Jesus breaks down barriers
27 March 2011
Jesus breaks down barriers
John 4 5-42
It occurs to me that reading the Bible is like watching American Football.
[OK, I’m not sure how this analogy is going to work – but stick with me!]
I’ve been watching American Football for quite a while now, and I think that I understand a lot about the game and what’s going on.
• I know the difference between a touch-down and a touch-back;
• I can tell a Nose Tackle from an Offensive Tackle,
• a Full Back from a Tight End.
• I even know that a “Hail Mary” in football is different from a “Hail Mary” in church – although not that different: they both involve praying!
But sometimes during a game, something happens that I really don’t understand. (I am English, after all!)
Fortunately, because of the wonders of the Internet, I’m in touch with quite a few fans of my team – the Green Bay Packers [by the way, did I mention that we won the Superbowl this year?!]
These are fans who know all there is to know about the team, and who have grown up watching and playing the game. If there’s anything I need to know, they can explain it to me!
• You see, sometimes, however much you think you know, the only way to fully understand something is to be part of the culture.
• And that’s where our gospel reading this morning comes in: the story of Jesus and the Woman at the Well.
It’s a remarkable story, but it needed footnotes even at the time it was first written down. The writer explains in v 9 that “Jews do not associate with Samaritans”.
That, as they say, is an understatement!
By Jesus’ time, and for hundreds of years before, there was an intense, historic hatred between Jews and Samaritans. We can’t really understand what Jesus was doing – unless we realise that.
In fact, you have to have grown up in the culture to appreciate the power of what was happening. We like to joke a bit about the rivalry between Yorkshire and Lancashire (at least, I think it’s a joke!) but think how things were just after the Wars of the Roses.
And more than that, Jesus was taking on another social taboo. The woman was … well … a woman!
She, herself, is astounded. She says to Jesus:
“You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (Jn 4:9)
There is so much in this passage from John’s gospel, but perhaps nothing is more remarkable than the very fact that the encounter takes place at all!
The disciples certainly get the point – notice what happens when they come back.
“Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no-one asked, ‘What do you want?’ or ‘Why are you talking with her?’” (Jn 4:27)
They were obviously used to Jesus doing this sort of thing – defying social convention. They may have muttered to each other “There he goes again”, but they certainly didn’t challenge him.
But there’s one more thing about this encounter which makes it even more remarkable: Jesus knows that the woman is an outcast, even among Samaritans.
She has come to the well in the heat of the day. It would have been normal for the women to gather together early in the morning, or in the cool of the evening, when the work wouldn’t have been quite so hard. But she comes to the well at noon, when she can be sure to be alone.
She was accustomed to the whispering wherever she went, having been used and discarded by so many men of the village – and this in a culture in which there was little if any privacy, and gossip spread quickly. And yet, see how Jesus treats her.
As Sarah Dylan Breuer notes:
“Jesus addresses her in the same terms as he addressed his mother [earlier in John’s gospel]. He meets a woman who couldn't be more of an outsider, and he receives her as an insider, an intimate, who has no cause for shame. He brings up her past, and her present, not to shame her, but to take away their power, … showing how little they affect how Jesus and the God he proclaims receive her.”
The living water that Jesus offers the woman, and all those who follow him, is powerful stuff! It makes possible fullness of life – a new quality of life and relationships. Where Jesus is present, barriers are broken down.
Which is all well and good in the culture of 1st century Palestine – but what about us? Jesus is present with us, today. We are his followers – what is our experience?
Well, we are no different to people anywhere at any time. We know who our friends are; we tend to relate most easily to “people like us” – I know I do!
That’s quite natural, of course: there’s a level of comfort and security in that. But we all tend to define ourselves in comparison to others who are “not like us”. And the church behaves very much like the rest of society in that respect.
I think it’s immensely sad that the church, the followers of that same Jesus who met the woman at the well, is actually known far better for keeping barriers up than for breaking them down.
• We are known for our difficulty in accepting certain people.
• We are seen as those who claim exemption from equality laws,
• who put people into different categories,
• rather than doing as Jesus did – accepting everyone as human, created and loved by God.
That’s an exaggeration, of course. I suspect that no-one is quite as they are presented in the media.
But we do need to be careful that, however good our motives might be, we don’t manage to frustrate God’s persistent, transforming love for all people – the sort of love Jesus showed that Samaritan woman, who, by rights, he shouldn’t even have been talking to.
Inclusiveness is at the heart of the new way that Jesus calls us to.
