Chasing Dragons

Newcastle University Launches World Politics and Popular Culture MA Degree

I am pleased to announce that Politics at Newcastle University will be launching a new MA degree in World Politics and Popular Culture for the 2010-11 academic year. Here is the course description:

• World Politics and Popular Culture is a distinctive interdisciplinary degree programme that examines the changing dynamics of contemporary international relations in the context of the politics of the various forces shaping and shaped by popular culture. The programme focuses on key theories, policies, and events in world politics in relation to both traditional and new media. You will learn not only how to think critically about how world politics is reflected or reproduced in popular culture, but also how the politics of popular culture shape the dynamics of world politics...

The programme entails three core modules in Politics (World Politics and Popular Culture, Theories and Approaches to the Study of Politics, and a Dissertation in World Politics and Popular Culture) with 4 optional modules that can be taken from politics, cultural studies, media studies, and film.

Admission requirements are an undergraduate degree from an accredited university with at least a 2.i result--the rough equivalent in North American systems would be a B average.

Please note that 'other qualifications or relevant professional experience may also satisfy the entrance requirements. Applicants whose first language is not English require IELTS 6.5, TOEFL 575 (paper-based) or 233 (computer-based), or equivalent.'

Information on how to apply can be found here. There is no formal deadline--apart from the start of classes at the end of September--but if you are applying from overseas, securing a student visa can take several weeks depending on your circumstances.

If you'd like to talk to someone to find out more about the World Politics and Popular Culture MA, you can contact  Matt Davies, whose tremendous efforts and vision saw this through from design to implementation.

I'm also happy to field any inquiries that you may have about the programme or pursuing a MA in politics in the UK.

Disclaimer: If there are any differences between information provided here and that contained on official Newcastle University web-pages, the latter should be viewed as the authoritative source.

Collage and photo credit: DerrickT (work displayed under a Creative Commons attribution license)

Weekend Reading Roundup v. 53

This weekend in the reading roundup:

• 'The Little Pill that could cure alcoholism' by James Medd at guardian.co.uk

• Craig Endler's insider's perspective on television production: 'A dozen reasons TV shows get made BESIDES ratings', 'Canceling a TV show: the network's POV', and 'Explaining 12 things Networks do that appear crazy': here, here, and here from boingboing.net

• 'IPL Scandal Exposes Dark Side of Neoliberal Dream' by Mike Marqusee at guardian.co.uk

• 'How to get paid for free content' by David Campbell at fastmediamagazine.com

• 'The Dunning-Kruger Effect' from the Science Show at abc.net (another find from boingboing.net!)

Enjoy your weekend and for all of the Antipodean T20 supporters, best of luck in the T20 final this afternoon!

Art and Photo Credit: 'La-Lis and a Cool Breeze' (Embroidery on Felt) by Ray_chel

Weekend Reading Roundup v. 51

This weekend in the reading roundup:

• 'Standing Up to Standing Up' by August J. Pollak at someguywithawebsite.com (one of the most sensible commentaries on the Danish cartoons/South Park controversies. Plus the accompanying comic is aces too)

• 'Calypso Magic' by Mukul Kesavan at thehindu (a treatise on West Indian cricket by an Indian supporter. Sports writing at its best).

• 'UK Media and the Election' from the mediablog.co.uk

• 'UK Media Bias: BBC and Channel 4 beat SKY and ITV for political balance' again from the mediablog.co.uk

• The Vigilante Journalist conducts an investigation into how a photojournalist managed to capture images of alleged Ugandan child sacrifice victims. The results raise a series of ethical considerations (here and here)

Have a good bank holiday weekend!

Photo credit: fdecomite

Bigotry, Duplicity, and the Politics of Scandal

There have been two recent cases in the UK election that demonstrate a double-standard with the popular identification of bigotry and how its appearance is produced as scandal.

Case 1: On Wednesday, Gordon Brown made private comments--picked up by a Sky TV microphone--that described a pensioner named Gillian Duffy as 'this sort of bigoted women' after she made anti-immigrant statements while chatting with the Prime Minister on the streets of Rochdale (note this was after she first heckled him). The incident has been dubbed 'bigot-gate'--the 'gate' suffix a sure sign of a  scandal bound to be forced down our throats into the zeitgeist by the 24 hour news cycle--and Brown presented as a two-faced bully, desperately out of touch with the concerns of 'real' 'salt-of-the-earth' people.

