After decades of respite from the notion that courts should be televised, it is reported (iin March 2012) that the UK government intends now to take this step. Some of the reasons for and against such a step are similar now to what they were in the 1980s when broadcasters were trusted to spread knowledge and avoid
sensationalism. Now, increasing pressure from a wider market makes it much more difficult for broadcasters to deliver a public service; and to this difficulty, some other reasons for caution about televising courts should be added.
Bearing the tarnished colours of News International, Sky TV now proposes to take on the good work of hoping to make the public understand and appreciate better the work of the court; they propose to do this not just by reporting what has been going on in courts but by deploying cameras in courts. NI and the Government may hope that this will improve relations between them, but televising the courts is not the best way to do this, not least at a time when NI staff past or present, themselves come before the courts .
A more subtle psychological consideration is that the acts of looking and hearing (broadcasts) are likely to encourage people to think that they have truly understood what they see, and that some court proceedings represent most others. Such interpretations are less likely when one reads, in the press, of events in court, as the role of the reporter there is more evident.
When TV was brought into Parliament it was hoped that the public would know more about and better appreciate the work done for us by MPs, moreover that MPs’ behaviour would be positively influenced and that they would themselves welcome the broadcasting. Though the broadcasting authorities at the time carried out short term research to evaluate these goals, there is little sign of any long term research that reassures society that the broadcasting of Parliament has done better than the print reporting it has largely supplanted. When the Law Lords’ function was removed into a new Supreme Court, there was no plan to assess the move in order to make any improvements in provision, and there appears to be no intention to link an incursion into the criminal or civil courts with any formative research.
The reported proposals seem not to have been well conceived and should be opposed.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Dengl 47 The Psychology of Football
One of my career spells had been in Nigeria in 1964-6 and I emerged with a notion I called "sensotypes" - perhaps a genetically imbued characteristic of intelligence or mental structure that took different forms, depending on the communication methods which the culture had focused on for the past many generations. Thus print literacy eventually (in Europe etc) created an inner-directed 'inlook' (intellectual if you like) while cultures depending on oral (and kinaesthetic) signs would develop otherwise.
I "predicted" a flowering of athletic and physical-artistic achievements from Africa plus where formally academic, those that focused a bit more on human relations (medicine, law).
I could see where this stereotype was heading, and I retreated from saying any more about it (it had already been said by Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong SJ, and several others).
Now, after another career in television audience research, I merely watch soccer on the screen.
About this I have a suggestion (for David Horrocks, who had an article "Brains in their feet?" in the Psychologist, January 2012) on which I would be interested to hear any reflections on a few points I made to him:
After scoring a goal, players (much encouraged by tv depictions I imagine) indulge in what may be energetic displays of euphoria and celebration of achievement - which I wonder may not be dysfunctional. One goal has not won the match. Nor has it notched up the player's wages another 10K. Is it possible that, in a simile with a pent up dam, what we see is something like the discharge of all the water it has collected, so that subsequent action has to emerge from a slow (?) re-establishment of pent up force? Might it be better for the manager to discuss with his lads - wait until the 90 mins are over; save the energy (both physical and mental) you are currently 'blowing' in celebrations, to apply to subsequent play. Get back to your positions,
channel that energy into immediately following play. If and when we win - do somersaults etc in front of our fans.
You report a couple of particularly articulate and insightful players - I wonder how far this goes with the others. What I noticed in Nigeria (1965) where European players mixed in with the locals was a clear degree of generalship - amongst the older more experienced Euros (UK, Greek...) - which helped their side. You are quite right in emphasising the merits of generaliship. The picture they gave your article showing Scholes is perhaps telling - a much older player is being celebrated by Ferguson as still very effective. Other examples of people in their 30s, doing very well for their sides include Brad Friedel, and John Terry.
Interacting with the matter of at what age players are replaced is the heavy expectation placed upon the culture - not least by television commentary and discussion - which
says nothing about things you have mentioned such as club history - even player position history
emphasises a 'throw away culture' - sack the manager, sack this or that player ...
emphasises attack over defence - "buy another "striker" ..." (seldom identify 'buy a new midfielder' ..)
