leyton.org

Last night I watched the excellent Daily Show (shown on More4 at 8.30pm), to see one of the most anticipated interviews that host Jon Stewart has done on the show since the presidential candidates were queuing up to appear. Jon Stewart has been in a bit of a public spat with CNBC finance journalist Jim Cramer over his advice, style and past record over the last few years of financial turmoil. It’s not just a case of bad tips (eg. tipping Bear Stearns a week or two before it collapsed), but his whole attitude and approach to financial matters.

There’s plenty of comment on the encounter on other websites (Prospect’s blog is worth a read, and includes links to the piece), and it was certainly fascinating. A slightly contrite display by Jim Cramer, it did feel like Jon Stewart pulled a few punches. He made excellent points, held the man to account, and really did an excellent job in showing up the poor coverage and attitudes in finance, and financial journalism, that surely contributed to the recent problems. It was simply a great combination of excellent satire, humour, and journalism. Well worth watching.

But throughout the show I couldn’t help but wonder where Britain’s equivalent was? We do have excellent satirists, no doubt, but it’s the format and frequency of The Daily Show that I wish we had. We have “Have I got news for you?”. Enjoyable though it is, it’s rarely particularly incisive, and does get rather childish at times. Chris Morris and Brasseye perhaps came close, and for topical, humourous, and activism, Mark Thomas.

Perhaps it’s that the talk show format hasn’t really ever taken off here in the same way it has in the US, or that our comedians can’t be tempted or persuaded to do a daily show. Certainly it’d be something I’d like to see at least tried over here.

I’ve a bit of a confession to make. I’ve a bit of a soft-spot for US crime/cop shows. Law and Order, CSI (original series, natch), and more recently, and despite some initial reluctance, Numbers.

For a while, it kinda bugged me as to why I like these shows. Let’s face it, they’re rarely that demanding. But I realised that I enjoy their self-contained format. There are, inevitably, story-arc’s, but they’re usually bite-sized in their own way: You can still watch the arc development shows without needing to know or care too much about character development, if you don’t want to. Being able to watch a show, miss a few, then just grab another, is the name of the game. Bite-sized cop shows. Usually something interesting going on, perhaps a bit of a moral or twist. Nothing too taxing at after a hard day at the, er, computer screen.

Of course, it has its downsides. By being bite-sized and time-limited, they have limited scope for complicated stories or characters (hence the story arc). Plus my usual gripe that US shows featuring any science or technology (ie. CSI/Numbers) almost inevitably involves silly computer usage (some “database” that can be readily searched, readily accessible CCTV cameras (always easy to “enhance” to get a retina reflection), and always involving windowing environments you’ve never ever seen before in your life), and painful use of technology no doubt envisaged by muppets.

Some time ago – we’re talking late 1990’s – I used to be a fan of The Bill. Largely because it coincided with my eating dinner, plus living on my own. I’d also recently returned from Germany, so glutted on British TV shows I’d missed. The Bill, you’ll recall, wasn’t previously a soap opera. In fact, as soon as the ‘character development’ cranked up, I pretty much stopped watching it. I didn’t want to care about characters. I just wanted to see a 30 minute show which involved criminals getting nicked godsdammit! (Yeah, BSG is another big favourite! You can tell, can’t you)

New UK derivative arrival “Law & Order: UK” didn’t entice me from the trailers, but it’s actually looking like it’ll go the distance. I can’t quite get used to Apollo^wJamie Bamber speaking with a British Accent, but it’s proving rather good (being born here helps, naturally!). The format seems to make the transition reasonably well. I’ll be curious to know if they show it in the US at any point. But certainly one to watch a bit more, and it’s suitably “bite sized” for my tastes.

I know many people love the tradition of boxing day sales. There seem to be some genuine bargains to be had out there, and it’s not hard to imagine the attraction in picking up something you’ve wanted, for a seriously reduced price.

