Piggy Panic?

What amuses me (in a possibly slightly twisted sort of way) is the way in which many people believe that the word ‘pandemic’ is synonymous with ‘apocalypse’. A pandemic is simply a rapid outbreak on a large geographical scale... and no, not necessarily impending doom or ‘Judgement Day’. As I recall it was not long ago since our last apocalypse. My experience of the fear around Swine Flu was best noted in China... as a white guy who let out a cough... I found it strangely amusing to see the face masks pulled up all around me as I was eyed with the air of suspicion.

What feeds this fear to the anxious famished masses waiting for their next meal of apprehension is the representation in the media. It might seem like I have a number of issues with the media as a system, which would not be a complete fallacy!

And now for the science part!

Let me try to explain something about influenza. This is a highly mutative virion, altering its protein surface relatively rapidly. This is why each year there is a new vaccine which is able to target the most prevalent strain as well as some previous stains.

Influenza’s mutations are a part of its cycle. As an RNA virus it, after binding, injects its RNA into the host cell nucleus as well as RNA transcriptase allowing it to ‘splice’ into the cell and replicate using the cell’s own mechanisms. However due to the fact that there are no enzymes present to proof read this, a number of the new virions produced that are genetically different to the ‘parent’ virion.

This mutative nature is often the cause of cross-species transmission and hence why a strain only apparent in pigs for example (a variant of Influenza A), may bridge the gap to humans.

So there you have a brief biological explanation of what flu is and why this year's flavour is that of pigs. In regards to this year’s impeding cataclysm what seemed to be of main concern to the medical professionals was the fact that this strain H1N1, is that of the same subtype of influenza as that of Spanish Flu – the influenza pandemic with the highest mortality rate recorded. This of course was rightly treated with caution. Nonetheless this particular strain seems different, rapid spread but relatively small mortality rate – especially when compared to annual mortality rates from ‘regular’ or ‘seasonal’ influenza.

Not (unsurprisingly) the image portrayed in the media.

A lesson we can learn from the media is that to ‘SELL! SELL! SELL!’ you should include words or phrases such as ‘QUARANTINE’, [insert huge number of ‘suspected’ cases], ‘FLU TOLL SOARS’, ‘OUT OF CONTROL’ and of course my favourite, ‘PANIC’.  Furthermore, with the recent news that a resistant strain of Swine Flu has been noticed, our headlines will probably soon be filled with our impending doom once again.

Swine flu, like other strains of influenza should of course not be ignored. They are serious illnesses of which we have admittedly limited knowledge due to the fact that various strains and subtypes affect our bodies differently (though symptoms tend to remain fairly similar).

There are aspects of this that ring with the sound of ‘the boy who cried wolf’ – shouting to the top of our lungs that a new pandemic is in town so lock your doors... while by doing so and seeing that it is not necessarily as dramatic as first seemed, lessens our trust in the media coverage of medical issues. So what happens when the foretold biological day of reckoning hits?

A compelling argument in favour of the media is that it is reporting a risk... and the issue with risk is that the outcome is unknown as expressed in an interview.

The sensationalisation of Swine Flu can easily be seen as unnecessary. The aim to bring awareness to a new unknown is not. The difference is in the representation.

Though has the media hype been good or bad? Like John Doe said, “[w]anting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention” (not to be taken literally of course). It has been argued that people are generally incapable of dealing with risk and therefore spoon feeding them fear is a way to accommodate for this and as a result act as a preventative measure in dealing with (in this case Swine Flu) potential risks.

The problem with the media that the Swine Flu story has exposed for me is that in using the media sledgehammer once again what will be the next step to take in order to get people to listen?

An evolution in 'art'?

I have a personal interest in the world of 'art'. I use inverted commas here as the definition of art will vary from person to person. Having browsed through various galleries across the globe one thing that became increasingly apparent was the number of 'modern' pieces which I questioned how they could be classified as art. Now obviously this is very subjective as is the nature of art... to create an impression upon the viewer which will vary between each person individually. The piece that made me question "what is art?" more than any was the famous piece by Duchamp called the Fountain.

This is a urinal.

That is it.

Placed at 90°.

