Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all the readers of this blog.
As my gift to you, here's a funny little story with a mild relation to Christmas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8222526/Father-Christmas-arrests-Italian-mafioso.html
See you in the new year.
Stay Classy Internet x
Saturday, 25 December 2010
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Media Law - Sheridan Case
The Tommy Sheridan case is finally over and the 46-year old former MSP has been found guilty of lying in a defamation case in court (perjury). All the details in the link below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12059037
Good stuff for our media law studies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12059037
Good stuff for our media law studies.
Saturday, 18 December 2010
The Philosophers Song
As it's the end of the semester I thought I'd treat any readers of this blog to something different. In fact, you could say 'and now for something completely different' as it's Monty Python's Philosophers Song.
Link here--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNDTUUmz_9s
It just made sense after a long hard semester in which we learnt a hell of a lot about philosophers to learn just the one more detail about them.
Link here--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNDTUUmz_9s
It just made sense after a long hard semester in which we learnt a hell of a lot about philosophers to learn just the one more detail about them.
Saturday, 11 December 2010
Journalism Now - BBC Radio 2
BBC Radio 2 began in 1967, evolving from the Light Programme and took much of its programming from the former when Radio 1 was launched to house much of the popular music broadcasting. The channel has gone from strength to strength in recent years currently labelling itself as “The Nation’s Favourite” as it has more listeners on average than any other radio station. The audience for BBC Radio 2 for example is 13,682,000 compared to 11,647,000 for Radio 1[1].
Much of its broadcasting can be described as AOR or Adult contemporary, although the station is still well thought of for its broadcasting of other more specialist musical genres such as the programme God’s Jukebox, presented by Mark Lamarr and covering genres as wide ranging as Soul, Ska, Reggae, Country, Gospel and Rap from the last 70 years. Unfortunately the show will be finishing its run by the end of 2010 with Lamarr leaving in protest at the direction in which the station is going.
As a BBC station there are no adverts at any time in the programming so we cannot determine the audience this way, but it is thought to have mainly adult listeners aged 25 and above although it has attracted younger listeners as its playlist contains current chart hits, album and indie music.2 The station is quite hard to position in ABC1C2DE ranges because it has no available data on those statistics, but by listening to its output you could presume that its audience is in the ABC1C2 range although the station does have quite a wide ranging appeal. I put it in this bracket because I believe the combination of presenters are more appealing to an ABC1C2 audience than a DE audience, who may be more likely to listen to Radio 1 or no radio at all.
The news is an integral part of Radio 2’s programming and as such it has a particular news agenda that you cannot ignore whilst listening. As an example, I took a whole day to listen to Radio 2 and took notes on the news of that day; the most interesting thing I found was the difference between 10am and 11am as the stories changed order and items that took precedence in the 10am bulletin were much lower down just an hour later. Even more interestingly, the last story of the 11am bulletin (on the cutting of the number of skilled workers being let in to the country) was the top story by 5pm.
On the station the news is more likely to have an unbiased view than a newspaper such as The Independent or The Daily Mail because it is BBC based and so has a code of conduct to follow which prevents it from bias. Even so, the priority it gives to stories in a bulletin does reveal something about the station and what the BBC terms as important; for example, the day I listened to was the day the Royal Wedding was announced and despite the BBC having a long history with the Royal family, the story was fairly low down. In contrast the Daily Mail included a 16-page pull out and keep section about the Royal Wedding on the day after it was announced.
BBC Radio 2 will probably continue in its popularity with a core audience that has made it the most popular radio station in the country today. It has a good mix of programmes ranging from the usual radio fare with a presenter, some witty banter and some music to more intellectual pieces like Jeremy Vine’s weekday show, which actually includes some fairly hard hitting journalism between the AOR hits and radio jingles.
Sources:
[1] RAJAR (Radio Joint Audience Research)http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php
[2] Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lamarr#Radio
Much of its broadcasting can be described as AOR or Adult contemporary, although the station is still well thought of for its broadcasting of other more specialist musical genres such as the programme God’s Jukebox, presented by Mark Lamarr and covering genres as wide ranging as Soul, Ska, Reggae, Country, Gospel and Rap from the last 70 years. Unfortunately the show will be finishing its run by the end of 2010 with Lamarr leaving in protest at the direction in which the station is going.
As a BBC station there are no adverts at any time in the programming so we cannot determine the audience this way, but it is thought to have mainly adult listeners aged 25 and above although it has attracted younger listeners as its playlist contains current chart hits, album and indie music.2 The station is quite hard to position in ABC1C2DE ranges because it has no available data on those statistics, but by listening to its output you could presume that its audience is in the ABC1C2 range although the station does have quite a wide ranging appeal. I put it in this bracket because I believe the combination of presenters are more appealing to an ABC1C2 audience than a DE audience, who may be more likely to listen to Radio 1 or no radio at all.
The news is an integral part of Radio 2’s programming and as such it has a particular news agenda that you cannot ignore whilst listening. As an example, I took a whole day to listen to Radio 2 and took notes on the news of that day; the most interesting thing I found was the difference between 10am and 11am as the stories changed order and items that took precedence in the 10am bulletin were much lower down just an hour later. Even more interestingly, the last story of the 11am bulletin (on the cutting of the number of skilled workers being let in to the country) was the top story by 5pm.
On the station the news is more likely to have an unbiased view than a newspaper such as The Independent or The Daily Mail because it is BBC based and so has a code of conduct to follow which prevents it from bias. Even so, the priority it gives to stories in a bulletin does reveal something about the station and what the BBC terms as important; for example, the day I listened to was the day the Royal Wedding was announced and despite the BBC having a long history with the Royal family, the story was fairly low down. In contrast the Daily Mail included a 16-page pull out and keep section about the Royal Wedding on the day after it was announced.
BBC Radio 2 will probably continue in its popularity with a core audience that has made it the most popular radio station in the country today. It has a good mix of programmes ranging from the usual radio fare with a presenter, some witty banter and some music to more intellectual pieces like Jeremy Vine’s weekday show, which actually includes some fairly hard hitting journalism between the AOR hits and radio jingles.
Sources:
[1] RAJAR (Radio Joint Audience Research)http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php
[2] Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lamarr#Radio
The Independent - Journalism Now
The Independent was launched in 1986 and is one of the youngest national daily newspapers in the UK. It was first published on 7 October 1986 as a broadsheet by Newspaper Publishing plc and was created by three former journalists of The Daily Telegraph, Andreas Whittam Smith, Stephen Glover and Matthew Symonds.
Its main focus was to challenge The Guardian for centre left readers and The Times as a newspaper of record. It launched with the slogan “It is. Are you?” attracting staff from Murdoch owned broadsheets who preferred not to move to Wapping. It sparked a price war and caused a shake up with its new design style[1].
Today it is struggling to survive in the economic climate and a difficult time in general for newspapers with its ownership having changed hands to a company controlled by Alexander Lebedev and Evgeny Lebedev, the father and son team having previously bought a controlling stake in London’s Evening Standard[1].
The paper’s political stance was intended to reflect the centre of the British political spectrum but is now thought to be tending towards left wing ideals making it The Guardian’s main competitor. On the eve of the most recent general election however it made its stance clear, advising “There is a strong case for progressively minded voters to lend their support to the Liberal Democrats.”[1]
On The Independent website it claims its readers are mostly male with 57%, this is also the same percentage whom the paper believes are solus readers; people who only read The Independent[2]. It places its readers in the ABC1 category which is not surprising considering the news agenda and even the price of the paper. When compared to the Daily Star at about 30p, £1 actually seems like quite a lot to pay for a newspaper.
The audience can also be discerned from the advertising with large adverts for brands such as House of Fraser or Waitrose, the paper is placing itself firmly in the ABC1 bracket. A page advert in colour in The Independent in a specified position is £16,660[3] so companies like Currys must think it worthwhile to advertise in the paper even with its small readership.
The audience profiles also suggest that most of their readers are professionals as 59% are in full time employment with 50% with degree level or higher in their education. A large majority as well are from the London and South East area[2].
The newspaper’s agenda ranges from political prisoners to climate change and often focuses on the stories like this that it sees as more ‘worthy’. You will not find celebrity based gossip in The Independent although you are more likely to find it on the website.
The Independent has also recently launched the ‘I’ newspaper which runs in conjunction with The Independent as its cheaper and more disposable cousin. The editorial is mostly similar and in fact on some days the articles that appear in The Independent find their way into the ‘I’; it just strikes me as odd however that a paper that is struggling to stay afloat has introduced yet another rival, one that is cheaper and more cost effective.
Like all newspapers and especially the ‘qualities’, The Independent’s circulation is dropping rapidly with 183,547 copies in circulation daily. This is down by 10.88% on the previous year. With this in mind it is difficult to see whether the newspaper can survive in the current economic climate or will the populist tabloids soon be the only papers we have.
Sources:
[1] Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent
[2] The Independent Website http://www.independentonlinesolutions.com/advertisingGuide/media/indy.pdf
[3] The Independent Website http://www.independentonlinesolutions.com/advertisingGuide/cards.html
Its main focus was to challenge The Guardian for centre left readers and The Times as a newspaper of record. It launched with the slogan “It is. Are you?” attracting staff from Murdoch owned broadsheets who preferred not to move to Wapping. It sparked a price war and caused a shake up with its new design style[1].
Today it is struggling to survive in the economic climate and a difficult time in general for newspapers with its ownership having changed hands to a company controlled by Alexander Lebedev and Evgeny Lebedev, the father and son team having previously bought a controlling stake in London’s Evening Standard[1].
The paper’s political stance was intended to reflect the centre of the British political spectrum but is now thought to be tending towards left wing ideals making it The Guardian’s main competitor. On the eve of the most recent general election however it made its stance clear, advising “There is a strong case for progressively minded voters to lend their support to the Liberal Democrats.”[1]
On The Independent website it claims its readers are mostly male with 57%, this is also the same percentage whom the paper believes are solus readers; people who only read The Independent[2]. It places its readers in the ABC1 category which is not surprising considering the news agenda and even the price of the paper. When compared to the Daily Star at about 30p, £1 actually seems like quite a lot to pay for a newspaper.
The audience can also be discerned from the advertising with large adverts for brands such as House of Fraser or Waitrose, the paper is placing itself firmly in the ABC1 bracket. A page advert in colour in The Independent in a specified position is £16,660[3] so companies like Currys must think it worthwhile to advertise in the paper even with its small readership.
The audience profiles also suggest that most of their readers are professionals as 59% are in full time employment with 50% with degree level or higher in their education. A large majority as well are from the London and South East area[2].
The newspaper’s agenda ranges from political prisoners to climate change and often focuses on the stories like this that it sees as more ‘worthy’. You will not find celebrity based gossip in The Independent although you are more likely to find it on the website.
The Independent has also recently launched the ‘I’ newspaper which runs in conjunction with The Independent as its cheaper and more disposable cousin. The editorial is mostly similar and in fact on some days the articles that appear in The Independent find their way into the ‘I’; it just strikes me as odd however that a paper that is struggling to stay afloat has introduced yet another rival, one that is cheaper and more cost effective.
Like all newspapers and especially the ‘qualities’, The Independent’s circulation is dropping rapidly with 183,547 copies in circulation daily. This is down by 10.88% on the previous year. With this in mind it is difficult to see whether the newspaper can survive in the current economic climate or will the populist tabloids soon be the only papers we have.
Sources:
[1] Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent
[2] The Independent Website http://www.independentonlinesolutions.com/advertisingGuide/media/indy.pdf
[3] The Independent Website http://www.independentonlinesolutions.com/advertisingGuide/cards.html
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
WikiLeaks/Leeks Continues
Today in the papers the main story on WikiLeaks followed the arrest warrant given to the head of the WikiLeaks company, Julian Assange.
For anyone who doesn't yet understand why he has been issued with a warrant, Twitter pointed me to a good piece by the Daily Mail which explains the charges he could face and also does an overview of the WikiLeaks story so far.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
For anyone who doesn't yet understand why he has been issued with a warrant, Twitter pointed me to a good piece by the Daily Mail which explains the charges he could face and also does an overview of the WikiLeaks story so far.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Media Law 10 - Codes of Conduct
Our final structured law lecture (next is revision, then the dreaded exam) focused on the many codes of conduct that journalists have to adhere to.
Before this, we looked at a case that was from our own university's WINOL broadcast about the inspection of the bar Mikiki's after anti social behaviour allegations. The report contained examples of prima facie libel, broad brush identification and innuendo defamation. It was a great example for us as first year students to see how a story that seemed innocuous to us at first could actually contain some legal issues for you to consider. For example, needing the refutation of the owner about the allegations without which you would be subject to malice and would lose all defences.
Onto the codes of conduct now and there are four types that we indentified in the lecture as the main codes of conduct for journalists. The first was the NUJ (National Union of Journalists) code of conduct which B.M., (before Murdoch) had a lot more power. If you broke a rule from the NUJ code of conduct you could be thrown out of the NUJ, losing your press pass and other privileges. It is the journalists own code of conduct, decided by jounralists for journalists and so you are more likely to be frowned upon for breaking this code than probably any other. It is still quite important however as the BBC recognises the NUJ; The Sun however could fire you for being a member and there are cases where young journalists have been fired by a Murdoch owned paper simply for sticking to the code. A famous case where one of the most important aspects of the code of conduct was stuck to (protect your sources) created a kind of folk hero for journalists in Bill Goodwin which I discussed in a previous blog on confidentiality.
NUJ Link here --> http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=174
The second code is the PCC or Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct, often referred to as 'The Editors Code'. It is, in normal terms, the establishment and as such if you break it you can be sacked without compensation. These two codes are more applicable to newspaper journalism but the NUJ code of conduct should be thought of as the code for all journalists.
PCC Link here --> http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
Next is the Ofcom code of conduct, also known as The Broadcasting Code, which of course applies to commercial TV (we will move on to the BBC next). It has specific rules relating to factual programming and is similar to the PCC in that it works on complaints before it is able to act. Generally if there are no complaints or at least not very many, it will not act.
Ofcom link here --> http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/
Finally we come to the BBC Producer Guidelines which are far, far too complicated to even get in to. They're available online and cover the same areas as the other codes but in a lot of detail.
Link here --> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/
Revision time now.
Until next time. Stay classy Internet.
Before this, we looked at a case that was from our own university's WINOL broadcast about the inspection of the bar Mikiki's after anti social behaviour allegations. The report contained examples of prima facie libel, broad brush identification and innuendo defamation. It was a great example for us as first year students to see how a story that seemed innocuous to us at first could actually contain some legal issues for you to consider. For example, needing the refutation of the owner about the allegations without which you would be subject to malice and would lose all defences.
Onto the codes of conduct now and there are four types that we indentified in the lecture as the main codes of conduct for journalists. The first was the NUJ (National Union of Journalists) code of conduct which B.M., (before Murdoch) had a lot more power. If you broke a rule from the NUJ code of conduct you could be thrown out of the NUJ, losing your press pass and other privileges. It is the journalists own code of conduct, decided by jounralists for journalists and so you are more likely to be frowned upon for breaking this code than probably any other. It is still quite important however as the BBC recognises the NUJ; The Sun however could fire you for being a member and there are cases where young journalists have been fired by a Murdoch owned paper simply for sticking to the code. A famous case where one of the most important aspects of the code of conduct was stuck to (protect your sources) created a kind of folk hero for journalists in Bill Goodwin which I discussed in a previous blog on confidentiality.
NUJ Link here --> http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=174
The second code is the PCC or Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct, often referred to as 'The Editors Code'. It is, in normal terms, the establishment and as such if you break it you can be sacked without compensation. These two codes are more applicable to newspaper journalism but the NUJ code of conduct should be thought of as the code for all journalists.
PCC Link here --> http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
Next is the Ofcom code of conduct, also known as The Broadcasting Code, which of course applies to commercial TV (we will move on to the BBC next). It has specific rules relating to factual programming and is similar to the PCC in that it works on complaints before it is able to act. Generally if there are no complaints or at least not very many, it will not act.
