Seminar Paper - Smith and Swift

On the Different Progress of Opulence in Different Nations

Chapter 1: On the Natural Progress of Opulence

Smith begins book 3 by making the observation that all commerce in civilised society is made between the inhabitants of the city and the country, in the exchange of rude produce for manufactured produce. He says that towns claim all of their wealth from the country, though the wealth of both is reciprocal, one cannot flourish without the other. This may be linked to a form of social contract.
   
The more surplus produce the country provides, the larger the town can become, which means that the town’s market improves.

Smith puts great stock into owning land, he sees it as a safe, sure investment. Provided you know what you’re doing. He compares the buying and cultivating of land as a safe bet, land does not move, and you can keep an eye on it, as opposed to traders who spend money on goods and are forced to pay travel expenses and could lose it in a storm or robbery, or simply mistakes.

He describes how towns, and therefore markets, are formed. They begin with farms, as land cannot be moved, workmen and artificers (smiths, bakers etc) come to the farm to trade with the farms. And all involved have need of each other, they support themselves. As time goes on, more settle and villages and towns begin to form. As more people settle, the demand for employment  and subsistence rises and can only be met by a rise in produce conducive to this. This means that more land must be cultivated and improved to enlarge the town and better the market.

In countries such as N. America where there were large amounts of available land, it was cheaper and easier to become a farmer, so many chose to stop being an artificer of some kind, and buy land.  Making himself independent and able to make more profit for himself. In lands where there is no uncultivated land the artificer must instead work to sell his goods further afield. Which, being harder, means he must refine the quality of his work, making them more desirable, and more sought after. Smith seems to think that both of these outcomes are of great benefit as more land supports larger towns and markets, and higher quality manufactures increases demand in the markets.

Smith then mentions foreign trade as the height of the growth of society. Foreign trade greatly boost a countries opulence as it allows it to exchange surplus produce (which would be wasted at home) for other good for which there is a demand. This can be especially beneficial if the exportation is paid for by the traders.

Smith concludes the chapter by noting that, following the natural order, growing societies invest capital first in agriculture, followed by manufacture, then in foreign trade. Trade being the best step on the path to greatest opulence.

Chapter 2: On the Discouragement of Agriculture in the ancient State of Europe after the Fall of the Roman Empire

Smith uses the fall of the Roman Empire as a case study for how agriculture became discouraged. Western Europe was put into poverty, and all lands were seized by various ‘barbarians’ that had defeated the Romans. Smith notes how the natural law of succession, property is divided among families. But in cases when land must be used as a means of protection and power (in the case of castles for instance), it was ridiculous to break it up “to divide was to ruin”, and the law of primogeniture began to come into force, meaning that the oldest son would inherit all lands.

Smith also comments on how primogeniture has continued to be respected in may places but that it goes against the interests of the family as a whole. One cannot be rich without beggaring the rest. (modest proposal - beggars?)

The ‘great proprietors’ or ‘petty princes’ of this age, had no time for the cultivation of land as there were almost constantly at war. If he was able to, he would rarely have the knowledge or inclination to do much of use. At this time it was better to spend what money you had on acquiring new land as it is much harder to improve the value of existing land as it is too costly. A modern day example could be the aristocratic families of Britain that can trace their lines for hundreds of years but many are virtually penniless from trying to keep up their estates over the years.

Those under the princes were a kind of serf that was bound to the land, anything done on it belonged to the prince. Smith makes a point here that slavery can end up costing you the most money. Though you are not required to pay them he wrote: “A person who can acquire no property, can have no other interest but to eat as much, and to labour as little as possible”. this would result in terrible quality of produce. Compared to this, a type of farmer called ‘metayers’ in France, who had a share of the produce with the landowner and therefore had a vested interest in the quality of produce.

Generally, the ancient policy pf Europe was unfavourable to the improvement and cultivation of land. Many laws actively restricted improvement of land (taillage), and corn laws put massive restraints upon commerce (especially in Italy, the most fertile land in Europe and the seat of a great empire suffered greatly under these laws, so the effect on less favourably positioned countries would have been crippling). Although, England was on the whole favourable to the yeomanry and may have accounted in some ways to the grandeur of England, in those times.

