Exam Break 4 June, 2009
Posted by simonkaye in Random bleatings.add a comment
Clearly, this site is on a hiatus until I’ve finished/recovered from the LSE’s absurd assessment process (I’m referring to the way they pack 75% of all assessment into the space of two weeks).
Until normal service resumes, here are some of the links I’ve been finding, enjoying and sometimes plastering on facebook.
- CETAPHOBIA: the unreasonable fear of whales. These people are probably not fans of Star Trek IV, then (some genius has actually subtitled the Whales communicating with the canneloni-shaped probe thing. Brilliant).
- SCHUMPETER successfully name-dropped at the Wall Street Journal Website. These things make me happy. I even braved WSJ’s anti-internet-ness to write a glowing comment.
- HOLMES movie actually looks to be extremely entertaining. Huge fan of Conan-Doyle myself, and he’d have hated this, but… you know. Still awesome.
- BEST job in the world?
Okay. Now wish me luck, everyone. Will update properly when I am free (and not writing essays about freedom).
The New Old Journalism 9 May, 2009
Posted by simonkaye in Blogs, Internet, Media, Movies, News, Politics, current affairs.Tags: journalism, Magazines, new media, News, newspapers, Politics, press, State of Play, Warren Ellis
add a comment
“The next ten or fifteen years in this country are going to be a halcyon era for state and local political corruption. It is going to be one of the great times to be a corrupt politician.”
These words were uttered at a hearing in the heart of Political America recently. You can see it, and an interview with Ariana Huffington of the Huffington Post, over on this webcast of a segment from MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’.
Oh yes; journalism (its nature, its state) isn’t just making news at the moment; it’s in the news. The rise of the ‘blogosphere’ has been a perennial issue for some time; as a journalism student I saw many well-known journalists speak and the one topic that they all always came back to was the changing face of their trade in the age of new media.
Alan Rusbridger failed to convince with an almost-powerpoint about how the Guardian’s transition to the ‘Berliner’ format was an attempt to shore up sales while papers do the job of convincing people that their coverage is worth actually paying for (I think I’ve complained about his talk before…). Of the writers, ‘columnist’ Polly Toynbee was particularly derisive of this challenge to her status as arch-opinion-former.
It’s at the movies, too. State of Play (which is excellent) feeds off the in-house tension between a veteran political reporter who types onto a dark screen with two fingers at a time and the young thing behind his paper’s attempt to survive online. When Crowe’s character says “You think I’m over-fed, too expensive and take way too long”, he isn’t simply referring to himself. Newspapers now cost around £1 a day in this country (which almost legitimises my ever-more-frequent splashing out for the International Herald Tribune, at closer to a quid-fifty). Why pay that to read news that was only fresh ten hours ago?

The Independent, under Simon Kelner, tried something new. Objectivity? Who needs it! News is subjective. Importance is relative. Everyone writing this paper is human; let’s not pretend we don’t have opinions. The result was the ‘viewspaper’, a concept which has slipped away somewhat since the start of Roger Alton’s reign (he prefers the more old-fashioned approach of decorating the pages with beautiful women. They “basically make the world a better place”, after all). Today I’m not quite clear whether the ‘viewspaper’ ever made the Indie into anything more than the Express of the left.
The recent outcry over Swine Flu panics on the Internet allowed every traditional-media commentator to point out what they perceive to be the inferiority of blogs, and twitter, and social networking sites. If it’s not edited, it’s not safe. No-one making this claim can have seen some of the front-page headlines I saw a week ago. “Swine Flu to kill 91,000 Londoners” is a personal favourite.
Newspapers are not immune to misjudgments, errors, factual inconsistencies and unqualified opinions. It’s pretty ironic to see the stalwarts of the printed-press attacking new information-distribution systems for inflating problems or being hysterical when the very slump in sales caused by new media is the driving force behind the popularisation, dumbing-down and spectacle-seeking that practically every newspaper I can think of has been moving towards (though I do feel inclined to point out my belief that the USA’s daily printed media are of a sustained quality compared to the papers here in the UK).
The current, excellent issue of Prospect magazine (I know, I keep linking to them) mounts a debate around and defence of ’serious journalism’. More here.
This seems particularly timely as the Telegraph, mocked and criticised (Private Eye calls it the ‘Maily Telegraph’) for its massive staff cuts and new-found interest in celebrity nonsense, dominates everyone’s news-schedules for the second day running. Its comprehensive investigation into and explanation of Parliament’s flawed expenses system is an absolute must-read, clearly the product of prolonged research, and a genuine scoop. Are there mistakes? Of course. Dozens, I’m sure (it’s still worthwhile).
But, crucially, The Huffington Post probably couldn’t get away with this many factual issues or slightly-libellous claims without compromising its standards. I’m simply not convinced that we hold our more established online news-sources to a lower standard than we do our printed media. I’d personally trust a twitter feed more readily than an editorial in the Express.
Warren Ellis advised us in last month’s Wired (another great magazine) not to trust the new media as a source of news. Why? Because online news providers “have no interest in their minimum-wage blogmonkeys thinking about anything bigger than their hitcount”. But how, precisely, does this differ from the editors and writers of the modern-day newspaper, faced with shrinking sales and deflating advertising revenues?
Things move quickly in this new world. Amazon’s Kindle, the most successful of the e-ink reader systems, is moving toward a larger format that can more effectively accommodate the big pages of newspapers and journals. The days of getting ink on our fingers may well be numbered, and this would be no bad thing for an environment that needs its trees.
Are newspapers going to disappear? No. They’ll change, they’ll be forced to adapt. I personally think they’ll become more like magazines. I’m reading more magazines now than I have at any other time in my life; I’ve referred to at least three different magazines right here in this article.
To return to the quote at the top of this blog – is the decline of the traditional media really going to undermine the accountability of the political world? People thought this way when radio hit newspapers, and again when television hit newspapers. The truth is that it has become harder to do wrong, and to get away with it, than ever before. This fact raises ethical issues of its own.
But let us not delude ourselves that ’serious journalism’ plays some quasi-constitutional role that more democratic systems of reportage cannot match.
Star Trek Reboot (impressions/review/love-letter) 8 May, 2009
Posted by simonkaye in Media, Movies, Reviews, Science Fiction, TV.Tags: Film, Movies, Review, Sci Fi, Science Fiction, Star Trek, TV
2 comments
My dad introduced me to Star Trek. As a child, my brain was quickly filled up with the incredible idealism, aspiration and earnest good-nature at the heart of the show. I loved it. I loved the original series best of all, but the others were just great, too. I memorised the technical manual. I subscribed to the ‘Fact Files’ for years (though they contained very few ‘facts’).
Voyager was the beginning of the end for this love-affair. Maybe it was just a matter of timing – maybe I started to see how often the plots were being recycled, got to that stage in adolescence where cynicism overpowers optimism. The films took a turn for the worse, as well. Enterprise… well, Enterprise just had an appalling theme tune. I’ve been secretly trying to chew my way through the supposedly less-awful third season for a while now, and it’s tough going.
To cut to the chase, I lost interest. Th0ugh whole sectors of my brain remain dedicated to the layout of Deck 17’s Jeffrey’s Tubes and the middle name of Picard’s brother’s wife’s Tribble, I felt alienated from the show and the films. It seemed stolid, unrealistic, badly written and lazy. And to think that I could have learnt a language instead (no, I don’t count Klingon).
So just as it’s impossible to explain fully what a Star Trek obsession meant to this bullied little boy, it’s very hard to outline quite what put me off, either. But my dad? He was there before me, and he stuck around after I moved on as well. So it was clearly paramount (phnarr) that he and I see this latest entry together.
Let me try to put this in context: dad wore a T-shirt to the screening. On this T-shirt: a massive front-and-back image of Quark the Ferengi’s snaggle-toothed face, and a bit of text outlining some of the Rules of Acquisition. My dad can put most geeks to shame. He’s been doing it for a lot longer, to be fair.
A curious fact: out of all Star Trek, the original series has aged the least. It’s design ethic and budget are so clearly from a different age of television that the clunk and quirk that seem inexcusable in the more recent series are instantly forgiven. The writing is fantastic in places, some of the science fiction ideas are real classics, and the central triumvirate of Kirk, Spock and McCoy (the holy trinity; the warrior, the mage and the cleric; the ego, the superego and the id) still sparkles on today.
It’s these mechanics that the new film had to live up to, really: the emotional and science-fiction heart of Trek that has kept the first series fresh for decades. Or so I thought. (I’m actually moving into a review now, honest).
This film has no ’science fiction’ in it. It’s purest fantasy. There’s no exploration of philosophy, future politics, moral dilemmas or the like. And it doesn’t spend a hell of a lot of time developing characters, either. This is not the film of the original series. This is, in fact, the film that would be made from the original series if there had never been any films or spin-offs.
Draw a line right after the last episode of Season 3 of Kirk’s adventures. Or perhaps after Spock’s death in the Wrath of Khan. (Or, okay, just after the end of the third film). Now build a movie.
