Thomas Coyote Baxter

Now I was thinking about this when watching something on television yesterday. Sad films or episodes on TV are indeed sad and can make you cry but, the pure moments of genius are when the acting stops and the REAL emotion comes out. The moment may only last a second or less but is powerful enough to hit you like lightning.

A break in someone’s voice, a hand movement, even a gesture of the eyebrows can be enough to just trigger that emotional response in your brain. It is long-lasting and powerful and is actually very rare in drama today. I mean, I know watching Jack freeze to death at the end of titanic is sad (yawn) but it all feels very acted and the idea itself is sadder than the actual performance.

I’m going to add just a handful of moments I can remember where such segments exist. If you look them out, you’ll see exactly how powerful they are:

SEGMENT 1:
ONLY FOOLS AND HORSES
(STRAINED RELATIONS)

At around 22minutes in, Del & Rodney are having an argument over grandads funeral and the sentence where Delboy utters the line:

“Families, I’m finished with them what do they do. Hold you back, bring you down and then break your bleeding heart”

At the moment he says heart his voice breaks and it’s extremely powerful.

SEGMENT 2:
WILL & GRACE
(RULES OF ENGAGEMENT)

When Nathan breaks up with Grace, Will walks in and says ‘Oh Sweetie’. When she goes up to hug him, you get another emotional moment. Nothing said, just powerful.

SEGMENT 3:
FRIENDS
(THE FINAL ONE)

When Ross gets to Rachel in the airport, the line where he says “i am so in love with you, please don’t go”. Brilliant scene, raw.

