The Codes of Conduct that journalists follow are very important because they provide moral guidelines for journalists and also regulations that aren't legal, however journalists can be punished by the NUJ or the PCC.
There are 4 codes that journalists follow: NUJ Code, PCC Editors' Code, BBC Guidelines and OFCOM's code.
The The NUJ Code has 12 points, a journalist
1: should oppose reporting restrictions and uphold freedom of the press.
2: must produce stories quickly, be fair and be accurate.
3: must do their best to correct inaccuracies.
4: must try and differentiate between fact and opinion.
5: must obtain information by honest and open means. Except for in certain circumstances of investigative journalism (in the public interest).
6: shouldn't interfere in people's private lives, unless in an overriding claim of public interest.
7: should protect the identity of sources in confidence.
8: should resist threats or inducements of influence, distort and suppress information and takes no personal advantage in their duties.
9: should produce no material that discriminates or will lead to hatred.
10: should not endorse any products that will promote his/her career.
11: should seek the consent of an appropriate adult when filming or interviewing a child.
12: should avoid plagiarism.
The PCC Code basically outlines the same regulations as the NUK Code and it deals with 16 categories:
1: Accuracy,
2: Opportunity to reply,
3: Privacy,
4: Harassment,
5: Intrusion into grief or shock,
6: Children,
7: Children in sex cases,
8: Hospitals,
9 Reporting of crime,
10: Clandestine devices and subterfuge,
11: Victims of sexual assault,
12: Discrimination,
13: Financial journalism,
14: Confidential sources,
15: Witness payments in criminal trials and
16: Payment to criminals.
The BBC Editorial Guidelines deal with standards and values that BBC journalists are expected to follow. It also covers TV and radio.
The OFCOM Broadcasting Code can be found here.
TB 2011
Wednesday 30 November 2011
Thursday 24 November 2011
Review of WINOL Sportsweek 23rd November.
As there was no WINOL News bulletin this week, I thought I'd review the Sportsweek programme instead. Sportsweek is longer than the regular WINOL News bulletin, but provided an in depth look at the local area's sport.
First of all, the some of the sound on the package about Eastleigh FC's history wasn't very good at all, I could hear the reporter's voice but it sounded as if the microphone was right up close to his face! The poor sound in this section let down the rest of the story a bit because the interviews had good sound quality (especially the first one). At this point, I'm only just able to cope with the poor sound!
AHA! The sound improved greatly when Dael was given a large fluffy microphone whilst interviewing Eastleigh's manager.
The camerawork and sound during the match was good though and as I have said before, some of the camerawork was better than on Match of the Day.
Overall, the whole package reminded me in some way of Football Focus - especially Mark Clemet's lower league reports!
Good coverage of the other football matches in the area, however some would argue that the programme.
A bit of a nit picky point here, when the presenter introduces the Winchester 2nds rugby match, he doesn't actually mention that its rugby! I was able to figure out that it was rugby but I think it need to be made clear for the viewers. He does the same thing when introducing the ice hockey match.
Quite a good package at the end from a Leeds Metropolitan University student, but not as good as Winchester's coverage of course.
TB 2011
First of all, the some of the sound on the package about Eastleigh FC's history wasn't very good at all, I could hear the reporter's voice but it sounded as if the microphone was right up close to his face! The poor sound in this section let down the rest of the story a bit because the interviews had good sound quality (especially the first one). At this point, I'm only just able to cope with the poor sound!
AHA! The sound improved greatly when Dael was given a large fluffy microphone whilst interviewing Eastleigh's manager.
The camerawork and sound during the match was good though and as I have said before, some of the camerawork was better than on Match of the Day.
Overall, the whole package reminded me in some way of Football Focus - especially Mark Clemet's lower league reports!
Good coverage of the other football matches in the area, however some would argue that the programme.
A bit of a nit picky point here, when the presenter introduces the Winchester 2nds rugby match, he doesn't actually mention that its rugby! I was able to figure out that it was rugby but I think it need to be made clear for the viewers. He does the same thing when introducing the ice hockey match.
Quite a good package at the end from a Leeds Metropolitan University student, but not as good as Winchester's coverage of course.
TB 2011
Apple v.s. CDs.
It’s no secret that the death of the CD is near and anyone who has ever owned an iPod is to blame. The cheapest iPod now only costs £40, so pretty much anyone with a few CDs can compile their music on to one device (especially as iTunes is free!)
I haven’t bought a proper CD for at least a year and the last full album that I bought on iTunes was only £7.99 and the same album was more than £10 in HMV.
So why would I spend over £10 for an album that I can buy on iTunes for £2 less? I am definitely not someone who wants the CD to die or wants iTunes to die because they’re both great. First of all, the CD is a physical thing, you can hold it in your hand and when you buy a CD, it feels like you own something proper. Whereas on iTunes, whatever you buy e.g. a song, an album or a film isn’t a physical object. If we stop buying CDs and iTunes just takes over the music market, could films go the same way? Will we all be buying our films on iTunes soon? I really hope not.
However, isn’t buying DVDs and buying music on iTunes just a little hypocritical? It may well be, but iTunes’s film downloading system is a bit strange. First of all, you can pay £3.49 to rent a film (Cars 2) or pay £9.99 to buy it. What’s the point of renting it? That’s why Blockbuster is going west, people don’t want to rent a new film for one or two nights anymore, they want to own it.
Of course buying music and films on iTunes (and other similar services) does come with the obvious problem of ‘what if your computer’s hard drive crashes?’ If this were to happen, then all your music would be lost, this isn’t so bad if you’ve imported your CDs on to iTunes because you can just import them back again, but what if you’ve only ever bought music on iTunes and the computer dies? You might never see that music again. However, it is now possible to transfer music from your iPod to iTunes, so maybe the computer giving up the ghost wouldn’t be so bad after all.
I’m still in favour of physical CDs, but they cost so much more than albums on iTunes and on iTunes you can buy individual songs, so if you only like 4 or 5 on an album, you can buy those and not have to buy the CD with all of the other songs on and basically waste your money.
Finally
How many of you have bought a CD and put it on your iPod?
How many of you have listened to that same CD on a CD player after importing it on to iTunes?
Just think about that...
Wednesday 23 November 2011
HCJ - Lecture 5.
Yesterday's HCJ lecture was about David Hume.
The theory of causation goes back to 'cause and effect', this is similar to the argument for God's existence. This is called the ontological proof because if we doubt the existence of God, we in turn doubt the first cause (that caused all other later events) and if there was no first cause, the universe can not exist, however it does exist.
The philosopher Kant said that there is no causal connection between 2 objects, we just percieve the connection to be there. In this method of science, nothing is certain, but a lot of things have a high level of probability.
David Hume would say that it is impossible to prove the causal link between for example a tennis ball will move when hit by a tennis racket, it will always be just a guess. But we can use inductive reasoning to try and figure out how likely this is to happen. The purpose of science is to find patterns of apparent causality, but these patterns are not central to the events themselves and causality can't be directly seen.
Hume’s law in 'The Treatise of Human Nature': It is impossible to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. For example: 'the train ought to be on time', we can never know this for sure, (or beyond reasonable doubt) even if all of the factors involved say that the train will be on time. He wrote, that it seems 'altogether inconcievable that this relation (ought) can be derived from others, which are entirely different from it'.
Chapter 10 of Hume's work 'An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding' deals with miracles. The Wikipedia page about the chapter can be found here.
The argument is basically this: The evidence for a miracle is always limited, because miracles are single events, occurring at particular times and places, the evidence for the miracle will always be outweighed by the evidence against. Hume lays down some of the reasons why humans lack complete reliability when it comes to miracles:
People are very prone to accepting the unusual and incredible, which excite passions of surprise and wonder.
Those with strong religious beliefs are often prepared to give evidence that they know is false, 'with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause'.