What’s the upshot? It makes Star Trek magical again. I’m not going to witter on about how it relates to the post-Obama optimism of a new era or helps us forget our credit-crunched woes. It’s a good film because it has surprising reverence for the mythology that gives Trekkers wet-dreams – and successfully translates the stylistic and historical essence of Trek into a modern, self-aware cinematic language.
For the record, I’m wondering if this is the first in-universe reboot in the history of cinema. We are tied to the timeline we remember, and all deviations from it are excused, in one elegant sweep of J.J.Abrams’ pen. It’s the best possible utilisation and acceptance of everything that’s come before: this is the timeline that we want. It’s the utopia, Dr Pangloss’s best of all possible worlds. Our understanding of all other Star Trek forms the emotional weight for this reboot.
This is just as well, because the film could use another ten minutes of character moments and dialogue. Who thought that anyone would ever write that about a Star Trek film?
Any other problems? Well, the Macguffins arguably fly a little too thick and too fast. There are few attempts to make plausible the ‘magical’ parts of the plot. What the hell is this ‘red matter’? I understand the appeal of just being shown what it can do, and the urgent need to minimise on technobabble. But… it’s unsatisfying. Similarly, our Romulan baddie, while overall very competently played by Eric Bana, seems to have minimal motivation for chasing Spock through time and blowing up whole worlds, Death-Star style (by the way, I love that his ship is just some miner in the future and it can totally outgun everything in Kirk’s era. I also love the idea of destroying a planet by making a big hole in it and planting a black hole). Yes, Romulus was destroyed. But Spock tried to save it. It’s not enough to say that you’ve spent a couple of decades “forgetting normal life”.
I have every expectation that this sort of problem is solved by the accompanying prequel comic-books, but the film ought to sort out motivations properly, at least.
Spock is more emotional in this film than in his previous incarnations. The attempt to explain this seems to be based on his fundamental decision to go to Starfleet instead of try for the Kohlinar, the ceremony that’s supposed to eradicate emotion altogether. But it’s still a departure. In fact, of all the new actors approaches to the classic roles, I think I find Zachary Quinto’s the most difficult to swallow.
But I’m nitpicking really. This is a great film, and it’s clearly being positioned to replace Star Wars and fill that yawning gap for big budget sci-fi adventures. It’s charming and funny.
I love that Kirk’s cheat on the Kobayashi-Maru is finally shown to us. I love that the new Enterprise is gorgeous. I love the way the film starts with a bang, and ends with an awesome version of the original theme tune (thanks, mr. Giacchino). I look forward to the rest of the trilogy (please please please).
Last word: my dad, more suspicious of this ‘rebooting’ nonsense than I, said that he loved it. Let’s just trust him on that.
Swine Flu: Is Twitter our global immune system? 27 April, 2009
Posted by simonkaye in Blogs, Internet, Media, News, Science Fiction, comics, current affairs.Tags: Blogs, Immune System, Internet, Nervous System, News, Swine Flu, Twitter, Web
6 comments
Evgeny Morozov, who writes an unmissable blog for Foreign Policy, makes a more important criticism of twitter’s current role, suggesting that it’s providing more disinformation than anything else – but also mentions the possibility that the internet could work as a fantastic finder and predictor of emerging biological threats. With the increasing integration of mobile phones and other devices, the internet ceases to be merely our nervous system, and emerges as a component of a global immune system.
Prospect Magazine (for whom I once worked! woo!) have put online a fascinating article: Mark Honigsbaum writes about the means of catching pandemics early. He points out that Swine Flu may well have been abroad in Mexico for a few weeks before the news broke in any meaningful way online. More importantly, his assertion is that the nature of the internet renders it less useful for disease detection – underinformed or worried searchers on google, for example, would distort the information on a given outbreak. Or, to extrapolate from this: the internet is too open, too democratic to operate as an even quasi-scientific virus catcher.
The logical outcome of this – and explicitly suggested by the above – is that the brains behind Twitter and Google and the rest turn their attention to a reserved system of aggregating relevant information for the purposes of planetary self-defence and early warning.
I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this recommendation. The advantage of the internet as it stands is that it is simply the broadest information-exchange ever constructed. I don’t see how a more limited network could articulate the information more quickly.
Swine Flu is surely the most quickly discovered and shared potential-pandemic that we’ve ever seen. If it had started in a western country, it would have broken out on Twitter within moments (though there is weight to the counter-argument that, hey, these things start in poorer countries were internet access is more rare. But that is changing…)
As for informational quality – well, this is a perrenial problem anyway. I’m not sure how comfortable I am with the blind assumption that vetted, ‘establishment’ data is always preferable.
Systems such as Digg and others have an almost marketised hierarchy built-in. The preferences of many translate into the emergence of decent and flawed information: it’s all available, but it’s clearly sorted. Such a system is clearly the next step for micro-blogging as well.
