American researchers have found human brains imitate the speech patterns of other people, even complete strangers, without meaning to.
They say a humans want to “bond” with others, even when a voice cannot be heard or, somewhat embarrassingly, even if another person is a foreigner.
Scientists from the University of California, Riverside, found the subconscious copying of an accent comes from an inbuilt urge of the brain to “empathise and affiliate”.
Well, we all knew that didn’t we? Look at George Galloway with that hilarious
Scots/Paki-ese that comes forth whenever he’s addressing his core voters.
Well. I don’t think many of us will be able to stomach the whole of Ed’s cringe-making chat with Russell Brand, but according to the clip that’s been bandied about all over the BBC this morning, Ed’s been doin’ a lo’, lo’ of empafising. You go’’a do it, aincha? Let’s be clear.
How old do we have to be to tolerate the BBC’s output? About thirteen and three quarters? Last night’s election-themed Newsbeat showed that young people have confused the government with Mum and Dad - bank of. Turn the bankers into food-bankers! Interest? Not interested.
Russell Brand has a YouTube channel for some reason, I imagine for his activism and some sour, un-fun comedy.
The clips of the MiliBrand interview remind me of Ali G and Tony Benn, but without Sacha Baron Cohen. No irony, just pure humourless Ali G, and Ed as the sucker.
Or, for pantomime dameness, Edna Everage, but without the backstage support of a Barry Humphries, Ed still as the sucker.
Someone said Ed believes if it gains him a few votes, it will be worth it. If not it will provide endless mockery for evermore, like Neil Kinnock slowly falling into the sea backwards.
The hirsute ex-Big Brother's Big Mouth presenter-turned-revolutionary hero (to Owen Jones and the like) outed himself on Newsnight as a 'truther' about 9/11..
I see that BBC defenders are putting it about that Ol' Russ was outed as such Evan Davis, and his new, understated kind of questioning. Others, however, think that Russell rang rings round the former Today man.
The Left-wing intellectuals at The Guardian and BBC, not least Newsnight’s Ian Katz, who have embraced Russell Brand or even given him house room, should hang their heads in shame.
Time was when Newsnight was a serious programme – indispensable viewing for serious people and an important part of the national discourse. Today, obsessed with juvenilia and gimmickry it’s become a gravitas-free zone. How sad.
‘I’ve no idea what the BBC are up to. If they think that the general public want to see this kind of nonsense on a serious political news programme they need to get out more. It is bewildering why they have given Russell Brand a platform to display such ignorant views. One might wonder what expertise he brings to this subject. The answer is none. The BBC have taken leave of their senses.’
The establishment humours Russell Brand because he poses little threat to the system. Newsnight has him on because he’s good for their ratings, not because they want to bring down the system too.
That short selection of views show a range of suggested reasons for why Newsnight invited him back for his second extended Newsnight interview in a year.
For Stephen Glover, it shows left-wing bias - the left-wing BBC getting a buzz from interviewing a 'radical chic' celeb. For the Mail, it's more a case of dumbing down. For Sunny Hundal, it's all about ratings. For Philip Davies, it's simply inexplicable.
I'm going with the ratings option mainly. Newsnight editor Ian Katz has often cited Russell Brand's previous interview with Jeremy Paxman as his idea of what a Newsnight interview should be like or the sort of thing his new Newsnight should do more of. He's immensely proud of it and the interview itself was a huge hit on social media (of which Ian Katz is also a huge fan), and very widely discussed in the mainstream media too. For Ian Katz, it was a triumph. So why not repeat the trick and get the world talking about Newsnight again?
Well, if that was his intention it certainly seems to be working. Social media has exploded again and the mainstream media is up in arms again. Another triumph.
Of course, it probably does help that Russ is espousing half-baked radical chic politics. If he were a right-wing 'truther' (an Alex Jones), I'm doubting that Newsnight would have had him on twice within a year. Such views would fall well outside of their comfort zones - unlike their left-wing/Islamist counterparts, even though the latter sound very similar (about 9/11) as the former. (It's the US government, the Bushes, the Jews).
Russ himself was there to plug his new book, which brings me to a joke I saw on Twitter. (Mysteriously, I won't quote the source though):
Russell Brand says the economy is an illusion. His new book contains the line, "The economy is just a metaphorical device, it's not real, that’s why it’s got the word con in it" - a bold call for a man whose name ends with "SELL BRAND".