People are often too naive when faced with such witnesses, whose apparent honesty and eloquence may overcome normal scepticism.
Sources
Wikipedia
Winchester Journalism
TB 2011
The theory of causation goes back to 'cause and effect', this is similar to the argument for God's existence. This is called the ontological proof because if we doubt the existence of God, we in turn doubt the first cause (that caused all other later events) and if there was no first cause, the universe can not exist, however it does exist.
The philosopher Kant said that there is no causal connection between 2 objects, we just percieve the connection to be there. In this method of science, nothing is certain, but a lot of things have a high level of probability.
David Hume would say that it is impossible to prove the causal link between for example a tennis ball will move when hit by a tennis racket, it will always be just a guess. But we can use inductive reasoning to try and figure out how likely this is to happen. The purpose of science is to find patterns of apparent causality, but these patterns are not central to the events themselves and causality can't be directly seen.
Hume’s law in 'The Treatise of Human Nature': It is impossible to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. For example: 'the train ought to be on time', we can never know this for sure, (or beyond reasonable doubt) even if all of the factors involved say that the train will be on time. He wrote, that it seems 'altogether inconcievable that this relation (ought) can be derived from others, which are entirely different from it'.
Chapter 10 of Hume's work 'An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding' deals with miracles. The Wikipedia page about the chapter can be found here.
The argument is basically this: The evidence for a miracle is always limited, because miracles are single events, occurring at particular times and places, the evidence for the miracle will always be outweighed by the evidence against. Hume lays down some of the reasons why humans lack complete reliability when it comes to miracles:
People are very prone to accepting the unusual and incredible, which excite passions of surprise and wonder.
Those with strong religious beliefs are often prepared to give evidence that they know is false, 'with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause'.
People are often too naive when faced with such witnesses, whose apparent honesty and eloquence may overcome normal scepticism.
Sources
Wikipedia
Winchester Journalism
TB 2011
Media Law - Lecture 9. Important Cases.
Our Media Law lecture today was about the important cases that we have to know about and use as examples in the test at the end of the semester. Chris mentioned some of them e.g. the Chris Jefferies case and the Woodgate and Bowyer case. He then showed us a student journalism piece made by an MA student at the University of Westminister. It was riddled with legal problems and when Chris told us that she had FAKED an interview, I turned off from watching it because the video just didn't deserve my time. Sadly we had to watch the rest anyway and it wasn't much better than the first part!
Important Media Law cases
Here are some of the important cases covered either in my blog, Chris' notes or McNae's ELFJ.
Chris Jefferies (defamation and libel) - A very recent case and of great importance to journalists and media law. Chris Jefferies sued several newspaper after they made allegations about him and suggested that he killed Jo Yeates. They based this on what he did in his spare time like playing chess and reading poetry - hardly the sort of stuff that would suggest that he was a murderer!
The decision made that the newspapers libeled him was based on the three important points:
1. He had been identified
2. The content about him was published.
3. He was defamed.
As we know, defamation is caused if one of these four things has happened:
1. The statement(s) must have exposed Chris Jefferies to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
2. The statement(s) must have caused Chris Jefferies to be shunned and avoided.
3. The statement(s) must have discredited Chris Jefferies in his trade, profession or business.
4. The statement(s) must have lowered Chris Jefferies in the eyes of right thinking people.
Sadly for Jefferies, even though he successfully sued the newspapers, he will never be able to shake off the image of him portrayed by the media.
Woodgate and Bowyer (contempt of court) - The footballers Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer were on trial in 2003 for 'racially aggravated assault'. The Sunday Mirror published an article including an interview with the victim's family during the footballers trial. This led to a mistrial. The newspaper's editor Colin Myler was fined a mere £30,000 for contempt of sound. Obviously, the price Myler paid was a lot less than Bowyer and Woodgate would have paid...
Fred West - The all round sicko Fred West was convicted for raping and murdering young girls in the 70s and 80s. Newspapers didn't publish anything about him or publish interviews with his family and friends etc until after he was convicted. However, it is very likely that the interviews were carried out whilst he was on trial.
Bill Goodwin - The journalist Bill Goodwin leaked confidential information whilst reporting for The Engineer magazine and was ordered to disclose his source. 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.
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 didn't agree with the WSJ's defence.
TB 2011
Important Media Law cases
Here are some of the important cases covered either in my blog, Chris' notes or McNae's ELFJ.
Chris Jefferies (defamation and libel) - A very recent case and of great importance to journalists and media law. Chris Jefferies sued several newspaper after they made allegations about him and suggested that he killed Jo Yeates. They based this on what he did in his spare time like playing chess and reading poetry - hardly the sort of stuff that would suggest that he was a murderer!
The decision made that the newspapers libeled him was based on the three important points:
1. He had been identified
2. The content about him was published.
3. He was defamed.
As we know, defamation is caused if one of these four things has happened:
1. The statement(s) must have exposed Chris Jefferies to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
2. The statement(s) must have caused Chris Jefferies to be shunned and avoided.
3. The statement(s) must have discredited Chris Jefferies in his trade, profession or business.
4. The statement(s) must have lowered Chris Jefferies in the eyes of right thinking people.
Sadly for Jefferies, even though he successfully sued the newspapers, he will never be able to shake off the image of him portrayed by the media.
Woodgate and Bowyer (contempt of court) - The footballers Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer were on trial in 2003 for 'racially aggravated assault'. The Sunday Mirror published an article including an interview with the victim's family during the footballers trial. This led to a mistrial. The newspaper's editor Colin Myler was fined a mere £30,000 for contempt of sound. Obviously, the price Myler paid was a lot less than Bowyer and Woodgate would have paid...
Fred West - The all round sicko Fred West was convicted for raping and murdering young girls in the 70s and 80s. Newspapers didn't publish anything about him or publish interviews with his family and friends etc until after he was convicted. However, it is very likely that the interviews were carried out whilst he was on trial.
Bill Goodwin - The journalist Bill Goodwin leaked confidential information whilst reporting for The Engineer magazine and was ordered to disclose his source. 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.
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 didn't agree with the WSJ's defence.
TB 2011
Thursday 17 November 2011
The Independent - Journalism Now article (draft)
The Independent has traditionally been a left-wing newspaper in competition with The Guardian. The main demographic of the newspaper is 25 - 34 year olds, the majority of its readers are men and from the ABC1 social grade bracket. The ‘rate card’ for The Independent shows that the newspaper is most popular in the London region. (Data - NRS July 2010 - June 2011 and NMA rate card). From this information I am assuming that the main audience of the newspaper is young professionals who probably work in the area of London known as ‘the city’.
The readers are middle class and are attractive to advertisers, for example, adverts in The Independent newspapers from 1st, 3rd and 10th November 2011 have included; a Jaguar car, Green and Black’s chocolate and Ernest Jones jewellery. All 3 of these adverts could be seen to be aimed at people with more money than the average person as they are all for (in relative terms) expensive items. However, Ernest Jones is considered to be ‘middle of the road’ when it comes to price but Jaguar is a manufacturer that specialises in luxury cars. The highest price to advertise in The Independent is £24,000, this is low in comparison to other newspapers, however The Independent has quite a low circulation. (Data – The Independent).
The newspaper also features a section called ‘World’, this section covers world news is quite large and the type of person that would buy the newspaper may have a keen interest in world news, therefore he or she may buy the newspaper just to read the ‘World’ section.
The Independent seems to take an anti-war stance; this is this same view that the Liberal Democrat party have generally taken. Liberal Democrats is probably the party that The Independent supports. An example of the anti-war view has been apparent recently with the newspaper not displaying an image of a poppy on the front in the week leading up to Armistice Day. However, another reason for the newspaper not displaying a poppy on the front could be that the newspaper assumes that the readers are intelligent enough to be able to ‘remember’ without the aid of an image of a poppy.
