Big Brother day 91

Is it really that long since a fresh-faced bunch of would-be z-listers entered the house? Three months? 

It hardly seems like the same show that PHD co-founder Jonathan Durden was in. He left the show two months ago.

Somebody called Emily Parr left three months ago following a racially offensive comment she made towards housemate Charley, who has also gone. I'm not sure when she went, but I haven't seen more than an hour of this latest season since it began.

Emails keep arriving from Channel 4 with a seeming endless array of tasks. Even the people writing these sound bored

"Housemates direct and star in Big Brother 8 the Movie"
"Jonty regrets not sticking up for his former halfway housemates…again"
"Carole confesses all to Big Brother"

Day 91
12:38pm - For today's task housemates have been given three hours to make a movie of their experience of the Big Brother house, Big Brother 8 the Movie. The first scene is Amanda and Sam's entrance into the Big Brother house. Liam and Ziggy have been chosen to play the twins. At the end of the scene Amanda says: "That was dead good guys, that was like me and Sam."

Someone probably thought it was amusing to get the housemates to re-enact their time in the house as if once was not enough, but what else are you going to do on Day 91, which sounds like some post-apocalyptic milestone from Cormac McCarthy's brilliant novel 'The Road'.

Millions of viewers have deserted the show since it began at the end of May when 6.2m tuned in. Figures went as low as 2.1m, but have rallied to an average of 3.6m, which is still a lot and probably why, despite the boredom, Channel 4 is rolling on with the show.

The good news is that this Friday we will reach Day 93. The End. The Finish. Oh the twins might win. Sam and Amanda. Good? Bad? Who's to know.

With Celebrity Big Brother on ice and interest at an all time low surely this is the moment to rest the whole reality showboat. Maybe it will come back fresh or maybe something new and different will return in its place - now there's an idea. 

The MySpace election

The 2008 US Presidential election is looking to be the most exciting race for some time, and MySpace and YouTube have a real role in making it real for a generation that usually really doesn’t care. Sadly the chances of seeing that in the UK anytime soon look slim.The latest spark has been fired by MySpace and MTV, which have unveiled plans for a series of discussions between US Presidential candidates and online users, which will be streamed live.

That's real politics. Live questions and quickfire answers, which will come from candidates including Senator Hilary Clinton to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The event also marks the first wide-scale collaboration between Rupert Murdoch's News Corp's and Sumner Redstone's Viacom.

The event will be held on university campuses across the US and streamed live on MySpace and MTV.com, as well as screen on MTV and its campus TV station mtvU. Users submit questions by sending email/ instant messaging or by text message. Questions from the audience will be selected by moderators at the event and then presented straight to the candidate.

It's a step-up from the recent Democratic Party presidential debate held by Google's YouTube and Time Warner's CNN that featured pre-recorded questions from YouTube users at home and was moderated by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper.



All that gave anyone was all of the candidates rolling out their well-prepared, spin-ready, standard answers, making it as about as much fun to watch as cement drying. At least cement offers some from of interactivity.

Jeff Berman, MySpaceTV general manager, said: "Neither of us wanted to see yet another event with a dozen candidates giving consultant-crafted answers said in a telephone interview. The event aims to promote unfiltered direct conversations."

The event is part of MTV's 'Loose Change' initiative that was launched 15 years ago in an effort to get youth voters to take part in the political process. It's a great idea and something that is sorely lacking from British politics whose embrace of new media is still rudimentary.

It's the kind of thing that Gordon Brown should be looking at if he does indeed call a snap spring election next year. And after the PR spin month from hell David Cameron needs all the help he can get.

Wi-fi arrest

A second person has been arrested for using someone else's wireless internet connection.

I must have missed this story when it happened first time, as when I read the news this morning that the man was arrested in Chiswick by two officers while sitting on a wall outside a house, I was shocked. This crime is so wide spread that arrests have been (as was the case in this latest incident) almost by accident.

That said, it is being taken very seriously. The 39-year old man arrested in connection with using a wi-fi broadband connection without permission faces a fine and a possible six month prison sentence.

If this behaviour were more widely policed it could run to epidemic levels. I mean who has not used someone else's wireless connection?

I have my own wireless network at home and at times it is unsecured (something to do with the fact that when I turn my PS2 on it fails to connect unless the firewall is off -- a problem with the bridge/router interface -- but really that's far too geeky and really I only write this to illustrate that I have slightly more than a clue as to how it all works, but most people don't, which results in wireless networks being unsecured and open to piggy backing).

Prior to this man being arrested another man was arrested in 2005. Gregory Straszkiewicz had been seen sitting in his car using his laptop outside the house with an unsecured wireless network wi-fi subscriber in West London. He was found guilty of "dishonestly obtaining an electronic communication service and his computer and wireless card were confiscated, he was fined £500 and given a 12-month conditional discharge".

Detective Con Mark Roberts said: "This arrest should act as a warning to anyone who thinks it is acceptable to illegally use other people's broadband connections."