But surely I can’t be the only person who finds it incomprehensible that people would be up at 4am on Boxing Day, queuing outside shops, so that they can be first through the door (along with thousands of others) to seek out a 20% reduction on a handbag? Especially with these chastened times meaning sales started early in a lot of places, and the difficult economic times mean consumers are likely to be in a strong position to demand continued discounts.

Pictures of crowds spilling through doors into the big department stores, explaining to camera how pleased they are, and store managers seeming quite pleased to get a bit of free publicity is all traditional Boxing day news item. But whilst I know full well what I find enjoyable isn’t to everybody else’s taste, try as I might I just can’t put myself in the mind of a 4am bargain hunter. Life is far too short, isn’t it? Or am I missing something?

In my previous financially focused post (link) I expressed frustration at how the media continue to misrepresent the perfectly legitimate practice of ’short selling’. As I was watching the news yesterday (with their on-screen live FTSE and DOW figures), and reading the newspapers again this morning, I was reminded that there are further examples of oversights and simplifications in financial reporting, that all go to make me concerned there are few places to go for solid news (Radio 4, Newsnight and Channel 4 news, largely).

One example is, perhaps, well known. It’s the reporting of the FTSE 100 index figure as some generic financial indicator. Remember, this is just a selected index of a basket of equities (ie. stocks), and it is adjusted over time. Whilst it constitutes about 80% of the total value of the FTSE shares, it is still an equity indicator, and a general purpose one at that. It’s of interest as many people invest in FTSE-100 trackers. Personally I prefer a FTSE-All Share tracker.

In the context of the ‘credit crunch’, equities are not really a particularly good indicator. Whilst it’s clear that share values fluctuates, it doesn’t in itself show very much about the underlying problem that faces financial institutions. Let’s not forget too that in times of doubt there is always a flight of money from equities to fixed income products and commodities (particularly gold). When people sell their equity investments in large numbers, share prices naturally drop (a surfeit of sellers), and it’s likely to see ’safer’ investment values rise (due to limited availability; commodities need digging/drilling!). Just compare the graph for last months gold price, particularly it’s big spike in September 2008, and last months stock market indicator graphs.

Oil prices are an interesting case – they were a solid investment earlier this year – it was doing nothing but rise – but with the doubt and fear about a global recession, oil prices drop over fears about reduced demand. A good thing too, clearly, as the knock-on effect on heating bills has serious consequences for societies most vulnerable members. But let’s forget the halcyon days of less than $25 barrel oil – many of the oil-rich Gulf states are funding huge investments on the basis of (relatively) high (>$75) oil prices. I for one was not in the least bit surprised by the news in early September that OPEC were cutting production. Let us not also remember oil is priced in US$, so as the US$-Sterling rate falls, so oil price rises for us. But it’s not really been mentioned in the media that oil prices are safely below $100 at the moment: It’s been ignored due to other financial events.

So share price drops are inevitable in days of doubt. Investors seek safer shores. In today’s Guardian it’s reported that is also happening with people’s savings, as they move from perceived ‘at risk’ banks to National Savings products and other government backed savings accounts. You’d almost think that the financial professionals are people too! On a side note, the term ‘Masters of the Universe’ used a lot at the moment (in reference to financial high-flyers) comes from The Bonfire of the Vanities, rather than the children’s cartoon series.

Equities are a good indicator of confidence, and the massive dives in recent weeks indicate the failing confidence. The problem was exacerbated, in my mind at least, by an inept US President. By making the announcement that something of that scale was planned so far in advance, expectations were set. Financial institutions felt the cavalry was coming. So when Congress refused to pass the bill in it’s proposed form, expectations were shattered, and confidence plunged.

The other key word is volatility. Prices are moving about as much as they are as investors take differing views on insufficient, inaccurate, incorrect information. Throw in a healthy dose of fear, and you’ve everything you need. One figure that seems to be missing from public resources is traded volume. Prices are naturally volatile when volumes are lower (fewer people competing to sell/buy assets), and I’m curious to find out how traded volume compares in September, with that of previous months or years. Although I suspect the confidence figures remain the dominant factor here.

