WHY DON'T YOU....DO SOMETHING MORE INTERESTING INSTEAD...

When there are so many more serious things going on in the world, it is oddly reassuring how people are still interested in the petty politics of day time TV.  Probably because issues such as climate change, global recession, mass gun killings, AI destroying the world,  are rather overwhelming.  TV is small fry and soap opera even more so when the characters are allegedly 'real'.  There is nothing real about television.  Tell - lies - vision after all shows us in plain sight we are complicit in an illusion these presenters are our friends, whom we know and like and relate.  We do not know them. They do not know us.  They are as connected to us as royalty and politicians.  In other words, they are not, they are simply paid handsomely to convince us they are.  

Top of the 'empathy' pile are those who work on day time TV, but it is these same folk who tend to be the most ruthless, nastiest pieces of work in the industry.  Ive been told this by many people over the years, who worked in the industry in front of and behind the camera, at all times of the day, and told me those whom appear the loveliest tend to be the exact opposite.  These shining firmaments of goodliness are allegedly the most malignant, malevolent to those who work with them.  I've always thought it must be the pressure of appearing so calm and lovely all the time. 

I have been interviewed a few times on morning and daytime TV.  This was some decades ago, and even then I heard how one presenter had a long standing, wide spread reputation of being an utterly shitty human being - treating everyone who they didn't consider their equal or above their pay grade like a serf.  I was interviewed by them a few times.   

There was another presenter on morning TV who also had a reputation for being lovely who I also found was the antithesis of how they wished to appear.   

It is not so much day time TV is not a happy place to work, it is more to do with so many people want to work on it, so they put up with appalling behaviour in order to maintain the status quo. There is a degree of ruthlessness in daytime TV presenters more akin to the characters on a FX trading desk than a smiling happy clappy place where everyone feigns kindness and empathy. They protect a brand of integrity and honesty, but that is what it is - a brand. At least on a trading floor you are able to be your money fixated self.  

When I met them, I liked Ferne Britton and I liked Eammon Holmes.  They are too long in the tooth to care about what those in TV will or won't do to them.  The rest care, and that makes them easy to manipulate and to buy.

The final denouement came with Nadine Dorries talked about Schofield abusing 'authority, power and trust', and I thought she was talking about her mate Boris Johnson.   

TV land is a microcosm of politics, everyone pretending to be something they are not, wanting to maintain a brand so they maintain and enhance their viewing and voting figures.   They are liars - playing a part - or actors, which sounds so much more acceptable doesn't it. They all lie big, huge, massive.  All of them. And we, the viewer and the voter are complicit in the lie.  I watched PS being interviewed.  Presenters do have influence on contributors, so they are able to get people moved if they so wish.  Whether they chose to use it or not is another matter, but I know it does and has happened.  

The media are relentless, but I remember having lunch with a senior tabloid newspaper editor once who said the most he regretted in life was causing the death of someone who they had written about.  This person wasn't famous, and this editor had no doubt he - he was a reporter at the time - had triggered the death.  His editors argued that the person was vulnerable anyway, in which case they should have taken that into account.  PS has put himself in the spotlight and is aware of the consequences of doing so. If you accept the acclaim you accept everything else.  I am told he thinks he will be spat at.  That says more about the people who choose to do so than it does about him, but it also reflects a all embracing self pity that fails to recognise why people dislike him - and that is unconnected with the runner incident but is connected to his behaviour towards them and others.  

He is also aware of the consequences of lying.  He has interviewed enough of them over the years to identify the repercussions, but perhaps it is always a case of feeling you have risen too high to fall.   Some in society do appear to have reached that level.   

PS knows how to play the media, he has had decades of experience, and the 'hate' may have been generated by years of people who feel they have been mistreated by him.  What's that comment 'don't kick people on the way up coz they will kick you on the way down'.  The hate may just be the kicking PS has given to others on the way up, which has nothing to do with this particular incident, but to do with the arrogance which allowed him to believe he could get away with it. I don't know. Person who is free from sin, throw the first stone and all that, as one of his colleagues said.  Although I doubt any one in that world abides by that rule.  We have become a culture of stone throwers, encouraged by the media, politician, even religion, actually especially religion, to do so. I've done it in the past, feeling they've given me the stones to throw.  There must be a lot of other day time presenters who are concerned they will receive the same treatment when their star falls.  If PS knows how to play the media he knows how to play the audience. He's not a victim of hate. He is a victim of his own narcissism and conceit.  The upside is that he knows his daughters love him unconditionally.   They are the important and innocent ones as well.  To be loved unconditionally sustains when you feel there is nothing left.  And he isn't poor.  

