Friday's session was the first of our 'proper' journalism sessions (where we'll actually be looking at newspapers).
From the title, you may think that anyone can pass a Journalism degree because a lot of people read newspapers and listen to a middle class radio station... (which I already listen to - especially Evan Davis' beautiful voice on 'Today').
Chris keeps telling us that reading newspapers is very important and I can see his point; we won't be able to become great journalists if we don't read great journalism.
One person from each seminar group has been given a newspaper to read, I've been given the task of reading 'The Independent', it costs £1 so I don't think I'll be buying it every day. The Indie's sister paper 'i' is only 20p on weekdays, so I will probably buy that most days (to be honest, I think it's better than 'The Independent').
Here is the newspaper jargon given to us on Friday (some of which I already knew from GCSE Media Studies - thanks Mr Delaney!)
Standing head/Headline: This is basically just the article's headline!
Paras: These are the newspaper's columns.
Modular v.s. linear layout: Newspapers have different boxes and sections that a reader can dip in and out of. (TV and Radio programmes are linear as the viewer/listener can't choose what to watch or listen to - although lovers of certain pause and record TV services may dispute this.)
Barkers: These are very small sections usually above the name of the newspaper, these signal to the reader what pages certain news and features articles are on.
Content: This can be split into adverts and editorial. We all know what adverts are, don't we? Editorial is the news articles (but NOT the leading article) - the leading article/leader is COMMENT.
Advertorials: Magazines generally have these, an advertorial are advertising features made to look like articles; Top Gear usually have one or two per issue.
NEWS: This is VERY important for journalists as it is what they're paid to write about! It can be split into scheduled and breaking. Scheduled news is most of the news in newspapers e.g. the European Summit in Brussels last week, because we knew that it would be taking place. Breaking news is news that newspapers don't expect to happen and don't expect to have to print e.g. if Nicholas Sarkozy's plane crashed on his shortness' way to the Euro Summit or events like The Hillsborough Disaster.
Features: These articles include comment, articles and other articles that don't come under the umbrella of news.
TB 2011
Sunday 30 October 2011
Thursday 27 October 2011
Review of WINOL News 19th October 2011 bulletin and meeting Angus Scott.
This is a short review of the WINOL News programme broadcast here on the 19th of October (yes, I know the review is of the programme from over a week ago, but I made notes on it before Wednesday 26th October's show, which you can also watch here.)
The title sequence looked very professional - it reminded me of BBC and ITV local news programmes' titles. The shots of the 'city' are very good and provide a good introduction to the programme and the area it will cover.
The first story covered on the programme was about some current Hampshire Police officers having criminal convictions. The way the story was undcovered sounded similar to how BBC London news gather their information on issues of this type - I was impressed with that. However, I think what let down this story was the reporter Julie, she stood in front of the large screen displaying important information about amounts of cops involved and their convictions. I feel that in news bulletins, the role that Julie plays is very important and in BBC programmes (where they use a big screen to explain things) the person usually stands quite well away from the screen, just so the viewer can see all of the screen.
In the second story, the sound varied a little. The 1st and 3rd time that the reporter spoke, it sounds as if it were on a 'real' news bulletin, however the 2nd time the sound was quite harsh (he was inside at the time and I appreciate how difficult it must be to equalise the sound).
The bulletin had some good things about it though; there were quite a few community based stories, which many news bulletins seem to lack these days. There was also a mix of 'good' and 'bad' news stories, also something that other news bulletins lack.
Before the sports news, there was a slient gap that lasted for almost 5 seconds - the VT probably finished quicker than the presenter expected!
I was especially impressed by the football coverage, being someone who watches football on TV quite a bit, I think I have come to realise what shots are good and which ones are not. The reverse angle shots were very good and one or two got to angles that Match of the Day and Sky couldn't dream of!
However, the rest of the sports news had some issues; first of all, before the story about the retired cricketer Henry Olonga, the presenter Ali left quite a sizeable gap and before the Ice Hockey report, he seems unsure of timing. However, I'm not sure how new he was to presenting and maybe a mix of nerves may have contributed to him leaving gaps. Sorry Ali!
The interviews in the bulletin were very good, the camera angles were just at the correct angle.
The presenter signed off well, which a lot of news presenters seem to struggle with!
Overall it was a very well put together student news bulletin and some of the techincal stuff (especially camera work) was very good, however the editing was quite jumpy in places.
Even after watching two or three WINOL programmes, I am excited about next year and the work we will be doing. Over the next few weeks, I hope to help out on WINOL and gain some experience before next year.
TB 2011
P.S. I went down the Multimedia Centre on Wednesday to see if they were still making this week's programmes - they weren't and had finished for the day. But, I did meet the journalist Angus Scott, even though he works at the University, it was still good to meet a proper journalist (except for Chris and Brian of course!). It was especially good for me as I had seen him on ITV sport programmes before, including football coverage such as Champions League and the World Cup.
WINOL (Winchester News Online) website...
The title sequence looked very professional - it reminded me of BBC and ITV local news programmes' titles. The shots of the 'city' are very good and provide a good introduction to the programme and the area it will cover.
The first story covered on the programme was about some current Hampshire Police officers having criminal convictions. The way the story was undcovered sounded similar to how BBC London news gather their information on issues of this type - I was impressed with that. However, I think what let down this story was the reporter Julie, she stood in front of the large screen displaying important information about amounts of cops involved and their convictions. I feel that in news bulletins, the role that Julie plays is very important and in BBC programmes (where they use a big screen to explain things) the person usually stands quite well away from the screen, just so the viewer can see all of the screen.
In the second story, the sound varied a little. The 1st and 3rd time that the reporter spoke, it sounds as if it were on a 'real' news bulletin, however the 2nd time the sound was quite harsh (he was inside at the time and I appreciate how difficult it must be to equalise the sound).
The bulletin had some good things about it though; there were quite a few community based stories, which many news bulletins seem to lack these days. There was also a mix of 'good' and 'bad' news stories, also something that other news bulletins lack.
Before the sports news, there was a slient gap that lasted for almost 5 seconds - the VT probably finished quicker than the presenter expected!
I was especially impressed by the football coverage, being someone who watches football on TV quite a bit, I think I have come to realise what shots are good and which ones are not. The reverse angle shots were very good and one or two got to angles that Match of the Day and Sky couldn't dream of!
However, the rest of the sports news had some issues; first of all, before the story about the retired cricketer Henry Olonga, the presenter Ali left quite a sizeable gap and before the Ice Hockey report, he seems unsure of timing. However, I'm not sure how new he was to presenting and maybe a mix of nerves may have contributed to him leaving gaps. Sorry Ali!
The interviews in the bulletin were very good, the camera angles were just at the correct angle.
The presenter signed off well, which a lot of news presenters seem to struggle with!
Overall it was a very well put together student news bulletin and some of the techincal stuff (especially camera work) was very good, however the editing was quite jumpy in places.
Even after watching two or three WINOL programmes, I am excited about next year and the work we will be doing. Over the next few weeks, I hope to help out on WINOL and gain some experience before next year.
TB 2011
P.S. I went down the Multimedia Centre on Wednesday to see if they were still making this week's programmes - they weren't and had finished for the day. But, I did meet the journalist Angus Scott, even though he works at the University, it was still good to meet a proper journalist (except for Chris and Brian of course!). It was especially good for me as I had seen him on ITV sport programmes before, including football coverage such as Champions League and the World Cup.
WINOL (Winchester News Online) website...
HCJ - Lecture 3
The topic of the third HCJ lecture was about science. Science is something that I found quite interesting at school, mainly because in Year 8, I had a great teacher. It then sort of fell apart because of two of the teachers that I had for GCSE...you know who your are.
Enough reminiscing and on with the lecture notes.
Ptolemy: His theory was that the Earth is the centre of the universe and everything else revolves around it.
Francis Bacon: Born 1561. He was unfortunate enough to be taught things in lectures that had been taught 100 years before, he rejected the Aristotelian ideas and also condemned the mixing of science and religion. Mixing the two resulted in an obsession with word play and not action - not so different from modern day politics, eh Mr Cameron?
Arguably Bacon's finest work was his book 'The New Organon'. This book directly attacked Aristotle and his theories - especially logic and deduction. The book covered 4 major themes:
1: 'Knowledge is power'.
2: Separate science and religion.
3: Induction - this is a method of acquiring knowledge by reasoning and observation.
4: Science is dynamic.
Mr Bacon died in 1626 from Pneumonia - not that unusual in those days I assume. But he got Pneumonia from stuffing a chicken full of snow to try and see if it would preserve the meat. (Not a comical a death as Empedocles' though!).
Locke (again): He believed that knowledge comes from experience, he was against innateness (Plato's 'thing'). He also thought that God had given mankind the ability to discover knowledge.
Both Bacon and Locke believed that knowledge comes from experience.
Copernicus: He devised a system in which the sun was at the centre of the universe (for some people 'The Sun' is at the centre of their universe...).
Kepler: He used Copernicus' ideas and tried to prove it with experiments. He wrote the book 'The Harmony of the World', in which he discovered a new theory about planetary motion.
Galileo: (He was born on the day of Michelangelo's death, the day of Galileo's death is important because Newton was born on that day. This means that his life links the renaissance to the age of science.)
He was influenced by Kepler's ideas and work.
He perfected an new telescope (the telescope was originally a Dutch invention, it wasn't very good!) Galileo's telescope was considered a true revelation because astronomers could look deep into space - something they were unable to do before. As a result, the power of observation took precedence in science. Whilst using his telescope, he observed these things:
1: Mountains and craters on the moon.
2: The phases of Venus.
3: The Milky Way.
4: A number of heavenly objects and also saw the moons of Jupiter.
After a few years though, people had had enough of Galileo's ramblings and was brought before the Inquisition. He (like many others) was shown some of the torture instruments - he decided that he had no belief and was kept under house arrest under he died.
