The Brit Awards 2012

The annual Brit Awards ceremony took place in London this Tuesday night. Despite a questionable reputation, the occasion marks the high point in the British musical calendar, particularly recognising the achievements within the British industry as well as those worldwide. Here, I givesa run-down of the 2012 awards and the winners.

British Male was taken home by Ed Sheeran, who also bagged British Breakthrough. The singer-songwriter has had a fantastic 2011, with his album + going platinum and his gig tickets becoming something akin to gold dust. Whilst predictable, Ed deserved the recognition, particularly within the contenders from the British Male outlet (but Jessie J and The Vaccines were worthy nominations in the breakthrough category that merit recognition).

British Female was awarded to (dramatic pause, as if you couldn’t possibly guess), Adele. Without a doubt, the award ceremony was to belong to Adele’s triumphs in what has been a whirlwind twelve months for the star, starting with her performance of ‘Someone Like You’ at the Brits 2011. In addition, she bagged the British Album of the Year, the big Brit. If she hadn’t have won there would have certainly been a public outcry of sorts, which we shall come back to later when reviewing the show.

British Group was handed over to “We won’t win any Brits” Coldplay, the third time they have snatched the award. Yet this was an opportunity for the Brits to be edgier, with Chase and Status, or Elbow or even Kasabian having released material that, for me, interests the listener more than an enjoyable, but predictable, Coldplay album.

The real and most terrible shock of the night, however, came from the British public themselves. Hang your heads in shame, voters of the Brit awards 2012. British Single of the Year – One Direction: ‘What Makes You Beautiful’. The preppy, sickly pop number fended off the likes of ‘Someone Like You’ (which admittedly a number of people may now be bored of), ‘The A Team’, ‘Changed The Way You Kissed Me’ and even ‘Price Tag’. As a shameful moment in a Brit Awards ceremony, it is possibly only eclipsed by blundering over Adele’s British album (more later).

Elsewhere, Rihanna won International Female for the second year running, which reflects her achievements selling the most records of any foreign artist in the UK last year, and becoming the most watched artist on Youtube. Lana Del Rey picked up International Breakthrough and was wooden as ever in her acceptance of the award.

International Male went to Bruno Mars, which was generally a poor category for mainstream artists, but had the potential to give a voice to some largely unknown people (Bon Iver, Aloe Blacc). Alas, the Brits bosses voted for sales over substance in this case.

One of the toughest categories was probably International Group, which was claimed by the Foo Fighters. Thankfully one rock outlet won an award, otherwise it could have been some over the top sweet-pop fiasco affair. Most people thought Maroon 5 would blag it thanks to their inescapable ‘Moves Like Jagger’. A surprise Brit award, deserved nonetheless.

Outstanding contribution was awarded to Blur, and Critics Choice to Emile Sandé.

As far as the 2012 ceremony went, there had obviously been some effort to make the event seem polished and relevant. The awards were given a Union Jack lick of paint and the event was stylised around rainbows, flowers, suns and flags. All feeling very optimistic in the year of jubilees and Olympics.

However, James Corden received mixed reviews, his comedy appearing somewhat forced and based around song lyrics.

Many performances were bland alongside Corden’s presenting. Coldplay certainly went overboard with pyrotechnics, but that was about as elaborate as the staging was for any act. Adele dutifully performed the same song ('Rolling In The Deep') in the same set up as she had ten days prior at the Grammys. Rihanna blasted out ‘We Found Love’ for the umpteenth time on an award show, though at least she brought colour to the proceedings.

Blur’s performance in particular has divided opinion following the event. Some took to social networks in a frenzy slating the live set, saying they were past their best, drunk, shouting, loutish like a karaoke at a bar. On the other hand, a number, myself included, feel that the Blur set is unduly criticised. Fair play, the act wasn’t the best the band have produced, but there was some 90s pop-punk revival charm about their set that really captured the spirit and reason behind the band being awarded outstanding contribution. It was hedonistic; both reminiscent of inebriated summer evenings and a head pump of adrenaline at festivals.

Of course, stealing the light from all of the above was the shocking moment James Corden stepped over to the podium and cut Adele off as she was making her acceptance speech for British Album of the Year. How do I even begin to vent my spleen on this musical atrocity?

To begin, any sport related telebroadcast would be allowed to overrun by significant amounts of time: I'm pretty sure you could have spared an extra 30 seconds. This woman has made British music en vogue single handedly and continues to break records worldwide, let alone scooping six Grammys. Just a week before the Brits, she talked of her love for the ceremony. She began by saying she was proud to be British, and the organisers didn’t have the patience to let her prove what it means to be British.

More to the point, James Corden should not have cut her off. It’s his second year presenting the awards and both times to mixed reviews. It’s unlikely he’ll get them again: but he’s a comedian staring in an award winning West-End play. He doesn’t need that gig. He should have stood on the stage and let her finish: it wouldn’t have hurt him one bit.

Then, my issue with ITV is that similar mishaps happen each year. The key is to delay broadcast the show by half an hour and get less advertisers. To add insult to injury, this particular year saw segments highlighting the ‘Album of the Year’ category throughout the show. It is nothing but poor foresight and planning should there not be proper fruition of what has been built up and up for two hours.

The Brit Awards 2012 then? Another mediocre set of largely predictable awards, eternally remembered as the year that the most awarded singer to come out of the UK was ignored on her home soil.

The Leveson Inquiry: A Mirror on Newspapers or Society?

Perhaps the most ironic and humbling aspect of the Leveson Inquiry is that the public themselves become the media cohort; the journalists and reporters are now open to attack and ruthless questioning.

Various celebrities have already stated that their lives were made hell through the media onslaughts that employed gross tactics of misconduct: from bribery to pursuit. Even more concerning then, the idea that not only were these everyday, public figures under attack, but the average man, who may have once hit the spotlight, or have been an obscure relative of someone famous, was equally in question.

The role of social media is to inform, not to violate.

The fine line between freedom of the press, freedom of speech in its entirety and invasion of privacy is surely a daily trouble for those in the journalistic profession: but the need for certain degrees of integrity remain ever more valid and ever more lacking in practice.

With the upsurge in trending on the twittersphere and sharing en masse to facebook ‘friends’, news is instantly leaked online and the press feels it needs to maintain this competitive edge.

Whilst a number of the news stories may very well have concerned areas of public domain, the use of this illicit material is somewhat derogatory to the victims and to the standards of the pront publication itself.

Inquiry chairman Lord Justice Leveson said that the freedom of the press could not be undermined in its role and function as a symbol of democracy across the country. However, the role of the court case should involve a close examination of what regulations are in place for these companies and who is in fact in charge of guarding the guardians of free speech.

Although the report will give its official verdict in one year’s time, the approaches and stringent management of sources need be in place with immediate effect.

One may sympathise with the fact that newspaper print is a shrinking industry and the stakes are highly competitive: however the dependence on sensationalised journalism is highly irresponsible and breeds a culture of moral bankruptcy. How are citizens of Britain expected to maintain levels of privacy across facebook, twitter, google plus, and other outlets, when the example given by these enterprises preaches shock value consumption?

Moreover, these actions implicate the nation, as consumers of the product. We are the people who demand this extra detail, this personal insight, for our own satisfaction. Our modern prerogative to galvanize and submerge ourselves in the fantastical worlds of those more ‘successful’ than ourselves leads to certain isolation: we only feel pleased should those in the spotlight cause scandal or fail to meet expectations.

How far then is the media misconduct a sign of internal corruption or external vices of humanity?

My Tram Experience: Racism vs the people

The appalling and shocking views of the woman on the Croydon tramlink have led to controversy over the past week.

The viral video received thousands of hits after being uploaded and rose to prevalence through the trending and sharing of social network users. In a whirlwind domino effect, widespread news outlet took a hold of the piece, broadcast the video, slammed the mother and police were informed.

Now, 34 year old Emma West, whose views about immigrants were extremely racist to say the least, is in police custody and awaiting a trial for her foul and abusive language used to attack other innocent passengers on the rush hour London tram service.

West has been remanded in custody until Tuesday December 6^th, but her comments are much more the subject of debate than the sentencing.

The difficulty of the hearing hangs on the crux of freedom of speech. Whilst I by no means condone the harsh opinions of Ms West (following my own viewing of the video, I sat in a stunned silence for some time), her words are surely safeguarded under human rights acts. Freedom of speech and of opinion are constitutional requirements in this country and it in order to maintain such standards, it would appear the case should be laughed out of court.

And here, the phrase is quite hurtful. Because why should such a case be laughed out of court? In moves to avoid dictatorship, it would be in the interest of all peoples to be able to speak freely without consequence.

However, no law goes untested and restrictions need ensure that freedom is managed and controlled: otherwise, we would all be at liberty to abuse other members of society: and such fragmenting is all too reminiscent of the August riots across the country.

Indeed, Ms West’s misunderstanding and lack of prowess regarding those of foreign origins is probably much more widespread than we would care to admit and the views of racial superiority that were once commonplace are certainly subsurface factors in tensions between different groups.

Of course, there comes a point where such tensions boil over and not only were Ms West’s allegations proof of this, but the fellow passenger who was quickly aggravated by her onslaught adds to our comprehension of the problem. Thankfully, another commuter calmed the retaliator with some speed: for otherwise, the focus of the video may have been overshadowed by a supposedly unprovoked violent attack.

Balancing public protection and freedom of speech comes with a fine line. However, due to the incompatibility of the two, it is common that free speech come first, lest further action and civil unrest take place.

Yet this only leaves malcontent to breed. Won’t somebody please think of the children? One of the more distressing aspects of the video for myself was watching the toddler sat on Ms West’s knees, apparently oblivious to the shouting mother. Either oblivious, or numb to its consistency as a feature in his life. Hopefully, the child is being placed with other family members in order to ensure a much more rounded and happier youth – the difficulties in impoverished London boroughs are known all too well by any city residents.

However, what next for Ms West? Rehabilitation of sorts? Counselling? Social service intervention? Whatever a judge determines is satisfactory course of action to educate the woman of a proper sense of community… even if that is just to keep xenophobic comments to oneself on the public tram.