That living water, that practical, accepting love shown by Jesus transformed the woman at the well. From being an outcast, she went back into her village and started telling all and sundry about her amazing man she’d met. “Could this be the Christ?” (v29). And she brought crowds of people back with her to meet him.
That same love can transform all our relationships – transform our churches, our communities, our world.
• Jesus sees each one of us, as he saw that woman – not judging us, but understanding and accepting us;
• and he makes it possible for us to share his love with others
• whatever the barriers might be.
See Sarah Dylan Breuer's Lectionary Blog for this reading: http://www.sarahlaughed.net/lectionary/2005/02/third_sunday_in.html
and also Walter Brueggemann, Charles B Cousar, Beverly R Gaventa, James D Newsome Texts for Preaching – Year A Westminster/John Knox Press 1995 p208
Labels: American Football, Church, Media, Theology
The Costs of the UK's "wolf pack" media system
A very intersting and perceptive article from the LSE's British Politics and Policy Blog
As Ed Miliband builds his new Labour front bench team without his talented and experienced older brother, Bart Cammaerts wonders if David Miliband’s purdah is just the latest cost of the UK’s strong, national media system and its personality-driven coverage of political life.Read the full article hereLabels: Media, Politics, Popular Culture
Why I'm not voting - yet!
It’s General Election Day here in the UK – and
I am not going to vote!
This is not some misguided protest – it’s simply that the election has been
postponed in our constituency - sadly because of the death of one of the candidates. Who knows what the situation will be by the time we get to vote on 27 May, in
the first by-election of the new parliament?!
Even so, it feels
decidedly strange not to be voting today – I almost feel guilty about it! As an adult,
I can’t remember an election day (of any sort) when I haven’t voted. But it’s good to know that, unlike many around the world, I will get my opportunity.
I am by temperament and tradition
a Labour supporter – sadly a rare breed in this part of the world – so any reflections I have need to be read with that in mind. But here are a few things that have struck me about the Election Campaign just finished.
I suspect that the
Prime Ministerial debates on TV (the first in UK history) have had a marked effect on the outcome of the election. They have certainly focussed media coverage even more closely on
the party leaders and their
styles, rather than on the
substance of policy.
However the remarkable fact is that, in spite of all the efforts of parties and their managers,
the polls have remained static. The one exception to that is, of course,
the striking improvement in Liberal Democrat ratings after the first TV debate – from which point it seems we have genuinely had
a 3 party contest.
Most remarkably, in spite of a
tame media, the Conservative leader
David Cameron’s previously unassailable lead in all opinion surveys not many months ago has now
dwindled to the point where he
may not even command a majority in the new Parliament.
The spectacle of the
Conservative Party campaigning on “Change” has seemed to me to be one of the
sick jokes of this campaign!
The clue is in the title, people: they’re Conservative! Cameron has been outflanked – why did he ever agree to the debates? – by Liberal Democrat leader
Nick Clegg, who actually
does propose
real change: including a much-needed change to our voting system.
Instead of coherent policies, Mr Cameron and his party are content to trot out a load of
hackneyed rubbish about the “evils” of “Big Government” which they contrast with an ill-defined, back-of-the-envelope sketch of a “Big Society”. This is
another sick joke to those of us who remember the leader who shaped the modern Conservative Party, Margaret Thatcher. Mrs Thatcher famously declared
“There is no such thing as society” and
governed on an “everyone for themselves” basis which laid much of the foundation for the grotesque conduct of today’s bankers.
The fact is that without the actions of “Big Government”, skilfully and courageously led by
Gordon Brown,
our banks would have failed and our economy gone down into a brutal Depression, taking the lives and life-chances of many, many people with it.
The Tories “hands off” approach to the banking crisis would have been truly disastrous – and yet now they tell us that Government is the problem!
But, as Mrs Thatcher’s pal Ronald Reagan would no doubt have said, there I go again! I have become a bore on these topics during the campaign –
ask my wife!
In the absence of a Labour Government, which really does seem to be beyond any reasonable expectation, my hope is that as a result of this election
a true progressive coalition will emerge:
a Government willing to govern for the good of the many and not the few. And, please, a Government determined to
change our dreadful electoral system – which it seems will be discredited still further by
any of the likely outcomes of today’s election.
