I can hardly believe I’m writing this, but Christine Hamilton has a very interesting piece in today’s Sindie, about celebrities in major trials, and how the outcome has little bearing on people’s perception of them. She cites people who’ve been found not guilty and yet are still considered ‘disgraced’ anyway (eg John Leslie), and people who’ve been found guilty and yet it hasn’t really done them any damage at all (Hugh Grant).

So the question is, will Michael Jackson be able to rebuild his career? I suspect he probably will to some extent, since he has a very dedicated fan base, but he’ll never be as big as he was before the trial. He’d been moving on a downward slope anyway, and he’ll just continue down it. But he’ll earn enough to live more than comfortably.

I’m generally very relaxed about Google and it’s projects, even when they could potentially open up web surfing to their prying eyes. But their plan to rate news stories by accuracy has me feeling uncomfortable, because it begs the inevitable question: Whose accuracy?

Taking a typical example: Hutton. Newspapers still widely report that the Government sexed up the September dossier, and yet no inquiry has yet found that to be the case. So are the news stories inaccurate? Not in my opinion, because I agree with them. But those who disagree would argue that they were indeed inaccurate.

Obviously, all news sources are editorialised, but Google seems to have tried to be as balanced as possible, by using algorithms to sort through the news, and present lots of different angles from lots of different sources. But rating these sources by accuracy will doubtlessly make it far more editorialised, and it’s important that users are made aware of this, and get to know what the editorial line is. Otherwise, this could lead to people thinking they’re getting impartial news when in fact they’re receiving anything but.

Fox, anyone?

There are many things wrong with the Church of England today. The lack of a black archbishop has never particularly struck me as a big one. Though the appointment of the Rt Rev John Sentamu would appear to be a step forward – something the church rarely seems to take. Good for him.

I’ve always liked reading MediaMonkey, as regular readers will know, but this tickled me so much that I’m going to have to reproduce it here:

On this sunny Friday afternoon, Monkey has nothing better to do than rifle through the departing editor’s email inbox and has decided to run a competition for the most entertaining exchange of the last five years. And the triple crown goes to Piers Morgan, the new proprietor of the former journalist’s bible, the Press Gazette. We start after MediaGuardian.co.uk ran a story that Jane Goldman, Jonathan Ross’s wife, was in the running to take over from the Mirror’s TV critic, Charlie Catchpole. Sit back and enjoy…

13.19. 26/03/2001. From p.morgan@mirror.co.uk
“She was never on the bloody list. EVER. Why on earth would she be? You’re worse than Sunday Sport you lot. At least they ring and check if I’ve had a kinky threesome with Anna Nicole Smith and Pamela Anderson. They still run it, but they CHECK. Which makes them one step ahead of you, who just flies it.”
After an email explaining it came from a good source.
“Dear Clueless, It’s so wrong as to be laughable. I don’t want anything from me on there denying something that’s bollox. I was merely advising you of the fact. And please spare me the ‘good sources’ claptrap. Since the first I have heard of Ms Goldman’s name was on your website perhaps you could explain who these people are and I will fire them and send them to you lot for retraining as incompetent retard luvvies.”

Ping. A further exchange.

“Listen luv, I am obviously not getting through to you very well. Rusbridger might not know what his arse and elbow are doing in the newsroom when it comes to hiring and firing due to the ‘collegiate’ atmosphere of your tawdry little rag – but I take more of a Corleone view. If someone gets ‘whacked’ or ‘made’ then I clear it. And I am telling you, for the last time, that Jane Goldman has never been considered for the job. For the simple reason that she has not and never will be a bloody TV critic. Now I know it’s hard to admit you’ve dropped a complete clinker but just remove the fucking thing from the website before you make yourself look even more stupid than I am beginning to suspect you might be. Then just sit there quietly drinking your Ethiopian expresso and munching your lentil sandwich and hold your head in disgusted shame. Which is, I believe, a preferred mode of expression for you these days.”

Oh dear, Piers is beginning to make the former Sky TV boss, Sam Chisholm, look like a charm school graduate.

Ping. Another email arrives.

“I wish to deny that I have AIDS, syphilis and herpes (Though I admit it would make me an incurable romantic). Now just remove it for god’s sake. IT’S A LOAD OF BOLLOX.”