Update from Sue:
I've been looking at the clips of Russell Brand and Evan, and I'm thinking "Katz - what was you thinking?" I mean Brand's over-long piece with Paxo was bad enough, but who thought Newsnight needed another performance by this repulsive narcissist? Talk about cringeworthy. Then I saw that the Guardian had hosted a live-stream even with Russell and Owen. Can you imagine anything more annoying?
I find Russell brand physically repulsive. I can't understand why anyone of either gender could find him attractive. (Even if he didn't start making those preposterous remarks) The way he speaks reminds me of when little girls dress up in their mother's high heels. Sort of like an unconscious parody of a grown-up.
Update from Rod Liddle:
The issue is not that Russell Brand seems to believe that 9/11 was some sort of joint effort between George W Bush and the bin Laden family – that’s sort of a given, no? The man is a drug-addled idiot with the geopolitical knowledge and awareness of a tub of ‘I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter’. The issue is, given these facts, what he’s doing on Newsnight, again.
The BBC, defending the decision to interview the fool, said that he is representative of the ‘anti-politics’ movement with which Westminster is trying to engage. No. He’s. Not. But even so, what utter cant – he’s on there because he’s famous and Newsnight, with its plummeting ratings, is these days in thrall to celebrity. Mind you, if I was Russell I’d begin to catch the whiff of a conspiracy. Isn’t it collusion between the BBC and politicians to discredit the ‘anti-politics’ movements by allowing a halfwit to represent it? [Spectator]
P.S. ('nother update from Sue)
Fanks for sandwiching me in between you and Rod Liddle.
Throughout that interview, Russell showed a complete inability to listen. Russell repeatedly turned away, arranged his body into that non-receptive slouch, while emitting streams of blustering, histrionic dialogue, during which Evan was lamely failing to make himself heard.
A couple of over-protective reviewers have praised Evan’s fortitude and patience, but I thought he looked like a wabbit in a panic.
Sometimes Russell invaded Evan’s personal space, touching his leg or patting his hand as if to say, “watch out, mate, I’m dangerous, I’m volatile, I’m a one-man reincarnation of the notorious sex pistols ‘whatever will they do next’ shock horror *live* on dark ages National Television”.
Now and then he got so excited that he forgot the glottal-stop. Some reviewers astounded me by describing him as ‘eloquent’. Others said ‘intelligent’.
so excited
Not everyone though. Here’s the funniest one so far. Polly Toynbee and Jonny Lydon didn’t think much of Russell and his antisocial call for people not to vote.
“I want to hug you for what you said about Russell Brand, You called him a Bum hole.” said Polly.
Gales of laughter, mate.
I looked up ‘paradigm’, a word no-one but Russell Brand actually uses in conversation. Glad that’s cleared up.
ˈparədʌɪm/noun 1.
a typical example or pattern of something; a pattern or model."society's paradigm of the ‘ideal woman’" 2.LINGUISTICS
a set of linguistic items that form mutually exclusive choices in particular syntactic roles."English determiners form a paradigm: we can say ‘a book’ or ‘his book’ but not ‘a his book’"
Is Russell Brand 1.) the idiot’s paradigm of ‘intelligent’? or 2) is ‘Revolution’ a book, his book, or a his book?. English determiners (that’s me) say it forms a paradigm and it is definitely a ‘his book’.
Talking on the Sunday papers, here's a selection of stories from today's newspapers (well, one of them) concerning the BBC.
Call me biased and inconsistent, but if there's one bias I don't mind the BBC displaying it's a spot of restrained jingoism during sports competitions. The BBC has been getting complaints, however, that its jingoism has been anything but restrained.
TELEVISION coverage of the Winter Olympics began with the BBC fielding complaints that the commentary team became overpatriotic when one of our girls won a bronze in the snowboarding. Whenever, for example, a rival competitor flew headfirst into a snowdrift, viewers took the view that a quiet “oh, bad luck” was a more appropriate response than a series of whoops, hollers, way-to-goes and cartwheels so acrobatic they would have brought us a medal in the freestyle aerials.
Who are these curmudgeons? When you’re disappearing down the plughole at cricket and haven’t won anything at football since Bobby Charlton sported a decent combover, ruling the world in the noble art of hurtling downhill on a tea tray would seem to be a more than legitimate cause for jingoism.
Indeed.
And, finally, moving from the Times to the Daily Mail, and from the BBC to Channel Four, there's a piece about an interview between Jon Snow and Russell Brand that I really wish I'd seen. I think I might have whooped, hollered,way-to-goed and cartwheeled at Ol' Russ's complete discombobulation at the hands of Jon Snow.