More to come, if anyones got any send em over

tom

Media regulation shapes the broadcast industries today. Without it we would have nothing on our television or radio but constant advertisements, biased viewpoints and other problems like unsuitable adult programming being broadcast in the daytime. However, there are negative sides to having our broadcast media regulated. For example, we have restrictions on what we say about religion, politics, and celebrities. We have our freedom of speech cropped and therefore in this assignment I will answer the question of how far Media Regulation prevents freedom of speech in the broadcast industries, using contemporary examples. I believe that freedom of speech massively prevents our freedom of speech but I also believe that it’s essential for the survival of the British broadcast industries.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 established two bodies to license and regulate private broadcasting in the UK. The Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commision had members appointed by the government themselves, though they functioned relatively independently of government control. They were funded entirely by the license fees which were charged to broadcasters and ran successfully up until the launch of the all-in-one regulatory body called Ofcom (Office of Communication) in 2003. Ofcom maintained many of the original regulatory criteria from its predecessors when it was established. The original Broadcasting Act prohibited the broadcasting of any programme which offended good taste or decency; material which incited crime or disorder; material offensive to public feeling; impartial or inaccurate news; irresponsible religious programmes; and any obscene or racially inflammatory material.
To look at media regulation and its effect on the broadcast industries I’ll have to break the industry down into its three sectors; Television, radio, and the internet. Television is quite strictly regulated due to the fact there is picture as well as sound, not to mention a greater audience share than the internet or radio. During the week, it’s obvious that most children are at school between around 8am and 4pm so we usually find controversial chat shows or light adult humour on the box in the form of ‘Trisha Goddard’ or ‘Loose Women’. Bored housewives should be entitled to a certain level of entertainment as most are too tired to enjoy late-night entertainment. Daytime talk shows are a good chance for many to de-stress and listen to other people discuss problems that the viewers may be experiencing themselves. Strangely enough however, media regulation has two ‘watersheds’ for adult programming. Programmes with a more adult theme (e.g Coronation Street) appear after 6pm while programmes which are completely unsuitable for children appear after 9pm. These watersheds curb our freedom of speech as less of the mainstream daytime audience views the programmes. Also, at around 6pm most school children will be at home watching television compared to during the day and many children even stay up past 9pm to watch the adult programmes anyway.
Another problem you can see from media regulation in the television industry is there’s a serious case of double standards which is applied to daytime television. It’s interesting to notice that by switching to MTV or The Box it’s quite acceptable to watch naked women posing provocatively in front of rappers or simulated violence at any time of the day whereas Jerry Springer is practically evil in the eyes of regulatory bodies. Jerry Springer shows are deemed to be too much for daytime TV yet, on ‘Today with Des & Mel’ a couple of weeks back, the hosts were quite openly talking about sexual positions (with them even holding up a naked genitalia-clad Des stuffed toy knitted by a viewer). I think that if we’re allowed one form of chat show which gives us freedom of speech we should allow them all. Jerry Springer, although quite brash, is very good at getting across problems in society with gender re-assignment or homosexuality. Des and Mel is really just a bit of fun but still is seen as more savoury than Springer. It’s also interesting to note that Des & Mel were actually moved to the well-known ‘child-friendly’ spot of 5pm which is wildly hypocritical of ITV after their decision to move Coronation Street to a later slot on the night when Todd kissed Carl, so as to protect younger viewers.
Religious programmes are probably the area where media regulation curbs freedom of speech most. Obviously with the problems in Israel and the terrorist acts of September 11th, religious conflicts are high and though it’s a clear rule from Ofcom that it will not allow irresponsible religious programming, this still curbs our freedom of speech. Al-Jazeera broadcasts into millions of homes across the world and anyone in the UK with a sky digibox can receive the channel. The channel itself has been criticised for promoting extremist Muslim views and terrorist viewpoints, but at the end of the day these people are just using the media to get their views across. Without channels such as Al-Jazeera we have to rely on reports from newspapers or news channels (many of which are owned by Rupert Murdoch who occasionally enjoys straying from the truth). At one point, Tony Blair even instructed the BBC to censor Bin Laden which, though obviously a good idea to cut down the amount of terrorist acts in the UK, would also violate his rights to freedom of speech. The lack of diversity in mainstream religious programming also should be brought under scrutiny. Of course this obviously isn’t directly down to media regulation but the fact that we have ‘Songs Of Praise’, ‘The Sunday Programme’ and ‘The Sabbath’ on every Sunday plays to a mainly Christian audience. Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu shows don’t get shown. It’s clear that the majority of Britains are Christian but other religions do exist and I find it hard to believe that someone hasn’t put forward a Muslim chat show for Sundays, especially as there are approximately 50 Muslim channels on Sky alone. The main underlying reason for the lack of these shows on mainstream television, I believe, is down to the fact that Bin Laden and Al-Queda are brutalising the religion to suit their own ambitions. They talk of the holy war and how Muslim people should start fighting for their cause. Therefore the regulatory bodies want to remove channels like Al-Jazeera from circulation but have made the mistake of associating Muslims with Al-Queda and have themselves minimised the Muslim people’s freedom of speech.
Movies on television have always been the greatest point for criticism when it comes to media regulation as more people watch them on TV to save having to buy or rent them. Many films such as ‘The Running Man’, ‘Predator’, and ‘Total Recall’ have for many years been put on after the watershed (usually even later at the 11pm mark) but still seem to get chopped for no good reason. Other films such as ‘Clockwork Orange’, ‘Natural Born Killers’, and ‘The Exorcist’ have even been completely banned from being shown on our screens for years. Clockwork Orange is one of the most thought-provoking films of our generation and shows an extreme form of rehabilitation the government could use one day to control ex-prisoners. Stanley Kubrick’s own view points and warnings are integrated into the film and, though it was his decision to ban it, most terrestrial channels still refuse to show it. Why should we be forced to ignore the film when it expresses a deeply involved message about things which concern us? Why must we have crucial moments from our films removed because they are deemed unsuitable for us, despite the watershed? Personally I don’t see why any film should be banned or cut providing it is after the watershed. After all, where’s the point in even having a watershed if there’s nothing to show?
On the other hand, I think media regulation is incredibly important when it comes to television news. Unlike newspapers, there is some control over what is shown and what isn’t. Whereas papers can literally lead readers through a propaganda campaign, TV news companies will be pulled off air for doing this. Rupert Murdoch owns the ‘Sun’ newspaper and recently ran a ‘Save The Pound’ campaign in response to Tony Blair’s vow to take Britain to the Euro. Rupert Murdoch also has a very pro-Iraq war stance. Imagine if he was allowed to push his views onto television. Murdoch owns Sky television and therefore Sky news so he’d have a lot of power in his propaganda campaigns. Of course he is entitled to his own freedom of speech and media regulation should allow it, but there’s a difference between showing a clear message from Rupert Murdoch and promoting his views through a form of ‘news’. Media regulation is also important in television news to keep us from seeing distressing images or video clips like the torturing of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghabi prison (we only saw the most tame of images) or the mutilated bodies from the tsunami. Media regulation does, however, curb freedom of speech in television news as well. Bin Laden’s messages are chopped as are many Muslim extremists’ views. I believe that it’s more right for the TV news to be regulated though as we must remain impartial and sympathetic to every viewer, even if the papers don’t. This doesn’t mean they have the right to ban Al-Jazeera though.
Looking at radio, freedom of speech is probably more restrictive than either TV or the internet. Anyone can have a radio on in their house or in their pocket at any time, any place, and any day. There’s no set audience so children could be listening through the day or the night. Obviously the listeners cannot see the person at the other end of the signal so they hang on every word that is said. Any swear words said or defamatory comments will be remembered for a very long time and repeated in the papers or television. There have been many radio show hosts who have lost their jobs after just one mistake (Nick Abbot has been fired numerous times for mentioning products like ‘Kit Kat’ and commenting on political figures). Our freedom of speech is seriously impaired on radio as we cannot comment on anything or have a viewpoint about anything. Most radio stations these days just play music and anything the presenter says is merely a filler to the next song or a competition of some sort. BBC radio has certain talk shows but the BBC itself has a duty to remain impartial and accurate so anytime something controversial crops up, it’s quickly shelved to the side. The stations which play music only play music which doesn’t offend. Eminem is known to be controversial because he speaks of things he feels strongly about and most radio stations have banned many of his songs. This is another classic example of media regulation curbing our freedom of speech. A few years ago Cliff Richard’s ‘Millenium Prayer’ was also banned temporarily for being Christian, which was a gross injustice to his human rights as well as his freedom of speech. However, media regulation is important in radio to prevent each station from becoming one big advertising camp for conglomerate giants. Advertising is strictly regulated on radio and in order for the radio industry to survive as a useful and informative tool, adverts must continue to be regulated by Ofcom (maximum advert break is between 2-3 minutes).
The internet is a paradise for people with a viewpoint. Unlike the television or radio, the world wide web runs almost completely unregulated. This is not because Ofcom don’t want to regulate it, just that it’s impossible to do so with so many different jurisdictions plugged into the network. There are numerous forums and unofficial newspapers online spreading their own forms of propaganda but unlike the more conventional methods of broadcasting, you can argue points without getting your fingers rapped. Of course there are bodies designed to cut down on defamation and blasphemy but it’s possible to be online with complete anonymity, unlike television or radio. Internet radio stations can also be free from media regulation in the same way that pirate stations are across Britain. Obviously companies like live365 run a clean-cut regulated operation but other non-mainstream stations like radiofusion play the songs banned from the mainstream and spread their viewpoints quite freely. Banned television stations can also be viewed on the internet even if they’re not available on the mainstream channels (Al-Jazeera being one) so it’s very acceptable to have every point of view heard if wanted. The down side of the regulatory bodies’ inability to regulate the internet is you can literally access everything on offer. You can, for example, see the beheading of someone by a terrorist group (which can be very distressing and wouldn’t normally be shown on mainstream television). Advertising is also out of control on the internet with popup adverts appearing every few seconds and taste and decency aren’t spared as pornography fills your email inbox. That said if media regulation did take place on the internet, we would definitely lose our freedom of speech so I believe it’s worth all the problems just for the ability to say how much you hate Tony Blair without being taken to court.
In all honesty I believe Media regulation massively cuts our freedom of speech in both the television and radio sectors. In certain areas like television news it is completely necessary for them to do so in order to uphold their role in keeping the news impartial and decent so it doesn’t end up like the tabloid papers. In other areas I believe it has no right to interfere like with the Jerry Springer show that is readily shown during the day on Sky television but not terrestrial, yet Trisha gets shown in the morning. The watersheds are there to protect children from adult material so we shouldn’t have to put up with films that have been cut, or even have any films banned. In radio, I believe that Media regulation is integral to prevent advertising from controlling the stations (and even the news) but I do believe there should be some sort of allowance for political and general debates when it’s in the public interest. I don’t agree with swearing on the radio but don’t believe it’s the deadliest sin. If children don’t pick it up on the radio, they’ll pick it up in the playground or from their parents. The internet remains the one place where freedom of speech reigns free and I hope it never gets regulated by an official body. I do agree that songs which haven’t been released prior to download should be removed by some government body but songs should not be banned or chopped, just like films. We live in a very influential and opinionated society and many of us feel we have the right to decide for ourselves what we should and shouldn’t see or hear.