Case 2: In an interview with the Gay Times, David Cameron is unable to keep his stories straight. First he argues that the Conservative Party believes that gay equality is a fundamental human right. He then lets slip that he thinks Tory MPs, Peers, and MEPs should be allowed to freely vote over whether gay equality is a fundamental human right. Not only is this duplicitous in its characterization of party policy, it reveals that the Conservatives are open to manifest bigotry within their own party and having this bigotry potentially institutionalized through the legislative process. Yet, apart from some initial coverage on the Channel 4 national news, this story falls by the wayside.

There are lots of things that one can say about how this becomes possible including the influence of media (specifically Rupert Murdoch's Sky News and his newspaper empire), the different ways that the two leaders had been characterized prior to the election campaign, or broader cultural representations of pensioners as compared to homosexuals.

But in the end, they lead us to this bizarre turn of events: Gordon Brown calling a person who adopted the discourse of bigotry a bigot is treated as a scandal whereas David Cameron admitting that his party is willing to enable the expression--and perhaps even the implementation--of bigoted views through the legislative process is not. 

This just goes to show that scandals, quite like crises, are complex, yet contingent, socially manufactured products. It also demonstrates that more reputable media outlets--like the BBC--ought to think more closely about how they adopt the narratives of particular tabloid presses in covering this election.

Weekend Reading Roundup v. 42

This weekend in the reading roundup:

• 'Israel Reveals New Drone Fleet That Can Reach Iran' at nytimes.com

• 'Explaining Broadly Understood' by Patrick Thaddeus Jackson at duckof minerva [or why mainstreamers in the discipline of international relations struggle with the concept (popular) culture]

• 'Lethal T-Square: Architecture, Violence, Renewal' by Keith Eggener at designobserver.com

• 'Death Wears Aqua Green' by Pete Brook at the always amazing  prisonphotography

Have a good weekend!

Photo credit: junhopark

Weekend Reading Roundup v. 40

This weekend as a change of pace, we have a video roundup:

Have a good weekend!

Weekend Reading Roundup v. 32

This weekend in the reading roundup:

• 'TV clips reveal racist body language, study finds' from thestar.com

• From the best and brightest minds indeed file via westendextra.com

• Opium still the lynch pin of the capitalist system from guardian.com

• 'The Phenomenon, Politics, and Art of "Avatar"' by James Pinkerton via foxnews.com (just in case you were looking for more reasons not to suffer through another James Cameron production)

Have a good weekend!

Photo credit: Laszlo Nagy HU

Traffic Cops, Tasers, and the BBC: The Saga Continues...

I've posted a couple of times now--here and here--about my ongoing complaint over the coverage given to a 'pre-emptive tasering' on the BBC reality series Traffic Cops. I finally received a response to my second complaint, the text of which appears below:

Dear Dr Grayson

Thanks for your further e-mail regarding 'Traffic Cops'.

Firstly, I should apologise for the delay in getting back to you. We realise that our correspondents appreciate a quick response and I'm therefore sorry that you've had to wait on this occasion.

I understand that you weren't happy with our initial response to your complaint.

Your complaint has been passed to the production team who have provided us with the following information.

The taser is not technically considered lethal and they certainly have not ever been lethal in this country. They have been discharged 1,407 times in England and Wales between their introduction in April 2004 and the end of March 2009 and there were no recorded incidents of serious adverse medical events attributable to the taser.

Figures for Taser usage are from the Home Office web site:

 Please note that we aren't responsible for content held on external sites.

With regards to why the police tased an unarmed man, we are to film the police going about their duties, if he wishes to take the use of the taser up with the, he can do so.  However, in the programme it was made quite clear that the police suspected that the man had just committed an armed robbery and they had information (wrong as it turned out) that he might still have a gun on him, hence the need for a surprise pre-emptive strike. It certainly was not "lazy policing".

I respect your opinion on how the story was told, however, to call the puns used in the programme "disgusting" is unfair.Regular viewers will be familar with the style and presentation of the programme and light hearted commentary is part of the remit for it to be an entertaining fly observational documentary.

To reiterate, the description "less than lethal" used in the programme is a correct one. It was meant to imply that the taser is a weapon which has been designed to incapacitate not kill. It doesn't mean it can't be lethal just that it is not intended to be, just as a motor vehicle isn't.

I hope you find this response to be satisfactory, however,if you wish to pursue this complaint further, you can contact the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit who will independently investigate your complaint...

...Please note that any complaints submitted via email must include your postal address as all responses will continue to be issued via letter.

