Reading an article (and forum discussion) on Café Babel (a European Community discussion and news site, that I'm really becoming a fan of...). Microsoft has to pay something in the region of €500m in antitrust fines.
I can feel the cheers from people all over Europe, and possibly the world (interestingly, the comments on Babel are much more reasoned and reserved than the kind of cheers I'm thinking of). Microsoft, as the Emperor (in the Star Wars sense) of desktop software gets a rap on the knuckles (although €500m is probably just the one knuckle for Microsoft). Those who feel they've been 'hard done' by Microsoft (for various reasons) will be over the moon that their imperial march has been halted.
But forgotten is the question of choice. And if it's remembered, the real question (of choice) has been buried under years of posturing.
The fact is, Microsoft is just one example of many many companies that have grown to huge proportions. They have done so because people choose to spend their money on their products and/or services. The same principle applies for MacDonald's, Ford, Dell, Phillips, Apple, Kraft Foods, etc. Of course, there are always issues of scale and influence that could be (and most probably are) brought to bear in the growth of these companies: Once they hit a certain size, that size is used to engineer their further growth. This is where the EU has come in and slapped a fine on Microsoft.
The problem is that people don't choose other products and/or services. Obviously some people do. The point is, not everyone does. In fact, it might just be fair to say, in terms of software, most people choose Microsoft. The minority are those who choose other software providers. And in that minority a further battle rages. Apple, which is design chic, and also an easy alternative that shows you've released yourself from the shackles of the great beast is a common choice. But, far more imaginatively, there is the choice of Open Source and smaller software house products. But people fear these options, and, to them, for good reason.
Our economy, and, in the West, our way of life dictates that you never get something for nothing. And furthermore, if you do have to pay for it, then you should get the product complete - no messing about with it. So, Open Source just doesn't make sense to a lot of common-sensical types. It's a fair point. Why would someone (or some group) provide software to the masses without charge? Why would you provide a product that people can go home and tinker with? It feels safer to go the route of paying through the nose. At least there's someone to sue if things go wrong. Apple makes more sense, as it offers the 'complete package'. User friendly to the max, Apple gives you the box and the software. This does two things: it makes computers the 'true consumer electronic' that Apple dreams of. No worrying about 'software' and 'hardware'. Just plug it in, and it works. Laudable enough to some extent. But isn't this Apple telling people that, as consumers, this is what they'll want to be doing with their computers? My feeling is that choosing Apple, simply to 'not choose' Microsoft makes as much sense as choosing Burger King to 'not choose' MacDonald's. It reminds me of my grandparents spending 10 pounds sterling in McDonald's, only to leave because they were told there was no cutlery because no one wanted it.
The problem we face is one of confidence in the other options. The dreaded Open Source, and all its tics and bugs. It's not always free, let's get that out of the way. But it's often cheaper than buying 'out of the box'. And it's customizable, so you can generally do what you want with it. The tics and bugs are more often than not a result of the fact that to date, many of the people who work on Open Source projects are in effect volunteers. So while they have a passion for it, they also have to earn some money.
My wife tells me I fear change. And she may be right. For one thing, I actually want to stick with the separation of software and hardware in computing. I think such a separation will actually open up possibilities that cannot be dreamed of now, because just about every computer that ships is shipped with an Operating System (generally, Microsoft's or Apple's). Give people options, explode the idea that computers and technology should be something 'simple'. Make people think about their options. Then, we may see the end of 'cultural homogeneity' that people fear so much. This is all possible, but it depends on what people fear most: thinking openly and creatively, or everything being the same.
I look forward to the day I get my burger patty in my local joint, the buns from Burger King, pickles from McDonald's and for sauce, use Abrakebabra's taco-cheese fries sauce. It may sound disgusting to you, but it'd suit me right down to the ground.
Microsoft, MacDonald's and Monopolisation
Trusting the Media
This week, I got the FT Weekend instead of the usual stack of recycling that is the Sunday Papers. My usual is the Observer. Sometimes I buy the Sunday Tribune, rarely the Sunday Independent and almost never (despite growing up with it) the Sunday Times. The regularity with which I buy these papers is, indeed very much in proportion to
a - their liberal bent and
b - the lack of stereotypical media-mogul multi millionaire/billionaire at the helm.
There is little more reasoning that goes into these decisions. They are just the decisions that are.
In the FT Weekend, there was an interesting article about trust in the media. It was a teaser for an essay competition, but interesting nonetheless. The competition is to write about change. This article looked at changing the newspaper industry. Or, more accurately, the relationship between newspapers and readers. The writer in question, Martin Dickinson would like to change "...the relentlessly negative public image of the UK press and television."
His article is a good start. For one thing, it engages with the reader, rather than disparaging the journalistic or educational quality of other publications (which is the usual playground for such arguments). However, I think he misses the point of the public distaste for journalism. He says journalistic standards have slipped ("Newspapers seem less accurate than they used to be - and less concerned about being so."). But there is a whiff of 'the public don't understand the journalist's lot' in the article ("Writing the 'first rough draft of history' is not easy, particularly against the background of politicians' perpetual spin and an unhelpful legal framework"). I would argue that the public distrust for journalism is not a matter of who's telling the truth, but who's telling the right truth.