Lol too good, the top 2 stories at sky news today is “UK Pledges Tougher Emissions Cuts” and “Brown Demands Petrol Price Cut”. Well done UK Government, you definitely are stupid.

I’ll be writing an essay on this shortly but for now it’s really just a thought in my head that I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on. Why does jealousy exist in humans???

Obviously the consensus is that people are born to pro-create so why would you need to attach yourself to one person or have the instinct to constrict that person sexually??

Bizarre, your thoughts please!

It’s a well-known fact that journalists are a powerful group of people. Everyone in the world has an opinion on something at some point in their lives and if it was not for the power of the press, most of them would never be heard. Some say the press are even more powerful than politicians or even more importantly, that they even control politics. If this is the case then how far are journalists effectively political actors? and can they quite easily alter or influence the public’s decisions at the election booths or their true understanding of the news around them? I believe that journalists are always political actors, sometimes by choice but mainly from pressure (from the owner of the particular medium but also from the public’s expectations of the medium). In this assignment I will explain why I believe this by looking at contemporary examples and Rupert Murdoch’s media empire ‘News International’.
In the thesaurus, other terms for political include ‘biased’, ‘supporting’, and ‘taking sides’ and an actor is generally a term for someone who puts across a personality that can be misleading, over-dramatic, and with views not necessarily of their own. Therefore a political actor is someone who puts across an influential point of view regarding the way our country is run, but may or may not be speaking their own mind. Words may be getting ‘put into their mouths’ by a higher power (be it individual or organisation).
Journalists are required by the NUJ (National Union of Journalists) code of conduct to never ‘accept bribes nor allow other inducements to influence the performance of his/her professional duties’ , but this is sometimes hard to adhere to. The problem with the mainstream media, particularly newspapers, is that many are owned by very influential people whose opinion is powerful enough to prevent journalists from being unbiased. Today, Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch owns a large portion of the UK and International press (including a third of British newspapers) and, though not quite so severe, comparisons can be made between his grasp of the media and Adolf Hitler’s.
The press can be used deliberately to lead people astray and make them believe whatever propagandists want them to believe and when Hitler was in power he exploited it to its full potential. With the help of his propaganda minister Paul Josef Goebbels, he developed sophisticated and effective tools of propaganda to control public opinion in Germany, as well as other countries. He managed to prove that if a lie is repeated often enough in the mass media, most people will accept it as the truth. Therefore I believe that any strong opinion, just like a lie, in the media which is constantly repeated will eventually be accepted as the correct line of thought (I find it amazing that George Bush managed to survive the recent presidential election despite his major shortcomings). When Hitler became chancellor, he took over the state-owned radio and released Nazi newspapers to get the public to believe what he wanted them to believe. The journalists writing for the paper or the radio where therefore becoming political actors as the material being submitted was evidently the beliefs of one person in complete power, and also strong enough to change public opinion. As Goebbels once admitted:

“The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it.”