And finally...Isaac Newton: He wrote 'Principia' - this was a mathematical demonstration of Kepler's and Copernicus' ideas.
He defined 'The Clockwork Universe' - he said that the world was ordered and 'knowable'.
After the work of Newton, Aristotelian ideas were discredited and undermined (especially his physics).
TB 2011
Enough reminiscing and on with the lecture notes.
Ptolemy: His theory was that the Earth is the centre of the universe and everything else revolves around it.
Francis Bacon: Born 1561. He was unfortunate enough to be taught things in lectures that had been taught 100 years before, he rejected the Aristotelian ideas and also condemned the mixing of science and religion. Mixing the two resulted in an obsession with word play and not action - not so different from modern day politics, eh Mr Cameron?
Arguably Bacon's finest work was his book 'The New Organon'. This book directly attacked Aristotle and his theories - especially logic and deduction. The book covered 4 major themes:
1: 'Knowledge is power'.
2: Separate science and religion.
3: Induction - this is a method of acquiring knowledge by reasoning and observation.
4: Science is dynamic.
Mr Bacon died in 1626 from Pneumonia - not that unusual in those days I assume. But he got Pneumonia from stuffing a chicken full of snow to try and see if it would preserve the meat. (Not a comical a death as Empedocles' though!).
Locke (again): He believed that knowledge comes from experience, he was against innateness (Plato's 'thing'). He also thought that God had given mankind the ability to discover knowledge.
Both Bacon and Locke believed that knowledge comes from experience.
Copernicus: He devised a system in which the sun was at the centre of the universe (for some people 'The Sun' is at the centre of their universe...).
Kepler: He used Copernicus' ideas and tried to prove it with experiments. He wrote the book 'The Harmony of the World', in which he discovered a new theory about planetary motion.
Galileo: (He was born on the day of Michelangelo's death, the day of Galileo's death is important because Newton was born on that day. This means that his life links the renaissance to the age of science.)
He was influenced by Kepler's ideas and work.
He perfected an new telescope (the telescope was originally a Dutch invention, it wasn't very good!) Galileo's telescope was considered a true revelation because astronomers could look deep into space - something they were unable to do before. As a result, the power of observation took precedence in science. Whilst using his telescope, he observed these things:
1: Mountains and craters on the moon.
2: The phases of Venus.
3: The Milky Way.
4: A number of heavenly objects and also saw the moons of Jupiter.
After a few years though, people had had enough of Galileo's ramblings and was brought before the Inquisition. He (like many others) was shown some of the torture instruments - he decided that he had no belief and was kept under house arrest under he died.
And finally...Isaac Newton: He wrote 'Principia' - this was a mathematical demonstration of Kepler's and Copernicus' ideas.
He defined 'The Clockwork Universe' - he said that the world was ordered and 'knowable'.
After the work of Newton, Aristotelian ideas were discredited and undermined (especially his physics).
TB 2011
Wednesday 26 October 2011
Media Law - Lecture 5. Confidentiality.
Yesterday's Media Law lecture was about confidentiality (basically 'secrets') and privacy.
Section 8 of the Human Rights Act is based on the EU Human Rights Convention. Section 8 entitles people to have 'enjoyment of a normal family life' - breaches of this can include: taking images of you on your private land (from a long distance) and riding on a motorbike taking pictures of you in your car etc etc...
Section 8 also means that TV programmes can no longer use 'general views' or 'GVs' of the general public to pad out the programme, (my condolences go out to 'The One Show') because you can sue if you are shown in one of these GVs because there is a very high chance that the programme makers/companies wouldn't have asked permission from every single person shown in the shot - this would be almost impossible anyway!
There are 3 categories that confidentiality laws cover:
Commercial: This covers business to business transactions and 'dealings', investigative reporting and 'solid' news reporting.
State: This is quite an important one as it covers the Official Secrets Act, which all civil servants have to sign, breaching this can result in a 10 year jail sentence and the book being thrown at you - very hard.
Private: Very important for journalists, it covers Section 8 of the Human Rights Act, which gives people the right to have a normal family life and to not have that disrupted.
Confidentiality (in a bit more detail).
Due to me having the right of confidentiality whilst with a doctor, I can tell him/her whatever I like about all the bad things that I have done because he/she has to keep in line with 'patient confidentiality' and is also in a major position of trust, this also applies to Catholic confessions. You can tell the priest everything about the crimes you have committed and he won't tell tales on you because...you are covered by confidentiality.
This does not apply to University lecturers, if I tell Chris or Brian about all the crimes I have committed, then they have no obligation to keep that private.
Another big point about confidentiality also crosses over with defamation. The 4 points to prove whether a statement is defamatory or not also apply in confidentiality BUT whereas in defamation, only 1 of the 4 points has to be proved to 'tend to', confidentiality requires all 4 points to be proved.
With confidentiality, you also have to prove that you were harmed, unlike in defamation where you just have to show that the statement 'tends to' harm you. A person is in breach of confidence (if someone passes on information which:
1: has the necessary 'quality of confidence' - the information must be important and not already known.
AND
2: it was provided in circumstances 'imposing an obligation' - this means that a reasonable person would think that it would be kept secret e.g. a one on one consultation with someone like a doctor.
AND
3: there was no permission from the person to pass on the information
AND
4: 'detriment' - this is likely to be caused by the person who gave in the information. The person who's secret is it must prove that it will hurt them in some way e.g. being sacked (due to what the secret reveals)
The Princess Caroline case: Princess Caroline expected that she would have privacy under Section 8, she sued magazines for printing pictures of her in a restaurant with a male friend - these pictures were taken at long distance. She was sat right at the back of the restaurant, so she obviously didn't want to be seen!
A publication can be sued if pictures are published without consent. However, taking pictures can come at a high price, 'Hello!' and 'OK!' magazines sometimes have bidding wars with each other to get the rights to print pictures (almost all of the time the pictures are of celebrity weddings!). Talking of celeb mags...
The Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas wedding case: CZJ and Michael Douglas sued 'Hello!' magazine in 2003 for printing pictures that 'OK!' magazine had the exclusive rights to publish. 'OK!' got over £1 million in damages from 'Hello!' and Cathy Zeta Jones and Mickey Douglas were only awarded just over £14,000. Not bad money for looking at 'Hello!' magazine, I might just try that... (but of course I'm a student, so I can't afford luxuries) :) And why would anyone want to buy 'Hello!' or 'OK!'?
Another major case involved the journalist Bill Goodwin. He leaked confidential information whilst reporting for 'The Engineer' magazine and was ordered to disclose his source - not sauce. He refused to do so and was fined, he kept refusing to disclose the source and kept getting fined. He then went to the senior law lords to get the ruling overturned, it was refused. He then went to the EU Court of Human Rights and won his case. He must have been desperate to keep the source undisclosed!
Disclosing a source is important for a journalist because the security/safety of the source can't be guaranteed. This can also impact on other people disclosing information that could be in the public interest, they may fear disclosing it to a journalist because of the potential consequences.
Wow, this has taken me longer than expected...
TB 2011
Section 8 of the Human Rights Act is based on the EU Human Rights Convention. Section 8 entitles people to have 'enjoyment of a normal family life' - breaches of this can include: taking images of you on your private land (from a long distance) and riding on a motorbike taking pictures of you in your car etc etc...
Section 8 also means that TV programmes can no longer use 'general views' or 'GVs' of the general public to pad out the programme, (my condolences go out to 'The One Show') because you can sue if you are shown in one of these GVs because there is a very high chance that the programme makers/companies wouldn't have asked permission from every single person shown in the shot - this would be almost impossible anyway!
There are 3 categories that confidentiality laws cover:
Commercial: This covers business to business transactions and 'dealings', investigative reporting and 'solid' news reporting.
State: This is quite an important one as it covers the Official Secrets Act, which all civil servants have to sign, breaching this can result in a 10 year jail sentence and the book being thrown at you - very hard.
Private: Very important for journalists, it covers Section 8 of the Human Rights Act, which gives people the right to have a normal family life and to not have that disrupted.
Confidentiality (in a bit more detail).
Due to me having the right of confidentiality whilst with a doctor, I can tell him/her whatever I like about all the bad things that I have done because he/she has to keep in line with 'patient confidentiality' and is also in a major position of trust, this also applies to Catholic confessions. You can tell the priest everything about the crimes you have committed and he won't tell tales on you because...you are covered by confidentiality.
This does not apply to University lecturers, if I tell Chris or Brian about all the crimes I have committed, then they have no obligation to keep that private.
Another big point about confidentiality also crosses over with defamation. The 4 points to prove whether a statement is defamatory or not also apply in confidentiality BUT whereas in defamation, only 1 of the 4 points has to be proved to 'tend to', confidentiality requires all 4 points to be proved.
With confidentiality, you also have to prove that you were harmed, unlike in defamation where you just have to show that the statement 'tends to' harm you. A person is in breach of confidence (if someone passes on information which:
1: has the necessary 'quality of confidence' - the information must be important and not already known.
AND
2: it was provided in circumstances 'imposing an obligation' - this means that a reasonable person would think that it would be kept secret e.g. a one on one consultation with someone like a doctor.
AND
3: there was no permission from the person to pass on the information
AND
4: 'detriment' - this is likely to be caused by the person who gave in the information. The person who's secret is it must prove that it will hurt them in some way e.g. being sacked (due to what the secret reveals)
The Princess Caroline case: Princess Caroline expected that she would have privacy under Section 8, she sued magazines for printing pictures of her in a restaurant with a male friend - these pictures were taken at long distance. She was sat right at the back of the restaurant, so she obviously didn't want to be seen!
A publication can be sued if pictures are published without consent. However, taking pictures can come at a high price, 'Hello!' and 'OK!' magazines sometimes have bidding wars with each other to get the rights to print pictures (almost all of the time the pictures are of celebrity weddings!). Talking of celeb mags...
The Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas wedding case: CZJ and Michael Douglas sued 'Hello!' magazine in 2003 for printing pictures that 'OK!' magazine had the exclusive rights to publish. 'OK!' got over £1 million in damages from 'Hello!' and Cathy Zeta Jones and Mickey Douglas were only awarded just over £14,000. Not bad money for looking at 'Hello!' magazine, I might just try that... (but of course I'm a student, so I can't afford luxuries) :) And why would anyone want to buy 'Hello!' or 'OK!'?
Another major case involved the journalist Bill Goodwin. He leaked confidential information whilst reporting for 'The Engineer' magazine and was ordered to disclose his source - not sauce. He refused to do so and was fined, he kept refusing to disclose the source and kept getting fined. He then went to the senior law lords to get the ruling overturned, it was refused. He then went to the EU Court of Human Rights and won his case. He must have been desperate to keep the source undisclosed!
Disclosing a source is important for a journalist because the security/safety of the source can't be guaranteed. This can also impact on other people disclosing information that could be in the public interest, they may fear disclosing it to a journalist because of the potential consequences.
Wow, this has taken me longer than expected...
TB 2011
Sunday 23 October 2011
Radio Piece for Annette Rizzo (1st draft).
This is the Radio Piece that Annette set us - as F1 is quite a specialist sport/topic many of might not have no real clue who this guy is and/or his story. Here goes...
No one could have predicted Sebastian Vettel’s rise to the top of Formula 1. He's gone from being BMW's test and reserve driver to double World Champion in just 6 years.
It only took him four full seasons of F1 racing to take his place on the list of two time Formula 1 World Champions, alongside names like Jim Clark and Mika Hakkinen. Not even Adrian Newey could have designed that.
From an early age, it was clear that Sebastian would do great things in motor racing. In 2004, he won 18 out of 20 races in the competitive German Formula BMW Championship. As he moved up through the Formulas he continued to impress. As a result, in 2007 he was called up by the BMW F1 team to replace Robert Kubica for the American Grand Prix, where he finished a very impressive eighth and became the sport's youngest ever point scorer.
Vettel completed his first full Formula 1 season in 2008 with Toro Rosso. He won his first race at Monza and in doing so, he became the youngest ever Grand Prix winner.
The next season, Vettel moved to Toro Rosso's sister team Red Bull and won four races.
He started 2010 by putting his car on pole position for the first race, but could only finish fourth. He went on to win 5 races, including the last race of the season in Abu Dhabi, where he clinched the title by four points.
His good form continued into 2011, where he finished in the top 2 for 9 consecutive races. By then it was clear who was going to win the Championship. He proved just how worthy he was of winning the 2011 crown by finishing in the top three six times in a row. He won the 2011 World Championship at the Japanese Grand Prix, finishing third. In the process, he became the youngest double World Champion, as well as the youngest back to back champion.
If Red Bull can keep producing race winning cars, there is no doubt that Vettel will continue to leave his rivals for dust. If they can take advantage of the new regulations that come into force in 2014, I have no doubt that Red Bull and Sebastian Vettel will become the dominant forces in Formula 1 for the foreseeable future.
Could he overtake his compatriot Michael Schumacher's seven World Championship wins and become one of the true legends of Formula 1?
No one could have predicted Sebastian Vettel’s rise to the top of Formula 1. He's gone from being BMW's test and reserve driver to double World Champion in just 6 years.
It only took him four full seasons of F1 racing to take his place on the list of two time Formula 1 World Champions, alongside names like Jim Clark and Mika Hakkinen. Not even Adrian Newey could have designed that.
From an early age, it was clear that Sebastian would do great things in motor racing. In 2004, he won 18 out of 20 races in the competitive German Formula BMW Championship. As he moved up through the Formulas he continued to impress. As a result, in 2007 he was called up by the BMW F1 team to replace Robert Kubica for the American Grand Prix, where he finished a very impressive eighth and became the sport's youngest ever point scorer.
Vettel completed his first full Formula 1 season in 2008 with Toro Rosso. He won his first race at Monza and in doing so, he became the youngest ever Grand Prix winner.
The next season, Vettel moved to Toro Rosso's sister team Red Bull and won four races.
He started 2010 by putting his car on pole position for the first race, but could only finish fourth. He went on to win 5 races, including the last race of the season in Abu Dhabi, where he clinched the title by four points.
His good form continued into 2011, where he finished in the top 2 for 9 consecutive races. By then it was clear who was going to win the Championship. He proved just how worthy he was of winning the 2011 crown by finishing in the top three six times in a row. He won the 2011 World Championship at the Japanese Grand Prix, finishing third. In the process, he became the youngest double World Champion, as well as the youngest back to back champion.
If Red Bull can keep producing race winning cars, there is no doubt that Vettel will continue to leave his rivals for dust. If they can take advantage of the new regulations that come into force in 2014, I have no doubt that Red Bull and Sebastian Vettel will become the dominant forces in Formula 1 for the foreseeable future.
Could he overtake his compatriot Michael Schumacher's seven World Championship wins and become one of the true legends of Formula 1?
Wednesday 19 October 2011
HCJ - Seminar 2.
Most of Nadine's seminar paper covered what I had read and (mostly) understood e.g. Hobbes and Locke, but just like the previous seminar, it also helped me with some of the more challenging aspects of it.
I hadn't made any notes on the guy called Savonarola, so I was able to acquire some knowledge on him, his story also goes some way to explaining why Machiavelli actually wrote 'The Prince'. Savonarola was anti - renaissance and organised 'The Bonfire of the Vanities' - this was where his followers collected every item that he deemed to be 'sinful' or might lead to sin e.g. art, books, fine clothes and musical instruments, they then burnt them. Nice. As you can imagine, old Sav wasn't the most well liked fellow after his little stunt and was executed a year or so later.
Savonarola wasn't just anti - renaissance, he was against the Medici family - a very important and influential family in the renaissance period in Italy who loved fine arts and books. Machiavelli, on the other hand wanted a job with the Medicis, so he wrote 'The Prince' mainly to please the Medicis. The book was a 'how-to guide' for rulers. It explained some rules for war, for example; always support the weaker side because at then end of the war, you will be the dominant force and the armed prophets win, the unarmed ones always fail. It also said that rulers should seem to be virtuous and religious and keep politics and ethics separate. He also advocated free competition to be the ruler and that to keep the power, a ruler must keep the government and the people happy.
Machiavelli was also a strong believer in virtue - getting what you want, by whatever means.
During the seminar, we discussed the ideas surrounding the question "Would you would kill someone if they were pointing a gun in your face?". My un-philosophical view is yes, if you feel that your life is in significant danger, you can kill them. Let me give you the example of Cecil Coley, his flower shop was raided by 4 (suspected) armed robbers whilst he was there, Coley acted to defend himself and the shop (his property) by stabbing one of the (suspected) robbers. Coley was arrested on suspicion of murder but was told by the CPS that he "acted lawfully to defend his shop" and rightfully so.
Here comes some philosophy...in Hobbes' view, if you feel their is eminent danger to you life, you have the right to kill him/her. You must pre-empt them doing you or your property harm.
According to Hobbes and his 'state of nature', we have a problem with perceiving danger and that everyone sees risk differently - this is a potential problem with his 'right to kill' idea; if everyone perceives the danger of a man with a gun walking towards them [who is 100 metres away] differently, then everyone's reaction will be different and they may interrupt the situation incorrectly and make the wrong decision.
Locke holds a similar view - (in Locke's opinion, your life and your property are the same - this is akin to capitalism), he believed that you could kill someone who you think poses significant danger to your life and/or property. Locke also believed that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and property.
TB 2011
I hadn't made any notes on the guy called Savonarola, so I was able to acquire some knowledge on him, his story also goes some way to explaining why Machiavelli actually wrote 'The Prince'. Savonarola was anti - renaissance and organised 'The Bonfire of the Vanities' - this was where his followers collected every item that he deemed to be 'sinful' or might lead to sin e.g. art, books, fine clothes and musical instruments, they then burnt them. Nice. As you can imagine, old Sav wasn't the most well liked fellow after his little stunt and was executed a year or so later.
Savonarola wasn't just anti - renaissance, he was against the Medici family - a very important and influential family in the renaissance period in Italy who loved fine arts and books. Machiavelli, on the other hand wanted a job with the Medicis, so he wrote 'The Prince' mainly to please the Medicis. The book was a 'how-to guide' for rulers. It explained some rules for war, for example; always support the weaker side because at then end of the war, you will be the dominant force and the armed prophets win, the unarmed ones always fail. It also said that rulers should seem to be virtuous and religious and keep politics and ethics separate. He also advocated free competition to be the ruler and that to keep the power, a ruler must keep the government and the people happy.
Machiavelli was also a strong believer in virtue - getting what you want, by whatever means.
During the seminar, we discussed the ideas surrounding the question "Would you would kill someone if they were pointing a gun in your face?". My un-philosophical view is yes, if you feel that your life is in significant danger, you can kill them. Let me give you the example of Cecil Coley, his flower shop was raided by 4 (suspected) armed robbers whilst he was there, Coley acted to defend himself and the shop (his property) by stabbing one of the (suspected) robbers. Coley was arrested on suspicion of murder but was told by the CPS that he "acted lawfully to defend his shop" and rightfully so.
Here comes some philosophy...in Hobbes' view, if you feel their is eminent danger to you life, you have the right to kill him/her. You must pre-empt them doing you or your property harm.
According to Hobbes and his 'state of nature', we have a problem with perceiving danger and that everyone sees risk differently - this is a potential problem with his 'right to kill' idea; if everyone perceives the danger of a man with a gun walking towards them [who is 100 metres away] differently, then everyone's reaction will be different and they may interrupt the situation incorrectly and make the wrong decision.
Locke holds a similar view - (in Locke's opinion, your life and your property are the same - this is akin to capitalism), he believed that you could kill someone who you think poses significant danger to your life and/or property. Locke also believed that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and property.
