For a while now, revelations about the News of the World's practice of obtaining stories about celebrities via information gleaned from the hacking of their voicemail accounts have been seeping into the British public's consciousness. While most people thought this was wrong, an invasion of privacy, and something that brought a certain amount of shame and discredit upon the News of the World and British journalism in general, it has taken the news that Milly Dowler's voicemail was hacked while the Surrey schoolgirl was missing to stir up a media frenzy and public outcry. Apart from the gross invasion of privacy inherent in listening to what one can safely assume were very personal and emotional messages, the private investigator in question, Glenn Mulcaire (or possibly News of the World journalists), went on to delete voicemail messages in order to free up space for more messages for him to listen to. Apart from the possibility that this may have destroyed important evidence - it is not unheard of for perpetrators in such cases to leave voicemail messages on victims' phones in order to avert suspicion - it raised false hopes among Milly's family who reasoned that it must have been her deleting the messages and that therefore she must have still been alive.The race is now on to uncover how much the then News of the World editor and current News International (News of the World's parent company) chief executive Rebekah Brooks knew about the practice of using hacked voicemail messages as the basis of stories that appeared in the News of the World while she was in charge. The charges are that either she knew about the practice and is therefore corrupt and should resign her current post and face criminal charges, or that she didn't know what was going on within her newspaper and is therefore incompetent and should resign her current post. Brooks herself says it was "inconceivable" that she knew about the phone hacking, and News International are apparently to claim that Brooks (then going under her maiden name of Wade) was on holiday not only when Milly Dowler's voicemail was hacked, but also when, allegedly, the voicemail accounts of the familes of Soham victims Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were targeted by Mulcaire. If this were true, it would focus further attention on the man who would have been in charge when Brooks was away - then deputy editor Andy Coulson, who took over as editor when Brooks left, and went on to resign from that post in 2007 when it was revealed that phone hacking took place 'on his watch' as editor, even though he has always denied actually knowing that it took place. Following David Cameron's unfortunate (or unwise, given Coulson's known connection with the hacking scandal) to appoint him as Conservative Party communications officer, Coulson was forced to resign from a second position because of the same scandal, finally leaving the Conservatives in early 2011, nearly five months after the New York Times re-ignited the scandal with fresh allegations about the extent of Coulson's knowledge of the phone hacking during his editorship of the News of the World - something Coulson has denied under oath. It would certainly be convenient if it turns out that Brooks was away - News International could then seek to cast the blame on someone who is now outside of their organisation, hoping that this would leave their Chief Executive relatively blame-free. Evidence to support this theory comes with the way News International have put Coulson further into the spotlight by releasing emails to the police that allegedly reveal Coulson as having authorised payments to police officers. Unfortunately for them, Brooks is unlikely to escape so easily. Even apart from new allegations that Brooks knew that News of the World resources were being used to spy on Detective Chief Superintendent David Cook while he investigated two private investigators with links to the News of the World over the murder of their former business partner, the suspicion remains that she is culpable of maintaining (if not fostering) an environment within her newspaper where journalists, under pressure to come up with big stories, could believe that results took precedence over morals. In a statement released this week, Mulcaire spoke of the "relentless pressure" and "constant demand for results" he experienced while working for the News of the World - pressure that had filtered down from above and caused him to lose sight of any moral considerations that could get in the way of providing the information demanded of him. So where did this pressure filter down from? Pressure to achieve results, to get the big stories, exists at any newspaper, but a newspaper owned by the ruthless Rupert Murdoch is likely to have that pressure in spades. Murdoch is a man who demands results, and he is the man who should ultimately have to answer as to why employees within one of his organisations felt the need to resort to such abhorrent behaviour to get the results they believed they had to achieve. According to the New York Times article, Andy Coulson imposed "a hypercompetitive ethos, even by tabloid standards" where there was a "“do whatever it takes” mentality".