Chapter 3: On the Rise and Progress of Cities and Towns after the Fall of the Roman Empire

After the fall of the Roman empire, the towns and cities were not much better than the country. The proprietors lived in fortified castles on their estates in the midst of their tenants and dependants for the sake of a common defence. Generally, the people in these towns were very poor and would travel between towns selling goods. These people were then taxed by landowners for passage through their estates or over their bridges etc. Occasionally, lords would grant frequent traders an exemption from paying every time. Though they would pay an annual tax. Like a season ticket allowing travel through their domains. Originally, farms were leased to burghers for them to become farmers. The leases staring at only a few years, but as time passed, they became longer until they became perpetual, as well as any privileges that came with them (giving away daughters in marriage, having their children succeed them), this allowed them to become free and independent.

As these towns grew, the inhabitants were made into a community, given privileges such as voting, and formed councils that could make local laws. In return for this they were expected to defend their towns. Thus binding them together and granting them some sort of protection.

Sovereigns at this point, were not able to defend the great majority of their subjects, and many towns were plundered by neighbouring lords. The princes often united against these lords with the burghers as they had more to gain from their support as that of the lords. The burghers were given powers to protect themselves against the lords. As a result, many towns had private militias and as they grew, many became independent republics, such as those of pre-renaissance Italy (Florence, Milan, Naples etc). You could argue that the way in which the kings sided with the towns against the lords was a very Machiavellian manoeuvre. By siding with the weaker sides (the towns) they had more to gain from the lords’ loss. In some cases though, this did not work out as the towns became so independent that the sovereign was not able to impose any taxes.

All cities rely on the country for subsistence, unless they had access to foreign trade i.e. through a port-town. The commerce of most of Europe consisted chiefly of the exchange of rude fore manufactured produce from more civilised nations. In such a way as described in Addison’s ‘Foreign Exchange’. Wool was traded for wines from France etc.

Manufactures which are fit for distant sale have been introduced in 2 ways:

By the imitating of foreign practices. Immigrants come to the country and set up their trade. Silk, Flanders cloth etc.

By gradual refinement of manufacture. Workmen settle in areas of large amounts of land which have no easy way of exportation, as a result they work closely with local cultivators, each improving through the other. Manufacturers honing their craft until it is good enough to be worth selling to distant markets.

Chapter 4: How the Commerce of the Towns Contributed to the Improvement of the Country.

Smith begins by saying how the increase in riches of commercial and manufacturing towns contributed to the improvement and cultivation of the countries to which they belonged, in 3 different ways:

Firstly, by providing a market for rude produce, they improved cultivation and further improvement, which extended to all countries associated with. Though the home country made most profit because they had no need to pay transport.

Secondly, the wealth of city people was usually spent on uncultivated land. Merchants especially were adept at this as they knew how to make profit better than the average country gent.

Thirdly, commerce and manufactures gradually introduced order and government as well as security for the inhabitants.

Land which have no foreign trade or fine manufactures tend to have lords that are particularly generous with their subjects as they can do nothing with their surplus produce other than buy loyalty with it.  Kings had very little power as opposed to lords and barons who governed their own people. He was only good as a figurehead to unite them in case of potential war.

Feudal law may have been an attempt of the kings to moderate the power of the lords by establishing lines of subordination which all ran to the kings, however this did not help them as it neither weakened the lords nor strengthened the kings enough to make a difference.

Smith seems disgusted with what he calls the childish vanity of great proprietors. Rather than spending capital on 1000s of men, they might buy frivolous things for themselves. This “vile maxim” resulted in greedy lords stripping workers from farms to try and make maximum profit whilst having to pay less, as well as raising rents. These raised rents caused the leases to become virtually indefinite, giving tenants almost complete independence. This, coupled with wasting money on trinkets caused the lords to begin losing power until they were not able to provide the protection and security they had upheld.

This caused a government to be formed which was able to control the population more closely, and take much from commerce. Smith is against this as he believes it makes trade less efficient. In his view, all governments should do is maintain peace. As wars dry up wealth and revenue from commerce. Commerce encourages peace as you have to be civil with those you wish to trade with.

A Modest Proposal - Jonathan Swift

Swift’s ‘Proposal’ could be seen a response to the result of the kind of treatment the poorer people were subjected to in situation such as those mentioned by Smith.