Just for the record then, it was a load of bollox and Monkey is down on all fours (as requested) with a belated apology to the new owner of the Press Gazette.

Since ‘leaving’ the Mirror, Piers really has done well for himself, and you have to admire the fact that he’s making numerous puditry appearances here and there, instead of fading into relative obscurity. Well done him. And good luck to him with the Press Gazette, too.

Dr Rowan has a problem with web-based media:

THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has criticised the new web-based media for “paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry”. He described the atmosphere on the world wide web as a free-for-all that was “close to that of unpoliced conversation”.

My question: What’s wrong with ‘unpoliced conversation’? Surely it’s something worth fighting for and viciously defending, not something to try and avoid?

Neil McIntosh has caused quite a debate over on the Newsblog by suggesting that Bob Geldof shouldn’t be getting so worked up about Live8 ticket sales on eBay, suggesting instead that if Geldof had auctioned the tickets in the first place, he could have raised a lot of money. Understandably, this upset a few people, and so the debate has begun.

Of course, Geldof isn’t really that bothered whether his tickets are sold on eBay or not. It’s illogical to complain: After all, by selling them, people who are more committed to his cause than those current ticket holders will buy them. Geldof simply had his little faux-angry outburst to get Live8 another day of headlines. And it worked beautifully.

This also explains a point which has been confusing me. I’ve been naively wondering why Geldof has organised this huge concert, which will attract fans of the artists playing, and not people who support his cause, thus making no political point whatsoever. The point of the concerts is clearly not to have a large demonstration of public support. The idea is to generate a whole wave of media coverage, with the central Africa theme in the background. Once this consumes the whole news cycle, politicians will then be forced to respond.

Think about it: The day of the G8 meeting itself, the papers will be full of reportage from the previous day’s concerts. The following day, they will be full of reportage from the rally. Therefore, Tony Blair will be forced into announcing something, or he will look weak, unresponsive, and ultimately impotent.

It doesn’t really matter who goes to the concerts, as long as they’re considered a success. So they need a full house – and what better way to ensure a full house than to give away the tickets?

This is an extremely cynical plan, as it assumes that Geldof can second-guess and manipulate the media, and that’s a notoriously dangerous thing to do. However, he’s very brave to attempt it, and he believes his cause is just; even if I’m not entirely convinced, I’m glad that the issues are being publicly discussed, and that’s a major step forward. So good luck to him.

I’m particularly fanatical about Six Feet Under, and I honestly think it’s one of the best things on TV today. Perhaps that’s because I don’t watch enough or the right programmes, but having just watched Season Three of Six Feet Under on DVD for the first time, I think I’m actually in love with the show.

Six Feet Under, for the uninitiated, is a drama series laced with black humour set in a funeral home. I personally think that statement makes the show sound really bad, but I’ve yet to come up with a better description. It follows the lives of the Fisher family and their friends and employees, with each episode focused to some degree on a particular person’s death and their progress through the funeral home, from their death to their burial (and often beyond).

The first two seasons were undoubtedly excellent, though they could easily have played together to create a single double-length season. The third season, however, changes the show and takes it in an even darker direction than the first two excellent series, and the final episode of the third season is possibly the most perfect season ending of any drama series I’ve seen. This is one of those very, very rare series that actually seems to be getting better with age, and I can’t wait to see the fourth season.

However, because the third season is so different to the others, many people (looking at the Amazon reviews) don’t like it, and say it’s far worse than the first two. I think it’s even better. A good summary of the third season, for the initiated, is given by one Amazon reviewer:

After Season One and Two, season three takes a decidedly different turn. While Season One was about discovering identity, season two was about friends, family and lovers. Season 3 is about relationships, and change.

This isn’t the same show as the first two seasons. Superfially character roles have changed largely and the people you see are mostly new. There’s no Parker here, Brenda doesn’t appear until the 5th episode, Nikolai’s non-existent, as is assistant Robbie.

On a deeper level the show is darker, more subdued, more brooding. It is a tribute to the show’s actors that if they didn’t have the gravitas that they do the show would seem slow, but in actual fact it seems breathtaking up until the eventual climax of the last four actors which is just breathtaking television in every meaning of the phrase.

Six Feet Under, fantastic television.