But as far as measuring the ‘credit crunch’, it’s LIBOR (London Interbank Offer Rate) that’s king. These are the rates at which banks lend to each other over various periods of time. The credit crunch is all about this lending drying up, represented by spikes in the rate, which is normally closer to the Bank of England interest rate. Just yesterday the overnight rate hit 6.87%, compared to the 5% for the Bank of England. This rate is finally getting reported more often by the serious media, but it’s still difficult to find on market data websites.

As we all know the Credit Crunch is about banks not lending to each other, at least without a prohibitive premium. For the ‘real economy’ that means borrowing of any sort are going to be more difficult. As such borrowed money – vital in the short-term – dries up, we can expect to see in the coming months businesses struggling to find money to help them grow, invest or simply get through a difficult patch. When cash runs out, for whatever reason, businesses fail, and jobs start to go. If the complete grid-lock in the finance sector isn’t eased soon, the bad news from successful businesses will start to grow in numbers. Sadly it’s a delayed consequence, which doesn’t sit well with the 24 hours news cycle that seems to demand cause-and-effect to be observable.

So if you want a figure that indicates how the credit crunch is affecting lending, LIBOR is the one to look to. If you want an indicator of confidence and fear, the FTSE figures. Whilst confidence remains so low, and the US government struggles to find the rescue package it needs, I’d expect prices to remain volatile, and many valuable commodities, will rise.

But it’s not all bad news. If, like me, you’re some years away from retirement, take the pragmatic view that lower prices can make for a good buying opportunity. A complete economic meltdown is unlikely as fundamentals are, I think, still quite sound and the crises is still solvable if fingers are extracted and US politicians get a grip and stop playing, er, politics. But look to the other figures for a better indication of what’s going on. It’s certainly not all about what the FTSE or DOW is doing day to day.

I settled down to watch Richard Dawkins’ new series “The Genius of Charles Darwin” last night with high hopes. Unfortunately, it fell somewhat short of my expectations.

The subject matter certainly demands coverage in this, the 150th anniversary of the publication of his ground breaking work ‘The Origin of Species’. What it didn’t need, in my view, was to be turned into another atheist argument. Channel 4 has done an admirable job over the last few years of representing various world views, it’s the only channel to devote any serious time to the specific subject of atheism. I’m also quite curious about the series “make me a Christian” which starts this Sunday, but – I should add – more for the comedic value I see in the prospect. That said, I fear I’ll get wound up by it in no time.

In my view, the subject of evolution by natural selection could have been dealt with – and been the better for it – if the subject of religion had been left on the side lines. Leave it as an exercise for the viewer to draw what (to me) are solid conclusions. But accept that there are many biologists and geologists who do find a way to allow evolution to sit side by side with their beliefs (Don’t expect me to explain the mental gymnastics that requires). I simply take Occam’s razor – the simplest explanation is most likely true – quite seriously, and evolution to me does a more than adequate job at explaining our place in the world. Gods only complicate it further, and actual demand far more difficult explanations.

Dawkins’ medium is definitely not television. His written works are elegantly written, and in them he deserves his position at Oxford as the Charles Simonyi chair for the public understanding of Science. But in television I feel he comes across as slightly arrogant, smug, distant and, I’m afraid, somewhat grating over the course of an hour. I’m a big fan, so goodness knows how anybody who wasn’t would feel after settling down for an hour of documentary.

Compare this to National treasure, David Attenborough. Attenborough has found a way of reaching out and pulling his audience in to the savanna and rain forest with him, so we all manage to enjoy the splendour and variety of the life about us with him. It’s clearly a tall order to expect Dawkins to become a similar treasure overnight(!), but if he could take on some of the approaches, and manage to find a way to better engage with the audience, it’d make for far more compelling, informative and educational television, especially when dealing with scientific subjects rather than his atheism.