I don't believe for one second that Rupert Murdoch will ever truly be held to account for any of this, but the consolation is that the whole scandal is very damaging to him. Firstly, although he is never going to end up in the poor house, it is hitting him in the pocket. With many large brands such as Ford cutting back their advertising deals, the News of the World is losing large amounts of revenue, while huge sums are being knocked off the value of News Corp and BSkyB shares. Secondly, it couldn't have come at a worse time for Murdoch, as there is now considerable pressure for the government (or Ofcom) to block Murdoch's News Corporation from taking over the 61% of BSkyB that they don't already own - a takeover which appeared to be a done deal not so long ago is now under a certain amount of threat. And finally - and this may be the best thing - it is now no longer politically advantageous to be seen to be associated with, or supported by, Rupert Murdoch or any of his media outlets. Ed Milliband has finally done something notable as Labour leader - at yesterday's Prime Minister's Questions he has demanded a public enquiry, demanded Brooks be sacked, demanded that the BSkyB takeover be at least delayed, and poured scorn on Cameron's judgement in hiring Coulson. All of which are guaranteed to make him persona non grata with Rupert. Here's hoping that other politicians continue to be as brave when facing up to the Murdoch empire, and are free to make policies and take decisions in the best interests of the country without having to worry about annoying Rupert Murdoch and finding themselves in a light bulb on the front page of the Sun.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Cyber war - new theatre, same old mistakes
Back in October 2010, the Coalition government promised £500m to bolster cyber security. The wisdom of such a move is obvious - with computer systems controlling everything from financial markets to nuclear weapons, the potential damage from a 'cyber-attack' is massive. Today's Guardian reveals how hackers - possibly funded by the US - created a virus that caused centrifuges to spin out of control at an Iranian uranium enrichment plant thanks to the 'Stuxnet' virus. It's not known exactly how much damage was done, but the fact that it was possible at all is a frightening concept for national security departments across the globe. If hackers can gain control of hardware at a nuclear research facility then, in theory, hackers can gain control of military hardware with potentially devastating consequences. But one thing the Stuxnet incident shows us is that it very difficult to achieve such dramatic results. Experts believe that it would have taken 10 developers 6 months just to test the virus, having created a duplicate of the nuclear plant's computer systems using identical hardware. Such an operation requires large resources, which is why state sponsorship is suspected. State-sponsored hacking is not unheard of - Russia has been accused of such activities by both Georgia and Estonia, and the head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, has accused the Russians and Chinese of attacking Whitehall computer systems. Meanwhile, over in the U.S., security officials said in 2009 that Chinese and Russian spies had hacked into the power grid, in an apparent attempt to map U.S. infrastructure, while leaving behind malicious software that the 'cyberspies' could activate in order to damage that infrastructure in the event of war.
Most evidence points to state 'cyber-attacks' only being used in the context of an existing conflict, in parallel with more conventional weapons. As the Estonia incident suggests, Russia is willing to use such attacks in pursuit of (albeit serious) diplomatic disputes in the former USSR against percived weaker nations, so although unlikely, it has to be considered that they will be prepared to do so further afield, against stronger nations than former USSR republics.
In this day and age, with the cold war long over, Britain's defence against cyber-attacks should start with the same way as its defence against conventional weapons - use the UN and our "essential" (is that a downgrade from "special"?) relationship with the U.S. to avoid conflict in the first place.
What is more likely is that coutries will use (and already do use) cyber-spying, such as the attempts to access information through the Whitehall computer systems. Instead of countries sending real-life human spies into "enemy" territories in order to bluff, coerce and extort secrets out of informants, they will increasingly rely on virtual spies using the Internet to prise information out of the computer systems of their enemies.
Similarly, terrorists will attempt to use the Internet to achieve their goals. Rather than smuggle and assemble bombs and guns across borders, it is a conceptually more simple challenge to cause damage to ones enemies with access to the Internet and a good hacker. These attacks may not even be aimed at causing physical casualties - they may attack economic targets, either by wiping financial data, or by attacking the infrastructure upon which modern commerce depends - which could be anything from an attempt to disable the signalling systems on the London Underground, to a "denial of service" attack on the computer systems used by the London Stock Exchange. The resources necessary to launch a successful Stuxnet style attack on, say, weapons systems is likely to be beyond the reach of most terrorist organisations - even any Islamic fundamentalists that may have benefited from Bin Laden's inheritance. That, though, is not to say that they won't try.
Overall, just as with conventional weaponry, the threat of serious harm via "cyber-attacks" in the foreseeable future is low, though the government is right in attempting to ensure that we are better protected against all possible such attacks form now on. China would be the most threatening country with its vast human resources providing a very large pool of hacking talent available to the authorities, so if Britain were to contemplate a "worst-case cyber-attack scenario" it would most likely come from China, though again, there is currently little incentive for China to launch a major attack of this (or any other military) kind.
As for guarding against the cyberspace threats to national security, the 'old-fashioned' (i.e. as much as 20 years old) defences are the ones that will be most effective. Even in these days where the Internet is king, most hacks are as a result of inside knowledge, and are preceded by a physical penetration of an organisation's defences, be it in the form of a disaffected employee or the stealing of hardware that allows a computer expert to download potentially compromising security information, or connect to an organisation's network and upload malicious software. So the old staples of maintaining good physical security at government buildings (which seems to be an issue at the House of Commons, of all places), and making sure people don't have, say, their surnames as network passwords are more relevant now than they have ever been.
As for the more extreme, Stuxnet style attacks, one hopes the government is not falling into the trap of taking at face value everything told to them by private sector companies with a vested interest in maintaining the fear of cyber crime and cyber attacks. The government-commissioned Cost of Cyber Crime report was produced in association with Detica, a private sector technology firm which is part of BAE Systems. The government should not be assuming that such reports just need to be commissions and any recommendations from said reports should be implemented with no further questions asked. If that happens, there is the danger that the risk assessment will come from private sector companies working backwards from their solution, thus fostering a climate of fear in which private technology companies can prosper - much as arms companies have prospered in the climate of fear fostered in the "war on terror". The theatre of war may have changed, but the politics remain the same.
Most evidence points to state 'cyber-attacks' only being used in the context of an existing conflict, in parallel with more conventional weapons. As the Estonia incident suggests, Russia is willing to use such attacks in pursuit of (albeit serious) diplomatic disputes in the former USSR against percived weaker nations, so although unlikely, it has to be considered that they will be prepared to do so further afield, against stronger nations than former USSR republics.
