Beautiful = good, and ugly = bad, apparently.

Here is an interesting exercise: ask a group of friends to list the words that come to mind when they think of the former wife of Prince Charles of England – the late Diana, Princess of Wales. I’d imagine ‘Diana’ words would include ‘princess’, ‘fairytale’, ‘beautiful’, ‘caring’, ‘mother’, ‘tragic’, and ‘humanitarian’.

Then ask them to do the same for the current wife of Prince Charles – Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall. I can imagine Camilla words would be ‘Rottweiler’, ‘ugly’, ‘fox-hunting’, ‘frumpy’, ‘cheat’, etc.

I doubt very much if this impression would have evolved through their actual meeting and interacting with the two women in question. Therefore it would have to have come from that mass interface between people and society – the media.

And who’s ultimately to blame? We are – the consumers. We have supplied the demand. We’ve helped create the environment for a beautiful/good versus ugly/bad polarity by telling our children stories of beautiful princesses and wicked witches. Princes are handsome; they tend to slay the occasional dragon or two and then live happily ever after in a majestic castle with the beautiful princess as their queen-to-be. They are supposed to do that because it is their destiny and because they are both incredulously good-looking. Anyone who interferes with the plot – such as the wicked witch – is evil. And ugly.

As a sidebar, the reality behind fairytales is, of course, somewhat unflattering. The complete absence of internal plumbing in castles in the days of the knights meant that bathing was probably a two-weekly or even a monthly affair – so princesses would have always smelled more than a little ripe – and female hygiene products were completely non-existent. Dental care amounted to little more than prodding a twig between the teeth, so rampant decay would have taken more than a little sheen off any pearly-whites. But then who are we to rob our children of a little fantasy by rubbing their faces in the harsh realities of life?

Of course we eventually grow out of fairytales. Or do we? Don’t the good guys always win in the movies and invariably ride off into the sunset with the beautiful maiden? It seems Sleeping Beauty is alive and well, just living in L.A! That’s right – we’re still getting sucked into the fairytale plot. We are continually inclined to root for the good guys because they are generally handsome heroes, and the maidens aren’t half-bad either. To affiliate with the bad guys is to affiliate with ugliness. We aspire to be good because good is half of good-looking. Professor Howard Stein, editor of the Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology once summed up this polarity nicely when he commented ‘there is no “us” without there being a corresponding “them” to oppose’. (If you have time to kill, you can compare those actors in the Digital Dream Door list of 100 greatest heroes, with those in the 100 greatest villains. You won’t find many names on both).

This is so wonderfully evident in the burgeoning ‘morphing’ entertainment industry that was kickstarted by the likes of Extreme Makeover, The Swan, Queer Eye for a Straight Guy and Idols, that show how ugly can be morphed into beautiful; how a woman with pumpkin hips can become a princess and a plumber become a pretty-boy pop star (did you honestly think the guy in wheelchair had a chance?) – and look how happy they are! By showing viewers what they look like after the morphing they separate them from what they looked like before – a bit like us. How’s that for irony?

There’s no denying Diana was beautiful. Editors of women’s magazines were well aware that simply putting Diana on the cover would assure them record sales; and in her death the cover-image of Diana is the one cemented in our minds. Prince Charles’ second wife will always be measured against that. She finished second; she’ll always be second-best. She also interfered with the fairytale plot, which makes her the wicked witch against the people’s princess. Poor Camilla.

The reality of the tale of course is that Diana was flawed. We all are; and no amount of nip and tuck and panel beating of cellulite is going to change that. We should realise that just as Camilla may be a little off the media-dictated beauty chart, so are we all. And whereas neither she, nor we, will ever win a shallow beauty contest, perhaps she and Charles should enjoy what years they have left together, free of the interference by the tabolid media and its shallow, wretched consumers. It’s the closest the Prince and his princess will have to living happily ever after.

“Very good show. Not a dry seat in the house”

What the grandmothers of today’s ‘Beliebers’ were doing in the 60s

In January 2012, stories made the news in the US about 15 teenage girls in a school in upstate New York who were all displaying symptoms similar to Taurette’s Syndrome – a condition marked by involuntary spasms, tics, seizures and vocal outbursts. It’s a rare condition in one person, so in a group you’d think it highly unlikely. Think again.

