www.mainstream.org.uk
Media and TV

It's the 21st Century.

Why does our media still use expressions like 'coloured people' and 'mixed race' ?

When I was a little boy and first saw a black person in the flesh (as opposed to pictures in books), I shouted 'look mummy, that man's black !'. My mum's reply: 'Shh! You have to say ' coloured man' . This expression dates from another place and another time: when having brown or black skin, was believed to be a negative attribute: something to, at the very least, apologise for - if not actually be ashamed of. Something to keep quiet about. You had to say 'coloured', rather than saying the person's actual colour. Those days are long, long gone. None of us would dream of using the word 'coloured' in actual conversation.

So why does our media STILL insist on using this expression? Don't believe me? An example - the Guardian online, 8th June 2018. A journalist called Shaista Aziz uses these actual words (paragraph 9): 'These women are overwhelmingly women of colour'. On at least six occasions in her article, Aziz uses the 'coloured' expression. Honest - I'm not making this up!

 

On numerous occasions, one of my children, having to fill in a form with one of those horrible 'which ethnic group do you regard yourself' questions, would ask me 'Dad, should I tick the box for 'Mixed Race'?' I always tell them to do what I do myself - draw a new box labelled 'Human Race' - and tick that. The idea that humans are divided into separate 'races' harks back to an ancient pre-columbian view of humanity, where the 'Negro', 'Caucasian', and 'Mongoloid' 'races' (as they were called) each belong to a specific continent, and have totally different needs and behaviours. We've moved on since then! Martin Luther King was 50 years ago. Everyone knows now there's just one Human Race. (Apart from anything else, we understand now that probably the majority of humans on the planet, don't fit into any of the three classical 'race' buckets. )

The only people in the 21st century who still see us as separate 'races' are those who share Hitler's National Socialist beliefs and see humans as a hierarchy, the whites being superior, all other colours being inferior; or those who want 'separate development', like Verwoerd's South Africa, or 1950's Alabama: the different 'races' having their own schools, buses, swimming-pools, park benches, etc. Anyone in this day and age, who puts us into separate 'race' boxes, has only one agenda - the agenda of hate. And the expression 'mixed race' belongs with disgusting expressions like 'half breed' - in the past, not in today's media. (the Spectator, 27th November 2017, calls Meghan Markle by this expression. )(Just one of hundreds of examples).

 

                    TV ADVERTS EXPLAINING THE LAW TO YOUNG PEOPLE 

  When you see the amount of telly hours pouring out which are just utter rubbish - stupid reality shows, envy shows where we get shown every detail in rich celebs' homes, so we all want to go and buy the same stuff - and endless adverts for injury compensation, gambling, payday loans - it's heartbreaking; knowing that just a few of these hours could be put to better use. Educational use which would enrich our lives, and make us safer. No, I'm NOT talking about yet more documentary-style channels like Nat Geo: I mean something we've never tried in this country: Short, hard-hitting adverts in between the programs, to explain some aspect of our Law to young people.

As everyone knows, ignorance  of the law is no excuse and doesn't stop you being prosecuted.  Unfortunately millions of people especially in the younger age groups, are very ignorant - they've never had these laws explained either by their parents or at school. The way to get their attention is with a warning 'Please do NOT watch the following advert - unless you're a young person involved in minor crime. The situations shown may be distressing for delicate viewers'. (That way - everybody watches !).  Then we explain one particular law, the reason it's illegal, and the consequences of conviction. This shows an actual offender from the moment they get caught and arrested ; to going into court on trial day; then finally, we see them being led into the prison gates, head bowed . Throughout, we see them in full metal jacket mode - no obscuring of faces if they have been convicted. These are actual real-life cases of identifiable people. That's the one thing which will have a deterrent effect on hundreds of other wannabe offenders.

                TV ADVERTS TO IMPROVE DRIVING STANDARDS

   You only have to look around to see how poor driving standards are: Accidents all the time, on all the motorways and other roads. Far less people are dying INSIDE the cars, because of stronger builds and airbags. But there's more bad driving and more accidents than ever.

TV could be used to improve driving, in a way that's never been tried in this country. This consists of short, hard hitting ads, in the usual advert slots; showing one driving situation; the 'bad' way to drive; and then the 'good' way to drive. The screen is split in two with the left side a view from above; the right side, the driver's view through his / her windscreen. OK, a real example: how to overtake a cycle, when there's oncoming traffic , on a two-lane road.