So coming back to Murdoch, he has power over the media and effectively over the journalists that work for his various companies. The real problem with Murdoch is he constantly wants to be on the winning side where his commercial needs can best be serviced by the government. When Margaret Thatcher was in power for the Conservatives, Murdoch was very pro-thatcher and pro-conservative mainly thanks to Thatcher allowing him to buy ‘The Times’ newspaper without so much as a whisper from the monopolies commission. In particular, all the journalists in the Sun newspaper have taken a pro-Thatcher stance over the years (even supporting the poll tax until Murdoch realised the public didn’t). Murdoch remained pro-conservative right up until 1992 when suddenly, he switched sides and some media critics believe that Labour won the landslide victory in 1997 thanks to him. I believe that, without The Sun and Murdoch’s backing, Labour would not be in power today. Before the election, Mr Blair was accused of deliberately ‘cosying’ up to Murdoch in an attempt to win his backing in the campaign. Blair had at least one meeting with him and later gave The Sun an article suggesting he was not whole-heartedly commited to the UK joining the euro (something which Murdoch was and remains completely against). Media critics believe that was the price Mr. Blair paid for the Sun and Murdoch’s complete political turnaround at such a crucial stage in the election process. On the day of the 1992 election, The Sun’s front page had a picture of the then Labour leader Neil Kinnock as a light bulb with the headline ‘If Neil Kinnock wins, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights?’
Labour’s support for the paper increased from then and a key event in the field of political journalism occurred in 1997 when the Sun declared its support for New Labour. Murdoch’s journalists were hard at work being on the side of the new government (or boss) until the poll was won and Blair once again began harping on about the single currency. Murdoch began the very memorable ‘save the pound’ campaign which was heavily advertised on television and billboards in an angry stab at the Labour government. I feel this particular time proves exactly why journalists have to be political actors. The particular journalists working at the Sun newspaper had to back the aforementioned campaign even if they didn’t approve. The single currency many believe is good for Britain but what the Sun readers did not realise at the time was that Murdoch was not and is not a consumer. To Murdoch, the single currency is meaningless and many say that if he had to make a decision about it which rested on his business grounds, things would be very different (his interest in expanding his media empire into Italy could very easily change the opinions of certain British newspaper editors). Of course, if Murdoch becomes pro-euro then all of his papers will and effectively the majority of readers will. They, in turn will vote and if Labour once again comes out on top, you can rest assured Murdoch can claim it was his papers which swung the vote.
There is another risk in swearing allegiance to a particular political party, in just the same way as there was under Hitler’s reign. Lies. The Sun being pro-labour means that most of the articles are potentially damaging to certain social groups which don’t fit in to Labour’s plans. Tony Blair’s policy on asylum seekers is controversial enough but was not helped in July 2003 when the Sun published a scathing article about asylum seekers on the front page with the headline ‘Asylum seekers steal the Queen’s birds for barbecues’ . The exclusive article claimed that the ‘callous’ seekers were barbecuing the queens swans by setting baited traps. The paper claimed that ‘hundreds of graceful creatures’ were killed and the police were quoted as saying ‘people from abroad don’t respect our traditions’. In just 24 hours the story was exposed as lies. Though none of it was true, it was still deeply damaging to the asylum seekers in question and was only printed because of Murdoch’s association with the Labour party (notice the ‘our traditions’, Murdoch is Australian so his views are coming through a British journalist).
Nasty jibes and spiteful views are not new to Mr. Murdoch though and the Sun newspaper has come under fire many times before because of his ‘humour’. In 1984, with Thatcher’s backing, he allowed the editor to drum up a crude patriotism and anti-Europeanism. Readers were encouraged to wear badges with the slogan ‘Hop off, you frogs’ (the French) while an article released in 1987 poured scorn on German tourists with a headline ‘Vot makes Krauts holiday louts?’ These stories were not the idea of the editor nor the journalists, keep in mind, but rather the views of Murdoch. The abuse went on to include an article against Arabs (Murdoch was Jewish at the time). A Libyan diplomat allowed re-entry into Britain was greeted with the banner headline ‘Arab pig sneaks back’. Similarly when the Syrian ambassador was expelled over an alleged anti-Israeli plot, the Sun headlined: ‘Get out you Syrian swine.’ Asians also came under attack when, in September 1985, Hackney council proposed renaming a street after Indian nationalist Shahid Bhagat Singh, the Sun headlined: ‘Lefties start a singh and a dance in the street’. When head-teacher Ray Honeyford was forced to quit a Bradford school with many Muslim pupils, a Sun cartoon (17 Oct 85) showed Asian parents in turbans, dhotis and saris perched on the school roof with a steaming pot of curry to pour on an Honeyford approaching the school. The caption read: ’The Madras curry will finish him off.’
All of the aforementioned comments are Rupert Murdoch’s own and not that of the journalists at the Sun. A journalist is supposed to remain impartial, free from comment, and truthful. The articles mentioned are stereotypical, biased, rude, obnoxious, and even defamatory. Therefore they are a clear example of journalists being political actors. The comments contained provoke a response in the British (and foreign) public and are not the personal views of the journalists involved. Sivanandan, the Director of the ‘Institute of Race Relations’ summed up the British press perfectly when he explained:

“Newspapers in this country are now not so much in the business of presenting news as making opinion dressed up as news. We are not presented with the truth of a matter. Instead, we are treated to ‘comment’ and ‘analysis’. In the more degenerate papers, facts are pre-selected, distorted or concocted…[they cater] to the basest appetites and meanest prejudices in each of us and passes them off as virtues. Under the guise of patriotism, it teaches us to hate everything foreign or different…”

The Iraq war has also been a major issue for journalism and is probably the prime example of biased and one-sided reporting which Rupert Murdoch also played a major role in. His television channel Fox News was getting into trouble even before the Iraq war though, when in the 2000 presidential election campaign they decided to announce George W Bush as the clear winner despite the voting being described as ‘too close to call’ . Murdoch is very pro-iraq war and incredibly pro-Bush so obviously Fox News is just another propaganda engine were countless numbers of journalists follow orders from News International (also worth noting that Murdoch made it forbidden for any of his editors to be against the war in Iraq). Fox news manages to slant the news continuously with a variety of subtle techniques involving carefully worded news bulletins and certain types of image. Reporters are directed to avoid words that might conjure up negative associations with the administration’s policies and replace them with words that have more positive connotations. Fox commentators were instructed to refer to U.S. ‘sharpshooters’ rather than ‘snipers.’ Similarly, Bush is referred to repeatedly as the ‘commander in chief’ and images of Bush invariably show him in a presidential and flattering light. In contrast, the images Fox runs of John Kerry seem deliberately chosen to paint him as un-presidential. In no sense does Fox’s brand of journalism encourage freethinking from within its ranks or within the audience. Fox News is an ideological organ that serves the interests of the party in power by creating its own version reality. Alternative realities are ridiculed, shouted down, and when all else fails, told to “shut up.”
Although Murdoch is a major culprit in the world of self-satisfying war on Journalism, he is by no means alone. The Daily Telegraph recently came under fire during the Iraq war for questioning Labour MP George Galloway’s connections with Saddam Hussein. The Telegraph claimed to have unearthed documents purporting to show that the Iraqi regime had funded George Galloway’s political campaigning. According to Galloway, the underlying reason for the accusations is because of the ex-owners Conrad Black and Barbra Amiel ‘hated’ him because he stood ‘for everything they don’t’ . His policies on the middle east contrasted with the owners’ Jewish beliefs. Galloway was successful in suing the paper for damages which means his suspicions are certainly a possibility. The journalists could then be seen as political actors, questioning the Labour government’s ability to select MPs while really just putting across the views of the newspaper owners with a grudge.
In hindsight, I feel that all journalists are political actors or at least a large majority are. The problem with the media today is that it’s far too controlled by money and power that whoever ‘has the gold makes the rules’. Rupert Murdoch is probably the most powerful man in control of the news and his empire is literally crippling the free press. His opinions get mistranslated as news values which have effectively shaped the British parliament for the past two decades. The Sun newspaper have described British and American soldiers in the Iraq war as ‘heroes’ and ‘liberators’ and the Iraqi fighters as ‘rebels’ due to Murdoch’s beliefs about the war. The editors in all papers and on TV stations have to bow to the owner of the company and the journalists, in turn, must bow to the editors so the system is a very constrictive, organised propaganda machine. As John Swinton, former chief of staff at the New York Times explains:

“We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping-jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”

Of course, the real culprit in the war of the political actor is advertising and money. Anyone who believes Murdoch is out to bring news for the good of others will be sorely disappointed. We like to pretend that advertising agencies use their power only to sell commercial goods, but we know they also plan election campaigns for politicians, and “manage” public perception of governments. Politicians pretend that their advertising managers have no political power, but it’s obvious that the man who controls the election also controls the politician. As American linguist and US media critic Noam Chomsky once said ‘Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the media.’

Now I would just like to make a point about certain phrases that people who have very little self confidence use in every day life without even realising they’re doing it. People can say I’m talkin nonsense, and I usually am in many people’s eyes but why not just have a think about whether you believe I’m right or not.

PHRASE 1:
If you want

This is a phrase used by so many self conscious people in every day life as a way of shifting power back to themselves in a situation where the person saying it needs to know there is a want for them. For example, texting come down if you want means that the self-conscious person wants the person texted to come down but wants them to say that they want to come down. This makes the texter feel wanted and more important than anything else.

PHRASE 2:
I Don’t Care

They do care, trying to remain dignified in defeat but beating themselves up inside.

PHRASE 3:
I Don’t Really Wanna Talk About It

They do really wanna talk about it but want it to look like they’re not wallowing in self pity. That way if you find out it looks like you’ve had to dig deep, even though it’s blatantly obvious they haven’t.

PHRASE 4;
Probably

I probably will see you again or probably will come down to see you etc. Stops the person committing in an attempt to make the receiving person believe they could have something better to do besides you.

PHRASE 5:
We’ll see

Similar to phrase 4 in that the person wants you to believe there may be something better to do than spend time with you.

More to come, just my thoughts for today!

tom

Now I was discussing something with many people a few months ago about love in general. Not platonic of course (how much do I ever talk about that lol). In society you have 3 types of people; those who fall in love with everyone who shows them an interest; those who never fall in love with anyone; and those who take time to fall in love with only those certain few who steal their heart.

