PS4 Share is a pretty useful feature

I finally got a chance to play about with the PS4's share feature - and it's even better than I expected. 

Of course, it doesn't compare to traditional video-editing software on PC, but it's still very easy to use, (with a simple double-click of the Share button) and more than capable of handling most gaming video needs.

This is the first video I made using the software. (Feel free to have a look!)

It can be buggy at times, but it recorded and saved my gameplay with no issues for the most part, and saved to an external USB afterwards at the first attempt.

Overall I'm pretty impressed.

Channel 5 - What's the point?

I was writing about Benefits Street earlier, when a thought suddenly struck me. What does Channel 5 actually do - and is the channel really necessary in modern life?

I'm old enough to remember the channel's inauguration way back in 1997, and the promises made at the time about content and the direction of the new terrestrial broadcaster.

We were told that movies would run with none of the annoying adverts in between, and that 24-hour, quality content was the aim of the game. (1)

It actually kicked-off well, all things considered. Despite southern parts of the UK struggling to get the channel tuned, (as French signals caused interference) over 2.5m people watched the channels first broadcast on 30/03/97, with a larger number of viewers than channel 4 had when it started broadcasting. 

Thinking back, C5 had a lot of promise. Saatchi & Saatchi handled the ad campaign, which was a colourful display that encapsulated the 1990's for me.

Unfortunately, the channel soon started facing problems with their content, culminating in an ITC investigation in 2000 due to allegations of "broadcasting too much sex and smut". (2) Programmes such as Naked Jungle, which was voted the most "memorably rotten" show of all time, (3) further lowered the tone and the channel never really recovered. 

At the time, Naked Jungle did attract over two million viewers, which was a record for c5 at the time, (4) but it attracted several complaints, due to the format; 

"which featured host Keith Chegwin and 10 contestants all jumping around with no clothes on".

In the long run the gambit failed to pay off, and since their first broadcast in 1997, they've struggled to emulate the success of both BBC and ITV, focusing on reality TV and American imports instead of home-grown shows.

C5 managed to gain the rights to reality TV behemoth Big Brother in 2011. The last c4 series had an average of 3m viewers, but numbers dropped to 1.6m a year later when it made the switch. (5) Losing just under half of their prospective viewers must have been a blow - and it highlights the difficulties the channel faces when attracting new viewers. 

Nonetheless, the figures were good for C5, despite numerous complaints for a variety of perceived issues over the last few years. (6) In fact, Celebrity Big Brother (2011) ranks highest in their list of all-time most watched shows, with 5.57m for the series début. 

BB has also faced controversy because of the decision to allow online gambling website Supercasino to sponsor them since 2013, further tarnishing the reputation of the channel in the eyes of some viewers. 

Aside from Benefits Britain, there are other questionable programmes that air on c5 regularly with terrible names like; Can't pay? We'll take it away! This daytime reality show consists of;

"Following people on the sharp end of bad debt - and those whose job it is to take the money back". (6)

Should this programme really have been commissioned in the first place? It's obvious they have no qualms about filming despair, but this programme is pretty tasteless on a variety of levels. Of course it must be cheap to produce, but that doesn't justify broadcasting people's misery on national telly in a bid for ratings.

C5 was recently purchased for £450m by media giant Viacom. The channel's chief operating officer, Paul Dunthorne had this to say at the time;

"The combination of Channel 5 with Viacom's global resources, technology and expertise adds further to the momentum of the business and offers numerous exciting opportunities for the channel's future." (7)

Hopefully these "exciting opportunities" will involve more original programming, with less of a reliance on reality tv and foreign imports. 

At least there's a chance the new ownership will kick-start a jump in quality, but with traditional TV audiences continuing to dwindle, it may be too large a task for the nations fifth largest broadcaster.

It's definitely not too late for c5, but until they learn to respect themselves and the viewer, how can they expect the public to respect them? 

Benefits Britain - Exploitation at its worst

I'd been planning to watch The Armstrong Lie earlier today, but happened upon a show called Benefits Britain on C5 as I was flicking through the channels. 

What followed was one of the most exploitative hours of television that I'd seen in a while, but hey, what do you expect from a show with such a provocative title?

Well, maybe a degree of impartiality for a start. I know that C5 isn't really known for the quality of their programming, but the narrator can't help but lay it on thick with a number of choice phrases, including: "this is the jewel in her benefits crown", or calling an unborn infant a "benefits baby". 