Ofcom link here --> http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/
Finally we come to the BBC Producer Guidelines which are far, far too complicated to even get in to. They're available online and cover the same areas as the other codes but in a lot of detail.
Link here --> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/
Revision time now.
Until next time. Stay classy Internet.
Seminar Paper Points - Swift and Smith
Our seminar this week focused on Adam Smith and Jonathan Swift.
We began with Louis' seminar paper which started with Smith saying that the opulence of a town can change a nation. This is quite a modern idea and Smith's ideas do translate into the modern world quite easily as he claims that the wealth of every nation is dependent on trade. Smith gives the examples of boom towns such as Manchester as a place that has thrived through trade in the way that Smith felt was best. He looked at the Romans as the originators of the modern world where the land you own affects what you manufacture. Smith was in favour of the free market and were he alive today, he would possibly point to Zimbabwe as an example of where the lack of free trade has caused the country to crumble. This is an example of Smith's links to his contemporary Hume as it recalls Hume's rights to life, liberty and property. You could also argue its link to the current banking crisis and the free trade that went on there to lead us to the situation we are in now.
Louis then moved on to Jonathan Swift and more specifically his Modest Proposal or to give it its full name, 'A Modest Proposal For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public'. The 'Modest Proposal', as it is more commonly known, outlines the use of the Irish children and specifically toddlers for food. It advocates the fattening up of one year old babies for food to sell to the rich as it would solve the debt problem in Ireland. Swift even specifies that 100,000 carcasses would be enough to benefit the state, because it benefits the state, I also believe the points he makes to be mercantile. Fortunately, this is a satirical work which satirises the un-emotional empiricist tracts of Locke and Hume. Even the title is a piece of satire, unusually long in its attempt to satirise the "Enquiry" and "Essay" like works of the day.
This seminar was one that I struggled the most with, especially the works of Adam Smith as I have no background in economics or business to use. I enjoyed Swift however as I appreciated the satire especially after having to sit here blogging away for months about these empiricists. Time for me to go do some revision, exam not far off now.
Until next time. Stay classy Internet.
We began with Louis' seminar paper which started with Smith saying that the opulence of a town can change a nation. This is quite a modern idea and Smith's ideas do translate into the modern world quite easily as he claims that the wealth of every nation is dependent on trade. Smith gives the examples of boom towns such as Manchester as a place that has thrived through trade in the way that Smith felt was best. He looked at the Romans as the originators of the modern world where the land you own affects what you manufacture. Smith was in favour of the free market and were he alive today, he would possibly point to Zimbabwe as an example of where the lack of free trade has caused the country to crumble. This is an example of Smith's links to his contemporary Hume as it recalls Hume's rights to life, liberty and property. You could also argue its link to the current banking crisis and the free trade that went on there to lead us to the situation we are in now.
Louis then moved on to Jonathan Swift and more specifically his Modest Proposal or to give it its full name, 'A Modest Proposal For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public'. The 'Modest Proposal', as it is more commonly known, outlines the use of the Irish children and specifically toddlers for food. It advocates the fattening up of one year old babies for food to sell to the rich as it would solve the debt problem in Ireland. Swift even specifies that 100,000 carcasses would be enough to benefit the state, because it benefits the state, I also believe the points he makes to be mercantile. Fortunately, this is a satirical work which satirises the un-emotional empiricist tracts of Locke and Hume. Even the title is a piece of satire, unusually long in its attempt to satirise the "Enquiry" and "Essay" like works of the day.
This seminar was one that I struggled the most with, especially the works of Adam Smith as I have no background in economics or business to use. I enjoyed Swift however as I appreciated the satire especially after having to sit here blogging away for months about these empiricists. Time for me to go do some revision, exam not far off now.
Until next time. Stay classy Internet.
Sunday, 28 November 2010
WikiLeaks
All credit to the Guardian for this but here is the WikiLeaks data analysed and the cables available for download,
Big news story, probably front page.
Credit to Twitter for alerting me to this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-data
Big news story, probably front page.
Credit to Twitter for alerting me to this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-data
Friday, 26 November 2010
Media Law 9 - Round up & Useful Examples
The lecture this week had a slightly different focus as we looked towards the exam in a couple of weeks time and so we discussed a few examples on the subjects we had covered so far.
Our first example was the Gilligan case which we discussed with the main objective of learning not to fake evidence. The case surrounded the Iraq War and the 'Dodgy Dossier' which eventually led to the suicide of Dr David Kelly. Before Britain went to war with Iraq, Tony Blair said that we had a dossier containing evidence that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan reported on whether the report had been exaggerated and some pieces faked and it turned out the majority of the information had come from the Internet. The dossier was shown to Dr David Kelly in his capacity as an employee of the Defence Intelligence Staff and at the time a quote appeared in The Observer which was later attributed to Kelly saying, "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons". Andrew Gilligan then met with Kelly and had a two way interview with him which led Gilligan to broadcast his suspicions about the dossier on the Today programme. The combination of this and a later article in The Mail on Sunday, which named Alastair Campbell as the person responsible for the faking of the evidence, subsequently led to the Government pressing the BBC to reveal its source. Of course, as any journalist should know you can never reveal your source as part of the Journalists Code of Conduct. The process of elimination began to suggest Kelly was his source and so he was questioned extensively by his employers who could not be sure he was Gilligan's only source. Kelly was unstable however and the Hutton enquiry led to his suicide which then became the news story. The focus then changed to Gilligan with Greg Dyke having to defend him as BBC controller and defend the Today programme. Both were sacked over the affair and the Hutton enquiry led to the tightening of guidelines in the BBC. The whole problem could have been solved for Gilligan if he had kept good shorthand notes but without them, his conversation with Kelly may as well have been faked.
On the topic of confidentiality and privacy, Section 8 of the Human Rights Act will always trample Section 10 (Freedom of Expression). In the case of Naomi Campbell, where pictures of her emerging from a rehab centre were published, she sued under Section 8 and won as the paper could not justify the use of the pictures. They tried to say it was in the public interest as she is a 'role model' but judges are tired of this excuse. Don't do it. The big confidentiality case that is always worth a mention is the Princess Caroline of Monaco case. It established degrees of privacy that in simple terms meant she could only be photographed whilst performing a clear public duty. Presenting the European Cup to the winners, OK to photograph her, outside a cafe is wrong but only a small fine in comparison to taking a picture of her inside the cafe when she had gone all the way to the back to avoid attention. Similarly, a man sued after being seen at a Gay pride demonstration, apparently this was not public enough as he successfully sued saying it interfered with his personal life. The Royals in this country cannot monetise their Section 8 rights however because everything they do is public interest, they can't sue because that would be a bigger story than anything people can photograph them doing. Finally on confidentiality and privacy, Catherine Zeta-Jones and her marriage to Michael Douglas had exclusive photo rights to Hello magazine but somehow, OK! magazine sneaked in, got a photo of her scoffing some cake and did a 'ha ha ha' piece at Hello. This became a bigger case in which Zeta-Jones received a large payout but the main point is that some celebrities are now using their Section 8 rights to make money.
On the subject of Libel and Defamation there are a few more cases that we talked about in this lecture that we had not discussed previously. The first of these was a case in which it was said that Britney Spears had appeared in pornographic videos, she sued the people who made the claim but failed in a 10 million dollar libel case. The accusations were definitely defamatory but the defence of justification could not be used because she had not actually appeared in an adult movie per se. The comment defence could be used however as you can reasonably argue that her music videos do attempt to arouse someone, "we regard that as pornography" and so she failed in her libel case. Tommy Sheridan was a socialist MP in the Scottish Parliament who the News of the World reported had been visiting brothels. This was a serious case of defamation as he was married and a hypocrite but because it involved prostitutes the case was very difficult to prove with the only defence possible being justification. The precedent for this was the Jeffery Archer case where the judge did not believe the testimony of a prostitute and influenced the jury. In case of Sheridan however the News of the World did not give up and the case against Sheridan continues. Another libel case involved the naming of a Saudi banker as the main financier for the Taliban. Obviously they sued and the only defence could be justification but there was practically no evidence that would stand up in court. The only possible defence here was the Reynold's defence which I believe I outlined briefly in a previous post. Finally the celebrity hypnotist Paul McKenna was exposed as a charlatan by some news outlets but who won his libel claim against the Mirror group when they suggested his PhD was not real. It was one of the most expensive libel cases to date.
Apologies for the slightly erratic nature of this blog post but it was necessary to get these examples down not just for the blog but for my benefit as we draw near to the exam.
Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.
Our first example was the Gilligan case which we discussed with the main objective of learning not to fake evidence. The case surrounded the Iraq War and the 'Dodgy Dossier' which eventually led to the suicide of Dr David Kelly. Before Britain went to war with Iraq, Tony Blair said that we had a dossier containing evidence that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan reported on whether the report had been exaggerated and some pieces faked and it turned out the majority of the information had come from the Internet. The dossier was shown to Dr David Kelly in his capacity as an employee of the Defence Intelligence Staff and at the time a quote appeared in The Observer which was later attributed to Kelly saying, "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons". Andrew Gilligan then met with Kelly and had a two way interview with him which led Gilligan to broadcast his suspicions about the dossier on the Today programme. The combination of this and a later article in The Mail on Sunday, which named Alastair Campbell as the person responsible for the faking of the evidence, subsequently led to the Government pressing the BBC to reveal its source. Of course, as any journalist should know you can never reveal your source as part of the Journalists Code of Conduct. The process of elimination began to suggest Kelly was his source and so he was questioned extensively by his employers who could not be sure he was Gilligan's only source. Kelly was unstable however and the Hutton enquiry led to his suicide which then became the news story. The focus then changed to Gilligan with Greg Dyke having to defend him as BBC controller and defend the Today programme. Both were sacked over the affair and the Hutton enquiry led to the tightening of guidelines in the BBC. The whole problem could have been solved for Gilligan if he had kept good shorthand notes but without them, his conversation with Kelly may as well have been faked.
On the topic of confidentiality and privacy, Section 8 of the Human Rights Act will always trample Section 10 (Freedom of Expression). In the case of Naomi Campbell, where pictures of her emerging from a rehab centre were published, she sued under Section 8 and won as the paper could not justify the use of the pictures. They tried to say it was in the public interest as she is a 'role model' but judges are tired of this excuse. Don't do it. The big confidentiality case that is always worth a mention is the Princess Caroline of Monaco case. It established degrees of privacy that in simple terms meant she could only be photographed whilst performing a clear public duty. Presenting the European Cup to the winners, OK to photograph her, outside a cafe is wrong but only a small fine in comparison to taking a picture of her inside the cafe when she had gone all the way to the back to avoid attention. Similarly, a man sued after being seen at a Gay pride demonstration, apparently this was not public enough as he successfully sued saying it interfered with his personal life. The Royals in this country cannot monetise their Section 8 rights however because everything they do is public interest, they can't sue because that would be a bigger story than anything people can photograph them doing. Finally on confidentiality and privacy, Catherine Zeta-Jones and her marriage to Michael Douglas had exclusive photo rights to Hello magazine but somehow, OK! magazine sneaked in, got a photo of her scoffing some cake and did a 'ha ha ha' piece at Hello. This became a bigger case in which Zeta-Jones received a large payout but the main point is that some celebrities are now using their Section 8 rights to make money.
On the subject of Libel and Defamation there are a few more cases that we talked about in this lecture that we had not discussed previously. The first of these was a case in which it was said that Britney Spears had appeared in pornographic videos, she sued the people who made the claim but failed in a 10 million dollar libel case. The accusations were definitely defamatory but the defence of justification could not be used because she had not actually appeared in an adult movie per se. The comment defence could be used however as you can reasonably argue that her music videos do attempt to arouse someone, "we regard that as pornography" and so she failed in her libel case. Tommy Sheridan was a socialist MP in the Scottish Parliament who the News of the World reported had been visiting brothels. This was a serious case of defamation as he was married and a hypocrite but because it involved prostitutes the case was very difficult to prove with the only defence possible being justification. The precedent for this was the Jeffery Archer case where the judge did not believe the testimony of a prostitute and influenced the jury. In case of Sheridan however the News of the World did not give up and the case against Sheridan continues. Another libel case involved the naming of a Saudi banker as the main financier for the Taliban. Obviously they sued and the only defence could be justification but there was practically no evidence that would stand up in court. The only possible defence here was the Reynold's defence which I believe I outlined briefly in a previous post. Finally the celebrity hypnotist Paul McKenna was exposed as a charlatan by some news outlets but who won his libel claim against the Mirror group when they suggested his PhD was not real. It was one of the most expensive libel cases to date.
Apologies for the slightly erratic nature of this blog post but it was necessary to get these examples down not just for the blog but for my benefit as we draw near to the exam.
Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.
Libel - Current Example 2
Whilst sifting through the disjointed ramblings on Twitter I found an absolute gem of a story, reported in today's Guardian, about the PCC (Press Complaints Commission) having to pay out for a libel case after comments made by its chairman Lady Buscombe in relation to the News Of the World's phone hacking allegations.
The case "is believed to be the first successful libel action brought against the press watchdog, whose code of conduct opens with a requirement for the press to 'take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'".
Just another example of how invaluable Twitter is as a source for news.
To read the full story click on the link below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/26/pcc-buscombe-apology-phone-hacking
The case "is believed to be the first successful libel action brought against the press watchdog, whose code of conduct opens with a requirement for the press to 'take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'".
Just another example of how invaluable Twitter is as a source for news.
To read the full story click on the link below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/26/pcc-buscombe-apology-phone-hacking
Lecture 5 - Adam Smith amongst some history
The economist Adam Smith was our topic for the lecture this week and I found him, despite previous reservations about the theories of an economist in comparison to the philosophers we had previously studied, to be an extremely interesting subject.
Economics is often seen as the dismal science as it has all the empiricism of science and none of the excitement. Adam Smith was archetypally an empiricist though and had an objective way of looking at things, there was no metaphysics in Smith's theories, he simply looked at human behaviour with an economic mindset. His price mechanism theory suggests that what people are prepared to pay for gives us an idea of human behaviour; we can exactly measure what people 'want'. Smith is often seen as the founder of modern economics and his Wealth of Nations is relevant even to economists today. He was Scottish which is significant as Scotland was going through an enlightenment and even a renaissance period which included the last lectures subject Hume, of whom Smith was a contemporary; in fact, Smith published Hume's posthumous Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. He was also a contemporary of James Watt.
Prior to Adam Smith there was mercantilism which was essentially a religious way of looking at economy. Pose the question, "Why is the UK richer than Africa?" to a mercantile and they would respond saying it was 'God's Will'; it links to the whole spirit of enterprise theory that suggests some people are just automatically better at enterprise than others. Empiricists like Smith however look solely at 'the facts'. Mercantilists were medieval thinkers and feudalistic types who believed in in enriching the state but Smith is liberal in a Hume style; economics is about enriching yourself. Smith asserts that he is objectively measuring human behaviour through economic science.
The Mercantile state began to decline with Elizabeth I when we began to move out in to the 'new world' of America and the exploitation of the countries we moved in to. The British were pirates really for a long time, building faster ships that could steal gold from the Spanish Galleons and with the main trade of sugar, tobacco, cotton and slavery from America, we began to compete with the Spanish in the market over in the 'new world'. Once the King lost the Civil War the mercantile state collapsed as the mercantile state would promote a state controlled economy which was no longer possible. The Civil War helped to abolish serfdom which in turn introduced free trade; this meant the stability in society was lost as people had to sell their trade to get by. At this point in history, Scotland had its own form of slavery with the Darien Scheme and on a similar theme, Jonathan Swift wrote his famous, A Modest Proposal. This all relates to the formation of England and the Battle of Culloden, the last major battle in Great Britain which was the end of tribal society. Waterloo makes us the number one country for a while but the Baptist war made slavery less profitable as the slaves rebelled. This points to the conclusion that it was not a moral act that caused us to abolish slavery, but a profitable one. A parliamentary reform bill granting more power to house of commons is then made and 1846, the repeal of corn laws is the end of the Mercantile system for good this time, (no really). Cheap bread essentially caused the ruin of British Agriculture.
