Today, I finally posted my completed census form, having filled it out a couple of weeks ago. I could easily have gone online and completed the web version, but I like the ritual of putting pen to paper, and because I use computers so much, it's actually a bit of a joy to exercise the skill of handwriting every now and then.
As I laid it in the outgoing mail tray at work, though, I did so in the knowledge that I wasn't completely satisfied with it. Although I'd completed it to the best of my abilities, I couldn't help thinking the form was inadequate on one particular subject: ethnicity.
Firstly, I somewhat resent being obliged to state my ethnicity. I've no doubt there are legitimate reasons for the government wanting this information, but I've become accustomed, when filling in forms and questionnaires, to having the option not to state my race. No such freedom here, though, and people who send incomplete census forms are at risk of being fined.
Begrudgingly, I perused the menu of tasty-looking ethnicities in search of what I wanted. White? No, not today. Black? Maybe another time. Ah, the Asian section; that's more like it. Oh no, that's more Indian and Pakistani, rather than the Chinese I was looking for. Specifically, I was looking for mixed white and Chinese, but that was nowhere to be found.
As much as I'd like to think I'm unique, I'm certain there are millions of people who share my ethnicity (my three siblings among them). Just like me, though, they'd probably have looked through the census form and selected 'Mixed Other' and then specified their race as instructed by the question.
Of course, race is a sensitive subject to many, and the term 'Chinese' wouldn't apply to large numbers of people with ancestry originating in countries such as Japan and Korea. Therefore, I can forgive the census makers for this oversight.
However, what's less acceptable is the tiny space you're given to specify your race. As you're probably aware, the census form is one of those documents that has you writing everything in block capitals in little grids, where you get one tiny box for every letter. That's all well and good, until you have to write your daughter's ethnicity, which just happens to be mixed black, white and Chinese. Even without the 'and' or punctuation, that doesn't fit in the stupid little boxes.
In the end, I wrote as much as could in the boxes and put the rest outside them. As I think about it now, I wish I'd written 'Blitese'. That'd teach them.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Cliches and errors of tech journalism
Update: 'Marmite' is not an adjective. It never was and never fucking will be.
Cliches are an almost unavoidable part of writing, but some are way more annoying than others. Here are a few that particularly piss me off, which, while not limited exclusively to technology journalism, are particularly prevalent there. To be honest, I've probably been guilty of using some of them in the past, so don't feel bad if you have too.
There are a few grammatical errors that pop up frequently in tech journalism as well. I'm sure I've made a few mistakes here as well, but these are the ones that annoy me the most.
(By the way, if you're wondering why the accent over the 'e' in 'cliche' is inconsistent, it's because I wrote some of this on my phone, then in Word on a Mac, and then in Blogger itself.)
Bang for buck
Apparently, if you're going to buy a graphics card or a processor, you want it to have plenty of 'bang'. It's particularly important to get as much of this as you can for your 'buck', which it's safe to assume means currency and not a male deer. To be honest, I'd be more than a little worried if my PC components were going bang, but again this is not meant to be taken literally. 'Bang' in this context means performance - although it's worth noting that bang also has sexual connotations, which lends a somewhat more seedy meaning regarding the exchange of money. Clearly, ‘bang for buck’ is a rather tired and lazy expression to indicate value for money (arguably a cliche in itself), but my main objection to it is that it appears in British media, where the word ‘bucks’ to describe dollars sounds out of place and artificial.
Price tag/point
Imagine for a moment you're browsing the local branch of a national discount clothing chain. You happen to see a charming sweater with a picture of cat playing piano on it. You want it, but you're on a limited budget. Your immediate concern, therefore, is how much it costs. So what do you do? You check the price tag. Why? To see the price. Beyond telling you the price, the tag is of little importance. If the tag had fallen off, you wouldn't assume the sweater was free, would you? And the size of the tag wouldn't matter. If the garment in question had a huge price tag, but written on it was 20p, it would still be a bargain. It's evident that the word ‘tag’ is superfluous, and the same applies to the equally redundant inclusion of the word ‘point’. In spite of this, references to price tags and price points seem hugely popular with tech journalists.