The particular beauty of owning Six Feet Under on DVD is that you can watch the series more than once, which is fantastic, as you can see different levels of development each time, and get closer to the writers’ intended hidden meaning. Another series I’m hooked on is 24 – this, though, is pretty much 24’s antithesis. Six Feet Under is wonderfully slow-moving, full of the depth with 24 seriously lacks, and is very thoughtful and considered.

The best thing I can really compare Six Feet Under to is The West Wing. Whereas The West Wing is an aspirational drama, Six Feet Under is dark. They’re both just as intelligent – or, perhaps, Six Feet Under is the more intelligent because of it’s focus on the human condition rather than American politics – and they’re both polished and extremely watchable.

I highly recommend Six Feet Under, and particularly the third season. If you’ve not seen it before though, you’ll want to get hold of the first and second second seasons first. It’s definitely worth it.

I was actually going to post about the lack of updates from the Guardian about it’s qualoid relaunch yesterday, but the Jackson events beat me to it. Clearly, someone at the Grauniad was reading my mind, as today Julia Day announces that it’s going to happen early next year – nine months ahead of schedule by my count.

As far as I’m personally concerned, the sooner they make the change, the better. It’ll also be interesting to see the new design they come up with – their last relaunch caused something of a storm, and the look of the paper is still reasonably unique amongst the papers. Given that they’re going full-colour, I expect that they’re going to make much use of that in the design, and I can’t imagine me liking it if they do. At least at first. But I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

It seems strange that the Guardian have dropped their previously preferred qualoid synonym ‘midi’ for ‘Berliner’. I can’t imagine them launching with ‘Berliner’, so why introduce it now? Unless, of course, it’s just a bit of a slip. I’d imagine they’d go ahead with ‘midi’, unless of course they don’t refer to the size by any term in particular, just advertising that the paper has a new look. But I’d think they’d want to at least mention it.

Other than that, my reservations are largely still the same as they were in February:

The only thing that’s been worrying me since the announcement was made last September is this:

Most importantly, from the reader’s point of view, it will not leave the Guardian’s journalism untouched, particularly in the manner and tone of presentation.

The Guardian’s tone is one its great strengths. To change it would be suicide.

Hopefully, though, it’ll be pretty much the same Guardian, with a refreshing design and a much handier size. Hopefully.

I have to say that, despite my general hunch that Michael Jackson is not a child abuser (which I mentioned at the beginning of the trial), the verdict surpised me. And, in many ways, pleased me, not least because it shows that American juries can actually take decisions that don’t involve a thought process along the lines of ‘Ooh, it looks like he’s messed with kids. I don’t care about the evidence, if he’s messed with kids he should go down.’ Which is, largely, how I thought this might play out. Though I thought they’d convict him on the giving alcohol to a minor charge, rather than the full whammy. I think that a custodial sentence would have been largely unhelpful – but those who read this blog often enough will know that this is my opinion in many (if not most) cases, whether the defendent is found guilty or not guilty. But that’s not the argument I’m having right now. Michael Jackson has been found not guilty on all ten counts against him, and that decision should be respected.

Now we have to be concerned about Gavin Arvizo. Assuming (as we should and must) that the jury’s verdict is correct, then this fifteen year old boy has been living a very public lie for months, and possibly years. He’ll be hated by many Jackson fans, and his family quite possibly slated in the press. And yet, he’s got to somehow grow up as a ‘normal’ person. I don’t envy him, and I only hope that he gets the support he needs during the remainder of his formative years.

As for Jackson, I hope that he too seeks the psychological (and physical) help that it would appear to me that he needs, and that he recovers from the immense stress he’s been put through during this trial as a result of the false allegations.

As I write, the breaking news is that a verdict has been reached in the Michael Jackson trial. I was fairly certain a very quick verdict would be reached, and when that didn’t happen I thought there’d be a long deliberation – that hasn’t happened either. So I’m not sure what that indicates, and the verdict has yet to be announced. Unfortunate timing for the papers – by the time the verdict is announced, there’ll be next to no time to reorganise the whole paper. Though I expect the bones of the story will already have been written, and it’ll just be a case of fleshing out the descriptive detail. There’ll be more from me on the verdict tomorrow, or maybe later tonight if you’re lucky. Bet you can’t wait.