I suppose the BBC could have named Fergal Kean’s series “Militancy through Time the BBC’s prism”. But they didn’t. They’ve lifted the fatwa on the word ‘terror’.
Terror through Time.
TERRORˈtɛrə/noun 1. extreme fear. "people fled in terror"
When the BBC News channel reported the conviction of Pavlo Lapshyn it seemed like Anders Breivik all over again. They’re still trying to embed within our Branes an implicit-association between ‘far-right’ terrorists and murderers like Lapshyn - and, you’ve guessed it - the ‘far-right’ EDL.
One BBC 24 report described the incident, the court case and the conviction at some length, then suddenly tagged on a postscript about Tommy Robinson’s decision to link up with Quilliam. It’s much more than Amazon’s marketing strategy, the nudge: “If you bought that, you might like ‘this’.
***
One Show went to Mo
Mo Ansar was a guest on the One Show the other day where he described his uncomfortable encounter with Tommy Robinson. Alex Jones and Matt Baker who made no secret of where their sympathies lay. (clue: Not with Tommy R.)
On Question Time Tim Farron MP complained that people were mistakenly blaming immigration for ‘bad’ things, but we should all regard immigration as a blessing. Obviously tarring all immigrants with the same brush is the Lib Dem order of the day. I suppose it’s a kind of numbers game. If numerically more immigrants are hardworking and beneficial to “us” than actual Islamist terrorists, we should ignore all the rest of the problems caused by vast conglomerations of non-integrating non-English-speaking ‘Asians’ and thank Allah for our blessings.
***
Newsnight
Russell Brand and Jeremy Paxman are more or less equally repulsive. A fair and balanced contest. Russell Brand is just like Kenny Everett being Cupid Stunt. It’s the feminine face and hair. An effeminate man in drag; convincing but for the beard. I’ve heard that some women find him attractive. It must be something to do with his $ fortune. The Brand revolution? Sounds like an orgy of directionless over-enthusiasm leading to self destruction, much like the Arab Spring (or the riots)
His pretentious verbiage about redistribution of wealth begged a pretty obvious response, (i.e. begging) as in this Tweet from Trending Central.
Neither media icons were worth watching, even out of morbid curiosity. Sadly you can’t unwatch sickening things. The item should have gone down the pan.
The BBC Academy College of Journalism has updated its guide on reporting matters related to Israel and the Palestinians.
As soon as I opened the page the following passage leapt out because its guidelines are being flouted, day in, day out; flouted with such frequency that one may be surprised to learn that such guidelines exist. Producers, scriptwriters and commissioning editors must be unaware of them too.
‘Middle East expert’ Some ‘experts’ may have a history of sympathising with one cause or another, even if they have no overt affiliation. It is preferable, where time and space allow, to provide a lengthier indication of the contributor’s views on past issues so that the audience might calibrate his or her statements for themselves.In all reporting we should avoid generalisations, bland descriptions and loose phrases which in fact tell us little about a contributor or event. The phrase ‘Middle East expert’ implies the BBC thinks this person's views have weight and independence. If we can defend that judgement - that's fine. If not it may be better to avoid the phrase.Overall, we should seek a precise description - for example, what job does this person hold? Who employs them? Where do they stand in the debate?
Has the BBC been following those guidelines? They say Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law does not excuse), so an unequivocal mission statement like the above, dedicated to transparency and clarity, is tantamount to a confession. Each time extremists such as Abdel Bari Atwan or Ghada Karmi are introduced as ‘experts on the Middle East’, perhaps with “editor of Al Quds” or “research fellow at Exeter University’ innocently tagged on, the BBC is guilty of opacity and bias by omission. Anyone who didn’t know any better would get he impression that they are impartial. All that’s missing is the epithet *innocent face*.
But this particular BBC failing applies across the board. It’s not limited to matters M.E. BBC folk are complacent and content with their own political biases and, cue annoying advert, ‘they don’t even know it.’ Take, for example the ubiquitous adjective “right-wing” as applied to “think-tank”, or “far-right” applied to anything or anyone opposed to Islam. Left-leaning is the BBC’s meridian, and that’s that.
It makes the following sentence even more nonsensical on oh so many levels.
“Terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones and care is required in the use of language that carries value judgements.”
“I think it is reasonable to see some of the actions associated with anti-Muslim bigots as ‘terrorist’, though these are not at the worst end of the spectrum generally,”
Now we’re into semantics, I think she should start a thread to define ‘Bigot” too.