It does what it says on the tin
Lazy, lazy, lazy and stupid. First and foremost, how often do technology products come in a tin? Very, very rarely. So there is no tin. Stop bollocking about the fucking tin. Assuming the tin is a metaphor, what does it represent? If it represents whatever packaging the product happens to come in, then it’s completely useless to the reader, because they don’t have said packaging. It would be like writing a movie review and saying, “It’s about what it says on the back of the DVD box.” Of course, some products have self-explanatory titles, in which case the ‘tin’ must be a reference to the title. So why not just say that? For example, ‘It does exactly what its title implies’ would be more than adequate without mentioning any tins. Finally, it’s a little worrying that some writers can’t think of anything more original than to quote an advert for Ronseal wood stain. The same goes for people who say ‘Seemples’. As a fellow journalist said to me, it’s a word that best describes the people who use it.
Sport
It’s best to begin this with a definition. I don’t mean sport as in football, hockey or whatever. I’m referring to the word ‘sport’ as in ‘to wear or be decorated with something’. It’s pretty simple: you can sport a new pair of purple flared trousers (probably best not to, though), a car can sport flags on its roof, and a soldier can sport medals on his jacket. A graphics card cannot sport anti-aliasing and a processor cannot sport a high clock speed. In spite of the very clear boundaries of what this word means, many technology writers seem unable to resist using it in place of words such as ‘have’, ‘has’, or even ‘features’ or similar. The fact is there are plenty of alternatives you could use that actually make sense, so please use them.
Out there
Like many of the clichés here, this one isn’t confined to technology writers, but it is pretty common among them. To illustrate, here is a made-up example: ‘This keyboard is better than anything else out there at the moment.’ Is the writer looking out the window as he or she types? Are they thinking, ‘Well, this keyboard is definitely better than that squirell’? No, of course they’re not (unless they’re mental). The safest bet is that ‘out there’ means the rest of the market in this context. However, there’s nothing to say where the boundaries of ‘out there’ lie. In the case of my chosen example, is the writer telling me it’s the best keyboard in the country, the world, or even the universe? Perhaps, taking things to the other extreme, it’s just the best keyboard in the office. As well as being used in comparisons, ‘out there’ also gets tacked onto sentences for no reason at all. For example, ‘There are a lot of great first-person shooters out there, so which one should you buy?’ Now remove the words ‘out’ and ‘there’ and read it again. Still makes sense, right? And you don’t sound like a moron. Awesome.
Show-stopper
How hard is it to look in a dictionary? ‘Show-stopper’ means something is so good, it stops the show – not that it’s got a flaw that stops it working. Use this one incorrectly, and face the full force of my admittedly extremely subdued and, indeed, barely noticeable wrath.
As instead of because
Somewhere along the line (is that a cliché?), the word ‘because’ has fallen out of favour, and has been replaced almost universally by tech journos with the word ‘as’. The word ‘because’ means ‘for the reason that’ and the fact that it has ‘cause’ in it should give you some idea of its connotations. While it’s okay to use ‘as’ sparingly as an alternative to ‘because’ for the sake of variety, rhythm and so on, it should be never used exclusively in its place. Why? Because it means something different and can change the meaning of whole a sentence. For example, ‘As I was going to the car, I picked up my keys.’ The proper meaning of this sentence is that you picked up your keys on the way to the car, but when used incorrectly to replace ‘because’, it means you picked up your keys, because you would need them. You see this happening all the time in technology journalism, and the worst offence is ‘as if’ meaning ‘because if.’ Just say the words ‘as if’ on their own. What do they imply? They express doubt, because they’re short for ‘as if that’s going to happen’. It should be obvious, then, that ‘as if’ has a very different meaning to ‘because if’ and getting them mixed up makes you sound like a dick.
