Not so splendid isolation
Did you see Horizon on Tuesday night? If you didn’t catch it, check it out while you can on the BBC iPlayer; it’s the most interesting (and disturbing) programme I’ve seen for quite some time.
Interesting because of the basic premise; six people volunteered to be shut away in solitary confinement and sensory deprivation for 48 hours just so that Horizon could monitor the effects. Disturbing because of what some of those effects were and what they might mean for the wider world.
All of the subjects were nervous but excited in the lead up to the 48 hours of the test, but as the time to be locked away grew closer, they all got less excited and more nervous. Most of them just wanted to get on with it and get it over. I expected that not all would make it through the two days.
The group of six was split into two; one group were put into small rooms with no light, no sound and nothing to do. The second group were not shut in the dark, but they did have to wear goggles that prevented them from seeing anything clearly, headphones that played them white noise all the time, and padding around their hands and arms to shut off their sense of touch. Both groups were otherwise unencumbered and could move about freely, sleep when they wanted and so on.
None of the subjects were locked in, all could leave at any time; they were also monitored constantly to make sure that they were not suffering extreme psychological effects and they were kept fed and watered.
Prior to entering their rooms, each subject was given a series of tests to benchmark their mental ability – with particular focus on recall and suggestibility. At the end of the two days, they were tested again. And it’s the differences in the two sets of results that is most disturbing.
Yes, hallucinations and all the other mental strains that the six exhibited are disturbing but greater than that is the change in their ability to tell truth from lies; all of the men scored significantly worse on their suggestibility tests after the experiment than they did before. If you don’t think this has any bearing in the real world, think about all those Guantanamo Bay prisoners held in solitary confinement, all those self-confessed murderers who only confessed after an extended stay in solitary. As one of the researchers said, this change in suggestibility came after only two days – during which they had not been ill-treated; what sort of change could you expect from someone who’s been locked up for months and possibly been tortured, certainly been badly treated? Isn’t it reasonable to think that you could convince them that white was black if that’s what you wanted to do?
57 channels and nothing on
My friend Skimmer has a blog entry about the current drive in the UK to get people switched over from analogue to digital television equipment, ready for when the analogue signal is switched off for good in 2012. He makes a good point that the UK public are being pressured into updating their equipment when they may not actually need to.
But what it got me thinking about is the state of television programming at the moment. I’ve just taken a look at tonight’s schedules for the four channels that I’m currently able to receive, and there is absolutely nothing on that I would make an effort to watch, and most of what is being shown I’d turn off if it came on while I was in the room. The plethora of new channels – and all those “+1″ type channels in particular – has had a really bad impact on the quality of programming.
For me, the golden age of television was in the 70’s and early 80’s, back when I was still a kid and maybe my view of television then is tinged by nostalgia. But I seem to remember that each of the three channels (yep, only three back in those days – how did we ever cope?) had serious news reporting, quality drama, funny comedy and light-hearted afternoon programmes, as well as a selection of the biggest films. The channels didn’t run 24 hours a day, there were less repeats and on Sundays you got a good helping of religious programmes whether you wanted them or not!
Now what do we get? Soaps (God knows how many there are now, but they seem to be on everyday and repeated on Sundays), “Reality” shows that are anything but real, X Pop Factor Idol-type “talent” shows, gardening, cookery – far too much cookery, by the way – and “news” programmes where it’s not the fact that we’re at war that’s important, but whether the female presenter can walk and read the news at the same time. And this, apparently, is what the consumer wants.
I’m sorry but it’s not what this consumer wants, and that’s why I haven’t rushed out to get satellite TV. And why I’m not that bothered about being able to access the free-to-air digital channels available through Freeview. And why I don’t really care about the big switchover. And why I object to the BBC continuing to be funded by an outmoded license fee arrangement.
Judge said “What you got in your defence, son?”
“57 channels and nothin’ on”
I can see by your eyes friend you’re just about gone
57 channels and nothin’ on…
BBC – TV for the nation? Um…
So we all know that the BBC launched their iPlayer earlier in the year only for Windows users. (The iPlayer allows licence holders to download certain TV programmes for up to 30 days after broadcast, to enjoy at their leisure on their computer.)
Today, the BBC announced a new deal with wi-fi providers The Cloud to make BBC programmes available through 7,500 wi-fi hotspots around the country, so that viewers can download and stream programmes while they’re out and about. At the same time, a streaming-only service was announced for Mac and Linux users “by the end of the year”.
It’s about time that the BBC (which, let’s remember, is a public service broadcaster that enjoys an unprecedented and unique funding arrangement, whereby you have to pay a licence fee for operating TV reception equipment – regardless of whether you use that equipment to watch BBC programmes or not) included Mac and Linux users in its online services. But why only streaming, when Windows users can download?
According to Ashley Highfield , director of Future Media and Technology, it’s because “We need to get the streaming service up and look at the ratio of consumption between the services and then we need to look long and hard at whether we build a download service for Mac and Linux. It comes down to cost per person and reach at the end of the day.”
I’m sorry but I don’t agree. As a licence-fee payer, I fund the BBC. Therefore, I should be able to access all of the BBC’s services, irrespective of the equipment I choose to use. For an Internet-based service, it shouldn’t matter whether I’m using Windows, Mac, Linux, or any other operating system; the service should be available. There’s quite a difference between being able to stream a programme and being able to download it; just because I use a Mac, I shouldn’t have to feel left out in the cold.
The biggest annoyance about the whole issue is that to help them with the streaming service, the BBC have signed a deal with Adobe. If you wanted to pick a company that had more experience writing software for Mac’s, you couldn’t. Would it have been so difficult to go that one step further and make the download service available?
All of this comes on top of the fact that much of the BBC’s expenditure these days seems to be on digital stations. This is not good news, as I live in an area that currently cannot receive the Freeview signal. But I also I can’t receive Sky because the block of flats I live in does not allow dishes to be fixed to the building and the communal system is too expensive (and too limited) to be viable. This leaves me with a grand total of four TV channels to choose from. At least if I could use my Mac to download programmes through iPlayer I might be able to enjoy some of those digital-only programmes that the BBC puts out. But no.
I’ve thought for many years that “the unique way the BBC is funded” does not serve the licence payer well and needs to change. The half-hearted iPlayer just makes me more convinced.
Wolfs Helpers