Even though it seems as if The Independent has a left-wing view and supports the Liberal Democrats, (e.g. during the 2010 election, The Independent printed this: “there is a strong case for progressively minded voters to lend their support to the Liberal Democrats”.) (Quote - Wikipedia) the Independent doesn’t seem to lean its news articles in the direction of liberalism very much, instead it presents the reader with a ‘wishy washy’ view. You could also say that this extends to the type of stories it doesn’t print e.g. murders. Other examples include stories from The Independent from 15th November; it had stories that included phone hacking, the EU and banker’s pay. These are interesting topics but there is nothing particularly hard-hitting in the newspaper.
Sources:
Review of WINOL News - 16th November 2011.
This week's WINOL News was definitely the best of the semester so far, most of the problems with the previous week's bulletins had been sorted.
The first thing I noticed about the bulletin was how relaxed and at ease Gareth looked whilst presenting, he didn't stutter over his words and didn't stare straight at the autocue either.
However, the 'chat' with Rebecca wasn't so good, mainly because she was talking as if she was reading the news and not talking as if she was just chatting to Gareth normally (unless that's how she speaks?). What I would say is that she seemed to know a lot of facts and figures about unemployment and she seemed to have learned the script well.
The interview with the Councillor was good e.g. good camerawork and there was no background noise.
Most of the packages has good camerawork especially the stories early on in the bulletin. However, the camerawork in the Estonia report and the car park report wasn't so good, with 1 or 2 bits out of focus and sometimes grainy. For some reason in the car park package, there were random views of the road and there was a bit of camera shake in this story too.
The package about the University's new app was good, except for some background noise that sounded a bit like white noise.
The sports (football) news was good. Totton's 1st round FA Cup match was covered and all the goals were shown, some would argue there were too many shown. However, as it was the only match shown and the fact that Totton won 8-1, I really doesn't matter.
At the end of the news bulletin I noticed that the camera was either zoomed in further or moved further towards Gareth because he seemed to fill the screen more!
Overall, a very good bulletin!
TB 2011
The first thing I noticed about the bulletin was how relaxed and at ease Gareth looked whilst presenting, he didn't stutter over his words and didn't stare straight at the autocue either.
However, the 'chat' with Rebecca wasn't so good, mainly because she was talking as if she was reading the news and not talking as if she was just chatting to Gareth normally (unless that's how she speaks?). What I would say is that she seemed to know a lot of facts and figures about unemployment and she seemed to have learned the script well.
The interview with the Councillor was good e.g. good camerawork and there was no background noise.
Most of the packages has good camerawork especially the stories early on in the bulletin. However, the camerawork in the Estonia report and the car park report wasn't so good, with 1 or 2 bits out of focus and sometimes grainy. For some reason in the car park package, there were random views of the road and there was a bit of camera shake in this story too.
The package about the University's new app was good, except for some background noise that sounded a bit like white noise.
The sports (football) news was good. Totton's 1st round FA Cup match was covered and all the goals were shown, some would argue there were too many shown. However, as it was the only match shown and the fact that Totton won 8-1, I really doesn't matter.
At the end of the news bulletin I noticed that the camera was either zoomed in further or moved further towards Gareth because he seemed to fill the screen more!
Overall, a very good bulletin!
TB 2011
Tuesday 15 November 2011
England v.s. Spain review/England v.s. Sweden preview.
Tonight, England play Sweden at Wembley following their victory over Spain on Saturday at the same venue. England will go into the game with a lot of confidence after beating the current world and European champions, however it is my opinion that the only part of the England team who should feel happy about the win is the defence.
Scott Parker was fantastic in defensive midfield alongside Phil Jones, (yes, Fabio Capello actually put a centre back in defensive midfield against Spain) it proved to be the correct decision though, as Jones played quite well in a position unfamiliar to him.
The two centre backs Jagielka and Lescott revived their old Everton partnership and kept the Spain attacks at bay and when they couldn't do so, Joe Hart was able to stop the world champions from scoring.
For once, Glen Johnson stayed in his right back position and didn't venture down the right wing and Ashley Cole proved why he has been hailed as the best left back in the country.
I think the main reason why England beat Spain was that England treated it as a tournament game i.e. assuming they were the underdogs from the start and defending well. They took their chance to score and managed to keep Spain a bay for the next 40 minutes or so.
In recent tournaments, England seemed to have played as if it were a league season (a series of matches where if you draw or lose, it doesn't really matter because there are a lot more matches to come), however in tournament football you have to treat each game individually and basically just play like England did against Spain. Spain may have won the World Cup in 2010, but in their last 3 games of the tournament, they only scored 3 goals. This just goes to show that you don't need to score millions (a slight exaggeration) of goals to win an international tournament - you just need to defend well and score 1 goal per game. It just goes to show that "If you don't concede, you don't lose". Maybe that's where we've always gone wrong in international football, we don't defend well enough.
Sadly, everyone watching the Sweden game tonight will have to endure John Terry playing, as Capello re-instates Terry as captain (after dropping him and making Lampard captain against Spain). It's likely that Terry will play alongside Gary Cahill in central defence, maybe with new boy Kyle Walker at right back and Leighton Baines at left back. I hope Capello goes by his word and actually uses the young defenders that he's able to use and not just stick with Johnson and Cole (they're good players - but there needs to be a change).
The midfield lineup is easier to predict, with Parker and Lampard assured of spots in the first XI after good showings on Saturday, maybe accompanied by Jack Rodwell and Downing on the left and right respectively.
Daniel Sturridge will be itching to make his first start for the Three Lions after impressing so far this season for Chelsea. Bobby Zamora looks like being given a place in the starting XI after a relatively poor performance by Darren Bent on Saturday.
Even with 8 changes being made, England should still be wary of over-confidence and the threat that Ibrahimovic and Elmander possess.
Prediction: 2 - 1
TB 2011
Scott Parker was fantastic in defensive midfield alongside Phil Jones, (yes, Fabio Capello actually put a centre back in defensive midfield against Spain) it proved to be the correct decision though, as Jones played quite well in a position unfamiliar to him.
The two centre backs Jagielka and Lescott revived their old Everton partnership and kept the Spain attacks at bay and when they couldn't do so, Joe Hart was able to stop the world champions from scoring.
For once, Glen Johnson stayed in his right back position and didn't venture down the right wing and Ashley Cole proved why he has been hailed as the best left back in the country.
I think the main reason why England beat Spain was that England treated it as a tournament game i.e. assuming they were the underdogs from the start and defending well. They took their chance to score and managed to keep Spain a bay for the next 40 minutes or so.
In recent tournaments, England seemed to have played as if it were a league season (a series of matches where if you draw or lose, it doesn't really matter because there are a lot more matches to come), however in tournament football you have to treat each game individually and basically just play like England did against Spain. Spain may have won the World Cup in 2010, but in their last 3 games of the tournament, they only scored 3 goals. This just goes to show that you don't need to score millions (a slight exaggeration) of goals to win an international tournament - you just need to defend well and score 1 goal per game. It just goes to show that "If you don't concede, you don't lose". Maybe that's where we've always gone wrong in international football, we don't defend well enough.
Sadly, everyone watching the Sweden game tonight will have to endure John Terry playing, as Capello re-instates Terry as captain (after dropping him and making Lampard captain against Spain). It's likely that Terry will play alongside Gary Cahill in central defence, maybe with new boy Kyle Walker at right back and Leighton Baines at left back. I hope Capello goes by his word and actually uses the young defenders that he's able to use and not just stick with Johnson and Cole (they're good players - but there needs to be a change).
The midfield lineup is easier to predict, with Parker and Lampard assured of spots in the first XI after good showings on Saturday, maybe accompanied by Jack Rodwell and Downing on the left and right respectively.
Daniel Sturridge will be itching to make his first start for the Three Lions after impressing so far this season for Chelsea. Bobby Zamora looks like being given a place in the starting XI after a relatively poor performance by Darren Bent on Saturday.