Whether or not you choose to pursue your complaint with the ECU please be assured your further concerns have been registered.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your feedback.

Here is my response:

I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation for all the time and effort that has gone into fielding my complaint about the coverage of a 'pre-emptive tasering' on Traffic Cops. 

However, the replies that I have received to date--from both the complaints team and producers of the series--have not addressed the primary issue at stake: the lack of balance in the coverage.

The segment on Traffic Cops de facto served to normalize the pre-emptive use of violence by the police with a weapon that has been linked to hundreds of deaths around the world. To argue that it is 'less than lethal' simply because it has not killed anyone in the UK (yet) is not a credible line of argument. Neither is the comparison with cars logical; cars are primarily designed as a means of transport whereas the main purpose of tasers is to inflict pain and hurt individuals so badly that they are incapacitated. Even though cars have associated risks, I suspect many people would be more comfortable with cars being used around them for their 'intended' purposes than tasers.

Humor is something that is both subjective and imperfectly shared. And poor taste is always going to be a matter of opinion. However, police joking about hurting suspects and the producers of a publicly funded television series sharing the same view--that someone being subject to unnecessary pain by the authorities is funny--is very suspect. If Traffic Cops wishes to provide light hearted commentary, it should not be covering such serious political issues and trivializing them.

What constitutes 'lazy policing' is also subjective and highly contested so I can accept that the producers disagree with me. However, in both the segment and their response, they have failed to note the very real legal implications of 'pre-emptive tasering' with respect to the European Convention on Human Rights. Articles 2 and 3 very clearly lay out instances and purposes for which the state and its representatives are allowed to use force against people that may intrude on the right to life. These are usually interpreted in line with broader legal principles over the use of force including imminence (of attack by the suspect), proportionality (of the force used), and last resort (could other means to secure an arrest have been used?). Knowledge of these legal principles casts a very different light on pre-emptive tasering. Thus, rather than merely mentioning that the use of tasers is controversial, the producers had a responsibility to explain what exactly is controversial and the potential consequences for residents when the police are being invested with the power to taser--or attack--first and ask questions later based on calculations of potential danger that cannot be falsified.

Without a doubt the use of 'pre-emptive tasering' is highly controversial and there are many different views that one can take on the issue. The problem is that Traffic Cops failed to sufficiently explain the controversy and depicted the events that took place in Humberside in a manner that very clearly gave preference to one side of the debate over others. The inability to deeply contextualize the social factors contributing to crime and to shaping crime enforcement is a major failing of these type of 'reality' crime series. Without the proper context being provided, the portrayal was therefore highly political, even if that was not the intention behind the coverage.

Given the institutional entrenchment of 'pre-emptive tasering' in police forces across the UK, the BBC ought to devote programming time to examining the logics of pre-emption in policing and the growing use of so-called 'less than lethal' weapons with an equal account given to the important human rights issues that these developments raise. Providing a forum for an in-depth exploration of these issues with room for views beyond those of the police would seem to better fit into the important public service remit of the BBC than what appeared on Traffic Cops.

Sincerely,

Dr. Kyle Grayson

I'll let you know how this turns out.

Photo credit: Junglecat

The BBC Responds to Pre-Emptive Tasering on Traffic Cops

A couple of days ago, I wrote about the complaint I filed with the BBC regarding the presentation of a 'pre-emptive tasering' on the program Traffic Cops. To their credit, the complaints department has promptly replied with the following explanation:

Dear Dr Grayson

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Traffic Cops' as broadcast on 7 August.

I understand you were unhappy the portrayal of tazer guns in this programme and appreciate you felt we described the weapon as "non-lethal". I recognise you have strong views regarding this matter.

Having reviewed the programme in question I feel it is important to highlight that when introducing the weapon we described it as "less than lethal", as in less lethal than a regular ballistics based firearm.

We would simply have nothing to gain by incorrectly describing such an item and feel our description was accurate, balanced and allowed viewers to pass their own judgement on this often contentious weapon in their own time.

I hope this allays your concerns, with your complaint in mind I can assure you that I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

As you can probably imagine, this has done nothing to allay my concerns. So, I have sent another letter requesting that my concerns be pursued further:

Thanks for your reply.

I too have watched the segment again. At no time was a direct comparison made to fire-arms. 'Less than lethal' (uttered at 2.20 in the episode) was used to describe the Taser independent from fire-arms and implies that using the object on an individual will not lead to death full stop.