In this day and age, with the cold war long over, Britain's defence against cyber-attacks should start with the same way as its defence against conventional weapons - use the UN and our "essential" (is that a downgrade from "special"?) relationship with the U.S. to avoid conflict in the first place.
What is more likely is that coutries will use (and already do use) cyber-spying, such as the attempts to access information through the Whitehall computer systems. Instead of countries sending real-life human spies into "enemy" territories in order to bluff, coerce and extort secrets out of informants, they will increasingly rely on virtual spies using the Internet to prise information out of the computer systems of their enemies.
Similarly, terrorists will attempt to use the Internet to achieve their goals. Rather than smuggle and assemble bombs and guns across borders, it is a conceptually more simple challenge to cause damage to ones enemies with access to the Internet and a good hacker. These attacks may not even be aimed at causing physical casualties - they may attack economic targets, either by wiping financial data, or by attacking the infrastructure upon which modern commerce depends - which could be anything from an attempt to disable the signalling systems on the London Underground, to a "denial of service" attack on the computer systems used by the London Stock Exchange. The resources necessary to launch a successful Stuxnet style attack on, say, weapons systems is likely to be beyond the reach of most terrorist organisations - even any Islamic fundamentalists that may have benefited from Bin Laden's inheritance. That, though, is not to say that they won't try.
Overall, just as with conventional weaponry, the threat of serious harm via "cyber-attacks" in the foreseeable future is low, though the government is right in attempting to ensure that we are better protected against all possible such attacks form now on. China would be the most threatening country with its vast human resources providing a very large pool of hacking talent available to the authorities, so if Britain were to contemplate a "worst-case cyber-attack scenario" it would most likely come from China, though again, there is currently little incentive for China to launch a major attack of this (or any other military) kind.
As for guarding against the cyberspace threats to national security, the 'old-fashioned' (i.e. as much as 20 years old) defences are the ones that will be most effective. Even in these days where the Internet is king, most hacks are as a result of inside knowledge, and are preceded by a physical penetration of an organisation's defences, be it in the form of a disaffected employee or the stealing of hardware that allows a computer expert to download potentially compromising security information, or connect to an organisation's network and upload malicious software. So the old staples of maintaining good physical security at government buildings (which seems to be an issue at the House of Commons, of all places), and making sure people don't have, say, their surnames as network passwords are more relevant now than they have ever been.
As for the more extreme, Stuxnet style attacks, one hopes the government is not falling into the trap of taking at face value everything told to them by private sector companies with a vested interest in maintaining the fear of cyber crime and cyber attacks. The government-commissioned Cost of Cyber Crime report was produced in association with Detica, a private sector technology firm which is part of BAE Systems. The government should not be assuming that such reports just need to be commissions and any recommendations from said reports should be implemented with no further questions asked. If that happens, there is the danger that the risk assessment will come from private sector companies working backwards from their solution, thus fostering a climate of fear in which private technology companies can prosper - much as arms companies have prospered in the climate of fear fostered in the "war on terror". The theatre of war may have changed, but the politics remain the same.
Thursday, 21 April 2011
AV? PR? FPTP? None Of The Above gets my vote
This week saw the 'Alternative Vote' (AV) referendum campaigns start in earnest, with plenty of reminders as to why British politics needs to change. Unfortunately, it's not the voting system that's the main problem, it's the way political arguments are presented, with mudslinging, misleading propaganda, meaningless soundbites and catchphrases ("broken politics" anyone?), and pointless celebrity endorsements. In another example of misleading propaganda, the 'Conservative Research Department' has published some 'research' that claims Australian elections are more expensive than the UK's because they have AV, while failing to come up with any other possible reasons why the 'vote per head' figure is higher in a country where a population of just 22 million people is spread across 7.6 million square kilometres, making it the least densely populated country in the world. Elsewhere, Ed Miliband is reduced to recycling David Cameron's 2010 election catchphrases, and people are deemed to be authoritative advisors on electoral reform simply because they're good at cricket. What next? Will the Chuckle Brothers be endorsing the Conservative Party because they agree with their plans for reform of the banking system? If there's one consolation from all of the above it is that the cricketers' testimonies are amusingly reminiscent of Geoff Boycott's appearance on Brass Eye (the "walking continent of common sense" himself appears at 0:44 into that clip).
Apart from those criticisms, one other slightly depressing point to note is that on the day the Guardian was reporting the collapse in support of AV, most people featured in a vox pops segment on Radio 5 live didn't have a clue as to what AV was (skip to 36:17 for the AV discusssion) and even the subsequent explanation by 5 live's correspondent didn't explain at what point voters' third (and higher) preferences came into play (in case you're wondering, they are taken into account when an eliminated candidate's ballot papers are redistributed to the remaining candidates and the second preference on any of those papers was for a candidate that has already been eliminated). [If that link is unavailable, the BBC News website's guide to AV is here.] Whilst one can criticise people for being apathetic, much of the blame for that has to go to the way political debate is conducted (see above), thus alienating the general public.
There has been a lot of conjecture as to who will benefit and lose out if AV is implemented, but there would be one clear winner (the Lib Dems) and one clear loser, or set of losers (extremist parties such as the BNP). While the Lib Dems may not be so good at gaining enough votes to win seats outright under the current 'First Past the Post' (FPTP) system, they are the party best placed to receive second preference votes, since a Labour voter is unlikely to put the Conservatives as his second preference, and vice versa. It might also reduce the number of people who don't vote for the Lib Dems simply because they don't think they have a chance of winning, as those people could still feel they've influenced the outcome through their second preference votes. How many seats the Lib Dems would then gain isn't possible to predict with any certainty, but it would almost definitely mean that their share of seats in Westminster more accurately reflected their share of the national vote. The BNP meanwhile, are opposing AV, which has been seized upon by the 'Yes to AV' campaign on the grounds that if the BNP want one thing, the opposite is probably the better option. While the BNP might hope to win a seat where their supporters vote in sufficient numbers to get a bigger share of the vote than any other candidate - albeit with much less than 50% of the total vote - it's very unlikely that enough voters would mark them as second preference (even allowing for protest votes) to get them past the 50% mark.
Even though the Green party are in favour of AV, it's unclear as to whether they would benefit from the introduction of AV. Their victory in the Brighton Pavilion constituency came with 16,238 out of 51,834 votes cast - just 31%. If AV had been in place in 2010, it's a matter of pure speculation, but open to doubt, as to whether they would then have amassed enough second preference votes to get past 50% before the Labour candidate who came second in the original vote.
Similarly, UKIP are also saying "Yes" to AV without any clear indication as to whether they would benefit. They were the largest party (in terms of votes received nationally) not to win a seat at the 2010 election. Like the BNP, they could hope to win a seat under FPTP where they don't need to muster 50% of the vote, but it's doubtful whether they would receive enough second preference votes (presumably from Conservative voters) to win under AV. It would be nice if these two parties are supporting the 'Yes to AV' campaign because they believe it to be a fairer voting system, rather than because of any perceived electoral advantage to them - so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is the case.
But even if you like the parties that will benefit from AV, or dislike the ones that will lose out, that isn't a valid reason for voting "Yes" in the referendum. The BNP should be defeated through rational argument rather than by loading the voting system against them. Similarly, it would be disappointing if the 'No' vote prevailed as a protest vote against the currently deeply unpopular Lib Dems.
Broadly speaking, AV would represent an impovement over the current system. It would be a good thing if candidates could no longer target a certain cross-section of the electorate in order to achieve the 35-40% of the vote that would almost certainly guarantee victory, but instead would have to work hard to appeal to the rest of the electorate in order to obtain the second preference votes that would get him or her over the 50% winning line. It would be a good thing too, that if your first preference wasn't for the ultimate winner, you could still have influenced the result through your second preference vote. Under the current system, if you don't vote for the winner, you might as well not have voted at all. The 'No' campaign can argue that it's not fair under AV that the person getting the most first preference votes might not win. But on the other hand, is it fair under the current system that someone who most people voted against can - and often does - win?
But if I had my way, I wouldn't stop at AV. There are two more reforms I would implement. Firstly, I would make voting compulsory. Secondly, I would add two more boxes to every ballot paper - "Don't know", and more pertinently, "None Of The Above". If you're going to force people to vote, you can't force them to have an opinion, hence the "Don't Know" option, which will also act as a gauge to measure how well politicians have got their message across and are engaging the electorate. Better that someone says "Don't Know" than votes out of ignorance. While AV would force politicians to try to attract broader support, the "None Of The Above" option would allow people to register positive disapproval of politicians, to send a message that their bickering, spinning, arrogance, and - in some cases - corruption won't be tolerated. A significant "None Of The Above" vote would represent a satisfying slap in the face for the politicians whose way of going about their business is deemed less than satisfactory. If "None Of The Above" actually 'won' a seat, it's tempting to suggest that the constituency concerned doesn't get an MP, either until the next election, or for a certain period of time after which a by-election would give the parties a second chance to convince the electorate of their worthiness to represent them. After all, if Belgium can manage quite happily for 8 months without a government, why shouldn't a constituency be able to get by without an MP for a while? But I'll step back form that, and instead say that in such a case, the 'real' candidate who came second should be made the MP, but only for a shorter term such as two years, after which he or she would have to defend their seat in a by-election. Yes, it would be more expensive, but isn't democracy worth it?
Apart from those criticisms, one other slightly depressing point to note is that on the day the Guardian was reporting the collapse in support of AV, most people featured in a vox pops segment on Radio 5 live didn't have a clue as to what AV was (skip to 36:17 for the AV discusssion) and even the subsequent explanation by 5 live's correspondent didn't explain at what point voters' third (and higher) preferences came into play (in case you're wondering, they are taken into account when an eliminated candidate's ballot papers are redistributed to the remaining candidates and the second preference on any of those papers was for a candidate that has already been eliminated). [If that link is unavailable, the BBC News website's guide to AV is here.] Whilst one can criticise people for being apathetic, much of the blame for that has to go to the way political debate is conducted (see above), thus alienating the general public.