I’d certainly vote for that on 27 May, if it were on the ballot paper!Labels: Media, Politics, Rant
The BBC, the BNP and politics as entertainment
This evening, the BBC will allow the leader of Britain's racist, fascist party, the BNP, to appear on its "Question Time" programme. Whilst I appreciate that this is a deeply controversial move, I have tended to agree with those who have argued that the best way to combat this objectionable party is to expose its representatives to public scrutiny. That way - the argument goes - they will be shown in their true light and people will be able to make an informed decision as to whether to vote for them.I was therefore particularly struck this morning by the comments of Diane Abbott. Ms Abbott is a current Labour MP and the first black woman to be elected to parliament in the UK. Moreover she is an insider in world of BBC political journalism, appearing regularly on the Corporation's "Daily Politics" programme (fronted by arch-Conservative Andrew Neil - hardly a poster-boy for balanced, impartial journalism).Ms Abbott says that "Question Time" is the wrong platform for the BNP. She goes on (my emphases):"If you are a black or Asian viewer tonight and you switch on the television and you see Nick Griffin on Question Time - it's not a programme that's going to scrutinise his views, it's not that sort of programme, it's politics as entertainment.
"The first time I went on Question Time was 22 years ago. People were really pleased - they didn't remember what I said but they saw a young black woman on Question Time and they thought 'Now black people are part of the mainstream'. That is the effect the BNP will get tonight, that's what they want from it, that's why they're so thrilled"Ms Abbott's view deserves serious attention, not least of course because, as a black woman, she understands the issues at stake infinitely better than I ever could. I suppose one might ask whether the BNP is actually elevated to the British political mainstream by its success in elections, rather than by the appearence of its representatives on the media. But the role of the BBC is more complex than that. By trivialising politics - treating it as entertainment - by directing attention to its own presenters as personalities, and by its relentless cynicism about "mainstream" politicians, the Corporation has done a great deal to create a climate which the loathsome BNP can exploit for its own malicious ends.Politics as entertainment will not do - especially from a "public service broadcaster", funded by public money. Only mature, informed debate and scrutiny of all parties will serve the public and enhance the life of our diverse community.Labels: Media, Politics
When governments are gone
I came across a quotation this morning from Prof Lawrence Lessig, which I thought had a relevance to our current political climate - where basically all MPs (and especially those of the governing party) are damned and vilified. There is an assumption, spoken or implied, that if only we could get rid of the current crop of politicians, then all would be well. Lessig said:“When government disappears, it's not as if paradise will take its place. When governments are gone, other interests will take their place.”Clearly there is a need for reform and for change at the heart of our parliamentary system. But we should resist the simplistic and dangerous calls akin to "a plague on all their houses". If the mainstream parties and politicians are swept away, then the vacuum will be filled by others who are far more dangerous - others like the British National Party.Our media and commentators should exercise a degree of responsibility in their dash to sell papers and grab ratings. There are more serious things at stake.Labels: Media, Politics
On MP's expenses
I have to confess that I haven't really been following the outrage about MP's expenses all that closely. I'm more than a bit jaded by the media agenda, and I tend to suspect the motives of most journalists - print or TV/radio or (of course, dear reader) bloggers!So here is a handy summary from Bishop Alan, which I found extremely helpful. Amongst his observations:"What's interesting is that some MP's have obviously interpreted the rules using their own moral instinct about what it was right or wrong to claim, whilst others have had no scruple about doing anything, however bizarre, as long as it didn't actually contravene the rules."The full post is here: MP's expenses chocolate bunny rageThe answer is in our own hands. But we need to make informed judgements about our politicians - and how we do that, given the standard of media and public debate ...? Well, I just don't know.Labels: Media, Politics
Rowan Williams starts a debate
As it happens, I was watching "The West Wing" last night - the episode late in Season One entitled "Let Bartlet Be Bartlet". In it, the President's staff urge the President to try and shape the public agenda, rather than playing safe and shying away from unpopularity. Chief of Staff Leo McGarry puts it this way:
"We're going to raise the level of public debate in this country, and let that be our legacy."
Couldn't help thinking about that in the context of the hysterical knee-jerking which has followed Archbishop Rowan Williams' interview and lecture about the Law and Faith Communities ...!
The level of public debate in this country is subterranean!(See "What did the Archbishop actually say?")Labels: Church, Media, Politics, Rant
David Cameron, the truth and another good story
Beginning to sound uncharacteristically like an apologist for the Tory party here, but ... what is all this fuss about David Cameron jetting off to Rwanda and ignoring his constituents?
