once in a while, something comes into view, often via those same touch-screens we can't tear ourselves away from, that makes people aware of an issue. When this happens, it often disproves the cynical view, people respond openly with hope and a genuine desire to help: they do care. As with KONY2012, which went instantly viral and showed that thousands of people took it at face value, in an uncynical way, because when presented with a horrible situation, even one miles away and affecting people who practice a different culture, they cared. Maybe just enough to pass the word on, but they did.

The same was true of Mike Daisey. To Apple's legion of unquestioning fanboys, who see high-end electronics, beautifully made and marketed at the well-heeled, as virtuous, the company can do no wrong. Those of us who own their devices don't want to be made to feel bad about something that makes us feel ridiculously good. So, not much attention had been paid to the many, many news stories detailing the horrible conditions under which these shiny toys are made. Daisey's rhetorical one-man show caught the attention and contributed to a growing call for Apple to clean-up its act, so that it's as shiny as the buffed aluminium that makes their electronics so appealing.

Get the message out in an evocative way and people do respond, they do care. At the same moment the neigh-sayers, squirming awkwardly, look for reasons not to care. They pour scorn on the way the message was spread: over social media, or they question the credulity of the re-bloggers and re-tweeters. They may even sight a patronising cultural imperialism as a turn off. This all takes place before any real evidence appears to cause the original stories to be questioned.

Then the worst thing happens. The stories are shown to be questionable. The motives may still be real but the methods and practices are misguided at best, fraudulent at worst.

Daisey, it turns out, didn't visit as many places as he mentions in his entertaining rant, and, although nearly everything he mentions is real, he didn't witness much of it first hand and certainly not in the manner he describes. As for KONY2012, they're a real non-profit but they have a poor charitable rating (a mere 2 stars), owing to the fact that they keep closed accounts. Who knows for sure where all the money they receive goes, although it seems some of it ends up funding another ugandan rebel faction. One that it appears is as unsavoury as Kony's Lord's Resistance Army.

OK, this is all a salient reminder that we should be more informed before we take a stance. Some of the neigh-sayers were, in truth, only offering this caution. That in itself is no bad thing, a call to be properly informed. Yet sadly, the clay feet of the messengers has offered, for those who ridicule and rubbish every hopeful act, proof that they were right, that it's never worth caring: everything's a scam. Many who chose to care will feel duped, and foolish - the kind of foolish that the cynical seek to avoid at all costs. It may lead to some harding their attitudes in the future, for fear of being conned again. The whole thing ends up looking like it was fake, the stories and the caring; as the critics claim that its all just shallow click-revolution, and slacktivism.

It wasn't all fake. While the intentions of the authors may still be true, they may not be and, in any case, its hard to argue that now. But the intentions of those who were encouraged to hope and to care were real. The overwhelming evidence suggests that to be true. Given better information, via a less self-serving media, those people could make a real difference. I hope we don't lose sight of that and instead find that Invisible Children and Mike Daisey have just given us another couple of excuses not to care. We really don't need anymore of those.