This goes back to the glut of feature-film documentaries and so called 'counter culture' essayists of the nineties. Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, et al. They came on the scene, and showed us all what's what. Or at least they thought they were showing us what's what. Or, maybe we just thought they were showing us what's what. The upshot is, no one can now believe they know what's going on. If one were to say they do, those gathered would nod their heads politely, and wonder how someone could still be so naíve. Connections between large corporates, governments and the media became de rigeur conversation pieces, whether over champagne in hotel lobbies, or over cider in fields. This idea gathered force and became, both in the UK and Ireland, the starting point for any media discussion. If you read it in a paper, the next question would be 'what paper?' If you saw it on TV, 'which channel?' If you heard it on the radio, 'which station?' There were no longer facts - there were items read, heard or viewed, which could be held up to scrutiny based on the corporate connections and ruling government in the country of publication. Add to this the rise of two forms of journalism: shock journalism and celebrity journalism. These forms, I'll discuss in detail elsewhere. But their rise made facts even harder to find under the wealth of adjectives, adverbs and general advertising of causes.
The result was nobody trusted anyone. A healthy disrespect for authority transformed into an unhealthy distrust, and indeed, disregard for authority. In the worst case scenario, general apathy set in (No one can stop these huge corporations, and they are controlling the world, so let's hear about the grief of families, the stretch marks of celebrities and the theories on how to distinguish natural body parts from those that have been 'enhanced').
Returning to the point, this has left journalism in a pretty sad state. There is an automatic belief in publications being 'right wing' or 'left wing' that is worn on shoulders so that market share can be capitalized. The same news may be reported by every publication, but the reports will be different, depending on what people believe the news 'means'. The question of meaning is even more interesting, but too big to go into here. The important thing here is that people subscribe (intellectually, at least) to those media that reflect their own political bias. And the journals in question have embraced them.
Adjectives, adverbs and advertising for ideals have become staple points for journalism. A war in a previously unheard-of country could be a struggle against fascistic dictatorship, a want for a market economy, a need for human rights, or a disruption in trade routes or industrial production. It is hardly ever the murder of civilians, the inability to buy milk or the chaos of existence. In the papers and on the TV news, it shouldn't be any of these.
Journalism should just explain the war in the unknown country. It is up to analysts to decide what the war 'means' in economic or social terms. It is up to artists to decide what the war 'means' in humane terms. And it's up to the reader to decide what the war 'means' to them.
We stumble upon another problem here: the reader. Along with the shock-you docu-jocks, the rise of voyeurism and celebrity fascination, the reader's mind has atrophied. People throw bricks into MacDonald's windows, hours after they got a Big Mac there. Critical evaluation has gone out the window. In terms of media, the market now is for opinion, not facts. Who can blame the papers if they dictate that all their journalists should now write articles that provide a definitive 'outcome' that results from the 'situation' they are reporting? This will sell, because people want to know. They want to know, but they don't want to think. I'll go into more detail elsewhere, but this is a creeping problem. It's not something the papers have thrust upon us. It's not something that anyone can be immune from.
And so, we have a situation where newspapers provide the opinions their readers want to hear. Much in the same way that fast food restaurants (can you call them restaurants?) provide their eaters with what they want to taste. The backlash comes from Starbucks customers complaining about Costa shops. Woops, their franchises. What I mean is 'right wing' readers railing against 'left wing' publications. Or, more commonly, 'left wing' readers railing against 'right wing' publications. This is where the distrust lies. The distrust itself is misplaced, because it isn't based on where the truth lies - it's based on where the ideology lies.
Blog Action Day
It started simply enough - one of my best friends emails to let me know about Blog Action Day. Bloggers around the world (12,316 at last count) are going to devote a post on Monday, October 15th to environmental issues. I joke immediately - So, tens of thousands of bloggers are going to switch on to blog about environmental issues, drawing on the world's ever-jaded energy reserves. It was twee, I'll admit. It's also a cliché at this stage, a cynical (or, I would believe, more cruelly sceptical) pass-remark used over and over in relation to Environmental awareness (remember the criticisms (see controversies and criticism) of Live Earth?). But, then I started thinking: in light of the fact that this is a cliché, is there a need for more awareness of Environmental issues? Or, is the awareness that has been generated actually doing anything?
Awareness or Engagement? Which is the Real Need?
The problem with the 'Environmental Question' (as with all issues that seem to divide along Liberal/Conservative lines) is that generating awareness is often a question of preaching to the converted. People who want to be aware tune in. Or, those who want to be true partisans for their political or ideological viewpoint will actively seek out this information. So, we end up with those who always thought it was important telling us it's even more important now. There are two problems with this approach. Firstly, it's working in a vacuum. Second, in possibly 8 cases out of 10, all that happens is attempted persuasion (nothing actually gets done, nothing changes).