Nonetheless, this uncomfortable experience is the most daily and frequent occurrence of casual racism. For ‘unlucky’ Emma West, one fast-thinking commuter recorder her, thousands of other people brand and scorn without a comeuppance.

More, do we judge without knowing the facts? Had Ms West had an unfortunate incident with some person of foreign origins herself? Was she drunk or drugged? Is she recently bereaved? Or was it simply a bad day?

Our understanding of such people is key for social unity. Otherwise, we risk widespread riots on repeat. Of all the reasons suggested for the summer riots, this is but one of a never ending list of possibilities. 

Don’t Believe The Hype.

Free speech in Western democracies is a given to which we all adhere: foreign dictatorships send shudders down our spines. Looking out towards these places with limits on what it is permissible to vocalise, many question how those in power are able to defend their stance and how those who are forced into these submissive positions are able to live under such limitations. Gaging how far a country’s freedom of speech is impoverished is not a difficult task: often, one only has to look towards the medias that lie within. Normally, they will be heavily state controlled and censored by government and law. Frequently, they will portray positive images of the most controversial decisions and leaders. 

Media influence however has deemed it a reflex to assume that our system of freedom is instantly superior to that of those elsewhere. There are obvious reasons for this stance. We need only consider China’s banning any reference to or any shows and literatures pertaining to time travel in May as a case of the over-zealous manner in which some prohibitions are applied. Can we imagine their version of Doctor Who? On a more serious note however, the Chinese government labelled this a bid to increase national identity and pride: “Time travel shows are irresponsible in not respecting history” it was announced and the officials continued to describe time travelling shows as “frivolous” and a way by which “to re-write history”. Fair enough, the Chinese ministers wish to create an air of solidarity in what China has achieved in the past half a century, becoming the quickest emerging superpower, but surely more of this present can be appreciated if other realities were speculated at the same time? Just a thought.

Last year, North Korea banned World Cup games from live screening. Instead, matches where the national team won were only broadcast after the event itself. In the case of defeat, past winning scores were shown in some way to negate the loss in the current competition. The aim was to keep moral high. Such extravagance in control however is tantamount to abuse and insulting populus’ intelligence. The country’s residents are going to notice that the World Cup trophy didn’t arrive in Korea… even if the government can conceal it’s Spanish destination.

Of course, these governments promote their version of events as helpful in their controlling the country: indeed, China’s seemingly exponential growth in the past few decades now has it a country amongst the top traders, it boasts the first fully functioning maglev, the largest metro system in the world, has hosted the Olympics and is predicted to soon be putting out more academic research than the USA (academia now being a new measure of world power). Therefore maybe there is something to be said for the tightly run state: it seems to have fostered in all the people a dedication to a way of life that brings greater benefits if they are more in routine. Disturbingly, it appears on the surface as a rehash of the American Dream. 

Elsewhere, the power of the media is something to be feared. When free speech developed in Rwanda for example through the use of the radio, RTLM was amongst the first stations to be independent of the government. Upon its launch, it was proclaimed that:

We have a radio here, even a peasant who wants to say something can come, and we will give him the floor. Then, other peasants will be able to hear what peasants think. Personally, I think what complicates things is that ordinary citizens have no forum where they can speak. Normally, for ordinary citizens to speak, they speak through elections and elections are impossible. So, in fact, ordinary citizens have been deprived of a say but RTLM is there, we will give them the floor.

(Gaspard Gahigi, RTLM, 19 March 1994)

For those less illuminated with the facts, the radio station then went on in the following months to incite genocide that saw the deaths of almost 1 million Tutsis. The station broadcast names and locations of ‘traitors’, described those to be killed as subhuman and the action of murder as nothing but work. The extent of the damage is still visible today: once the months of bloodshed were over, government controlled radio was all that was permitted: all media remains heavily monitored today lest such unspeakable horrors should be repeated. And what was the world doing whilst these tragedies unfolded? The Western media was more concerned with the death of Kurt Cobain and the OJ Simpson case. Two men overshadowed a nation.

Priority of reporting then comes into question. Through our own negligence, we allow medias to dictate our perceptions of the world and what happens. No area should be left unbroached. Recently, this concern has grown closer to home. Whilst I am concerned for family well-being, the late super-injunction scandal brings entire reams of freedom of speech and freedom of the press into question. If we are unable to pass comment on these smaller matters, how soon before there are limits in place on other things of grand importance? To ban any comment is to undermine the very foundations of the current system of democracy held in the Western hemisphere. Whilst extending the principle to more serious matters could appear somewhat dramatic and far-fetched, conceding a small amount of rights has often led to great swathes of rights being attacked.

Therefore, we need consider the role of government and its interrelation with the media in a 21^st century world. No doubt, technology has come to consume and dominate entire swaths of the planet with its ease of use and rapid transit of information. However in its misuse, there can be death, restraint and feeding ego of power heads of state. Moreover, a more broad perspective need be considered: restrictions elsewhere have contributed to shaping China and protecting Rwandans. Free speech in Western democracies is a given to which we all adhere: free speech in Western democracies is under attack, but is it advantageous?