Adam Smith though approves of all of this, to him it is just a new world, change of a global scale. He has thoughts on morality like his contemporaries and believes there is no such thing as good and evil, only desire. People only function for less pain and more pleasure. This is part of his theory on utilitarianism where you actively calculate the consequences of your actions; if you be honest to everyone all the time, you will be thought of as honest and might be given a job. In his Wealth of Nations he asks What is Wealth?, is it a sense of pride and accomplishments and so on? Well no. It all resolves to cash according to Smith. The only thing that money cannot bring is poverty. He also talks about the 'Hidden Hand of the Market' which actually comes across as a metaphysical concept, something Smith was mostly against. He says that the market is metaphysically sorting people into what they are good at like some sort of deranged sorting hat from Harry Potter. He uses the example of a pin factory where everyone does their own set job in order to create the final product of the pin; a kind of 'division of labour' theory where your skill means you specialise in a certain type of labour. Left to our own devices, we as people will use any relevant advantages to hand to make a living. To Smith, unemployment is impossible unless the government is actively trying to stop you from working. Trade and work promotes peace, civility, moderation, toleration, innovation, science and concern for others; therefore, it is ultimately a good thing. Well done Smith, shame you didn't just say that.
Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.
P.S. This blog rambled a bit but I put that mainly down to not entirely understanding Smith having never done economics ever. This is lamest of excuses however and to address the situation I'm hoping to do some reading into the subject.
Economics is often seen as the dismal science as it has all the empiricism of science and none of the excitement. Adam Smith was archetypally an empiricist though and had an objective way of looking at things, there was no metaphysics in Smith's theories, he simply looked at human behaviour with an economic mindset. His price mechanism theory suggests that what people are prepared to pay for gives us an idea of human behaviour; we can exactly measure what people 'want'. Smith is often seen as the founder of modern economics and his Wealth of Nations is relevant even to economists today. He was Scottish which is significant as Scotland was going through an enlightenment and even a renaissance period which included the last lectures subject Hume, of whom Smith was a contemporary; in fact, Smith published Hume's posthumous Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. He was also a contemporary of James Watt.
Prior to Adam Smith there was mercantilism which was essentially a religious way of looking at economy. Pose the question, "Why is the UK richer than Africa?" to a mercantile and they would respond saying it was 'God's Will'; it links to the whole spirit of enterprise theory that suggests some people are just automatically better at enterprise than others. Empiricists like Smith however look solely at 'the facts'. Mercantilists were medieval thinkers and feudalistic types who believed in in enriching the state but Smith is liberal in a Hume style; economics is about enriching yourself. Smith asserts that he is objectively measuring human behaviour through economic science.
The Mercantile state began to decline with Elizabeth I when we began to move out in to the 'new world' of America and the exploitation of the countries we moved in to. The British were pirates really for a long time, building faster ships that could steal gold from the Spanish Galleons and with the main trade of sugar, tobacco, cotton and slavery from America, we began to compete with the Spanish in the market over in the 'new world'. Once the King lost the Civil War the mercantile state collapsed as the mercantile state would promote a state controlled economy which was no longer possible. The Civil War helped to abolish serfdom which in turn introduced free trade; this meant the stability in society was lost as people had to sell their trade to get by. At this point in history, Scotland had its own form of slavery with the Darien Scheme and on a similar theme, Jonathan Swift wrote his famous, A Modest Proposal. This all relates to the formation of England and the Battle of Culloden, the last major battle in Great Britain which was the end of tribal society. Waterloo makes us the number one country for a while but the Baptist war made slavery less profitable as the slaves rebelled. This points to the conclusion that it was not a moral act that caused us to abolish slavery, but a profitable one. A parliamentary reform bill granting more power to house of commons is then made and 1846, the repeal of corn laws is the end of the Mercantile system for good this time, (no really). Cheap bread essentially caused the ruin of British Agriculture.
Adam Smith though approves of all of this, to him it is just a new world, change of a global scale. He has thoughts on morality like his contemporaries and believes there is no such thing as good and evil, only desire. People only function for less pain and more pleasure. This is part of his theory on utilitarianism where you actively calculate the consequences of your actions; if you be honest to everyone all the time, you will be thought of as honest and might be given a job. In his Wealth of Nations he asks What is Wealth?, is it a sense of pride and accomplishments and so on? Well no. It all resolves to cash according to Smith. The only thing that money cannot bring is poverty. He also talks about the 'Hidden Hand of the Market' which actually comes across as a metaphysical concept, something Smith was mostly against. He says that the market is metaphysically sorting people into what they are good at like some sort of deranged sorting hat from Harry Potter. He uses the example of a pin factory where everyone does their own set job in order to create the final product of the pin; a kind of 'division of labour' theory where your skill means you specialise in a certain type of labour. Left to our own devices, we as people will use any relevant advantages to hand to make a living. To Smith, unemployment is impossible unless the government is actively trying to stop you from working. Trade and work promotes peace, civility, moderation, toleration, innovation, science and concern for others; therefore, it is ultimately a good thing. Well done Smith, shame you didn't just say that.
Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.
P.S. This blog rambled a bit but I put that mainly down to not entirely understanding Smith having never done economics ever. This is lamest of excuses however and to address the situation I'm hoping to do some reading into the subject.
Journalism Now Project - The Independent and BBC Radio 2
The Independent and BBC Radio 2 seem to have nothing in common but the audiences of the two media institutions appear, on inspection, to be fairly similar. Although Radio 2 has no rate cards for public viewing, the general consensus is that Radio 2 is the middle of the road alternative to Radio 1. A sort of breeding ground for people who are yet to make the leap (metaphorically speaking) to Radio 4.
The Independent, nicknamed ‘The Indy’, was launched in 1986 and is one of the youngest daily newspapers in the UK. It changed to tabloid format in 2003 retaining broadsheet sensibilities and, despite its lack of affiliation to any particular political party; it is generally thought to lean to the left. It struggles financially though and this affects its news agenda as it cannot afford journalists to go out and collect stories through investigative journalism. This means many of the stories the newspaper contains are analysis or comment pieces as they cannot afford court journalists and stories. Originally it provided a challenge to Murdoch, producing spoofs of The Times and The Telegraph within its pages but once The Times began to reduce prices, the ‘Indy’s’ circulation began to suffer. The Independent’s news agenda tends towards political prisoners, climate change or campaigning. The celebrity based tabloid news does not even get a look in as The Independent places itself in the more serious quarter of newspapers, avoiding the reality TV shows and focusing instead on what it considers more worthy issues.
BBC Radio 2 has become an institution and has recently been named ‘the nation’s favourite’ as it is currently the most listened to radio station in the UK. Although the station has no rate cards which the public can access, it is still possible to get some audience figures. The information I found suggested it has a reach of 13,682,000 out of a possible survey area of 51,618,000[1]. It focuses mainly on the big stories of the day as these do not require comment that the BBC is unable to give as an impartial channel. The news on 19th November followed for most of the day the bailing out of Ireland or the refusal of Ireland to be bailed out by the EU’s monetary fund. It covered other major stories such as the increase in public borrowing and the suspension of two FIFA executives who tried to sell their World Cup bid vote. However, the stories at the end of the bulletins were of most interest to me. At 10am we had a man arrested after stealing a poppy collection box, which was a serious news story, but by 5pm we had the “And finally” story with a court in Germany banning a man from tattooing a horse with the Rolling Stones logo.
To compare the two media institutions is, as I have discovered, quite difficult. This is partly because they are targeted towards their audiences differently. Despite their differences, their commitment to news is unwavering and their dedication to the art of journalism unstoppable.
Footnotes:
[1] BBC Radio 2 audience figures www.mediauk.com
The Independent, nicknamed ‘The Indy’, was launched in 1986 and is one of the youngest daily newspapers in the UK. It changed to tabloid format in 2003 retaining broadsheet sensibilities and, despite its lack of affiliation to any particular political party; it is generally thought to lean to the left. It struggles financially though and this affects its news agenda as it cannot afford journalists to go out and collect stories through investigative journalism. This means many of the stories the newspaper contains are analysis or comment pieces as they cannot afford court journalists and stories. Originally it provided a challenge to Murdoch, producing spoofs of The Times and The Telegraph within its pages but once The Times began to reduce prices, the ‘Indy’s’ circulation began to suffer. The Independent’s news agenda tends towards political prisoners, climate change or campaigning. The celebrity based tabloid news does not even get a look in as The Independent places itself in the more serious quarter of newspapers, avoiding the reality TV shows and focusing instead on what it considers more worthy issues.
BBC Radio 2 has become an institution and has recently been named ‘the nation’s favourite’ as it is currently the most listened to radio station in the UK. Although the station has no rate cards which the public can access, it is still possible to get some audience figures. The information I found suggested it has a reach of 13,682,000 out of a possible survey area of 51,618,000[1]. It focuses mainly on the big stories of the day as these do not require comment that the BBC is unable to give as an impartial channel. The news on 19th November followed for most of the day the bailing out of Ireland or the refusal of Ireland to be bailed out by the EU’s monetary fund. It covered other major stories such as the increase in public borrowing and the suspension of two FIFA executives who tried to sell their World Cup bid vote. However, the stories at the end of the bulletins were of most interest to me. At 10am we had a man arrested after stealing a poppy collection box, which was a serious news story, but by 5pm we had the “And finally” story with a court in Germany banning a man from tattooing a horse with the Rolling Stones logo.
To compare the two media institutions is, as I have discovered, quite difficult. This is partly because they are targeted towards their audiences differently. Despite their differences, their commitment to news is unwavering and their dedication to the art of journalism unstoppable.
Footnotes:
[1] BBC Radio 2 audience figures www.mediauk.com
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Media Law 8 - Freedom of Information
Our lecture this week focused on the subject of the Freedom of Information Act, hereby referred to as the FOI. The lecture helped us understand what we could access using the FOI and also what restrictions there were on it, ironic, considering it is 'freedom' of information we are talking about here.
The FOI allows anyone to access documents and data held by organisations in the public sector; this being particularly useful for investigative journalists. Heather Brooke is a leading authority on the FOI and was part of the Daily Telegraph's investigation into expenses. Often FOI requests are put in for things that people believe to be true but without proof, it would often be defamation. Any person, not just a journalist, is entitled to be told when writing to an authority whether they hold any kinds of information. If the answer is yes, you can then ask for that information. For an example, you could write to the Dept. of Employment and ask them, "do you keep a record of what people are ill with?" and if the answer is yes, you might be able to do a 'Too Fat To Work' kind of Daily Mail story. A better example was when a journalist actually did put in a request to an education authority asking how much compensation they had paid for pupils injured. The sum turned out to be huge and suddenly you've got your hands on quite a big story, but it's the gamble you take with the FOI act, for every great story there's at least 10 rubbish ones from requests that went nowhere. Things like injuries in hospitals however can be absolutely hilarious apparently.
The stories you collect from the FOI act are all data based, the act is the key to the Aladdin's cave of news. Even in the Winter time when all news other than snows based news seems to stop, if you get your requests in early you can be writing stories about snow just in time for Christmas. 'Snow news is good news'. A large part of the act is however taken up by exemptions which prevent you from gaining certain information. Of course the Official Secrets Act means you cannot ask for information on the Army on the Secret Service (MI5, MI6 etc) because it would be detrimental to national security. Most organisations will attempt to stretch national security to breaking point in order to cover their own information under the act, "You can't have our information on how many employees have called in sick this year or the terrorists have won". You can also only ask for information that has been recorded so to get the information you need to make clever requests and hope you are not asking whilst under a sofa government, the kind that sits there not recording anything much. Confidentiality is also an issue as it always is, (see previous blogs), you cannot for example specifically ask for information on one person, 'I need information on whether Graham Marshall (me) has been attending lectures', would not be answered as it would breach common law confidentiality.
To put in a request it is best to find the freedom of information officer for that public authority, as each authority should have one. You then ask them "Under the FOI act, I want to know whether you keep information on..." and if they do have the information you can ask for it. If they respond saying "no can do, national security", you can make an appeal to the Information Commissioner and they will adjudicate often in the affirmative if the authority has made a foolish claim that you cannot have their information. Often though, if the authority says 'no can do, national security', it is probably better to rephrase your question until you get the information instead of starting a lengthy appeals process. The cost of them complying is also complicated as they will often say that they have the info but 'the cost of getting it is not justified', i.e. it is too expensive to give it to you. In the same way that national security is stretched to prevent you from getting certain information, the cost of complying is also stretched to prevent certain information from publication. In summary, National Security and Common Law Confidentiality are your main problems when trying to get a story from a FOI request.
Some tips:
Matt Davis has made quite a lot of money by selling off stories he has got from FOI requests to others so he is an authority on these requests and there are some extensive notes on his work in Chris' lecture notes. One of the stories he did revolved around an FOI request for the hospital league table of who has been sued the most. He sold this story to the Daily Mail which ran a headline like "THE WORST HOSPITALS IN BRITAIN" but which you could defend with the fair comment defence. A hospital top of the list of most sued could quite reasonably be considered as the worst by most right thinking people. The same thing happened about the movie Borat which provoked some quite angry reactions from some areas of both the press and the public. Matt Davis then asked the relevant department, "Have you received any complaints from Kazakhstan about the movie?". It turned out that the country was virtually declaring war and yet the story would never have been known without the FOI act. To get the information that you want you need to use their jargon; for example there are certain colloquial terms that do not apply to the bureaucrats that you have to deal with to get your information. You can't take no for an answer either, if for any reason they claim they can't give the information to you then just rephrase the question, you're dealing with bureaucrats who will do what they can to stop you from getting the information you want.
All the time you have an amazing amount of data collected on you, in hospital for example, the amount of data collected each time you go is vast, for this reason the Freedom of Information act is invaluable to journalists.
The FOI allows anyone to access documents and data held by organisations in the public sector; this being particularly useful for investigative journalists. Heather Brooke is a leading authority on the FOI and was part of the Daily Telegraph's investigation into expenses. Often FOI requests are put in for things that people believe to be true but without proof, it would often be defamation. Any person, not just a journalist, is entitled to be told when writing to an authority whether they hold any kinds of information. If the answer is yes, you can then ask for that information. For an example, you could write to the Dept. of Employment and ask them, "do you keep a record of what people are ill with?" and if the answer is yes, you might be able to do a 'Too Fat To Work' kind of Daily Mail story. A better example was when a journalist actually did put in a request to an education authority asking how much compensation they had paid for pupils injured. The sum turned out to be huge and suddenly you've got your hands on quite a big story, but it's the gamble you take with the FOI act, for every great story there's at least 10 rubbish ones from requests that went nowhere. Things like injuries in hospitals however can be absolutely hilarious apparently.
The stories you collect from the FOI act are all data based, the act is the key to the Aladdin's cave of news. Even in the Winter time when all news other than snows based news seems to stop, if you get your requests in early you can be writing stories about snow just in time for Christmas. 'Snow news is good news'. A large part of the act is however taken up by exemptions which prevent you from gaining certain information. Of course the Official Secrets Act means you cannot ask for information on the Army on the Secret Service (MI5, MI6 etc) because it would be detrimental to national security. Most organisations will attempt to stretch national security to breaking point in order to cover their own information under the act, "You can't have our information on how many employees have called in sick this year or the terrorists have won". You can also only ask for information that has been recorded so to get the information you need to make clever requests and hope you are not asking whilst under a sofa government, the kind that sits there not recording anything much. Confidentiality is also an issue as it always is, (see previous blogs), you cannot for example specifically ask for information on one person, 'I need information on whether Graham Marshall (me) has been attending lectures', would not be answered as it would breach common law confidentiality.