Too many dashes
Dashes are useful things that can help put emphasis on a particular part of a sentence, or perhaps add something on the end of sentence as an aside – oh, and they look nice too. Of course, that just means they can be used as parentheses. It’s not uncommon and it’s perfectly acceptable. The problem is when it becomes unclear what their purpose is. Consider the following: ‘This motherboard has everything you could ever need – or want – as long as what you want is within reason.” It’s not a great example, admittedly, but it does show what I’m talking about: the first dash causes a break for emphasis and the second one indicates an aside. However, the two dashes could be also be used as parentheses around the words ‘or want’. As I said, this is a bad example, because you’d still be left with a valid sentence, but quite often this isn’t the case. A better way to write the previous example would be ‘This motherboard has everything you could ever need – or want (as long as what you want is within reason).’ It’s not the only way to do it, but it makes sense and, importantly, it’s far less shit than it was before.
Capitalising 'user guide'
Although the manual that comes with a product might well have 'User Guide' written on it, and it might well be capitalised, it's not actually the title of it. It's merely there so you know it's the user guide. If you're going to capitalise it, why not go the whole way and put it in italics too, like it's the name of a fucking Shakespeare play or something?
Cliches are an almost unavoidable part of writing, but some are way more annoying than others. Here are a few that particularly piss me off, which, while not limited exclusively to technology journalism, are particularly prevalent there. To be honest, I've probably been guilty of using some of them in the past, so don't feel bad if you have too.
There are a few grammatical errors that pop up frequently in tech journalism as well. I'm sure I've made a few mistakes here as well, but these are the ones that annoy me the most.
(By the way, if you're wondering why the accent over the 'e' in 'cliche' is inconsistent, it's because I wrote some of this on my phone, then in Word on a Mac, and then in Blogger itself.)
This picture does what it says on the tin
Bang for buck
Apparently, if you're going to buy a graphics card or a processor, you want it to have plenty of 'bang'. It's particularly important to get as much of this as you can for your 'buck', which it's safe to assume means currency and not a male deer. To be honest, I'd be more than a little worried if my PC components were going bang, but again this is not meant to be taken literally. 'Bang' in this context means performance - although it's worth noting that bang also has sexual connotations, which lends a somewhat more seedy meaning regarding the exchange of money. Clearly, ‘bang for buck’ is a rather tired and lazy expression to indicate value for money (arguably a cliche in itself), but my main objection to it is that it appears in British media, where the word ‘bucks’ to describe dollars sounds out of place and artificial.
Price tag/point
Imagine for a moment you're browsing the local branch of a national discount clothing chain. You happen to see a charming sweater with a picture of cat playing piano on it. You want it, but you're on a limited budget. Your immediate concern, therefore, is how much it costs. So what do you do? You check the price tag. Why? To see the price. Beyond telling you the price, the tag is of little importance. If the tag had fallen off, you wouldn't assume the sweater was free, would you? And the size of the tag wouldn't matter. If the garment in question had a huge price tag, but written on it was 20p, it would still be a bargain. It's evident that the word ‘tag’ is superfluous, and the same applies to the equally redundant inclusion of the word ‘point’. In spite of this, references to price tags and price points seem hugely popular with tech journalists.
It does what it says on the tin
Lazy, lazy, lazy and stupid. First and foremost, how often do technology products come in a tin? Very, very rarely. So there is no tin. Stop bollocking about the fucking tin. Assuming the tin is a metaphor, what does it represent? If it represents whatever packaging the product happens to come in, then it’s completely useless to the reader, because they don’t have said packaging. It would be like writing a movie review and saying, “It’s about what it says on the back of the DVD box.” Of course, some products have self-explanatory titles, in which case the ‘tin’ must be a reference to the title. So why not just say that? For example, ‘It does exactly what its title implies’ would be more than adequate without mentioning any tins. Finally, it’s a little worrying that some writers can’t think of anything more original than to quote an advert for Ronseal wood stain. The same goes for people who say ‘Seemples’. As a fellow journalist said to me, it’s a word that best describes the people who use it.