As for watching daytime TV, decide to vote in the only way the Exec producers and the presenters understand. Best to turn off and, as that BBC1 Saturday morning show would tell me every week, when I was a teenager,  'Why don't you just turn off your TV and do something much more interesting instead'....  

INCREDIBLY PRIVILEGED TO BE HOLDING A WORKSHOP AT THIS AMAZING VENUE IN OCTOBER - PLEASE COME!

  https://www.hawkwoodcollege.co.uk/event/humour-lateral-thinking-oct/

WHAT DOES GOOD LOOK LIKE - HEGEOGRAPHY - OR JUST HOW YOU SEE THEM

At the beginning of meetings or any sort of project I would ask this question. What does good look like, so that expectations were managed by all those involved and we all knew what would make each other happy.  Of course, that might change during the course of the project but as long as it was communicated (and usually it wasn't) then things went fine. 

Take this and turn to writing about someone.  What does good look like?   I see good as writing an appraisal of someone's achievements - identifying the good in them, or identifying the flaws in them, which may be one and the same.  Good is also relative just as the same quality may be regarded by some as a weakness and others as a strength.  Being generous and spend thrift, lazy or chilled out, focused or nit picking, the words say the same but the value is different.  

I've had just such a challenge.  On the first draft of a biography, I was told I was making someone appear much better than they are (hegeogaphy), but if that is my perception, that is my perception. Perhaps as a travel journalist I've always been encouraged to look at the positive, focus on the positive and view the flaws as things which are human, rather than 'bad'.   Also 'bad' is such a loaded word.  And relative. 

The person I've recently written about came from a family of grafters who encouraged the same and he led life at full pelt.   Someone like that is at times bound to crash and burn.  And I don't want to go down those rabbit holes, because the flaws are mundane, the achievements are not. Perhaps like my travel writing I have chosen to see the best in this person rather than the worst, making up for what I am sure will be the remit of other writers more akin to seeking out something to attack.  I would still rather see and seek out the good rather than the bad.  It's a quality I like in myself.

EQUAL GENDER?

I was recently asked to write something about gender equality.  As I am interested in 'words' at the moment, as in how they limit thinking, and how they are used for the purpose of so doing, the issue of gender equality, defining what it is, the implications, read a bit like the last few lines of that comedy series Soap, which was a parody of Soap operas. It always ended with about ten unanswered questions which the following episode would hopefully answer. 

Example,  when men were men and women were women, the gender equality issue meant women should get equal pay to men, commensurate with their skills and workloads.   There should be no wage differentiation.  There should be maternity care - childcare and - menopausal care. For those men out there who say this is actually more than men receive, I think it should be taken as a back pay for all the decades when women were earning less than men.   Either we take the pay that way, or we earn more than men in order to earn back the back pay.  I quite like that idea. 

Now, gender equality is a tad more complicated.   Now if someone is a she, they could be a he, does that that mean a he, who starts off as a she, would earn what a man earns or would they still earn what a woman earns even though they are now a man?   Does that mean they have achieved gender equality by changing sex, or they have not changed gender equality they have just changed gender and the only way to attain gender equality is to change gender – on paper anyway.  Does that mean that men who change to the gender of women, will receive less pay or will they still receive the same pay they did as a man, even though they put themselves forward as a woman? So, they also benefit from gender equality, bringing the female pay to the same level as the male pay, or will they receive less pay they are now a female and consequently fight for equal pay because they received higher pay for the same job as a man than they do as a woman?   And then you have those who don’t define themselves as a man or woman, so what pay do they get?  Are they somewhere in limbo land or are they aligned to male or female pay dependent on their born gender. 

My belief is the government - both of them actually - will play about with the genders and say gender equality has been achieved, when it has not.  Nothing has changed, only the words, limiting not just our thinking but now also the ability of women to achieve equal pay. 

WOULDN'T DIANA HAVE MADE A PHENOMENAL QUEEN

Sorry. That's the first thing I thought when I saw the golden carriage.   I didn't see Camilla as the Queen nor Charles as the King, but having queued to pay respect to the Crown, I was interested in witnessing the coronation and the ceremony. 