It begins with a realistic description of the situation of the Irish, it seems to be trying to make the reader feel compassion towards these people. He gives a description of the problems the Ireland is suffering from, mainly overpopulation, and beggary. He talks of how a use needs to be found for these children “For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land” (the 2 main fields of commerce as mentioned by Smith).

As it continues it begins to get very impersonal “a child just dropped from its dam”, perhaps in preparation for when he reveals his intention. Yet at the same time he denounces the “horrid practice” of abortion, noting that it is probably for financial reasons.

After several more chapters, he gets to the point where he begins discussing the eating of children, and it’s clear we are not to take him literally. In which case it’s more about seeing what he does mean. as he continues he attacks the reasons that got the Irish to this point, saying that they have driven them to this point. Satirising it in the way he writes of fattening up the Irish for the rich, in his case, he is talking about the children. But it seems to be a stab at the way the wealthy have used, and abused them (the pale). He mentions how the families of the children would benefit their landlords, as he could use them to his own gain, once more in the same ways talked about by Smith.

Swift also uses stereotypes possibly to a comic effect. If his wife has a child worth 8 shillings then an Irishman would be less likely to abuse her.

Towards the end, begins listing problems that he seems to have discounted, but it may be that he is suggesting them as obvious ways to help the situation. Buying local produce to boost the economy, taxing landowners and presumably putting the money back into the society. And getting people to love their country, about which he says, “wherein we differ even from Laplanders”. He does invite others to come up with their own ideas, probably as a way of stimulating actual thought.

Though the entire proposal is not to be taken literally, it is interesting that he assumes the Irish people would have no problem with his solution. Obviously we don’t expect the Irish to eat their children willingly. I think he is showing that their situation is so bad, that they would be willing to endure most anything to improve their quality of life.

Freeeeeeedoooooooom!

The freedom of information act was brought in by the labour government when they came to power in 1997, but was not put into effect until 2005. The act allows all citizens a right to all documents and data produced by organisations in the public sector. It has been used by journalists most notably in the recent expenses scandal. This was uncovered by Heather Brooke, a journalist who tends to focus on freedom of information stories many of which can be found on her blog. She approached the government asking for details on MP expenses. After they procrastinated for some time about releasing them, they were leaked, and all the gory details bacame public knowledge anyway. From Devon's favourite MP Anthony Steen, and his moat-cleaning. To Jacqui Smith's Porno-loving husband. Before the FOI act was implemented, you would have been unable to prove that such things had been paid for with expenses as they would most probably have lied.

Basically the FOI act means that if you ask a public organisation for certain info, they have to say that they have it, and they must give it to you. This is unless the information is exempted. This could be for a variety of reasons, for example:  national security and state secrets, it is quite reasonable that the MOD would not freely give out information that would compromise the safety of its troops, nor any data that could put Britain at risk. At the same time, you will not be able to invade anyone's privacy; You could ask a hospital a broad question of how many people are treated for swine flu each year, but you could not ask if an individual had swine flu. (Doctor-Patient confidentiality).

While not exactly exemptions, there are certain things that can inhibit your ability to obtain information. Firstly, you have to know your jargon. You could ask a company for information on a certain topic, but they might have a different name for that topic and could therefore truthfully say 'no we don't have anything on that'. It has also become practice in some cases for people who may be discussing something particularly sensitive to not record data about it, or keep minutes etc, thereby stopping you from getting info by never recording any. There is also the question of fees. According to McNae's, if the cost of meeting your request would be over £600 in the case of government and national departments, or £450 in the case of local councils and similar types of authorities, they would not be obliged to give you the requested information, or they could charge you for it.

If you are refused, for any reason, you can appeal the decision by going to an information commissioner, and they will be able to adjudicate whether it was fair for the organisation to refuse you. If they decide that it wasn't, they can force them to give you whatever you asked for.

It is quite possible to use the FOI act to forge a successful career as a journalist. It is mostly down to perseverance. Matt Davis published several front page stories as a freelance FOI writer. He wrote a story headlined, 'Worst Hospitals in Britain', in this case, 'worst' was decided by the number of litigations filed against various hospitals, how much each of them has been sued for, and compiled the results into a league table (this would be protected by fair comment, because if a hospital complained about being at the top of the table, it would be fair to say "you've been sued the most, ergo, you can't be doing a good job!"). He also unearthed a very interesting story as a result of the success of Sacha Baron Cohen's film 'Borat'. He requested details of whether there had been any complaints directed at Britain. It turned out that Kazakhstan calm almost to the brink of declaring war on Britain in retaliation to the bad publicity it was getting as result of the film. Matt Davis has a blog that covers FOI stories.

