You scored as Remus Lupin, You are a wise and caring wizard and a good, loyal friend to boot. However sometimes in an effort to be liked by others you can let things slide by, which ordinarily you would protest about.
Hermione Granger | | 75% | Remus Lupin | | 75% | Ron Weasley | | 70% | Albus Dumbledore | | 60% | Ginny Weasley | | 55% | Severus Snape | | 50% | Draco Malfoy | | 45% | Sirius Black | | 45% | Harry Potter | | 45% | Lord Voldemort | | 45% |
Try the quiz here
Your Harry Potter Alter Ego Is...?
QuizFarm.comLabels: Fun stuff, Popular Culture
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
The Offence of Religious Festivals
Stimulated by current objections around whether we should celebrate Christmas at all, when this might be offensive to some, John Bell of the Iona Community offered this " Thought for the Day" on BBC Radio 4. (The emphases are mine.) Thought for the Day, 7 December 2006
John Bell
Today is Thursday, but I don't hear many people objecting. At least I haven't noticed anyone in Glasgow ripping calendars from office walls in protest against the workplace being invaded by a religion which not everyone espouses. I mean, Thursday celebrates Thor the god of weather and crops. And Thor was the son of Odin or Woden the god of war, education and poetry whose name is honoured every Wodensday or Wednesday. Such revelations tempt me to exclaim, 'By Jove!' But that would offend countless millions who don't want to be reminded that Jove or Jupiter is the god of oaths, treaties and marriages. It's not just Christmas trees, flashing stars and civic nativity scenes that are suspect. For the sake of linguistic purity we'll have to go the second mile...except that would be quoting Jesus and non-believers would demand we say goodbye (or God be with you) to all that! If you think this is an allusion to the annual displacement activity of taking Christ out of Christmas, you're dead right. But it's not because Christmas needs to preserved as the prime opportunity for the churches to engage in furtive evangelism via Bing Crosby's voice and charity greeting cards. No, I would want to defend Christmas as I'd defend Hanukkah or Ramadan or any comparable religious festival of a celebratory nature. For it seems to me that they have a humanitarian potential in reminding us of realities such as love, justice and generosity which transcend mundaneness and ego-centricity. And I believe that such festivals, which can include and enhance the lives of believers and non-believers alike, are increasingly necessary as the economies of the western world offer an alternative and much more sinister pantheon of deities for honouring. Some of these deities hide behind advertised products I would not be allowed to mention here on air, but if I ask who comes to mind when I speak of fulfilment through eating fast foods, or success through having brand named clothing, you'll know the kind allurement I'm referring to. And you might also recognise that encouraging people to believe that having is more important than being is a much more socially exclusive activity than erecting a Christmas tree or hanging up tinsel. To speak from a purely Christian perspective, a festival like Christmas which is centred on peace, humility and generosity is hardly a threat to a profit-driven secular society which can fund a foreign war but cannot eradicate child poverty. It is not a threat, but it might be a corrective. Labels: Politics, Popular Culture, Theology
Naomi Campbell's palate
Did you happen to see recent reports about model Naomi Campbell and her court case? Here is The Independent's report: Naomi Campbell to negotiate "palatable" community service"Lawyers for Naomi Campbell, the model accused of assaulting a former maid with a mobile phone, are negotiating with prosecutors in New York in an effort to avoid a trial - and the possibility of a long prison term - in exchange for agreeing to community service.
"But her lawyer insisted that any such task would have to be 'palatable', fund-raising for Aids or cancer research rather than sweeping the streets, as Boy George recently did.
...
"Were [Ms Campbell] to be found guilty of the allegations made against her, she could technically serve up to seven years in prison and then be deported.
"[Her lawyer] declined to offer any details on how the negotiations were going. He did, however, indicate that he was setting conditions on the kind of community service his client would be prepared to do. Sweeping the streets, for example, would be out of the question."
Is it just me?? Setting conditions?!?! Perhaps such a statement doesn't sound as outrageous in legal circles as it does to me, but my immediate reaction - not tempered a great deal by the opportunity for mature consideration - is that the authorities should break off any further negotiations and let matters take their course!I suspect that after a little while in prison, even Ms Campbell's discerning palate might acquire a taste for a little community service! Labels: Popular Culture, Rant
"Beyond Belief" programme on Mary Magdalene
Mark Goodacre, in his NT Gateway blog, links to a programme from the Radio 4 series Beyond Belief about Mary Magdalene. Mark's blog entry is here, whilst the audio file of the programme can be found here: Beyond Belief: 24 July 2006 (RealPlayer required) The programme discusses Mary Magdalene in "myth", the popular imagination and in the Gospels, with due reference to The Da Vinci Code and to one woman's remarkable personal testimony. Labels: Popular Culture, Theology
Christianity and popular culture
I’ve been prompted by 22 July – the day the church remembers Mary Magdalene – to think a little about the Christian response to popular culture. Mary’s “public profile” is as prominent as ever, being a central character in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.Christian responses to the book and film vary, as ever, from condemnation and boycott to engagement. I have been helped by Steve Hollinghurst’s thoughts, and by his published material ( Coded Messages ) It strikes me that the Church often needs to stand against contemporary views and events – a prophetic role, if you like – but that we cannot stand outside popular culture. In the Declaration of Assent, (which they make at ordination and on taking up each new post) Ministers in the CofE are challenged both to affirm the traditional inheritance of faith and “to proclaim [it] afresh in each generation.” That is the key, for me. Steve has much of interest to say about what form this proclamation might take and has also written very helpfully about the Christian response to The Da Vinci Code. (The Da Vinci Code)He also points out here (Orthodox or Authentic) that Jesus, in sharing God’s love for ordinary people and meeting them where they were, scandalised those who held “orthodox” beliefs. Those of us in the Church ought to feel uncomfortable at this point! Labels: Popular Culture, Theology
|