Working in a vacuum is a common problem with political discourse in many western countries today. Essentially, you're talking about a political system divided along two lines: Left and Right. Left and Right mean different things to people from different countries, but they run something along the lines of this: Left thinkers believe the State has a duty to its citizens, generally financial, but also in terms of taking responsibility for social issues (behaviour, culture, etc.). On the other hand, Right thinkers will emphasise the need for individual, personal responsibility to be taken for financial and personal well-being. Yes, this is over-simplified, but it provides a rough compass for the purposes of this argument.
The problem in political discourse at the moment is that the Left argues among itself about how Left it should be (meaning different things in different countries), and the Right does the same. When an issue like The Environment arises, each side will agree on its position (We need to worry about it/We don't need to worry about it), but for different reasons. So, off they go, arguing about why their position is correct, rather than whether it is correct. It's anecdotal, but a good example (or, more correctly, series of examples) of this is recent discussions I've had about the environment:
- Arguing about the Environment has become a point-scoring exercise for the Left, in terms of who knows most about the damage being done. Sometimes, it will include who suffers most from the damage being done.
- Arguing about the Environment has become a point-scoring exercise for the Right, in terms of who knows most about why no damage is being done. Sometimes, it will include who understands the most about cosmic rhythms and pre-historic ice shifts.
- Arguing about the Environment rarely occurs between the Left and the Right. So, the Right don't hear (whether they refuse to, or whether they are ignorant of it) the Left's point of view. The Left don't hear (ditto) the Right's point of view. Each side listens to the scientists that espouse their own point of view.
The scientists will bash it out, anyway. Armed with test tubes, spectrometers and research grants, they line up their armies, take aim and prepare to fire interns and research grads at each other, like so much cannon fodder. The columnists will take the information they get from their generals (or, more commonly, disregard any information that has the slightest relationship to fact) and grab our attention. We, then, go to the pub and say "I was reading today in the --- about the Environment. Their columnist is very good, you know."
Only to be told either:
- "Well, I read in the --- that polar bears have turned gay because the warming of the environment has tricked their brains into thinking that other bears are of the opposite sex. It's based on research into the effect of alcohol heating up the human brain."
- Or, "Well, I read all polar bears are turning gay because they've over populated. It's very common and occurred no less than 35.7 million years ago."
A Time for Awareness or a Time for Action?
Al Gore, accepting the Nobel prize awarded to him and the IPCC (See the BBC News website for more details) said "I will be doing everything I can to try to understand how to best use the honour and recognition of this award as a way of speeding up the change in awareness, and the change in urgency." But what does this mean? Are we to hear more spokespeople on the radio, more articles in the papers telling us how much of a problem global warming is? I don't mean to be cynical, but in fairness, if this is what it means, then we can also expect more spokespeople on the radio, more articles in the papers, telling us what a load of cobblers the 'global warming threat' is. While I believe something should be done, I would sing along with the Live Earth critics - what is this awareness doing? Of the people I know that would mention the Problem of the Environment (usually mentioned in passing), only one has actually done anything. She has stopped using hazardous chemicals when cleaning her house (e.g. bleach), takes public transport despite having a usable driver's license, tries to choose 'environmentally friendly' options in every minutiae of her life. The rest of us wring our hands and wonder, what can be done?
And indeed, what can be done? Turning off light bulbs and TVs is probably a good idea, but is also probably much less than a drop in the ocean. Fifty years ago, the same was being done, but for different reasons (war, rationing, etc.). Climate issues have continued apace. What is required now is real political action - and worldwide action.
What is missing is, at best, real political belief. At worst, we're missing real political dedication. Grants for alternative fuels and other 'green'-based activity would appear to derive more from concern for the future of fossil fuels than the need to address the environmental issues. But what political force will really address environmental issues? I thought this a great way to end a paragraph, so that I could provide my end-of-discussion conclusions. But, man plans, God laughs. This coming from an agnostic. The thought terrifies me.
So Where Do I Stand?
In Straw Dogs, John Gray (School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics) argues the point perfectly. My take of his argument is as follows:
Our problem is one of perception. We believe we have responsibility for the planet, thus inferring we are masters of the planet. But this is incorrect. We have a parasitic relationship to the planet, taking what we need and replacing what we feel is 'right'. Generally, we plant trees to make up for the burning of fossil fuels, rape of women in war torn countries, McDonald's, oil, war and human intolerance for other humans. So, in one sense we over-compensate for what we feel we have inflicted on the planet. Hooray, us!
However, if we understand ourselves as dependent on earth, we start to see that trees generally plant themselves. We can (and do) intervene, planting trees ourselves. But, left to their own devices, they would plant away, propagate, grow, die. Such is life. We humans have rational thinking among our talents. This lets us take things we find around us, and make other things with it. We move matter from one place to another and generate billions in revenue in the process. We really are brilliant. But we really are parasites. Our existence depends on the earth - the earth isn't depending on us. Unfortunately, this is our relationship with our own existence. Which means, we have to do something. It's not a question of being 'responsible' for 'Mother Earth' or 'Mother Nature'. It's a question of ensuring our own survival on a planet that can destroy us, should it need to, so that balance can be restored. Not new-age 'balance'. This is a balance based on physical, chemical and biological sciences. Once we over-tilt, we fall over the edge. Like any other parasite, we will be destroyed before the body we inhabit.