To put in a request it is best to find the freedom of information officer for that public authority, as each authority should have one. You then ask them "Under the FOI act, I want to know whether you keep information on..." and if they do have the information you can ask for it. If they respond saying "no can do, national security", you can make an appeal to the Information Commissioner and they will adjudicate often in the affirmative if the authority has made a foolish claim that you cannot have their information. Often though, if the authority says 'no can do, national security', it is probably better to rephrase your question until you get the information instead of starting a lengthy appeals process. The cost of them complying is also complicated as they will often say that they have the info but 'the cost of getting it is not justified', i.e. it is too expensive to give it to you. In the same way that national security is stretched to prevent you from getting certain information, the cost of complying is also stretched to prevent certain information from publication. In summary, National Security and Common Law Confidentiality are your main problems when trying to get a story from a FOI request.
Some tips:
Matt Davis has made quite a lot of money by selling off stories he has got from FOI requests to others so he is an authority on these requests and there are some extensive notes on his work in Chris' lecture notes. One of the stories he did revolved around an FOI request for the hospital league table of who has been sued the most. He sold this story to the Daily Mail which ran a headline like "THE WORST HOSPITALS IN BRITAIN" but which you could defend with the fair comment defence. A hospital top of the list of most sued could quite reasonably be considered as the worst by most right thinking people. The same thing happened about the movie Borat which provoked some quite angry reactions from some areas of both the press and the public. Matt Davis then asked the relevant department, "Have you received any complaints from Kazakhstan about the movie?". It turned out that the country was virtually declaring war and yet the story would never have been known without the FOI act. To get the information that you want you need to use their jargon; for example there are certain colloquial terms that do not apply to the bureaucrats that you have to deal with to get your information. You can't take no for an answer either, if for any reason they claim they can't give the information to you then just rephrase the question, you're dealing with bureaucrats who will do what they can to stop you from getting the information you want.
All the time you have an amazing amount of data collected on you, in hospital for example, the amount of data collected each time you go is vast, for this reason the Freedom of Information act is invaluable to journalists.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Injunctions - Current Example
A bit tabloid like but I have just read a story on a super injunction being lifted by the court of appeal. The injunction was obtained by Take That 'star' Howard Donald against a former girlfriend but what is quite interesting is that the injunction prevented her from selling her story but the super injunction prevented Donald from being named.
The article reads:
'Before lawyers became involved, Ntuli hired the publicist Max Clifford and entered into negotiations with the News of the World newspaper.
"Why shud I continue 2 suffer financially 4 the sake of loyalty when selling my story will sort my life out?" she asked Donald in a text message sent in March.
This led Donald to apply for an injunction that stopped Ntuli from disclosing confidential information and granted the musician anonymity.
Nituli subsequently appealed on the grounds that "anonymisation and non-disclosure of the existence of the proceedings [were] inappropriate". '
The whole article can be read here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11764242
The article reads:
'Before lawyers became involved, Ntuli hired the publicist Max Clifford and entered into negotiations with the News of the World newspaper.
"Why shud I continue 2 suffer financially 4 the sake of loyalty when selling my story will sort my life out?" she asked Donald in a text message sent in March.
This led Donald to apply for an injunction that stopped Ntuli from disclosing confidential information and granted the musician anonymity.
Nituli subsequently appealed on the grounds that "anonymisation and non-disclosure of the existence of the proceedings [were] inappropriate". '
The whole article can be read here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11764242
Seminar notes - David Hume
The seminar today was given by Josh who had David Hume as his subject and more specifically, the Enquiry into Human Understanding. I found it interesting to discuss Hume as I was not entirely confident on the subject of his theories and ideas so here are the notes I made on the seminar.
It interested me that Hume defined two types of philosophy; one that appeals to the sense and one that endeavours to form an understanding to which Hume belongs. On the subject of understanding he believes that you get impressions which imprint on you and so you recollect them to form ideas. The mind can therefore go beyond reality, the image of a winged horse can be imagine because we have seen a horse and we have seen a bird so the mind makes the link. In the same way he reasons that we experience good and intelligence so we believe in a God but there is no way to actually prove it. In the same way we can imagine shades of colour that we have never seen because we have seen other colours; Hume himself acknowledges that this actually goes against his theories as it promotes innate ideas. In the seminar we talked at length about the existence of a greenish purple and whether because you know of green and you know of purple, you can imagine the colour in the middle.
We understand things in sequences so for example we understand injury in the order of things that happen; drop a hammer on your foot, it hurts, sequence. Hume also talks about sceptical doubt which is linked to relation of ideas; if a machine is in a desert for example, our mind tells us that someone must have been here before us to put the machine there but this is not necessarily true. There is absolutely no way we can prove this to be true as it is just a thought process, it is not based on facts. In this way he is not particularly a fan of Descartes obsession with breaking down knowledge as it suggests that all the ideas you have are innate, something Hume would not agree with. He also does not agree with the idea of matter of fact with the example of stone and metal, if you drop a stone we expect it to drop but we cannot assume it will do that next time. We have a concept of upward movement so the next time the stone could shoot upwards. Just because we have seen something happen once does not guarantee it will happen again. In the same way, Hume argues that when in billiards, the white hits the red ball, you cannot assume that this action caused the red ball to move. You cannot assume that A causes B in anything; this is central to his ideas on causality.
His induction theory relies on two types of thought, analytic such as all spiders are arachnids, and synthetic thought where you need to accept the axiom (to use the example from Josh, "men are pigs, I am a pig"). These are irrational thought processes that lead people to unfounded assumptions. This helps form part of his work on miracles and these are not the kind of miracles we might think of, (Chilean miners surviving being trapped underground for 70 days) but actually miracles as in those from scripture. He reasons that you do not know them from experience so why do you accept them as truth; he asks that you weigh up miracles, if someone has been raised from the dead, can you really believe this? If you can't which Hume would say you can't then you can also no longer be a Christian as Hume says you need a miracle to be a Christian. Because of the time in which Hume was writing he could not be totally explicit with these views and so he comments that people who experience miracles must be different as a miracle is unexplainable. In the seminar we talked for a short while about miracles saying that things can only seem miracles without prior scientific knowledge. Penicillin must have seemed like a miracle at first but now it is accepted as standard because we have the scientific proof of how it works and the scientific testing to show what happens. Miracles are defined as something that breaks natural laws so whilst the light bulb would at one point have been seen as something unnatural then now it is accepted as a natural law in itself.
Some final notes on the seminar from our discussion throw light on the issue with colour as colours are not synthetic as may have been suggested earlier. They are vivid impressions so it is practically impossible to imagine the greenish purple colour from before as colours are just fact. Hume also believed that the names we give to objects was secondary to the nature of the thing. He was not a political writer like Locke but believes in provisional truths. With the issue involving the stone and metal, this is not applicable in space for example as things only go up and down in space in relation to you. We also discussed that there was no morality in circumstance; normally stealing is seen as morally wrong but Hume questions why. If you are stealing to save your starving family and feed them then no one would find this reprehensible; this means that stealing must not be a moral thing. As a final point, if Hume were around today he would be anti extremist as he took the view that no one knew all the answers, not even him.
Until next time. You stay classy Internet.
It interested me that Hume defined two types of philosophy; one that appeals to the sense and one that endeavours to form an understanding to which Hume belongs. On the subject of understanding he believes that you get impressions which imprint on you and so you recollect them to form ideas. The mind can therefore go beyond reality, the image of a winged horse can be imagine because we have seen a horse and we have seen a bird so the mind makes the link. In the same way he reasons that we experience good and intelligence so we believe in a God but there is no way to actually prove it. In the same way we can imagine shades of colour that we have never seen because we have seen other colours; Hume himself acknowledges that this actually goes against his theories as it promotes innate ideas. In the seminar we talked at length about the existence of a greenish purple and whether because you know of green and you know of purple, you can imagine the colour in the middle.
We understand things in sequences so for example we understand injury in the order of things that happen; drop a hammer on your foot, it hurts, sequence. Hume also talks about sceptical doubt which is linked to relation of ideas; if a machine is in a desert for example, our mind tells us that someone must have been here before us to put the machine there but this is not necessarily true. There is absolutely no way we can prove this to be true as it is just a thought process, it is not based on facts. In this way he is not particularly a fan of Descartes obsession with breaking down knowledge as it suggests that all the ideas you have are innate, something Hume would not agree with. He also does not agree with the idea of matter of fact with the example of stone and metal, if you drop a stone we expect it to drop but we cannot assume it will do that next time. We have a concept of upward movement so the next time the stone could shoot upwards. Just because we have seen something happen once does not guarantee it will happen again. In the same way, Hume argues that when in billiards, the white hits the red ball, you cannot assume that this action caused the red ball to move. You cannot assume that A causes B in anything; this is central to his ideas on causality.
His induction theory relies on two types of thought, analytic such as all spiders are arachnids, and synthetic thought where you need to accept the axiom (to use the example from Josh, "men are pigs, I am a pig"). These are irrational thought processes that lead people to unfounded assumptions. This helps form part of his work on miracles and these are not the kind of miracles we might think of, (Chilean miners surviving being trapped underground for 70 days) but actually miracles as in those from scripture. He reasons that you do not know them from experience so why do you accept them as truth; he asks that you weigh up miracles, if someone has been raised from the dead, can you really believe this? If you can't which Hume would say you can't then you can also no longer be a Christian as Hume says you need a miracle to be a Christian. Because of the time in which Hume was writing he could not be totally explicit with these views and so he comments that people who experience miracles must be different as a miracle is unexplainable. In the seminar we talked for a short while about miracles saying that things can only seem miracles without prior scientific knowledge. Penicillin must have seemed like a miracle at first but now it is accepted as standard because we have the scientific proof of how it works and the scientific testing to show what happens. Miracles are defined as something that breaks natural laws so whilst the light bulb would at one point have been seen as something unnatural then now it is accepted as a natural law in itself.
Some final notes on the seminar from our discussion throw light on the issue with colour as colours are not synthetic as may have been suggested earlier. They are vivid impressions so it is practically impossible to imagine the greenish purple colour from before as colours are just fact. Hume also believed that the names we give to objects was secondary to the nature of the thing. He was not a political writer like Locke but believes in provisional truths. With the issue involving the stone and metal, this is not applicable in space for example as things only go up and down in space in relation to you. We also discussed that there was no morality in circumstance; normally stealing is seen as morally wrong but Hume questions why. If you are stealing to save your starving family and feed them then no one would find this reprehensible; this means that stealing must not be a moral thing. As a final point, if Hume were around today he would be anti extremist as he took the view that no one knew all the answers, not even him.
Until next time. You stay classy Internet.
Monday, 15 November 2010
Libel - Current Example
In The Independent today there is a column on media studies within the daily Viewspaper which talks about The Spectator having recently been on the receiving end of some expensive legal cases. The first dates back to 2008 when their site published an article by Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, which described a London based Islamist group called IslamExpo as racist, fascist and genocidal. Possibly not the best way to avoid libel action. A couple of months back the magazine had to post an apology but only after incurring substantial losses.
An influential figure of the IslamExpo group, a Palestinian emigre by the name of Mohammed Sawalha has also been settled with by The Spectator after a blog was published on their website which the man considered libellous. The blog, by Melanie Phillips has also incurred costs to the magazine, said to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Although these were relatively small publications, they are of course still vulnerable to all sorts of legal action. Middle Eastern politics must be negotiated with care as they present a danger to journalists who do not know their facts. This is also a good example of how dangerous it is sometimes to just put any old thing in your blog. I for one will be more careful from now on, especially as I now know the dangers and can no longer claim ignorance, for all that would have done.
An influential figure of the IslamExpo group, a Palestinian emigre by the name of Mohammed Sawalha has also been settled with by The Spectator after a blog was published on their website which the man considered libellous. The blog, by Melanie Phillips has also incurred costs to the magazine, said to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Although these were relatively small publications, they are of course still vulnerable to all sorts of legal action. Middle Eastern politics must be negotiated with care as they present a danger to journalists who do not know their facts. This is also a good example of how dangerous it is sometimes to just put any old thing in your blog. I for one will be more careful from now on, especially as I now know the dangers and can no longer claim ignorance, for all that would have done.
Friday, 12 November 2010
Media Law - Current Injunction example
In the Daily Mail today there is a NIB (news in brief) on page five detailing a gagging order to protect a sports star who currently is protected by an injunction. The star is a household name who cannot be identified under the terms of the injunction and neither can his secret but there was another hearing today which may mean the injunction will be modified.
Mr Justice Tugendhat - the most senior privacy judge - told the paper that the sports star who is not a footballer should be unmasked, although the facts of the allegation against him should remain secret. This is just one more case of a celebrity preventing details of their private life being published. This is an awkward area of law for journalists as it does breach privacy law but sometimes they are necessary breaches in the public interest etc.
For more on the subject, see defamation and copyright below.
Mr Justice Tugendhat - the most senior privacy judge - told the paper that the sports star who is not a footballer should be unmasked, although the facts of the allegation against him should remain secret. This is just one more case of a celebrity preventing details of their private life being published. This is an awkward area of law for journalists as it does breach privacy law but sometimes they are necessary breaches in the public interest etc.
For more on the subject, see defamation and copyright below.
Media Law 7 - Investigative Journalism
Our lecture this week focused on an extremely important aspect of our work; Investigative Journalism. To be an investigative journalist takes a very particular kind of person and so far I'm wondering whether that person could ever be me. In the lecture we looked at all sorts of examples of investigative journalism and some made it seem so glamorous whilst others made investigative journalism seem like a rather grubby profession in which your main goal is to destroy others, somehow not from malice but from your own inclination to find a story anywhere. Before the Times was bought by Murdoch the editor of the Sunday Times was Harry Evans who had his own special group of journalists called, 'The Insight Team' whose job it was to simply go out and investigate whatever news stories they could think of. "Local Shopkeepers are running a drug dealing business on the side. Well they're probably not but it's worth investigating anyway, just in case". They actually got to do that for a job, those were the days, the story that the journalist originated instead of it coming to them through the courts of the government. The most famous case of investigative journalism from Harry Evans' Insight Team was the Thalidomide case where a report was done into why hundreds of children had not received compensation for the severe birth defects that they had suffered. After investigation by the Insight team and a high profile campaign by Evans himself they took on the medical company and won, securing the compensation for the children and changing the law on reporting civil cases in the process.
Journalism is the business of selling information and the only difference between journalism and investigative journalism is that you get the information yourself and originate the story. An example of this is Watergate where the story came from a source as opposed to the courts and the usual way of collecting news. Often certain techniques that could be seen as illegal may have to be used to get your information, a key technique being subterfuge. This is essentially going under cover to get your story, the camera in a bag technique, the fake sheik, the list goes on. To do this is OK as long as it is part of some good strong journalism and the story is in the public interest; using it to secretly film someone just for fun is not on. Before Murdoch, (B.M.), investigative journalism was much more valid and relevant but now, the techniques are being used to find out about celebrity splits and sport star haircuts and so it gives the whole profession a bad name. Investigative journalism should be about saving innocent people from prison on the charge of bombing a pub in Birmingham, purely on the basis that the IRA did it and they were Irish or exposing the sale of rotten meat, unfit for human consumption to the Rochdale Schools service. Although these examples may seem either far fetched or oddly specific, they really did happen, reported on and exposed by the now sadly defunct World in Action programme.
The earliest investigative journalist was Emile Zola, often referred to as the father/founder of investigative journalism. He was known as a realist in literature, similar to Dickens but often thought of as more of a journalist than Dickens. His biggest moment in investigative journalism came after the Franco-Prussian war which the French lost and then decided to blame the loss on the Jews who they said were selling military secrets. One of the top officers in the army, a Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused and court-martialled, simply because he was Jewish and a simple scapegoat. Zola took the view that they framed him and was persecuted for this, he had to live in exile before writing his most famous piece, "J'accuse" which accused the highest levels of the army and government of anti-semitism. Eventually though after many years Dreyfus was exonerated but it would not have happened without the tireless investigation of Emile Zola. Journalists are for this reason sometimes seen as a fourth state; you have the executive, the legislature and the judiciary but journalism has so much power that it can be called the fourth state.
