It's all just a load of pants.

This week, I've sat and listened to the life stories of two people, both quite well known. And it's only Thursday!
The first, journalist and broadcaster Angela Rippon, talked about her career, and, very refreshingly for a journalist, talked about the importance of truth and integrity. It made me wonder - when I get to her age, one thing I'd love would be to have a room full of people listen to me talk about my life so far. One aspect of living life to the full is that you then get to inspire other people with it.
However, it seemed, that even this very together, seemingly level-headed woman, hadn't ended up where she had planned. From the age of seven, she had wanted to be a photographer. Okay, so, her career isn't exactly at the other end of the spectrum. However, it made me wonder - we can dream all we want about where we want to get, and the person we hope to grow in to. But will it ever happen the way we plan it to? Or is chance just too prominent in our lives?
Yesterday, I interviewed Philip Taylor, AKA 'Pants man', who was on last year's The Apprentice.

He then stood and, for three hours, told a room full of people how to chase their dreams. He started out in life with aspirations of being in a band. But, like a lot of people, he sold his soul and succumbed to life's menial jobs in order to make a living. He started out as an engineer, then worked as an estate agent before auditioning for The Apprentice. Okay, so he demonstrated some degree of 'never giving up'. However, his life now, as much as he would be reluctant to admit it, is due to his time on the show. Therefore, again, by chance. He has it in him to go after what we wants and have the courage to follow his ideas. However, without The Apprentice, he could be living a very different life.
I can dream all I want, build up my CV, and listen to millions of speeches, but will they make a difference? How can we tell what kind of people we will turn into? And how do we have control over this? Does positive thinking and determination really work? Or is it actually just a case of right place right time?
I'm almost certain that when he was little, Philip had a vision of what his life would be like when he grew up. But he never would have guessed that it would include Alan Sugar slagging off his pants.
Nevertheless, stood in front of me, he appeared happy, successful and ambitious. Surely what we all want, really? But no matter how many slides of 'how to start your own business' he had, he couldn't exactly pass on his 'go getter' gene. And I guess that's what seperates the audience from the guest talkers.
Is it all down to chance? Can successful people really make a difference in our lives just by advising us? Maybe we should just sit back, stop working so hard to achieve our goals, and let the universe play its part. I don't know. But what I do know, is that I'll never be able to put my pants on in a morning without dancing.

Fish out of mainstream.

I'm a little bit disappointed, readers. As I unwrapped my Christmas presents this year, I was quite excited when I uncovered comedian Jason Manford's new stand up DVD. I saw him about a year and a half ago, and I loved him. He came across humble, accessible and his comedy had a light, happy feel to it that left me smiling all night. However, as I watched his new DVD, I felt a sinking feeling of de ja vue. By the end of the DVD, I realised that, to my horror (I'm not exaggerating) about 80% of his material was from a year and a half ago. And yes, it was funny, but it wasn't funny enough to be excusable for retelling it a whole year and a half later. What comedian can't think of new jokes in that amount of time? And not just any comedian, a well established comedian who regularly appears on our televisions on quiz shows and 'live at the Apollo'.
It made me wonder, there must be funnier people out there that don't take so long to think of new jokes, people that aren't as famous. One of my favourite bands of all time, Mesh 29, http://www.myspace.com/mesh29, aren't famous. So what is it exactly that decides what reaches the mainstream?
A recent article, entitled 'The Best Albums You've Never Heard In 2009', lists albums that missed out on the 'commercial love' that they deserved (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8426925.stm). The 'c' word makes me feel a little bit sick, really. But it proves a good point - I checked out the music that's mentioned, and they're not all that bad. Why is it that the majority of people just let the radio decide their favourite songs? Why is it that we can't think for ourselves? We get spoon-fed the same music and films all of the time, and because it's there to make money and appeal to everyone, there's nothing special about it.
My favourite music is from the 70's/80's, when there was almost a rebellion against mainstream music. And the music has passion behind it, and gives the impression that it was made through enjoyment, not greed.
Going back to Jason Manford, why is it that he gets the career that many people can only dream of? When there's probably funnier people talking to sleeping alcoholics in dingy little pubs? I guess it's our own fault really. We're too mindless to go out and find talent, so there'll always be crap churned out for us to buy. Rage Against The Machine's recent two fingers up at mainstream music is exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm really trying not to make this blog too subjective, but really, do you not think that we have a bit of a weird music industry these days? It seems the less famous a band are, the more talented they are. I'm aware that that's a sweeping statement, but just click on the link to Mesh 29 to understand what I'm saying.
When was the last time you looked for music yourself instead of following music channels? There's something to think about, maybe. And as the theory goes, my blog is definitely not well known. Just saying….

It doesn't matter if it's in black and white.

Yesterday was a sad, sad day. As you will most definitely know, Michael Jackson passed away. Now I'm not going to write about his death because there are a million other places to read about that. However, whilst reading several reports on the matter, I noticed a pattern. The media.
Now, last time I checked, journalists are the mediators between news events and the general public. They deliver impartial, updated news to the public. However, is it just me, or did the Press ruin and ultimately end Jackson's life?
I think the fact that he was so famous and a little bit different was what the Press fed off, he was an easy target due to his paedophilia trials and love of plastic surgery.
Many sources have agreed that after the charges made against him, after all of the bad publicity surrounding the accusations, he never was himself again.
Obviously there's been a tired debate for years over the invasive behaviour of the Press, but, as a lot of things were with Jackson, in this case, it was extreme.
There have been allegations already that the death was caused by overuse of a painkiller injection, and whilst I don't have much belief in this claim, there seems to be a lot of truth in it, too. The story claimed that Michael was a hypochondriac, and it was hard for those around him to tell if he was ill or not. And that this was all because of the medical attention and plastic surgery offers thrust upon him.
His death immediately sparked a lot of hatred and 'good riddance's which to me, was quite disgusting to read. There’s thousands of people that claim to hate him, and still speak ill of him now he has deceased, and why? Because of the media. Hmmm...
I know there is no direct link, and I’m not pointing fingers – but was it all of the stress caused from years and years of bad press and awful, false claims that led to his death? He didn’t have it easy for the best part of his life, and isn’t fair to blame the Press? I think so. I feel guilty talking bad about the industry that I wish to enter, the industry that I’m studying for a degree – but before being a journalism student, I am a human being. As was Michael Jackson, but that fact was bypassed by many.
This has made me think about journalists, do they have to be as invasive as they possibly can and intervene with human rights as much as possible in order to succeed? I know that's quite pessimistic of me, however, I think sometimes this is what seems to be true.
If we didn't have journalists - what would happen? Would we still find out about current affairs eventually? Would we know anything about the world around us?
If the Press can be responsible for the complete break down of someone, someone so talented and kind-hearted, do I really want that kind of job?
Why does anyone choose to be a journalist? Surely it’s to raise awareness, to change people’s lives and to reach out to as many people as possible. But are all these reasons clouded over by monetary priorities?
All I know is that I really felt for Jackson, and I’m not narrow-minded enough to believe everything I read. So my advice to you is to think twice before consider a journalist’s word to be nothing but the truth. Excluding my blog, of course...


Rest In Peace Michael