News of the World: Well Ahead Of You

I've had this SOGAT, NGA, AUEW Boycott Murdoch mug on my desk for several years, hailing from a sadly lost age in which trades unions were important. I'm now feeling quite smug (and open to offers).

Meanwhile, did you listen to the Today show on Radio 4 this morning. I was quite taken by the advertising executive Nicola Mendelsohn, who described her children as a 'little focus group' who are marvellous consumers of advertising (from 2 hours 45 onwards). Bill Hicks clearly didn't die in vain then.

The piece was a sob-story about the challenge facing advertisers when we all hate adverts, attached to the withdrawal of advertising from the News of the World. As you can imagine, the tears were rolling down my face as I imagined her dossing down in her Porsche Cayenne, an iPad for a pillow.

A line for every occasion

An e-mail from a friend on the subject of reading for pleasure (he does, his colleagues don't) reminded me of the rest of the Bill Hicks routine quoted in my profile:

I've noticed a certain anti-intellectualism going around this country; since about 1980, coincidentally enough. … I was in Nashville, Tennessee, and after the show I went to a Waffle House. I'm not proud of it, but I was hungry. And I'm sitting there eating and reading a book. I don't know anybody, I'm alone, so I'm reading a book. The waitress comes over to me like, [gum smacking] "What'chu readin' for?" I had never been asked that. Not "What am I reading?", but "What am I reading for?" Goddangit, you stumped me. Hmm, why do I read? I suppose I read for a lot of reasons, one of the main ones being so I don't end up being a fucking waffle waitress.

I've posted it before, but it's worth seeing again:



This led me on to another reading related reference:

Books are a load crap

by the great misanthropic poet Philip Larkin (in 'A Study of Reading Habits').

Then I remembered another line from Bill Hicks with particular relevance to current affairs:

You know we armed Iraq. I wondered about that too, you know. During the Persian Gulf war, those intelligence reports would come out: "Iraq: incredible weapons – incredible weapons." "How do you know that?" "Uh, well … we looked at the receipts. But as soon as that check clears, we're goin' in. What time's the bank open? Eight? We're going in at nine. We're going in for God and country and democracy and here's a fetus and he's a Hitler. Whatever you fucking need, let's go. Get motivated behind this, let's go!"

I’m so sick of arming the world and then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries then we go and blow the shit out of em. We’re like the bullies of the world, you know. We’re like Jack Palance in the movie Shane… Throwing the pistol at the sheep herder’s feet: “Pick it up.” “I don’t wanna pick it up mister, you’ll shoot me.” “Pick up the gun”. “Mister, I don’t want no trouble huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don’t even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain’t looking for no trouble mister.” “Pick up the gun.” Boom bom “You all saw him. He had a gun.” 

Seriously, just kill yourself…

Bill Hicks had a great routine about advertising executives who could only think in terms of market demographics, even co-opting rebellion as one more marketing tool.

It came to mind as I watched a discussion about cigarette advertising restrictions on Newsnight last night: two not very bright but highly confident marketing whores chortling away because they could see that if cigarettes are literally put out of sight and sold in plain packaging, the cigarette companies would use social media to sell smoking: going for the rebellious dollar. Watch it here from 34.27.

Kids: smoking isn't rebellious. It kills you and the money doesn't go to cool nonconformists. It goes to massive global corporations and the men in suits give the money to the Republicans, the Tories and other unpleasant types.

What took you?

One of my boring, tedious, holier-than-thou rules (channelling Bill Hicks) is that if a band licences its music for use on adverts, I don't buy their music any more. They don't need my money, because they've got lots fro allowing the music which previously existed as an autonomous work of art to support someone else's quest for money (I exempt bands who've lost control of their work from the rule).

One of the most painful losses was New Order, who've popped up on a Mars Bar ad, though with their complicated backstory, they may well not have any control over their catalogue.

But what really surprised me was hearing The xx on an advert yesterday. They've released one album, which won the Mercury Music prize a couple of days ago, yet they've already decided that what they do is simply a saleable commodity, rather than art.

I know, of course, that bands need to make a living and that the record industry is in flux, but this band is hugely acclaimed. They'll sell lots of records and sell a lot of tickets - there's no need to eke out a declining career, or to fund their pensions by licencing big tracks, as fading bands perhaps understandably do. Instead, they've taken the conscious decision to trade on their moment in the sun.

So farewell, The xx. You don't need me, won't understand me, won't miss one miserable old git's £10, but it matters to me.

Cue scornful response from Ben.

Looks like we got ourselves…

This phrase has been used in my presence frequently - now Neal's sent me the source: