Jeremy Clarkson, Zayn Malik and the art of the modern over-reaction

Is Twitter ok? Someone really ought to check. At one point this afternoon I was a little worried.

First came Jeremy Clarkson or, at least, the news that his contract won't be renewed (he's not actually technically been sacked despite punching someone) - then, before Twitter had chance to catch it's misplaced angry breath, bang, Zayn Malik left One Direction.

If Twitter had a blood pressure it would've been sky high as thousands rushed to vent their 140-character fury at perceived injustices to their lives.

I'm not someone who really cares for One Direction - I don't buy or listen to their music - and I wouldn't contemplate watching Top Gear since I can't really get excited by cars. I know that others do like them both though and who am I to judge? I don't want to be someone who rails against things just because they aren't to my tastes.

Yet today, again, happens to be one of those social media days where you are dragged into issues you wouldn't normally be associated with through the sheer volume of reaction.

It's hard not to laugh at some of the more overblown fan comments to the demise of Zayn Malik. I'm strangely fascinated by the things people write at times like this. Maybe I'm odd but I can't imagine being so in thrall to someone I have never met that I'd burst into tears and declare my life ruined when they simply leave a job.

The reaction to Clarkson's demise worries me a little more. The people upset at his departure won't necessarily see it this way but they are just screaming fans struggling to gain a sense of perspective just like the 'Directioners'.

Their fan adulation for Clarkson knows no bounds. It doesn't matter to them that he punched someone because he didn't get the food he wanted - that's just 'how he is'. It makes this case a little more sinister - people allow their like of Clarkson as a TV show host to blind them to the fact that anyone in any office in the country would surely be sacked for attacking a colleague. What, exactly, was the BBC supposed to do? Clarkson brings in money, yes, but that can't make him untouchable can it?

Yet, if some comments are to be believed, the Clarkson story is yet another example of the 'liberal elite' holding too much power. Some even go as far as to say Oisin Tymon, the victim, should 'man up' and put the blame on him for bringing the curtain down on their favourite Top Gear presenter's career by having the temerity to be attacked. An awful lot of people thought the whole thing was a 'disgrace'.

Jeremy Clarkson has been a success as host of Top Gear, that is in no doubt. It's an international hit for the BBC and, in an era of funding cuts, it needs the cash it gets in from such hits. I'm no fan of his though. I can't bear someone who thinks it's funny to poke fun at another person because they are blind in one eye as he did with his vile barb at Gordon Brown. Clarkson is a school playground bully flanked by two hangers on who think it's cool to associate themselves with him. Many think Clarkson is a maverick because he's not afraid to say racist and sexist things yet he rides horses with Rebekah Brooks and hobnobs with the Prime Minister - hardly the voice of the common man. I try to avoid him at all costs - getting angry just fuels the whole circus - yet I do dislike him.

Yet, in this case, he has to be judged solely on the act in question. This isn't the 'liberal elite silencing Clarkson' - it's about an assault at work, punished by the employer. What is the BBC supposed to do? How would anyone else react to being punched at work? Would they seriously say 'Oh but that's Fred in IT and he's great at his job'?

I wonder if the people commenting on these stories ever look back on what they've said. Are they proud to have sounded off in public in the way they have? Being a fan, it seems, stops you from seeing a matter with perspective. It's something that's common with some sections of football fandom. There are people who will back a player to the hilt if he's in their team, no matter what, yet will jump to very different judgments on their rivals' stars. You'd like to think that, in the cold light of day, people might realise that the fact that neither Zayn Malik or Jeremy Clarkson are still employed in the same jobs does not matter too much in the long run.

Still, Twitter doesn't really do perspective. It's instant and it's in instants like these two that the medium gives us a strangely fascinating insight into the things some people think in the heat of the moment. It's a funny old world eh? And a scary one.

I saw the BRITs...without needing to bother watching

I didn't watch this year's BRIT Awards, yet I feel as though I saw it.
I tend to find all awards ceremonies are back-slappy bores that take themselves far too seriously, especially the BBC's annual Sports Personality of the Year smug-fest.

But as I parked myself down for a night following my beloved Nottingham Forest from afar (Twitter refresh takes a bit of a hammering on such occasions) news of a 2-1 win was interspersed with the latest from the O2.
It's a strange modern phenomena that, through Twitter, we often become accidentally familiar with the minute-by-minute details of a host of things we wouldn't chose to follow.

Without flicking over for a single moment I could tell you that Taylor Swift's UK charm offensive continued to pay dividends with a performance that went down well, Sam Smith teetered on the brink of becoming the male Emeli Sandé but won yet another award and Take That seemed to underwhelm.
In fact, judging by my timeline, the allure of the second coming of the Take That lads has worn off - seemingly due to a combination of dubious tax arrangements and middle of the road material.
I even tweeted a lame 'Tax That' pun at this point. Yep, that's right, tweeting along to something I'm not watching or bothered about. Odd.
Still, at least the vitriol wasn't as universal as it was against Kanye. By general consensus most people would've preferred the whole of his performance to be muted, not just the rude-worded bits.

And then The Fall.
Within seconds, probably before most of the live audience had had chance to take in quite what had happened, I'd seen Madonna's moment.
It was an event made for social media - perfectly fitting into a Vine and ripe for countless parodies, hashtags and one liners.

I'd be tempted to feel sorry for Madge - the backwards tumble must've hurt - but you feel the whole incident probably did more to promote her album than any performance could've done.

The tabloids lapped it up with hastily rearranged pages. Sorry Sam Smith and Ed Sheeran, you boys are bumped off by a bump, upstaged by a stage malfunction and overtaken by material on the Material Girl.
The Sun, sharp as ever, won by plumping for 'The Fallen Madonna (with the big boob)' as its headline - again seen on Twitter later that night.

So there you go - Swift, Smith, Take That, Kayne and Madonna. All gleaned without even looking for it - all while my attention was primarily on events at the City Ground.
I'm sure some academic has a term for this somewhere - unintended consumption or passive audience engagement probably.
It's not the first time either. The Eastenders killer, Bake Off results, X Factor...there's a plethora of things I don't watch and have little or no interest in that I'm exposed to on Twitter.

Still, Forest won. And the goals were on Twitter, even if not quite as quickly as Madonna's mishap. And maybe anyone silly enough to follow me feels the same when I 'inflict' Question Time on them each week?