TB 2011
Tuesday 18 October 2011
Media Law - Lecture 4. Qualified Privilege.
I wrote a bit about QP in my last Media Law post, but here's some more, just for you.
Qualified Privilege is a very important defence for journalists because it grants them the privilege to say pretty much what they like about someone as long as it's in the public interest e.g. the Evra and Suarez racism row. As 'racism' is against the law (in Chris Horrie's opinion, it shouldn't be) it is deemed to be in the public interest, just as reporting the details of a murder case is in the PI.
The PCC code should shed some more light on this: PCC Editor's Code. The main points is raises about a story being in the public interest are: Does it expose a crime? Does it expose a health risk? Does it expose hypocrisy and/or lying?
If an article invokes public interest, then the PCC requires editors to prove how the PI was served and then the PCC will decide to what extent the article actually serves the PI, or whether it's just idle tittle tattle that only a handful of people (mainly celebrity obsessed fools) are interested in.
However, a Journalist can have his/her QP taken away if he/she doesn't give both sides of the argument e.g. prosecution and defence. The journalist's story must be in the first edition of the newspaper/magazine and the first TV bulletin possible. This means that I can't hold on to my story for ages and then release it when it will have maximum impact, I have to report it almost straight away. Ideally, a journalist should submit their story from the court. A journalist mustn't show malice to one side or the other and their story must have NO errors.
To maintain my QP, my story must be FAST, ACCURATE AND FAIR.
A journalist also has QP at public events/meetings e.g. local govt meetings, pressure group meetings and AGMs of companies. Did you know that a sports press conference is a public meeting?
Also, if you have met all 10 points of the 'Reynolds Test' (see below) you may have the QP to make defamatory claims, without having to quote someone with Absolute Privilege.
The Reynolds Test
This is a 10 point list of 'responsible journalism' and how to deliver a quality piece of journalism.
1. The seriousness of the allegation - more serious cases mean that more protection will be applied to the story.
2. The nature of the info - includes whether the matter is of public concern.
3. The source of the info - your information must be 'ethically sourced', rather like the food at the Uni canteen.
4. How you verified a person's story (or version of events)
5. The status of the info - whether it is old and (for example) a case of medical negligence had been previously dismissed by an internal enquiry.
6. The urgency of the matter e.g. if the story is about a top politician being corrupt and the general election is soon, the story must be published very quickly.
7. If there is any comment from the claimant.
8. Getting the gist of the claimant's side of the story in your article.
9. The article's tone - if you imply that X is corrupt, this is more likely to be protected than if you say directly "X is corrupt", as this could be a defamatory statement.
10. The circumstances of the publication - this is similar to point 6.
Some important cases involving the Reynolds defence
The Galloway case - The Daily Torygraph published some very serious (defamatory) allegations about George Galloway, for which they had no proof of, no defence of comment or justification. The journalist also failed the '10 point test'. Galloway was awarded £150,000.
The Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel v.s. Wall Street Journal case - The WSJ printed an article in 2005 that basically said that MALJ was financing terrorism. The allegations couldn't be proved, but the WSJ thought that the Reynolds defence would cover them - it didn't. However Lord Phillips (top law guy) didn't agree.
TB 2011
Qualified Privilege is a very important defence for journalists because it grants them the privilege to say pretty much what they like about someone as long as it's in the public interest e.g. the Evra and Suarez racism row. As 'racism' is against the law (in Chris Horrie's opinion, it shouldn't be) it is deemed to be in the public interest, just as reporting the details of a murder case is in the PI.
The PCC code should shed some more light on this: PCC Editor's Code. The main points is raises about a story being in the public interest are: Does it expose a crime? Does it expose a health risk? Does it expose hypocrisy and/or lying?
If an article invokes public interest, then the PCC requires editors to prove how the PI was served and then the PCC will decide to what extent the article actually serves the PI, or whether it's just idle tittle tattle that only a handful of people (mainly celebrity obsessed fools) are interested in.
However, a Journalist can have his/her QP taken away if he/she doesn't give both sides of the argument e.g. prosecution and defence. The journalist's story must be in the first edition of the newspaper/magazine and the first TV bulletin possible. This means that I can't hold on to my story for ages and then release it when it will have maximum impact, I have to report it almost straight away. Ideally, a journalist should submit their story from the court. A journalist mustn't show malice to one side or the other and their story must have NO errors.
To maintain my QP, my story must be FAST, ACCURATE AND FAIR.
A journalist also has QP at public events/meetings e.g. local govt meetings, pressure group meetings and AGMs of companies. Did you know that a sports press conference is a public meeting?
Also, if you have met all 10 points of the 'Reynolds Test' (see below) you may have the QP to make defamatory claims, without having to quote someone with Absolute Privilege.
The Reynolds Test
This is a 10 point list of 'responsible journalism' and how to deliver a quality piece of journalism.
1. The seriousness of the allegation - more serious cases mean that more protection will be applied to the story.
2. The nature of the info - includes whether the matter is of public concern.
3. The source of the info - your information must be 'ethically sourced', rather like the food at the Uni canteen.
4. How you verified a person's story (or version of events)
5. The status of the info - whether it is old and (for example) a case of medical negligence had been previously dismissed by an internal enquiry.
6. The urgency of the matter e.g. if the story is about a top politician being corrupt and the general election is soon, the story must be published very quickly.
7. If there is any comment from the claimant.
8. Getting the gist of the claimant's side of the story in your article.
9. The article's tone - if you imply that X is corrupt, this is more likely to be protected than if you say directly "X is corrupt", as this could be a defamatory statement.
10. The circumstances of the publication - this is similar to point 6.
Some important cases involving the Reynolds defence
The Galloway case - The Daily Torygraph published some very serious (defamatory) allegations about George Galloway, for which they had no proof of, no defence of comment or justification. The journalist also failed the '10 point test'. Galloway was awarded £150,000.
The Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel v.s. Wall Street Journal case - The WSJ printed an article in 2005 that basically said that MALJ was financing terrorism. The allegations couldn't be proved, but the WSJ thought that the Reynolds defence would cover them - it didn't. However Lord Phillips (top law guy) didn't agree.
TB 2011
Saturday 15 October 2011
Hobbes's Leviathan, or is it Hobbes' Leviathan?
Whilst reading through chapter 8 of Book 3 of HWP, I think I found quite a major contradiction (please correct me if I am wrong!).
One of Hobbes' major ideas is that of a covenant that exists in society, it is not a covenant between the people and the ruling power to obey the law; it is a covenant made by the people with each other to obey the ruling power as the majority shall choose. When the people have chosen, they have no political power or freedom. When the government is chosen, the citizens lose all their rights - except those which the government says they can have. This is where I feel Hobbes' most important idea is in this chapter: "THERE IS NO RIGHT OF REBELLION", this is because the ruler is not bound a contract or covenant (also due to the people having previously agreed a covenant between themselves and not with the ruler).
Hobbes also talks about the idea of men behaving like bees or ants; where the men don't compete, they don't use reason to criticise the government and they don't desire to have honour over the others.
Therefore, they have no real control over what they do - because if bees don't do what they're supposed to do, the hive system may collapse and enter a state of anarchy (which Hobbes seems to be obsessed with).
However, later on in this chapter it talks about Hobbes' thoughts on the need for liberty and describes it as a necessity - this view surely contradicts his previous views of the covenant and the citizens having no rights. Hobbes seems to contradict himself again; he implies that he believes in democracy - but if the covenant exists, there is no democracy or freedom.
I'll leave you to mull over that one...
On a lighter note: if any of you have heard of or watched the TV show 'Dynamo: Magician Impossible', you will know how great some of his tricks are, if you haven't watched it, here is the link to the first part of the first episode on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MUTmHut-Ow
I suggest you watch the rest of episode 1 and the other 3 episodes - he is truly amazing.
TB 2011
One of Hobbes' major ideas is that of a covenant that exists in society, it is not a covenant between the people and the ruling power to obey the law; it is a covenant made by the people with each other to obey the ruling power as the majority shall choose. When the people have chosen, they have no political power or freedom. When the government is chosen, the citizens lose all their rights - except those which the government says they can have. This is where I feel Hobbes' most important idea is in this chapter: "THERE IS NO RIGHT OF REBELLION", this is because the ruler is not bound a contract or covenant (also due to the people having previously agreed a covenant between themselves and not with the ruler).
Hobbes also talks about the idea of men behaving like bees or ants; where the men don't compete, they don't use reason to criticise the government and they don't desire to have honour over the others.
Therefore, they have no real control over what they do - because if bees don't do what they're supposed to do, the hive system may collapse and enter a state of anarchy (which Hobbes seems to be obsessed with).
However, later on in this chapter it talks about Hobbes' thoughts on the need for liberty and describes it as a necessity - this view surely contradicts his previous views of the covenant and the citizens having no rights. Hobbes seems to contradict himself again; he implies that he believes in democracy - but if the covenant exists, there is no democracy or freedom.
I'll leave you to mull over that one...
On a lighter note: if any of you have heard of or watched the TV show 'Dynamo: Magician Impossible', you will know how great some of his tricks are, if you haven't watched it, here is the link to the first part of the first episode on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MUTmHut-Ow
I suggest you watch the rest of episode 1 and the other 3 episodes - he is truly amazing.
TB 2011
Thursday 13 October 2011
What makes a good journo?
A good journalist is dedicated to the story he or she has to write, passionate about the subject matter and must give 100% all the time. Their English must be perfect otherwise, the readers will not be able to understand what the journalist is saying. They must write accurately and give all the facts that he or she is able to give. They must not print lies or incorrect facts otherwise this may damage their reputation and may also damage their career. A journalist must also have a thorough knowledge of news and current affairs across all topics, because this will enable him or her to write about any topic, whether it be political, social or criminal. Finally, a journalist must provide both sides of the argument and not doing this will only give the readers one point of view. A journalist’s story must be fast, accurate and fair.