If you read carefully, then you will spot - hidden away deep in the text of this alarmism - the admission that:
"On Sunday [Mr Cameron] visited Witney, his West Oxfordshire constituency, where 3,000 homes have been flooded. He said he had been in touch with the local council leader since arriving in the Rwandan capital Kigali."
So, just to get things straight, he's not ignoring his constituents then. That's just an impression the rest of the article tries to create.
I thought the BBC had said it wasn't going to misrepresent people any more?!
We can spot the media's current narrative by noticing the description (elsewhere) of Mr Cameron as "embattled". Seems as if the fashion is changing - once again, why let the truth get in the way of a good story?Labels: Media, Politics
More on Public service broadcasting
It may just be me, but isn't the BBC's Director General, Mark Thompson, stating the blindingly obvious when he says:"We must never, ever knowingly deceive the public. There is no excuse for deception."Surely employees - even those of production companies engaged by the BBC - ought to realise that? They are supposed to serve the public, not deceive us.After all, they are so fond of invoking the "public interest" when it suits them. (The key points of Mr Thompson's speech to staff are given here.)Labels: Media
The BBC, good faith and public service
I awoke the other morning to extremely prominent BBC radio news reports that the Queen had stormed out of a photo session. I must admit that my first reaction was along the lines of "so what?!" Her Majesty must get impatient like the rest of us, and surely she is entitled to react from time to time. But then, as the day wore on, the story changed. It turned out that the Queen had extracted an apology from the Corporation! In a delicious phrase, the BBC admitted that "the actual sequence of events was mis-represented." BBC Statement here. News Sniffer catalogues the many revisions of the story - the actual volte-face happening here.The senior executive responsible, the Controller of BBC 1, says that he does not intend to resign, since he "used the sequence in good faith".I'm not at all sure that he should resign - though I am sure he will have learned some lessons. People make mistakes, and should be allowed to apologise for them. But it occurs to me that the BBC regularly sneers at others in public life who claim to have acted in good faith! The Corporation's treatment of Tony Blair springs immediately to mind. Good faith is routinely doubted and regularly ridiculed - except it seems when the motives of BBC executives are concerned!The other point, of course, is that the BBC and other media organisations often misrepresent events. They do so - explicitly or implicity - by presenting them slanted by a particular political bias, or by an underlying set of assumptions, or just by the desire to sell papers or to promote programmes. The difference here is that the Queen has the clout to extract an apology and a swift correction of the impression created.What about those who are misrepresented and have no means of obtaining redress? Public service broadcasting indeed!Labels: Media
Michael White on the media beast
Some quotes from Michael White of The Guardian, responding to Tony Blair's analysis of the modern media and their effect on public life. (The emphases are mine)."The consequences [of the modern media being driven by instant technologies and 24/7 global markets] are hard to dispute. ... The tricky bit is how society responds to the problems thereby created, notably the fast-declining levels of public trust in public institutions, by no means confined to politics and politicians in an information-rich age where the boundaries between facts and comment - and between both and entertainment - have all but collapsed."
"But as a political reporter for 30 years, I believe [Tony Blair] is more right than wrong, as John Major often was.
Margaret Thatcher was luckier with the media - until the very end.
A high proportion of allegations routinely made against governments, Labour and Tory, in the media are untrue - though they are widely accepted as true.
Dealing with that fact of life was what led Blair and Alastair Campbell into the jungles of spin after 1997 - an error, he admitted today."
"As for the tired claim that newspapers are accountable to their readers, TV to the viewers - well, that's humbug, although you will read a lot of it in tomorrow's papers.
The media has little of the external accountability which other walks of life now face.
It's a major player in the triangle between government and governed, but rarely acknowledges its own role."
Read the whole article here.Labels: Media, Politics
Biting back
Tony Blair's characterisation of today's media as "like a feral beast" - a phrase they seem to have siezed upon with a greater or lesser amount of glee - has provoked the response he predicted. The BBC sums up the press biting back here.
It's interesting though that some of them seem to admit, somewhat shamefacedly, that the PM has a point.
The BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson is gracious enough to concede at least some of Mr Blair's argument [here], and indeed to link to an article by Michael White (for a long time one of the very best political observers) which both supports the PM and snipes at Mr Robinson.
Of course the real test will be whether Mr Blair manages to kick-start a much needed debate leading to a real improvement in the quality of the media reporting of our public life.