The most important things to remember about FOI journalism is to track popular culture, as shown with the Borat piece, use the exact jargon for your subject matter to avoid letting them waste your time. And never take no for an answer, keep trying, keep rephrasing until you get what you want. As James Bond says on Family Guy,

"Fifteen no's and a yes, is still a yes".

WINOL 3/11/10

The latest WINOL bulletin showed a marked improvement in sound and editing, with nothing that I considered to be particularly glaring.

As far as the stories are concerned:

• I think that beginning with the student jobs story was a very good move as it is a big worry for anyone at uni.
• The prisoners story was very well presented, and while not directly relevant to students, I think it is a story that affects the entire country, our close proximity to a prison notwithstanding. 
• The parking story is relevant as many students live in that area, or will be next year, it brings thought as to how to handle bringing a car to uni. 
• The Southampton redundancy story was well chosen as it is not only a troubling problem, but it relates to the student employment story. Perhaps the two could have been linked somehow, more than they were. 

As far as the rest of the bulletin went, I'm not sure how necessary the text was at 5:23, as the reporter says exactly what is put on the screen. It seems somehow wasteful.
During the break between the main bulletin and the interview, I thought that use of the Innocence Project was very clever as a poignant way of letting people know about it, and simply as a way of breaking up the segments without using advertisements or simply a cut.
During the rundown of what is happening in Winchester, it may have looked better if it had included stock footage of some kind, simply because watching someone speak with no accompaniment is not very interesting to watch. although I believe there was a time constraint (?) so maybe it would have been very difficult.
At the start of the interview, the presenter looked away from the camera and there was a very noticeable pause, perhaps this was something to do with a camera mix up, or being distracted. Either way, it did not seem particularly professional and if it was a camera mix up, then that should have been clear before filming began.
While the interviewer had some very good questions, she seemed very nervous (understandably) and maybe it would be worth trying to talk to whoever is being interviewed, beforehand and try to establish a rapport of some kind. Of course, not being there I don't know what the situation was. And talking to celebrities is not easy. I remember when I met the Chuckle Brothers.

All in all a very impressive effort, and is showing great improvement compared to the very first bulletin. Keep it up guys!

Hume and Away

Out latest lecture concerned David Hume, considered to be the cleverest person to ever come out of the British Isles ( I haven't left yet), he has had a huge influence on  journalism and the way in which journalists think, and write.

Hume, most likely an atheist, though it would not have been prudent to say openly as self confessed atheists in those days often came down with a bad case of death, usually fatal; was an empiricist who believed that there are no innate ideas, and that ideas are gained through experience, and more complex ideas are synthesised from simpler 'atoms' of understanding. Hume opposed rationalism - the belief that ideas are independent from consciousness - claiming more that consciousness is ideas.

His logical positivism has become the philosophy of science, and the underpinning of social sciences. According to logical positivism, there are no truths or absolutes, There is only probability i.e. You cannot be sure the sun will rise tomorrow, but there is a very good chance it will.

His thoughts on causation were that it is an illusion. The thought that one thing causes another is only in our heads, a way of putting meaning to how and why things work. Astrologers talk about the planets aligning. This is bollocks. They are just big hunks of rock hurtling through space. Without humans to look at them, they would not be aligning, they would just be rocks in space. We just happen to have given them significance. Hume's example was that of playing billiards: a white ball hits a red ball causing it to move. Hume argues that there is no evidence for this, that causation cannot be proved. Russell, in 'History of Western Philosophy', writes that "we can perceive, by mere observation of A and B, that A is above, or to the right of B, but not that A causes B". It is only that we have observed B following A so often that we assume B is caused by A. The basic thing that to take from Hume on causation is don't come to conclusions.
Induction is the drawing of an inference using synthetic logic. Logic is a specific scientific analysis of claims and must be internally consistent to be correct. There are two types of logic:

• Analytic logic is that in which conclusions are derived from the subject, for example: all bachelors are unmarried men. We know that being a bachelor means you're single, therefore they are unmarried. Analytic logic is fairly simple and is used to programme computers, 'when 'A' button is pressed, write an A' etc. It is also always true.