There are some difficulties in investigative journalism as the things you are most likely to be accused of are defamation and libel, two civil cases which you need to know your defences for. You also need to understand the evidence gap, something you don't come across in criminal court. In the civil court cases you only need to prove something on the balance of probability as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt. It is very difficult to prove something beyond reasonable doubt but to prove you had malice when you wrote something 'on the balance of probability' would be quite simple. There are some complicated cases where a newspaper has gone out of its way to libel people after a case has been mishandled. The Stephen Lawrence case for example where the Daily Mail published a headline saying 'Murderers' and a positive ID on every single one of them, they somehow escaped because the people would never have challenged it as that would take it to civil court where they would only need to prove that they probably killed him to get them convicted.
In summary. Investigative journalism is an exciting field of journalism but certainly not for everyone. You can bring people down with good investigative journalism, and that sort of power is difficult to comprehend. Maybe we should save that for another day.
Until next time. You stay Classy Internet.
Journalism is the business of selling information and the only difference between journalism and investigative journalism is that you get the information yourself and originate the story. An example of this is Watergate where the story came from a source as opposed to the courts and the usual way of collecting news. Often certain techniques that could be seen as illegal may have to be used to get your information, a key technique being subterfuge. This is essentially going under cover to get your story, the camera in a bag technique, the fake sheik, the list goes on. To do this is OK as long as it is part of some good strong journalism and the story is in the public interest; using it to secretly film someone just for fun is not on. Before Murdoch, (B.M.), investigative journalism was much more valid and relevant but now, the techniques are being used to find out about celebrity splits and sport star haircuts and so it gives the whole profession a bad name. Investigative journalism should be about saving innocent people from prison on the charge of bombing a pub in Birmingham, purely on the basis that the IRA did it and they were Irish or exposing the sale of rotten meat, unfit for human consumption to the Rochdale Schools service. Although these examples may seem either far fetched or oddly specific, they really did happen, reported on and exposed by the now sadly defunct World in Action programme.
The earliest investigative journalist was Emile Zola, often referred to as the father/founder of investigative journalism. He was known as a realist in literature, similar to Dickens but often thought of as more of a journalist than Dickens. His biggest moment in investigative journalism came after the Franco-Prussian war which the French lost and then decided to blame the loss on the Jews who they said were selling military secrets. One of the top officers in the army, a Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused and court-martialled, simply because he was Jewish and a simple scapegoat. Zola took the view that they framed him and was persecuted for this, he had to live in exile before writing his most famous piece, "J'accuse" which accused the highest levels of the army and government of anti-semitism. Eventually though after many years Dreyfus was exonerated but it would not have happened without the tireless investigation of Emile Zola. Journalists are for this reason sometimes seen as a fourth state; you have the executive, the legislature and the judiciary but journalism has so much power that it can be called the fourth state.
There are some difficulties in investigative journalism as the things you are most likely to be accused of are defamation and libel, two civil cases which you need to know your defences for. You also need to understand the evidence gap, something you don't come across in criminal court. In the civil court cases you only need to prove something on the balance of probability as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt. It is very difficult to prove something beyond reasonable doubt but to prove you had malice when you wrote something 'on the balance of probability' would be quite simple. There are some complicated cases where a newspaper has gone out of its way to libel people after a case has been mishandled. The Stephen Lawrence case for example where the Daily Mail published a headline saying 'Murderers' and a positive ID on every single one of them, they somehow escaped because the people would never have challenged it as that would take it to civil court where they would only need to prove that they probably killed him to get them convicted.
In summary. Investigative journalism is an exciting field of journalism but certainly not for everyone. You can bring people down with good investigative journalism, and that sort of power is difficult to comprehend. Maybe we should save that for another day.
Until next time. You stay Classy Internet.
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Lecture 4 - David Hume tbh
In our latest lecture the main focus was the hugely influential and important David Hume. He is influential to many philosophers but also us journalists as his approach asks us to constantly verify information. He comes from the empirical school of philosophy and believes that ideas are synthesised; this is in great distinction from the idealists and rationalists such as Descartes. His approach is more like science whereas the rationalist viewpoint comes from a more religious way of thinking. He was probably an Atheist as to be religious would go against his own theories but to have said so in his time he would probably have been prosecuted and killed if he said so; Galileo was persecuted just because he questioned some of the less fundamental aspects of religion. Hume's work helped influence the modern philosophy of Logical Positivism (The Vienna Circle) which is the philosophy that modern science uses and social science follows as well. Social science is the scientific explanation of human behaviour, similar to but not entirely like Sociology.
Hume saw things in a similar way to Einstein and Einstein 'admitted that he could not have the gumption to oppose Newton's immortal status without reading Hume'. He saw things as mechanisms with no absolute truths or knowledge. Just because the sun rose yesterday doesn't mean it will tomorrow; the sun rising is a mental illusion, (admittedly the sun does not rise, it just appears to). He had ideas on a number of things, for example he had ideas on causation saying that it is only happening in your head, not in nature. With an example of billiard balls he says that whilst the white ball hits the red, you cannot know that it was this that caused the red ball to move, you cannot show the causation. On the subject of induction and logic he says you can draw inferences from your own synthetic logic, e.g. you can add knowledge to certain things as the brain synthesizes them together; an example of this would be a unicorn (bear with me), if you know what a horse looks like and you know what a rhinoceros looks like your brain can synthesize the image of a unicorn. Hume also had thoughts on morality, the 'is/ought' dichotomy, but there is no morality in phenomena - no teleology - if Hume were alive today and was told to solve the speeding problem, he would simply put up more cameras.
Hume's philosophy influences the modern philosophy of Logical Positivism which follows the verification principle. By this I mean that any knowledge you might have needs to be verified to have scientific value. The metaphysical needs to be separated from science, this is part of Aristotle's logic, it needs to be non-contradictory, i.e. if the sun is not the moon, then the moon is not the sun. In logical positivism there are three kinds of statements: those statements that can be verified as provisionally 'true', non contradictory; those statements that can be verified as definitely false, contradictory; and those statements that cannot be verified, gibberish. This is very similar in the way it functions to how a computer operates and thinks.
If Hume was the progenitor of logical positivism, Karl Popper was a disciple of Hume's theories and philosophy and took the theories to their logical conclusion. He ritually attacks metaphysics, what he wants is science but he also attacks the verification principle as this is also metaphysics. The statement that non-verifiable statements are gibberish is gibberish itself as it is not actually verifiable. To Karl Popper, statements need to be falsified also, it must be capable of not just verification but falsification.
Hume sought to take to its logical conclusion the work of earlier empiricists such as Locke and Berkeley, rooting out any explanations that depended on invention rather than experience. In the book I Think Therefore I Am: All the Philosophy You Need to Know by Lesley Levene, she writes that "Reasoning, says Hume, is about discovering relationships between things. He identified two different sorts: 'relations of ideas' and 'matters of fact'. That 15 is half of 30, for example, can be discovered and demonstrated by reason alone, without reference to other forms of evidence, so belongs in the first category. Statements such as 'The sun will rise tomorrow', however, cannot be demonstrated by reason alone; as long as their negation is conceivable, we depend on experience to determine whether they are true or false - which means they belong in the second category." She goes on to say that, for Hume, "mathematics was the only worthwhile form of demonstrative reasoning. Books that did not contain mathematical demonstrations or empirical reasoning - he singled out those on metaphysics and theology in particular - deserved to be 'committed to the flames' as nothing but sophistry and illusion".
To journalists, Hume is so important that this blog really does not do him justice so it will be interesting to look into him more and the seminar will also be an interesting experience.
Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.
Hume saw things in a similar way to Einstein and Einstein 'admitted that he could not have the gumption to oppose Newton's immortal status without reading Hume'. He saw things as mechanisms with no absolute truths or knowledge. Just because the sun rose yesterday doesn't mean it will tomorrow; the sun rising is a mental illusion, (admittedly the sun does not rise, it just appears to). He had ideas on a number of things, for example he had ideas on causation saying that it is only happening in your head, not in nature. With an example of billiard balls he says that whilst the white ball hits the red, you cannot know that it was this that caused the red ball to move, you cannot show the causation. On the subject of induction and logic he says you can draw inferences from your own synthetic logic, e.g. you can add knowledge to certain things as the brain synthesizes them together; an example of this would be a unicorn (bear with me), if you know what a horse looks like and you know what a rhinoceros looks like your brain can synthesize the image of a unicorn. Hume also had thoughts on morality, the 'is/ought' dichotomy, but there is no morality in phenomena - no teleology - if Hume were alive today and was told to solve the speeding problem, he would simply put up more cameras.
Hume's philosophy influences the modern philosophy of Logical Positivism which follows the verification principle. By this I mean that any knowledge you might have needs to be verified to have scientific value. The metaphysical needs to be separated from science, this is part of Aristotle's logic, it needs to be non-contradictory, i.e. if the sun is not the moon, then the moon is not the sun. In logical positivism there are three kinds of statements: those statements that can be verified as provisionally 'true', non contradictory; those statements that can be verified as definitely false, contradictory; and those statements that cannot be verified, gibberish. This is very similar in the way it functions to how a computer operates and thinks.
If Hume was the progenitor of logical positivism, Karl Popper was a disciple of Hume's theories and philosophy and took the theories to their logical conclusion. He ritually attacks metaphysics, what he wants is science but he also attacks the verification principle as this is also metaphysics. The statement that non-verifiable statements are gibberish is gibberish itself as it is not actually verifiable. To Karl Popper, statements need to be falsified also, it must be capable of not just verification but falsification.
Hume sought to take to its logical conclusion the work of earlier empiricists such as Locke and Berkeley, rooting out any explanations that depended on invention rather than experience. In the book I Think Therefore I Am: All the Philosophy You Need to Know by Lesley Levene, she writes that "Reasoning, says Hume, is about discovering relationships between things. He identified two different sorts: 'relations of ideas' and 'matters of fact'. That 15 is half of 30, for example, can be discovered and demonstrated by reason alone, without reference to other forms of evidence, so belongs in the first category. Statements such as 'The sun will rise tomorrow', however, cannot be demonstrated by reason alone; as long as their negation is conceivable, we depend on experience to determine whether they are true or false - which means they belong in the second category." She goes on to say that, for Hume, "mathematics was the only worthwhile form of demonstrative reasoning. Books that did not contain mathematical demonstrations or empirical reasoning - he singled out those on metaphysics and theology in particular - deserved to be 'committed to the flames' as nothing but sophistry and illusion".
To journalists, Hume is so important that this blog really does not do him justice so it will be interesting to look into him more and the seminar will also be an interesting experience.
Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Daily Mail
Saw this and it made me chuckle. Very much in the vein of The Daily Mail song that Henry recently posted but I was searching for a story and found this instead.
It is The Daily Mail-o-matic which generates Daily Mail style headlines with some very funny consequences.
My favourite so far is "HAVE THE UNIONS MADE THE MIDDLE CLASS OBESE".
Not really a substantial blog but it's keeping me amused whilst all the other blogs are being written.
Stay Classy Internet.
It is The Daily Mail-o-matic which generates Daily Mail style headlines with some very funny consequences.
My favourite so far is "HAVE THE UNIONS MADE THE MIDDLE CLASS OBESE".
Not really a substantial blog but it's keeping me amused whilst all the other blogs are being written.
Stay Classy Internet.
Seminar Notes - Early Journalism
In our latest seminar we had a paper from Ali on the subject of Joseph Addison, one of the early journalists of the late 17th and early 18th century. We talked about how Addison was in fact quite a modern man as the ideas he portrayed in 'The Royal Exchange' talked about how multicultural the place was and how this seemed a good thing. An alternative reading however came to light that changed almost all our opinions on the reading as it showed Addison as a more cynical and possibly even bitter writer who, though witty, was actually displeased with the way his world was. Little things that we had not picked up on, like certain phrases that suggested his point of view. He talks about how Volumes "get away with being dull" which essays do not, suggesting a contempt for the volume format and possibly an air that his form is more worthwhile as it is more focused. He speaks in a humorous way but makes many poignant statements that Ali picked up on such as, 'there is a kind of heaviness that hangs on mans head'.
Often in Addison's writings, the statements which appear to be compliments actually disguise the biggest insults; this was the style at the time which is best observed in the video that used to be on the Winchester Journalism homepage featuring the opening scene of The Draughtsman's Contract which contained the sort of language that Addison would have been familiar with. In his essays he talks about the sort of 'voluntary moles' who do not want to hear the news or have their opinions challenged, similar to the wilful ignorance of some people today. He perfectly describes the tabloids and their methods which can also still apply today.
"Should a writer single out particular persons, or point his rallery at any order of men, who by their profession ought to be exempt from it; should he slander the innocent, or satirize the miserable; or should he, even on the proper subjects of derision, give the full play to his mirth, without regard to decency and good-manners; he might be sure of pleasing a great part of his readers, but must be a very ill man, if by such a proceeding he could please himself".
This can also draw parallels to our media law as it seems to be talking about malice, apparently always the red kryptonite of journalists.
It is also interesting to note that Addison's philosophy was most similar to Locke and they both shared Tory sensibilities in the original sense of the Tories and the Whigs.
EDIT: The video of The Draughtsman's Contract no longer appears to be on the Winchester Journalism homepage so here is the video in all its glory.
Often in Addison's writings, the statements which appear to be compliments actually disguise the biggest insults; this was the style at the time which is best observed in the video that used to be on the Winchester Journalism homepage featuring the opening scene of The Draughtsman's Contract which contained the sort of language that Addison would have been familiar with. In his essays he talks about the sort of 'voluntary moles' who do not want to hear the news or have their opinions challenged, similar to the wilful ignorance of some people today. He perfectly describes the tabloids and their methods which can also still apply today.
"Should a writer single out particular persons, or point his rallery at any order of men, who by their profession ought to be exempt from it; should he slander the innocent, or satirize the miserable; or should he, even on the proper subjects of derision, give the full play to his mirth, without regard to decency and good-manners; he might be sure of pleasing a great part of his readers, but must be a very ill man, if by such a proceeding he could please himself".
This can also draw parallels to our media law as it seems to be talking about malice, apparently always the red kryptonite of journalists.
It is also interesting to note that Addison's philosophy was most similar to Locke and they both shared Tory sensibilities in the original sense of the Tories and the Whigs.
EDIT: The video of The Draughtsman's Contract no longer appears to be on the Winchester Journalism homepage so here is the video in all its glory.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
News Agenda - Peter Cole
During our first News Agenda session we were told that it might be worth our while reading Peter Cole's four part series on the national press that was published in The Guardian.
There were some points made that I found quite interesting. For example, the idea that journalists struggle to talk about 'the life of newspapers' in opposition to 'the death of newspapers', simply because we read too many. The articles themselves are therefore not strictly aimed at journalists, although we can gain much from reading them, but they are for the benefit of 'ordinary readers'. The articles are on the subject of the national press, starting mid-market with the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. It makes quite interesting but also humorous points on the obsession of the Express with Diana and Madeleine McCann. It reasons that the real Express obsession is Diana because they have such exceptional Paris contacts. This means the paper can continuously run headlines such as 'Diana: new sensation' or 'Scandal of Diana cover-up' with very little comment or following up of the stories. "The conspiracy theories build without trace. And nobody really knows why". The Mail is an interesting case study as its views are so strong and these views are intended to reflect the prejudices of their readers, not the contemporary world. The Mail also takes 'proper note of [its] demographics rather than pandering to the advertisers' preoccupation with young consumers'. The reason the Mail is doing so much better than the express comes down to two things: Confidence, the Mail's dominant quality and the fact that it knows its 'middle England' audience.