At first this piece irritated me greatly... how can this possibly be a work of art, one which won the Turner prize no less? Is Duchamp ‘taking the piss’ out of the art world in a poetic manner – attacking and ridiculing the pompous critics? What constitutes as ‘art’ seems to be ‘originality’ rather than ‘merit’ or ‘commitment’. I believe that this may well be true in part but may disregard another potential point of the Fountain – deliberately challenging the concept of art and in doing so can itself be seen as a visual expression. I perceive it to be a deliberately provocative piece and a statement though not a piece to marvel at the technique, passion and devotion to its creation. I suppose this is in a similar way to any famous quote – statement to be considered in context to the subject but not necessarily a meriting piece of art on its own. This got me thinking how art has evolved.

Art has always been a means of communication whether you look at the cave drawings of prehistoric times as story telling vehicles – to pieces like the Fountain as a contradictory statement of the state of the ‘art world’.  In between you have the religious pieces to express the notion of God’s might, or the self portraits of powerful figures to express their wealth. This is obviously just looking at European art history... across the world art differs significantly but always remain a means of communication.

So why the change from images of beauty, or from pieces of incomprehensible skill... to a toilet? Aside from the changing times and therefore what people want to express through various mediums, I believe that technology has had a strong impact. While you might not get passionate brush strokes in a photograph you can still capture the emotion of the moment for example. Is this why many ‘artists’ have changed their tools? Perhaps this is in part why a portrait now is far more likely to be a photograph than a painting. With a wider breadth of mediums artists can use I believe art has evolved – no longer is it about ‘painting an image’ but instead ‘creating an image’. Surrealism embodies this perfectly. It is not so much now about the image but maybe of the emotion or to create works to make viewers interpret a piece on an individual level... to question the meaning.

As much as I enjoy classical works, their meaning and purpose seems clearer and more universal than contemporary art. European art used to be commission for a reason or a purpose... now it is created for the artist.

Perhaps gone is the era of classically beautifully crafted works, but possibly has progressed into something that can touch people at a personal level, or to make a personal statement from the artist (or simply that they created something for purely aesthetic reasons).

Art is still a means of communication, but instead of communicating to the masses, perhaps now it is a means of communicating with the individual... a message from the artist to each viewer.

Today is brought to you by the word... HYPOCRISY!

Today's complaint are the issues, as the title would suggest, of the hypocrisy of the media. It pains me to look at various articles which are either deeply self contradictory in terms of where they stand, or that swap from one side to the other of a debate as the weeks progress (depending of course on who is winning). What I have noticed is that hypocrisy appears to be more prevalent in moral matters - taking the moral high ground, often by pointing the finger at others, knocking them down to pull the accusers up. There are three news stories that I will point out despite the fact that there are many, many more.

Brass Eye. Many will have either seen it or heard of it. It was a satirical program designed specifically to point out the hypocrisy of the fickle media, but also to stir debate over serious issues (crime and drugs for example). Since its inception and various episodes aired... Morris, the creator of Brass Eye has not only pointed out the two-faced nature of the media in many respects, but also of those willing to jump on the 'bandwagon' in order to up their profile. Examples of this were shown when celebrities such as Noel Edmunds, Rolf Harris and Sir Bernard Ingham spoke of a made up drug called 'cake' and its effects on 'Shatner's Bassoon' (supposedly the part of the brain which deals with the perception of time!).

In 2001 the series was repeated with an addition regarding paedophilia. Here Brass Eye tried to tackle the hysteria surrounding another serious topic. Once again the hypocrisy of the celebrities was shown as they joined the bandwagon, appearing to take the moral high road but in actual fact showing themselves as fickle as they showed ignorance towards what they were supposedly standing up for - 'Dr.' Fox for example stating that paedophiles have genetically more in common with crabs than with people... and that it is scientific fact though "[t]here's no real evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact".
As rediculous as this clearly is, a number of celebrities or public figures partook in this episode of Brass Eye, talking about online 'HOECS' games (yes... hoax) trying to 'sincerely' inform (/terrify) the viewers into believing a number of preposterous  claims (penis shaped soundwaves for example). Again there is a serious issue of online activity but what was shown here is the sensationalisation of fear on the topic. The aim of the program went beyond humiliating two-faced celebrities but was trying to bring to the spotlight the way in which the media sensationalise topics such as paedophilia. This particular episode was aired possibly in part as a response to the News of The World's name and shame campaign which culminated in a paediatrician having 'PAEDO' painted on her wall.