See if you can spot the link: In 2002 10 teenage girls in a small rural high school in North Carolina started fainting and having seizures. The school buildings were inspected but nothing was found to explain what happened. In the beginning of 2007, 600 teenage girls in a Catholic boarding school in Mexico started collapsing, displaying signs of fever, and claiming feelings of nausea. Tests could find no physical cause.

But wait, as the saying goes, there’s more: Later that same year, at least eight teenage girls in a high school in Virginia in the US started displaying twitching symptoms. Again, no physical cause was found. In 2008 in Tanzania, about 20 teenage schoolgirls started fainting in class, while others who witnessed the event, ran around the school screaming and crying; and in 2010 two all-girls high schools in Brunei reported incidents of students fainting and acting deliriously.

So what’s the link? Yes, you spotted it: ‘teenage girls’. It’s something that has baffled, and fascinated, psychiatrists. Yes, that’s right – psychiatrists; because without any physical cause - such as food poisoning, a gas leak, or some other form of contamination - all these symptoms are psychological in nature. So psychologists have a term for it. It’s called ‘conversion disorder’, and it’s characterised by displays of physical disorders such as blindness, numbness, paralysis and disruptions to speech patterns; but without any associated physical or neurological cause.

The term ‘conversion’ applies because it is believed the physical symptoms are a conversion of deep psychological problems such as intense stress. It’s important to note that sufferers of conversion disorder are not making up the symptoms – they really do exist.

Conversion disorder is quite rare, but not as rare as its occurrence on a mass scale – something called mass psychogenic hysteria. However, rare though they may be, there is something that is common amongst all of these events: they generally occur only amongst teenage girls.

No-one seems to have a definitive explanation for it. The Mayo Clinic, a US-based not-for-profit research group that specialises in difficult cases and advanced medical investigation, concludes that teenage girls are indeed more prone to conversion disorder, but has no answer as to why it can happen to large groups of teenage girls, and all at the same time.

I have a suggestion: Teenage boys are like border collies – they are easily distracted by a bouncing ball, and as such can convert any teenage issues into something physical. It’s called sport. Teenage girls, on the other hand, are less inclined to play sport. Without the liberty of such physical distractions they tend to focus on themselves and each other, and so any teenage angst that they have simply takes hold in their minds, simmering and festering until it’s released in a burst of emotional – and associated physical – disparity.

Furthermore girls mature emotionally much quicker than boys – it’s one of the reasons why boys don’t understand girls, and girls complain that boys just don’t ‘get’ them. So, in the absence of the successful communication of their emotions with boys, they are more likely to develop an emotional “collective” amongst themselves.

Well, that’s my informed opinion.

There is, unfortunately, a nasty little twist to all of this: although the cause behind conversion disorder or mass psychogenic hysteria may not be known to psychiatrists, it’s power is celebrated by those sinister manipulators of human behaviour: marketing executives. And you need no better example than Justin Bieber, that poor young Canadian boy who showed a not-altogethe-rare talent for singing, but was then seized upon by music and marketing executives, commoditised, and thrust before a wall of a wailing, highly volatile, hysterical, teenage girl market, that screams through his concerts without hearing a word of his singing.

Of course such outbursts of teenage girl hysteria towards popular music performers are nothing new. It’s why the Beatles stopped performing live – they literally couldn’t hear themselves sing, and they thought it ridiculous to perform if the audience weren’t even listening.

But to get a clearer image of the intensity of the mass psychogenic hysteria displayed by teenage girls, perhaps the final word should go to Keith Richards, who, in his book ‘Life’ tells of such a screaming concert in the early days of the Rolling Stones. At the end of the concert, the janitor who had been cleaning up afterwards, approached him and said, “Very good show. Not a dry seat in the house”.

Comic Caption: How a blog extended a radio show’s offering

I am always intrigued at how radio shows use their blogs. Invariably they are dumping grounds for silly embedded YouTube videos, the latest celebrity gossip cut and pasted from other sources, a place where listeners rant unmanaged, and/or the ‘poll-of-the-day’. There’s very little in the way of original content that is an extension of the radio show, or a place where listeners can express themselves creatively.

