Skip to main content

Dara vs the Media

Adrian Edmondson was slagging off the new, younger comedians the other day. So many of them, he suggests, perform basically the same act, interspersed with appearances on panel shows. You could interchange them and no one would notice the difference. He has a point, but some of the bright young-ish things have a certain something (in fact Ade did acknowledge this), and among those bright stars I would include Dara O Briain.

I've recently read our Dara's book Tickling the English (subtitled a funny man's notes on a country and his people), in which he tries that popular sport, analyzing what makes the English, erm, English, in this case through observation on a tour of comedy venues. Leaving aside the somewhat biassed sample that is represented by a comedy audience, it is quite interesting, though doesn't have the insight as an observational travel book of Stuart Maconie's cracking pair of titles Pies and Prejudice and Adventures on the High Teas.

There was one very interesting point, though. Dara (sorry for the familiarity, but if I write 'O Briain' it looks like I'm back in Latin class, using the vocative: 'Briain; O Briain; Briain; To a Briain; Of a Briain; By, with or from a Briain') wonders why we get so worried about immigration in the UK. He points out that in the last census (admittedly rather dated figures now) only around 2.5% of the population were ethnically Asian and around 2% Afro-Caribbean. He can't understand why some people get so worked up about us being overwhelmed - which is strange, because his own work area (the media, I mean, not comedians) can surely take a major portion of the blame.

Take the news. I have many times seen news bulletins that go on (and on) about the number of immigrants coming into the country and the difficulty of controlling the process and supporting them. I have hardly ever heard the news put this into context with percentages of the population as a whole. Result? It sounds like we're drowning in unwanted multiculturalism.

Even worse, whenever said news cameras need to portray a school (say), you can pretty well guarantee the class will not have a mix of ethnic background that is representative of the national demographic. In part this is because of laziness - the TV crews can't be bothered to move away from London to find a more representative picture - and in part it's incorrectly applied political correctness that assumes any classroom with less than half the students of varied ethnic background is biassed.

So really, Dara, it's not surprising people misunderstand the position when you lot are always showing us that it's different from the way it really is. Have a word with your mates in the newsroom, won't you?

Photo from Wikipedia


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope