Gok Wan vs Gordon Ramsay

Most of us will be familiar with Gok Wan and Gordon Ramsay. Gok Wan is a fashion consultant and the presenter of 'How to Look Good Naked' and 'Gok's Fashion Fix' while Gordon Ramsay is a chef and very well known for his programmes 'The F Word' and 'Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares'.

What should be immediately obvious is how differently they approach issues of 'change' on their programmes. Gok Wan focuses on positivity and inspiring people to feel confident about their appearance just by changing how they see themselves. Gordon Ramsay uses intimidation, confrontation and bullying to get people to change how they run their restaurants.

Although what they are each trying to achieve on their programmes is completely different, they are both ultimately trying to get other people to meet specific objectives or goals. What is less important is what those goals are. What is important, and is the focus of this blog, are the behaviours they each employ to try to persuade these people to meet their objectives.

In 'How to Look Good Naked', Gok Wan has the task of trying to persuade someone to walk on a catwalk as a fashion model to overcome a body image problem, and to reveal their naked body to the audience. He starts by getting the man or woman to stand in front of mirrors in their underwear and tell him why they hate their body. Using this, Gok can give them mountains of self-confidence and get them to love their bodies by using a number of methods including new clothes, correct underwear and asking the general public to point out positive things about the person's body.

Gordon Ramsay in his programme 'Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares' has the task of helping failing restaurants turn themselves around and become popular by cooking great food and pulling in customers. However, in order to do this, Ramsay quite often tears the business to shreds and a lot of restaurant owners do not react well to hearing that they do not know how to run a business!

How do these differences of approach affect those people in the programmes who are trying to meet their respective challenges? It should come as no surprise that people respond more readily to a positive approach. If you tell someone they can do something, and make them believe this, then this is a powerful and very persuasive mechanism in allowing them to meet their chosen challenge.

People respond far less positively to bullying and intimidation. Being shouted and sworn at does not lead anyone to believe they are capable of fulfilling the challenge they have been presented with. They respond out of fear, not necessarily because they think they can meet the challenge. It also leads to loss of self confidence and self esteem. It can actually lead to the person believing that they are incapable of meeting the challenge, which is surely the complete opposite of what is intended.

The abundance of self help gurus and life coaches should tell us enough to know that positivity and inspiring someone to believe in themselves is perhaps the most powerful means of getting someone to meet a challenge. Self belief is a powerful mechanism.

An obvious question then must be why do we see so many programmes where the presenter uses intimidation, confrontation and bullying, when they are so ineffective? Why are Gordon Ramsay, Marco Pierre White, Jean Christophe Novelli (why are so many TV chefs also bullies?) and their ilk afforded so much time on our televisions?

One answer is that they make for entertaining viewing. The aim of these programmes is not to instil confidence in anyone, or to raise their self esteem. It is to simply attract the maximum number of viewers, to raise their ratings! It is a typical tactic used by the more sensationalist corners of the media.

It is the same reason why programs such as Big Brother, Wife Swap and other reality TV programmes are so popular. People enjoy confrontation and polemic.

So while the Gok Wan approach may be far more effective, the Gordon Ramsay approach would appear to be far more popular!

Does the portrayal of such behaviour on television send out the wrong message to younger, more impressionable audiences? There's probably no conclusive evidence to support this hypothesis, but it cannot be an unreasonable assumption to make to link an increasingly higher level of bullying on television with increasingly higher incidences of bullying in schools. It cannot provide any kind of positive example to see celebrities shouting and swearing to get their own way, often to the point of making another person break down in tears.

It would be far more beneficial and provide a far more positive example to people if more programmes used presenters like Gok Wan. If people watched these programmes, and copied the behaviour of the presenters and employed positive traits in their own dealings with people, wouldn't that be a better place to be?

To quote Gok - 'It's all about the confidence!'

Is access to the Internet a fundamental human right?

"Today, there is a big push by the United Nations to make Internet access a human right. This push was made when it called for universal access to basic communication and information services at the UN Administrative Committee on Coordination. In 2003, during the World Summit on the Information Society, another claim for this was made. In some countries such as Estonia, France, Finland, and Greece, Internet access has already been made a human right." - Wikipedia

There has been much talk recently around the question of whether the Internet is a fundamental human right. It has sparked widespread debate; especially since countries including Estonia, France, Greece and Finland have passed legislation that ensure the Internet is a fundamental human right. We're probably used to the concept of human rights in terms of having a standard of living that meets our basic needs including education, clean running water, freedom of speech and so on. So the question is whether access to the Internet should be on the same playing field as these other basic requirements.

Before proceeding with the discussion any further, let's be clear exactly what we mean when we refer to a human right.

Human rights are "rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Proponents of the concept usually assert that everyone is endowed with certain entitlements merely by reason of being human. - Wikipedia

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." - Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998. It came into force on 2 October 2000 with its key principle being to give further strength to the already existing rights contained within the European Convention on Human Rights.

According to the Office for National Statistics 70% of UK households had Internet access in 2009, totalling 18.3 million households, an increase of 2 million (or 11%) from the year before. That figure includes narrow band and broad band access together as an aggregate figure. Clearly Internet access is regarded as important with such a large percentage of the UK population having it.

In a recent poll conducted by the BBC World Service, the findings concluded that 80% of the respondents indicated that they agreed with the statement that access to the Internet is a fundamental human right. The poll took into account the views of over 27,000 people from 26 countries.

From the BBC World Service poll:

• "The BBC survey found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the 'fundamental right' of all people".
• More than 70% of non-users felt that they should have access to the net.
• Overall, almost 79% of those questioned said they either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a fundamental right - "whether they currently had access or not."

International bodies such as the United Nations are pushing for universal Internet access. Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News "The right to communicate cannot be ignored, the internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created."

The highest court in France - the Constitutional Council - has recently ruled that the Internet is a "fundamental human right". France is following a tradition that has already been set by Estonia, Greece and Finland in terms of granting Internet access as a fundamental human right.

The flip side to this debate is whether you are being denied a basic human right if you lack access to the Internet. While it's tempting to view the Internet as a luxury, there can be no denying the fact that it can bring about a higher quality of life. It gives people access to information and services and the opportunities that these can bring.

Legal theory specialist Corey Doctorow wrote the following prediction in an article about homeless people and the Internet recently:

• "Here's a prediction: in five years, a UN convention will enshrine network access as a human right (preemptive strike against naysayers: "Human rights" aren't only water, food and shelter, they include such "nonessentials" as free speech, education, and privacy). In ten years, we won't understand how anyone thought it wasn't a human right."

While it's easy to see how the Internet forms an integral part of the lives of those with greater socio-economic status, such as those in the affluent West, what does it mean to those in less developed countries? Surely they have more pressing issues in their lives such as disease and abject poverty? Many countries don't have the technological infrastructure to provide Internet access. In these countries access to the Internet may be seen as either of lesser importance when viewed against the other daily challenges they may face, or not possible due to the lack of technological infrastructure.

Should access to the Internet still be viewed as a fundamental human right in these circumstances? If you face life threatening daily challenges, or live in a country where it's not even available, should it still be considered a fundamental human right? Or to look at the question the other way around, does something stop being a fundamental human right where other human rights may have a greater impact on your life and liberty? Does it stop being a fundamental human right because it's not available?

Does freedom of speech stop being a human right in non democratic countries?

Also a valid point to make; if the Internet is implemented as a fundamental human right, how will it be managed? Can it be managed? If the Government grants access to the Internet for all then the question must be asked – how will it be implemented, paid for and sustained? Will the costs fall back on the tax payer, and if a family does not own a computer does this mean that the Government will also provide the means to use the Internet as well? Would it not be simpler to set up free to use Internet cafes for everyone to have access to? Again, this presents its own problems. The potential logistics of implementing such an idea in the UK seems very problematic.

The answer to the question of whether access to the Internet should be considered a fundamental human right is not a simple one. Instead, it is one that contains many nuances and considerations. It needs to set against the backdrop of global technological progress and political harmony. There needs to be a level playing field whereby access to the Internet across such problematic boundaries is realistic and achievable. So the question is not just should it be considered a fundamental human right, but can it be?