Opinion: ....as bad as each other?

This morning I noticed a strange thing on Twitter. A lot of people were posting disappointed messages that a Twitter rumour about an old Man meeting his demise were untrue and wishing upon him various painful outcomes.

I also read back through the 'Greeting' messages sent to another older gentleman who has very recently joined Twitter. There was a lot of artless abuse, much of it excitedly discussing the older man's death.

The interesting thing about these two unconnected tales of Twitter bile is that they generally split down political lines. Those who regretted the survival of an old man tended to be on the Right, those wishing death upon the old man tended to be on the Left.

Ok... Explanation time, and how you feel about this will probably place you somewhere in that Left/Right spectrum.
The man who was rumoured to have died was Fiedel Castro. It was a false rumour.
The Man who joined Twitter and was artlessly flamed is Rupert Murdoch. It is a verified account.

Now I do tend to veer left slightly, but I do not agree with Castro's method of rule, and his lack of transparent government is likely to cover shocking abuses of power. Still I would not gloat in his death.

Despite my politics I love some of the things Murdoch has brought us, not least the Simpsons. That said I still hate his other policies, his systematic attacks on the BBC etc... But still I would not wish death on him...

They have undoubtedly committed acts that are sickening to the sensibilities of those outside the 'circles of power'. But is 'death' even a good punishment for this... How about loss of staus? Intelligent mockery... Loss of the respect they so obviously craved.

Now looking back at that you may think I am attacking one group more than the other. 'Oh but he deserves it for......'
...and I'm sure they both do... Is it my place to give it to them?

I have made jokes on Twitter about Murdoch, and would undoubtedly do some 'Castro material' if I knew enough about him to be funny, that's the jocular, if slightly cruel egalitarianism of Twitter (Something Murdoch should love, given his mistrust of 'elites')

Wishing death on someone, or to someone, is a bad argument. Being rude is bad argument. Twitter is place for discussion, and even insults, but why so thoughtless, dull and vicious?

If you find yourself about to tweet 'I hope you die' to an old tycoon who you disagree with, or 'I wish you'd died' to an ageing statesman you'd rather hadn't gained power, here's a helpful hint.

Lefties: say to yourself, I'm not like those 'Righties' mocking the death of an old man, I will not post that, instead I will post something a lot wittier, that gets my point across without veering into the artless spite of 'The Enemy'

Righties: say to yourself I'm not like those 'Lefties' wishing death on an old man, I will not post that, instead I will post something a lot wittier that gets my point across without veering into the artless spite of 'The Enemy'.

...this advice is free... You're very welcome.

Opinion: The Scumbags Puppetshow.

Ok... I thought I'd got the hang of this blogging lark. Keep it light, dispassionate... amusing if possible. Thus armed I have proceeded to blog virtually fuck all. Seems what I needed is some out and out rage.

Today the News of the World Apologists have been out in force. It was previously reported that deleted voicemails may have given the parents of a murdered schoolgirl 'false' hope. This was blamed on a Private Investigator working on behalf of the News of the World. The previous information was provided by the police, and has since been amended. Now they no longer believe that he deleted those particular voicemails.

Ok... that is the premise. It is not known who deleted those voicemails, it is still believed highly probable that later voicemails were deleted by the P.I, Mulcaire, and the fact that he hacked the phone on their instruction is no longer a matter of any doubt.

So why the Crowing? Why the sickening screams of 'Poor Me' by apologists for the sick rag?

I am not in the industry. I am one of those members of the public that the tabloids always claimed to be 'serving'. I don't know how they work, I am learning now, thanks to the Leveson inquiry. The fact that it wasn't a particular set of voicemails that were deleted is not the issue to me. The fact that they hacked the phone in the first place is.

Now people are oozing out of the woodwork to say that if we'd have known that then, nobody would have wanted the News of the World to close. (To be honest, I don't think most people did... they actually wanted Rebekah Brooks to go.. but she didn't, she decided to close the paper as a, thankfully shortlived, stay of her own execution)

In my opinion this is a ludicrously simplistic view, and more than a little bit insulting to the other victims... Sara Payne? Victims of Terrorist attacks? Was nobody bothered about them? Not according to the apologists... we became a mob over that one incident, and hounded a respectable newspaper to death, over a few voicemails that they never deleted anyway...

No, this view isn't true... people are angry with the all of the hacking. They are angry with the way the management dealt with the hacking. They are angry with the way the media are covering the hacking. They are livid that the 'opinion comics' are telling them what they were 'angry about in the first place'...

Ok.. I understand, not everyone cares about hacking. But I do. I see Tabloids as a blight on the already tarnished reputation of our species. Opinion rags that celebrate idiocy whilst belittling science (Coverage of MMR being a fine example of this) that pursue political narratives under the cloak of impartial news coverage, that feign disgust over artworks whilst leering over young girls (Not 'people'.. almost exclusively female their targets... remember the amazing spectre of an attack piece on Chris Morris's Brass Eye Special, opposite a shot of 13 and 11 year old princess's in bikinis)... That cultivate an audience ignorance, whilst pretending they are responding to it...

I said earlier that most people didn't want the News of The World to close. This is true. I did though. I hate Tabloids. I hate the fact that they claim to be 'News'... They are gossip mags, nothing more and I hope to see them all close soon. If you want a gossip mag, there are plenty there that don't pretend to understand the economic impact of immigration, or European legislation... there are plenty that don't campaign to 'Out' Paedophiles whilst showing titillating pictures of young singing stars... there are plenty that don't straight out 'Make up' stories and then justify them by saying 'people want to read it'... If you want to print fiction... do it... printing fiction isn't unheard of, but tying your fictions to a living, breathing human is vile.

Apologies for this... it is a rant, not well thought out.. but I am genuinely furious. On Twitter I called Tabloids the Scumbags Puppetshow. The argument is that the audience want this kind of stuff so that justifies it, or that those on stage are doing 'bad' stuff and that justifies it... but with the increasing doubt over whether any of it is true it renders it all an illusion. In reality there's someone behind the curtains, pulling the strings and we are only just getting to see how much power they wield in this relationship.

They are the Scumbags, and I hope their whole industry fails.