In the core message of the programme it did better, when he wasn’t bringing religion in to it. Evolution is not a complex concept – indeed it’s rather obvious when you look at the selective breeding process we apply to our favourite animals – but it really seemed a bit more mixed up in the life of Darwin than would have been ideal. The budget may have been at play here: The choice of what seemed like aging natural world footage of animals fighting, eating, copulating and fleeing, and the strange metaphore of a piano to explain the relative duration monkeys (and humans) have existed to the entire span of life on earth. Some on-screen graphics really would have been better, and more emphasis on the simply vast stretches of time involved. Geology plays a key part in demonstrating evolution, but it didn’t seem to be applied or explained very effectively. Similarly it was very fleeting (but when it was mentioned, did so very effectively) how horrifically cruel yet wonderful the natural world is. Parasites, eat or be eaten, how the eye has independently evolved multiple times, and how there are some bizarre relics of evolution within our own body.

All said, I’d give the programme 6/10 – Could do (much) better. It fell short of really engaging effectively with a fascinating subject, and Dawkins made atheism a far more a central part of the programme than was necessary. Dawkins perhaps needs to realise that if he had been less up-front about atheism, and focusing on the core concepts he was supposed to be putting across, it might actually have convinced more people to what seems to now be Dawkins’ main role as lead atheist. As it was, a programme that should have been about a stunning piece of science, it became more of a programme about atheism, and as such was much the poorer for it. And I say this as both a Dawkins fan, and an atheist myself.

The BBC has signed a five year deal to broadcast Formula 1, which was good news, and largely unexpected. But a bit of thought has me wondering a few things:

Martin Brundle is the new Murray Walker. He must move to the BBC, just as Murray Walker moved to ITV. Brundle is a superb commentator, his grid walks are great, and he speaks his mind (much to Ecclestone’s frustration). He’s by far the best part of the ITV package, and if he’s lost due to contract issues, I think a huge number of long-term F1 fans will be disappointed.

It’s not all about Lewis. As Doctor Vee’s (with his spangly new F1 blog) has frequently pointed out, the ITV-Hamilton love fest has become rather trying. Last season I could just about cope, but watching the race on Sunday (as I lay on the couch, recovering from a stressful flight and, well, my stag do) it didn’t seem to have abated. Sure, he’s a good driver. Sure, he’s British. But please, there are a lot of other drivers and teams to focus on. I hope the BBC will stick to its impartiality.

No more adverts! Excellent news, and I’m sure the BBC will have some new ideas to try too. ITV was, despite the adverts, a big improvement over the BBC’s coverage. Other than a few key races, I remember the old BBC coverage was minimal at best (particularly for the far-flung races). A fresh approach, and the big support programme, were brilliant, and I’m looking forward to seeing how the BBC have learnt, and what new ideas they’ll introduce.

Highlights programme. Sometimes I’m just not in the mood to watch a full race. Generally around Hungary, for instance. ITV sticks the highlights programme in a slot that’s useless. I’ll probably have heard the result on the radio or on teh interwebs before I see that. Let’s have a decent slot for highlights.

But it’s the commentary where it’s at. I was delighted to discover that the ITV commentary of the race is syndicated in Australia and NZ, so when we were there a few years ago, Martin Brundle’s tones featured heavily. He has to stay. He is practically an F1 institution. I’m not as anti-James Allen as many other F1 fans are: I actually think a commentary team works well when you’ve very different styles, knowledge bases and have the occasional foot-in-mouth. James Hunt and Murray Walker were a classic pairing, and Hunt’s knowledge completed Walker’s enthusiasm perfectly. Brundle and Allen aren’t in that league, but I actually think they work quite well in communicating an atmosphere.