By looking at the three groups it’s easy to see that true ‘love’ towards a person can only ever really be experienced by those in the last group. They are in love for real, if love does indeed exist as they have spent time to get to know the other person, and found a bond which they can no longer live without. Love can therefore be seen as nothing more than a (selfish) bond between two people. Love in itself is more like an addiction to a drug in that you crave it, miss it when it’s not there, get angry and agressive if you don’t have it, and become paranoid and agitated when it’s not present.

Nevertheless it exists only in the last group as, like I’ve said before, it has been EARNED and is felt by both parties. The first group, however, believe they’re in love with the other person when, in fact, all they’re doing is imprinting on those who show them affection. The people in the first group have low self esteem, probably stemming from childhood and getting picked last at discos etc. When someone shows them even the tiniest bit of affection, they immediately fall head over heels in love with the person and become rather psychotic and jealous almost immediately. Heaven help the person from Group A who falls for someone from Group B or Group C.

The people who have imprinted themselves will want everything NOW and be unable to comprehend why someone from the other groups doesn’t want to commit fully to them or tell them they love them instantly. The only way for true love to ever exist for anyone from Group A is for them to find the engrams that keep making them ‘fall in love’ with everyone and remove them with counselling etc.

Just my ponderings but I believe that nobody can ever truly be in love with someone if they don’t love themself. Those who don’t love themself will ineveitably fall for everyone they meet who shows an interest, and doom the relationship from the start. Nobody, in reality, should be falling in love with anyone else after a week or month unless they’re a hopeless romantic and those from Group A are really just jealous and suspicious all the time so anyone from the other 2 groups won’t even have a chance to let the relationship go anywhere without running a mile.

Radio used to be an informative medium and an integral part of society. For families who could not afford the likes of television, it was the one source of which came news bulletins, comedy, drama and music. The fact that a radio set was relatively inexpensive meant the medium dominated the British household. With the digital technology now available, and the introduction of the internet, radio has apparently been ‘revolutionised’ by online broadcasting and clearer transmissions.
The term ‘revolutionise’ should, however, be taken with a certain level of scepticism. To ‘revolutionise’ something means making changes for the better. So how come internet radio, and radio in general sounds so bland and lifeless compared to its original form? The death of radio can be blamed on one factor; commercialism
When commercial radio first arrived on the scene in 1973, it struggled to gain advertisers who didn’t see it as a viable proposition to gain sales. It was only with the launch of the first national station in 1992, Classic FM, that advertisers realised how much potential the format had.
The advertisers are what keep the stations in business and if a station isn’t pulling in the audience figures, it won’t get paid. Hence why many early commercial stations were forced out of business. To gain audience figures, stations have to keep up with changes in society and so a main cause of radio’s decline in quality has to be attributed to tabloidisation.
Society is constantly becoming materialistic, focusing on sensationalism rather than important issues. The result of this is that many well known and respected journalists who have spent years on air are being shelved for more flimsy, unprofessional presenters in an attempt to reach a slightly more mainstream audience. Even BBC radio one, which is funded by the license fee, was forced to change its image in 1993 to compete with the commercial stations. The station axed several of its top presenters when its target audience changed from 12-40 to 12-25.
Commercial radio news bulletins have become lacklustre in their content and integrity. In an attempt to squeeze more revenue out of listeners, advertisements have replaced the time originally allocated for the news and so bulletins have to be compressed into as few words as possible, with only the biggest stories getting mentioned. A single company, Independent Radio News is responsible for writing bulletins for most of the UK’s commercial stations. Stations no longer require any journalists because all their news is written for them. Therefore no real experience is required to present a radio program or write show material. All of this contributes to the gradual decay of radio.
The amount of adverts filling up potential news bulletin space also runs into the presenter’s dialogue. Because advertisements are more important than news bulletins, they’re also more important than the presenter. A radio presenter is given a specific amount of time to tell the listener of competitions, special guests, and upcoming songs. He or she cannot overrun this time (if they do on several occasions, it could mean joining the doll queue again). Therefore, tabloidisation has an effect on what presenters are allowed to say. Every so often the presenter is allowed to say something that proves they have a personality, but on very rare occasions and only if it’s brief. Commercial stations are now neck-to-neck with the BBC in terms of competition but, with such a fierce market, every station is aiming to grab other station’s listeners as well as more advertisers. With every station sounding identical; the same news bulletins, the same limited presenters, the same lengthy advert breaks, commercialism is entirely responsible for the death of radio.
When radio one went through its vigourous facelift in 1993, the music policy was changed to meet the mainstream market. The new DJs were
“compelled to stick to a rigid playlist which tended towards Brit pop rock orientated and the Top 40”. Any song less than five years old was refused airplay. This created a very limited playlist, making radio more monotonous (with the exception of dedicated stations such as Classic FM, and Realradio which continue to play a wide variety of music). Commercial stations took the idea of a selected playlist to extremes. When record companies offered to pay radio stations to play their artist’s new tracks, the stations snapped up the offers and nailed their own coffins. Repetitive tracks stream through radio sets to this day.The number of times songs like Christina Aguilera’s ‘Dirrty’ and eminem’s ‘Lose Yourself’ get played in an hour on various frequencies is unforgivable.