His next article starts with a bold statement, (and one that fortunately would appeal to the readers of the Guardian, he knows his own demographics), claiming that 'the tabloids are another country to readers of this and other serious newspapers'. He notes that the Red top market is dominated by the Sun on weekdays but by the News of the World on Sundays, the tabloids do still hold such influence even with the decline in circulation (however, the Sun is still the highest selling daily). Journalists on national newspapers - even editors of serious newspapers - can't get enough of the tabloids, the stories are followed up in their own columns with little excuse needed to refer back to them. The golden age of the tabloids was when "society was more stratified, when manual work was dominant, when politicians commanded respect, when education was driving social mobility and when stars were glitzy, (Peter Cole's words not mine). Most tabloids tend to feature stories on infidelity by the famous and not so much or drug addictions of the same. The way they get this information has been called into question however after the News of the World were found to have paid for illegally obtained phone intercepts and the Mirror was found to have phoney photos to back allegations of abuse by British troops. Tabloid journalists are the least trusted of all journalists which Cole finds unfair, "some of the best journalists work for tabloids and the techniques of tabloid journalism are the hardest to acquire". The agenda is what has gone 'awry'. The Sun's views on crime and punishment, Europe, asylum and the nanny state still reflect a strong vein of opinion (when they are present).
Whether you call them 'broadsheets' or use the official Audit Bureau of Circulations term, 'qualities', the more correct term would probably be 'serious'. Although it surprised me to learn that the four 'qualities' - Guardian, Telegraph, Times and Independent - have a combined circulation smaller than the Daily Mail's, it did not surprise me to learn they are punching well above their weight, even if the decisions made by our leaders after reading them, can often be wrong. Cole finds the 'serious sector' the most interesting in recent times due to its compact revolution, its engagement with online publishing, the changes in ownership, management and editors, the growth in the importance of Saturday and the huge investment made in giveaway CDs and DVDs. The article also had some interesting points especially for me, considering my news agenda presentation, on the subject of the Independent. He says the Independent is more like a pressure group than a political party, concentrating on the issues it believes its readers care about, carving a niche for itself on a daily fix of war, climate change, Heathrow protests, Darfur and university clearing.
In Cole's final essay on the press, he enthuses on the subject of the thriving multi section supplement paper. Although they are more expensive and often have a lot of waffle in their different sections, we as consumers actually purchase more Sunday newspapers than weekday newspapers. Market research suggests that readers prefer a more manageable product whilst the market demonstrates the complete opposite. Sunday papers have become 'embedded in our culture' even though Sundays have changed completely in society. The serious Sundays have not suffered the drop in circulation of the tabloids and so they are in reasonable health.
Long may this continue and we'll hope that 'the death of the newspaper' is a little over zealous. Perhaps it is 'too soon for obits'.
There were some points made that I found quite interesting. For example, the idea that journalists struggle to talk about 'the life of newspapers' in opposition to 'the death of newspapers', simply because we read too many. The articles themselves are therefore not strictly aimed at journalists, although we can gain much from reading them, but they are for the benefit of 'ordinary readers'. The articles are on the subject of the national press, starting mid-market with the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. It makes quite interesting but also humorous points on the obsession of the Express with Diana and Madeleine McCann. It reasons that the real Express obsession is Diana because they have such exceptional Paris contacts. This means the paper can continuously run headlines such as 'Diana: new sensation' or 'Scandal of Diana cover-up' with very little comment or following up of the stories. "The conspiracy theories build without trace. And nobody really knows why". The Mail is an interesting case study as its views are so strong and these views are intended to reflect the prejudices of their readers, not the contemporary world. The Mail also takes 'proper note of [its] demographics rather than pandering to the advertisers' preoccupation with young consumers'. The reason the Mail is doing so much better than the express comes down to two things: Confidence, the Mail's dominant quality and the fact that it knows its 'middle England' audience.
His next article starts with a bold statement, (and one that fortunately would appeal to the readers of the Guardian, he knows his own demographics), claiming that 'the tabloids are another country to readers of this and other serious newspapers'. He notes that the Red top market is dominated by the Sun on weekdays but by the News of the World on Sundays, the tabloids do still hold such influence even with the decline in circulation (however, the Sun is still the highest selling daily). Journalists on national newspapers - even editors of serious newspapers - can't get enough of the tabloids, the stories are followed up in their own columns with little excuse needed to refer back to them. The golden age of the tabloids was when "society was more stratified, when manual work was dominant, when politicians commanded respect, when education was driving social mobility and when stars were glitzy, (Peter Cole's words not mine). Most tabloids tend to feature stories on infidelity by the famous and not so much or drug addictions of the same. The way they get this information has been called into question however after the News of the World were found to have paid for illegally obtained phone intercepts and the Mirror was found to have phoney photos to back allegations of abuse by British troops. Tabloid journalists are the least trusted of all journalists which Cole finds unfair, "some of the best journalists work for tabloids and the techniques of tabloid journalism are the hardest to acquire". The agenda is what has gone 'awry'. The Sun's views on crime and punishment, Europe, asylum and the nanny state still reflect a strong vein of opinion (when they are present).
Whether you call them 'broadsheets' or use the official Audit Bureau of Circulations term, 'qualities', the more correct term would probably be 'serious'. Although it surprised me to learn that the four 'qualities' - Guardian, Telegraph, Times and Independent - have a combined circulation smaller than the Daily Mail's, it did not surprise me to learn they are punching well above their weight, even if the decisions made by our leaders after reading them, can often be wrong. Cole finds the 'serious sector' the most interesting in recent times due to its compact revolution, its engagement with online publishing, the changes in ownership, management and editors, the growth in the importance of Saturday and the huge investment made in giveaway CDs and DVDs. The article also had some interesting points especially for me, considering my news agenda presentation, on the subject of the Independent. He says the Independent is more like a pressure group than a political party, concentrating on the issues it believes its readers care about, carving a niche for itself on a daily fix of war, climate change, Heathrow protests, Darfur and university clearing.
In Cole's final essay on the press, he enthuses on the subject of the thriving multi section supplement paper. Although they are more expensive and often have a lot of waffle in their different sections, we as consumers actually purchase more Sunday newspapers than weekday newspapers. Market research suggests that readers prefer a more manageable product whilst the market demonstrates the complete opposite. Sunday papers have become 'embedded in our culture' even though Sundays have changed completely in society. The serious Sundays have not suffered the drop in circulation of the tabloids and so they are in reasonable health.
Long may this continue and we'll hope that 'the death of the newspaper' is a little over zealous. Perhaps it is 'too soon for obits'.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Media Law 6 - Copyright (with some extras)
The lecture started in unusual fashion with two older students coming into the room to show us an example of investigative journalism which, for reasons of confidentiality, I am not entirely sure I can talk of in full detail. Suffice to say, some investigative journalism had gone on with the result being that some defamatory material could be published which would essentially destroy the person involved.This brought into question some moral issues that had not been fully explored before. Sometimes as a journalist, the difficult decision has to be made about whether it is worth having such a story on your conscience, knowing that you have destroyed someone and their career.
The copyright law for journalists is quite complicated and I have already made a blog post on copyright in general from when Peter Hodges - former head of copyright at the BBC - came to give us a guest lecture on the subject. This lecture however gave more focus on the journalistic aspects and a few examples for us to think on. Increasingly, it is not only property (work) that can be copyrighted but your intellectual property is often just as important. There is no copyright on ideas though; if you were to say 'let's make a film about cowboys', then Clint Eastwood wouldn't be able to do much about it. You are not actually allowed to take things off of the Internet, (pictures included) because they are all protected under copyright. The 1911 Copyright Act make any breach of copyright a crime so it's a more serious thing than you may necessarily think. Often journalism students seem to think they are exempt from these laws purely because they are students. Just because you may feel you have exemption through your inexperience doesn't mean that putting copyrighted material into your blog may come back on you in a bad way.
Any work that you do is copyright and belongs to you until you sell it. The example we had in the lecture was that of shed building. If you build a shed it is yours and no one else's but if you sell it (your wages) it's not yours anymore. In the same way McNae's suggests that because you are being paid wages for your pieces then you no longer own them, (unless you have some prior agreement with the editor). If you were a freelance journalist you could license your work instead of receiving wages; you can have either a one off license or even a royalty. Royalties are more complicated however as they are tied to an advance. To use the example of a book you might be expected to sell say 500,000 copies of the book at £10 so your royalty is 10% of the profits and you receive 500,000 pounds. If your book actually sells 1 million copies then your 10% doesn't change, you just receive more royalties so to use the same example you would receive 1 million pounds from the sale of your book. It is important to secure your license so you do not get 'ripped off', the original example of this being the 60s rock band The Who. They recorded one of their songs in a studio and did not secure a license for their work so it was distributed and made successful without them even getting a penny, (fortunately for them it wasn't their only song).
Finally I'm going to talk about 'lifting' or the concept of fair dealing. You can, in certain circumstances actually take pieces of other journalists work but this does not mean actually stealing their entire articles and the like, it just applies to the facts of a news story which obviously cannot be copyrighted. If the Prime Minister resigns and someone has written the story before you then they do not own the copyright to the story, just the quotes that they may have got for the story; another example is the reporting of the score in a football match. The only time you can get away with taking quotes from another journalists report is if you use the defence of 'fair dealing' to avoid legal action. Mentioning 'the minister tells a newspaper' before a quote that you lifted is all you need, you do not need to name the rival newspaper who you took the quote from.
Thanks for reading my notes on copyright, if you liked this then please look at the rest of my entries and especially the above mentioned blog from Peter Hodges guest lecture.
Stay Classy Internet.
The copyright law for journalists is quite complicated and I have already made a blog post on copyright in general from when Peter Hodges - former head of copyright at the BBC - came to give us a guest lecture on the subject. This lecture however gave more focus on the journalistic aspects and a few examples for us to think on. Increasingly, it is not only property (work) that can be copyrighted but your intellectual property is often just as important. There is no copyright on ideas though; if you were to say 'let's make a film about cowboys', then Clint Eastwood wouldn't be able to do much about it. You are not actually allowed to take things off of the Internet, (pictures included) because they are all protected under copyright. The 1911 Copyright Act make any breach of copyright a crime so it's a more serious thing than you may necessarily think. Often journalism students seem to think they are exempt from these laws purely because they are students. Just because you may feel you have exemption through your inexperience doesn't mean that putting copyrighted material into your blog may come back on you in a bad way.
Any work that you do is copyright and belongs to you until you sell it. The example we had in the lecture was that of shed building. If you build a shed it is yours and no one else's but if you sell it (your wages) it's not yours anymore. In the same way McNae's suggests that because you are being paid wages for your pieces then you no longer own them, (unless you have some prior agreement with the editor). If you were a freelance journalist you could license your work instead of receiving wages; you can have either a one off license or even a royalty. Royalties are more complicated however as they are tied to an advance. To use the example of a book you might be expected to sell say 500,000 copies of the book at £10 so your royalty is 10% of the profits and you receive 500,000 pounds. If your book actually sells 1 million copies then your 10% doesn't change, you just receive more royalties so to use the same example you would receive 1 million pounds from the sale of your book. It is important to secure your license so you do not get 'ripped off', the original example of this being the 60s rock band The Who. They recorded one of their songs in a studio and did not secure a license for their work so it was distributed and made successful without them even getting a penny, (fortunately for them it wasn't their only song).
Finally I'm going to talk about 'lifting' or the concept of fair dealing. You can, in certain circumstances actually take pieces of other journalists work but this does not mean actually stealing their entire articles and the like, it just applies to the facts of a news story which obviously cannot be copyrighted. If the Prime Minister resigns and someone has written the story before you then they do not own the copyright to the story, just the quotes that they may have got for the story; another example is the reporting of the score in a football match. The only time you can get away with taking quotes from another journalists report is if you use the defence of 'fair dealing' to avoid legal action. Mentioning 'the minister tells a newspaper' before a quote that you lifted is all you need, you do not need to name the rival newspaper who you took the quote from.
Thanks for reading my notes on copyright, if you liked this then please look at the rest of my entries and especially the above mentioned blog from Peter Hodges guest lecture.
Stay Classy Internet.
Libel - Current example
I was alerted to a current news story on libel through the social networking site Twitter where a user called @bengoldacre said "another reminder for journalists internationally of the need to write about NMT's behaviour (and English libel reform) http://bbc.in/99SfQe.
The story can be viewed via the link above and is an interesting case of where someone is using libel laws to 'suppress legitimate scientific discussion'.
It is also interesting to consider the role of Twitter in all of this. The story would not have come to my attention had it not been Re-Tweeted, (a term used on the site to mean that you have Re-Tweeted someone else's tweet to your own followers, complicated to understand if you are not Twitter literate). Twitter has become a source of news for many people and it is understood that more people go on the web for news these days than pick up a newspaper.
See this brief article for an example: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4559162.ece
The story can be viewed via the link above and is an interesting case of where someone is using libel laws to 'suppress legitimate scientific discussion'.
It is also interesting to consider the role of Twitter in all of this. The story would not have come to my attention had it not been Re-Tweeted, (a term used on the site to mean that you have Re-Tweeted someone else's tweet to your own followers, complicated to understand if you are not Twitter literate). Twitter has become a source of news for many people and it is understood that more people go on the web for news these days than pick up a newspaper.
See this brief article for an example: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4559162.ece
Saturday, 30 October 2010
Lecture 3 - Pretty much History
Our third lecture in the History and Context of Journalism was pretty much a history lesson but it did help to contextualise all the information we had been receiving over the past few weeks by placing it in time.
Journalism is turning information into money. Classy way to open a lecture but it's true. it began in Holland and England in the 1600s and has evolved into the money making leviathan that you can observe today. But how did we get to the point where journalism was even possible? As early as 6000 BC the first recorded system for writing came into being (Chinese pictographic script) begging the question, what were people doing in the millions of years before this. We then moved in the next thousands of years through the Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Sumerian Cuneform script, both ideas slightly too complicated to become standard. A big jump takes us to Latin from which much of our language is taken today. Looking at the picture below of the Lindisfarne Gospel you can see that some of the characters have survived to modern times.
Journalism is turning information into money. Classy way to open a lecture but it's true. it began in Holland and England in the 1600s and has evolved into the money making leviathan that you can observe today. But how did we get to the point where journalism was even possible? As early as 6000 BC the first recorded system for writing came into being (Chinese pictographic script) begging the question, what were people doing in the millions of years before this. We then moved in the next thousands of years through the Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Sumerian Cuneform script, both ideas slightly too complicated to become standard. A big jump takes us to Latin from which much of our language is taken today. Looking at the picture below of the Lindisfarne Gospel you can see that some of the characters have survived to modern times.
In the 1440s Guttenberg's printing press was invented. Singularly the 'most important invention in history', says Einstein and he should know. He went on to say that: 'it gives man a kind of immortality'. Whereas before, ideas could be written down and lost just as quickly, the printing press gave you immortality because your ideas could live forever in books. This led us on to the Renaissance (for more depth on the subject of the Renaissance, check out my older blogs) where the ideas that had come from the Greeks could finally be written down, recorded and saved before another Dark Ages.
As far as journalism goes, not much happened for a few hundred years until the pamphleteers of the Civil War. Before that though there was one publication that got particular mention in the lecture for its significance to news. Foxes Book of Martyrs turned the pulpit into news media as it documents the persecution of all the important martyrs in history. This was one of the first uses of the printing press that wasn't The Bible; OK so it involved the Bible but it opened the door for the printing press to be used for other more diverse practices. The restoration of the Stuart monarchy brought us not only Charles II but John Locke's Essay on Human Understanding, one of the most important pieces we have studied so far, (once again check my previous blogs for notes on John Locke). Eventually, this leads to one of the most important events in the history of journalism; the publication of the first daily newspaper, the Daily Courant (picture below). This was the time of the Whigs in Parliament and Daniel Defoe, sometimes thought of as the father of English journalism, was pamphleteering at this time and was often pilloried for it showing the dangers of journalism in these times.
Comment papers such as The Spectator then began to crop up in the Whig Ascendancy, the content was commercial but witty. This was the time of Joseph Addison and the like whose observations are still wholly readable today. The next real innovation in journalism came with Hogarth and his photo journalism. The minute observations that could be seen within his paintings were able to reflect very accurately whole stories that could not be revealed by the actual articles. His most famous work Gin Alley is often referred back to as one of the best examples of photo journalism, even though it is not really a photo.
From this moment on, the aspects of journalism developed until we get to Fleet Street and then modern journalism. It is these early journalists, (Daniel Defoe, Joseph Addison, not forgetting photo journalist Hogarth), that helped pioneer journalism and make it the profession it is today.