Even with 8 changes being made, England should still be wary of over-confidence and the threat that Ibrahimovic and Elmander possess.
Prediction: 2 - 1
TB 2011
Media Law - Lecture 8. Freedom of Information Act.
As the title suggests, the Media Law lecture we had today was about the Freedom of Information Act. This is an important tool for a journalist especially when trying to get a news story that no one else has got e.g. 3rd year Journalism student at Winchester Julie Cordier made an FoI request to the Police force/service about officers having previous convictions. This is a great piece of journalism and the results of the request can be found here on the WINOL news bulletin from 19th October: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQvOOPKUbJo
This story came out of nothing, unlike a lot of other news stories, which are first reported by one news outlet and then just regurgitated by other news organisations.
After Chris went over some of the stuff we had covered in previous weeks, he showed us a video of the journalist Matthew Davis talking about the Freedom of Information Act (FoI A) and why it is so useful, this is what he said, The FoI A gives the power to ask questions to companies/organisations etc and if no answers are given, then you can take the company/organisation to a tribunal.
In order to get the best results from your request, you must use the correct language (the language the company/organisation you are asking would use) and the best questions to ask are short/simple questions.
It is best to get comparative data e.g. from more than 3 years, this will give you a good picture of the trends.
When deciding what topic you want to investigate, use your own knowledge e.g. for me it would be good to investigate something to do with football because I can use my own knowledge during the investigation.
Matthew Davis has conducted many investigations using the FoI A, including a request to NHS hospitals asking them about the insurance that hospitals needed (in the event of negligence). He drew up a list of the worst hospitals in Britain based on the data he had collected.
This method of collecting information is easy, cheap and is pure journalism because you can make a news story from nothing and without his investigating, this list might not have been published. However the Act says that only certain information is accessible, information, or records of decisions, which have been written down or electronically recorded. The problem with this is that once officials realise that the stuff they record will be open to public scrutiny, they will be more likely to make the information they record inaccessible and/or be more careful when recording it.
The best thing about the FoI A is that the information must be disclosed, however sometimes companies/organisations say that it would cost them too much to get the data for you (even if you are willing to pay them).
The type of question you ask is also important e.g. it is likely that a journalist will get more information if they were to ask a question like "How many of your staff earn over £100,000?", instead of "How much do you pay your staff?". Asking a question like the latter may make them squirm a little and then hand you over to their Press Officer, who will probably tell you to go away or say that they will call back - and never do!
TB 2011
This story came out of nothing, unlike a lot of other news stories, which are first reported by one news outlet and then just regurgitated by other news organisations.
After Chris went over some of the stuff we had covered in previous weeks, he showed us a video of the journalist Matthew Davis talking about the Freedom of Information Act (FoI A) and why it is so useful, this is what he said, The FoI A gives the power to ask questions to companies/organisations etc and if no answers are given, then you can take the company/organisation to a tribunal.
In order to get the best results from your request, you must use the correct language (the language the company/organisation you are asking would use) and the best questions to ask are short/simple questions.
It is best to get comparative data e.g. from more than 3 years, this will give you a good picture of the trends.
When deciding what topic you want to investigate, use your own knowledge e.g. for me it would be good to investigate something to do with football because I can use my own knowledge during the investigation.
Matthew Davis has conducted many investigations using the FoI A, including a request to NHS hospitals asking them about the insurance that hospitals needed (in the event of negligence). He drew up a list of the worst hospitals in Britain based on the data he had collected.
This method of collecting information is easy, cheap and is pure journalism because you can make a news story from nothing and without his investigating, this list might not have been published. However the Act says that only certain information is accessible, information, or records of decisions, which have been written down or electronically recorded. The problem with this is that once officials realise that the stuff they record will be open to public scrutiny, they will be more likely to make the information they record inaccessible and/or be more careful when recording it.
The best thing about the FoI A is that the information must be disclosed, however sometimes companies/organisations say that it would cost them too much to get the data for you (even if you are willing to pay them).
The type of question you ask is also important e.g. it is likely that a journalist will get more information if they were to ask a question like "How many of your staff earn over £100,000?", instead of "How much do you pay your staff?". Asking a question like the latter may make them squirm a little and then hand you over to their Press Officer, who will probably tell you to go away or say that they will call back - and never do!
TB 2011
Sunday 13 November 2011
HCJ Seminar Paper
HCJ SEMINAR PAPER ON DESCARTES, SPINOZA AND LEIBNIZ...
Descartes
Descartes
Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) is considered to be the father of modern philosophy. His outlook was influenced by new physics and astronomy.
He published the book ‘Principia Philisophiae’ in 1644, this set out most of his scientific theories. He wrote others books including ‘Essais Philosophiques’ in which he wrote about optics and geometry.
He regarded the bodies of men and animals as machines; animals were ‘automata’ (or automated) and humans as soulful.
Mind and matter
He asked the question ‘If mind and matter can’t interact, why does the body behave as if the mind is controlling it? Geulincx (a follower of Descartes) came up with the theory of two clocks as the answer: Both clocks keep perfect time and when one points to the hour mark, the other will strike, so that if you saw one and heard the other, you would think that one caused the other to strike. Each clock is wound up by God (perfect timing) so that when you choose to, physical laws cause your arm to move even though your mind hasn’t really acted on your body.
There are of course problems with this theory, one being that the physical series is rigidly determined by natural laws and the mental series (which is parallel to it) must be equally deterministic. However the theory has certain merits; in a way it made the soul independent of the body because it was never acted upon by the body. The theory also allowed the principle ‘one substance can’t act on another’. There were two substances; mind and matter, interaction between the two seemed so inconceivable and Geulincx’s theory explained the appearance of interaction while denying its reality.
Doubt
Descartes most important books were ‘Discourses in Method’ (1637) and ‘Meditations’ (1642). In these he deals with ‘Cartesian Doubt’; this is where he tried to doubt everything he could possibly doubt, pushing away everything unknown to him and left the stuff he knew - the only thing he didn’t doubt was geometry because it is unchangeable. Descartes even doubted his own nationality/heritage. Whilst doing this, he regulated his conduct by following ‘common received rules’. He left his mind unhampered by the consequences of his doubt.
Descartes began with scepticism with regard to the senses. He says ‘Can I doubt it that I am sitting here?’ Yes, because sometimes I have dreamt it.
Beliefs can be doubted whenever there is sceptical alternative to suggest otherwise.
Your senses have deceived at least once in your life, so why not at any time? They have no more status than a dream or a hallucination.
A question raised from this is ‘What if it’s all a dream?’ this is where ‘The Matrix’ comes in. The film is based on Descartes’ main philosophical statement/idea ‘I think, therefore I am’ and the ability of think for yourself (intellectual autonomy). Descartes knew that his sensory experiences didn’t always match reality e.g. the opposite of lucid dreams?
In ‘The Matrix’ people live their lives in pods which feed them sensory information; this gives them the illusion of leading ordinary lives. Reality is a computer generated dreamworld called the Matrix.
Ideas (this includes sense perceptions).
According to Descartes, ideas seem to be of these sorts:
1: those that are innate
2: those that are foreign
3: those that are invented by me
The 2nd type of ideas are objects, we suppose this because nature teaches us think so and also because such ideas come independently of the mind e.g. sensation.
Spinoza
Spinoza (1632 - 1677) was “the most noblest and loveable of the great philosophers” according to Russell. He wasn’t as intellectual as a lot of the other great philosophers but he was ethically supreme.
Main works and ideas
His main work ‘Ethics’ was published after his death at the age of 43. The ‘Tractatus Theologico-Politicus’ and the ‘Tractatus Politicus’ were his other works. ‘Tractatus Theologico-Politicus’ was a combination of criticism of the Bible and political theory. ‘Tractatus Politicus’ was only about political theory.