• Synthetic logic adds knowledge. Synthetic logic only works if the axiomatic statement (the beginning statement in a chain of logic) is true e.g. "all men are mortal", we know this to be true, "socrates is a man" this is an analytic statement, so it is true, "therefore, Socrates is mortal". Hume disagrees with induction from synthetic knowledge as it can be causal, and there is too much room for error. A particularly current example of an induction error would be someone saying, "my grandad smoked 40 cigarettes a day his whole life, and lived to be 100, therefore smoking does not damage your health". The problem with this statement is obvious as it is only one case among thousands, and while it is not necessarily true, it cannot be called false.

The verification principle helps to deal with these problems as it works on the principle that any true statement must be open to independent verification. According to Freddy Ayer, if a statement is neither true nor false, it has no scientific value unless it is verifiable. It is as useful as the quacking of a duck (I assume it also won't echo). Aristotle's logic uses the principle of non-contradiction. Something cannot be something else as it is; the moon is not the sun, and the sun isn't the moon.
Statements can be classed:
•    Verified as provisionally 'true' (non-contradictory)
•    Verified as definitely false (contradictory)
•    Non-verifiable (gibberish)
e.g. Life on another planet is non contradictory (as there is nothing that says there is no other life in the universe), however it cannot be verified, therefore it is provisionally true.

Karl Popper, a kind of follower of Hume's disagrees with the verification principle as he considers it to be a metaphysical pseudo-science, and science can only deal with facts. He said that statements must be falsifiable as well as verifiable, and must show how it could be wrong in certain circumstances. It is using this principle that scientists work with today. It is why criticism of scientific discoveries is so important. If something cannot be falsified, it is true.


This could lead to talk about why certain groups in America are trying to get creationism to be taught in science classes. as far as being able to falsify creationism goes. They wouldn't even start spelling muster.

Big Brother Is Watching You... Sell Fireworks Illegally

Chris Horrie describes journalism as the conversion of information into money. In that respect, investigative journalism (IJ) is the finding or creation (as in cases of no actual evidence, common law qualified privilege etc.) of information to turn into cash.

The father of IJ is thought of as Émile Zola, an eminent writer in France in the 19th century who wrote of the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war, which the French lost and the blame was put on the Jews for being traitors. Zola wrote that this was disgraceful and that France lost due to the corruption of its officers. After the French government tried to have him arrested, he fled to England, where he wrote his publication 'We Name the Guilty Men' which, used photographs to show pictures of the officers he found responsible for the botched war. Zola was eventually let off by the French, though the officers were never charged.

The pinnacle of IJ is thought of Harry Evans' (of the Sunday Times) insight team. A well funded group of journalists whose primary focus was to find the news. It was the insight team that uncovered the scandal of the thalidomide drug given to pregnant women to cope with morning sickness. The company that produced it had tested it on rats and had shown no side effects. But with humans, it caused the foetus not to develop properly, with missing or deformed limbs. The Sunday Times printed a story blaming the drugs for the widespread birth of deformed babies. The company denied this and sued, engaging in a lengthy legal battle. This was ended when the insight team produced a document in which the company admitted that thalidomide was the cause of the birth defects, presumably the document was found in a skip...

Investigative journalists are the people behind most of the biggest stories you hear about. In the famous case of the Birmingham 6. The IRA had set off bombs in birmingham, killing many people. As a result of the ensuing media frenzy which demanded that the police make some headway. The police, growing desperate, framed 6 men who, while not being models of society, were innocent of the charges. Granada TV's 'World in Action' unearthed proof of the fabrication of evidence which the police used to set up the men. Eventually leading to them being released.

This case links to the Innocence Project, which I will be a part of in later years of this course. The Innocence Project looks into possible false imprisonments and tries to find evidence that will get people who have been wrongfully arrested released. In the same manner as that of the Birmingham 6.

Subterfuge can be essential to the success of IJ. This would involve using hidden cameras  and/or microphones. This is known in journalism jargon as a 'camera in the bag job', and can only be used if: it is in the public interest, you have acquired permission to do so from OfCom (or whichever regulatory body you refer to), and it is a last resort. Annoyingly you have to ask the obligatory question, "did you -insert verb here- 'X'". When they say no, it may be permissible to use subterfuge. It was by using subterfuge that the 'secret policeman' was able to be reported. A reporter went undercover for a year in a police training academy and exposed an officer-in-training as incredibly racist, even dressing up as a Ku Klux Klan member, saying that once he graduated, he would use his powers to harass black people.

An extremely high profile case that emphasised the importance of IJ's, not just as the probing eyes and ears of the public. They protected the world from  the possibility of the most powerful person on Earth usurping his authority. I am, of course, talking about the Watergate scandal of US president, Richard Nixon. Nixon had criminals dig up incriminating information on his political rivals, as well as performing much dirtier acts in order to keep people from potentially getting in his way. Two journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, discovered (in a skip) that Nixon had recorded tapes of his conversations, and of ordering these practices. After they were found and published, Nixon was forced to become the first president to ever resign from office.

Perhaps the most important factor to consider in IJ is the evidence gap. In a criminal case, the level of proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil case, It is decided on the balance of probability i.e. It seems most likely that 'X' is the case. This is very important to remember as it can change the way that investigations can happen. The best example of this is when the police suspect someone of having committed a crime, and they have proof; but not enough to go to court with, as they would have to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If the case were to fail, they would not be able to charge that person again, because of 'double jeopardy' laws, which mean that someone cannot be accused of the same crime twice (this is especially sensitive in the case of terrorism, either the acts of, or the glorification of. You can see at the moment how well the legal system has done with Abu Hamza). However, if the police were to give the information to a journalist, they could print the story, because, even if the subject were to sue, the evidence they had (while not proving beyond reasonable doubt) would show the balance of probability to be more likely that they had committed the crime. They would not need to show beyond reasonable doubt as it would be a libel case.

Finally, another useful tool for IJ's is the Reynold's defence as they will often not have much evidence for their claims. I have discussed the Reynold's defence in a previous blog, as well as some examples. 

I did find it interesting to learn about the legality of secret recording in Britain, as I was under the impression that most of the time it was illegal. Indeed, in McNae's it says that many low ranking police officers are not sure. As well as in the case of photographing on public property. I suppose now I'm allowed to shout things like "I know my rights!" at nosy people telling me that I can't take a picture of a bridge when I'm in Madison County. Last time I go sightseeing there.

I just realised that Madison county is in America, and would therefore be subject to different laws than I have studied... bugger it.

Addison Exchanged

These are my notes from the seminar discussing Joseph Addison. Of the 2 texts we read in preparation, the first we looked at was the Spectator article. Addison begins by comparing his 2 writing styles, those that are written with "regularity and method" (which to me, speak of newspaper styles), and the more meandering, wild compositions which are his essays (these put me in mind of an archaic version of a blog). He compares the styles as, one being in plantation, with several centres and many paths; and one, a wood with many interesting thoughts and ideas though they are all in disarray.

Addison writes that a methodical approach to writing appeals to both the reader and the writer. For the writer, he may find that as he writes, new thoughts come to him that wouldn't have else. For the reader, it is an easier read as the subject is more intelligible and better explained when thoughts are "placed in their proper light, and follow one another in a regular series".

On the subject of works that show irregularities and may be unordered, Addison argues that this is only excusable in "men of great learning or genius, who are too full to be exact, and therefore choose to throw down their pearls in heaps, rather than be at pains of stringing them". What I think he means by this is that intelligent men, such as philosophers, have so many good ideas that it would be next to impossible for them to explain how they link together. Therefore they display them all separately for others to make of them what they will.

Addison goes on to give examples of the 2 styles, this time using 2 people (perhaps real, probably not) that demonstrate the fallibilities of the one, and the virtues of the other. He presents Tom Puzzle as his example of the unmethodical. He is the worst of the 2 extremes of learning. He knows enough to raise questions, but not enough to answer them. He is looked up to by those with less learning than him, and looked down upon by those with more. Puzzle's antithesis is a man called Will Dry, who, knowing the way that Tom thinks, is able to destroy his arguments by stopping him waffling and telling him to simply answer the topic at hand. Indeed Addison writes: "I have known Tom eloquent half an hour together, and triumphing, as he thought, in the superiority of the argument, when he has been non-plus'd on a sudden by Mr. Dry's desiring him to tell the company what it was that he endeavoured to prove". Thus demonstrating the preference of a clear methodical approach, to cluttered, incoherent blather. Personally I am a great fan of good laconic wit, which I think all journalism students should endeavour towards. However, I fear I am currently a more proactive Puzzler. I shall have to gain more learning.