In early 2007 I was approached by the management of East Coast Radio, where I was the host and executive producer of the breakfast show, and asked to start a blog for the show. They knew of my success as an op-ed columnist, and suspected – quite correctly – that I would embrace the idea. At that time the concept of blogging was still in its infancy, and smartphones – as we know them today – were still in the realm of science fiction.

My challenge was to convert the ethos and character of my radio show to a consumer interface that was largely visual. It had to be intelligent, opinionated, relevant, creative and entertaining. I also had to make it compelling enough to ensure there was engagement with the listener/reader to the degree that the show enjoyed. My show commanded the bulk of the station’s listenership, and East Coast Radio was the biggest English medium independent station in Southern Africa. So there was a high degree of expectation.

I also, personally, wanted to see if an online medium could become an extension of a radio show.

The answer came in the idea of the Comic Caption. Each day I posted an image that demanded the listener/reader post their suggestion of a suitable caption. Depending on the image, this could either be a descriptive statement or an image character’s comment or thought. These were posted on the blog below the image as comments; and then at the beginning of the following broadcast day I would choose the best caption and repost the image – comic-style using Comic Life - with the winning caption, plus that day’s new image. And so on.

Importantly I would announce on air that morning the winner’s name and say wondrous things about them. This was for two reasons: I wanted to encourage others to take part, and, (because of the station management’s dithering) I didn’t have a prize.

Given the number of Comic Caption comments/responses, the most popular images were those that had been created by Adje – a Dutch photoshop genius, who very graciously allowed me to use his images. I believe in giving credit where it is due, and I always linked to his site. Adje deservedly scored a whole new legion of fans in the process. He has a wonderfully subtle savagery in many of his images, which made them a joy to use. The image above is an excellent example of Adje’s creativity in one of the winning Comic Captions. This was from February 2007.

So, did it work? Oh yes. It helped my show’s blog win 3 SA Blog Awards, as well as several Kagiso Media Awards.

More importantly it showed that it was possible to provide radio and online content as part of a combined media package.

Tornadoes: science vs religion

Image: PAUL HELLSTERN/AP

As a journalist who writes about the interface of science and society, and how it’s covered by the media, there are few better events to cover than natural ‘disasters’.

Of course, there’s no such thing in nature as a ‘disaster’. ‘Events’, maybe, but not ‘disasters’. Even then, what is an ‘event’? Tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and volcanic eruptions are part of nature, and are as much of an ‘event’ as a flower opening its petals to greet the early morning sunshine.

However, given the scope of the impact of tornadoes on the natural, built and social environment, it seems fair to refer to them as ‘events’. What I do find interesting though is that we only use the phrase ‘disaster’ when such events impact on humans in a way that we consider them ‘disastrous’.

The tornado that swept across the city of Moore, in Oklahoma on Monday 20th May is a wonderful example, as it unearthed a typical social reaction to such a part of nature, as well as the role the media usually plays in shaping such reaction.

As news broke of the tornado, various (mainly Western) media outlets scrambled to collect information and disseminate it in a balance of fact and emotion that would (hopefully) unleash a torrent of consumer reaction without sacrificing what’s left nowadays of ‘journalistic integrity’. News anchors (feigning dramatic shock) attempted to get closer to the action and grab increasingly qualified commentators with the hope of breaking a story before their competitors; while TV news cameramen and photographers captured visuals that would hopefully carry a suitably impactful emotive tone, all the time praying to be there when a rugged fireman plucked a quivering puppy from the debris of a destroyed home. CBS managed to capture the closest to this.

And there is that word: ‘praying’. There seems to be a lot of referring and appealing to a god during such events, and the media – both mainstream and social – capitalise on it; from witnesses of the tornado saying on the TV news how they prayed to be spared; to survivors who claimed it was because they prayed that they were saved (even though their home was utterly destroyed); to amateur video footage of the tornado on YouTube, complete with shocked ‘Oh my God’ commentary; to the inevitable Twitter follow-up hashtag #prayforOklahoma.

So what’s wrong with this? Everything really.

Firstly there’s the claim that there is some form of sapient god - even though there’s absolutely no evidence thereof outside of the wildly divergent and irreconcilable claims by a broad spectrum of warring religions – and that this sapient god is omnipotent and therefore the guiding hand behind all events in the world – including tornadoes – and therefore he/she/it requires constant subservience/respect through prayer. The danger of this unquestioning and uncritical belief is that it is easily hijacked by religious zealots with twisted agendas and pliable followers.

Secondly, there’s the assumption by survivors that because they were not killed or injured by the tornado after they prayed, it is evidence of a god, and his/her/its benevolence because they prayed. However, to quote a cornerstone of scientific research: a perceived correlation is not evidence of causation. And when survivors of the Oklahoma tornado look to the sky and claim they were ‘spared by God’, I just hope they will have an opportunity to repeat it to the families of the children who were killed, and whom, it’s fair to say, would also have prayed.

Furthermore, I find the embracing of such selection-by-a-god logic by supposedly critical individuals such as seasoned journalists unbelievable (if you excuse the pun). Cue seasoned CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer getting his graceful comeuppance.

Thirdly, the proponents and supporters of #prayforOklahoma seem to think that tweeting a message is going to help somehow. Outside of providing a bit or moral support to those who need it and who are for some reason biding their time on Twitter, firing off a free tweet doesn’t actually do anything. It may be a very public portrayal of an act of caring, but it certainly doesn’t help the survivors. Donations of money, food and supplies do. And if you think praying (through Twitter) is going to encourage a god to help heal those who are injured; remember what happened when Pope John Paul II was ailing and millions around the world prayed for him – he still died!

Finally, and this is what really angers me, there’s the seemingly complete denial by such god-fearing people of the real evidential role of science in mitigating the possible catastrophic impacts of tornadoes. Here’s the wake-up smack: The only reason more people don’t die from tornados is because of the work of scientists studying tornadoes to understand how they form and move; the tracking of tornadoes by the incredible technology of weather-monitoring systems and the experienced teams who operate them; the active role the media (including social media) has in disseminating information about tornado activity and any necessary warnings;  the myriad official (and unofficial) evacuation systems put in place by various authorities; and of course the hundreds of trained medical professionals who treat the injuries of those who are injured.

‘God’ has nothing to do with it.

Subtle redefinition of racial discrimination

My favourite is this: “Preference will be given to candidates who contribute to the diversity of our organisation” – it’s such subtle spin on a selection process that is, at its core, evidence of racial discrimination.

Whenever I read that line in a job advert, I’m reminded, rather dramatically I must admit, of a horrifying chapter in recent history that took hold in Europe following a letter dated 31 July 1941. It was sent by the Nazi Reichsmarschall Hermann Goring to Reinhard Heydrich, a General in the SS, and ordered Heydrich to devise (quote) “…die Endlösung der Judenfrage” (a ‘final solution to the Jewish problem’).

The result was the slaughter of millions of Jewish men, women and children, which we now know as ‘the Holocaust’. To the Nazis it was presented as nothing more than the solution to a problem.

The Nazis were well known to use euphemistic terminology, but it certainly didn’t end with them. It remains evident wherever there is an uncomfortable or controversial component of a state’s policy. The spin doctors are called in, and, with the help of shady textures of marketing-speak, they liberally coat the component to cover up any nasty cracks that could attract unwanted attention.

The US military are experts at this. For example: When innocent civilians are killed in a drone strike, they are referred to as ‘collateral damage’, suggesting that the tragic outcome was – like a collapsed building following an earthquake – an unfortunate accident out of the control of those who targeted the drone.

They have plenty of others…’coercive interrogation’ (torture), ‘friendly fire’ (the killing of members of the same/allied forces through bad intelligence), and of course ‘neutralise’, meaning kill. These would all be quite ridiculous if they weren’t so savage in their intention. Here are some more.

Footlong not a foot long? Remember this image.