Apologies for taking so long on this blog but it made it eventually.
Stay Classy Internet.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Journalism Now Project - The Press in the 17th Century
When I discovered my topic for the ‘Journalism Now’ module was ‘The Press in the 17th Century’ my initial excitement was tempered with worry as I knew that there was more research material on the subject of the 18th century, (Daily Courant, Joseph Addison etc) than the 17th century. I needn’t have worried though as I soon found that the 17th century was one of the most fast moving and interesting periods of history to study in terms of journalism. The printing press had long been invented, the first newspapers began to emerge, the pioneers of journalism began to emerge and the groundwork was laid for the press that we know today.
In The March of Journalism; Harold Herd calls British journalism, “the product of a slow moving evolution in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries”. The earliest writers who could be compared to journalists today would be the pamphleteers of Cromwell’s Commonwealth who bear more than a passing resemblance to today’s more opinionated columnists. Before that though, as early as the 1620s there had been sheets called corantos which Andrew Marr’s book, My Trade, discusses briefly.
“As early as the 1620s there had been the corantos – as in ‘current’, as in ‘current affairs’ - which were semi regular bulletins of news from the continent, picked out from similar papers there and translated without comment into English”.
These were the earliest forms of newspapers and are more commonly referred to as ‘newsbooks’, of which there were many examples, but they do not resemble the press as we know it today. Before, there had been such strict rules on printing in Britain that the first English speaking paper was actually produced in Holland by Joris Veseler around 1620[1]. This influenced the newsbooks which lasted throughout Cromwell’s Commonwealth.
The nearest things to newspapers - as we know them - following Charles II’s restoration were the official newspapers, the Intelligencer and the News, published by Roger L’Estrange, England’s official censor under Charles II[2]. My Trade notes that the newspapers were thought very dull by the public and the greatest reporter of his day, Samuel Pepys.
Quickly though, other newspapers began to appear such as the Oxford Gazette in 1665, the first official newspaper which we would recognise as such. As the court returned to London following the plague it became the London Gazette, and whilst hardly a good read by today’s standards, it was all the public were allowed at the time[3]. This paved the way for the first daily newspaper, the Daily Courant, sadly just outside of my timescale.
Journalism and the press as we know it today has come a long way from their humble beginnings in Grub Street as single sheets of news, containing barely relevant foreign affairs. However it is not for us as students of journalism to wonder at why the press began, there is no absolute truth anyway, it is only for us to wonder upon ‘Journalism Now’.
Footnotes:
[1]Wikipedia – History of British Newspapers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_newspapers
[2]Andrew Marr, My Trade – A Short History of British Journalism, Macmillan 2004
[3]Harold Herd, The March of Journalism – The Story of the British Press from 1622 to the Present Day, Unwin ltd, First published 1952
In The March of Journalism; Harold Herd calls British journalism, “the product of a slow moving evolution in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries”. The earliest writers who could be compared to journalists today would be the pamphleteers of Cromwell’s Commonwealth who bear more than a passing resemblance to today’s more opinionated columnists. Before that though, as early as the 1620s there had been sheets called corantos which Andrew Marr’s book, My Trade, discusses briefly.
“As early as the 1620s there had been the corantos – as in ‘current’, as in ‘current affairs’ - which were semi regular bulletins of news from the continent, picked out from similar papers there and translated without comment into English”.
These were the earliest forms of newspapers and are more commonly referred to as ‘newsbooks’, of which there were many examples, but they do not resemble the press as we know it today. Before, there had been such strict rules on printing in Britain that the first English speaking paper was actually produced in Holland by Joris Veseler around 1620[1]. This influenced the newsbooks which lasted throughout Cromwell’s Commonwealth.
The nearest things to newspapers - as we know them - following Charles II’s restoration were the official newspapers, the Intelligencer and the News, published by Roger L’Estrange, England’s official censor under Charles II[2]. My Trade notes that the newspapers were thought very dull by the public and the greatest reporter of his day, Samuel Pepys.
Quickly though, other newspapers began to appear such as the Oxford Gazette in 1665, the first official newspaper which we would recognise as such. As the court returned to London following the plague it became the London Gazette, and whilst hardly a good read by today’s standards, it was all the public were allowed at the time[3]. This paved the way for the first daily newspaper, the Daily Courant, sadly just outside of my timescale.
Journalism and the press as we know it today has come a long way from their humble beginnings in Grub Street as single sheets of news, containing barely relevant foreign affairs. However it is not for us as students of journalism to wonder at why the press began, there is no absolute truth anyway, it is only for us to wonder upon ‘Journalism Now’.
Footnotes:
[1]Wikipedia – History of British Newspapers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_newspapers
[2]Andrew Marr, My Trade – A Short History of British Journalism, Macmillan 2004
[3]Harold Herd, The March of Journalism – The Story of the British Press from 1622 to the Present Day, Unwin ltd, First published 1952
Woops
Somehow managed to get my last two blog posts in the wrong order.
I'm confident you (the reader) are intelligent enough to work it out though and hopefully I'll be intelligent enough at some point to swap them round and we can forget this whole thing ever happened.
Stay Classy Internet.
I'm confident you (the reader) are intelligent enough to work it out though and hopefully I'll be intelligent enough at some point to swap them round and we can forget this whole thing ever happened.
Stay Classy Internet.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Media Law 5 - Confidentitality amongst other things
Our fifth Media Law lecture was focused on the subject of confidentiality but also took in the related subject of Official Secrets as the two are very much related. It helped to explain the difference between stories of confidential information being leaked such as the WikiLeaks scandal and tabloid fodder like John Terry's alleged affair with a teammates fiance, Vanessa Peroncell, (more on which later).
First I feel the need to talk about the Official Secrets Act 1911 which is not strictly confidentiality but which it is necessary to talk about in relation to confidentiality. The WikiLeaks story is not confidentiality for example but it does deal with Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. I can end the discussion on Section 1 quite easily. Don't break it ever, it's basically treason. Section 2 however covers basically everything that the government does so using an example given to us by Chris, his 'Silly Secrets' column once featured a 'How to Put on Camouflage' diagram which when published is technically a breach of Section 2. Obviously this wasn't something that the MoD felt it necessary to deal with as Chris was never arrested for breach of the Official Secrets Act.
Trade secrets are protected by civil law, it is a 'tort', i.e. concerning civil wrongs. If you were to tell Pepsi the secret ingredient of Coca Cola for example, it is a breach of their commercial confidentiality. Some students believe they can get away with reporting a secret leaked by someone else; this is not the case. Even if you were not the person who leaked the trade secret, you are responsible as well in a case of third party breach. The example was given of the hospital worker, Graham Pink, who told the papers that the geriatric ward in his hospital was dirty. This was wrong and he probably should have told his boss first, not a journalist. It's dangerous reporting on anything that isn't from the courts or from Parliament because you are not protected by your qualified privilege in these places. If say 40% of news is Parliament and 40% is the courts, the final 20% is legally dangerous and probably best avoided if you are not confident in the story.
If you are going to print a story that is particularly dangerous in terms of confidentiality (using the example of commercial confidentiality), then there are certain things you need to do in order to publish it. First of all make it clear to the person that you are a journalist. Often this will probably mean they will stop talking to you but it is a necessary evil if they were just about to tell you a wholly confidential and wholly dangerous piece of information. Ask the person if they are still prepared for you to run the story, even though you will probably be sacked for a prima facie (at first sight) breach of confidentiality. Often with some peoples jobs they will have a gagging clause, e.g. Nurses working for the NHS. If you are running the story, you must protect the source at all costs, the only alternative is to not run the story. If you tell them, you break code of conduct (which of course is not as bad anymore without the unions) but if you don't tell them, you can be done for contempt of court. The best example of this is the case of Bill Goodwin who obtained a draft plan for the purpose of negotiating the struggling Tetra Ltd. out of financial difficulties. Goodwin phoned the company to check the details and they brought an injunction against revealing the information and Goodwin did not comply with the order, being fined £5000. Years later the European Court of Human Rights held that the court order and fine violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If you don't want to reveal the source, really the best thing you can do is have thousands of other ways in which the information could have got to you: found it in skip, anonymous envelope, the list is probably endless.
Occasionally however, there are perfectly innocent cases of breaking the Official Secrets Act. All army bases are protected places under the act and so a general view shot that takes in an army base is a breach, and you will be tried. You need to get written permission because otherwise it's illegal. Probably safer in a way never to point a camera at the army, they might point a gun back...
Confidential information needs to conform to a certain amount of things before it can be considered confidential.
It must:
Have 'the necessary quality of confidence' have been imparted in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence have no permission granted be shown to cause detriment.
First I feel the need to talk about the Official Secrets Act 1911 which is not strictly confidentiality but which it is necessary to talk about in relation to confidentiality. The WikiLeaks story is not confidentiality for example but it does deal with Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. I can end the discussion on Section 1 quite easily. Don't break it ever, it's basically treason. Section 2 however covers basically everything that the government does so using an example given to us by Chris, his 'Silly Secrets' column once featured a 'How to Put on Camouflage' diagram which when published is technically a breach of Section 2. Obviously this wasn't something that the MoD felt it necessary to deal with as Chris was never arrested for breach of the Official Secrets Act.
Trade secrets are protected by civil law, it is a 'tort', i.e. concerning civil wrongs. If you were to tell Pepsi the secret ingredient of Coca Cola for example, it is a breach of their commercial confidentiality. Some students believe they can get away with reporting a secret leaked by someone else; this is not the case. Even if you were not the person who leaked the trade secret, you are responsible as well in a case of third party breach. The example was given of the hospital worker, Graham Pink, who told the papers that the geriatric ward in his hospital was dirty. This was wrong and he probably should have told his boss first, not a journalist. It's dangerous reporting on anything that isn't from the courts or from Parliament because you are not protected by your qualified privilege in these places. If say 40% of news is Parliament and 40% is the courts, the final 20% is legally dangerous and probably best avoided if you are not confident in the story.
If you are going to print a story that is particularly dangerous in terms of confidentiality (using the example of commercial confidentiality), then there are certain things you need to do in order to publish it. First of all make it clear to the person that you are a journalist. Often this will probably mean they will stop talking to you but it is a necessary evil if they were just about to tell you a wholly confidential and wholly dangerous piece of information. Ask the person if they are still prepared for you to run the story, even though you will probably be sacked for a prima facie (at first sight) breach of confidentiality. Often with some peoples jobs they will have a gagging clause, e.g. Nurses working for the NHS. If you are running the story, you must protect the source at all costs, the only alternative is to not run the story. If you tell them, you break code of conduct (which of course is not as bad anymore without the unions) but if you don't tell them, you can be done for contempt of court. The best example of this is the case of Bill Goodwin who obtained a draft plan for the purpose of negotiating the struggling Tetra Ltd. out of financial difficulties. Goodwin phoned the company to check the details and they brought an injunction against revealing the information and Goodwin did not comply with the order, being fined £5000. Years later the European Court of Human Rights held that the court order and fine violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If you don't want to reveal the source, really the best thing you can do is have thousands of other ways in which the information could have got to you: found it in skip, anonymous envelope, the list is probably endless.
Occasionally however, there are perfectly innocent cases of breaking the Official Secrets Act. All army bases are protected places under the act and so a general view shot that takes in an army base is a breach, and you will be tried. You need to get written permission because otherwise it's illegal. Probably safer in a way never to point a camera at the army, they might point a gun back...
Confidential information needs to conform to a certain amount of things before it can be considered confidential.
It must:
Finally I will move on to the more usual definition of confidentiality which deals with Section 8 of the Human Rights Act - everyone is entitled to the normal enjoyment of private life. You cannot without permission photograph or film anybody and publish it unless they're involved in a clear public event. This means that all those pictures of celebrities you're constantly poring over in newspapers and magazines are posed, no matter how spontaneous they may appear. In the case involving Princess Caroline, she was photographed riding a horse which she claimed was part of her private activity and the Court of Human Rights found that the respect for her private life had been breached. In general view shots, you need to secure the consent of everyone who appears in the shot, this is why many of the shots you see on television feature so many people with only their bodies. There are different types of consent; there is explicit consent where a person agrees to an interview or similar, (can't complain about invasion of privacy then), and implied consent, for example when someone is waving or looking into a camera, (if they're attention seeking, they can't say it invades their rights, a streaker can't sue for breach of privacy).
Often in these cases an injunction will be brought out which leads us to the John Terry story. A while ago now a story emerged alleging that John Terry had had an affair with Vanessa Peroncell, made even more interesting because she was the fiance of his team mate, Wayne Bridge, at the time. A super-injunction was initially brought out as the alleged affair was not reported until some time after it was supposed to have taken place. Once it was reported however, the gloves were off and Terry was defamed across the media. It is interesting then that recently, Ms Peroncell has released a statement saying the affair never took place and this only garnered a few lines of print, instead of the few months that the allegations got.
In summary: Confidentiality is a tricky thing. But it's no secret (pun quite clearly intended) that dealing with it is one of the most difficult aspects of a journalists life.
Stay classy Internet.
Media Law - Current Example of Confidentiality
In my last media law blog I gave my lecture notes on the subject of Confidentiality and went into some detail about injunctions and rights to privacy. In the Tuesday, 26th of October edition of The Daily Mail there was a prime example of both of these issues.
The headline reads, "Blackmailer who tormented pop star over her laptop photographs" and details the case but, crucially, the main details which would interest the public of who the 'international superstar' is are left out. The paper acknowledges to the audience that they musician's identity 'is known to this newspaper but cannot be revealed because of a strict court order, which also bans [them] from revealing her age, nationality and whether she is in a relationship or has children'. This is an example of an injunction but clearly she has not imposed a superinjunction against the newspapers because this would prevent them even reporting that she was blocking details.
The case involves the theft of two laptops from the pop stars home after losing her house keys, possibly at the hairdressers. One of the laptops contained photographs of a senstive nature, the details of which were not discussed. Anonymous hand delivered letters and e-mails began arriving in which the blackmailer threatened to sell the photographs on to the media. A Sebastien Bennett, 24, unemployed from London, was convicted of blackmail and handling stolen goods. The offence carries a maximum 14-year term and he will be sentenced this Friday.
The original story can be read here on the Daily Mail website:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323744/Popstars-tormentor-used-Google-Facebook-aid-blackmail-campaign-facing-jail.html
The headline reads, "Blackmailer who tormented pop star over her laptop photographs" and details the case but, crucially, the main details which would interest the public of who the 'international superstar' is are left out. The paper acknowledges to the audience that they musician's identity 'is known to this newspaper but cannot be revealed because of a strict court order, which also bans [them] from revealing her age, nationality and whether she is in a relationship or has children'. This is an example of an injunction but clearly she has not imposed a superinjunction against the newspapers because this would prevent them even reporting that she was blocking details.
The case involves the theft of two laptops from the pop stars home after losing her house keys, possibly at the hairdressers. One of the laptops contained photographs of a senstive nature, the details of which were not discussed. Anonymous hand delivered letters and e-mails began arriving in which the blackmailer threatened to sell the photographs on to the media. A Sebastien Bennett, 24, unemployed from London, was convicted of blackmail and handling stolen goods. The offence carries a maximum 14-year term and he will be sentenced this Friday.
The original story can be read here on the Daily Mail website:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323744/Popstars-tormentor-used-Google-Facebook-aid-blackmail-campaign-facing-jail.html
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Media Law 4 - Privilege
In our fourth lecture on media law, as the title suggests we looked at privilege. This is one of the main defences we as Journalists have against defamation as it is a protection that makes you exempt from law in some way. The Queen for example has absolute privilege. She can do whatever the hell she wants and that's fine by us as loyal subjects, in fact, it's the law that it's fine. Journalists aren't so lucky but any type of qualified privilege (there are two types, Statutory and Common law) is a better defence than no privilege. The main defence to Libel is of course justification as we explored last week, i.e. the defamatory comments were true and you can prove it.