In his criticism of the Bible, he deals with anticipating modern views, in particular, assigning later dates to many of the books of the Bible in the Old Testament, rather than relying on tradition.
His political theory derives from Hobbes. In the state of nature, there is no right or wrong because wrong involves breaking the law. According to Spinoza, the Sovereign can do no wrong and agrees with Hobbes in that the church should be secondary to the state. Spinoza opposes rebellion, even against a bad Government. However, he disagrees with Hobbes in that ‘democracy is the most natural form of government’. He says that freedom of opinion is important, however he says that religious questions should be decided by the state and not the church.
His work ‘Ethics’ deals with metaphysics, psychology of the ‘passions’ of the human mind and will; it sets out an ethics based on metaphysics and psychology.
Metaphysics and psychology are from Descartes and Hobbes respectively, but ethics is Spinoza’s own work and of most value in his book.
Spinoza says that everything is ruled by an absolute logical necessity. There is no free will in the mental sphere or the concept of chance in the physical world. Everything that happens manifests from God’s instructionable nature.
Spinoza and the emotions
Spinoza suggests the idea that ‘the mind has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God’.
The ‘passions’ of our minds distract us from our intellectual vision, he goes on to say that ‘everything endeavours to persevere in its own being’, therefore we get love and hate. According to Spinoza, self-preservation is the central motive of the ‘passions’.
The last two books of ‘Ethics’ were about human bondage (or ‘strength of emotions’) and the ‘power of understanding’ (or ‘human freedom’).
Leibniz
Leibniz (1646 - 1716) is one of the supreme intellects of all time.
There are two systems of philosophy that can be attributed to him; the first was optimistic and orthodox. The other was unearthed by more recent philosophers and is said to be ‘Spinoza-esque’, profound and coherent.
Substance(s)
His most popular philosophy can be found in ‘Monadology’ and ‘Principles of Nature and Grace’ - one of which he wrote for Prince Eugene of Savoy. His theoretical optimism is in the ‘Theodicee’ - written for Queen Charlotte of Prussia. Just like Descartes and Spinoza he based his philosophy on substance, but differed from Descartes and Spinoza in his theory of mind and matter and the number of substances. Descartes said there were 3: Mind, matter and God. Spinoza said there was 1 substance: God.
According to Descartes, extension is the centre of matter; Spinoza said that extension and thought are attributes of God, but Leibniz says that extension can’t be an attribute of a substance because extension involves plurality and can only be attributed to a number of substances and not just one, for this reason, each single substance must be unextended.
Monads (Very brief explanation)
Monads are an infinite number of substances; each monad is a soul, but only when viewed abstractly. No monad could be related to another.
Leibniz’s arguments for the existence of God
1: The Ontological argument: This deals with existence vs. essence. Any person or thing exists and also has certain qualities. The OA in 3 basic steps:
Definition: God is the greatest thing imaginable.
Premise: It is greater to (necessarily) exist than to not (necessarily) exist.
Conclusion: God (necessarily) exists.
Leibniz said that unless the coherence of a supremely perfect being could be demonstrated, the ontological argument fails.
2: The Cosmological Argument: This is a form of the ‘first cause’ argument. A basic version of the CA is this:
Every finite being has a cause or a meaning.
A causal loop can’t exist.
A causal chain can’t be an infinite length.
Therefore, a first cause (not an effect) must exist
Leibiniz said this: “There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition, without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases”.
3: The argument from eternal truths: This is hard to define properly, but roughly this is it: A statement such as ‘it is raining’ is sometimes true but sometimes false. The statement ‘two and four’ is always true. Statements that are always true are called eternal truths. Also, the truths that are part of the content of an eternal mind.
4: The argument from pre-established harmony: Leibniz says that the argument is this; all clocks keep time with each other without any causal interaction, there must have been a single outside cause that relates to all of the clocks. This links to the monads theory, if all the monads never have interaction, then how do any of them know that the other ones exist? Apparently, this argument has no logical fault because it is based on empiricism.
Every substance only affects itself, but all the substances in the world yet seem to causally interact with each other because they have been programmed by God in advance to ‘harmonize’ with each other.
The end?
Sources used:
Sources used:
‘A History of Western Philosophy’ - B. Russell.
Saturday 12 November 2011
Old for new? - England v.s. Spain and the future.
Today, England face Spain at Wembley in what the FA probably hoped would be a repeat of the 2010 World Cup final (as we all knew deep down, that was never going to happen - even if we had finished 1st in the easiest ever group).
England coach Fabio Capello - who will be replaced after the Euro 2012 Championships, announced yesterday that Frank Lampard will captain the team for the game against Spain because John Terry will be on the bench (and almost certainly come on early in the 2nd half) and that Terry will start against Sweden. Er, why?
Why choose Frank Lampard as the captain? He's past his best and never got to show his true potential at international level anyway, so why pick him to lead the team out against the international team in the world? Who else is there I hear you cry? There are many of the younger players who will be playing the Euros next year who would love to captain their country, or one of the players new to the England setup such as Scott Parker. He may only be 2 years younger than Frank Lampard, but he's twice the player Frank is. So far this season, he's proved what a great player he is and what a great player he has always been. As I've said many times before, he's the type of player that pretty much every Premier League club needs; a player that will give 100% every game, a player that never stops running and a player that will win the ball 9 times out of 10.
At West Ham, he did a better job of captaining the team than Matthew Upson could ever do, just think back to when West Ham were 3 - 0 away at West Brom, it was no secret that Parker's half time team talk basically won the Hammers a point, where to be honest, we really shouldn't have done. In my opinion, he is the best defensive midfielder in the Premier League, the role he plays for Tottenham suits them really well - he wins the ball the opposition's half, skirts around one or two players and gives the ball to Modric, Bale or Van der Vaart and lets them get on with making chances and scoring goals. Just imagine what he could do in competitive internationals if he was used in that way? What I want to see is him trying to control Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets and Fabregas - if he can do it people will be wondering why on earth he's only got 10 caps (after today's game).
With just under 8 months to go until the 16 best footballing countries in Europe go to Poland and Ukraine, why doesn't Capello just forget about players such as Lampard and Terry? After their poor performances in the World Cup two years ago do they really deserve to represent their country at the very top level again? Obviously I don't know who Capello will choose next year, but if he wants to try and use young players, he's going to have a few spaces that need filling and guess who's going to fill them? Terry, Gerrard (if he's fit) and Lampard etc...
What ever way you look at it, those players will go to Poland and Ukraine and quite frankly, it will be a waste of time. Terry and Lampard will be so tired out from (in vain) chasing the Premier League title that they'll be a similar situation as at the World Cup - complete and utter burnout.
That's why Capello needs to effectively start again with England - remove Terry, Lampard, Gerrard and co from his mind and just focus on the players who will one day be playing at a World Cup. Maybe he needs to learn from Arsene Wenger and play the youngsters and new players, so that in 5 or 6 years, even though he won't be involved, we might actually have a chance at a major tournament, because the way he's going, England will find themsleves getting knocked out at the quarter finals again - let alone the semi finals, which we haven't reached since Euro 1996 and we were at home then.
Four questions Fabio:
Why no Rooney - against Spain? If England want to be serious contenders in Poland and Ukraine, then why isn't he using Rooney against a team that they could be playing next year?
Why no Micah Richards? In my opinion, the best right back in the Premier League and he's playing regularly for the league leaders for crying out loud!
Why Lampard as captain?
Why Lampard at all?
TB 2011
England coach Fabio Capello - who will be replaced after the Euro 2012 Championships, announced yesterday that Frank Lampard will captain the team for the game against Spain because John Terry will be on the bench (and almost certainly come on early in the 2nd half) and that Terry will start against Sweden. Er, why?