The BBC’s policy is never to use the word ‘terror’ unless it’s a quote. I’m not sure if this is because of difficulty with the precise definition - does it apply to any violent act in the name of a war or cause, perpetrated by an unofficial, (i.e. illegitimate ) soldier/political activist? Or even a threat or incitement - nobody seems to know.
But in any case the big deal they’ve made out of using a euphemism in order to avoid making a value judgement does little more than draw attention to the fact that they ARE making a value judgement. Each time they call an obvious terrorist a militant it’s the biggest display of a value judgement one could ever hope to encounter.
What they fail to recognise is the obvious fact that the whole of the BBC’s output is a kind of value judgement. It’s the selection of certain matters that are deemed newsworthy, and by the same token, those that ain’t.
The result of the BBC’s failure to report vital information was demonstrated on Thursday. Melanie Phillips created a minor furore when she attempted to enlighten the Question Time audience about the religious mania that motivates the Iranian Ayatollahs, viz the coming of the Mahdi, which first necessitates an apocalypse (to befall upon us, predicted to occur in 2022 if I’m not mistaken)
How far-fetched is that? Well, it is far-fetched, and that’s precisely why she was telling them it’s useless to think one can negotiate rationally with Iran. Hoping that Iran’s secular movement will somehow seize power seems almost as far-fetched.
But the BBC QT audience knows nothing about matters concerning the Mahdi, the apocalypse or the aspirations of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Hosseini Khamenei, because the BBC deems that kind of thing less newsworthy than, say the triumph of a Palestinian ‘Cinderella‘ winning Arab Idol.
Because the whole Twelfth Imam business is one of those ‘you couldn’t make it up‘ scenarios, the baying - nay, braying mob booed Melanie Phillips for saying what she said. With the aid of the BBC they are convinced that the reasonable thing to do is to ‘reach out’ to Iran with the open fist of friendship, otherwise known as capitulation.
The BBC audience is led to believe that the religious Islamic fundamentalists of Hamas, Hezbollah and other fundamentalist Islamist organisations are ‘just like us’ because people like Yolande Knell are oddly unimaginative. Despite being sent to far-flung regions as professional reporters, they remain inherently parochial. I think it must be something to do with belonging to the BBC ‘family’. Like in the Peggy Mitchell Eastenders of long ago. It’s Fambley.
Melanie Phillips’s exasperated outburst became a bit of an internet sensation. She accused the British public of being ignorant and imbecilic for pooh-poohing her suggestion that Iran needed to be neutralized. Since she was on the BBC, she stopped short of directly attributing the audience’s ignorance and imbecility to the BBC’s failure to disseminate the facts surrounding Iranian irrationality.
People are strangely passionate over matters about which they know next to nothing. They don’t even know they don’t know, however, simply because they think it’s possible to learn all there is to know by listening to bits of news on the BBC.
I stumbled upon one blogger’s critique of that episode of Question Time. The blogger is “a guy in his early 30′s(sic) who’s trying to make a go of this whole writing business.” (Keep trying.)
I might as well give him a link because no-one is going to be swayed by someone who addresses his readership as lemmings.
“HOW TRIVIAL OF YOU! HOW IGNORANT OF YOU!” was her [Melanie Phillips’s] next line and with it went any hope that the show might remain tenuously anchored in reality. “
opines early 30s guy, with a swagger.
“ part of me is quite pleased to see that Mel’s back and as unhinged as ever”
he says later. This Mad Mel mantra is a poor excuse of an argument. I’m waiting for one person to justify it. Even the heckler who shouted “Paranoia” was unable to flesh out his argument.
One thing 30s guy got right is that Question Time is terminally compromised by the frantic drive to make sparks fly by choosing an outspoken panel. That now takes precedence over inviting guests whose presence would increase the likelihood of a productive debate.
The mischievous decision to invite Russell Brand onto the panel proved more of a damp squib than a sparky controversy. Few people could be arsed to react, even though he was supposed to be in disgrace and expunged from the BBC’s speed dial. Whose idea was it? Who cares; it was stupid.
“The crux of the problem with Question Time is its tendency to invite modish comedians or generally thick TV folk on the show, to answer questions with populist twaddle. This is designed to placate a loud yet clearly unthinking audience, who frequently hold such absurd positions with unbelievable self certainty that they are reminiscent of flat earthers.”
Yup. I’m with him. Why does Russell Brand sound like Ali G with a smattering of Bluebottle?
“Drug addics should be trea’ed in a compassioni’ and empafa’ic - empafe’ic way.”
Indeed. What time is it Eccles? Question Time, my good fellow. I got it writted down on a bit of paper. Oh.