TB 2011
TB 2011
Tuesday 11 October 2011
HCJ - Lecture 2
"Why should I obey the law?"
This is a question raised in the lecture today and a question that I have asked myself before, most recently whilst the riots were taking place in the summer. I believe that one of the main reasons why most people obey the law is because of fear, the fear of what will happen if they break the law. Obviously, no one particularly wants to go to prison (unless you get treated like Mr Bridger), but why don't people drive at 15 or 20 mph faster all the time and run the risk of getting a fine from PC Plod? All I can put it down to is fear. They're scared of being caught, I'm not condoning speeding, but I have never understood why most people seem to follow the speed limits.
It's not just speeding, it other things like shoplifting and breaking and entering (like we saw in the summer), why don't we see people breaking into shops and nicking shoes or TVs all the time? In this day and age, if you want something, you get it. So why haven't we seen rioting and looting like that before? Fear.
Here's some philosophy to explain this.
Plato's Crito
Coming back to Socrates' death, his friend Crito tried to persuade him to escape or to bribe the prison guards.
Socrates introduced the idea of a covenant or a contract between him (as a citizen) and the state. He thought that you implicitly agree to following the laws if you're part of society - if you take a advantage of what society offers, you have to accept society's consequences if you do something illegal. He also said that if you break the law, then you are trying to destroy society. Then what happens if everyone did it?
Social Contract and Hobbes
'The Leviathan' by Hobbes - a monster of unstoppable power that was the ruler of the military and religion.
Hobbes believed that we are at constant war and it is all versus all. "No arts, no letters, no society...continual fear...life of man; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
The state is explicitly a war machine - organised for war against subjects who resist the law or for war against other states. Hobbes sets limits on the sovereign's power.
Locke - Treatise of Government.
First treatise - it attacks the concept of 'Divine Right of Kings' - this is the doctrine that states that kings get their power/authority from God.
This first treatise also says that God gave Adam the right to rule.
Second treatise - everyone enjoys freedom but obey the natural laws - these are laws that we know intuitively e.g. it is wrong to kill another person.
Locke proposed his ideas of government (by consent): laws keep the government away and at arms length but they can interfere when they have to e.g. when a law is broken.
Taxes couldn't be levied if the people didn't consent - that would be great now!
Citizens could rebel; if the government didn't respect law.
Rousseau (just jumped about 100 years!)
He talked about 'the conflict between obedience to the state and freedom'.
He also said that people have to be part of the legislature of society if they want to be part of society (similar to Socrates).
In short; Hobbes wrote about 'the collapse of society/state'.
Locke wrote about 'the collaborative state'.
Rousseau wrote about 'the state of freedom'.
Plato's Republic - 3 main ideas (I think Plato could either be my friend or enemy after this semester!)
The Cave - explained here
Utopian World - he said that there are actually two worlds, this world, which is not perfect and the perfect world. Here is an example: the chair I am sitting on is just a shadow (or form) in this imperfect world, but in the perfect world - the chair is the real deal, the real McCoy. However, the 'shadow' chair is just a replica of the one in the perfect world.
The Soul - reason, spirit and desire.
Reason - we know the about the forms etc...
Spirit - this is courage, aggression and ferocity
Desire - cravings - one desire leads to another.
Plato figured that if there were 3 parts to the soul, there must be 3 types of states:
Spirit - an aggressive and military driven society.
Desire - a democratic society obsessed with money. It included everyone who wasn't philosophical or military minded.
Reason - dominated by reasoning and philosophy. This is the perfect world.
Machiavelli - started the concept of political science.
'How do we get power?'
Wrote the book 'The Prince'.
He set out some 'rules':
- In conflict, support the weaker side because when the war is over you will
be the dominant force.
- Centralised regimes are hard to break down, but are easy to keep hold of when you do break one down.
- Armed prophets win, unarmed one always fail.
- 'Cruelty versus clemency' - If clemency leads to lawlessness, cruelty is inevitable.
- Don't take a person's property, but kill their family. 'People forget the loss of family quicker than the loss of their inheritance'.
TB 2011
This is a question raised in the lecture today and a question that I have asked myself before, most recently whilst the riots were taking place in the summer. I believe that one of the main reasons why most people obey the law is because of fear, the fear of what will happen if they break the law. Obviously, no one particularly wants to go to prison (unless you get treated like Mr Bridger), but why don't people drive at 15 or 20 mph faster all the time and run the risk of getting a fine from PC Plod? All I can put it down to is fear. They're scared of being caught, I'm not condoning speeding, but I have never understood why most people seem to follow the speed limits.
It's not just speeding, it other things like shoplifting and breaking and entering (like we saw in the summer), why don't we see people breaking into shops and nicking shoes or TVs all the time? In this day and age, if you want something, you get it. So why haven't we seen rioting and looting like that before? Fear.
Here's some philosophy to explain this.
Plato's Crito
Coming back to Socrates' death, his friend Crito tried to persuade him to escape or to bribe the prison guards.
Socrates introduced the idea of a covenant or a contract between him (as a citizen) and the state. He thought that you implicitly agree to following the laws if you're part of society - if you take a advantage of what society offers, you have to accept society's consequences if you do something illegal. He also said that if you break the law, then you are trying to destroy society. Then what happens if everyone did it?
Social Contract and Hobbes
'The Leviathan' by Hobbes - a monster of unstoppable power that was the ruler of the military and religion.
Hobbes believed that we are at constant war and it is all versus all. "No arts, no letters, no society...continual fear...life of man; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
The state is explicitly a war machine - organised for war against subjects who resist the law or for war against other states. Hobbes sets limits on the sovereign's power.
Locke - Treatise of Government.
First treatise - it attacks the concept of 'Divine Right of Kings' - this is the doctrine that states that kings get their power/authority from God.
This first treatise also says that God gave Adam the right to rule.
Second treatise - everyone enjoys freedom but obey the natural laws - these are laws that we know intuitively e.g. it is wrong to kill another person.
Locke proposed his ideas of government (by consent): laws keep the government away and at arms length but they can interfere when they have to e.g. when a law is broken.
Taxes couldn't be levied if the people didn't consent - that would be great now!
Citizens could rebel; if the government didn't respect law.
Rousseau (just jumped about 100 years!)
He talked about 'the conflict between obedience to the state and freedom'.
He also said that people have to be part of the legislature of society if they want to be part of society (similar to Socrates).
In short; Hobbes wrote about 'the collapse of society/state'.
Locke wrote about 'the collaborative state'.
Rousseau wrote about 'the state of freedom'.
Plato's Republic - 3 main ideas (I think Plato could either be my friend or enemy after this semester!)
The Cave - explained here
Utopian World - he said that there are actually two worlds, this world, which is not perfect and the perfect world. Here is an example: the chair I am sitting on is just a shadow (or form) in this imperfect world, but in the perfect world - the chair is the real deal, the real McCoy. However, the 'shadow' chair is just a replica of the one in the perfect world.
The Soul - reason, spirit and desire.
Reason - we know the about the forms etc...
Spirit - this is courage, aggression and ferocity
Desire - cravings - one desire leads to another.
Plato figured that if there were 3 parts to the soul, there must be 3 types of states:
Spirit - an aggressive and military driven society.
Desire - a democratic society obsessed with money. It included everyone who wasn't philosophical or military minded.
Reason - dominated by reasoning and philosophy. This is the perfect world.
Machiavelli - started the concept of political science.
'How do we get power?'
Wrote the book 'The Prince'.
He set out some 'rules':
- In conflict, support the weaker side because when the war is over you will
be the dominant force.
- Centralised regimes are hard to break down, but are easy to keep hold of when you do break one down.
- Armed prophets win, unarmed one always fail.
- 'Cruelty versus clemency' - If clemency leads to lawlessness, cruelty is inevitable.
- Don't take a person's property, but kill their family. 'People forget the loss of family quicker than the loss of their inheritance'.
TB 2011
Media Law - Lecture 3. Defamation.
Defamation can be split into two categories: libel (very important for journalists) and slander (not so important for journalists).
Libel is concerned with three important requirements:
The statement made must be defamatory. The statement MUST tend to do one of these 4 things:
expose the person to hatred, ridicule or contempt, shun the person or make people avoid him/her, discredit the person or lower them in the eyes of 'right thinking people'.
The publication must be in a permanent form e.g. a newspaper and even on radio.
It must identify a certain person e.g. if I make the statement "All Americans are stupid hicks", an American man (however un-hick like he may be) cannot sue me for libel because I didn't identify him personally.
This brings me on to what defamation doesn't cover: it doesn't affect feelings e.g. if an American feels hurt by me calling all Americans "stupid hicks". Defamation doesn't affect comment as long as the comment is your honest opinion e.g an article in The Sun today about Theresa May, where the fashion 'guru' Mary Portas and The Sun journalist Emily Ashton sort of called her ugly, as long as that was their honest opinions, it's not open to being libel.
Defamation is linked to reputation, your reputation is not what you think of yourself, but what others think of you. This is why defamation cases can make you very rich (if you win). E.g. Dr Joe Rahamin got £1 million after suing Channel 4/ITN for alleging that he was not good at his job, being a surgeon and all, you would expect him to sue for a large amount because no one will want him to operate on them and therefore he may lose his £200,000 job - throwing in the 'potential loss of earnings' card is an easy way to get a large sum of money from a defamation case.
People that sue a lot include Elton John, Paul McKenna - he sues every time the allegation that he injured someone whilst hypnotising them surfaces! and of course Heather Mills - she got £50,000 from the Sunday Mirror in 2002 and it reportedly looking to get £50 million for the damage to her reputation following the reporting of her and Paul McCartney's divorce.
However, Britney Spears failed in her attempt at suing an American magazine for $10 million after a slight about her sexual behaviour.
