I just realised that I may accidentally have caused some confusion in my recent post about shaving. The more lynx-eyed and elephant-memoried among you will recall that I mentioned a badger hair brush.
Not soon afterwards, I was asked how one could obtain a badger hair-brush, and I realied the unintentional ambiguity. Let me clarify my meaning once and for all, by putting the hyphen in the right place.
What one needs is a badger-hair brush. Badgers are notoriously fond of their hair-brushes, and not unreasonably, since they do have so much hair. They are therefore loathe to part with them, even when asked nicely.
In fact it is an astonishing fact that a badger hair-brush is very nearly as good (for shaving a human) as is a badger-hair brush. Owing, however, to the difficulty inherent in obtaining one of the former, and their consequent rarity, I would suggest using a badger-hair brush.
Friday 20 July 2007
Newsworthy?
For those of you who have recently returned from a prolonged period of meditation in a very secluded cave, let me mention that hte final 'Harry Potter' book is being released this week. It is worth noting that no other books, to my knowledge, are 'released' in this manner. They are written; then they are published; and then, as and when individual booksellers see fit, they are sold. Or rather, they are offered for sale, and many, of course, do not sell.
In the case of the 'Harry Potter' books, of course, these steps are often put out of sequence. The books are writtend, then sold, then printed, and then distributed. That's somehwat odd, to begin with. But now, thanks to the New York Times, they have become just like other books in one way: the book being relased tomorrow was reviewed before it appeared in bookstores.
Let us consider this story for a moment.
The New York Times, one of the most highly respected papers on the planet, increased its readership, and made headlines around the world, by reviewing a children's book.
All bookshops that wanted to sell the book were asked by the publisher to sign contracts saying that they wouldn't sell it before tomorrow. So the shop that sold a copy to the Times was not doing anything illegal, but it was breaking a contract. Similarly, the Times itself broke no laws, but did knowingly purchase a book from a shop which was not contractually allowed to sell it. Whatever one's view one such morally grey areas, one must surely be surprised that the Times would be seen to act so seedily. This sort of behaviour is more becoming of a tabloid or a less reputable news source eager for mor exposure. Of course, we can dismiss the claims made by many that this somehow spoils a surprise for readers, since no one is at all compelled to read the Times.
No, the real issue here is why on earth this is news-worthy. Why did a prestigious paper involve itself in a transaction of dubious morality simply to bring a book review to the public's notice?
Some of you may remember the debacle over a series of inflamatory, supposedly anti-Muslim, cartoons that appeared in a Danish paper in the autumn of 2005. They were prominently discussed for many weeks. But the amazing thing is that almost no major western news media ever re-printed the cartoons.
So for months people discussed cartoons that were called offensive, without knowing how offensive they were, or why. At the time, many newspapers excused their bizzare, to put it mildly, behaviour by conflating it with sensitivity. Most said that, oh yes, they were all in favour of people knowing what all the fuss was about, but unfortunately it would not be just too mean to re-publish the cartoons. The Times, however, showed no such hesitation. It proudly announced that they were not newsworthy, and that they had been found to be offensive by the editorial staff of the Times.
Curiouser and curiouser.
This is something of a new twist in the old debate about the place of the media in an increasingly internet-ised world. It is, of course, necssary for the editors of media to deicde which stories to discuss each day by some selective proccess. This will inevitably involve a degree of subjectivity. And this will, in its turn, lead to some people being happy with the selection, and others unhappy. But the ommission of some news is incontrovertibly necessary because of the finiteness of the space or time available. One man's meat is another man's dead animal tissue, and so on. Conflicting points of view, don't you know.
But during the debate about the cartoons, so many thousands of words were spent discussing the issues that it simply seems ludicrous and inexplicably that the cartoons themselves were never shown. They were made to seem so important that it would have been reasonable to cut anything else, even the Times' banner and masthead, to fit them in.
In the case of the 'Harry Potter' books, of course, these steps are often put out of sequence. The books are writtend, then sold, then printed, and then distributed. That's somehwat odd, to begin with. But now, thanks to the New York Times, they have become just like other books in one way: the book being relased tomorrow was reviewed before it appeared in bookstores.
Let us consider this story for a moment.
The New York Times, one of the most highly respected papers on the planet, increased its readership, and made headlines around the world, by reviewing a children's book.
All bookshops that wanted to sell the book were asked by the publisher to sign contracts saying that they wouldn't sell it before tomorrow. So the shop that sold a copy to the Times was not doing anything illegal, but it was breaking a contract. Similarly, the Times itself broke no laws, but did knowingly purchase a book from a shop which was not contractually allowed to sell it. Whatever one's view one such morally grey areas, one must surely be surprised that the Times would be seen to act so seedily. This sort of behaviour is more becoming of a tabloid or a less reputable news source eager for mor exposure. Of course, we can dismiss the claims made by many that this somehow spoils a surprise for readers, since no one is at all compelled to read the Times.
No, the real issue here is why on earth this is news-worthy. Why did a prestigious paper involve itself in a transaction of dubious morality simply to bring a book review to the public's notice?
Some of you may remember the debacle over a series of inflamatory, supposedly anti-Muslim, cartoons that appeared in a Danish paper in the autumn of 2005. They were prominently discussed for many weeks. But the amazing thing is that almost no major western news media ever re-printed the cartoons.
So for months people discussed cartoons that were called offensive, without knowing how offensive they were, or why. At the time, many newspapers excused their bizzare, to put it mildly, behaviour by conflating it with sensitivity. Most said that, oh yes, they were all in favour of people knowing what all the fuss was about, but unfortunately it would not be just too mean to re-publish the cartoons. The Times, however, showed no such hesitation. It proudly announced that they were not newsworthy, and that they had been found to be offensive by the editorial staff of the Times.
Curiouser and curiouser.
This is something of a new twist in the old debate about the place of the media in an increasingly internet-ised world. It is, of course, necssary for the editors of media to deicde which stories to discuss each day by some selective proccess. This will inevitably involve a degree of subjectivity. And this will, in its turn, lead to some people being happy with the selection, and others unhappy. But the ommission of some news is incontrovertibly necessary because of the finiteness of the space or time available. One man's meat is another man's dead animal tissue, and so on. Conflicting points of view, don't you know.
But during the debate about the cartoons, so many thousands of words were spent discussing the issues that it simply seems ludicrous and inexplicably that the cartoons themselves were never shown. They were made to seem so important that it would have been reasonable to cut anything else, even the Times' banner and masthead, to fit them in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)