Why choose Frank Lampard as the captain? He's past his best and never got to show his true potential at international level anyway, so why pick him to lead the team out against the international team in the world? Who else is there I hear you cry? There are many of the younger players who will be playing the Euros next year who would love to captain their country, or one of the players new to the England setup such as Scott Parker. He may only be 2 years younger than Frank Lampard, but he's twice the player Frank is. So far this season, he's proved what a great player he is and what a great player he has always been. As I've said many times before, he's the type of player that pretty much every Premier League club needs; a player that will give 100% every game, a player that never stops running and a player that will win the ball 9 times out of 10.
At West Ham, he did a better job of captaining the team than Matthew Upson could ever do, just think back to when West Ham were 3 - 0 away at West Brom, it was no secret that Parker's half time team talk basically won the Hammers a point, where to be honest, we really shouldn't have done. In my opinion, he is the best defensive midfielder in the Premier League, the role he plays for Tottenham suits them really well - he wins the ball the opposition's half, skirts around one or two players and gives the ball to Modric, Bale or Van der Vaart and lets them get on with making chances and scoring goals. Just imagine what he could do in competitive internationals if he was used in that way? What I want to see is him trying to control Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets and Fabregas - if he can do it people will be wondering why on earth he's only got 10 caps (after today's game).
With just under 8 months to go until the 16 best footballing countries in Europe go to Poland and Ukraine, why doesn't Capello just forget about players such as Lampard and Terry? After their poor performances in the World Cup two years ago do they really deserve to represent their country at the very top level again? Obviously I don't know who Capello will choose next year, but if he wants to try and use young players, he's going to have a few spaces that need filling and guess who's going to fill them? Terry, Gerrard (if he's fit) and Lampard etc...
What ever way you look at it, those players will go to Poland and Ukraine and quite frankly, it will be a waste of time. Terry and Lampard will be so tired out from (in vain) chasing the Premier League title that they'll be a similar situation as at the World Cup - complete and utter burnout.
That's why Capello needs to effectively start again with England - remove Terry, Lampard, Gerrard and co from his mind and just focus on the players who will one day be playing at a World Cup. Maybe he needs to learn from Arsene Wenger and play the youngsters and new players, so that in 5 or 6 years, even though he won't be involved, we might actually have a chance at a major tournament, because the way he's going, England will find themsleves getting knocked out at the quarter finals again - let alone the semi finals, which we haven't reached since Euro 1996 and we were at home then.
Four questions Fabio:
Why no Rooney - against Spain? If England want to be serious contenders in Poland and Ukraine, then why isn't he using Rooney against a team that they could be playing next year?
Why no Micah Richards? In my opinion, the best right back in the Premier League and he's playing regularly for the league leaders for crying out loud!
Why Lampard as captain?
Why Lampard at all?
TB 2011
Friday 11 November 2011
Review of WINOL News 9th November.
I thought that this week's WINOL News bulletin was quite good.
One of the best features of the bulletin was the story about the London demonstration against education and public sector cuts, I thought the camera shots were good however when the reporter Tom was talking, the sound pick-up wasn't that good and his voice ended up sounding quite tinny. There may be a legal issue concerning permission to film people. Could the shots used be classed as GVs?
I was surprised to see an interview with Chris Huhne in WINOL, to get a cabinet minister from the party (supposedly) helping to run the country was remarkable for a student news bulletin.
I felt that the sports coverage was better than last week (mainly becuase there was no Ice Hockey!), however only highlights of one football match were shown (however, there is a WINOL Sportsweek programme, where a lot of football is covered). The reverse camera angles in the football match were good, especially the first goal. This shot was better than some shown on Match of the Day.
There were a couple of issues surrounding permission that I spotted: Did they get permission to film everyone in the Graduation piece? Did they get permission to film the two people standing behind Louis in his story?
Overall, a good bulletin.
TB 2011
One of the best features of the bulletin was the story about the London demonstration against education and public sector cuts, I thought the camera shots were good however when the reporter Tom was talking, the sound pick-up wasn't that good and his voice ended up sounding quite tinny. There may be a legal issue concerning permission to film people. Could the shots used be classed as GVs?
I was surprised to see an interview with Chris Huhne in WINOL, to get a cabinet minister from the party (supposedly) helping to run the country was remarkable for a student news bulletin.
I felt that the sports coverage was better than last week (mainly becuase there was no Ice Hockey!), however only highlights of one football match were shown (however, there is a WINOL Sportsweek programme, where a lot of football is covered). The reverse camera angles in the football match were good, especially the first goal. This shot was better than some shown on Match of the Day.
There were a couple of issues surrounding permission that I spotted: Did they get permission to film everyone in the Graduation piece? Did they get permission to film the two people standing behind Louis in his story?
Overall, a good bulletin.
TB 2011
Tuesday 8 November 2011
Media Law - Lecture 7. Investigative Journalism.
Todays' Media Law lecture was done by Brian because Chris was at Winchester Cathedral being made a professor - clever boy.
Investigative Journalism is all about getting a news story out of pretty much nothing, a story that without the journalist's investigative skills probably wouldn't be published. This is because Investigative Journalism uncovers stuff about that 'someone somewhere doesn't want you to know' e.g. the company that made the drug 'Thalidomide'.
An Investigative journalist can set his/her own news agenda, this is similar to Gonzo Journalism e.g. Michael Moore documentaries.
An example that Brian used today was a fireworks display. A regional TV news programme may have a story about the firework display and say how wonderful it was etc etc, but an Investigative Journalist may ask the organisers (usually the council) how much money they spent on the fireworks and all sorts of other difficult questions about cutting costs and the like.
In Investigative Journalism, malice is an issue e.g. if I'm annoyed about the high prices of the food in the University's canteen (which I am!) and then I investigative something about the University, this could be considered malicious against the University and a revengeful act (not good).
Conflict of interest is also an issue, the journalist George Alagiah did important work for a children's charity and he was told to stop this work because of his job. On the news, he might have given more time to the charity he supports over other charities.
Classic Investigations
Harry Evans: The ex-editor of the Sunday Times and his 'Insight Team' investigated the company that made the drug Thalidomide and found that the company knew about the harmful effects the drug could have on babies, but they didn't tell anyone and more an more babies were born deformed. The investigation got compensation for people affected by Thalidomide and without the investigation, Thalidomide may have been sold to mothers for a longer period of time.
Ray Fitzwalter: 'World in Action' was a TV programme (similar to Panorama and Dispatches) which investigated issues that either no one was prepared to investigate or issues that no one knew about. Their biggest case was the un-framing of political dissidents who were accused for bombing pubs in Birmingham. There was also a documentary made about it called 'Who Bombed Birmingham'.
Brian then went on to talk about Miscarriages of Justice and The Innocence Project which we do in Year 3 (if we make it that far of course!). He told us about Gerry Conden, who was accused of being one of 'Guildford 4' bombers. The Police tortured him in such a way that no visible marks were left on his body and until he confessed. A documentary was made about this called 'In the name of the fourther'.
However, the 'Criminal Cases Review Commission' was set up to help people who claim to be innocent. Prisoners can apply for the CCRC to look over the case, however the CCRC doesn't usually work because after going through the evidence, they come to the same conclusion as the 12 men and women, the Police and the judge - guilty.
This is where the Innocence Project comes in, I won't go into too much detail but Brian told us about a character called Warren Slaney, He is an ex-boxer sent to prison for murdering two men by shooting them, however the evidence against his conviction is overwhelming: Doctors said that he was physically unable to hold a gun and the Police lost the gun and the DNA evidence. Slaney also says that he was at a house party and nine witnesses can vouch for him being there. So the question is: what really happened?, hopefully the Innocence Project can find out and get Warren Slaney off, but if they do, I wouldn't want to be Terry Burke!
TB 2011
Investigative Journalism is all about getting a news story out of pretty much nothing, a story that without the journalist's investigative skills probably wouldn't be published. This is because Investigative Journalism uncovers stuff about that 'someone somewhere doesn't want you to know' e.g. the company that made the drug 'Thalidomide'.