Rarely is a song older than a month played on stations except in the rare circumstances when a station attempts to prove it’s different to all the rest, when it clearly isn’t (with the exception of stations like Classic FM and Real radio which are dedicated to older music).
As shows get worse, adverts get longer, presenters become boring, news becomes basic, some stations are even ceasing production of their own shows. Many companies are now manufacturing shows to sell across the UK to replace aeling chart shows and phone-ins. Station controllers are so intent on making a profit, they’ve begun firing presenters to cut back costs and began broadcasting pre-recorded shows like The Pepsi Chart, The Smash Hits Chart and Totally 80s with Pat Sharp. All of the commercial tactics being employed are rapidly removing any sort of local charm radio used to possess.
The deregulation of the radio industry over the years has removed barriers preventing companies from owning more than a certain number of radio stations in a region. Companies have more control over stations now. It can be seen as a benefit that so many commercial stations have managed to survive thanks to their purchase, but whereas deregulation was introduced to “help diversify the amount of choice available to the public”, GWR, EMAP, Capital Radio and Chrysalis own over 50% of the radio market and all their stations are very similar if not exactly the same.
Cultural diversity is suffering because of the new laws. Just looking at the recent changes in the BBC’s London station,LDN, where many specialist programmes are being replaced with dumbed-down celebrity chat shows, shows how a public service broadcaster is undermining its commitment to diversity in order to compete with commercial stations. DJ Paul Okenfold began a campaign in January called ‘Londumb’ in protest after the station cancelled five music shows. He also complained that the BBC and local commercial stations didn’t do enough to exhibit local talent, which should be one of the main focuses of radio. Labour backbencher John Robertson led the call for music content to be regulated by the bill, stating that local stations were “a crucial route to national exposure” for many artists, and surveys showed radio listeners all wanted to hear more local music. He said his proposed changes were “aimed at counteracting the potential of consolidation in the local radio market to undermine musical diversity and local character.” They would provide “a vital counterbalance to the power that deregulation will give to the larger players to control access to, and thereby access in, the UK music market”. It’s therefore obvious the death of radio caused by commercialism is not simply limited to commercial stations but to the public service broadcaster as well.
The dawn of internet radio hasn’t helped matters. Stations retaining a tiny shred of local agenda are becoming faceless as their audience expands overseas. Many stations no longer have a city or county identity, just a frequency or commercial brand. Listeners can tune in from their computers literally anywhere, and now that setting up your own internet station is so incredibly straightforward, there are tens of thousands of faceless stations streaming constant music and adverts through your speakers. To be fair, a lot of them promote new bands and contain brief interviews and news bulletins. For every one of those, sadly, there are over 100 more out there simply for the commission they receive.
Radio is slowly dying. In America, ownership has become so bad that the conglomerate ‘Clear Channel’ owns over 2000 stations. If the UK becomes any more relaxed in its radio regulation, we could be seeing GWR or EMAP owning all of the stations in Britain. Commercialism has had effects on each sector of the media industry; in papers, television and radio. Whereas TV and newspapers have fared slightly better, radio cannot thrive while advertisers remain injecting money into them. In a few years, the possibility of foreign companies purchasing ‘local’ radio stations threatens to steal what little individuality remains in our stations. The BBC has maintained a strong radio line-up with Radio two,three,four and five live, but radio 1 has become more commercial to compete with the competition. With the public already lobbying the government to revoke the license fee, believing it to be an ‘unnecessary tax’, what’s to say in several years to come, the BBC won’t become just another of the faceless conglomerates more concerned with money than culture. If this is the case, then who really needs radio at all?

I was pondering last week when someone told me I should stop putting on such a cheerful image and be myself. It got me to thinking that most of the time, yeah people see the cheery jovial side to myself and very rarely people see my darker side but how in any way is this me being ‘fake’.

What people should try to comprehend is the idea that perhaps creating certain images of yourself IS being yourself because you don’t know how to be one personality.

I’m writing a life pondering story just now about romance periods in friendships, the time you’re at your most fake!

The Outer Limits was one of the greatest Science Fiction shows on television in the 90s and I thought it would be cool to put up just some of the quotes from the show which are inspirational or get you thinking. Food for thought!

“For centuries philosophers and theologians have debated what it means to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple. To be human is to choose.”

“In a world where change is the rule, we rely on the unyielding constants in life for comfort and security… that the sun will rise, that the Earth will turn. But what if we could no longer be certain of anything? To what then would we cling?”

“In society, where devotion to one’s family is frequently sacrificed on the alter of ambition… can the things we sacrifice ever be regained?”

“Few of us have the opportunity to truly begin again… to redress the flaws that tarnish our souls. But only when we remake ourselves can we remake the world.”

“Heartfelt regret can sometime serve as compensation for past misdeeds. But what happens when dark secrets resurface unexpectedly, to claim their due?”

“We believe ourselves to be an essentially noble race. But would that same assessment be made from a truly objective view?”

“If we are going to delve into the true secrets of the human soul, we must be prepared to deal with the demons that reside there”

“The human mind has been compared to a house — it’s rooms filled with memories, ideas and dreams. Rooms which remain essentially locked and inaccessible. But what if we could make a master key?”

“Has humankind risen to the top of the evolutionary ladder because of it’s monogamous nature… or in spite of it?”

“The pursuit of material things is ultimately pointless if one loses the things that are truly valuable to the human spirit.”

“The desire to barter and acquire is as deep as any part of human nature. But what happens to values when one barters with a being whose nature is not human at all?”

“They say you are the sum of your experiences. But what happens when an event from your past prevents you from defining your future?”

