fanboygeeks

Paris Hilton in the media - a line is drawn (UPDATED)

Have you been watching that stupid spoiled whore and pointless oxygen-waster Paris Hilton on the news over the last few days and thought, "by no stretch of the imagination is this news"?  It's bad enought that our celebrity-obsessed media give her airtime at all, but why are our *news* programmes now infected with the adulation of someone who is single-handedly and knowingly leading the sexualisation and dumbing-down of our young women?

Well, at last, a real journalist has taken a stand and has refused to read a Paris Hilton "story" on television.  MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski on the Morning Joe show was visibly annoyed when she was handed a script with Hilton's jail release as the top news story of the morning.  Brzezinski apologised for the story and said that she didn't want to read it but she had to.  Host Joe Scarborough said that was a cop-out and she should take just refuse to do it - which she did by promptly attempting to  burn it, then eventually shredding the script - much the the amusement of her colleagues.

Margaret Thatcher once spoke of "the oxygen of publicity".  Paris Hilton serves no purpose in this world, and the world would seriously be a better place without her.  We all know this.  So, why do the media time and time again broadcast details of her vacuous and pointless existence.

In America, Hilton's pitiful antics are not news.  What is utterly perplexing, though, is that she and the circus surrounding her make it onto the British news agenda.  Her jail release was a top story on BBC TV's flagship 10 O'Clock News.

I salute you Mika Brzeszinski and I hope that your peers are shamed into following your lead.

Stu ;-)

UPDATE - Saturday 1030hrs.

BBC News 24 are now covering this story - as an "and finally" joke item.  They show the moment where Mika tries to burn the script, but we don't get to hear her saying "I just don't believe in covering that story, at least not as the lead story on the newscast, when we have a day like today," she said.  Shame on the BBC.  A very serious point was being made by a fellow journalist that has resonated with millions of people around the world (read these comments BBC).  Mika Brzezinski deserved respect, but the BBC chose to mock her. Even BBC Online have categorised it as an "Entertainment" story.

I'm writing a letter of complaint to the BBC.  I'll let you know their response.

Stu

Mars's humiliating climbdown

When I asked if anyone would like to have a wager on how long it would take for Masterfoods, makers of the Mars bar, to abandon their bewildering decision to add liquidised cow's stomach to their chocolate, I didn't think it would be as quick as seven days.

What a humiliating climbdown.  Boy did I laugh.  Never more have I so wanted to say "I told you so" to someone's face.

There is still a nasty taste in my mouth, though, when I looked into the exact details of this story.  I was always intrigued by the "principled decision" line...

It turns out that the Vegetarian Society had just contacted Masterfoods as part of a general enquiry about ingredients, and Masterfoods responded that they had already started adding rennet to their products at the beginning of May.  What they meant by a "principled decision" was that they decided not to lie in their response to the Vegetarian Society, and their honesty should be respected.

Why are Masterfoods behaving like they should get a medal for not lying?  Was lying one of the options they considered?  Where were Masterfood's principles when they decided to start adding animal by-products to their products without telling anyone.  Where was their respect for vegetarians, or Muslims, or simply people who don't like the idea of bits of dead animals in their chocolate bars?

Masterfoods have been quite rightly slapped down by the British public.  I hope it inspires people to realise that corporations' wicked ways can be curbed by the power of public opinion.  And I hope that heads roll at Masterfoods for the contemptuous way that they have treated their customers.

Stu

Coca-Cola block film launch

BBC Online report that Coca-Cola have succeeded in delaying the launch of Italian film "Seven Kilometers from Jerusalem".

The film tells the story of an advertising executive suffering a mid-life crisis when he meets a man who appears to be Jesus.  In the course of the film, Jesus drinks a can of Coke, and the ad man exclaims: "God, what a great endorsement!"

A Coca-Cola spokesman said "we don't think it's appropriate to use the subject of this film to create publicity for our brands. We advised the producer of this in writing, and are very disappointed that our request was not respected."

Coca-Cola insist that permission to use its trademark had not been granted and the scenes with their product should be cut.

Okay, I have two points:

1. How is this a trademark infringement? There's no loss of trade or passing off here.  Coca-Cola just don't like the association for fear of over-sensitive religious groups thinking it's an endorsement and boycotting their product.  Coca-Cola have bigger and more expensive lawyers than the film-makers, so they get their way.

2. What hypocrites.  Coca-Cola had no qualms about the wholesale ripping off of Joel Veitch's Dancing Ninja Kittens video for a television commercial, having to settle out-of-court to avoid an inevitable legal whooping.

I've said it before, but Coca-Cola are becoming a yesterday brand.  Their marketing machine could have done a quid-pro-quo deal to promote the film by virally spreading the "offending" clip which could only have enhanced the coolness of their brand, while simply (and truthfully) saying that they were not involved in the creation of the film.  Their big-corporation bullying legal tactics may please one group, but they're mightily pissing off another.  The problem for Coca-Cola is that I reckon the latter are the people who actually drink their product...

Stu ;-)

JFK and "The Snipers Nest"

The window from the Texas School Book Depository that Lee Harvey-Oswald learned out of to shoot (or not) JFK is up for sale on eBay.

The current bid price as of today is just over $3 million - but if you buy it you'll have to collect it.

Meanwhile, an astonishing enhanced and stabilised version of the Zapruder Film has been produced showing the assassination in incredible detail.  Watch how JFKs head snatches forward before it goes flying back, suggesting a bullet from behind...

Watch the clip below, but to really live the moment, download a very high-quality Quicktime here.

Stu ;-)

DVD Piracy - does this campaign work?

