Tom Morris

Bill Thompson asks: is it all over for blogs? Simple answer: no. Is it all over for word processors? No. Is it all over for spreadsheets? No. Is it all over for weblogging software? No.

Things are just about to get interesting with weblogging, and this article smacks of "Ooh! Look at me! I'm so media-disconnected!" which is precisely what I had last summer when on holiday (we didn't have Internet, newspapers or any of that stuff and SHOCK HORROR: WE SURVIVED!).

Reading Julie Birchell's column in today's Grauniad makes me wonder. Does she realise that the majority of complaints about reality TV, pop music and the cult of celebrity arise from their lack of quality? I don't care about their social class or their financial futures. I really don't give a shit. What I get annoyed with is when they decide to go out in to the world of "showbiz" without having anything to say or do. No reason. There are only twenty four hours a day. I want to fill those hours when I am not otherwise engaged in work or learnin' with something that I'm going to enjoy. I enjoy listening to rock music because as Bono once said (I think): "Pop music tells you that everything is okay, rock music tells you that it isn't."

We live in a world filled with intolerant and dastardly fundamentalist Christians and lying war criminals (politicians usually). Every day some twat-in-charge decides that we ought to spend tax money on spying on private lives or 'helping out' the dying music industry. And I'm supposed to take that lying down, with a few doses of Girls Aloud to soothe me. Fuck that. I'm bitter and bitter people need hard rock. They need quiet stuff as well, but quiet means in tempo and volume not in content. Even if you are listening to electronic mumblings it's from people with something to say.

My dislike of Big Brother is not because I have something against the people on the programme or that I want to keep the contestants from escaping 'council estate' life. Bullshit. The reason I hate Big Brother is because it's meaningless, vapid and thoroughly content-free. I need something with substance. We don't have this vessel of pinky-grey matter stuck between our ears so we can waste away watching Jade Goody's life in minute detail, and I quote: "I am intelligent, but I let myself down because I can't speak properly or spell."

Sorry, but as much of an antithesis this is to Gen-X postmodern irony, I am finding it harder and harder to be amicable towards modern culture. While once I might have found the Cheeky Girls funny (I still do to some degree), it now leaves me cold and unsatisfied. Well, I see the irony in it, but I can't be bothered to bask in it's burning flash of light for much longer. I don't demand my entertainers to have a "double first from Oxford" but I do demand that they finish primary school before entering the world of entertainment, which the majority of the Top 40 can't seem to manage. I don't want to be perceived as some crusty culture vulture who looks down on opera translations, but how long before we have singing monkeys releasing songs with jokes about bums? I'm all for an open market on creativity - it should not be restricted to "poncy art students", but don't lecture me as being "hierarchy-respecting" if I think that Atomic Kitten are talentless bozos who have made no contribution to the world of music. Because they haven't.

"All reality TV means is the further democratisation of showbiz". Right, let's call bull on this. It is not a 'democratisation'. In a true democracy justice is blind and your vote is confidential to you. In showbiz, it's a matter of good looks and not all that much "up there". Unlike the judges and law lords, Simon Cowell and his cohorts do not turn a blind eye to the looks of Pop Idols and Big Brother contestants. They are picked for their looks and marketed for their nooks. It isn't democratisation. It's just taking a charade and extending it to a wider base of entries.

The creative arts are not a democracy. They are a meritocracy. The ones with merit rule over my cultural intake and the ones without lose power just like that. As with all meritocracies, if you can't prove your utility, then you're on the slag dump. That rules out all the "glitter-dusted" pop monotony-bots. They can't provide proof that they are worth the time and attention paid to them, and therefore in my mind they are worthless. In meritocracies you have winners and losers. The winner is given generations worth of respect and admiration. The losers are forgotten and can only be found as newsprint recycled for serving grub on in a dank fish-and-chip shop. In this game, Shakespeare is a winner. Jade Goody isn't.

Whilst poking about in the BBC archives I found this little gem on interactive "red button" broadcasting. I can say that these things offer ittle or no value to me - if I want to 'interact', I can go outside or on the Internet. What the "red button" world has become is TV + Commerce which just sucks. I see enough adverts on television without pressing a little button to let me see more of them. Real interactivity would be to allow real people to get involved in programmes.

Until then 'red buttons' and other screen garbage is still an annoyance and a pesterence that stops me from seeing the TV programme. Unfortunately, the programme itself is rarely worth watching either.

"A just machine to make big decisions / Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision" "What a beautiful world this'll be / What a glorious time to be free"

Everytime I turn the news there is bad stuff. Wars, poverty, famine, inequality, blackmail, politics. It's amazing that people can stay positive through it all. It's even more amazing that we can celebrate the "beautiful world this'll be". Heads up, kids - there's more to life than misery and badness.