The second text, The Royal Exchange, discusses the exchange as a symbol of the international trading of countries, and the various benefits that all gain from it. He describes how, when in the exchange, he feels at one with everyone from all the different countries. In many ways the Royal exchange seems to be a review of politics in england, masked by the talk of trade. He often mentions the various things traded with other countries and have made the world a better place, "food often grows in one country, and the sauce in another. The fruits of Portugal are corrected by the products of Barbados". He goes into great deal explaining how countries help one another. How through foreign trading, prosperity is gained. England would have completely relied on foreign trade at this time, and while this is not ignored, I could not help but get the feeling that addison was somewhat smug about the arrangement. "my friend Sir Andrew calls the vineyards of France our gardens; the spice-islands our hot-beds; the Persians our silk-weavers" etc.

He seems amused by the fact that "while we enjoy the remotest products of the north and south, we are free from those extremities of weather that give them birth". I feel that while he is obviously appreciative of other countries, and of this trade which links them all together; as indicated in the first paragraphs when he calls himself a "citizen of the world". There are times other than than those I have mentioned where he seems to think of England as being a first among equals, if even equals, as though everything came to England first. Not to mention that though we do export certain products: tin, wool. We are traded back with much superior items: gold, rubies. As though english merchants are far superior to all others.

I may have digressed there for a time, but I think that as a whole, The Royal Exchange is a piece talking about the international language of trade as a way for countries to mediate with each other as well as benefit. That, as a whole, all countries are better off united than they are alone.

Copyright 2.0

Since my last blog on copyright, which focused on the lecture given by Peter Hodges. I have been fortunate enough to also be treated to the Chris Horrie copyright experience. My findings are as follows.

Copyright is a branch of law that protects intellectual property, intellectual property is what we use to make money, therefore, it is very important. The most important thing to remember, is that ideas are not copyrighted (as I have previously mentioned), therefore you have to find some way to publish it and gain copyright protection. I will explain using an analogy that Chris gave us. You are a shed builder. You have built a shed, and that shed belongs to you. Once you sell it, it becomes the property of the buyer, as if he made it himself. The same applies if you build sheds for a wage. As soon as you are paid for your work, it ceases to be yours. This is why you don't see assembly line workers running after cars (or whatever) shouting that they've had their hubcaps stolen.

Obviously this is a broad definition, and there are exceptions. If you wrote a book, for example, you have put in your time and effort, and (we assume) you have not been paid to do so. The story belongs to you and once published, every time a copy is bought, you receive payment in the form of royalties. This is similar to freelance reporters. As opposed to reporters that work for a paper/network etc. For whom, once they write a report, it becomes the property of said paper/network. Freelancers on the other hand, are paid for the use of their work. They effectively lease out their work, and can do this as many times as they like and still retain ownership of their 'shed' (like renting out a house, rather than selling it).

Returning to the book-writing scenario I just mentioned. You receive your royalties initially as an advance sum, the amount of which depends on how well they think your book will sell. If your book does better than anticipated, you will be given extra royalties. If it does worse, then you keep your advance but get nothing extra and in future will receive lower offers for any other books you may write, as they will not be expected to do very well.

Lifting, or fair dealing, allows you to use certain copyrighted material to report current events, only if you sufficiently acknowledge the author, and if it has been made available to the public. Fair dealing is what allows criticism or review, though you have to be careful not to 'lift' too much. There is no set cap on how much you may use, but it is advisable to keep it to a minimum. You would not be allowed to used dishonestly obtained material, McNae's gives an example of this involving the Sun using stills from a security video showing Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed at the Villa Windsor. The judge found this to be an infringement of copyright which could not be defended. It is also worth noting that photographs are never protected by fair dealing.

The Huffington Post, a citizen journalism site that I have mentioned in a previous blog, has been criticised as being too friendly with using links to other news sites as a way of padding out their own stories. I am not sure whether links count as lifting as they are used to direct readers to a separate site that owns the content. I would personally prefer to use links rather than quote large amounts of text from other news media, though the length would be a factor, however I try not to use them unless I want to bring an entire story to attention, rather than just certain parts. As links are a fairly recent tool for reporting, I am not sure whether they are covered in copyright law. If anyone can point me in a direction to find out, I would be much obliged, as I've pretty much talked myself out of wanting to use them!