Before Christmas my company produced a series of ads for the Industry Trust for IP Awareness on the subject of DVD piracy.  We tried to take out the heavy "YOU ARE A CRIMINAL!" message, and instead focus on the damage that this criminal activity really does to your very own neighbourhood.

We'd love some feedback.  Do they work?  Could they change your behaviour?

Stu ;-)

Carbon neutral for 2007!

After spending Christmas in New York and Florida, flown to Scotland and back this weekend for my sister's wedding party and having already booked my next New York trip in April, I've decided that I can't continue to obsess about the environment when my carbon footprint is as big as the Jolly (not so) Green Giant.

My wife discovered a website called Carbonfund.org that enables you calculate how much CO2 you're responsible for and offset it by supporting renewable energy, energy efficiency and reforestation projects.  The cost for my not inconsiderable contribution to polluting the upper atmosphere this year: £60.

Considering my average yearly travel will at least include 3 or 4 returns to New York, a return to the US west coast, a trip to Eastern Canada and a good half dozen return trips within the UK and Europe I think that £60 is a small amount to pay to help lift the guilt from my shoulders, as well as make up for my part in Global Warming.

So, when British Prime Minister Tony Blair last week responded to a call to cut down his international travel as "impractical", it really was a missed opportunity.  Blair went on to say, "I personally think these things are a bit impractical actually to expect people to do that...It's like telling people you shouldn't drive anywhere".

If the Prime Minister was serious about environmental issues, he should have, like Conservative Leader David Cameron, long ago started off-setting his personal travel.  It wouldn't have cost much, it would have been marvellous (much needed) PR for him and more importantly it would have provided opportunities to promote carbon neutrality scheme, which would have been expanding upon at great length by our hungry media who have hours of airtime, acres of newsprint and millions of pixels to fill.

Instead, a Number 10 spokesman later said that Mr Blair WILL offset emissions from his holiday flights - a begrudged, face-saving gesture from a spin doctor.  However, the Prime Minister's own website records that he only offset himself and not the other 4 members of his family, "Asked to clarify whether the Prime Minister was offsetting his own travel, or that of the whole family, the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that it was his personal travel, but the PMOS was not going to get involved further".

The British Government has a plan in place to be carbon neutral, but not until 2012.  As a frequent business traveller the Prime Minister could have, as a result of this publicity, led the way in encouraging individuals and businesses alike to take personal responsibility for their carbon footprint.

Sadly, our Prime Minsiter has revealed that his environmental credentials don't stand up to scrutiny.

Stu

Technology empowering the Developing World (2)

The $100 laptop is almost ready to ship, with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan and Thailand all set to be receiving them this summer.

Since it's inception, may people have said, "I'd like a $100 laptop too", but the concept is for children in the Third World to benefit from the Linux-based machine.

However, Nicholas Negroponte, chairman and founder of the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) group has come up with a novel marketing plan to enable people to buy one: buy two, get one: buy two, get one - you get one, and a child in the developing world gets one.  The buyer will then get the email address of the recipient child that they have effectively sponsored.  Google will be providing tools to enable the children to publish on the Web.

With corporations lining up to exploit Third World countries as a new source of cheap labour, I get a kick out of the notion of an African child saying to Nike, "no thanks, I don't need your sweat-shop job, I'm a web designer".

Stu ;-)

Microsoft pulling out of China?

Spotted by Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow...

A senior Microsoft exec has said that the company is considering pulling out of China due to the political repression there.

"Things are getting bad... and perhaps we have to look again at our presence there," he told a conference in Athens.

"We have to decide if the persecuting of bloggers reaches a point that it's unacceptable to do business there."

"We try to define those levels and the trends are not good there at the moment. It's a moving target."

Wow - are some priciples starting to infect Microsoft?

Stu ;-)

US Mid-Term attack-ads

The US Mid-Term elections are well underway - and not surprisingly, it's getting nasty.  With no allocated Party Political Broadcasts like in Britain, it's a free-for-all with political parties getting as much airtime as they can afford.  And it's no holds barred.

Check out this ad that ran in New York, attacking Oneida County DA Michael Arcuri who is the Democratic nominee for New York's 24th Congressional District.

The accusation is that Arcuri, a married father of two, called a sex line from his hotel room, charged to expenses.  The truth is shocking.  But, as they say, give a lie a day start, and the truth will never catch up.

Stu

ps  Don't feel too sorry for Arcuri.  Like so many Democrats scared of being seen to have views different from Republicans, he seems to be a pro-lifer, he supports HR 6166, the bill that revokes habeas corpus, and he dishes out his business cards with the 10 Commandments on the back of them..

NBC ban Dixie Chicks ad for "being disparaging to Bush"

NBC and The CW are refusing to carry adverts for the Dixie Chick's new film "Shut up and SIng" according to the film's distributor Harvey Weinstein.  Daily Variety reported that NBC's commercial clearance department said in writing that it "cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush."

The Weinstein Company also quoted a rep from the CW as saying it had concerns that "we do not have appropriate programming in which to schedule this spot."

The Dixie Chicks were involved in controversy when in March 2003 at the Shepherd's Bush Empire in London, Texan-born lead singer Natalie Maines told the audience "just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas". When news of this reached the US, reactions ranged from radio station bans to death threats.

The Dixie Chicks have started a blog and have posted the ads at www.shutupandpost.com. 

Last week, CNN and National Public Radio said they wouldn't accept ads for the controversial film "Death of a President," about the fictional assassination of Bush. CNN said it had decided not to take the ads because of the "extreme nature" of the film's storyline.

Is there a TV network in the United States remaining that believes in freedom of speech?

Stu