These 3 defences protect journalists:
Justification
The statement MUST be true and proven. The common line that journalists say is "It is true and we can prove it".
(Fair) comment
Journalists can comment e.g. Theresa May 'ugly' story, if it is not their honest opinion then it is open to a defamation claim.
Absolute and Qualified Privilege
Absolute privilege gives people like judges, lawyers and MPs the power to say whatever they like about anyone without the risk of a defamation claim being made.
Qualified privilege allows journalists to publish what they like - as long as it's in the public interest. This power can be taken away if their story is not accurate or fair. These two cover the 3 main principles of a news story: FAST, ACCURATE, FAIR. A journalist must give all accurate data and names. - especially important in court cases. The article must cover both sides e.g. in court - prosecution and defence.
What did I learn from today's lecture? 'Everyone in the education system will tell you lies' and 'never have a rent boy as your main witness'!!!
TB 2011
Libel is concerned with three important requirements:
The statement made must be defamatory. The statement MUST tend to do one of these 4 things:
expose the person to hatred, ridicule or contempt, shun the person or make people avoid him/her, discredit the person or lower them in the eyes of 'right thinking people'.
The publication must be in a permanent form e.g. a newspaper and even on radio.
It must identify a certain person e.g. if I make the statement "All Americans are stupid hicks", an American man (however un-hick like he may be) cannot sue me for libel because I didn't identify him personally.
This brings me on to what defamation doesn't cover: it doesn't affect feelings e.g. if an American feels hurt by me calling all Americans "stupid hicks". Defamation doesn't affect comment as long as the comment is your honest opinion e.g an article in The Sun today about Theresa May, where the fashion 'guru' Mary Portas and The Sun journalist Emily Ashton sort of called her ugly, as long as that was their honest opinions, it's not open to being libel.
Defamation is linked to reputation, your reputation is not what you think of yourself, but what others think of you. This is why defamation cases can make you very rich (if you win). E.g. Dr Joe Rahamin got £1 million after suing Channel 4/ITN for alleging that he was not good at his job, being a surgeon and all, you would expect him to sue for a large amount because no one will want him to operate on them and therefore he may lose his £200,000 job - throwing in the 'potential loss of earnings' card is an easy way to get a large sum of money from a defamation case.
People that sue a lot include Elton John, Paul McKenna - he sues every time the allegation that he injured someone whilst hypnotising them surfaces! and of course Heather Mills - she got £50,000 from the Sunday Mirror in 2002 and it reportedly looking to get £50 million for the damage to her reputation following the reporting of her and Paul McCartney's divorce.
However, Britney Spears failed in her attempt at suing an American magazine for $10 million after a slight about her sexual behaviour.
These 3 defences protect journalists:
Justification
The statement MUST be true and proven. The common line that journalists say is "It is true and we can prove it".
(Fair) comment
Journalists can comment e.g. Theresa May 'ugly' story, if it is not their honest opinion then it is open to a defamation claim.
Absolute and Qualified Privilege
Absolute privilege gives people like judges, lawyers and MPs the power to say whatever they like about anyone without the risk of a defamation claim being made.
Qualified privilege allows journalists to publish what they like - as long as it's in the public interest. This power can be taken away if their story is not accurate or fair. These two cover the 3 main principles of a news story: FAST, ACCURATE, FAIR. A journalist must give all accurate data and names. - especially important in court cases. The article must cover both sides e.g. in court - prosecution and defence.
What did I learn from today's lecture? 'Everyone in the education system will tell you lies' and 'never have a rent boy as your main witness'!!!
TB 2011
Come on Gold and Sullivan, do the sensible thing.
Just 40 minutes ago (writing at 8.40 ish), I heard the news that West Ham United's Olympic Stadium bid had fallen through, you may think that being a West Ham fan, I am unhappy about this (moving on and all) but no, I was joyous.
If any of you have been to a match at Upton Park, you will know why, the atmosphere can be fantastic at times - even at the last game of the club's Premier League season, when you know that your next game will be in the division below.
From what I have been told, not many other stadium's atmosphere's compare to Upton Park's, according to my Dad, Anfield is the only other English football stadium that beats it.
To tell you truth, I laughed to myself when I heard the news. The "Sleaze Brothers" and their sidekick were so desperate to get West Ham into the Olympic Stadium and seemed to have left their rose-tinted glasses on throughout the whole process. Didn't they realise that someone was going to mount a legal challenge strong enough for the OPLC to back down and end the deal? In the end, it was our good friends Tottenham Hotspur and Leyton Orient that spoilt the party for Gold and Sullivan.
However, there is a sting in the tail...
The Olympic Stadium will now be in public ownership and anyone can bid to lease it - for an annual fee of £2m. It is most likely that, you guessed it, West Ham will lease it, but will the OPLC really want to leave more egg on it's face by allowing West Ham to lease it?
Leasing it to West Ham may throw up some problems for the club.
Firstly, because it won't be West Ham United's stadium and in public ownership I am assuming that no personalisation of the stadium will take place e.g. seats. This will look rather odd at games because all the seats will be white - not claret and blue and therefore, it will just be a public stadium that no one will be able to call home.
Secondly, the running track will have to stay, West Ham's plan (if they got the stadium outright) was to keep the running track but use temporary seating to cover it so that fans weren't a million miles away from the action. But will the OPLC allow this to happen? Who knows.
Thirdly, what happens if the OPLC decide at the end of a season that West Ham won't be able to be tenants in the next season? Upton Park will have been demolished by then and we'll have no stadium!
Finally, if the venue will be 'multi - purpose' does that mean that it will hold concerts, athletics events etc? Surely, these will get in the way of the football and also ruin the pitch.
However, moving to the Olympic Stadium will help West Ham's financial situation, but I'm not convinced about moving there.
That's why it will be much better if Gold and Sullivan keep the club at Upton Park, they will keep the fans happy and the OPLC happy. They can expand the stadium by demolishing the block of flats in the way and extend it out into Priory Road. This will then improve the capacity to just under 40,000.
But who cares what one person thinks? West Ham will apply to be tenants, they will win and Upton Park will be gone in the next 5 years.
Goodbye Upton Park...
If any of you have been to a match at Upton Park, you will know why, the atmosphere can be fantastic at times - even at the last game of the club's Premier League season, when you know that your next game will be in the division below.
From what I have been told, not many other stadium's atmosphere's compare to Upton Park's, according to my Dad, Anfield is the only other English football stadium that beats it.
To tell you truth, I laughed to myself when I heard the news. The "Sleaze Brothers" and their sidekick were so desperate to get West Ham into the Olympic Stadium and seemed to have left their rose-tinted glasses on throughout the whole process. Didn't they realise that someone was going to mount a legal challenge strong enough for the OPLC to back down and end the deal? In the end, it was our good friends Tottenham Hotspur and Leyton Orient that spoilt the party for Gold and Sullivan.
However, there is a sting in the tail...
The Olympic Stadium will now be in public ownership and anyone can bid to lease it - for an annual fee of £2m. It is most likely that, you guessed it, West Ham will lease it, but will the OPLC really want to leave more egg on it's face by allowing West Ham to lease it?
Leasing it to West Ham may throw up some problems for the club.
Firstly, because it won't be West Ham United's stadium and in public ownership I am assuming that no personalisation of the stadium will take place e.g. seats. This will look rather odd at games because all the seats will be white - not claret and blue and therefore, it will just be a public stadium that no one will be able to call home.
Secondly, the running track will have to stay, West Ham's plan (if they got the stadium outright) was to keep the running track but use temporary seating to cover it so that fans weren't a million miles away from the action. But will the OPLC allow this to happen? Who knows.
Thirdly, what happens if the OPLC decide at the end of a season that West Ham won't be able to be tenants in the next season? Upton Park will have been demolished by then and we'll have no stadium!
Finally, if the venue will be 'multi - purpose' does that mean that it will hold concerts, athletics events etc? Surely, these will get in the way of the football and also ruin the pitch.
However, moving to the Olympic Stadium will help West Ham's financial situation, but I'm not convinced about moving there.
That's why it will be much better if Gold and Sullivan keep the club at Upton Park, they will keep the fans happy and the OPLC happy. They can expand the stadium by demolishing the block of flats in the way and extend it out into Priory Road. This will then improve the capacity to just under 40,000.
But who cares what one person thinks? West Ham will apply to be tenants, they will win and Upton Park will be gone in the next 5 years.
Goodbye Upton Park...
Monday 10 October 2011
HCJ - Seminar 1
I know it's late, but better late than never eh?
I was hoping that the 1st HCJ seminar would clarify some of the things that I found difficult to comprehend whilst reading the very long Book 1 of HWP. It certainly fulfilled this and I came out of the seminar feeling like I knew a little bit more about Philosophy - mainly thanks to Jack's seminar paper.
The Pre-Socratics aren't particularly difficult to understand, there's just a lot of them. It's Socrates, Plato and Aristotle that I had trouble with and luckily for me, Jack's paper covered these 3 in quite a bit of detail.
Socrates
From what I gathered, he was the most intellectual philosopher. Sadly, he didn't record any of his works or ideas, he was just a tutor (most famously, he was the tutor to Plato). He was accused of impiety (having no religion) and was condemned to death by drinking a hemlock (very poisonous drink -YUM!) this drink would have gradually killed Socrates by attacking his central nervous system.
The question I asked myself whilst reading this was simply "Why didn't he ESCAPE?", according to Brian, plans were put in place for him to escape by his pupils and he had several chances to avoid death. Therefore Socrates killed himself and died willingly, or did he die to avoid being a hypocrite and maybe even to avoid doing something that would just make him like his accusers? Or he may have wanted martyrdom...
Plato - (not my 'mate' Jason)
He thought that knowledge was innate.
As mentioned before, he was Socrates' pupil - apparently he was the best student of Socrates.
He was interested in mathematics and how the world is linked by geometry and geometric principles.
