Tuning out

15th December 2011 by

The TV in my flat has disappeared! We haven’t been burgled, though. Our big, boxy old cathode ray goggle box is actually gathering dust on the floor of the spare room, unused. We moved it out of the way in preparation for a party back in August, and it hasn’t been moved back since. We’ll probably recycle it back onto Freecycle before long, which is where we got it in the first place. Or maybe we’ll have a ritual smashing.

And now there’s not only a big space in the corner of the living room – there’s a big free space opened up in our heads, too. It’s been liberating.

It’s not that we don’t veg out on the sofa any more, I’m afraid. There are, these days, the temptations of iPlayer, 4OD and all the rest – unlike the last time I went telly-free, when I ended up doing a lot more reading and going out (and fielding baffled questions along the lines of ‘But what do you do if you don’t have a TV?’ Which I always thought was a question, on escaping their lips, that ought to bring the questioner up short and cause them to look at their own life, but never mind. If I’d known about it at the time, I’d have simply sent them to this lovely project.

So we still veg more than we should, really (no one will lie on their death beds wishing they’d spent more time watching screens).

But what good has happened is that we’re exposed to many, many fewer advertisements, to the extent that when we come across them now they have a weird, alien, even surreal feel. Do advertisers really speak to people in these strange tones? Do they really think the bland and airbrushed lifestyles they depict is what we aspire to, or identify with, and so will cause us to buy their product?

The problem is that it takes a prolonged period of not being exposed to ads in order to see their inherent weirdness. Yes, even if you think you’re not affected by ads, there’s good evidence to suggest that you are. Not only that, but that it is capable of chipping away at the values that you and others hold dear – and that are vital to social, economic and environmental justice.

WWF and the Public Interest Research Centre produced a fascinating report recently, Think of me as evil?, pulling together the available academic evidence on the effects of advertising. It will have made pretty excruciating reading for advertisers who claim that criticisms of their ‘trade’ are overblown.

One by one it pulls apart the defences put up by the advertising industry: that it doesn’t increase people’s overall consumption but simply persuades them to switch between brands; that it doesn’t create an acquisitive culture but simply reflects our society’s existing values. The report not only shows that these arguments are almost certainly nonsense, but points up still more alarming effects of saturation advertising. Such as?

  • Exposure to TV advertising increases the tendency to take on household debt and work longer hours in order to meet increased expectations
  • Advertising undermines people’s ‘intrinsic values’ such as community, affiliation to friends and family and self-development and boosts ‘extrinsic values’ such as envy of higher social classes and admiration of greater wealth or power – and this really matters, because extrinsic values are associated with “higher levels of prejudice, less concern about the environment and lower motivation to engage in corresponding behaviours, and weak (or absent) concern about human rights”
  • It makes us cynical: because advertisers sometimes appeal to intrinsic values – see Dove’s ads assuring us that all body shapes are legitimate – the fact that we know they are doing so in order to hawk a product makes us less trusting of other appeals to intrinsic values, such as, I don’t know, fighting environmental degradation or sweatshop labour

Great. So we know what to do, right? Junk the telly, don’t buy magazines. But that’s not so easy for most, and even if it were, you only need to step outside to be bombarded by billboards, logos, ads on buses, ads on taxis, giant screens in public places, funky viral ads on pavements. Every surface is covered.

So is it a losing game to fight this apparently unstoppable tide of shilling and mental pollution? Most of the time it seems that way. So it’s time for some inspiring examples to show that we should make a stink and that we can fight back.

Sao Paulo - photo by Márcio Cabral de Moura

But never, never underestimate the cynicism and stubbornness of the corporate world to turn anything into a marketing and selling opportunity – even Sao Paolo’s anti-advertising revolution made one company see an opportunity to make a buck. This one’s up there in the pantheon of cynical opportunism!

This issue really matters. It’s a question of rights – our right not to have our community spaces colonised by corporate occupiers for the very shallowest and most damaging of motives.

And as the WWF/PIRC report eloquently showed, it matters to movements like ours because it chips away at people’s sense that they can and should make positive change. It is a kind of negative magic, working changes in our consciousness without our consent and making the insane and the polluting appear to be desirable choices.

“To complete the task of breaking away from the murky thinking and the tangled nonrational drives that dominate contemporary life … it’s necessary to break away from the lifestyles and everyday choices that are produced by that thinking and those drives.

“Mind you, the same equation works the other way around: to make the break away from lifestyles that demand energy and resource flows we can’t count on getting for much longer—and making that break is perhaps the most essential task of the decade or so immediately before us—it’s going to be necessary to turn away from the thinking patterns and the unmentioned and usually unnoticed passions that make those lifestyles seem to make sense”

John Michael Greer

Cleaning up Climate Week?

30th November 2011 by

This week the (R)oyal Bank of Scotland announced that they are cancelling their sponsorship of Climate Week.  This sponsorship arrangement from a bank which used to call itself the ‘Oil and Gas Bank’ was considered nothing more than a bit of nasty greenwash by many organisations and individuals. Letters were written (including this one from us at Otesha), protests were made, and RBS are no longer sponsoring Climate Week.

In our letter addressed to anyone and everyone involved in Climate Week we called for concrete action, rather than rebranding, from the “UK bank most heavily involved in financing fossil fuels”, and argued that ”(s)ponsorship from companies with such weak green credentials lends legitimacy to the flawed concept that one small action is a sufficient reaction to climate change and that changing the lightbulbs allows us to continue ‘business as usual’.”


We’re pleased to hear of these cleaning, greening developments: greenwash is a tricky thing to get one’s head around. There are so many familiar questions: Can ‘bad money’ do good? Is a small change better than no change? Would we be able to achieve anything if Lord Greenwash doesn’t give us any money?

It’s incredibly important that the messages we try to spread aren’t undermined, though – so we need to keep on calling out greenwash: letting polluters know that putting a little cash into events like Climate Week won’t save the planet; and that exploiting the earth at the expense of current and future generations as well as the local and global environment is not okay.

Maria Lam of Climate Week says the 2011 event was “the biggest environmental occasion ever run in Britain”.  It’s great to get thousands of people involved, interested and hopefully taking action, and I hope that as Climate Week gets cleaner and greener, more organisations and individuals will feel able to participate.

But aside from ensuring a greenwash-free event, we also need action to be sustained across months and years. Questions about the value of individual media-intensive environmental events could probably give me enough material for at least one more blog, so I’ll leave this here after one last thought: climate change will be for life, folks, not just for Christmas – our actions have to match that.

My burning question on bankers’ bonuses and CEOs’ salaries

10th November 2011 by

Not very often, but once in a while, a top-tier banker or CEO will appear in a broadcasting studio or broadsheet newspaper interview and be asked: Are you worth it? Do you deserve it?

It seems the answer they give is always yes, sometimes with some humility and sometimes all-guns-blazing, arguing that their know-how and talent creates wealth for the rest of society.

George Monbiot this week pointed to research showing that bankers’ performances are no better than if they had thrown dice to make investment decisions. But, as he admits, present them with this evidence and it often makes no difference to their self-belief.

For me, these TV studio encounters are frustrating. There is a burning question I want to see the financiers answer. I think it would be illuminating and help blow some fresh air through the debate, opening up an important angle that’s often not looked at.

It’s not ‘Are you worth your salary?’ It’s not ‘Isn’t the gap between the richest and poorest hurting the whole of society?’ – though these are important questions.

It’s:

“Why do you want so much more money than anyone actually needs?”

Pressing them to answer this question would make for an absolutely riveting interview. Many of the honest, or even dishonest, answers I can imagine being given would confront viewers, and perhaps the interviewees, with the question of how much wealth and how much consumption is enough, and how much is moral.

What might the honest answers be? Here are a few guesses:

“I want to earn enough so that I can move only in circles of similarly rich people and so I don’t have to mix with ordinary people unless I choose to.”

“I like to know that I possess more money than I could spend because the knowledge of this abstract wealth gives me a feeling of security and self-affirmation.”

“I want to buy stuff: Rolexes, swimming-pools, multiple homes with more rooms than I can use, haute couture, yachts, limousines, racehorses and private jets.”

“I want to reach that point where my wealth is so great that I can live off the interest on my existing wealth without having to do work that is actually productive.”

“I want to live with and die with more money and material possessions than 99% of human beings.”

“I want my children to go through life knowing only ease and total material security, provided for in every way so they don’t have to learn how to make their own way in the world.”

Their claims that they deserve their remuneration seem to convince some people, even some of those who can never hope to earn such sums themselves but respect those who have been able to.

But what would it do to the debate to air this question of what we might want enormous incomes for? Many people, most likely, would still identify with these desires, still want them for themselves and still see them as legitimate and justified reward for supposedly hard work and irreplaceable talent.

Many others, though, might find themselves feeling new disgust, anger, alienation or even pity towards those who want incredible wealth.

Airing the question, though, would help bring out some deep questions for all of us, because the gap between top-flight financiers and the rest of us arguably has a parallel in the difference between most of us in rich industrialised countries and the vast majority of the world’s people who would regard our lifestyles as those of kings and emperors.

It would put on the table for all us the question of how much is enough, whether there is a gap between what we desire materially what we need to live decently, whether our desires are compatible with natural limits and others’ well-being, and what we are prepared to forego for the greater good and greater equality.

This is an increasingly important question, because if we cling to a sense of entitlement to riches and great material ease, but the economy and declining available energy make these less and less attainable, the anger that may result can take ugly political directions into scapegoating and extremism. We all need to be prompted to re-evaluate what we can collectively afford to have and afford to desire.

So come on, Paxman, give it a shot.

Coal Cares and Oil is oh-so sustainable

20th May 2011 by

I would be lying if I said that I didn’t for a minute think this was real.

This month a coalition of America’s coal companies launched ‘Coal Cares’, a brand-new campaign to combat the stigma of asthma faced by children living in the shadow of coal power stations.

“Why Free Inhalers? Because COAL CARES.

Coal Cares™ is a brand-new initiative from BHP Billiton, one of America’s proud family of coal companies, to reach out to American youngsters with asthma and to help them keep their heads high in the face of those who would treat them with less than full dignity. For kids who have no choice but to use an inhaler, Coal Cares™ lets them inhale with pride.

Puff-Puff™ inhalers are available free to any family living within 200 miles of a coal plant, and each inhaler comes with a $10 coupon towards the cost of the asthma medication itself.”

The website  features such textual joys as “Coal: it’s the safest energy there is”; a Kidz Koal Korner full of fun coal based activities and some incredible energy ‘facts’.

“Facts:

Coal power is solar power
That’s because millions of years ago, before coal began to form from decaying organic matter, the sun provided the energy that organic matter required to grow and die.

Wind Kills
Wind turbines can kill up to 70,000 birds per year, or 4.27 birds per turbine per year. Coal particulate pollution, on the other hand, kills fewer than 13,000 people per year.”

Of course the website and offer of free asthma inhalers does not come from a coalition of coal companies. The true authors are the Yes Men and a small environmental and public health group called Coal is Killing Kids (CKK). This is their response to the coal industries expensive lobbying against the Clean Air Act. “We don’t have their millions, but we do have a knack for incredibly tasteless jokes,” said Veronica Tomlinson of CKK.

I doubt I was the only person momentarily fooled. After all was this website that much more ludicrous than some of the greenwash pedaled by coal, oil and gas companies? In 2007 Shell got into trouble with the Advertising Standards Agency for it’s flower-power adverts, picturing flowers billowing from power plant chimneys. “We use our waste CO2 to grow flowers, and our waste sulphur to make super-strong concrete. Real energy solutions for the real world” proclaimed Shell, ‘liars and false environmental claims’ cried out environmental groups and the ASA.

BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ ad campaign included a poster declaring “if all UK motorists switched to BP Ultimate the reduction in harmful emissions would be the equivalent of taking one million cars off the road”. All well and good, but largely irrelevant unless BP scales down, rather than up, it’s drilling plans.

In the run up to their AGM, BP marked the anniversary of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill with full page colour advert in all the national papers. “One year later. Our commitment continues” they declared over a picture of clear blue seas dotted with oil rigs. Not so, claimed the delegation of Louisiana fishermen who were refused entry to BP’s AGM.

The moral of the story? If you can’t beat ‘em do as Coal is Killing Kids did and join ‘em.

Facts 'n' stuff

1st March 2011 by

Watch this video. No really, it’s less than a minute long. Watch it. Laugh. Send it to all your friends. Then watch it again.

Although the haters will persist in spreading lies, the science is on our side, and a recent survey shows that despite all the climate skepticism we’ve been having recently, most people still view climate change as a huge threat. In an opinion poll many said that the last two unusually cold winters had actually made them worry more about ‘global warming’. Maybe they saw the video and don’t want to go to prison.

According to the Guardian (in an article about a Guardian/ICM opinion poll), the public’s belief in global warming as a man-made danger has weathered the storm of climate controversies and cold weather intact.

The UK suffered two unusually cold winters in 2009 and 2010. But three times more people said the freezing weather had actually made them worry more about global warming than those who were less worried. The finding runs counter to the idea that people are influenced more by local conditions than by reports of globally rising temperatures. It may also indicate an understanding of how warming is projected to increase extreme weather events and that people distinguish between changes in short-term weather and long-term climate.

While climate sceptics remain a vocal presence in some parts of the climate change debate, the new poll shows them to represent a fringe position.

Mobiles, social media and revolutionary technology- Part II

3rd February 2011 by

I’m a luddite, and I’m fine with that. But aside from disliking the increasingly intrusion of technology and the internet into all aspects of our lives, I do recognise that all this media can be used for good.

When people took to the streets in Iran in 2009 they didn’t call it the Twitter Revolution for nothing. Whilst Twitter didn’t spark the street protests, it was a crucial medium for getting information to others in Iran and the rest of the world.

In October 2010 UK Uncut was 70 protesters in a doorway and a Twitter hashtag. A few months later UK Uncut is a truly nationwide social movement of direct action against the cuts, that wouldn’t exist without social media. “We don’t have any money, little expertise and we’re kind of winging it. But it seems to be going well and we seem to have hit a nerve.” Twitter, facebook and the rest have made it easy for complete strangers to organise spontaneous protests. Stowing an internet connection in their pockets has enabled protesters to report on their actions as they happen. Uncut has taken to the high streets targeting those they believe have been dodging corporate tax and the staff of Vodafone, Topshop, Boots and Tesco up and down the country are familiar with Uncut faces.

It’s no surprise that when the internet went down in Egypt last week the Egyptian government was suspected of cutting access (Vodafone Egypt admitted it had been instructed to suspend services in some areas). According to Rory Cellan-Jones, BBC technology correspondent, “for millions, in countries like Egypt, the ability to get instant access to information which could change the shape of their lives is becoming as much of a human right as access to clean water”.

Last weekend’s Education Cuts March marched off their designated route and on to the Eyptian embassy where they joined the anti-Mubarak protest. And they were not kettled by the police! This is the first of the student demos to have ended so peacefully and the lack of kettling has been credited by some to Sukey,  a security-conscious news, communications and logistics support service for demonstrators. Through a smart phone and mobile phone application Sukey collects and displays real-time police and protest behaviour, and tells protesters how to avoid being contained by the police for hours. It takes it name from the nursery rythme, “Polly put the kettle on, Sukey take it off again.”

As we become more and more connected, the possibilities for exchanging information, ideas and revolutionary inspiration are expanding exponentially and reaching people all over the world. The internet really does have the potential for a democratic and free media.

