Skip to main content

So You've Been Publicly Shamed review

I have to admit straight away that I am a big fan of Jon Ronson's books. Combining the wide-eyed innocence of Louis Theroux with what seems significantly more of a conscience, Ronson wanders through a topic like America's psy-wars, terrorists or psychopaths in a way that manages to get some serious points across in a humorous and immensely readable way. Not to mention persuading a surprising range of people to be interviewed.

This meant that I rushed out and bought his latest as soon as I could... and I 'm just a touch disappointed. Arguably this is simply due to the huge expectations from previous books. I think the problem is that the topic here - public shaming, primarily via social media - is less dramatic and more appealing to a relatively small audience. Because, like it or not, the Twittersphere may think it is the world, but in reality it's only a tiny part of it.

So, for instance, I had only vaguely heard of what's probably the biggest topic in the book, the shaming of writer Jonah Lehrer, and I had never heard of two of the other main subjects, Justine Sacco and Lindsey Stone, each of whom was pilloried online for make a tasteless joke.

The good news is that, as usual with Ronson, the topics really made you think as well being entertaining. After all, Lehrer lost his career essentially for a slight embroidery of the truth. (I found it amusing that he and Tipping Point author Malcolm Gladwell were set up as if they typified popular science writers, where I would consider them essentially New York journalists who write self-help books with a marginal overlap with scientific subjects - and who are paid in a different universe to popular science authors.) The Lehrer story did me wonder why, for instance, his slight misquotes of Bob Dylan were considered such an earth shattering thing when, for instance, Bill Bryson quite happily admits to making his travel non-fiction a little more interesting than reality, and films like The Imitation Game, 'based on true events' play fast and loose with historical facts, and don't get this kind of destructive attack. (Incidentally, I reviewed Lehrer's book, entirely unaware of the apparent media storm, and was a bit dismissive of it, in part because I find anything about Bob Dylan as boring as I find Dylan himself.)

Similarly, it's hard to understand why such a fuss was made about the two women making the bad jokes online when jokes in worse taste are seen by a far bigger audience daily on TV. What's more, the pile-on and slag off reaction seemed entirely in opposition to the free speech ethos that most social media enthusiasts espouse. And it one case, the opprobrium was entirely due to Twitter followers not spotting the existence of irony (nothing new, I admit). I enjoy using Twitter, but I've never come across the kind of Troll-like reaction. I'd heard of it, but assumed it was reserved for celebrities who should know better, but these were ordinary people, mangled by ridiculous over-reaction from those with too much time on their hands.

So Ronson does definitely bring out something very interesting - and also covers a range of other aspects from the common misunderstanding of the nature and behaviour of crowds to the semi-official existence of shaming in the justice system. However, it still felt a lightweight subject for a book - almost like a good feature article instead. Even so, any Ronson fans like me will still find it well worthwhile, and it should be enforced reading for anyone inclined to pile in and abuse others on social media.

You can find SYBPS at Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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