Sport
It’s best to begin this with a definition. I don’t mean sport as in football, hockey or whatever. I’m referring to the word ‘sport’ as in ‘to wear or be decorated with something’. It’s pretty simple: you can sport a new pair of purple flared trousers (probably best not to, though), a car can sport flags on its roof, and a soldier can sport medals on his jacket. A graphics card cannot sport anti-aliasing and a processor cannot sport a high clock speed. In spite of the very clear boundaries of what this word means, many technology writers seem unable to resist using it in place of words such as ‘have’, ‘has’, or even ‘features’ or similar. The fact is there are plenty of alternatives you could use that actually make sense, so please use them.
Out there
Like many of the clichés here, this one isn’t confined to technology writers, but it is pretty common among them. To illustrate, here is a made-up example: ‘This keyboard is better than anything else out there at the moment.’ Is the writer looking out the window as he or she types? Are they thinking, ‘Well, this keyboard is definitely better than that squirell’? No, of course they’re not (unless they’re mental). The safest bet is that ‘out there’ means the rest of the market in this context. However, there’s nothing to say where the boundaries of ‘out there’ lie. In the case of my chosen example, is the writer telling me it’s the best keyboard in the country, the world, or even the universe? Perhaps, taking things to the other extreme, it’s just the best keyboard in the office. As well as being used in comparisons, ‘out there’ also gets tacked onto sentences for no reason at all. For example, ‘There are a lot of great first-person shooters out there, so which one should you buy?’ Now remove the words ‘out’ and ‘there’ and read it again. Still makes sense, right? And you don’t sound like a moron. Awesome.
Show-stopper
How hard is it to look in a dictionary? ‘Show-stopper’ means something is so good, it stops the show – not that it’s got a flaw that stops it working. Use this one incorrectly, and face the full force of my admittedly extremely subdued and, indeed, barely noticeable wrath.
As instead of because
Somewhere along the line (is that a cliché?), the word ‘because’ has fallen out of favour, and has been replaced almost universally by tech journos with the word ‘as’. The word ‘because’ means ‘for the reason that’ and the fact that it has ‘cause’ in it should give you some idea of its connotations. While it’s okay to use ‘as’ sparingly as an alternative to ‘because’ for the sake of variety, rhythm and so on, it should be never used exclusively in its place. Why? Because it means something different and can change the meaning of whole a sentence. For example, ‘As I was going to the car, I picked up my keys.’ The proper meaning of this sentence is that you picked up your keys on the way to the car, but when used incorrectly to replace ‘because’, it means you picked up your keys, because you would need them. You see this happening all the time in technology journalism, and the worst offence is ‘as if’ meaning ‘because if.’ Just say the words ‘as if’ on their own. What do they imply? They express doubt, because they’re short for ‘as if that’s going to happen’. It should be obvious, then, that ‘as if’ has a very different meaning to ‘because if’ and getting them mixed up makes you sound like a dick.
Too many dashes
Dashes are useful things that can help put emphasis on a particular part of a sentence, or perhaps add something on the end of sentence as an aside – oh, and they look nice too. Of course, that just means they can be used as parentheses. It’s not uncommon and it’s perfectly acceptable. The problem is when it becomes unclear what their purpose is. Consider the following: ‘This motherboard has everything you could ever need – or want – as long as what you want is within reason.” It’s not a great example, admittedly, but it does show what I’m talking about: the first dash causes a break for emphasis and the second one indicates an aside. However, the two dashes could be also be used as parentheses around the words ‘or want’. As I said, this is a bad example, because you’d still be left with a valid sentence, but quite often this isn’t the case. A better way to write the previous example would be ‘This motherboard has everything you could ever need – or want (as long as what you want is within reason).’ It’s not the only way to do it, but it makes sense and, importantly, it’s far less shit than it was before.
Capitalising 'user guide'
Although the manual that comes with a product might well have 'User Guide' written on it, and it might well be capitalised, it's not actually the title of it. It's merely there so you know it's the user guide. If you're going to capitalise it, why not go the whole way and put it in italics too, like it's the name of a fucking Shakespeare play or something?
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Drumtastic blog update
Update: I've had a Lion Active cajon for a couple of months now, and just want to confirm that it is indeed awesome. If you're thinking about buying a cajon, then this company is a good way to go. The drums are very sturdy, look and sound good, and they're much cheaper than the likes of Meinl (although I quite like the look of their drums too). I've thought about putting up a video me playing it, but frankly no one needs to see or hear that.