Plato's main idea was his Utopia called 'The Republic'. He also said that there were 2 worlds, his perfect world and our world.
His other big idea was 'The Cave' - this is about prisoners being chained together in a cave, facing a wall unable to see the outside world and all they can see is their shadows. However, one prisoner decides to turn around and see what the outside world has to offer, he frees himself from his restraints to discover exactly what's outside. A few years later he comes back to visit the cave that he called home all those years ago and finds the other prisoners still chained up facing the wall. He encourages them to come with him and see the outside world and what a great place it is, but they're having none of it.
Take a guess at who the escapee was. A philosopher...durrrr!!!
The simple explanation for us simpletons is this; we, the normal people are the prisoners, we stare at the wall and our own shadows (or forms), these represent every object in our lives. In that world, an object is imperfect, but in his Utopian world, it is perfect and a table isn't just any old table, it's a perfect table - a better form.
Aristotle
He thought that we gained knowledge from experience.
He was Socrates' most valued philosopher, but unlike Socrates, Aristotle bailed on his death by hemlock.
He taught Alexander the Great.
He focused on metaphysics (this looks at the basics of philosophy and also science), logic, ethics and politics. However, he didn't touch mathematics - he left Plato to deal with that!
Aristotle and Plato weren't the best of friends, they were arguing continuously about innate knowledge versus knowledge from experience.
After Aristotle
Stoicism states that only Zeus had immortality and the other Gods were not as absolute as Zeus - this Zeus fella must have pretty special.
The Epicureans used thoughts of soul and death in their ethical beliefs, these contrasted with Plato's beliefs about death; Plato stated that death came with rewards however the Epicureans said that mortality was the reward.
After the Hellenic period of philosophy, Plato and Aristotle were revived, their thoughts then went on to influence Christianity.
That just about wraps up last Tuesday's seminar...
TB 2011
I was hoping that the 1st HCJ seminar would clarify some of the things that I found difficult to comprehend whilst reading the very long Book 1 of HWP. It certainly fulfilled this and I came out of the seminar feeling like I knew a little bit more about Philosophy - mainly thanks to Jack's seminar paper.
The Pre-Socratics aren't particularly difficult to understand, there's just a lot of them. It's Socrates, Plato and Aristotle that I had trouble with and luckily for me, Jack's paper covered these 3 in quite a bit of detail.
Socrates
From what I gathered, he was the most intellectual philosopher. Sadly, he didn't record any of his works or ideas, he was just a tutor (most famously, he was the tutor to Plato). He was accused of impiety (having no religion) and was condemned to death by drinking a hemlock (very poisonous drink -YUM!) this drink would have gradually killed Socrates by attacking his central nervous system.
The question I asked myself whilst reading this was simply "Why didn't he ESCAPE?", according to Brian, plans were put in place for him to escape by his pupils and he had several chances to avoid death. Therefore Socrates killed himself and died willingly, or did he die to avoid being a hypocrite and maybe even to avoid doing something that would just make him like his accusers? Or he may have wanted martyrdom...
Plato - (not my 'mate' Jason)
He thought that knowledge was innate.
As mentioned before, he was Socrates' pupil - apparently he was the best student of Socrates.
He was interested in mathematics and how the world is linked by geometry and geometric principles.
Plato's main idea was his Utopia called 'The Republic'. He also said that there were 2 worlds, his perfect world and our world.
His other big idea was 'The Cave' - this is about prisoners being chained together in a cave, facing a wall unable to see the outside world and all they can see is their shadows. However, one prisoner decides to turn around and see what the outside world has to offer, he frees himself from his restraints to discover exactly what's outside. A few years later he comes back to visit the cave that he called home all those years ago and finds the other prisoners still chained up facing the wall. He encourages them to come with him and see the outside world and what a great place it is, but they're having none of it.
Take a guess at who the escapee was. A philosopher...durrrr!!!
The simple explanation for us simpletons is this; we, the normal people are the prisoners, we stare at the wall and our own shadows (or forms), these represent every object in our lives. In that world, an object is imperfect, but in his Utopian world, it is perfect and a table isn't just any old table, it's a perfect table - a better form.
Aristotle
He thought that we gained knowledge from experience.
He was Socrates' most valued philosopher, but unlike Socrates, Aristotle bailed on his death by hemlock.
He taught Alexander the Great.
He focused on metaphysics (this looks at the basics of philosophy and also science), logic, ethics and politics. However, he didn't touch mathematics - he left Plato to deal with that!
Aristotle and Plato weren't the best of friends, they were arguing continuously about innate knowledge versus knowledge from experience.
After Aristotle
Stoicism states that only Zeus had immortality and the other Gods were not as absolute as Zeus - this Zeus fella must have pretty special.
The Epicureans used thoughts of soul and death in their ethical beliefs, these contrasted with Plato's beliefs about death; Plato stated that death came with rewards however the Epicureans said that mortality was the reward.
After the Hellenic period of philosophy, Plato and Aristotle were revived, their thoughts then went on to influence Christianity.
That just about wraps up last Tuesday's seminar...
TB 2011
Wednesday 5 October 2011
Yes, your Honour.
As you can probably guess from the title, I was at court.
Yesterday, me and Liam decided to go to the crown court in Winchester, we had no idea where it was, so we just walked up and down the high street looking for a sign, until we stumbled across it pretty much by accident. When we got in, we had the airport style security checks etc etc. There were no court listings displayed so we decided to go up the large flight of stairs and begun walking around aimlessly. We assumed that there would be a case in court 1, but there was nothing. We then saw a TV screen with the day's cases and what courts they were in, we chose a court with a case that had just started - hoping to hear a commital we headed for that one, we went into the public gallery and sat there for over 30 minutes! Finally the judge walked in, only to find out that the person who was supposed to be in court hadn't turned up..... Then the judge moved on to a different case, in short - this second one was not very interesting at all!
We left this court and as soon as we heard some very interesting words, we entered the public gallery (to be honest, because of the words we had heard, I wasn't sure if we would get a seat because there might have been journalists and some other people - but to my surprise there were only 3 others in there!). Due to Contempt of Court, I will only write these details:
Name & age: Defendant - Mr Randolph Pennant.
Being able to sit in on two cases poles apart from each other, we got two different atmospheres. The first case had no real tension to it, just a lawyer reading out boring information. The second case was very tense (as you would expect in that type of case) - the cliché 'You could cut the tension with a knife' comes to mind!
An enjoyable experience all round.
TB 2011
Yesterday, me and Liam decided to go to the crown court in Winchester, we had no idea where it was, so we just walked up and down the high street looking for a sign, until we stumbled across it pretty much by accident. When we got in, we had the airport style security checks etc etc. There were no court listings displayed so we decided to go up the large flight of stairs and begun walking around aimlessly. We assumed that there would be a case in court 1, but there was nothing. We then saw a TV screen with the day's cases and what courts they were in, we chose a court with a case that had just started - hoping to hear a commital we headed for that one, we went into the public gallery and sat there for over 30 minutes! Finally the judge walked in, only to find out that the person who was supposed to be in court hadn't turned up..... Then the judge moved on to a different case, in short - this second one was not very interesting at all!
We left this court and as soon as we heard some very interesting words, we entered the public gallery (to be honest, because of the words we had heard, I wasn't sure if we would get a seat because there might have been journalists and some other people - but to my surprise there were only 3 others in there!). Due to Contempt of Court, I will only write these details:
Name & age: Defendant - Mr Randolph Pennant.
Address & occupation: Address - Unknown (to me). Job - 'Works with steel'.
Charge(s): Sexual Assault.
Date & place of Crown Court hearing: 4th October 2011, Winchester Combined Court.
Bail & legal aid conditions: Unknown
Names of counsel: Unknown
A lot of the details of the case were quite grim and not stuff that you would particularly want to discuss in public! It was still interesting to see how a real court actually works.
Being able to sit in on two cases poles apart from each other, we got two different atmospheres. The first case had no real tension to it, just a lawyer reading out boring information. The second case was very tense (as you would expect in that type of case) - the cliché 'You could cut the tension with a knife' comes to mind!
Tuesday 4 October 2011
Media Law - Lecture 2. Reporting the Courts.
Arguably, court reporting is the most difficult thing for journalists to do, with so many rules and regulations that govern what we can't write, however when push comes to shove, the rules are there to protect us.
Journalists must (as juries must always do as well) presume that the defendant in a court case is INNOCENT. This is known as the 'presumption of innocence', it underpins one of the main principles of this country's of the justice system - innocent until proven guilty. The jury must find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, one of main pieces of evidence needed to do this (in my opinion) is an eyewitness. These days, DNA can be used to prove anything - including whether A killed B, however an eyewitness is the thing that should (arguably) come above DNA, because he/she saw A killing B - with their own eyes (however in very rare circumstances, an eyewitness may appear from nowhere).
Another major concept in justice and court reporting is prejudice. The jury and journalists must not have ANY prejudice towards the defendant e.g. because he's wearing a baseball cap or wearing a t shirt with a Union Jack on it, in Northern Ireland (not a good move). It's human nature for people to be prejudiced and anyone who says they're not, is a liar. However, journalists must never be prejudiced whilst reporting a court case because it can throw up all kinds of problems, including the prevention of a fair trial and the big one - contempt of court.
Contempt of court
This is a strict liability offence, which can result in a 5 year prison sentence for the offender, however it is more common for people to be fined e.g. the Colin Myler case. Whilst Colin Myler was the editor of the Sunday Mirror, he allowed an article (including the interview of the victims of footballers Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer's 'aggravated racial assault') to be published during their trial. This didn't go down well with the Attorney General, who said "The Sunday Mirror newspaper will face contempt of court proceedings". The outcome of this was that Myler was fined £30,000 and the case against Woodgate and Bowyer's was annulled - meaning that they got off completely scot-free. (Although Woodgate got his just desserts - a shed load of injures!)