There has been a lot of conjecture as to who will benefit and lose out if AV is implemented, but there would be one clear winner (the Lib Dems) and one clear loser, or set of losers (extremist parties such as the BNP). While the Lib Dems may not be so good at gaining enough votes to win seats outright under the current 'First Past the Post' (FPTP) system, they are the party best placed to receive second preference votes, since a Labour voter is unlikely to put the Conservatives as his second preference, and vice versa. It might also reduce the number of people who don't vote for the Lib Dems simply because they don't think they have a chance of winning, as those people could still feel they've influenced the outcome through their second preference votes. How many seats the Lib Dems would then gain isn't possible to predict with any certainty, but it would almost definitely mean that their share of seats in Westminster more accurately reflected their share of the national vote. The BNP meanwhile, are opposing AV, which has been seized upon by the 'Yes to AV' campaign on the grounds that if the BNP want one thing, the opposite is probably the better option. While the BNP might hope to win a seat where their supporters vote in sufficient numbers to get a bigger share of the vote than any other candidate - albeit with much less than 50% of the total vote - it's very unlikely that enough voters would mark them as second preference (even allowing for protest votes) to get them past the 50% mark.
Even though the Green party are in favour of AV, it's unclear as to whether they would benefit from the introduction of AV. Their victory in the Brighton Pavilion constituency came with 16,238 out of 51,834 votes cast - just 31%. If AV had been in place in 2010, it's a matter of pure speculation, but open to doubt, as to whether they would then have amassed enough second preference votes to get past 50% before the Labour candidate who came second in the original vote.
Similarly, UKIP are also saying "Yes" to AV without any clear indication as to whether they would benefit. They were the largest party (in terms of votes received nationally) not to win a seat at the 2010 election. Like the BNP, they could hope to win a seat under FPTP where they don't need to muster 50% of the vote, but it's doubtful whether they would receive enough second preference votes (presumably from Conservative voters) to win under AV. It would be nice if these two parties are supporting the 'Yes to AV' campaign because they believe it to be a fairer voting system, rather than because of any perceived electoral advantage to them - so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is the case.
But even if you like the parties that will benefit from AV, or dislike the ones that will lose out, that isn't a valid reason for voting "Yes" in the referendum. The BNP should be defeated through rational argument rather than by loading the voting system against them. Similarly, it would be disappointing if the 'No' vote prevailed as a protest vote against the currently deeply unpopular Lib Dems.
Broadly speaking, AV would represent an impovement over the current system. It would be a good thing if candidates could no longer target a certain cross-section of the electorate in order to achieve the 35-40% of the vote that would almost certainly guarantee victory, but instead would have to work hard to appeal to the rest of the electorate in order to obtain the second preference votes that would get him or her over the 50% winning line. It would be a good thing too, that if your first preference wasn't for the ultimate winner, you could still have influenced the result through your second preference vote. Under the current system, if you don't vote for the winner, you might as well not have voted at all. The 'No' campaign can argue that it's not fair under AV that the person getting the most first preference votes might not win. But on the other hand, is it fair under the current system that someone who most people voted against can - and often does - win?
But if I had my way, I wouldn't stop at AV. There are two more reforms I would implement. Firstly, I would make voting compulsory. Secondly, I would add two more boxes to every ballot paper - "Don't know", and more pertinently, "None Of The Above". If you're going to force people to vote, you can't force them to have an opinion, hence the "Don't Know" option, which will also act as a gauge to measure how well politicians have got their message across and are engaging the electorate. Better that someone says "Don't Know" than votes out of ignorance. While AV would force politicians to try to attract broader support, the "None Of The Above" option would allow people to register positive disapproval of politicians, to send a message that their bickering, spinning, arrogance, and - in some cases - corruption won't be tolerated. A significant "None Of The Above" vote would represent a satisfying slap in the face for the politicians whose way of going about their business is deemed less than satisfactory. If "None Of The Above" actually 'won' a seat, it's tempting to suggest that the constituency concerned doesn't get an MP, either until the next election, or for a certain period of time after which a by-election would give the parties a second chance to convince the electorate of their worthiness to represent them. After all, if Belgium can manage quite happily for 8 months without a government, why shouldn't a constituency be able to get by without an MP for a while? But I'll step back form that, and instead say that in such a case, the 'real' candidate who came second should be made the MP, but only for a shorter term such as two years, after which he or she would have to defend their seat in a by-election. Yes, it would be more expensive, but isn't democracy worth it?
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
We're all going to die!
So what exactly is going on at Fukushima? My initial reaction was that broadcasters and journalists were guilty of sensationalising the story, of playing on people's fears about nuclear power by generating dramatic headlines about possible meltdown and radiation spreading to Tokyo, the largest metropolis in the world.
Watching the news on television, online, and in newspapers, I am still left wishing that someone could explain the situation clearly. I don't expect them to know exactly what is going on within the Fukushima Daiichi plant, especially as it seems that the authorities themselves don't know the extent of the damage.
Reading one science blog (admittedly written by a proponent of nuclear energy) suggests that the situation is not that serious.
But the feeling of reassurance quickly fades when the EU's Energy Commisioner, Guenther Oettinger (described by a leaked US cable as a "lame duck German governor kicked upstairs"), pronounces that the "we are somewhere between a disaster and a major disaster" even though, as admitted by his spokeswoman, he did not have access to any specific priveleged information and, as detailed on his CV, he does not come from a scientific background. I suspect Herr Oettinger of being an idiot.
