You don't need to swear to be funny or get your point across

Something everyone should learn is from an article that caught my eye on the BBC website this evening by Clive James, where he talk about... the removal of swearing?

Indeed, because we're all a bit partial to slipping a curse word in to emphasise our point, even from managers to kids with no manners to grandmothers swear (when they do I make the sign of the cross for the very sin of letting one slip), what if we just took them out.

Frank Skinner did so at one of his stand up gigs once. No one noticed. Maybe we should cut it out too, and not stain our childrens' souls with language that would turn the air blue.

Read what Clive James had to say here

"I could have 300 siblings" and new credit crunched cars

An emotional piece in the Guardian today about a woman speaking on siblings of donated sperm. While adoption is something people are more familiar with. I guess you never think about children of donated sperm because the biological father doesn't have to be on the birth certificate. It's interesting medium-length reading.

It turns out if you fancy bartering on a new car, dealers are willing to bend backwards to any offer you make according to this article in the Mail.

The origins of text speak (txt spk)

Ah to be going through stacked copies of newspaper supplements I never got round to reading.
As it so happens, txt spk has been around far longer than you may have thought. That's right. Even Dickens used it!

If you thought txt spk is "dsgstng" due to it's lack of vowels and punctuation, check out this article I found in the Guardian Review earlier:

2b or not 2b

It's an extract from the writer's book Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. I'm sure he appreciates my plugging of his product :)

The TIMES is the new GUARDIAN (Don't judge me)

A bit of comment/reflection here.

Photo taken and copyrighted to me!

I like to read the Guardian. Good photojournalism, well laid out, not too big, yet not too small, so I can read it on the tube.

And I like to think that people don't think I'm a conservative bastard that reads The Mail, or a patriotic wanker that reads The Sun. Or illiterate because I read The Daily Sport (I don't). Because political implications lie within the paper you read, if you actually concentrate on what the newspaper's values are.

Now, I don't like the fact that Rupert Murdoch controls so much of our media, which is why I try not to support his causes too much. Okay, I have a MySpace, but I don't have Sky!

And at first I didn't like reading The Times, because I thought it was too professionally elite for me - all those pages of shares and stocks, etcetera, etcetera.

Yet as of recent I'm picking it up more often (99p book promotion as well), and its the main newspaper I'm using to find stories for my blog! AND its in tabloid format!

So I just want the world to know: Although I dig some of the stories it has, and credit where it's due, they are interesting, I am not a pro-Times reader. I don't pick it up because I stand for its beliefs, and I'm not reading it to impress anyone - I read newspapers in full hoodies and tracksuit bottoms - who is anyone to judge!?

I will always like to have my name associated with The Guardian, because they're probably the best British paper and follow my interests - breakdance made the cover of The Guide a fortnight ago!

"Owned by no one. Free to say anything" - The Guardian

Looking at their marketing site though, I can see it will be bloody hard ever writing for my heroes.

Still, I thought I'd draw your attention to it.

And before signing off: my choice of newspaper for any particular day can also sometimes be swayed by either the front page headlines, supplements or giveaways, or on which money-off vouchers I have on me at the time.

Sunday's stories

Sadly there wasn't much in yesterday's papers that interested me too much to write about. I had News Of The World (like I buy that pap[er]) and The Observer (with free CD!).

News Of The World had next to no news in it at all. I could read about Macca making homeless jibes at his ex-wife (Paul MacCartney to you and I), but frankly I don't give a toss.

The Observer (obviously) had the proper news in it, reports, spotlight reviews etc, but it made me want to put my feet up and read under a lampshade, the laid-back Sunday paper that it is.

A bit of flicking through brought me to one article that interested me, "Don't exaggerate climate dangers, scientists warn."

And, my fellow scholars, its all too true.
Don't you hate it how Hollywood makes you think some things are true? Blockbuster special effects, landscapes of an apocalyptic nature, and a script that has been meticulously researched to make it as scientifically legitimate as possible?