An Investigative journalist can set his/her own news agenda, this is similar to Gonzo Journalism e.g. Michael Moore documentaries.
An example that Brian used today was a fireworks display. A regional TV news programme may have a story about the firework display and say how wonderful it was etc etc, but an Investigative Journalist may ask the organisers (usually the council) how much money they spent on the fireworks and all sorts of other difficult questions about cutting costs and the like.
In Investigative Journalism, malice is an issue e.g. if I'm annoyed about the high prices of the food in the University's canteen (which I am!) and then I investigative something about the University, this could be considered malicious against the University and a revengeful act (not good).
Conflict of interest is also an issue, the journalist George Alagiah did important work for a children's charity and he was told to stop this work because of his job. On the news, he might have given more time to the charity he supports over other charities.
Classic Investigations
Harry Evans: The ex-editor of the Sunday Times and his 'Insight Team' investigated the company that made the drug Thalidomide and found that the company knew about the harmful effects the drug could have on babies, but they didn't tell anyone and more an more babies were born deformed. The investigation got compensation for people affected by Thalidomide and without the investigation, Thalidomide may have been sold to mothers for a longer period of time.
Ray Fitzwalter: 'World in Action' was a TV programme (similar to Panorama and Dispatches) which investigated issues that either no one was prepared to investigate or issues that no one knew about. Their biggest case was the un-framing of political dissidents who were accused for bombing pubs in Birmingham. There was also a documentary made about it called 'Who Bombed Birmingham'.
Brian then went on to talk about Miscarriages of Justice and The Innocence Project which we do in Year 3 (if we make it that far of course!). He told us about Gerry Conden, who was accused of being one of 'Guildford 4' bombers. The Police tortured him in such a way that no visible marks were left on his body and until he confessed. A documentary was made about this called 'In the name of the fourther'.
However, the 'Criminal Cases Review Commission' was set up to help people who claim to be innocent. Prisoners can apply for the CCRC to look over the case, however the CCRC doesn't usually work because after going through the evidence, they come to the same conclusion as the 12 men and women, the Police and the judge - guilty.
This is where the Innocence Project comes in, I won't go into too much detail but Brian told us about a character called Warren Slaney, He is an ex-boxer sent to prison for murdering two men by shooting them, however the evidence against his conviction is overwhelming: Doctors said that he was physically unable to hold a gun and the Police lost the gun and the DNA evidence. Slaney also says that he was at a house party and nine witnesses can vouch for him being there. So the question is: what really happened?, hopefully the Innocence Project can find out and get Warren Slaney off, but if they do, I wouldn't want to be Terry Burke!
TB 2011
Thursday 3 November 2011
Newspapers and Audiences.
We had our first proper 'Journalism Now - Audiences/agendas: newspapers/News Clinics' sessions today. From both the morning session and the afternoon's News Clinics seminar, I think I'm going to enjoy it quite a lot. Mainly because we get to discuss newspapers, comparing different newspapers and what they look like, how they present different news stories and what stances they take.
The newspaper I have to buy is 'The Independent', it seems to be quite 'wishy washy' and doesn't really present the reader with anything to argue against because the newspaper doesn't seem have a view of it's own. This extends to no poppy being present on the front page, maybe the newspaper assumes that the reader is intelligent enough to be able to remember without the aid of an image of a poppy. No poppy could also show that the newspaper is anti-war (however if they were to think about it for a second, without what the soldiers did, they might not be alive...).
After studying sociology at A Level, I developed the view that to be able to start any kind of research, you have to have a view on at least what you think you might find out, this approach is not purely objective, but you've got to start somewhere right? I have extended this to the media and newspapers in particular.
'The Telegraph' or 'The Torygraph' has always supported the Conservatives. The only paper I can think of that supports Labour nowadays is 'The Mirror', probably because the audience of The Mirror is Labour supporters (although in my view, the 3 major political parties are all just the same - a bunch of no good Thatcherites).
Here's a short round-up of the major newspaper's political allegancies and their typical audiences:
The Independent: See above.
The Mirror: See above.
The Daily Telegraph: See above.
The Sun: Conservatives. The Sun has changed from Labour to Tory in the past few years, which is strange considering the general readership of The Sun - white van men (working class).
Daily Mail: Conservatives. Clearly in favour of the nuclear family and other Tory values. This appeals to the readership as a lot of them are old and moan about how bad the younger generations have made the country etc... This could be because that's what The DM says and because of this, The DM is one of the most influential papers in the UK.
The Guardian: Liberal Democrats. 'The teacher's paper' is similar to The Independent in that it is quite liberal and doesn't really present any real view either way.
The Times: Conservatives. It is owned by Murdoch's gang, therefore following suit of The Sun in it's political view.
TB 2011
The newspaper I have to buy is 'The Independent', it seems to be quite 'wishy washy' and doesn't really present the reader with anything to argue against because the newspaper doesn't seem have a view of it's own. This extends to no poppy being present on the front page, maybe the newspaper assumes that the reader is intelligent enough to be able to remember without the aid of an image of a poppy. No poppy could also show that the newspaper is anti-war (however if they were to think about it for a second, without what the soldiers did, they might not be alive...).
After studying sociology at A Level, I developed the view that to be able to start any kind of research, you have to have a view on at least what you think you might find out, this approach is not purely objective, but you've got to start somewhere right? I have extended this to the media and newspapers in particular.
'The Telegraph' or 'The Torygraph' has always supported the Conservatives. The only paper I can think of that supports Labour nowadays is 'The Mirror', probably because the audience of The Mirror is Labour supporters (although in my view, the 3 major political parties are all just the same - a bunch of no good Thatcherites).
Here's a short round-up of the major newspaper's political allegancies and their typical audiences:
The Independent: See above.
The Mirror: See above.
The Daily Telegraph: See above.
The Sun: Conservatives. The Sun has changed from Labour to Tory in the past few years, which is strange considering the general readership of The Sun - white van men (working class).
Daily Mail: Conservatives. Clearly in favour of the nuclear family and other Tory values. This appeals to the readership as a lot of them are old and moan about how bad the younger generations have made the country etc... This could be because that's what The DM says and because of this, The DM is one of the most influential papers in the UK.
The Guardian: Liberal Democrats. 'The teacher's paper' is similar to The Independent in that it is quite liberal and doesn't really present any real view either way.
The Times: Conservatives. It is owned by Murdoch's gang, therefore following suit of The Sun in it's political view.
TB 2011
Wednesday 2 November 2011
Chickens coming home to roost and Brentford Park Avenue - WINOL News 2nd November 2011.
Today, me and Ben went down to help out at WINOL and to get an insight into how things really work at the UK's best student journalism news bulletin (and to get some experience along the way as well). To be honest, I was quite excited whilst being taken down into the TV studio, I saw some cameras and two presenters sitting at a table - thinking that it wouldn't be long until the latest WINOL News bulletin was going to be filmed - I was wrong... I learned that TV news never runs smoothly and it requires quite a bit of patience.
They spent almost an hour doing run-throughs, but I think most of the delays were caused by problems in the gallery (sound, autocue and VTs - that sort of thing). While we waited, we were shown one of the cameras and how to operate it, it was so simple! Left, right, up, down, moving the camera around, zoom in/out and focus are the only things you have to do.
The actual bulletin was better than the last 2 weeks' bulletins, there was not as much jumpy editing this time, except for in the catch up VT with Ali, where there was a not so slick jump between 2 different parts. There was also a dodgy bit of editing in the sports news after one of the goals in the Basingstoke Bison Ice Hockey match, the clips was cut while a typical Ice Hockey tune was still playing - either let it continue until it's finished or cut it so that you don't get any of the tune, don't have a bit of the tune and then just cut it off!