Contempt of court means that people sitting in the public gallery can't shout things like 'Hang him' or give the jury funny looks. As these will probably influence the jury into making a certain decision.
For a newspaper/magazine/TV or radio programme to avoid CoC, they can only report these 6 categories:
Name & age
Justice must be seen to be done
Criminal trials must be held in public, unless there is strong reason for one not to e.g. matters of National Security, however these are subject to challenge from journalists and the public - especially as journalists are the 'eye and ears of the public' and I'm sure there must be someone who is interested in a national terror threat.
Types of offences
Indictable only - this includes all the major offences such as murder, rape and robbery. If you commit ones of these, your trial will take place at a crown court - never a magistrates court.
Summary - this includes very minor offences such as not paying parking fines etc..., these will only be taken to a magistrates court because the crown courts are far too busy and important to deal with petty fines.
Either way - this is where it gets a bit grey. If you plead guilty to a summary charge, you will be tried at a crown court - much to the annoyance of the judges (not the X Factor ones by the way). This is where you can take a chance on the jury finding you not guilty.
Criminal Courts
This stuff will seem very simple and patronising...
In criminal courts, there is a jury which decides whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty, as mentioned above, the jury must always presume the innocence of the defendant, until there is enough evidence to suggest otherwise.
There are two teams of barristers - prosecution and defence.
The judge presides over the case, rarely doing anything meaningful until the best part of the case - the sentencing. The judge acts as the 'referee' in the case and tries to keep the peace, he/she will summarise the case for the jury and will advise them on the law.
I think that just about covers court reporting...
TB 2011
Journalists must (as juries must always do as well) presume that the defendant in a court case is INNOCENT. This is known as the 'presumption of innocence', it underpins one of the main principles of this country's of the justice system - innocent until proven guilty. The jury must find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, one of main pieces of evidence needed to do this (in my opinion) is an eyewitness. These days, DNA can be used to prove anything - including whether A killed B, however an eyewitness is the thing that should (arguably) come above DNA, because he/she saw A killing B - with their own eyes (however in very rare circumstances, an eyewitness may appear from nowhere).
Another major concept in justice and court reporting is prejudice. The jury and journalists must not have ANY prejudice towards the defendant e.g. because he's wearing a baseball cap or wearing a t shirt with a Union Jack on it, in Northern Ireland (not a good move). It's human nature for people to be prejudiced and anyone who says they're not, is a liar. However, journalists must never be prejudiced whilst reporting a court case because it can throw up all kinds of problems, including the prevention of a fair trial and the big one - contempt of court.
Contempt of court
This is a strict liability offence, which can result in a 5 year prison sentence for the offender, however it is more common for people to be fined e.g. the Colin Myler case. Whilst Colin Myler was the editor of the Sunday Mirror, he allowed an article (including the interview of the victims of footballers Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer's 'aggravated racial assault') to be published during their trial. This didn't go down well with the Attorney General, who said "The Sunday Mirror newspaper will face contempt of court proceedings". The outcome of this was that Myler was fined £30,000 and the case against Woodgate and Bowyer's was annulled - meaning that they got off completely scot-free. (Although Woodgate got his just desserts - a shed load of injures!)
Contempt of court means that people sitting in the public gallery can't shout things like 'Hang him' or give the jury funny looks. As these will probably influence the jury into making a certain decision.
For a newspaper/magazine/TV or radio programme to avoid CoC, they can only report these 6 categories:
Name & age
Address & occupation
Charge(s)
Date & place of Crown Court hearing
Bail & legal aid conditions
Names of counsel
These things are banned from being reported:
Publication of any material which might prejudice a fair trial
Reporting opinions expressed by jurors
Anything which interferes with the course of justice
Any breach of a court order
This brings me to the case of Jo Yeates' murder, where the Daily Star newspaper reported various things about the case - including calling for the hanging of a suspect! These kinds of reports can influence a jury's decision and will ultimately prevent a fair trial taking place.
The best thing for a journalist to do is to make their report fair and accurate.
Justice must be seen to be done
Criminal trials must be held in public, unless there is strong reason for one not to e.g. matters of National Security, however these are subject to challenge from journalists and the public - especially as journalists are the 'eye and ears of the public' and I'm sure there must be someone who is interested in a national terror threat.
Types of offences
Indictable only - this includes all the major offences such as murder, rape and robbery. If you commit ones of these, your trial will take place at a crown court - never a magistrates court.
Summary - this includes very minor offences such as not paying parking fines etc..., these will only be taken to a magistrates court because the crown courts are far too busy and important to deal with petty fines.
Either way - this is where it gets a bit grey. If you plead guilty to a summary charge, you will be tried at a crown court - much to the annoyance of the judges (not the X Factor ones by the way). This is where you can take a chance on the jury finding you not guilty.
Criminal Courts
This stuff will seem very simple and patronising...
In criminal courts, there is a jury which decides whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty, as mentioned above, the jury must always presume the innocence of the defendant, until there is enough evidence to suggest otherwise.
There are two teams of barristers - prosecution and defence.
The judge presides over the case, rarely doing anything meaningful until the best part of the case - the sentencing. The judge acts as the 'referee' in the case and tries to keep the peace, he/she will summarise the case for the jury and will advise them on the law.
I think that just about covers court reporting...
TB 2011
Saturday 1 October 2011
Some brief-ish info about the Greek philosophers
After reading up to chapter 18 of the HWP book, I sort of know what it's talking about.
Pre - Socratic philosophers
These men came from Miletus, Ionia; this was a very prominent region of Ancient Greece, not only because of it's good trade links, but also because it had contact with some of the ideas of the 'Near East'.
It was Thales who believed that everything was made from water, however he did not mention the Gods in his accounts.
Anaximander, another philosopher of the Milesian school disagreed with Thales' theory and said that everything comes from a single primal substance - but not water or any of the other substances that we know of. According to HWP this substance 'encompasses all the worlds' and according to Anaximander, there were many worlds and that our's was just one of them. One of his other theories was that the earth was formed by the condensing of cold and wet whilst the hot and dry formed the moon, sun and stars, the heat then shrank the seas and dried the earth. This theory seems strange at first, however it was one that used natural explanations.
Pythagoras (who I only knew until recently to just be a guy who came up with a theory about triangles, and not philosophy) used maths to explain the world's 'order', he emphasised form and not matter - unlike Thales and Anaximander. Another one of Pythagoras' ideas was his idea of society, which says that all men and women should be equal....interesting.
Parmenides apparentley invented the concept of logic, although what he supposedly invented was 'metaphysics', Bertrand Russell uses this example: That because I'm writing about George Washington and you're reading about him,we're both thinking about him at this very moment - therefore he must exist. However, he doesn't exist anymore, so it's sort of untrue!!! Good idea all the same though.
The last of the Pre - Socratic philosophers was Empedocles, he was a mix of philosopher, scientist and a prophet. He thought that he could control the elements and was some sort of God, to prove this, he jumped into the crater of the volcano Mount Etna... In the words of a poet (from the HWP book): 'Great Empedocles, that ardent soul, Leapt into Etna and was roasted whole.'
Socrates
Socrates did not provide much specific knowledge as such, he was more interested in how arguments and debates could resolve issues - as you will know, it has been proved over the years that this contept doesn't work! According to Plato, Socrates' method of teaching usually consisted of talking to his pupils, they would give a certain view and then he would question their beliefs.
The ideas raised from his discussions exposed some of the most basic questions of philosophy and many of these are still discussed today.
All done blogging for today, however they're is one question I would like to raise as I look at the BBC's football website, 'Why hasn't Sam Allardyce used the 4-4-2 formation yet?'
TB 2011
Pre - Socratic philosophers
These men came from Miletus, Ionia; this was a very prominent region of Ancient Greece, not only because of it's good trade links, but also because it had contact with some of the ideas of the 'Near East'.
It was Thales who believed that everything was made from water, however he did not mention the Gods in his accounts.
Anaximander, another philosopher of the Milesian school disagreed with Thales' theory and said that everything comes from a single primal substance - but not water or any of the other substances that we know of. According to HWP this substance 'encompasses all the worlds' and according to Anaximander, there were many worlds and that our's was just one of them. One of his other theories was that the earth was formed by the condensing of cold and wet whilst the hot and dry formed the moon, sun and stars, the heat then shrank the seas and dried the earth. This theory seems strange at first, however it was one that used natural explanations.
Pythagoras (who I only knew until recently to just be a guy who came up with a theory about triangles, and not philosophy) used maths to explain the world's 'order', he emphasised form and not matter - unlike Thales and Anaximander. Another one of Pythagoras' ideas was his idea of society, which says that all men and women should be equal....interesting.
Parmenides apparentley invented the concept of logic, although what he supposedly invented was 'metaphysics', Bertrand Russell uses this example: That because I'm writing about George Washington and you're reading about him,we're both thinking about him at this very moment - therefore he must exist. However, he doesn't exist anymore, so it's sort of untrue!!! Good idea all the same though.
The last of the Pre - Socratic philosophers was Empedocles, he was a mix of philosopher, scientist and a prophet. He thought that he could control the elements and was some sort of God, to prove this, he jumped into the crater of the volcano Mount Etna... In the words of a poet (from the HWP book): 'Great Empedocles, that ardent soul, Leapt into Etna and was roasted whole.'
Socrates
Socrates did not provide much specific knowledge as such, he was more interested in how arguments and debates could resolve issues - as you will know, it has been proved over the years that this contept doesn't work! According to Plato, Socrates' method of teaching usually consisted of talking to his pupils, they would give a certain view and then he would question their beliefs.
The ideas raised from his discussions exposed some of the most basic questions of philosophy and many of these are still discussed today.
All done blogging for today, however they're is one question I would like to raise as I look at the BBC's football website, 'Why hasn't Sam Allardyce used the 4-4-2 formation yet?'
TB 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)