Apropos the "meaning" of "what IS a club?" I devised a 'thought experiment' which I put to one or two people:
consider that Arsenal puts ALL its players on the transfer list and at the same time Spurs put ALL their players on their transfer list - and then Arsenal buy all the Spurs players and vice versa. Is the club one used to call Arsenal still Arsenal? And Spurs still Spurs? My relatives (all Arsenal supporters) seem to refuse to enter into this question, but uneasily say the new Arsenal is still Arsenal.
To me, two considerations about 'branding' are pertinent. One is the change of name - even place - where surely Wimbledon is no longer the same as MK Dons? the "emirates" stadium and "club" are perceptibly a bought-over plaything of foreign potentates who may change their support at any time. In other words, the new 'brands' are probably very fragile and ephemeral; not only do they give ambiguous meaning to their supporters - but (this is where it connects with your argument) they do not have such a potential to convey a clear grop identity to the (new) players. Harry Redknapp who says that all that matters is cash - maybe right (only occasionally does a Sol Cambell transfer to opponents evoke deep feelings among supporters - and possibly players.
I "predicted" a flowering of athletic and physical-artistic achievements from Africa plus where formally academic, those that focused a bit more on human relations (medicine, law).
I could see where this stereotype was heading, and I retreated from saying any more about it (it had already been said by Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong SJ, and several others).
Now, after another career in television audience research, I merely watch soccer on the screen.
About this I have a suggestion (for David Horrocks, who had an article "Brains in their feet?" in the Psychologist, January 2012) on which I would be interested to hear any reflections on a few points I made to him:
After scoring a goal, players (much encouraged by tv depictions I imagine) indulge in what may be energetic displays of euphoria and celebration of achievement - which I wonder may not be dysfunctional. One goal has not won the match. Nor has it notched up the player's wages another 10K. Is it possible that, in a simile with a pent up dam, what we see is something like the discharge of all the water it has collected, so that subsequent action has to emerge from a slow (?) re-establishment of pent up force? Might it be better for the manager to discuss with his lads - wait until the 90 mins are over; save the energy (both physical and mental) you are currently 'blowing' in celebrations, to apply to subsequent play. Get back to your positions,
channel that energy into immediately following play. If and when we win - do somersaults etc in front of our fans.
You report a couple of particularly articulate and insightful players - I wonder how far this goes with the others. What I noticed in Nigeria (1965) where European players mixed in with the locals was a clear degree of generalship - amongst the older more experienced Euros (UK, Greek...) - which helped their side. You are quite right in emphasising the merits of generaliship. The picture they gave your article showing Scholes is perhaps telling - a much older player is being celebrated by Ferguson as still very effective. Other examples of people in their 30s, doing very well for their sides include Brad Friedel, and John Terry.
Interacting with the matter of at what age players are replaced is the heavy expectation placed upon the culture - not least by television commentary and discussion - which
says nothing about things you have mentioned such as club history - even player position history
emphasises a 'throw away culture' - sack the manager, sack this or that player ...
emphasises attack over defence - "buy another "striker" ..." (seldom identify 'buy a new midfielder' ..)
Apropos the "meaning" of "what IS a club?" I devised a 'thought experiment' which I put to one or two people:
consider that Arsenal puts ALL its players on the transfer list and at the same time Spurs put ALL their players on their transfer list - and then Arsenal buy all the Spurs players and vice versa. Is the club one used to call Arsenal still Arsenal? And Spurs still Spurs? My relatives (all Arsenal supporters) seem to refuse to enter into this question, but uneasily say the new Arsenal is still Arsenal.
To me, two considerations about 'branding' are pertinent. One is the change of name - even place - where surely Wimbledon is no longer the same as MK Dons? the "emirates" stadium and "club" are perceptibly a bought-over plaything of foreign potentates who may change their support at any time. In other words, the new 'brands' are probably very fragile and ephemeral; not only do they give ambiguous meaning to their supporters - but (this is where it connects with your argument) they do not have such a potential to convey a clear grop identity to the (new) players. Harry Redknapp who says that all that matters is cash - maybe right (only occasionally does a Sol Cambell transfer to opponents evoke deep feelings among supporters - and possibly players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