We see the 'bad' way. The viewer becomes the driver, pulling out and passing the cyclist, without waiting for the oncoming car to go past. On the left half of our TV screen, the view from above shows how dangerous this is, as we drive too close to the bike, forcing it inwards, and making the oncoming car swerve and slow down. Then we see how much safer the correct driving, where we slow behing the cycle to the same speed as the cycle - and wait till the oncoming vehicle's gone past.

And how about a weekly or monthly half-hour documentary: 'Dickhead Drivers' ? This is made by hidden cameras near an accident black-spot (eg a hidden bend or blind summit, where there are regular near-misses). All the driving is filmed, and then edited afterwards. Any instances of dangerous driving are then shown on this TV show IN FULL - No fuzzing out of car registrations , or the driver's faces if visible. Regular bad drivers would get late-night phone calls from friends '"Hey, I've just seen your car on telly - was that you driving on the wrong side of the road, just before a bend? I wouldn't wanna ride in your car !" All remaining bits of the recording are destroyed.

The important thing with a program like this is that there would be NO COMMENTARY. Just a date and time, for each incident shown. No location, no names, no addresses - and no showing the program to the police beforehand. This is showing true examples of how some of us are driving out there - as the viewer would have been able to see, if they'd been there in person.On a public road (so, no privacy laws broken). How good is that?

Bad Behaviour shown on Television ads: your FAQs

Q. Surely Brussels would not allow us to show offenders' and bad drivers' faces on television ? Doesn't this breach the offenders' 'European Human Rights' ?

A. Yes, the EU would order us to pull these adverts, or be fined up to a million euros. But guess what? We're LEAVING the EU - so we could just tell Brussels to 'F*** O**'.

    

FAKE NEWS - to be an offence at last !

 

 

 

 

 

                          TOTAL BAN ON GAMBLING ADVERTISING ON TELLY

   MAINSTREAM wants to ban TV advertising for all forms of gambling and betting: Online betting, betting apps for digital devices, Bingo, and all lotteries - including the national lottery - would have to stop advertising on TV. Yes, these pursuits are all legal, and very popular. So is smoking tobacco - but we ban their adverts because it's harmful and addictive. SO IS GAMBLING. There was even one online betting site being advertised on TV last week, as a way to 'Buy those extra luxuries for your family" (if you win that is). Selling gambling as a form of earning income! Ridiculous.

(Mainstream would incidentally, put tax on ALL bets, not just on WINNING bets at the bookies. Not having to pay tax on a bet unless you win, is a really stupid way of encouraging punters who lose a bet, to put another one on ).  

 

 

Documentaries must highlight "Film" simulations / re-enactments.

Increasingly documentaries use what appear to be 'films' of events, which are actually either re-enactments using actors, or computer simulations. The re-enactments tend to be in history documentaries; the simulations in science programmes (eg of spacecraft in space). Because these 'fake' films look very real, it's hard for viewers to tell the difference. There needs to be at least a voluntary code of conduct for producers to make it clear when sequences are NOT the 'real thing', but acted or simulated. If a voluntary code of conduct doesn't work, then we need legislation.

 

 

STOP FUZZING-OUT FACES ON TV NEWS

      MAINSTREAM would stop the television companies from continually pixellating ("fuzzing-out") faces of people in News items. This happens whether  the broadcast is a view taken in the street of passers-by, or CCTV being used to catch criminals, whatever. This is a new scary form of censorship where a privileged few - those who work in the media, and those few people who were actually at the scene - are allowed to see the full picture: But all the rest of us, are prevented from doing so.  When will the media magnates get it? The whole point of television news, is that TV is supposed to put US - the viewer - right at the scene of the action. WE are supposed to see on our tellys - exactly what the cameraman - or woman - is seeing.  And that means putting a stop to pixellation / fuzzing-out faces, whatever you want to call it.  MAINSTREAM would only allow pixellation on Television, in one of two special  cases:  One, where the pictures were recorded in a private place (eg, somebody's home or garden);  or two  - where the recording could prejudice a legal case already in progress. (This is called 'sub judice' and means that somebody has already been charged with an offence).    

ABOLISH THE TV LICENCE

  MAINSTREAM would abolish the outdated TV lecence fee. The fee was originally used to pay for BBC TV programming, which has no adverts. But in this day and age, when the vast majority of channels on TV are NOT from the BBC  - why should all viewers still need to buy a licence, just to watch any telly?  The licence has become an absurd anachronism.  It's also nearly impossoble to enforce, as there are now loads of ways to receive TV broadcasts which don't come via a TV screen - using online streaming, and so on. With a MAINSTREAM government - the TV licence would be a thing of the past.