“When a heart has been turned cold by anger and grief, can patterns of destructive behavior be averted or are they predestined?”

“Within each of us there is an internal voice that tempers our actions. But what happens when that inner self overwhelms the face we show the world?”

“Unless humankind awakens to the need to preserve it’s future, it may one day find itself asleep… for eternity”

“To sleep, perchance to dream. But what happens when the dream is to never sleep again?”

“Ultimately, our survival may depend less on our ability to overcome our enemies than the weakness of our own character.”

“Human history is marked by our desire to expand our boundaries. But what happens when our reach exceeds our grasp”

“In an age when we are led to believe that we can be anything we want to be, what most eludes us is simply, being ourselves”

“It is said that man is created in God’s image. But what happens when we alter that image? Is our reflection the only thing that changes?”

“The path to our own destruction may lie less in the weapons we conceive… than the violence in our hearts”

“From muskets to sixguns to assault weapons, the pages of our history run red with blood. But which came first, the violent impulse or the weapon which answers it’s call?”

“When we endeavor to fill a terrible void, sometimes the void can consume us
As long as an enemy is judged solely by his appearance, his victory is assured.”

“From the time we are children we are taught to mistrust strangers. But are we always as wary as we encourage them to be?”

“Who among us does not think he knows evil when he sees it? But are such distinctions really so black and white or is morality simply a matter of perspective?”

“There is no sound, no voice, no cry in all the world that can be heard… until someone listens”

“If we measure how much we value life, solely by our dread of dying, then it may well be that we have no sense of its value… at all.”

“When we have conquered interstellar space, what will we gain? A new perspective on ourselves or only a wider scope for our arrogance.”

“They say seeing is believing. But the true question is… what do you believe you’ve seen?”

“Throughout history man has been driven to seek out his origins to determine whether he’s the result of a divine plan or merely the sum of all his yesterdays. But what happens if, at the end of his search, he should discover he’s neither?”

“Along with futures we dare not imagine, come choices we dare not make.”

“Mankind will be forever doomed to destruction, if we continue to ask for the truth but then… refuse to listen.”

“When is something truly alive? When it shows an ability to think or an instinct to survive or… when it becomes afraid to die?”

“It is said that love and truth walk hand in hand. But if the need is great enough, can we learn to love a lie?”

“In the struggle between life and death, sometimes survival is not the only way to win.”

“Even acts of love are often only fulfilling one’s selfish needs.”

“There is an old proverb that says, Be careful what you wish for, for it might come true.” And if your wish is for immortality, it is something you will have to live with… for a very long time.”

“Men of war have long known that warriors must often abandon those verities they defend. Peace, human kindness, love… for they hold no meaning to the enemy. And so, to win, do we become what we despise…”

“In the darkest of hours… in the greatest of battles… we must never forget who, or what, we are.”

“The true measure of a hero is when a man lays down his life with the knowledge that those he saves… will never know.”

“Man has long worked to stave off the disease that can ravage us. But what can happen when the cure grows more fearsome than the disease?”

“Our yesterdays are like a string of pearls — unbroken — unchanging. But if we could change our past, would that also change who we are?”

“The search for truth is a noble venture. But what happens when that search becomes so obsessive that we no longer find truth but instead… create it?”

“We all wear masks, illusions of what we want the world to see. But when we hide our true selves from those we love… what price do we pay for that deception?”

“To those who would fail to heed their own words, be warned — you never know who’s listening.”

“The distances between us, so vast and so close, are so easily bridged. Not by what we make… but by what we feel.”

“A poet once wrote, In dreams begins responsibility.” So too, perhaps, with love. Without dreams, without the hope of a better life, a brighter future, it is difficult for love to flourish. And without love… there are no dreams.”

“Can the true reason we so fear the unknown be that we know ourselves too well?
At what point does a human being’s free will cease to exist? And if we have forfeited our free will… are we still human?”

“The greatest horror of war is the fateful transformation of our children into heroes.”

“Sometimes it is an easy thing for a man to cry out for retribution until he himself has walked in the footsteps… of those suffering the penalty.”

“How easily we scorn what Fate has dealt us and dream of what it has not. Before we cast aside our lots, it would be wise to remember… that dreams have a way of turning into nightmares.”

“Before we allow ourselves to be consumed by our regrets, we should remember the mistakes we make in life are not so important as the lessons we draw from them.
Of all the needs which drive us: hunger, thirst, desire… perhaps the most powerful is the simple need to be free.”

“Each of us creates his own world. We conjure paradises from our hopes, and nightmares born of fear. But what if they are both illusions?”

“Perhaps the descent into madness… is not a solitary journey, after all.”

“Some say that the truth is only what we persuade others to believe. If so, we should be wary… for truth is easily and often hidden by the arguments of those who are false.”

“We rely upon others to inform us but wisdom can never be taught… and we must always decide the truth for ourselves.”

“Do we have the power to shape our lives or are we predestined to be who we are? If our Fate is but one amongst many, then whose life, if anyone’s, is real?”

“If we teach our children by example, then we only have ourselves to blame for whom they become.”

“How well can we ever know our neighbors? Perhaps we might better ask, how well do we want to?”

“The power of human emotion can neither be controlled by laws we create nor confined by the will we impose.”

“We have always struggled to control our destiny. But even when we think we’ve succeeded, fate may have the final word.”