What took me by surprise was the glorious and humbling beauty of the music, the spirituality of the service, and the majesty of the robes.  There was something other worldy about it which tomorrow's Sunday newspapers, though they may deign and strain with their carefully crafted supplements and twenty pages of royal news and fashion and expert insight as to why and who spoke to Harry and who did Andrew sit next to, gossip, will never tap into.  Words have not been invented to capture the energy and not even the finest poet or artist will be able to fully encapsulate the magic of those moments. The publishers and editors are the least likely to understand or communicate.    It is vibration.  Good vibration.  Pure, old energy which transcends definition.   That is why the presence of politicians was completely out of place. Their energy is out of place in this ceremony and space.  I am amazed Truss and Johnson didn't burst into flames and turn to dust as they walked through the archway, vampiric as they are. Truss with her increasingly weird crooked smile, dominatrix necklace and that creepy sleepy husband who must know and acknowledge the affairs at some point. And Johnson trying to emulate Churchill now not only in his oration but in his shape.  But they didn't burst into flames because we welcomed them in, didn't we? We voted them in.   Not me personally, but I suppose as a nation. Although we didn't vote in Truss.  

What else stands out?  The startling beauty of those grey horses leading the golden coach. The strained and terrified face of Charles looking every one of his years as the crown, that beacon, was placed on to his head. Until his son kissed him.  I felt for him then.   I felt for him. The man, the father, the connection.  The weight of the responsibility and the crown.  And I want him to succeed.  I want him succeed as a voice and leader and King and to do good. I want him to succeed at being a strong King and voice and kick those politician and media vampires into touch.   And then I saw Camilla in the background and thought of Diana.

What else stood out?  The mind blowing history of the ceremony, which is what struck me so profoundly when I first witnessed the crown on top of the coffin, and the ceremony of the guards as they changed position with such precision around it.   The tigger like behaviour of the conductor squeezing the best out of each instrument.   The voices, those voices, tear jerkingly moving.  The military precision, the incredible three cheers.     

I pay respect to the crown, to the procession, to the history, to the majesty. 

As for Camilla, I don't like her.  I listened to one of her ladies in waiting interviewed on Radio Four earlier that morning by chance.  She sounded like one of those big bosomed big boned sargeant major types, Low low voice, she sounded like Camilla.  Wiltshire, not a bone of feminine in her.  I laughed when I saw them walking behind Camilla, the three of them looking like white, craggy chinless versions of The Three Degrees. Which is probably why Charles liked her. I remember he liked the Three Degrees didn't he. 

I loved the way the Bible was described by the Archbishop of Westminster as a 'lively oracle of God'.  I loved the fact Charles was taken down to the shirt and was as he is - a man. He needs Camilla to lean on, because Camilla has kept him needy so he will need her.  Camilla has made him the man he is, petulant, self pitying. She put herself in that place so he would depend on her.   As one of my editors told me "I met her. She was in it to win it. She could have walked away from Charles but chose not to. He was weak. She is not. She is also not, as her friends and sycophants politely comment 'lovely'".   Strangely, I believe Diana would have made a stronger man of Charles. A better man of Charles.  A better King of Charles. He saw her as competition, when she had the potential to be the most incredible asset. He didn't want a wife, he wanted a nanny and a mother which he never had in the Queen.  He never viewed Diana as anything other than a liability, something imposed on him.  And like a spoilt little boy he threw her away.  For he suspected his wife would always outshine him.  None more so than on the day of the Coronation.  'Tis a pity he didn't realise, she would have shone the light onto him, just by being at his side. God Saved the King.  Pity God's grace didn't manage to save Diana as well. 

ITS ALL SEMANTICS

I like that phrase. 'It is just semantics'. As though the detail doesn't matter.   The sense of the sentence being the choice of words are irrelevant to the meaning. A house is a place is a space is a home is a floor is bricks and mortar but it represents the same thing within the sphere of where we live. Only when we chose to travel to another country or culture with another language and perspective we realise how a house is not the same.   But let's keep it simple.   A house is possibly, probably used for the same purpose and people essentially understand it is a place where people possibly, probably live.  It is a generalised collaboration of understanding which allows humans to connect.  Does it matter what it is called if we understand the sense of what is being said. Advertising for example is just an illusion in which everyone is complicit, giving value to one brand over another where the product is the same.  And think of how an estate agent would describe 'small and cramped accommodation' - bijoux, cosy, a hug of a place. 

When I lead my creative writing courses I talk about semantics. Changing the noun in a sentence and how it changes the tone and flow of what is being said. And taking way the adjectives to understand how individual perspective creates different sense, even with something as inane as 'house'.   With adjectives it is even more so.   'Luxury' carries different weight with everyone I listen to, almost making the use of it, meaningless as a communication tool, or even as a window we are better able to explain our belief and value system to others.   Semantics teach us that language and the use of words is not an effective communication tool.  

Words lead to misunderstanding as does silence.  Some philosophers describe language as a window through which you are able to understand the world, although it will glaze over unless you are constantly refining and evolving and expanding vocabulary.  I used the word 'luxury' but replace that with 'love' and you see the point even more clearly. 