But the BBC getting the contract is exciting stuff, and should be a great shot up the arm for F1 as it experiences a Hamilton-fuelled boom. Even without the wunderkind, this season is looking like it could be a corker, after a great one last season, so here’s hoping next season will be good too. I do wonder how much they paid for it though, and how much is some sort of convoluted Bernie Ecclestone power-play. It wouldn’t be the first (or last) time the infuriating little man has meddled in a sub-Machiavellian way. We’re long overdue a change there, if you ask me.

Update

Oh, and perhaps a return to The Chain? One of the best and most appropriate theme tunes ever. In fact, it’s such a certainty in my view I’d put money on it.

A change at the BBC for which I have mixed feelings, but in a good way. The change? Evan Davis is moving to the Today programme from his post as BBC Economics Editor.

Evan Davis is, to me, amongst the very best of the BBC’s editors. I enjoyed his pieces when he was ‘just’ the Newsnight Economics editor, and his move to the top Economics role at the BBC was entirely deserved. He is engaging to listen to, incisive in his analysis, presumes intelligence on the part of his listeners, but uses a language, examples and terminology that is accessible to all. I always look out for his reports: He is everything a journalist should be, and as the financial world experiences a historic period of uncertainty, his incisiveness will be missed. Stephanie Flanders knows she has big shoes to fill, but she’s got formidable experience: I look forward to seeing her approach.

But he’s going to become for a year at least, a presenter on the Radio 4 Today programme, a programme that has been a regular part of my day for many years. It’s the flagship news programme, and has a huge audience largely because the presenters are the very best at the BBC, with a wide range of issues to cover, and able to call on the worlds leading politicians. It’s a great step for Evan Davis to make, and hope that his wit and skills will be put to the test, despite the fascinating economics story he has to leave for his successor. I suspect the Chancellor, and even Prime Minister’s and Presidents will find Evan Davis a difficult and challenging interviewer, and that’s going to be a great gain for us the public!

I still can’t think of Masterchef without thinking of Loyd Grossman’s “MaaaaasteurChef” pronounciation, the Sunday evenings at home, and that dark studio with the three coloured kitchens, and the “deliberating, cogitating and digesting” remark he always seemed to use that wore out after the first use.

But the re-invention of the format – with the final episode on tonight – has been an absolute triumph. Until this series, I’d only ever caught it in the ‘Saturday kitchen’ repeats, and normally it was the shorter (but no less serious) ‘celebrity’ version. But this series I’ve seen most of the episodes, and last night I was quite frankly on the edge of my seat watching three amateur cooks cope with cooking a three course meal for cooks with 17 Michelin stars between them. And being given universally excellent praise. OK, they were following a recipe, but they were extraordinarily intricate recipes that were seven hours from start to finish. They pulled off the challenge with aplomb. Oh, and this was the day after cooking for 120 wedding guests: were the bridge and groom mad!?

Normally I avoid ‘reality’ TV shows (does this count as one?), but what I like so much about it is that there is a real and useful skill, with real enthusiasm on display. The contestants really are putting their all in to the challenges. Plus the judges are proving really very good at balancing enthusiasm and praise, with constructive criticism and solid advice.

The three contestants are all very capable cooks. My take is that the winner is going to be either Jonny or James. Emily, whilst clearly talented, struggles under pressure, and whilst has a mature pair of shoulders still has (it would seem) a frustrating teenage self-belief and lack of experience that is her undoing. I’m also baffled why an 18 year old with her educational options in front of her (a place at Oxford!?), is interested in a competition at this stage of her life. If she did this full-time she could go on to great things. Jonny and James seem to be neck and neck at times, with neither getting the edge, and both seem very determined to win, both with serious plans to make (or already have made) changes in their lives. Quite how the judges will separate them I know not. I suspect James could just edge it (being told to ‘give up your day job’ by 2 Michelin star Michael Cane is not to be sniffed at), although Jonny’s recent performances have been excellent too. Very tough decision.