Mobiles, social media and mindbending technology- Part I

3rd February 2011 by

Anyone who’s ever met me will know that I am not a fan of mobile phones or anything beginning with i. I have a mobile and am as reliant as the next person on the internet. But I don’t like it. I wish all this information was in my head and not stored as bookmarks on my screen, I wish I could organise my life with people and not with my inbox. The problem with the internet and our constant connectivity is that, whilst it makes everything possible all the time, too much choice makes a simple life impossible most of the time.

Right now as I type I have seven tabs open on my screen, half of these are things that I am in the middle of reading. Everytime I pause for thought, instead of staring at the wall, I check my emails. This is arguably more productive than staring at the wall but I don’t think it’s helping my thought processes. Some days I find it really hard to read an entire article in one go.

I am clearly not the only one finding my concentration span disintegrating under a barrage of information. A friend confessed this week to checking emails in her lectures. Almost every conversation with friends involves some fact or figure being checked on someone’s i-phone, or being treated to photos of what someone else had for breakfast. Why do you even need maps anymore when the world wide web’s worth of information is all in your pocket? Because I like maps and I reckon lots of other people do to, otherwise why do people keep hanging them on the wall?

I am really really glad that I did not grow up with this much technology constantly vying for my attention. The advent of mobile phones has done more harm to education than a bulldozer in a public woodland. My experience working in schools and colleges is that some young people are umbilically attached to their phones, they would rather you remove their thumbs than their texting technology and, whether talking to peers or adults, cannot hold a conversation without their own personal soundtrack piped into one ear. At least when we wrote notes we were also practising handwriting, spelling and grammar. I’m sure some schools have managed to successfully ban phones from the classroom, but these handy pocket devices are just that and so they will always sneak their way back in. Now every young person has one it’s only a matter of time until technology mimics life with a Passing Notes App, a GCSE Cheat App and a The Dog Ate It App.

I’m not the only one concerned about all the the constant ringing, tweeting and flickering that’s interrupting our lives. The New York Times has written lots about how the internet is changing our brains. “Technology is rewiring our brains,” says Nora Volkow, one of the world’s leading brain scientists. Constant bursts of information are not just disrupting in themselves, they’re undermining our ability to focus even when we’re not online.

Whatever the effect of technology on our brains, it will be heightened in the young people who grow up without knowing what it’s like to wait for a roll of camera film to be developed, what it means to make someone a mix tape and what socialising is without social media.

Mohamed On The Big Screen

24th August 2010 by

In June I took part in a short TFL film that promotes cycling, here is a previous post that I have written during the filming. Last Friday, 20th of August, was the big launch of these short films. I featured in 2 films, that are both on YouTube and the TFL cycle site. One is my personal story and the other is the group video. The group video is also been screened at Cinema’s across the UK before the feature film (during the adverts). This is the video.


Read the rest of this entry »

Up close & personal with MPs

10th August 2010 by

So lately there’s been a lot of talk about a ‘big society’. I’m still not entirely sure what that means and how it’ll play out over the next few years, but the idea of ordinary people getting involved in decisions made locally makes sense to me. Especially when it comes to getting to know their local representatives, from city councillors to MPs.

An international example

A few days ago I came across the most amazing website which needs to exist in the UK immediately if not sooner. The Canadian organisation Apathy is Boring has launched a site called Citizen Factory, which basically allows people to stalk their MPs. When I looked up the MP for Langley, British Columbia (where I grew up), I found all his basic info plus a news feed listing all the times he’s been in the news, voted in parliament, spoken in parliament, joined a committee or tweeted in the past month.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cycling to Fame!

8th July 2010 by

Last month, I was given the opportunity to take part in a Transport for London short promotional film about cycling. Having successfully past the interview stages, last Monday was finally my big filming day. It started pretty early and lasted for 11 hours, which showed me how tough acting and modeling can be. Also standing in the hot sun all day did get tiresome, but it was a great deal of fun being filmed. I felt like a star with the Otesha’s new office bike as my co-star.

Read the rest of this entry »


Search Blog

Get Social