Mind you, the scary headlines didn't stop there, with the BBC reporting that the Fukushima incident could soon be rated as even more serious than the accident at the USA's Three Mile Island nuclear plant in 1979 . Which sounds scary, until you realise that there were no injuries or deaths as an immediate consequence of the partial meltdown of the reactor core. Whether or not the accident led to longer term public health issues is a moot point, but a class action claiming damages for personal injuries as a result of being exposed to radiation was rejected by the courts.
So, we're still left with the conclusion that the situation is serious, is improving, but is likely to be a disaster. There have been radiation leaks, but the particles released have quickly dispersed, due mainly to the fact that they are of a type that have very short half-lives. And there have been explosions, but these have been limited to non-critical areas, damaging structures designed to keep the elements out, rather than radiation in.
I don't know for sure what will happen at Fukushima, but I suspect that we will see that the dramatic headlines should have been reserved for the fact that the expected death toll has risen to over 10,000, and that the lives and environment of thousands of people have been destroyed by an incredible force of nature.
Watching the news on television, online, and in newspapers, I am still left wishing that someone could explain the situation clearly. I don't expect them to know exactly what is going on within the Fukushima Daiichi plant, especially as it seems that the authorities themselves don't know the extent of the damage.
Reading one science blog (admittedly written by a proponent of nuclear energy) suggests that the situation is not that serious.
But the feeling of reassurance quickly fades when the EU's Energy Commisioner, Guenther Oettinger (described by a leaked US cable as a "lame duck German governor kicked upstairs"), pronounces that the "we are somewhere between a disaster and a major disaster" even though, as admitted by his spokeswoman, he did not have access to any specific priveleged information and, as detailed on his CV, he does not come from a scientific background. I suspect Herr Oettinger of being an idiot.
Mind you, the scary headlines didn't stop there, with the BBC reporting that the Fukushima incident could soon be rated as even more serious than the accident at the USA's Three Mile Island nuclear plant in 1979 . Which sounds scary, until you realise that there were no injuries or deaths as an immediate consequence of the partial meltdown of the reactor core. Whether or not the accident led to longer term public health issues is a moot point, but a class action claiming damages for personal injuries as a result of being exposed to radiation was rejected by the courts.
So, we're still left with the conclusion that the situation is serious, is improving, but is likely to be a disaster. There have been radiation leaks, but the particles released have quickly dispersed, due mainly to the fact that they are of a type that have very short half-lives. And there have been explosions, but these have been limited to non-critical areas, damaging structures designed to keep the elements out, rather than radiation in.
I don't know for sure what will happen at Fukushima, but I suspect that we will see that the dramatic headlines should have been reserved for the fact that the expected death toll has risen to over 10,000, and that the lives and environment of thousands of people have been destroyed by an incredible force of nature.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Keys and Gray and sexism and all that
In case you missed it, two of the country's foremost football broadcasters had this conversation before the match between Wolves and Liverpool while they thought their microphones were turned off, thus sparking moral outrage among pretty much everybody (although it did seem to amuse the presenter in this clip, Sky News' political editor Adam Boulton). They were promptly suspended by Sky, pending discplinary procedures.
Almost everyone - including well-known champions of women's rights Rio Ferdinand - agreed that the opinions expressed by Gray and Keys were objectionable, offensive, and antiquated. What people disagreed on was whether we should be paying any attention to what was intended to be a private conversation. Rod Liddle makes the point in the Sunday Times' sport section that at some point in their lives, everyone will have said something in private that "would not necessarily gain nods pf approval at a Guardian editorial meeting", and that if the country followed the lead of Sky Sports, "none of us would be in a job. None of us." But the distinction here is that Gray and Keys aren't in the same sort of job as most people, and though the conversation was meant to be private, it did become public. Higher standards should apply to people in the media who, especially in roles such as that held by Gray and Keys, can be said to be role models. The fact that they bear this extra burden is more than compensated for by their reportedly massive salaries (£1.3m or £1.7m for Gray depending on what source you believe, and a reported £500,00k for Keys). In fact, rather than complain about how this was leaked, Gray and Keys should reflect that they've got away with being in high-profile, ridiculously well-paid jobs for close to 20 years despite being misogynistic dinosaurs.
Then, another clip materialised, dating back to December, showing Andy Gray making a lewd comment to a co-presenter Charlotte Jackson, suggesting she tuck his microphone pack into his trousers for him.
This was the clincher for Sky, who promptly sacked Gray with immediate effect.