According to leading climate change experts and findings from the charitable trust Sense About Science, Hollywood confuses the idea of global warming too much in its films. The Guardian named the blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow" as an example.

It is only too true, when you concentrate on these films properly. How exactly is a huge catastrophe really going to happen overnight? A small breeze turns into a tornado that becomes a hurricane that stirs a tsunami that wipes out New York City? Only on a Hollywood set!

The argument put forth is that films make out "catastrophic events were likely when this could not be proved." So, scientifically, with all the research behind it, its fictional fact, if you can excuse my oxymoron.

Alas, journalists cannot escape the criticisms either.

The media, like Hollywood are "appealing to fear" to push more dramatic headlines and grab readers' attention. Recent reporting on the recent study written by the UN International Panel on Climate Change used the words 'devastating,' catastrophic and 'terrifying' even though the study does not use such terms.
Here I quote Hardaker, one of the experts who wrote the report (download here):

"Once you begin to exaggerate the science in either direction the debate gets out of control"

So we are getting confused by what we see or read, because scaremongering and fact gets mixed up. What we watch or read about is in fact removed from reality, as Sense About Science puts
some claims to rest at the bottom of The Guardian's article.

What have I got out of this article? Firstly, newspapers, the industry I'd someday like to make it into exaggerate a bit too much. I mean, I knew that anyway. But the urgency it puts into these headlines - STOP CLIMATE CHANGE NOW! - it makes me wonder how they come up with the next day's news if that's all that can be reported on! Today: sunshine and clear skies, tomorrow: APOCALYPSE!
Finally, I learned of a new word, "Hollywoodisation"


What the bloggers said:
Some news bloggers are so lazy.
Mrs Doyle copied-and-pasted the Guardian article straight into her blog (probably too busy making tea for Father Ted), but she managed to research Sense About Science (copying-and-pasting their the text) from their donors and funding policy page.
She types (throughout, rarely!):

"Sense about Science is largely funded by industry and corporations from it’s own website"

"It also lobbies government on other controversial issues such as GM, nuclear, renewable energy, and endeavours to becoming a leading source for the media in these and other issue."

Good findings.

Peter at Junkk Male has thrown in the towel with blogging on global warming, linking to the Guardian's article. Good for him, he points out we can probably never win with global warming, therefore blogging about it is a waste of time!

Which rounds off today's blog.

PEACE

Go straight to "RETAIL JAIL!"

I wont lie. I like 5-finger discounts. Anything I can get for free, I'll have it. Pointless or petty.

For no reason at all I'll pocket small things from big corporations, like jacking the occasional sugar sachet or five from Starbucks.

Okay, I'm no criminal! I have enough money to get me by, and I don't see myself having enough courage to swipe something expensive. I'd get in a lot of trouble and get a criminal record and all my future employers would see it and I'd be ashamed of getting caught.

Well now Selfridges have set up cells in their stores on Oxford street to detain any would-be shoplifters. The story even made the front page of The Guardian ('Ground floor perfumery, stationery ... and cells') on Thursday.

The police will be given extended powers to take fingerprints and DNA at the scene while detainees are kept in the cells for up to four hours in a perspex box, so they are visible to the public.

The idea behind it is to hold suspects long enough for their identities to be taken, and to take police out of the office and onto the streets to deal with the crime, not at the stations processing low-level paperwork. Having the suspects on display should act as a deterrent (it certainly works for me)

I was surprised to see this story didn't pick up as much attention as I thought it would, although I admit I'm only checking online versions of newspapers as I didn't read that day's paper until the next morning.
The Sun picked it up, though, as did The Times.

What the bloggers said:
Surprisingly I couldn't find a lot of web comments linking back to the Guardian's story, as most just quoted the entire story in their postings, although I did find:

Londonist in reaction to the headline called their post "Cellfridges"
There's a nice quote there playing on Selfridges' old slogan 'Why not spend the day at Selfridges?'
Funny people!

The phone-in fiasco : the votes are in!

ITV Play is to be axed!