Initial indications are that the contributions from much of our media will not be gracious or constructive. They have no interest in dialogue with their prey, nor in the public interest they claim to represent.Labels: Media, Politics, Popular Culture
Parting shots
Prime Minister
Tony Blair has given
a remarkable speech analysing the effect of today’s media culture on modern public life. It is thoughtful and reasoned: the sort of thing a politician can only say nowadays when he is on the point of retirement! As he himself says, “I know it will be rubbished in certain quarters. But I also know this has needed to be said.”
The speech really repays reading in full [here]. But these are just a few of the things that particularly struck me.
[Blair quotes, my emphases]
“My principal reflection is not about ‘blaming’ anyone. It is that the relationship between politics, public life and the media is changing as a result of the changing context of communication in which we all operate; no-one is at fault - it is a fact; but it is my view that the effect of this change is seriously adverse to the way public life is conducted; and that we need, at the least, a proper and considered debate about how we manage the future, in which it is in all our interests that the public is properly and accurately informed.”
“We devote reams of space to debating why there is so much cynicism about politics and public life. In this, the politicians are obliged to go into self flagellation, admitting it is all our fault. …
And, believe it or not, most politicians come into public life with a desire to serve and by and large, try to do the right thing not the wrong thing.
My view is that the real reason for the cynicism is precisely the way politics and the media today interact. We, in the world of politics, because we are worried about saying this, play along with the notion it is all our fault.”
“They [the media] are not the masters of this change but its victims. The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is driven by ‘impact’ Impact is what matters. It is all that can distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed.
Impact gives competitive edge. Of course the accuracy of a story counts. But it is secondary to impact. It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards, driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it should be but an impulsion towards sensation above all else.”
“The audience needs to be arrested, held and their emotions engaged. Something that is interesting is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked. The consequences of this are acute.
First, scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light.
Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgement. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial. …
Third, the fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no-one dares miss out.
Fourth, rather than just report news, even if sensational or controversial, the new technique is commentary on the news being as, if not more important than the news itself.
So - for example - there will often be as much interpretation of what a politician is saying as there is coverage of them actually saying it. In the interpretation, what matters is not what they mean; but what they could be taken to mean. …
In turn, this leads to a fifth point: the confusion of news and commentary. Comment is a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be separate. Opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. The truth is a large part of the media today not merely elides the two but does so now as a matter of course. ...
The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and white. Life's usual grey is almost entirely absent.
‘Some good, some bad’; ‘some things going right, some going wrong’: these are concepts alien to today's reporting. It's a triumph or a disaster. A problem is ‘a crisis’.
A setback is a policy ‘in tatters’. A criticism, ‘a savage attack’. NGOs and pundits know that unless they are prepared to go over the top, they shouldn't venture out at all.”
“I do believe this relationship between public life and media is now damaged in a manner that requires repair. The damage saps the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.”
[Quotes end - do
read the speech!]
As you will probably know,
I tend to go on a bit about the media - and here I go again:
In my view, the media are making public life an arena into which fewer and fewer people will wish to venture – at least for the motives we would all hope our public figures would hold. The
all-pervading, sneering cynicism which is the “default setting" in our media is
warping our society beyond recognition.
It used to be said that we get the government we deserve. Nowadays, increasingly,
we get the government our media allows us. The standard of political thought and debate, and essentially the level of engagement by most people with politics and public life
is now so low that I'm afraid
our disease of cynicism may be terminal.
Labels: Media, Politics, Popular Culture, Rant
Cameron moves to the Left
Just in case anyone was in any doubt about the
quality of political reporting and analysis in the UK, here is the
latest political story:
Tory leader David Cameron has changed his hairstyle!!The BBC analyses the implications
here.
Amongst the
profound insights the Corporation brings us is this:
"Several commentators noticed the change on Wednesday and had come up with their own theories for it. Some thought it was an attempt to look more masculine, but others said a left parting was more feminine.
"Daily Mail sketchwriter Quentin Letts said image was important to voters and told the BBC: 'Cameron seems to be changing direction - which is of course a very good metaphor for what he's doing with his party.' "But a spokesman said of Mr Cameron's change: 'There is no political significance in his decision to do so.'"Naturally the
Daily Mail had to be involved somewhere - good to know that "newspaper" is keeping up its standards!
The BBC report ends by
sonorously informing us that a recent photo of Mr Cameron appeared to show
his first grey hairs!
Is it any wonder, given this quality of media coverage of the political issues of our day?!! Any serious politician, or
anyone who cares for the quality of our democracy would be
tearing their hair out!Labels: Media, Politics, Rant
"The love of God is broader ..."