There was also report about the European Union crisis, with interviews from Steve Brine MP and good old Nigel Farage MEP (pronounced Fararge, of course), he never ceases to make me giggle. He didn't disappoint in his interview after last week's 'Question Time', only he could incorporate chickens coming home to roost in an interview. However, his interview was ruined slightly by the bad light, but the interview with Steve Brine was very good, all the right questions were asked and it was in a nice location - it would have been worthy of an ITV or BBC local news bulletin.
I thought that the rest of the bulletin was good, especially the WINOL Woodwork feature. The sign off was a bit abrupt and the music seems to fade in too quickly (for my liking).
P.S. Dear all football fans, there's a team that's running riot, they're called Brentford Park Avenue and they're playing AFC Totton in the 1st round of the FA Cup - watch out for them...
TB 2011
They spent almost an hour doing run-throughs, but I think most of the delays were caused by problems in the gallery (sound, autocue and VTs - that sort of thing). While we waited, we were shown one of the cameras and how to operate it, it was so simple! Left, right, up, down, moving the camera around, zoom in/out and focus are the only things you have to do.
The actual bulletin was better than the last 2 weeks' bulletins, there was not as much jumpy editing this time, except for in the catch up VT with Ali, where there was a not so slick jump between 2 different parts. There was also a dodgy bit of editing in the sports news after one of the goals in the Basingstoke Bison Ice Hockey match, the clips was cut while a typical Ice Hockey tune was still playing - either let it continue until it's finished or cut it so that you don't get any of the tune, don't have a bit of the tune and then just cut it off!
There was also report about the European Union crisis, with interviews from Steve Brine MP and good old Nigel Farage MEP (pronounced Fararge, of course), he never ceases to make me giggle. He didn't disappoint in his interview after last week's 'Question Time', only he could incorporate chickens coming home to roost in an interview. However, his interview was ruined slightly by the bad light, but the interview with Steve Brine was very good, all the right questions were asked and it was in a nice location - it would have been worthy of an ITV or BBC local news bulletin.
I thought that the rest of the bulletin was good, especially the WINOL Woodwork feature. The sign off was a bit abrupt and the music seems to fade in too quickly (for my liking).
P.S. Dear all football fans, there's a team that's running riot, they're called Brentford Park Avenue and they're playing AFC Totton in the 1st round of the FA Cup - watch out for them...
TB 2011
Tuesday 1 November 2011
Media Law - Lecture 6. Copyright.
The rules surrounding copyright are very interesting and at the same time, very dangerous. Especially as you may not know what photos are copyrighted and which photos are not when you copy an image from Google Images (as I'm sure many of us have done before!)
Intellectual property rights
This covers any work covered by a license e.g. music and films. The rules on theft of physical property are basically the same with intellectual property e.g. if you illegally download a film online, it is the same as stealing a DVD from a shop because what you are in effect buying, is the license - not the DVD itself.
If someone else wants to use a song that you have put into the public domain (and it's on sale) and someone puts on a website where others can download it for free, then whoever downloads it from the illegal website - then they're in breach of copyright as well as the person who uploaded the song to the website. Major music file sharing websites such as Limewire and Napster are in breach of copyright laws. However, they can buy the rights to the song off of you and by doing so, they are able to do whatever they want with the song.
In journalism, you license your work in return for payment, this works in 3 ways:
1: If you are employed by a newspaper or a broadcaster, it is usually in your contract that you surrender your work and as a result, your employer can exploit your work in any way they want.
2: As a journalist, you can negotiate a new contract which gives you some rights to the money generated from your employer using the work. Your employer will probably pay you less salary, but you will still own the rights to your work (meaning that if you also do freelance work, you can license you work out to another newspaper).
3: 'Rip off'. This phrase originates in the 1960s when groups like The Who signed total buy-out contracts on a pad. They were then able to record songs for wages, the record company then made millions of pounds without giving any of the money to The Who. The Who then litigated in the 1980s to get back some of the money. The phrase 'rip off' comes from the paper contract being ripped off the pad!
Fair dealing/'lifting'
There is no copyright involved with the facts in a news story, however the speech, pictures and videos are covered by copyright. When reporting the football results, the actual results are not copyright but an interview with someone about the results, then this is covered because it belongs to the broadcaster.
But, you can 'lift' a short soundbite from a story/interview (as long as you credit it and don't try and 'pass it off' as your own.
Summary:
What does copyright protect?:
Literature (inc. journalism, PC programmes and leaflets), drama, music and photography.
Copyright lasts for 70 years for films, artistic works and music scores. Copyright for sound recordings and broadcasting lasts for 50 years. As Chris pointed out today, some of Cliff Richard's work is not covered by copyright anymore!
Copyright doesn't cover ideas
If I have the best idea in the world and someone copies that idea, then I can't 'do them' for breaching copyright.
The statutory rules:
These are some of the copyright rules from the statute: It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:
Copy the work.
Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
Adapt the work.
These are some of the rules about fair dealing from the statute: You can use copyrighted materials only in the following ways:
Private and research study purposes.
Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
Criticism and news reporting.
Incidental inclusion
Creative Commons: This is a movement that makes some material free from full copyright, an advanced search on image sharing website Flickr reveals some images that have no permission to use attached to them. Usually, license holders of CC images require for them to be credited when the image is used.
TB 2011
Intellectual property rights
This covers any work covered by a license e.g. music and films. The rules on theft of physical property are basically the same with intellectual property e.g. if you illegally download a film online, it is the same as stealing a DVD from a shop because what you are in effect buying, is the license - not the DVD itself.
If someone else wants to use a song that you have put into the public domain (and it's on sale) and someone puts on a website where others can download it for free, then whoever downloads it from the illegal website - then they're in breach of copyright as well as the person who uploaded the song to the website. Major music file sharing websites such as Limewire and Napster are in breach of copyright laws. However, they can buy the rights to the song off of you and by doing so, they are able to do whatever they want with the song.
In journalism, you license your work in return for payment, this works in 3 ways:
1: If you are employed by a newspaper or a broadcaster, it is usually in your contract that you surrender your work and as a result, your employer can exploit your work in any way they want.
2: As a journalist, you can negotiate a new contract which gives you some rights to the money generated from your employer using the work. Your employer will probably pay you less salary, but you will still own the rights to your work (meaning that if you also do freelance work, you can license you work out to another newspaper).
3: 'Rip off'. This phrase originates in the 1960s when groups like The Who signed total buy-out contracts on a pad. They were then able to record songs for wages, the record company then made millions of pounds without giving any of the money to The Who. The Who then litigated in the 1980s to get back some of the money. The phrase 'rip off' comes from the paper contract being ripped off the pad!
Fair dealing/'lifting'
There is no copyright involved with the facts in a news story, however the speech, pictures and videos are covered by copyright. When reporting the football results, the actual results are not copyright but an interview with someone about the results, then this is covered because it belongs to the broadcaster.
But, you can 'lift' a short soundbite from a story/interview (as long as you credit it and don't try and 'pass it off' as your own.
Summary:
What does copyright protect?:
Literature (inc. journalism, PC programmes and leaflets), drama, music and photography.
Copyright lasts for 70 years for films, artistic works and music scores. Copyright for sound recordings and broadcasting lasts for 50 years. As Chris pointed out today, some of Cliff Richard's work is not covered by copyright anymore!
Copyright doesn't cover ideas
If I have the best idea in the world and someone copies that idea, then I can't 'do them' for breaching copyright.
The statutory rules:
These are some of the copyright rules from the statute: It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:
Copy the work.
Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
Adapt the work.
These are some of the rules about fair dealing from the statute: You can use copyrighted materials only in the following ways:
Private and research study purposes.
Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
Criticism and news reporting.
Incidental inclusion
Creative Commons: This is a movement that makes some material free from full copyright, an advanced search on image sharing website Flickr reveals some images that have no permission to use attached to them. Usually, license holders of CC images require for them to be credited when the image is used.
TB 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)