Bewildering headlines

click photo to enlarge
I consider myself to be reasonably well informed. I get the "Guardian" newspaper daily, read news websites, watch some television (though not a lot), listen to some radio, buy and read books, and discuss many topics with family, friends and acquaintances. But, for all that there are many parts of modern life in which I can claim little or no knowledge. Television, celebrity and sport are three such areas. Consequently I can be completely puzzled by a headline such as this one that I saw on the BBC News website: "Abercrombie alarm at Jersey Shore".

To have any hope of decoding it I would have needed to know two salient facts: that Abercrombie and Fitch sell clothes (I thought it was one of the big three global credit rating agencies) and that "Jersey Shore" is a so-called "reality" TV programme about "rowdy, hard-partying" and "loud" young Americans. If I had known those particulars I wouldn't have read the article. As it was, my interest was piqued by the indecipherable quality of the headline and what I gleaned made me, firstly, laugh out loud, and then slap my forehead in despair. Apparently Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino (one of the men featured in this programme) wears clothing made by Abercrombie and Fitch and they want him to stop doing so. You might wonder why they don't want the exposure that he presumably gives to their brand. The article revealed all in a quote from the company: "We are deeply concerned that Mr Sorrentino's association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image...We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans." If you find that incredible (I find the idea of a clothing company having "distressed fans" simultaneously preposterous and wonderful), it gets worse. It seems that Abercrombie and Fitch have offered Mr Sorrentino, and the TV company producing the show, a sum of money to wear another clothing brand.

The thoughts that this set racing through my mind came thick and fast. Would it be O.K. for him to wear any other brand, or would Abercrombie and Fitch specify which one? A competitor perhaps? Is causing distress by wearing clothing an actionable offence? Are there out-of-work-actors and newsworthy reprobates already combing the stores for "aspirational" brands intending to have themselves photographed, then inform the manufacturers, and commit to wearing something else on receipt of a payment? Moreover, isn't an aspirational brand - even one "rooted in East Coast traditions and Ivy League heritage" and "the essence of privilege and casual luxury" - a product that is bought by people with a poor self-image, limited self-confidence, debatable intelligence - or all three - and isn't it therefore, by definition, the sort of clothing that should be avoided because it advertises this to the world and in so doing says the opposite of what you intend? Or am I over-thinking the matter of aspirational clothing? If that is remotely possible!

All of which has little or nothing to do with this composition featuring people and a mural at the Design Museum, London. For a different shot at this location (with a different mural) see here.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 47mm
F No: f8
Shutter Speed: 1/200
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  -0.67 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Property and greed

click photo to enlarge

Just when you think TV can't get any worse it does! Three genres of programme currently fill an inordinate amount of UK air time. The so-called "reality" programmes full of mindless "contestants" doing mindless "tasks" are the epitome of dross that each season achieve the seeming impossibility of greater inanity. Then there's the various takes on cookery, each chef with their own pathetic gimmick, undertaking ever more ridiculous stunts in the interest of self-promotion. Jamie Oliver surely can't be far off a knighthood the way he's going. However, I don't think that's good enough. I'd like the pope to consider him for canonisation. St Jamie of Aga has a nice ring to it!

However, by far the worse of the televisual time-wasters are the property programmes. Those who conceive such viewing have clearly taken Gordon Gekko's "greed is good" creed to heart, and won't be happy until they've completely removed any notion that a house is for living in, and replaced it with the belief that it's simply an investment. How the BBC, with its public service remit, can support the selfish capitalism that underpins such programmes beggars belief. A significant part of the problem with housing in the UK centres around its use as an investment vehicle, as well as the activities of the growing group of avaricious buy-to-letters, urged on by this type of programme, who push up prices and ruin neighbourhoods and individual properties, all for their own selfish interest. Some of these people convince themselves that by buying a house and breaking it up into flats (to fund the loan they used to buy it) they're providing a public service! Surely such delusion is indicative of serious mental illness, and certainly shouldn't be fed by television?

As I walked past this sixteenth century house next to the fourteenth century church at Billingborough, Lincolnshire, I idly wondered what possibilities these programmes might dream up for it. Maybe they'd try and make it "more authentic" with a bit of "distressed" wood here and a slab or two of Cotswold (because it's the "best") stone there. Perhaps, taken by the genuine mullions, they'd reproduce them in all the windows. That would surely raise its price. Or would they make it multiple-occupancy (for the "discerning" buyer only of course) with a few more entrances knocked through its limestone walls. What they wouldn't do is leave it to grow old gracefully in the way it has done, slowly adapting to the needs of succeeding generations, because in so doing there's no quick profit to be made!

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 15mm (30mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/320
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: Off