Now even though Brass Eye itself is pointing out the falsehood or flexibility of the media's 'morality', the reaction from various media outlets and a proportion of the population who in a frenzy, 'cried out in protest' sadly epitomised the hypocrisy that Brass Eye was depicting. There are a number of the examples of national newspapers which are guilty of this such as the Daily Star and Daily Mail (which I call 'newspapers', quite loosely!). The Daily Star calling the show a 'perv spoof' and a 'sick show' whilst alongside showing a picture of Charlotte Church aged 15 saying that she is a "big girl now" referring to her "chest swell". As for the Daily Mail which 'sincerely' showed concern calling it "Unspeakably sick" - "the words of [Beverley Hughes] who hadn't watched it". The article here "was preceded by close-ups of Princesses Beatrice (13) and Eugenie (11) in their bikinis". These double standards are precisely one of the key points the program was making.

I am not just going to try to defend a satire, but with the series, the subsequent reactions embody exactly the hysteria, hypocrisy and fickleness of the media that the program was arguing.

My next example which may be seen as controversial is the story of Madeleine Mccann. Aside from the obvious tragedy of the story what I am once again trying to bring to attention is the two faced portrayal in the media and also of the public reaction. Firstly here, the media (again!). One minute the media takes the role of the grieving relative, and the following, pointing the finger at the parents. During the investigation there were questions raised (which is part of an investigation to look at all possible scenarios), though once the media got wind of this, like piranhas swarming around a bleeding and injured goat (I do know that goats are not usually in piranha supporting ecosystems but just using an analogy of a scapegoat!), they attacked in frenzy. Once the parents were out of the suspect spotlight the media returned to the relative's role of supporting a broken family. Obviously shock stories and insinuations like this sell much better. It is however a sad state that the news media must resort to this to turn profit - though this is the nature of the beast.

So there we have a brief look at the fickle media switching sides (and as a result the public) simply to turn profit. The thing that also grated me was the way in which the public (when sympathetic of course and not sharpening pitchforks) climbed the moral high horse by 'devoting' their time on campaigns to bring her back. Now I do not for one second think that it is a bad thing to bring attention to tragedies like this and try to help, far from it, but what of all the other kidnappings that occur? In 2007, the year of Madeleine's disappearance,  the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) released that 203,000 children are kidnapped each year by family members, 58,200 by non family members and 115 children kidnapped in a stereotypical sense (ransom demands and the such).

My question is where is the outcry and painstaking public campaigning to help these? This would be unfeasible in terms of time and resources should the public give the same apparent effort that they did for Madeleine. Let me reiterate that doing what you can to help is not the issue... but it is the moral high ground people take when joining, for example, a Facebook group stating that they are helping in that sense whilst doing very little. So yes, if you can, help in these cases... but by picking out the cute blonde little girl in the headlines and feeling morally superior for doing so shows utter fallacy. That said... if anyone in these groups is actually making an effort to help then fair enough... but just joining the groups or wearing a badge does not mean that this is helping and just shows an attempt at self-affirmation, self-indulgence and thereby depicting hypocrisy.

Finally the example of Jade Goody... one moment the newspaper favourite for a humorous look at someone's lack of knowledge (bringing her somehow to 'celebrity status')... the next she is Hitler reborn... and then the poor misunderstood soul who is dying. I do not mean to sound callous and in honesty did not follow her story closely... her racist remarks and so on flew by me as I have little interest in the 'celebrity' stories. What was easy to discern was the changing tack of the media, showing it once again to be fickle.

These are only three case examples but there are an innumerable others - another that comes to mind is the representation of Michael Jackson (musical genius... to "Whacko Jacko" and suspected paedophile, but now that he has died... mouring the loss of one of music's prodigies). It is of little surprise that people are becoming increasingly distrustful of the news media even if only in part due to the changing attitudes on subjects from one moment to the next showing outlets as capricious and hypocritical, often taking the 'high road' based on ignorance or in order to appear morally superior.

But as these stories sell so well (and that they really do) is this not a reflection on society in general?

"Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain" - Machiavelli