By James Leavey
We're living in an age where we have become so anesthetized by the
media's constant bombardment of images of brutality, war, greed, hunger
and intolerance, that our interest is only grabbed by 'sexy' headlines.
Such as, 'All the world's illnesses are caused by passive smoking'. Or
some such balderdash.
The sad reality is that whenever there's a disaster, those of us who
have access to the world's 24-hours news networks (CNN, Fox, Sky, BBC
etc) are often glued to life's evolving dramas. 'News' has now
metamorphosed into a ghoulish form of spectator entertainment. Not that
any news channel would ever dream of manipulating events, or
manufacturing 'exclusives' to boost their ratings. Not much! Indeed,
some news channels are already promoting interactive polling by their
viewers.
Surely, it's only a short step to:
'And today's vote, coming to you from Selective Manipulators Ltd, is
'What should we do next in Afghan/Israel/Iraq/China/North Korea/Cuba?
Press:
- for sending the troops in
- attack by air
- naval bombardment
- nuke the bastards, especially if they smoke,
- a combination of a, b, c and d, and
- dispatch a team of Coca-Cola and Nicotine Patch salesmen. ‘
As some wars seem to be actively encouraged by the world's arms
industry, and other self-interested groups of like-minded ghouls, why
not create a new television channel appropriately called 'The War
Channel'.
This is how you could set it up:
Senior politicians representing the world's leading countries - only
those who have the money, army and political clout need apply - meet
with their counterparts from multi-global corporations and decide that
all future wars (and famines, but that could be for another cable
channel franchise) would be agreed in advance in terms of:
- The actual war zone,
- The main protagonists,
- An agreed number of casualties (you could limit it to say a
maximum of 50,000 dead in any one smallish war, and increase it in
stages to several million, for global conflict, depending on the
budget and pay-per-view earnings potential),
- Officially accepted media coverage (anything outside this would be
actively discouraged, by force, if necessary)
- And an agreed division of the spoils of such a war in terms of
armaments, a post-war infrastructure rebuilding programme, etc.
Officially approved coverage would be then handled by the new
television channel, which in turn could be sponsored by all those
businesses, individuals and organizations that benefit from the spoils
of war, such as the manufacturers of land mines, weapons, bullets, tanks,
armoured helicopters, food and drink (one brand, 'Kill Them, Eat Me',
for the military, another brand, 'This'll keep you barely alive after
we've decimated your homeland, you poor sods'), uniforms and
ambulances. You could actually have several wars going on at any one
time, and an evening, or programmes, devoted to each of them, i.e. 'Afghan
Hour ', 'Middle East on Monday', 'Taliban Tuesday', 'Anti-smokers'
Sunday Superbowl Special'.
The War Channel and its top-rating shows could then do some
merchandising deals (logo'd MASH units, camouflage clothing - 'Today's
fashioned from the war of your choice', children's' toys 'Here
comes Uncle Uzi and his jolly weapon', and so forth).
Lucrative deals could also be made with the Hollywood studios for a
series of blockbuster movies, which in turn would be sold into the DVD,
video, satellite and cable markets. All you need is a theme tune, such
as the one used in 'The Longest Day', and 'The War Channel' is ready for
business.
Just imagine a mini-series in which two wars break out: the sponsored
'real' conflict, and the internal ratings war (back-stabbing, character
assassinations - would could in turn progress to the actual use of guns
and mortars). It would be just like Hollywood, but less bloody. It's
marketing campaign message, 'Don't smoke, make war.'
If I hadn't already got a Havana and single malts habit, the idea of
setting up an official 'War Channel' would be more than enough to start
one. And we, the poor beleaguered smokers, are already fighting a war
against the born-again puritans, but nobody, yet, has managed to sell
our side of the story to the studios.
I really don't fancy a job as one of this bloodthirsty channels'
presenters, not even if you put a gun to my head. But hey, if anybody
out there in California's La-La Land would like to see my treatment for
the movie, please get in touch. You've already had, 'The Insider'. How
about, 'The Outsider trilogy', in which the smokers fight back.
