The Unreasonable Announcement Doctor Who is a Woman

vs Social Media Part V

Simply put it just isn’t cricket! For starters:

  • ‘entertainment news’ unless being an unfortunate R.I.P. or related to heinous criminal activity is FAKE NEWS!!!

If I’d wanted ‘entertainment news’ popping up in my feed, then I would’ve liked the BBC Entertainment Page.

  • It’s not rocket science – even the BBC recognises the distinction, otherwise why does it have multiple Pages for various things?

Yet there it was in my feed thanks to the BBC News Page sharing the Entertainment Page’s post of the article from its own website.

Worse still, it’s one of its own programmes it’s considering important enough to give real news status to.

Though these points are mere canon fodder when compared to half the population being female (as current gender dividers roughly go), yet it’s taken them this long and numerous changes in Doctors to consider the rational mathematical logic that would befall an alien regenerating in random human form.

Despite the glaring oversight, they’re patting themselves on the back for picking a woman now rather than apologising it’s taken so long like they should be.

Yes, I became grammatically incorrect (or so I’m told) by referring to it in terms of personification, but it is people doing it.

I know which way is considered correct by the masses. However, on this point I believe the mass to be wrong on two counts.

  • One: a corporation, or organisation or group of any type consists of people; any action taken by it are a consequence of that fact – whereas any action taken by a real it such as a rock are never at the rock’s discretion or desire, but instead external conditions impacting on it.

The difference shouldn’t be forgotten thanks to alleged correct grammar, for then things will be blamed when the responsibly lies in the minds and actions of people and people alone.

  • Two: where I come from in London that’s how people talk: we love you, insert-football-team-here, we do – oh, insert-football-team-here, we love you.

Etc, etc. And so on. If you don’t like it, you’re being insensitive to my environmental conditioning, so can fuck right off or come n’ have a go if you think you’re hard enough.

It didn’t just create and post an article announcing the new Doctor, they then posted a badly drawn gif of the changing Doctors into the comments with the question, Who’s your favourite doctor?

Apparently, posted as a comment the gif soon got lost in the mayhem and was deemed not to have got enough attention, so was used again as a post in its own right


Screen shot of offending gif when posted in its own right by the BBC News Page. As it’s not a share, someone has gone to the trouble of pointing out where it came from like the Entertainment Page as an entity created it.

It would be nice to think that by drawing age-old whatever-ism out if its dark cave, the amount of enlightenment it found itself faced with might make it change its mind or at least have a little bit of a reconsider.

But anyone who uses the net knows that’s not how it works despite whatever wondrous and idealist hopes, dreams and wishes its inventors might have had.

The shit storm of stupidity it created would’ve been apparent from its original Entertainment Page post. The ‘reasoning’ behind it being further shared could only be to cause more stress and upset to numerous innocent people who only seconds prior had been happily scrolling through their feed.

Given the internet’s track record, that there were plenty of negative comments could hardly be the news that warranted the News Page sharing it.

Pointless Alan Partridge Page (Part II); slightly underhanded effort to make it as a self-published author (Part III); student interns on the wind-up or concerted effort to achieve greater social media presence by an organisation desperate to appear relevant even if it means destroying everything it’s meant to stand for (Part IV), the method of achievement is the same.

Such is the driving force behind Facebook it now has the parts of the media that could’ve been considered upstanding falling over themselves like clowns.


Yet another example of bad BBC behaviour on Facebook. It asks a question; it’s about social media; and of course there are numerous comments complaining it isn’t news to help bump it up the algorithms.

The examples are everywhere; it’s almost disingenuous to single out the BBC so much, but for how it’s/they’re funded.

Ironic: yet another BBC News report relating to something happening on social media – in the race to be online popular, The Independent

‘has streamed a video it described as “live from space” on its Facebook page – but the footage was recorded in 2015. More than 180,000 people viewed the video during the “live” broadcast, with at least 2,000 sharing the post. The stream was ended shortly after the BBC contacted the paper and it has since been deleted.’

Superficially it could be concluded as all down to the way Facebook works.

Really, though, it’s more a case of Facebook being a jujutsu triple back belt master of something mere media never got further in than orange or green*.

*More often than not as some regulator or other would stop them, while Facebook has the handy get out of it not being what it does, but its users.

Jujutsu (or ju-jitsu):

‘can be translated to mean “art” or “technique” and represents manipulating the opponent’s force against themselves rather than confronting it with one’s own force.’