There does appear to be a new seriousness about BBC food programming. Perhaps as a result of Gordon Ramsey on Channel 4? It began to be come through when the new Saturday Kitchen was launched, and they – I think for the first time – got Michelin star chefs doing cookery demonstrations. It’s great to see such esteemed cooks showing how great food can be made. That they are able to get them involved in more programmes – as last night on Masterchef – is also good. Or perhaps the BBC’s budget has been increased enough to afford them?

Whatever the result, the BBC’s food programming has come a long way in the last few years. Channel 4’s too. Not quite sure where ITV is, other than a bizarre Saturday morning programme that seems to be stuck in a strange ready-steady-cook style configuration. It’s not so much as aspiring as trying-too-hard-to-be-realistic. Life Style TV, I suppose, much in the same way as Top Gear isn’t about the cars we’re likely to drive, as a particular outlook on life.

Anyway, I’ll be gripped to the Masterchef final. It’s a long long way from Mr Grossman’s Sunday evening programme, and is really a brilliant and compelling re-invention.

I know we simply don’t have enough american sit-com’s on UK TV, and many of them are dire. But we recently stumbled on ‘The Big Bang Theory‘, and both Frances and I have thoroughly enjoyed the two episodes so far.

It’s sort of Third Rock meets Friends, with a very healthy touch of The IT Crowd. Sharp comedy with a broad appeal, but has plenty of geek jokes sprinkled throughout which hit my particular funny bone.

Well worth checking out on Thursday on C4 @ 10pm (Wednesday @ 10pm, E4)

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/B/bigbangtheory/

The US elections are proving absolutely fascinating after Hillary Clinton won the latest primary, and there are some top-class BBC journalists doing an excellent job reporting this interesting process to us Brits.

Jon Snow, former ITN Washington correspondent (My review of his autobiography here), has charged over there the last week or so, and has presented some fascinating conversations with ‘ordinary voters’. I doubt Sarah Smith isn’t too put out by his arrival on her patch, they seem to be complimenting each other well.

James Naughtie, from Radio 4’s Today programme is presenting some absolutely fascinating, and dare I say for a foreigner extremely insightful, analysis pieces during his excellent coverage for Today.

I don’t think I’m as puzzled by what the Americans are doing as some people in the media seem to profess outsiders to be. It seems largely a simple process. What I don’t understand (and maybe somebody can help me out here), is how Americans can be comfortable being registered as a Republican or Democrat? The ’state’ knowing your general political preference seems marginally ominous to me. I still get rather unnerved by the fact that (if I recall correctly) ballot papers in this country have serial numbers, and your ballot paper number is noted next to your name when it’s given to you when you vote. Of course, it’s largely to prevent fraud, and never used in reverse, but it could be with enough time, and that worries me a bit, at least in my more paranoid moments.

But the idea that, say, “Liberal Democrat” (as the party I associate myself with, but, I should state, I am not a member of) would be associated with me in some public record enabling me to vote in Liberal Democrat leadership elections (stop sniggering the back there)…. Now that’d worry me, and that’s comparably how I think it works in the US.

The other thing that’s struck me is, once more based on the reporting I’ve been watching over here, how different the views of the electorate, and media, appear to be regarding John McCain (age 71) and Menzies Campbell (age 66). Campbell experience some utterly shocking and deplorable press coverage regarding his age, and that ultimately led to falling opinion polls and then his resignation. McCain is older still and not (from the coverage I’ve seen) suffering any ill affect. It reflects extremely poorly on Britain’s public attitudes to age, and extremely well of America’s.

The reporting hasn’t led me to many conclusions about who I’d like to see win. Certainly a Democrat, but whether Obama or Clinton I don’t know. I think they’d both do well for America, and for the relationship Britain (and the rest of the world) has with it. Both talk of ‘change’, but I’m simply not familiar with the subtleties of that, perhaps other than the international element. Both would of course be historic, either as the first Black President, or the first female President. Or even vice-president, perhaps? Clinton strikes me as the more accomplished, but Obama the fresh-face that may be what America needs. A difficult decision, certainly, but America is so much the better for having such an excellent choice available to it.