I understand how it is an "offence" (under the Communications Act 2003 and a potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act) and maybe it is a case of people being better educated about securing their networks, but if people don't then it seems such a small misdemeanour. I have in the past allowed other PC users to access my network, I don't have a huge problem with it and certainly wouldn't call the police or like to see anyone arrested/fined/imprisoned for it.

Maybe it only underlines the case for establishing free metropolitan wide wi-fi networks and access for all.

CIA does Facebook

Apparently one of the reasons 9/11 happened was because of intelligence failures, so following an overhaul the US Central Intelligence Agency is to launch its own version of Facebook/MySpace for spies.

No seriously, the CIA spooks believe that it will help them exchange information. It's going to be called A-Space and it should allow staff to better "analyse information together".

Clearly, the people who came up with the idea haven't wasted (I mean invested, of course) enough time on Facebook.

I can imagine the status updates now: "The station chief in Baghdad is bored", "Harry Hubbard is wondering where Bin Laden is hiding" or "David Webb is elusive".

These are the kind of things that I learn daily on Facebook as well as joining many groups. Admittedly, creating and joining a group on A-Space called "How to track suicide bombers" or "Finding the right caves in Afghanistan" might be more useful.

As far as I an tell the CIA has no official Facebook group – but there are plenty of "CIA" groups including Abolish the CIA (56 members); Big Brother Is Watching - Facebook Is Run By George W. & The CIA (269 members); but none have as many members as Chewbacca Is Awesome (CIA) with 328.

As for our own spooks there are plenty of MI6 groups including CIA, Mossad, KGB and MI6=Axis Of Evil (10 members), but the clear favourite is Daniel Craig is the reason I want to be in MI6 (164 members).

The CIA's A-Space is due to launch in December and will feature web-based email and software recommending issues of interest.

Mike Wertheimer, a senior official at the Department for National Intelligence told the FT that: "I am unable to send email, and even make secure phone calls, to a good portion of the community from my desktop because of firewalls.

"We are willing to experiment in ways that we have never experimented before," he said.

He added that while it was understandable that some operatives were reticent about sharing information which could pose a risk, the 9/11 attacks had showed that not pooling data could also cost lives.

Guardian Ultimatum

The Guardian got a little boost in its mission to be the liberal voice of the world with its appearance in the cracking 'The Bourne Ultimatum'.

Paddy Considine (so good in 'Dead Man's Shoes' and 'Hot Fuzz') plays the slightly scruffy paper's security correspondent and he is on the case of Matt Damon's Jason Bourne, following some leaks from a CIA station chief.

We see Damon reading the paper; the building and logo are flashed about a bit; and we get to meet Considine's editor, who even looks like Alan Rusbridger just younger and better looking. What did you expect? This is Hollywood.



Considine meets Bourne but only after the pair are chased around Waterloo station by a snatch team of CIA agents. I won't say anything lest I reveal any plot spoilers.

The only part of The Guardian that does not get a look-in is the paper's website... when Bourne does go online in an internet cafe and the Google UK logo flashes up on screen. Naturally.

With evil big US government doing evil things the story was a natural fit for Britain's Guardian -- a role that could easily have gone to the New York Times or Washington post. Sky News gets a mention - and it wasn't even a Fox film. To prove it, MSNBC pops up later.

The film is cracking overall, with its gritty brand of up-close and personal fighting, car chases and stunts that the Bourne franchise has become known for, but it still has brains as well, which is why others have imitated it so ('Casino Royale'/'Shooter').

If you're interested in some more teasers men's website Mansized.co.uk has a few more nice clips from the movie not showing elsewhere.

Online ad buying

The practice of online planning and buying is coming under intense pressure these last weeks, first with Facebook and as we reported yesterday with adult listings and the Internet Movie Database.

It seems likely that the Facebook story, relating to consumer goods firms finding their ads running alongside the fascist British National Party's page, and the same again with brands finding themselves next to adult film entries on the IMDB.com is just the tip of the iceberg.

There are, no doubt, many other examples out there of online content appearing next to suspect content.

It does not seem as if the same standards apply to online content that applies to when ads are placed online.

Clearly, it is a different landscape and sites have a lot of inventory, but really it is not that difficult to work out a checklist of content that advertisers’ ads should not run alongside: racist, sexist, offensive or adult-related material.

If these simple checks are not being done, then it asks the question: are any checks being done?

The IAB has made efforts to shore up confidence with an audit of the sales houses that have signed up to the Internet Advertising Sales House, the IAB ad network that promotes best practice.

But as Marketing reports this morning it does not go far enough, because there are sales houses that have not signed up and are therefore not being audited.

This includes the likes of Google, which has not signed up to the initiative.

The burden, however, does not lie exclusively with sales houses. Online media planners and buyers are also part of the equation and the IPA says it is exploring additional protective measures for advertisers.

UPDATE: As pointed out below, t he BBC's 'Panorama' last month exposed examples of hundreds of violent videos were appearing on various websites and how some like Pure Street Fights were carrying ads from the likes of BT, John Lewis, 02, Carphone Warehouse and Orange.