A man carries the bodies of his two sons who were killed when their home collapsed during an earthquake in Bam December 27, 2003, which killed more than 20,000 people. REUTERS/Caren Firouz

I was reminded of this image today when I read in the news that some pathetic imbeciles in the US had decided to sue Subway because they had bought a Subway Footlong roll that wasn’t exactly 12 inches (about 30cm) long…

I was on-air on the morning of 27th December 2003 when the reports started coming in about an earthquake in the ancient Silk Road city of Bam in Iran. As the host of a talk radio show I was acutely aware that traditionally that time of the year news is rather thin on the ground; and so in the days that followed the news was dominated by the unveiling horrors that would be expected whenever a severe earthquake strikes a populated area that is unprepared for such savage wrath of nature.

But it was this image, which appeared in one of the papers that found its way to my studio desk, that, in my mind, captured the true tragedy. It showed a man carrying the bodies of his two sons, killed in the earthquake, to the cemetery in Bora on the outskirts of Bam.

As a parent of two young children myself, I was deeply upset by the image; and so, over the following days, ensured my team provided regular coverage of the amazing work done by Dr Imtiaz Sooliman and his organisation The Gift of the Givers Foundation in providing food and relief work for those affected by the earthquake. We had regular crossings to Dr Sooliman in Bam and provided a conduit for donations and other offers of help for his organisation.

But I couldn’t shake the above image from my mind, and to this day it remains embedded in my conscience as a constant reality check whenever things seem to be going wrong; because nothing in the world could be worse than having to bury one’s own children.

And so it was that I was reminded of this image again today, and how pathetic some people are. Suing Subway because their Footlong rolls weren’t exactly 12 inches?! Now I admit I’m no whiz with dough, but I’d hazard a guess that baking rolls is not a science that enjoys lazer-guided precision.

It’s that other American favourite past-time (after eating fast food) – shooting guns – that does. Placing an 8mm round in the clip of a 9mm pistol is not going to get you sufficient pressure build up in the chamber to project the round far beyond the end of the barrel; and that’s no good when you’re shooting innocent children.

I think those who feel they have been wronged by life because a bread roll they’ve bought is a little short should have a serious look at the image above, then allow their thoughts to collect a little perspective. Those who have felt that the impact of buying such a roll are so calamitous that they need to institute legal action should rather spend their money helping organisations such as the Gift of the Givers. Lawyers don’t need the money. Survivors of natural catastrophes do.

The (unfortunately) unwritten rule of posting comments

Taku2 was pleased with itself. Precious were its comments.

This is especially for you ‘bigboi’, ‘jenny27′, ‘TheRealDarthVader’ and ‘MagicTits’.

As someone who has worked across multiple media platforms and who writes for both print and online, I have to be both protective towards one and embracing of the other. I am old-school enough to feel the pain every time I hear of a newspaper in trouble and having to lay off journalists and staff, and at the same time I am new-school enough to get frustrated with those mainstream titles that are reticent to embrace the exciting opportunities of an online offering, such as the immediacy of reader comments.

When social media took off, it  changed the relationship between printed media and the reader, because instead of the reader being purely a consumer of content, he or she could become a producer and disseminator of content – creating the concept of a prosumer. Importantly, the prosumer became empowered.

But that didn’t mean the prosumer was qualified to play in the big league…

Professional journalists have to work according to a set of rules, not least of which is being accountable for what we say. If I cross the line in an op-ed piece and skirt with libel, I am the one who gets sued. If I say something that people disagree with, they have the right to challenge me directly. If I report on something incorrectly and in the process cause someone disservice, the injured party has direct recourse and knows whom to contact to demand a correction or a retraction. This is why my (real) name is in the byline of everything I have ever written.

It is also why I, and many other journalists I know, accord no credence whatsoever to any comment posted by anyone who doesn’t use his or her (real) name. If you’re not willing to be accountable to what you have to say, don’t expect anyone to take what you say seriously.

It’s also a matter of respect towards the journalist.

‘bigboi’, ‘jenny27′, ‘TheRealDarthVader’ and ‘MagicTits’ may be great handles to use when you’re in a chat room for breathless fans of Justin Bieber, but if you want to be taken seriously in the big league, play by the rules.