A benefits baby? That's just unprofessional.


If we disregard the snooty narration, we're left with depressing stories of people struggling to make ends meet, but managing to get by. The producers still took every opportunity to stick the knife in, highlighting any and all bad behaviour from the subjects of the show, whilst disregarding any positive steps they were making with their life. 


The episode focused on benefits claimants in Hull - and was described as "TV at its worst" by the City Council leader, Steve Brady, who went on to add; 

"These TV programmes on individuals are really using them in quite a cruel way really, because they don't even realise they are being ridiculed." (1)

Predictably, many of the public were incensed by the behaviour shown on the programme - and took to twitter to vent their fury. A simple search of #BenefitsBritain on the social media network brings up an array of insults aimed at those taking part, for a manner of reasons. 

Here are a few choice examples: 

16 and up the duff! You've officially fucked your life up and you're going to end up just like your scrounging mother #BenefitsBritain
— Jennifer (@Jenni_Bob) July 8, 2014

Sit at home all day but no time to clean their houses. #BenefitsBritain
— StuWilliam (@StuWMc) July 7, 2014

Should be sterilised until they pass a test. #BenefitsBritain #fuckingTramps
— steve (@SteveyGeeBadBoy) July 7, 2014

 The question is, who's to blame for the adverse public reaction to the programme? On the one hand, you can blame the producers, who obviously aimed to court controversy with their show, but they only filmed what was happening in front of them, (with some obvious editing). 

Surely the benefits claimants should also be put to task for their feckless behaviour, but as the viewer we only get a snapshot into their lives - one that is highly controlled by the production team, who get to decide what we see. Whatever the case, the end result is a terrible programme that mostly serves to reinforce negative stereotypes about benefit claimants on the whole.

As a viewer, I've come to expect a certain level of 'truth-stretching' when watching home-grown reality TV, but I was still shocked at the way in which the subjects were represented. Maybe the film-makers feel no responsibility towards their subjects, or perhaps they simply don't give a damn - either way, it doesn't really make for ethical programming.

I'll be the first to admit that I agree with the welfare system in principle, but that doesn't mean that I want programmes that simply reaffirm my belief system. On the other hand, it's hard to stomach programming that seems to put politics first - as Benefits Britain so obviously does. 

It seems to revel in showing the jobless at their lowest, whilst reaffirming the very worst of their behaviour to the general public. By all means, they should show the truth - but my worry is that the programme is extremely skewed to one side.

Perhaps they focus on more positive stories in other episodes, but the one that I watched (broadcast 07/07/14) was used as an opportunity to sneer at the families and their hardships - even if the recipient of the scorn is an unborn "benefits baby". 

As the documentary apparently aims to "lift the lid on the reality of life on benefits in Britain", maybe the reality is that they're only showing the public what we expect to see, judging by many of the comments made by the public in the aftermath of the show. 

In any case, it only served to rub me up the wrong way - and I doubt that it's an accurate representation of reality. My only worry is, will others be able to do the same..

Football Conspiracy of the week (3) Cameroon's match-fixing madness

To be honest, I didn't expect to be adding another conspiracy to the list so soon, but this story is so juicy that I just couldn't help myself. 

Convicted match-fixer Wilson Raj Perumal has created controversy at the World Cup after comments were attributed to him about Cameroon fixing all three of their World Cup group games, as reported in the German weekly magazine, Der Spiegel. 

He immediately made to clarify the situation, saying:

“Contrary to the ‘revelations’ published by the German weekly Der Spiegel that were picked up by news outlets worldwide, I did not predict the result of the Cameroon vs Croatia match played on June 18, 2014." (1)

So, what's the truth? The Cameroon football federation released a statement soon after. It said:


"Recent allegations of fraud around Cameroon 2014 FIFA World Cup three preliminary games, especially Cameroon vs. Croatia, as well of the "existence of seven bad apples [in our national team]" do not reflect the values and principles promoted by our administration, in line with FIFA Code of Conduct and the ethics of our nation." (2)


The funny thing is, they seem to accept that there could be 'seven bad apples in the national team', so maybe there is a chance there was some foul play involved in Cameroon's World Cup games, despite the alleged source of the information distancing himself from the claims as soon as he possibly could. 

