Uncategorized

“Revolutionary” New Look

Much crowing in the Sindie today about their “new look”. Not that you can really tell. I picked up the paper outside the tube on the way back from the pub last night–there’s still something that gives me a childish thrill about being able to buy tomorrow’s paper today if you’ve been out in central London on a Saturday night–and I was disappointed to see that it looks very much like their old look (although it did confuse the old fella manning the paper stall, who studied the front cover intently for at least five minutes looking for the price until I pointed out the giant “£1” written in a big red circle…)

The only really noticeable change is that, in what clearly appears to be an attempt to connect with teh interwebs, a key word in each story is printed in some almost illegible grey colour and underlined. I thought this was a printing error when I first saw it, until the appearance of similar terms throughout the paper confirmed that this is indeed an attempt to introduce some kind of hyperlink: I’m sure this seemed like a great idea in the design meeting, but perhaps someone should have pointed out that you can’t actually follow a hyperlink off a printed page. And perhaps a better strategy of connecting with teh interwebs would be to sort out your piss poor website.

They’ve also gone in in a big way for the whole “have your say” approach that seems to be ubiquitous in the British media these days. I hereby predict that the hyperlinks will last for two months at the most, and I look forward to the whole thing being roundly slagged off in this week’s Private Eye.

Oh, and their new look unfortunately hasn’t seen an end to their laughable Wi-Fi health scaremongering: page six informs me that Julia Stephenson (“The Independent’s Green Goddess columnist”) has disconnected her Wi-Fi, “on the advice of her naturopath”. Elsewhere, concerned readers have apparently been removing their Wi-Fi connections in droves: “There is not enough information available on the subject. I don’t want to take any risks. You just don’t know what all this technology in the home is doing to us.”.

I’m sorry, but given that there’s no actual evidence that there’s any health danger in using a Wi-Fi connection, I find myself firmly in the Ben Goldacre camp on this one, and I might have to consider switching to The Grauniad. Actually, I’ve half a mind to write a satirical health scare article of my own about the risk of getting cancer from copies of “The Independent on Sunday”. Of course, there’s no actual scientific evidence that newsprint is carcinogenic and can be absorbed into the body by handling copies of “The Independent on Sunday”, but until those scientist boffins can prove that “The Independent on Sunday” doesn’t cause cancer, I demand that these newspapers be pulled off the shelves of newsagents across the country, where they are within the reach of–gasp!–children. You just don’t know what all these “newspapers” in the home are doing to us. Won’t somebody, somewhere, think of the children?

*

UPDATE, 08-Jun-2007: I missed yesterday’s indie, but apparently Stephenson’s been at it again.

She actually uses the word “boffins”, before finishing with the following glorious rhetorical flourish:

“At one time scientists assured us the earth was flat and that mercury, asbestos, the atomic bomb and cigarettes were harmless. Today many assure us that GM crops, mobile phones and pesticides are safe. Yet history must surely advise caution before we rush headlong to embrace all that technology has to offer.”

Um. No. I don’t think so…

“At one time scientists told us… the atom bomb [was] harmless”? Come off it. This is a parody, right?

3 thoughts on ““Revolutionary” New Look”

  1. I like the quote in Julia Stephenson’s article:

    “So I immediately turned off my wireless network and replaced it with broadband.”

    So, what, previously she had a wireless network but no broadband? What was she doing, LAN gaming?

    This profound understanding of telecommunications technology and electromagnetic radiationis further demonstrated when she tells us about the magic box she bought from a man who told her it would protect her from the nasty invisible badness.

  2. Yes. That whole bit about how she “got rid of wifi and got broadband instead” jumped out at me too (In the new article she subtly rewords this statement without acknowledging her previous idiocy). She also believes that a radius can be measured in square meters, so clearly knows what she’s talking about…

    But the best bit, as someone pointed out in the comments on bad science, is that in the original article she actually says “although I’ve turned off my wireless access I can still tap in to my neighbour’s Wi-Fi downstairs.”

    Well, for starters accessing your neighbour’s internet connection is probably illegal, but surely if she can get a connection, then she’s still exposed to the “electrosmog” Wi-Fi “radiation”. Yet for some reason her symptoms have all gone away… How odd.

Comments are closed.