It's been a long time since I last wrote on this blog, thanks to a combination of videogames (50%), family life (40%), Twitter (10%) and bad mathematical jokes (15%). Now that I've completed Mass Effect 2, however, I've got a bit of time on my hands, so I thought I'd just say a little about what's been on my mind lately.
With the World Cup still going on, BP oil spilling into the sea, huge budget cuts and Cheryl 'Princess Diana' Cole in hospital, there's much to think about, but only one thing has really caught my attention: cajons.
Pronounced 'ka-hone', it's basically a wooden box with a hole in it, but it's also a great substitute for a drum kit. You just sit on the box and hit it in different places to get different sounds, and a snare wire inside can be used to add flavour.
They're not new, but I'd never seen one till recently, when I went to a local carnival where they had some bands playing. At first I thought there was just a guy on a box, pretending to be part of the band, but then I realised there was no drum kit - but I could hear drums. Obviously, my initial reaction was to suspect some kind of witchcraft, but it eventually dawned on me that the guy on the box was more than just some random nutter who'd wandered on the stage. He was, in fact, part of the band, and that box was an instrument.
Well, in spite of never having owned a drum kit or even a set of bongos, I'm determined to get myself a cajon, as soon as my poor little bank account will allow. I've been looking around and found Lion Cajon Hand Drums, which offers some interesting drums for very good prices. Here's a video of some drummer dude playing one of them:
There's also a video of Sting's daughter's band using a Lion cajon at the Isle of Wight festival. Note how much she sounds exactly like her dad. I'm sure she's very happy with her lot, but what she doesn't know is I'm only interested in her drummer. And what he doesn't know is I'm only interested in his drum:
Awesome.
It's been a long time since I last wrote on this blog, thanks to a combination of videogames (50%), family life (40%), Twitter (10%) and bad mathematical jokes (15%). Now that I've completed Mass Effect 2, however, I've got a bit of time on my hands, so I thought I'd just say a little about what's been on my mind lately.
With the World Cup still going on, BP oil spilling into the sea, huge budget cuts and Cheryl 'Princess Diana' Cole in hospital, there's much to think about, but only one thing has really caught my attention: cajons.
Pronounced 'ka-hone', it's basically a wooden box with a hole in it, but it's also a great substitute for a drum kit. You just sit on the box and hit it in different places to get different sounds, and a snare wire inside can be used to add flavour.
They're not new, but I'd never seen one till recently, when I went to a local carnival where they had some bands playing. At first I thought there was just a guy on a box, pretending to be part of the band, but then I realised there was no drum kit - but I could hear drums. Obviously, my initial reaction was to suspect some kind of witchcraft, but it eventually dawned on me that the guy on the box was more than just some random nutter who'd wandered on the stage. He was, in fact, part of the band, and that box was an instrument.
Well, in spite of never having owned a drum kit or even a set of bongos, I'm determined to get myself a cajon, as soon as my poor little bank account will allow. I've been looking around and found Lion Cajon Hand Drums, which offers some interesting drums for very good prices. Here's a video of some drummer dude playing one of them:
There's also a video of Sting's daughter's band using a Lion cajon at the Isle of Wight festival. Note how much she sounds exactly like her dad. I'm sure she's very happy with her lot, but what she doesn't know is I'm only interested in her drummer. And what he doesn't know is I'm only interested in his drum:
Awesome.
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
The Dangers Of Technology
Here's something I wrote on the Micro Mart blog ages ago.
Technology, in its many forms, is generally a good thing. Advances in medical technology have increased the average life expectancy, electronic communications have made keeping in touch easier than ever, and computer games are increasingly immersive and beautiful enough to be considered as an art form.
However, it’s also true that technology creates a social gap between those that understand and embrace it and people that fear and shun it. Although it’s got to a stage where it seems like mobile phones might as well be attached to our umbilical cords at birth, such is their current ubiquity, most of us probably also know at least one person who doesn’t own one, and who makes a conscious decision not to buy one either. As much as you might want to argue the benefits of getting a mobile to them, their choice is a valid one, and comes with its own advantages.
Of course, not every technophobe runs away from their fears. Many, either through genuine curiosity or succumbing to constant pressure from their peers, actively try to engage with modern-day gadgetry. These people need our help.
Unfortunately, as anyone who’s ever been on a web forum can attest, there’s often a strange form of snobbery imposed on those who are deemed to be lacking knowledge of the subject. Beginners are seen as second-class citizens in the online universe, despite the very obvious logic that even the most advanced of tech gurus had to start somewhere (no doubt some form of leveling-up was required).
In the offline world, the technological divide was recently demonstrated to me quite plainly while I was waiting in line at a supermarket. In fact, I was waiting to use a self-service till, as I was hoping to save some time. Sadly, it seemed the people in front of me had other ideas. One woman, who appeared to be waiting for a train, was just stood motionless in front of the machine, with her only movement being occasional jabs on the touch-screen to request more time. She’s not the person that demonstrated the tech divide, but I feel like mentioning her anyway, because I found her behaviour to be incredibly rude.
It was the lady on the till directly opposite her that really caught my attention, mainly because she offered my greatest hope of getting out of the shop. However, she was clearly struggling with the machine in front of her, but I couldn’t understand why. She’d scanned all her goods, and the computer was requesting payment. In her right hand she held a debit card, so she was merely a couple of steps away from completing the transaction.
I watched her for a few moments, quietly willing her to succeed. Although I immediately considered helping her, I was fearful of seeming patronising, and was wary of crossing the invisible line laid down by cash-machine etiquette, which states that you should never come within three feet of someone holding a naked debit card.
When it became clear to me that I was likely to die in this supermarket unless I took action, I decided to intervene. However, as I stepped forward to offer my assistance, she pressed the help button on the screen. Promptly, a shop employee stepped forward, and the lady demonstrated that the machine would not accept her debit card… as she waved it in front of the barcode reader! Fortunately, the act of stifling exists, otherwise there could have been a great deal of guffawing going on.
Of course, most people know what Chip and Pin is, and know what the card readers are for. Clearly, some people are in the dark, though, so we shouldn’t take things for granted. On one hand, you might think this woman should have stuck to what she knows and used the regular, staffed tills, but on the other, you have to congratulate her for trying.
To be honest, though, there was only one thought going through my mind at the time:
“WHAT A NOOB!!!!”
Technology, in its many forms, is generally a good thing. Advances in medical technology have increased the average life expectancy, electronic communications have made keeping in touch easier than ever, and computer games are increasingly immersive and beautiful enough to be considered as an art form.
However, it’s also true that technology creates a social gap between those that understand and embrace it and people that fear and shun it. Although it’s got to a stage where it seems like mobile phones might as well be attached to our umbilical cords at birth, such is their current ubiquity, most of us probably also know at least one person who doesn’t own one, and who makes a conscious decision not to buy one either. As much as you might want to argue the benefits of getting a mobile to them, their choice is a valid one, and comes with its own advantages.
Of course, not every technophobe runs away from their fears. Many, either through genuine curiosity or succumbing to constant pressure from their peers, actively try to engage with modern-day gadgetry. These people need our help.
Unfortunately, as anyone who’s ever been on a web forum can attest, there’s often a strange form of snobbery imposed on those who are deemed to be lacking knowledge of the subject. Beginners are seen as second-class citizens in the online universe, despite the very obvious logic that even the most advanced of tech gurus had to start somewhere (no doubt some form of leveling-up was required).
In the offline world, the technological divide was recently demonstrated to me quite plainly while I was waiting in line at a supermarket. In fact, I was waiting to use a self-service till, as I was hoping to save some time. Sadly, it seemed the people in front of me had other ideas. One woman, who appeared to be waiting for a train, was just stood motionless in front of the machine, with her only movement being occasional jabs on the touch-screen to request more time. She’s not the person that demonstrated the tech divide, but I feel like mentioning her anyway, because I found her behaviour to be incredibly rude.