Again in that incident brands insisted that they had no knowledge that their ads were running on such sites.

The placing of those ads highlighted by 'Panorama' was blamed on "rogue ad networks" although the programme did not name and shame.

Keira Knightley et cetera

New pictures of Keira Knightley in ads for Coco Mademoiselle are appearing today with the 22-year old actress showing off her digitally enhanced cleavage. What's the point?

Why choose someone like Knightley as your "face" if what you actually want is someone, well, a little curvier?

Nice shots and all that, but clearly beneath the bowler hat someone has been messing with photoshop. 

In her own words, Knightley once said "I don't have any tits, so I can't show cleavage." Fair enough, but in these ads she clearly does. As she did in the US posters for the 2004 film 'King Arthur'.

It seems the fashion industry wants it both ways. Waiflike models with curves? Is Knightley a size zero?

Personally, with or without cleavage I don't see the attraction of Knightley, and her rise to fame is baffling. She can't act and in most things she appears in it is the other people on screen that you notice. In 2005's 'Pride & Prejudice', for instance, it was Rosamund Pike playing Jane Bennet who needs no digital enhancement or acting lessons.

Time to dump BBC Three?

The BBC needs to save a lot of money. Is it time for the plug to be pulled on BBC Three? It has no raison detre. If it claims to be the channel for youth why not concentrate on producing low-budget content online instead? You don't need a money burning channel for that.

I say this as Sir Michael Lyons, the BBC chairman, admitted that the BBC may have to "do less" as it tries to meet budget cuts.

Speaking after his first 100 days as chairman, Lyons said the BBC faces "tough decisions" after the government imposed a lower than expected licence fee settlement.

He did not go into specifics, but he did not rule out services being closed down.

If anything should go it should be BBC Three, much of what it makes could go elsewhere on other BBC channels or online. The Three costs considerably more than £100m a year to run and there is no real indication as to why.

Its only real success is when it airs future episodes of the likes of 'Heroes' as it had previously done with '24'. Or catching up with 'Doctor Who', but the ability to increasingly watch these shows on video on-demand or online via iPlayer makes it increasingly redundant.

Last year it led its autumn schedule with a one-off special of the acclaimed 'Bodies', starring Max Beesley and 'Doctor Who' spin-off 'Torchwood'. All this demonstrates is that BBC Three is being given some shows early to attract an audience who would otherwise watch it on BBC Two or One.

What is the point of BBC Three? None that I can see and I do not see the BBC being damaged by closing this one channel down.

Its recent commissions could comfortably sit on BBC One or Two, such as the spin-off from BBC One hit drama 'Spooks'.

It has also commissioned its first broadband-only comedy. It has done okay on the comedy front, although much of it has been poor quality. Anything that is half decent ends up on BBC Two (why not just put it there in the first place -- such as 'Gavin and Stacey', the series about young love starring Alison Steadman and Rob Brydon) and the rest should be online only.

Online-only pilots are a winner with a younger demographic who are happy to download and watch on their PC or laptop. Not to mention mobile phone.

BBC Three costs far more than BBC Four to run, which has much more of a distinctive voice. BBC Three has been in trouble from the off when the corporation had its initial plans for the station rejected.

It might be that the corporation believes it needs another digital-only channel. That might well be a good idea, but it has to know what it is and define it clearly as BBC Three is not that channel.

Soutar goes upmarket

More details of Mike Soutar's forthcoming free men's magazine have emerged and I'm glad to say that he appears to be listening to what a chorus in the industry have been saying and going upmarket. I'm sure it will be a hit.I have wittered on about this before. In a market that offers men so little in terms of magazines, an upmarket, at least a breast-free, magazine could be a hit.

In a piece in The Observer yesterday (I know very slow today, but it is a case of returning from hols and catching up with everything) promised a magazine that will give 'the man with more than one thing on his mind' a weekly fix of news, sport, business, fashion and motoring.

Soutar told The Observer that it will be upmarket "a post-lads' mag" title aimed at 18- to 35-year-olds "with promising careers".

"When we were researching this, we wanted to find out why the mainstream men's market is in decline. We found that men haven't fallen out of love with magazines; the magazines themselves have alienated them," Soutar said.

It sounds promising and I really think that the free nature, and being first to this segment of the market with such a product, will give them space to breathe and try new things and not be sucked into the need to put naked female flesh on the front cover to drive sales, which is the blackhole that the monthly men's titles mostly find themselves in.

Due to launch on September 20, it could be a big hit with advertisers who will find its nationwide metropolitan distribution targeting young men attractive (if the content is there).

"High end advertisers such as car companies and fashion brands are not well-served by existing magazines. At the moment, they can either reach relatively small numbers of men or hold their noses and go into the adolescent weeklies," Soutar said.

Second Life Jihad

We've talked a lot about Second Life on Brand Republic as brands have piled into the virtual world, but now it seems Islamic extremists have joined in on the act as well.