This is the kind of thinking that reminds me of David Brin’s Earth, which posited an emerging planet-wide sentience. In effect, this is a far simpler idea: our ‘intelligent’ superstructure is conscious only as its individual, reporting components are. It’s the beginnings of a hive-mind.
So – I won’t be so quick to sneer at the torrents of little fears, hopes, jokes, and links that pour through twitter on the theme of Swine Flu. It may be our fastest defence against the next big pandemic - whether that’s tomorrow, or twenty years away.
Kettling – More Than Crowd Control 27 April, 2009
Posted by simonkaye in News, Politics, current affairs, law.Tags: Boris Johnson, G20, Kettle, Kettling, law, London, News, Police, Politics, protests, riots, uk law, uk politics
1 comment so far
The morning of Thursday April 1st hinted at the unseasonably warm and sunny weather that was to come.
As the throngs of protesters began their marches and vigils in London, they had no way of knowing just how much of that long, hot day they were going to end up spending outdoors, without food, water, or freedom of movement. Neither did the majority of the thousands of people who had come to make themselves heard as the G20 convened in an anonymous-looking convention centre elsewhere in London.
Much has already been said and written about the crowd-control tactic of ‘Kettling’. It caused a flurry of consternation in 2001 when the police deployed a solid line of men around a group of May Day protesters in Oxford Circus and constricted the mass of people within.

The cordon in action
The debate which followed culminated in a legal ruling, just this year – that the use of the kettling tactic had been legitimate. Clearly the London police forces have taken this precedent to heart: if it was fair in one case, then it is fair game in every other.
So perhaps it should have been no surprise when mounted police first charged the ranks of protesters, and then a line of batons and riot shields enveloped the crowd entirely. Until that moment, the police had behaved calmly and professionally.
Some people spend the whole day in the kettle; eight hours and more. An elderly couple, completely unassociated with the protesters, had become trapped with the rest: they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The police did not countenance letting that couple out; neither did they allow a journalist to leave, despite his obviously possessing the relevant credentials. Families, including small children, were treated no differently. No excuse would do: one person urgently needed to meet an ill relative in order to care for her, but the line remained closed. A man with a broken arm was allowed medical attention – but his friend was not allowed to go with him.
Right now we are all appalled by the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson, and at the footage of his being struck by a police officer moments beforehand. The investigation into this matter must proceed. But we must not lose sight of the broader actions that the police undertook the very same day. ‘Kettling’ should come under similar review.
The police seem to believe that a protest has become unlawful, and therefore suppressible, if it starts to block roads and obstruct thoroughfares.
The majority of the actual violence and vandalism that took place can be traced back to the confrontational atmosphere which settled upon the demonstrators as a result of their incarceration. Where before the miscreants and troublemakers had been a tiny minority, the thousands of people alienated by a seemingly uncaring police force were liable to become angry and even aggressive – and that’s exactly what happened.
The police have forgotten that one legal ruling cannot constitute a permanent bending of civil rights law. There are serious implications to what happened that day, from the insensitive group-think of the police to the simple restriction on freedom of movement, which is regarded everywhere as a fundamental human right.
Boris Johnson is wrong. This police tactic was disproportionate and unfair to the vast majority of protesters, who had legitimate concerns and sought only to voice them, quite legally.
Is there anybody left who seriously questions whether ‘kettling’ should be banned from the Police toolkit of crowd control tactics?
Big Fat Redesign 26 April, 2009
Posted by simonkaye in Random bleatings.3 comments
Tell me what you think about it. Much cleaner and brighter, I hope, and much easier to read without eye-strain.
No more cycling-gif header though. Did anyone ever notice it in the first place?
Let me know if you preferred the old format, and I’ll switch it back.
Starcraft Lecture 26 April, 2009
Posted by simonkaye in Academia, Games, Internet, Media, PC gaming, Science Fiction.Tags: Academia, Berkeley, game theory, Games, gaming, lectures, narrative, pc games, starcraft, Technology, Videogames
1 comment so far
On a slight tangent from the last piece:
A friend of mine on Facebook reminded me about Berkeley’s course on Starcraft and Game Theory. I tracked down this video of their first lecture. They all seem to be having a lot of fun.
This is probably of most interest to nerds who enjoy Game Theory experiments (like me!). But it’s an interesting interpretation of a strategy game, and the information they are deriving or modelling with it seems to have very little to do with narrative or story. Compare and contrast with MIT’s approach.
On a completely different topic – doesn’t that guy look too young to be a teacher? Must be a PhD student.