And given what I've written about the matter so far, you're probably expecting me to say "good riddance". But I'm not. For one thing, we simply can't tell from that 10-second YouTube clip as to whether it was harassment or simply harmless banter. The person best placed to answer that question is Charlotte Jackson herself. She didn't lodge a complaint at the time, so she either saw it as harmless banter, or felt too intimidated by the lads' culture supposedly prevalent in Sky's football department to pursue a complaint against one of the alpha males of the pack. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any statement from Miss Jackson in the public domain, which has the left the field open for all and sundry to either be outraged on her behalf, or jump to the defence of the charmingly old-fashioned Mr. Gray. If Jackson hasn't expressed a negative opinion to Sky bosses (and there's no indication as to what her opinion was, or even if she was consulted), then Gray can consider himself unlucky to be sacked. As for the lineswoman discussion, then yes, it is worthy of disciplinary action, and Sky should take steps to educate Mr. Gray of the error of his ways - they could begin by pointing out that the lineswoman about whom he was so disparaging went on to give a faultless display in the match, including correctly judging a crucial tight call (which took the studio pundits a number of views of TV replays before they could come to a decision over) in favour of Kenny Dalglish's Liverpool. No chance of Kenny going "potty" over that, then. As for Gray's status as a role model, that would be done no harm by a public apology and repentance. If a dinosaur like Gray was to see the error of his ways, that would do more for the fight against sexism than a knee-jerk sacking that could support the opinion of those men who feel - rightly or wrongly - that they have to play by a different set of rules to women if they are to avoid accusations of sexism and harassment.
I'd be similarly sympathetic towards Richard Keys' plight if it wasn't for this charming chat. Again, it was not meant for broadcast, and unlike Andy Gray's interaction with Charlotte Jackson, there's no female 'victim' present. And unlike the first clip, he's not questioning a woman's ability based simply upon her gender. But there's something about it, the way he refers to a woman simply as 'it', and talking about "smash[ing] it", and "hanging out the back of it", that crosses a line, that shows Keys to be an arrogant, obnoxious fool who doesn't deserve to be the face of a national broadcaster, that makes him an embarassment to his employer. For that reason, I have little sympathy with him.
As for the wider implications to this story, I'm not sure there are any. No-one wants to see an end to banter just because it might be overheard by someone who take offence on behalf of someone else, but people have to 'know their audience' and make sure they know who they're talking to before saying things that might offend. If they do cause offence, then employers should make sure they are shown the error of their ways and act to protect vulnerable employees from the sort of climate that allegedly prevailed at Sky Sports. It's all down to common sense, really.
I know this post has gone on for a bit (just to come to the conclusion that "it's all down to common sense"), but did you really expect me to cover a topic as delicate as sexism in the media and the workplace in a couple of sentences? Do me a favour, love.
Almost everyone - including well-known champions of women's rights Rio Ferdinand - agreed that the opinions expressed by Gray and Keys were objectionable, offensive, and antiquated. What people disagreed on was whether we should be paying any attention to what was intended to be a private conversation. Rod Liddle makes the point in the Sunday Times' sport section that at some point in their lives, everyone will have said something in private that "would not necessarily gain nods pf approval at a Guardian editorial meeting", and that if the country followed the lead of Sky Sports, "none of us would be in a job. None of us." But the distinction here is that Gray and Keys aren't in the same sort of job as most people, and though the conversation was meant to be private, it did become public. Higher standards should apply to people in the media who, especially in roles such as that held by Gray and Keys, can be said to be role models. The fact that they bear this extra burden is more than compensated for by their reportedly massive salaries (£1.3m or £1.7m for Gray depending on what source you believe, and a reported £500,00k for Keys). In fact, rather than complain about how this was leaked, Gray and Keys should reflect that they've got away with being in high-profile, ridiculously well-paid jobs for close to 20 years despite being misogynistic dinosaurs.
Then, another clip materialised, dating back to December, showing Andy Gray making a lewd comment to a co-presenter Charlotte Jackson, suggesting she tuck his microphone pack into his trousers for him.
This was the clincher for Sky, who promptly sacked Gray with immediate effect.
And given what I've written about the matter so far, you're probably expecting me to say "good riddance". But I'm not. For one thing, we simply can't tell from that 10-second YouTube clip as to whether it was harassment or simply harmless banter. The person best placed to answer that question is Charlotte Jackson herself. She didn't lodge a complaint at the time, so she either saw it as harmless banter, or felt too intimidated by the lads' culture supposedly prevalent in Sky's football department to pursue a complaint against one of the alpha males of the pack. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any statement from Miss Jackson in the public domain, which has the left the field open for all and sundry to either be outraged on her behalf, or jump to the defence of the charmingly old-fashioned Mr. Gray. If Jackson hasn't expressed a negative opinion to Sky bosses (and there's no indication as to what her opinion was, or even if she was consulted), then Gray can consider himself unlucky to be sacked. As for the lineswoman discussion, then yes, it is worthy of disciplinary action, and Sky should take steps to educate Mr. Gray of the error of his ways - they could begin by pointing out that the lineswoman about whom he was so disparaging went on to give a faultless display in the match, including correctly judging a crucial tight call (which took the studio pundits a number of views of TV replays before they could come to a decision over) in favour of Kenny Dalglish's Liverpool. No chance of Kenny going "potty" over that, then. As for Gray's status as a role model, that would be done no harm by a public apology and repentance. If a dinosaur like Gray was to see the error of his ways, that would do more for the fight against sexism than a knee-jerk sacking that could support the opinion of those men who feel - rightly or wrongly - that they have to play by a different set of rules to women if they are to avoid accusations of sexism and harassment.
I'd be similarly sympathetic towards Richard Keys' plight if it wasn't for this charming chat. Again, it was not meant for broadcast, and unlike Andy Gray's interaction with Charlotte Jackson, there's no female 'victim' present. And unlike the first clip, he's not questioning a woman's ability based simply upon her gender. But there's something about it, the way he refers to a woman simply as 'it', and talking about "smash[ing] it", and "hanging out the back of it", that crosses a line, that shows Keys to be an arrogant, obnoxious fool who doesn't deserve to be the face of a national broadcaster, that makes him an embarassment to his employer. For that reason, I have little sympathy with him.
As for the wider implications to this story, I'm not sure there are any. No-one wants to see an end to banter just because it might be overheard by someone who take offence on behalf of someone else, but people have to 'know their audience' and make sure they know who they're talking to before saying things that might offend. If they do cause offence, then employers should make sure they are shown the error of their ways and act to protect vulnerable employees from the sort of climate that allegedly prevailed at Sky Sports. It's all down to common sense, really.
I know this post has gone on for a bit (just to come to the conclusion that "it's all down to common sense"), but did you really expect me to cover a topic as delicate as sexism in the media and the workplace in a couple of sentences? Do me a favour, love.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Aggressive political rhetoric: Guns don't kill people...
...politicians do. Or at least that's what they're arguing about over in the U.S. at the moment. After the attempted assassination of American congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, leaving Giffords herself in a critical condition and six others dead, a debate has started over whether increasingly vitriolic political rhetoric, coupled with increased use of military imagery in political campaigning, has either directly provoked the shooting or helped foster an atmosphere where such violent acts are more likely to occur (note that the cross hairs on the Palin website only appear on a map to show targeted constituencies, and NOT on pictures of the members of Congress themselves).
Quite rightly, those accused of such agressive campaigning are pointing out that they cannot be held responsible for the actions of a lone, mentally unstable perpetrator. But to believe that this renders them blameless is to miss the point. As American commentator Keith Olbermann eloquently argues, the tone as well as the content of political debate influences those that witness it, and is one of the factors in creating an environment where the use of violent, often gun-related, imagery has not been questioned or criticised - until now. Politicians across the world are keen to emphasise their own importance when it suits them, but when an incident such as the shootings in Tucson occurs, they are very quick to deny that they have any influence over anything, and that if they are using aggressive rhetoric, they are merely reflecting society's morals rather than influencing them. This abrogation of responsibility is unworthy of anyone who desires to lead. Because, believe it or not, politicians do influence society, and not just through the laws they pass when in government. If a politician uses military, or violent, or gun-related imagery in their language, then it helps legitimise such imagery, thus taking us towards a society where violence is seen more and more as a potential and justified response to any given situation. After all, if a politician is using violent rhetoric, is must be all right, mustn't it?
And we in England can't consider ourselves immune from this problem, though here it appears to be more likely to be left-wing organisations (if not the mainstream political parties) that use the imagery of conflict in their propaganda. It was a Facebook post by (the mostly admirable) Billy Bragg that led me to the article by Keith Olbermann cited above, but it was the same Billy Bragg who posited that the 21 Liberal Democrat MPs who voted against the government motion to remove the cap on tuition fees might not have done so "had it not all kicked off at Millbank" - his condemnation was reserved for the throwing of a fire exinguisher off the roof, but not for the rest of the violent disorder that took place.
So politicians and political activists should take heed - as I was taught when I was young, if you have to resort to violence, then you've lost the argument.
Quite rightly, those accused of such agressive campaigning are pointing out that they cannot be held responsible for the actions of a lone, mentally unstable perpetrator. But to believe that this renders them blameless is to miss the point. As American commentator Keith Olbermann eloquently argues, the tone as well as the content of political debate influences those that witness it, and is one of the factors in creating an environment where the use of violent, often gun-related, imagery has not been questioned or criticised - until now. Politicians across the world are keen to emphasise their own importance when it suits them, but when an incident such as the shootings in Tucson occurs, they are very quick to deny that they have any influence over anything, and that if they are using aggressive rhetoric, they are merely reflecting society's morals rather than influencing them. This abrogation of responsibility is unworthy of anyone who desires to lead. Because, believe it or not, politicians do influence society, and not just through the laws they pass when in government. If a politician uses military, or violent, or gun-related imagery in their language, then it helps legitimise such imagery, thus taking us towards a society where violence is seen more and more as a potential and justified response to any given situation. After all, if a politician is using violent rhetoric, is must be all right, mustn't it?
And we in England can't consider ourselves immune from this problem, though here it appears to be more likely to be left-wing organisations (if not the mainstream political parties) that use the imagery of conflict in their propaganda. It was a Facebook post by (the mostly admirable) Billy Bragg that led me to the article by Keith Olbermann cited above, but it was the same Billy Bragg who posited that the 21 Liberal Democrat MPs who voted against the government motion to remove the cap on tuition fees might not have done so "had it not all kicked off at Millbank" - his condemnation was reserved for the throwing of a fire exinguisher off the roof, but not for the rest of the violent disorder that took place.
So politicians and political activists should take heed - as I was taught when I was young, if you have to resort to violence, then you've lost the argument.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)