Sunday, March 22, 2009

Two Deaths

Jade Goody.
Yep. I Went there.

Now to be clear, I don’t care about this. I don’t believe that Big Brother indicates anything particularly important about anything. At most it is a minor stepping stone along the path toward the new forms of narrative that will replace those that are currently in fashion. The commonly held assumption that a passable piece of light entertainment can only be properly regarded as an indicator of the direction and nature of the cultural hegemony is, I think, a distortion brought about by the prevalence of irritating humanities graduates in the print media and their tendency to clumsily apply half-remembered lessons about absurd French celebrity philosophers to everything. Big Brother is not Foucault’s panopticon. It is not the desert of the real.

And I don’t care about it. I didn’t care when Jade Goody was on it the first time – I wanted Kate to win. I cared a little bit when she was on it again, because it seemed thoroughly apparent that the blonde member of SS club 7 (kudos on the pun to Jimbob) and the pert model were much worse racists than Jade and were being treated better by the press because ‘doing nice singing’ and ‘having a pretty arse’ are regarded as ‘talent’ by morons who haven’t ever thought about it. I thought that Jade had demonstrated a likeable level of concern for her mother earlier in the programme. I wondered whether the reaction to the story was indicative of the transfer of base liberal middle class loathing from their former colonial inferiors to the white working class who had so disappointed them by preferring turkey twizzlers to owning the means of production. But still, I didn’t really care.

What I do care about, and care about increasingly at the moment, is the revolution in data transmission that we are currently living through. I define data as all information that can be digitally encoded and, consequently, where I have often in the past been unclear as to what it is precisely that I doing with my life, I now define myself as a creator of data. I have no interest in being a musician, designer, playwright, writer or poet - these titles feel loaded and dishonest. I’m a data creator, that’s my business, and it is important to me that the movement of data should be understood as much as possible.

Jade Goody, is significant for being among the last great failures of the old-fashioned, moribund print media. The filtration of data through a once necessary - now economically doomed - infrastructure of graduate recruitment, printing presses and hierarchies has perpetrated the sickness and unbearable fucked-upness of the Jade Goody story. Print has been defended as the maintainer of quality, the guarantor of truth, the upholder of standards, the roman centurion before the internet’s barbarian hordes and yet it has insulted, preened, peered, lied, raised, razed, gossiped and distorted. It has defined a young woman as a pig, as vile, as brave, as ugly, as courageous and, ultimately (on the cover of Richard Desmond’s OK! Magazine) as dead when she was none of them. Like a rough john who feels within his rights to kick the shit out of a hooker he’s paid for, it has made the spurious and revolting argument that the payment of money to a person legitimises any form of abuse. It has raised the odious, giftless charlatan Max Clifford to a position of power and riches. It has indefinably but unmistakeably lowered the level of our discourse. Jade is not the point. Her deadline-unfriendly death was just sad and horrible.

And look now at the internet. That great threat to truth, quality and decency. Yes, there was isjadedead.com – sick, certainly, but tempered (as sickness must be to be forgiveable) with a degree of wit and, unlike OK!, at least accurate. Yes, there are people spreading scurrilous gossip and disparaging abuse on the digital spy forums – but they are tempered by an immediate and equally prominent faction who find their actions revolting and rebut them. Yes there is sickipedia – but there is no pressure from the medium to buy into its worldview, you can laugh or you can be offended: it’s up to you. At the same time wikipedia (that self-policed, establishment defying replacement for the Brittanica - once among print’s proudest achievements) gives an accurate uncontroversial account of Jade’s life without resorting to emboldened little adjectives; a google news search gives us unfiltered access to every different version of events; Stephen Fry twittered about it; And I, quite consciously and unsteered chose to notice.

The internet is not a piratical upstart spoiling business models for a vital fourth estate. It is an improvement on the press in every way. As Jade Goody - poor, dead, rich Jade Goody - is remembered, I feel a little bit sad. When print goes the same way, I cannot say that I shall feel anything very much at all.



Addendum:

The dead press has this week also been complaing about the EU changing guidelines on women’s titles. Apparently insisting on Ms instead of Mrs or Miss is ‘political correctness gone mad’. Just so we’re clear, the argument for Ms. Is this:

It is not acceptable for a woman’s public status to be contingent on her relationship to a man, if a man’s public status is not equally contingent on his relationship to a woman.

It’s not complicated. It is very simple, very clear and very difficult to dispute. So don’t. Stop being wankers and use Ms. already. Idiots.

S.I. March 22nd 2009

4 comments:

Jamie Woods '77 said...

Regarding the whole Ms Miss Mrs situation. I have too many nappies to change to research this but...


It's the European Parliament who have applied this ruling (to the Tea ladies, Char-women and part-time Chocolatieres that are employed in Brussels), rather than the UK Parliament. Is this not just a storm in a mis-translated teeschale?


Do the Flemish, Walloon, French, German etc etc languages have an equivalent title that means "I'm a woman dammit, but it's none of your business whether I'm married or not"?

I'm no great linguist, so was just wondering whether this wasanother example of Barmy Brussels dictating how our British Birds should be addresses, or whether this was an international feminist issue affecting Mdme's, Frau(leines) and Senoritas around the EU?

lyingtothekids said...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031806.html

I believe the pamphlet in question asks that people refrain from using titles that discriminate between married/unmarried women in any language: I deduce from this that other languages do include these distinctions.

This is all in the link, but I think there's an argument to be made for keeping the suffix -man (as in fireman, workman) if only because in old english it was what you stuck on the end of something to mean human: gu-man was man and wif-man was woman (approximately).

The Ms thing though - I just see that as an argument which should have been conceded by everyone on the losing side decades ago...

PC said...

The Norwegian language has equivalents of Mr. (Herr), Mrs. (Fru) and Miss (Frøken) but not, that I'm aware of or can recall ever having heard, Ms.

I hardly think a marital status-neutral version is in the works though, not in the 21st century, as no one below the age of 70 uses these archaic, gender specific titles anymore. Other than for comical effect, maybe. I think we've concluded that a combination of first and surnames generally do the required job; further qualification is unnecessary.

We're not a part of the EU.

Jacob Moyers said...

Uh...great article. I was kinda saddened to see all the comments focused on the dispute over mrs and ms. Though I guess this Jade character was a main point post (not familiar with her). I was rather more blown away by your brief remark on being a creator of data.

I too, see the impending digital revolution revolving around the (freedom of) transmission of data. I would be curious to know your thoughts on what the modern individual or "creator of data" can do to guarantee the proper advancement of the internet. Protest through file-sharing has been successful, though seemingly slow to move. What are your thoughts (pretty please)?