The media and press are known to be manipulative and exploitative – anything to turn a profit or propel an agenda.

Yet, evidently not many people understand the way this actually works or how could media be so good at those things to be known for being so?

One aspect is as simple as reputation; something potentially unfortunate for me.

If a reader came to this series trying to find out how to make social media work for them, then chances are they stopped reading and went somewhere else when realising this was about warts, not what they wanted to hear.

The decision will feel/appear reasoned as they approached the subject with a bias created by the reputation:

Social media is the place for self-publishers and indie-artists to promote their wares.

After all, it would hardly make sense to research a platform one didn’t have a positive preconception of – what would be the incentive?

Add a whole net full of numerous blogs/articles claiming they know all the secrets in a go-get-em-champ kinda way and it’s really no wonder, even though the reality is they’re only maintaining the reputation to just as equally feed off of it.

And of course there are those that/who social media is the perfect match for; innocently they help maintain the idea it works for one and all:

  • sports teams have a naturally endless stream of genuine posts Page followers will happily want to see and eagerly give opinions on and shares of; results, team news, transfers, training and injury updates, information for getting to away games, etc, etc.
  • already established celebrities, such as the previously mentioned in Part I Johnny Depp, who can post about the most asinine everyday things and still have fans swooning left and right.

That this series shows how even an institution such as the BBC has to use the platform to get attention will be neither here nor there.

The most straightforward piece of advice offered is unlikely to make much difference either:

Take some time looking at the actual response to the social media activity of those claiming to be masters of achieving it before taking their word they are.

Many of those championing the cause will be using the set-up described Part I for no other reason that to obtain social media presence using a pyramid-type-scheme tactic.

Elsewhere, though, one ‘online publisher’ is charging $199 for an hour conversation over the phone/internet to explain Facebook; they also offer another separate hour chat at the same price for Twitter, and so on for each hot platform.

The fact they’re charging will only serve to create more credibility – surely a ‘publisher’ wouldn’t be doing that if there was no value for money in what they had to say, right?

Either way, there’s apparently good reason ($199 an hour no less) to help perpetuate the reputation.

While it can do some good, Facebook thrives on mistruths, rumour, gossip, stress, conflict, reaction; what it suits someone to believe even when the truth is also right there albeit at another dotcom.

Enough of us are compelled to waste precious seconds of life pointing out a Page on Facebook has broken its sanctity by going off topic that to do so has become an effective tactic for Pages when trying to increase social media presence.

It’s changed the way we interact with family, friends, companies, governments, idols, even strangers.

  • The English Football Association put someone in charge of its Twitter feed who decided to use their position of social media power to mock an England player (BBC article here).
  • An online public apology from Lorde for a wholly innocent mistake made in an earlier Tweet was considered news article worthy by the BBC (article here).
  • The BBC is evidently spending an ever increasing amount of time reporting what happens on social media.

A recent retweet from England football legend Gary Lineker (particularly famous for being good at letting people know when someone else is about to cry) demonstrates how social media has out-trumped smelly old just media perfectly.


Suspecting a newspaper interview would be twisted to stitch him up, Gary was able to clarify what he meant before the paper had even gone to print.

And given all the reports about its negative impact on the democratic process, its reach has gone a lot further than anything that might be implied by social.

That is the M.O. of media to a T, though (see above about ju-jitsu).

It wouldn’t be unfair to say, then, that those behind social media had a pretty good idea of how it was going to pan out. They might not have been 100% sure exactly how, but if the leaked memo mentioned Part IV is anything to go by enough of them to matter didn’t care in the slightest.

Where it’s all going can only be speculated even by the best of them.

The only impact that can be considered with any certainty is where we’ve already been.

It goes back way further and expands well beyond mere media. The driving force has been around shaping and changing things since Day One.

If the way it works and can be manipulated are so apparent to me, it could be asked why I haven’t jumped on the bandwagon especially given the motivation for posts such as these is to promote my books instead of critique social media per se.

The Medusa Protocol is the story of the driving force’s impact across the sands of time told through the eyes of one of its greatest . . . victims.

To do what it hopes to expose in full ignoble glory would be disingenuous.

In my book, at least.

Thanks for reading 🙂

N. P. Ryan.


This is the final part of the initial vs. Social Media category

Though it’s unlikely to be the last word on the subject (as example at time of posting):

Self-publishing is also covered more directly here:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.