This, as I stated in my original complaint is simply not true. Amnesty International, for example, has compiled a list of over 400 people who have died in North America after being shot with a Taser. Taser International, the manufacturer of the Taser product, has also been found legally liable in a recent wrongful death proceedings in California.

Not to be too over the top, but what threshold in the number of deaths needs to be crossed before the BBC would feel compelled to drop the 'less than lethal' description?

If a comparison was being made to fire-arms--and one wished to make the argument-- the correct phrase would be 'less lethal than X'. Thus, the justification for the term that has been offered is neither reasonable nor convincing.

To be clear, at no time did my complaint imply that the BBC stood to gain from the way in which the Taser was described. My complaint was that the producers of the programme simply deferred to police descriptions of the Taser without presenting anything to the contrary--despite the large volume of evidence about the weapon's contribution to hundreds of deaths. If the BBC is going to show something controversial like this, it has a responsibility to give time to the other side, especially in a context where the deployment of Tasers is being implemented by several police forces across the country and pre-emptive Tasering of particular suspects is being considered as a standard operating procedure by many of these forces.

Moreover, the very real possibility that a human rights violation--under articles 3 and 5(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights -- was filmed has not been addressed. The argument that viewers can make their own judgement would be convincing if these types of issues had been presented to them. Instead, the perspective of the police--granted that the show is about policing-- was privileged with Tasers being presented as a tool that makes policing safer and easier. In essense it was an advert for the use of Tasers. There was not a single reference to the broader legal context which would have provided some balance.

And  the element of poor taste (i.e., the jokes that were made about the discomfort felt by the suspect: 'shocking surprises' and 'shock of his life') has not been addressed either.

While I greatly appreciate having received a prompt response to my complaint, I do not feel that there has been an appreciation of the seriousness of the issues raised. As such, I would like know what--if any--options are available to further pursue this matter.

Respectfully yours,

Dr. Kyle Grayson

When I receive a response, I'll let you know.

Photo credit: roland

Traffic Cops and Pre-emptive Tasering: Normalizing Human Rights Violations on the BBC

This past Friday night I happened to catch a segment of BBC1's Traffic Cops, a programme where cameras follow around police officers in a given city as they patrol, investigate crimes, and make arrests.

The segment was about arresting a suspected armed robber in Humberside through the use of 'pre-emptive tasering', a tactic which could be best summed up as 'taser first, ask questions later'. For anyone not familiar with a taser, it is a device used to subdue people by sending a short burst of electricity through them.

What was so disturbing about the coverage was not just that it showed a probable human rights violation without batting an eye-lid--the police officers received permission to taser the suspect even before attempting to arrest him--but that the entire premise of the segment rested on a substantial factual error.

Tasers were described as a 'less than lethal' weapon. This is patently false. The use of tasers on suspects in North America has been identified as a factor in over 400 deaths. Taser International, the manufacturer has even recently been found legally liable in a wrongful death suit. Moreover, the use of tasers has been linked to other significant medical issues.

Amnesty International has also described the weapons as potentially lethal and easy to abuse while calling for an end to their use except in clear 'life and death' situations in accordance with international human rights law regarding the legitimate use of force. 

None of this was presented. Instead, the segment contained two Humberside police officers waxing lyrical about how much easier tasers made it to arrest people and then--with the narrator--making a couple of puns about the suspect being in for a 'shocking surprise' and receiving 'the shock of his life'.

So, what the BBC has done is condone and glorify a deeply problematic practice. This is precisely the kind of lazy policing that contributed to the death of Robert Dziekanski at the hands of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2007 at Vancouver Airport. Recent evidence has come to light that they had also decided to pre-emptively taser Mr. Dziekanski prior to arriving on the scene. 

As a public broadcaster, I think the BBC has a duty to get the facts right. Tasers are a weapon. Weapons can kill, maim, or injure. So can tasers. To present it any other way is the height of irresponsibility. 

Moreover, in the wake of all of the recent controversy with respect to policing in light of the G20 protests, the BBC should  be a little more circumspect about uncritically accepting police claims about what is necessary to do their jobs rather than just normalizing police violence as a legitimate means of making the job easier.  

Anyhow, I have contacted BBC Complaints to voice my concern. If you are a UK resident--unfortunately they will only field complaints from UK TV license holders--and are displeased about the way tasers have been depicted, I would strongly urge you to launch your own complaint. The footage itself can be found on the BBCiplayer--again for UK residents only, sorry--until 14 August, 2009.

As soon as I get a response from the BBC, I will post it.

An update can now be found here.

Photo credit: alshain49