Thanks to
Karin for blogging this
Thought for the Day from Giles Fraser.
It closes with a quotation from one of my
very favouite hymns:
"For the love of God is broader than the measure of man's mind
And the heart of the eternal is most wonderfully kind
But we make his love too narrow with false limits of our own
And we magnify his strictness with a zeal he will not own."
[Pity about the exclusive language - but I quibble!!]
Labels: Church, Media, Politics
What is truthiness?!
Here is an
excellent primer from
epiScope on
How to read the UK Press.A
magnificent dissection of what
passes for journalism these days!
Amongst other things, it has introduced me to a
new word:
truthiness nounthe quality of stating facts that you believe or want to be true, rather than stating facts that are known to be true.I will be using it, and its associated adjective
truthy at every possible opportunity!
Thanks to Dylan for bringing this to my attention in her digest of anglicana.Labels: Anglican Communion, Media
Archbishop Rowan, women priests and a good story
I
thought I heard a report on BBC Radio 4 this morning that the
Archbishop of Canterbury was being
equivocal about women's ordination. Well, it turns out
I needn't have worried. Once again I am reminded of the question:
"Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?"Archbishop Rowan says he has been the victim of "
wilful misinterpretation" - it's not entirely clear
by whom. (Text of his press release
here).
To her great credit,
Maggi Dawn never doubted him for a moment - as she reveals
here. She says it's just that he is a
natural academic rather than a natural politician! Sadly our media do not understand (or choose not to understand) people who "say thoughtful things out loud in public".
Even
Ruth Gledhill of The Times was apparently wrongfooted - but she
recovers her footing here. She explains that
"[Archbishop Rowan] is a
victim of his own fairmindedness. What we have here is a fair and lovely man who is a terrible polemecist."
and that
"We should still remind ourselves when coming across such statements that
Dr Williams is a poet.
Balance and
ambiguity are just a few of the devices to which he is drawn by both inclination and practice. "
May we deduce from this that
balance and
fairmindedness are
alien to our modern media? Or am I being unduly polemical?
Labels: Anglican Communion, Media, Theology
Do you want the good news or the bad news?
An interesting perspective on the "news" from our
14-year-old son. We were watching a
BBC report on the Health Service which proclaimed, (as the web version does
here) that "
Half of NHS trusts 'must improve'". Our son,
ever the mathematician, shot back:
"But that means that half of them are doing OK!"It seems that for the BBC, the glass is
always half-empty!Meanwhile on the same day, the Corporation reported on the "failure" of the scheme allowing
early release from prison in the UK in conjunction with
electronic tagging - "
Tagged offenders went on to kill."
Of course murder and violent crime is
always truly dreadful, but you would have to read or listen
very carefully indeed to glean that, in fact,
re-offending rates for those released under the tagging scheme are
considerably better than those released directly. I'm guessing that many of those released untagged also went on to kill.
The BBC is required to report in a
balanced way - perhaps
the balance is askew? Why give us the good news, when it can be presented as bad?
Labels: Media, Politics
Greatly exaggerated!
“The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”
So wrote
Mark Twain in a cable from London to the
Associated Press in 1897.
It seems however that AP has struck again. News outlets around the world reported the death this week of
Paul Vance, co-writer of the song
Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini. This came as a particular shock to Mr Vance, who saw the report on TV!Apparently a woman who had been recently widowed repeated, in all innocence, her late husband’s claim that he had written the song.
The
real live writer is still fending off telephone calls and reassuring relatives and friends that he is very much alive! Apparently he liked most of what was written in his obituaries – but wanted to take issue with some of the things he read!
The
BBC had to
retract it's report (here), whilst this is the
Associated Press killing the story (here)! [
The Guardian has now killed the link - probably not
directly out of embarrassment!]
Labels: Fun stuff, Media
On Owen Hargreaves
This one a late comment on England's World Cup ... 17 July 06
---
This is
way late, by way of a comment on the World Cup, but ... I wasn't able to watch the
England v Portugal game live and ... well it took me a while to work up the enthusiasm to watch the tape
Lots I could say, but one thing that stands out is that, after his performance out-of-position at right-back, and then his heroic efforts v Portugal,
Owen Hargreaves deserves a written apology from every one of the "experts" in the media who questioned his inclusion in the squad! (Yeah, like he's
ever going to get an apology from those people!)
Well done, Owen Hargreaves! All credit to you!!
Labels: Football (Soccer), Media, Rant