It was the lady on the till directly opposite her that really caught my attention, mainly because she offered my greatest hope of getting out of the shop. However, she was clearly struggling with the machine in front of her, but I couldn’t understand why. She’d scanned all her goods, and the computer was requesting payment. In her right hand she held a debit card, so she was merely a couple of steps away from completing the transaction.
I watched her for a few moments, quietly willing her to succeed. Although I immediately considered helping her, I was fearful of seeming patronising, and was wary of crossing the invisible line laid down by cash-machine etiquette, which states that you should never come within three feet of someone holding a naked debit card.
When it became clear to me that I was likely to die in this supermarket unless I took action, I decided to intervene. However, as I stepped forward to offer my assistance, she pressed the help button on the screen. Promptly, a shop employee stepped forward, and the lady demonstrated that the machine would not accept her debit card… as she waved it in front of the barcode reader! Fortunately, the act of stifling exists, otherwise there could have been a great deal of guffawing going on.
Of course, most people know what Chip and Pin is, and know what the card readers are for. Clearly, some people are in the dark, though, so we shouldn’t take things for granted. On one hand, you might think this woman should have stuck to what she knows and used the regular, staffed tills, but on the other, you have to congratulate her for trying.
To be honest, though, there was only one thought going through my mind at the time:
“WHAT A NOOB!!!!”
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Who's Raffaele Sollecito?
The Meredith Kercher murder case has finally come to a close, with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito being found guilty for their parts in the British student's death. Of course, Rudy Guede was already convicted some time ago, so that's three people who have been held responsible for this crime.
This should bring great relief to the family of Meredith, but I can't help being a little confused by the verdict, which I think is largely thanks to inconsistent reporting from the mainstream press.
For a start, I'd managed to completely forget what Sollecito looked like, because in about 90% of the stories about this case, his ex-girlfriend Knox was the main focus. It seems to me that the press were only interested in creating a femme fatale character, so his image was largely excluded from reports. Just like Myra Hindley, Knox has gained notoriety by being a female murderer, while her male accomplice is ignored.
I'm not doubting the verdict of the case, but I do question how fair Knox's trial was in light of such biased reporting. With the press keen to paint the image of the wicked woman, was any other verdict likely?
Assuming that the various sentences given to the defendants were deserved, who actually committed the murder, and what part did the others play? According to the trial of Knox and Sollecito, the latter held down Kercher while Knox stabbed her and slit her throat. For this, Knox has been sentenced to 26 years and Sollecito to 25.
What, then, was the part played by Rudy Guede? Considering he was sentenced to 30 years, I'm assuming it must be something worse than stabbing someone to death. Of course, in a country where racism and anti-Semitism are alive and well, it doesn't really come as a surprise.
Hopefully, at some point in the near future we'll find out what really happened, without stereotypical representations being forced into the story. However, somehow I doubt it.
This should bring great relief to the family of Meredith, but I can't help being a little confused by the verdict, which I think is largely thanks to inconsistent reporting from the mainstream press.
For a start, I'd managed to completely forget what Sollecito looked like, because in about 90% of the stories about this case, his ex-girlfriend Knox was the main focus. It seems to me that the press were only interested in creating a femme fatale character, so his image was largely excluded from reports. Just like Myra Hindley, Knox has gained notoriety by being a female murderer, while her male accomplice is ignored.
I'm not doubting the verdict of the case, but I do question how fair Knox's trial was in light of such biased reporting. With the press keen to paint the image of the wicked woman, was any other verdict likely?
Assuming that the various sentences given to the defendants were deserved, who actually committed the murder, and what part did the others play? According to the trial of Knox and Sollecito, the latter held down Kercher while Knox stabbed her and slit her throat. For this, Knox has been sentenced to 26 years and Sollecito to 25.
What, then, was the part played by Rudy Guede? Considering he was sentenced to 30 years, I'm assuming it must be something worse than stabbing someone to death. Of course, in a country where racism and anti-Semitism are alive and well, it doesn't really come as a surprise.
Hopefully, at some point in the near future we'll find out what really happened, without stereotypical representations being forced into the story. However, somehow I doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)