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

A darker edge to our culture and society

Many who know me know that I am somewhat of a film enthusiast. The script, direction, imagery, message and the subsequent provocation of debate over their meaning (of course Arnie films don't necessarily require the same level of analysis but are still quite simply awesome!). I could go on to talk at length about films in general, whether they are 'well constructed', the effectiveness of their casting or whether effectively communicating their vision, but instead I want to focus on a more sociological aspect. A friend of mine (who in part is a source of inspiration for this blog) has finished his MA in regards to the social implications of science-fiction and the way in which they often depict the trend of concern for the era in which they were created through the use of 'awe' (the entity or the event which is awe-inspiring or as a focus point). This could be mutations (often created in a time of fear regarding nuclear power) or our fear of technology (cue the Terminator amongst others). Now while I am not going into any lengths in regards to this aspect specifically, what I am keen to identify is a reflection of society within films. Film as a medium is potentially one of the  most quietly suggestive forms of communication and therefore has a great impact on society. As a result if it contains a message regarding society it can be disseminated into the populous with great effectiveness.

Two films here that I am going to look at are Se7en, and Fight Club. Countless analyses have been carried out regarding these two for their controversial or horrific outlook which is in part why my attention has been drawn to this. Obviously this blog is going to take a more sombre tone...

Let's start with Se7en. One on David Fincher's arguably finest works (along with Fight Club!) which is, aside from a successfully horrific thriller, a disturbing yet (to an extent) accurate portrayal of the faults within society which we have become complacent to address. The film addresses the 'seven deadly sins' from Dante's poem (Divine Comedy) - Lust, Envy, Greed, Sloth, Pride, Gluttony and Wrath - and uses them to be the focus of a brutal serial killer. The distorted view of this world does however illustrate a number of prevalent social issues which have been submerged, incorporated and assimilated into our contemporary view of a moral society. Now I am not saying that I am 'pure of soul' and have never committed one of these seven sins... if we are honest I believe that we all are guilty. This is not an attempt to convert you to become a member of the clergy (more on religion next time!) but just to point out a certain degree of hypocrisy on our parts. In regards to our own hypocrisy, most of us can identify that the seven sins are not particularly great traits to have but yet feel apathetic towards change... which is one of the key themes I believe to be illustrated by the film. The two characters who illustrate very different views on how to tackle the issue of a morally diminishing society are Morgan Freeman's detective and Kevin Spacey's John Doe. Firstly the more level headed of the two, Detective Somerset who after spending years as a detective has decided to retire in part as a result of the decadence prevalent in the world he inhabits - "I just don't think I can continue to live in a place that embraces and nurtures apathy as if it was a virtue."

After years trying to do his part to combat this but seeing that despite his efforts society is content to continue in such a manner, he feels there is nothing more he can do and to leave... disillusioned by his realisation. Since 1995 (the year Se7en was released) crime and murder rates have remained fairly steady across the world. Nonetheless where there has been change, it has tended to be an increase rather than a decrease in rates. In terms of murders a number of them seem to be increasingly unprovoked or sadistic. For example, by sadistic, or even evil, I refer to the case last year of the two murdered French students. This increasing trend for brutality could however admittedly also be seen as the media needing bigger stories to sell... your standard murder story gets less press now as it is no longer something completely out of the ordinary. In 'Western' society obesity has continued to increase. Average spending on consumable 'beauty products' as well as cosmetic surgery has also been on the rise and despite a recession climate 55% of people asked in a study stated that they would continue spending more on these products (and I doubt that they are doing this to kick start the economy and benefit society!). Is this as the film suggests, society's (in a global sense) indifference and acceptance of the 7 sins or 'evil' meaning that we remain in this limbo? The reason why I used the term 'evil' is mostly due to the second of the two characters - John Doe. This in my opinion is an equally disillusioned man when compared to the detective tracking him, someone who has become so distraught with the state of the crumbling society that he has 'snapped'. While as he expresses it is easier to think of him as "insane"... the fact is that he, like Somerset has become overwhelmed by the decay of society and holds similar views in a way in which they are able to relate to each other. This is further expressed by Doe when he states that "we see a deadly sin on every street corner, in every home, and we tolerate it." which is a mirror of Somerset's own views.

The way in which we can look at John Doe is as unequivocally evil. The way in which he tortures his victims with the sins he has labelled them as committing certainly can be attributed to that. This would compliment the sub-theme of our capacity for evil within us. The fact that "he is just a man", nothing attention grabbing or noticeable about him, that he identifies himself as nothing special and guilty of one of his sins - even his name marks him as an unknown, ties again into that theme that evil does not have horns on its head... can not be pointed out, but is a darker side of ourselves. Now let me clarify that I am not martyring this character, nor commending him on his heinous atrocities though it is quite possible that he was a 'decent' individual at one point and became twisted by the moral bankrupcy of society.

In a sociological context when looking at the message or identifying socially acceptable traits which have a detrimental effect to the individual and to society - we as the viewer can identify with yet often feel unable to do anything about, feeling that "[a]pathy is the solution".

The second of the two films, 'Fight Club' (adapted from the same titled book) also talks of the faults inherent in Western society but focusing more so in terms of consumerism - "The things you own end up owning you". Like Se7en there are numerous sub-themes and needs to be taken at more than the face value of your average 'bloke film' - fighting, sex, psychosis, terrorism and foul language.

Like in Se7en it takes a similar slant in terms of the message that someone tries to fight back against what they see to be wrong with the world in a twisted manner.

The story (without detracting further from the aim of this blog) revolves around an unnamed character (similar again to John Doe's anonymity - suggesting a part of our subconscious) who has become so drained by his view of having a completely inconsequential life that he seeks a way out through extreme means. It is not only that he feels he has no purpose, but is also trapped by the world he has constructed around himself as a result of the way society expects you to live and as a result, has lost himself. The films explores numerous themes but I will focus on our need to consume and to fall into a certain image -"I flipped through catalogs and wondered: What kind of dining set defines me as a person?". Image of course for example has given rise to a growing celebrity culture - admiring and aspiring to be like people who are famous often for their faults (is this not slightly peverse in itself?).

In the image dependent society in which we live in and the monotony of the '9-5' (another aspect mentioned in Se7en) the film suggests that we are drones, complacent and compliant with little thinking for ourselves about looking for meaning, bound by the webs which we have created. To one extent this is very true, "[a]dvertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need." though once again those who feel they need to kick back from the faults and bring this to our attention feel the only way to do this is through extreme ways - echoed by John Doe - "Wanting 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".

So what am I trying to say in regards to these dark and disturbing outlooks on our society and consumerist culture. Firstly that yes, there are a number of issues but what I think these highlight more so than any other is  the way in which we disregard our faults, turning a blind eye and in doing so letting them thrive.

Is there an answer to this? Probably, but definitely not coming from me! I don't mean to sound preachy which I have undoubtably done but surely just a little self respect and respect to others could address a large number of these issues fairly quickly. Perhaps a little naive in terms of the facilitation of this as when  the faults are in the foundations it takes time and work to address them - I mean of course the foundations on which our consumerist society is built as well as ourselves - apathy is not the solution.

And finally a lighter take on the situation!