To understand the severity of the claim, it would help to take a brief look into the past of the 'accuser'. Wilson Raj Perumal. Perumal has been arrested for fixing football matches in the past - and he's considered to be one of the experts in the field. 

In his memoir, entitled Kelong Kings, he claimed that he fixed numerous games in the 2010 World Cup qualifiers, helping Nigeria and Honduras get into the final rounds. (3) If true, then surely he would be able to read the signs if a match was to be fixed?

Despite the attempts to distance himself from the claims, there's no doubt that the Cameroon squad performed poorly at this year's World Cup, with their 4-0 loss against Croatia capping their dismal showing. 

With a red card in the first half, they couldn't stem the tide in the drubbing - but interestingly, they cared enough for a fight to break out in the 89th minute. 

"In the final minutes of Wednesday’s match, Benoit Assou-Ekotto head-butted Benjamin Moukandjo." (4)

Now, nobody wants to see a fight on the pitch, but Assou-Ekotto cared about the result enough to lose his temper - and start a fight with a team-mate, which is hardly the type of behaviour one would expect if he knew the match was fixed. 

However, Assou-Ekotto plays at left-back, which isn't the most important position for match-fixing. Perhaps the centre-backs and the goalkeeper would be a better bet, as they could influence the game far more easily. 

Whatever the case, the allegations have thrown a dark cloud over Cameroon's football team - but it does seem like they're willing to fight any corruption within the team. Considering that the allegation was withdrawn quicker than a knife in a gun fight, you can't really say fairer than that. 

Verdict: Possible.






  

Football Conspiracy of the week (2) Football - The age-old question

So, it's finally time for the football conspiracy of the week. 

This time, I wanted to talk about an issue that has interested me for a while now - the idea of players falsifying their birth-dates to artificially extend their playing careers, sometimes beyond their 40's.

For example, Taribo West, the famous former Derby County and Inter Milan defender. He played for Partizan Belgrade in 2002, (at the supposed age of 28) but the President of the club at the time, Zarko Zecevic, said; 

"He joined us saying he was 28. We only later found out he was 40, but he was still playing well so I don’t regret having him on the team." (1)

Of course, West denied the claims, arguing:

“After I left the club, I still played for seven or so more years at the top level. I don’t know how that is possible if I was indeed 40 then as he claimed.” (2)

Another of West's former suitors then got involved - the Croatian team Rijeka. They said that "at the age of of 44, West told club doctors he was only 32" and that;

"It was only after an examination that the doctors raised suspicions with the club because West's knees suggested he was older." (3)

West's argument about continuing to play at the top level does seem pretty flimsy, with his only noteworthy appearances after Partizan being four league games for Plymouth Argyle the year after - which is hardly top-level football.  

His ex-Inter Milan boss, Mircea Lucescu also stuck the knife in, discussing West in the 1998-99 season;

“West was not an important player for me.. He was so uncoordinated he’d fall over and we all laughed. When I read the story about his age I couldn't believe it, as 12 years is a lot. How did they manage to not realise earlier?" (4)

Whether or not the allegations are true, there's no denying that West's 'real' age will always be a bit of a conspiracy - but wouldn't it be great if it was true? If players like West are able to continue into their 40's, surely they should be commended for their superhuman feats, instead of being forced to lie about their age.

Of course, clubs are always more likely to go for a younger player, because of things like resale value, insurance and injuries, but where does that leave older players who still feel they have something left to give?

If West could roll back the years at the age of 40, maybe others could do so, but there's no doubt that most would struggle to find a club that would take a punt on such a high-risk move. 

It's a shame, as players are now facing more stringent age tests. For example, under 17's may now have to submit to an MRI scan of their wrist in a bid to assess their age, (5) with other bone tests available for older players. 

There's no doubt that football is ageist. Once a player reaches their 30's, they tend to be on the downward slope of their career - often one injury away from retirement, so you can see why a player might attempt to change the dates. As you're only in the job for 15-20 years, it makes sense to be a bit liberal with your age, but there's no chance of that when you've been playing for ten years - so it has to be done before you sign your first professional contract. 

If West truly was pushing 40 at the time, it shows the supreme athleticism of the man - and part of me really wants to believe it. Either way, he played so well that it didn't matter. 

Verdict - Undecided.