And how about expanding vocabulary not just in learning and using more words, but also adding to those already in existence? Is someone who is well read, better able to connect and communicate with others than someone who isn't well read, or does that just make them more judgemental on those who don't have the breadth and understanding of words?  This depends on their values and how and if they view words as portals through which to expand their thinking and support others, or use those same skills to limit and manipulate the thinking of others.   It's the same with truth. It is not identifying your perception of the truth and reality (two very different qualities), that presents challenge, but how you choose to use them.  How you chose to use words reveals more about the speaker than the listener.  Questions asked by someone reveals more than the answers they give.   Identifying what someone wants to know rather than what someone wants to tell.   

Words for many professions and individuals are also something to hide behind.  All areas of society hide behind words, being strategically obtuse to sell a product, a service, gain a customer, client or voter, in order to win.  Winning meaning short term financial gain and probable long term financial gain.  

And who am I to judge?  As a writer I play with words, for financial gain as well, although my aim is not to deceive but to inform, entertain and reveal and change perspective.  I deal in women's fiction, yoga books and travel, hardly subjects which lead to litigation.  Usually.  I like the way I am able to express myself with - usually - more care than I do when I speak.   I need to engage brain before I write, whereas when I speak, I am frequently thinking I shouldn't have said something, or said it in a different way.   

The Finish and Japanese are thought of as enigmatic as they don't do small talk.  They think before they speak.  I found out with my research recently, this is possibly because their language, the intricacy of it, forces them to engage with what and how they are saying it. How it sounds, and when they write, how they place the words.  With Japanese in particular it is more like an art form. Poetry also transcends into art, putting the right words in the wrong places, and challenging the brain to think from another perspective and question their own. I like those poets who invented words and played with structure and style.  At Cambridge I learnt from the poet in residence Mariah Whelan, about how to structure poems and that helped me enormously with how I think and express how I feel.  

Learning other languages helps you to understand how we bastardise our own.  Studying language this way and also acknowledging how language limits our ability to learn how to not only think, but feel and express, limits our ability to think, feel and express unless of course we are artists.  Artists push the boundaries and express words which have yet to be created.  A multi sensual experience broadening the mind to infinity and beyond..

Language by nature of its 'definition' and even didactic 'dictionary' of this is what this word means and this is what that words means, is fixed and specific, until it is not.  Academic language is precise to the point of when it is being read, it is like drinking condensed soup.   Each word counts.  But then I was taught the same in journalism.   When you only have fifty words to 'play' with, getting the hook, the angle, the zeitgeist of the piece needs to pack a punch.  The antithesis of condensed soup. More Pringle sweet spot. 

Some semantics are obvious as language meaning evolves, or perception evolves even when the word does not.  Fit used to be mean put in place, then healthy, then handsome.   Language is narrow, just as math is narrow.   A house is a place to live, as two plus two equals four.  Although a house is many other things to different people. What one person would consider a home, another would consider a hovel, another would consider a safe haven. Same word has multiple perspectives and means different things to different people. The word has not changed but the meaning has.   In much the same way, the physician will tell you two plus two does not equal four.  But that's a different blog.  Everything including language and words, our use of words evolves.   Watch how texting has shortened words, and put words into images, which people understand as if by code.  Words and images becoming a short hand code of connection, fast food for the brain, not encouraging us to think, but to consume words as we do everything, devaluing their substance by narrowing their sense. 

The word may have been the bond in the City, but then they decide what the word is.   Politicians deflate words by merely uttering them, turning them to dust as they dilute their value and authenticity.  I remember Liz Truss repeating 'deliver' over and over again, and now when anyone says it I sense it is a sign of the reverse happening.   Politicians like tabloid editors, use their intellect to antagonise and at public school use their debating skills to manipulate the words of others against themselves.  Media focus on attack, gimmick and human interest. Look at the headlines over the past ten years - on any one day and it will focus on war, war, war, war, war.   Conflict of some sort. Covid was a brief respite but that was conflict on an another level. Fighting against nature which is sick of warmongering.  Words in the media are used to confuse, distract, deny, conceal, detract under the guise of reveal, entertain, inform, reveal and change perspective.   But what is the difference between 'change perspective' and 'manipulate perspective' - its tone and inference.  

Those who are able to chose and use words to best effect, who cast a spell, are listened to.   Boris Johnson was adept at it proving the best orators are also but not always the most proficient and practiced liars and manipulators.  Or as he would view it, storytellers. Or fibbers. Or being strategically obtuse for the greater good.