Often Journalists seem to think that being coy about what you really mean in an article defends you from defamation but often the innuendo is worse than ordinary defamation; it shows you have no defence because you are admitting something is defamatory. Defamation really comes from impression though. Using an example from the lecture where an article inside the Daily Telegraph was advertised on its front page with a headline that suggested the Bishop of Canterbury was tearing down the Church by placing his picture next to the offending headline. Sometimes though you can escape libel action through the defence of fair comment, opinion if you like which is well protected in section 10 of the Human Rights act. We live in a free country and can therefore express any opinion but you always have to think about what is fact and what is comment.
Back to Privilege:
As stated earlier, privilege means you are exempt from the law in some way. For journalists, this often means being exempt from libel law which is brilliant but you can only have privilege in narrow circumstances. For Statutory Qualified Privilege to apply, it needs to be reporting in court as it's OK to libel people in court; as long as you have your shorthand. Anything said in court can be reported no matter how libellous or defamatory. The example we had was of a case (coincidentally played out in Winchester Crown Court) where a paedophile ring had finally been ended by the final persons conviction. The article was written in The Sun newspaper and had lines in the article calling those convicted 'sick' and 'evil'. First of all, this is defamatory because it lowers their reputation in the minds of right thinking people, causing them to be shunned, etc, etc. Either way, the story is defamatory but the Journalist cannot be sued for libel because it was said in court and (possibly more importantly) because they also have the defence of Justification, most people would term them sick for what they did and their conviction for paedophilia is a statement of fact before it is anything else. We can report anything in the courts but when it comes to the article, we lose our right to privilege if our comments come from malice, the big M which takes away many of our rights as Journalists. Big tip coming up. Stay away from malice!!!
You have to be careful even then in reports where you think you have privilege. Often the smallest detail can mean you end up libelling someone else with a confusion of words and their exact meaning or worse; a confusion of identity. This makes positive identification very important, you have to properly identify the 'evil' paedophile or suddenly you've got a bunch of other people with the same name who you have accidentally libelled. The report on the paedophile conviction named a 'Tracy Dauber, 44', but another completely oblivious Tracy Dauber, 44, could suddenly start getting connected to this case, purely by their name. Fortunately this wasn't The Sun's first time out so they supplied a photo with the article, hopefully negating any possibility of accidental libel.
Often Journalists seem to think that being coy about what you really mean in an article defends you from defamation but often the innuendo is worse than ordinary defamation; it shows you have no defence because you are admitting something is defamatory. Defamation really comes from impression though. Using an example from the lecture where an article inside the Daily Telegraph was advertised on its front page with a headline that suggested the Bishop of Canterbury was tearing down the Church by placing his picture next to the offending headline. Sometimes though you can escape libel action through the defence of fair comment, opinion if you like which is well protected in section 10 of the Human Rights act. We live in a free country and can therefore express any opinion but you always have to think about what is fact and what is comment.
Back to Privilege:
As stated earlier, privilege means you are exempt from the law in some way. For journalists, this often means being exempt from libel law which is brilliant but you can only have privilege in narrow circumstances. For Statutory Qualified Privilege to apply, it needs to be reporting in court as it's OK to libel people in court; as long as you have your shorthand. Anything said in court can be reported no matter how libellous or defamatory. The example we had was of a case (coincidentally played out in Winchester Crown Court) where a paedophile ring had finally been ended by the final persons conviction. The article was written in The Sun newspaper and had lines in the article calling those convicted 'sick' and 'evil'. First of all, this is defamatory because it lowers their reputation in the minds of right thinking people, causing them to be shunned, etc, etc. Either way, the story is defamatory but the Journalist cannot be sued for libel because it was said in court and (possibly more importantly) because they also have the defence of Justification, most people would term them sick for what they did and their conviction for paedophilia is a statement of fact before it is anything else. We can report anything in the courts but when it comes to the article, we lose our right to privilege if our comments come from malice, the big M which takes away many of our rights as Journalists. Big tip coming up. Stay away from malice!!!
You have to be careful even then in reports where you think you have privilege. Often the smallest detail can mean you end up libelling someone else with a confusion of words and their exact meaning or worse; a confusion of identity. This makes positive identification very important, you have to properly identify the 'evil' paedophile or suddenly you've got a bunch of other people with the same name who you have accidentally libelled. The report on the paedophile conviction named a 'Tracy Dauber, 44', but another completely oblivious Tracy Dauber, 44, could suddenly start getting connected to this case, purely by their name. Fortunately this wasn't The Sun's first time out so they supplied a photo with the article, hopefully negating any possibility of accidental libel.
Qualified Privilege is difficult to get and just as difficult to keep. You only have it in certain circumstances and if your report isn't fast, accurate and fair; you lose it. If the story isn't in the next available edition then Qualified Privilege is lost and this goes for Court Reporting as well.
'You are the eyes and ears of the public' - Justice Eady
You need to have the story out immediately with no errors, even trivial errors. The errors will make you lose your privilege as they could change things completely, (Tracy, Dauber 44 is a convicted paedophile. Tracy Dauber, 34 might run a care home). To keep it fair is the most difficult. Fast, easy, get the report out the next day; accurate, just don't make any mistakes, I'm begging you not to make any mistake; but fair is tricky. Really it comes down to the usual, keep it without malice and you should be fine. You also can't do a report if you have a vested interest in the case, (i.e. it's a friend or family member). 'The case continues' or 'they are pleading not guilty' has to be in there somewhere or it loses privilege for being unfair. No matter whether the prosecution was the only person who talked throughout the day, it needs 'the case continues' or else you are being biased and libellous. If in doubt, consult the Ten Point Test, (Reynolds Test) and make sure you go to the best possible source for information, most people are lying to you; you have to verify the information or else you wont get common law Qualified Privilege. End of.
Tune in next time for more 'Tales of Journalism Law!!!'
My Seminar Paper
Sorry it's a bit late and sorry it's a bit rubbish but I was asked by a few people to upload my seminar paper onto the blog and here it is...
Machiavelli is the figure that we have studied so far that interests me the most so for that reason he will be the focus of my seminar paper. This does not mean however that I will ignore the rest of the subjects we have read about. For example I will not be able to ignore the Italian Renaissance because of its relationship to Machiavelli and its huge importance to our study. I also will not be able to ignore the likes of Descartes and also The Scientific Revolution. The importance of the work of Descartes and the Scientists like Galileo et al cannot be overstated. They are the founders of our modern philosophy and science respectively and so whilst Machiavelli may be my main interest in this paper, I will not allow myself to become too distracted by him.
Machiavelli is thought by many to be the beginning of political science and philosophy. He lived in the time of the Renaissance and so his influence on that period is huge. His alliances with some leaders (Caesar Borgia), and his feuds with others (The Medici’s), are what made Machiavelli such an interesting character to study. At times in his life Machiavelli was a diplomat in Florence, one of the many separate states that made up Italy. He was representative of the Southern Renaissance Humanism that ran through this period of history but his theories and ideas laid down in his most famous work The Prince still seem incredibly modern. The Prince was written in the hope of securing the favour of The Medici family but its claims were actually quite provocative. The main point made is that you should secure power by any means, something that many would do but the stark realism in his suggestion of acquiring power by any means necessary would be quite shocking to some. On doing some more research into Machiavelli his professional relationship to Caesar Borgia is quite an interesting one considering that some of the correspondences he sent back to Florence from the court of Caesar Borgia still survive today in Machiavelli’s collected works. Caesar Borgia was an important figure in the time of Machiavelli and had influence across the Renaissance period due to his father being the Pope in the time, one of the most controversial Popes of the renaissance era. Machiavelli writes about Pope Alexander VI in The Prince as a successful politician but as the term Machiavellian came into usage as a pejorative term after this book, so it could possibly be a backhanded compliment.
In The Prince, the ‘how to’ guide for leaders, Machiavelli lays down some main rules: Firstly that you should support the weaker side in any conflict, this is so that when you prevail together with them, you will be the most powerful. Secondly, centralised regimes are difficult to conquer but easy to hold. Lastly that Armed prophets always succeed but unarmed ones fail. In The History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell notes that Machiavelli puts prophets like Moses in the armed category and someone like Savonarola of whom Machiavelli would know very much, into the latter category. Here is a quote illustrating that point from Machiavelli’s The Prince, “If Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus had been unarmed they could not have enforced their constitutions for long — as happened in our time to Fra Girolamo Savonarola, who was ruined with his new order of things immediately the multitude believed in him no longer, and he had no means of keeping steadfast those who believed or of making the unbelievers to believe”. The problem in this is that Machiavelli also asked you to be feared and not loved, because “it is better to be feared than loved, for love is fickle but fear is constant”. How do you become feared though without being hated? Well Machiavelli had an answer for that as well, as cunning and ‘Machiavellian’ in the negative sense as you can get. The answer to the question is that you must never take someone’s property. Kill people if you have to but with good reason but never take someone’s property “for men forget the death of their fathers more easily than the loss of their inheritance”. You can refer this back to Caesar Borgia who used a tactic just as clever to keep the favour of the public whilst keeping his power. “If you are going to take power by villainy – it is best to do it all at once, and get someone else to do it”, the example given in the lecture was that of Caesar Borgia’s governor who Borgia had to do all the things that would make Borgia himself unpopular. Once Borgia had power he killed the governor for the public to see and so had power and was feared but was more popular than ever.
I think I have talked about Machiavelli for long enough and of course if you wanted to know more there are extensive notes on him across the internet, in the library and reading The Prince itself would probably not hurt. Just before I move on however there is something interesting that I found whilst researching Machiavelli that The Prince has been read by some as a Political Satire. Admittedly I found this information on the internet and more specifically Wikipedia so there is no certainty that it is true on a free to edit website but it does have information to back it up.
The contribution of the early scientists like Galileo and Kepel and even earlier figures such as Copernicus, (who according to Russell is too early to be part of the ‘Rise of Science’) is huge on the development of the world, (without Galileo would we have Newton and then no laws of motion) but I did find it difficult to understand its relation to philosophy. In some ways it is the natural progression of philosophy, instead of just thinking about the world you are actually testing and evaluating these theories. Even with this in mind, it is still an important part of history and an interesting part of history to study. This becomes even more relevant when you consider that Galileo himself claimed he was merely following Pythagoras’s ideas that “nature [is] the book of God and it is written in the language of mathematics”. His claim is that he is uncovering God’s will through mathematics in this ‘new priesthood’ of Science.
I’m not sure how long seminar papers are supposed to go on for, in fact I’m not sure if this has really been a seminar paper, but I’m going to end this now with a few thoughts on Descartes. Descartes began as a contemporary of Galileo, believing that the universe could be explained by mathematics. His most repeated idea “I think therefore I am” lead to the idealist philosophy of someone like Hegel. Descartes is one of the most important philosophers as he took philosophy into the modern age, eventually leading on to thoughts of Berkeley and Hegel who believed that everything came from the ego. This came from Descartes total certainty of his own thoughts and his existence. Thanks for listening to my poorly constructed and confusing seminar paper.
Did you enjoy it? Didn't think so.
Machiavelli is the figure that we have studied so far that interests me the most so for that reason he will be the focus of my seminar paper. This does not mean however that I will ignore the rest of the subjects we have read about. For example I will not be able to ignore the Italian Renaissance because of its relationship to Machiavelli and its huge importance to our study. I also will not be able to ignore the likes of Descartes and also The Scientific Revolution. The importance of the work of Descartes and the Scientists like Galileo et al cannot be overstated. They are the founders of our modern philosophy and science respectively and so whilst Machiavelli may be my main interest in this paper, I will not allow myself to become too distracted by him.
Machiavelli is thought by many to be the beginning of political science and philosophy. He lived in the time of the Renaissance and so his influence on that period is huge. His alliances with some leaders (Caesar Borgia), and his feuds with others (The Medici’s), are what made Machiavelli such an interesting character to study. At times in his life Machiavelli was a diplomat in Florence, one of the many separate states that made up Italy. He was representative of the Southern Renaissance Humanism that ran through this period of history but his theories and ideas laid down in his most famous work The Prince still seem incredibly modern. The Prince was written in the hope of securing the favour of The Medici family but its claims were actually quite provocative. The main point made is that you should secure power by any means, something that many would do but the stark realism in his suggestion of acquiring power by any means necessary would be quite shocking to some. On doing some more research into Machiavelli his professional relationship to Caesar Borgia is quite an interesting one considering that some of the correspondences he sent back to Florence from the court of Caesar Borgia still survive today in Machiavelli’s collected works. Caesar Borgia was an important figure in the time of Machiavelli and had influence across the Renaissance period due to his father being the Pope in the time, one of the most controversial Popes of the renaissance era. Machiavelli writes about Pope Alexander VI in The Prince as a successful politician but as the term Machiavellian came into usage as a pejorative term after this book, so it could possibly be a backhanded compliment.
In The Prince, the ‘how to’ guide for leaders, Machiavelli lays down some main rules: Firstly that you should support the weaker side in any conflict, this is so that when you prevail together with them, you will be the most powerful. Secondly, centralised regimes are difficult to conquer but easy to hold. Lastly that Armed prophets always succeed but unarmed ones fail. In The History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell notes that Machiavelli puts prophets like Moses in the armed category and someone like Savonarola of whom Machiavelli would know very much, into the latter category. Here is a quote illustrating that point from Machiavelli’s The Prince, “If Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus had been unarmed they could not have enforced their constitutions for long — as happened in our time to Fra Girolamo Savonarola, who was ruined with his new order of things immediately the multitude believed in him no longer, and he had no means of keeping steadfast those who believed or of making the unbelievers to believe”. The problem in this is that Machiavelli also asked you to be feared and not loved, because “it is better to be feared than loved, for love is fickle but fear is constant”. How do you become feared though without being hated? Well Machiavelli had an answer for that as well, as cunning and ‘Machiavellian’ in the negative sense as you can get. The answer to the question is that you must never take someone’s property. Kill people if you have to but with good reason but never take someone’s property “for men forget the death of their fathers more easily than the loss of their inheritance”. You can refer this back to Caesar Borgia who used a tactic just as clever to keep the favour of the public whilst keeping his power. “If you are going to take power by villainy – it is best to do it all at once, and get someone else to do it”, the example given in the lecture was that of Caesar Borgia’s governor who Borgia had to do all the things that would make Borgia himself unpopular. Once Borgia had power he killed the governor for the public to see and so had power and was feared but was more popular than ever.
I think I have talked about Machiavelli for long enough and of course if you wanted to know more there are extensive notes on him across the internet, in the library and reading The Prince itself would probably not hurt. Just before I move on however there is something interesting that I found whilst researching Machiavelli that The Prince has been read by some as a Political Satire. Admittedly I found this information on the internet and more specifically Wikipedia so there is no certainty that it is true on a free to edit website but it does have information to back it up.
The contribution of the early scientists like Galileo and Kepel and even earlier figures such as Copernicus, (who according to Russell is too early to be part of the ‘Rise of Science’) is huge on the development of the world, (without Galileo would we have Newton and then no laws of motion) but I did find it difficult to understand its relation to philosophy. In some ways it is the natural progression of philosophy, instead of just thinking about the world you are actually testing and evaluating these theories. Even with this in mind, it is still an important part of history and an interesting part of history to study. This becomes even more relevant when you consider that Galileo himself claimed he was merely following Pythagoras’s ideas that “nature [is] the book of God and it is written in the language of mathematics”. His claim is that he is uncovering God’s will through mathematics in this ‘new priesthood’ of Science.
I’m not sure how long seminar papers are supposed to go on for, in fact I’m not sure if this has really been a seminar paper, but I’m going to end this now with a few thoughts on Descartes. Descartes began as a contemporary of Galileo, believing that the universe could be explained by mathematics. His most repeated idea “I think therefore I am” lead to the idealist philosophy of someone like Hegel. Descartes is one of the most important philosophers as he took philosophy into the modern age, eventually leading on to thoughts of Berkeley and Hegel who believed that everything came from the ego. This came from Descartes total certainty of his own thoughts and his existence. Thanks for listening to my poorly constructed and confusing seminar paper.
Did you enjoy it? Didn't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)