Early Journalism - the Birth of Language, the Rise of the Newspaper, and the Debauchery of Gin

The lecture on early journalism started at the beginning. And when I say beginning, I mean the very beginning. We start with a timeline at 6000BC with the first evidence of any kind of written language, the Chinese pictographic script. This was a system in which a picture represented a word, or perhaps a phrase. This was followed 2000 years later by Egyptian hieroglyphs, which was in turn followed by Summarian cuneform script. This was the first written language which could be used to form sentences, albeit rather crudely. Fast-forward a few thousand years and we come to a much more advanced language, Latin, complete with the alphabet that we still use today. In 1440 comes Gutenberg's printing press. The first movable-type printing press meant that books could be produced at an extraordinary rate, in comparison to the previous printers, monks who could produce a few books per lifetime. The new press allowed ideas to be recorded, and as a result, the rate of technological and philosophical innovation skyrocketed.

From this point in the timeline, the dates of important events begin to appear much closer together. A mere 20 years after Gutenberg's invention, came the Italian Renaissance, which further influenced various philosophical creativity. Not to mention improving technology with the rediscovery of ancient Greek manuscripts. In the centuries following, there are countless religious bickering, the colonisation of America, and the English civil war. This brought about a new type of thinking with philosophers like John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes both writing about social contracts and states of nature, changing the way that sovereignties were viewed, and upheld. The 1700s show a dramatic improvement to science and mathematics thanks to Isaac Newton and his many scientific laws. Also, not insignificantly to us budding journalists, 1702 was the year in which the first daily newspaper was created, the Daily Courant. The Courant concerned itself with foreign news and was in no way confined in any regulations or codes of conduct. It set itself as the standard for all newspapers that were to follow. Although they would end up slightly longer than a single sheet, especially the Sundays.

The birth of a true journalistic media having finally arrived, the next thing to happen would be the coming of the journalists. Daniel Defoe, considered by some to be the first ever journo, arrived on the scene in 1703, and made his career by pamphleteering all kinds of subjects. Eventually however, he was arrested for his pamphlet 'The Shortest Way with the Dissenters', which was judged to be critical of the Anglican church, and he was locked in a pillory (a device somewhat like the stocks) for 3 days before being sent to prison, and released in return for his services as an intelligence agent. This is not to say that he was only a pamphleteer. he wrote many novels, most notably, Robinson Crusoe, which made him famous.

After Defoe and the Courant, came other paper media in the form of the Spectator and the Tatler, created by Richard Steele and Joseph Addison. I will discuss Addison in more detail in a future blog.

What I consider to be the last directly journalism-contributing part oh the timeline, was the possible birth of photojournalism by William Hogarth. Now obviously this was not photography, rather a depiction of events. Perhaps the most famous being 'Beer Street'  and 'Gin Lane', prints showing the debauchery and evils of drinking gin, compared to the great merits of drinking beer (substitute cider for beer and I heartily agree).

If this brief timeline of the history of early journalism has whetted your appetite. Please feel free to badger your teacher or local librarian. I'm just far too busy and important.
Not necessarily in that order.

Professor Peter and the Paper Pickle

In preparation for newspaper discussion tomorrow, I have decided to take Brian's advice and read Peter Cole's articles on UK newspapers. The first 'Why middle England gets the mail', initially discusses, as a precursor to this and the other articles, the decline of newspapers. As far as the figures can say, fewer and fewer people are buying papers. Nowadays, there are many other media outlets which are cheaper and easier, such as television, and of course, the Internet. I have noticed that lately people have been considering alternatives to newspapers as a source of news (personally, I prefer to have something solid in my hands (grow up!) as opposed to looking at a screen). Indeed many newspapers have announced plans to update and improve news websites. At the moment, I believe there are no news sites that charge any fee to readers. But you can be sure that this will soon be changing. More to the point, getting rid of papers would lessen a massive strain on the environment and global warming as we wouldn't have to rip up an entire forest to produce just one Sunday Times. That is, if you believe all that Al Gore, hippy mumbo-jumbo (oh I can feel the hippy-hatred already). However, I have digressed. While it is true that newspaper sales are falling, it is at a very gradual rate. Still, as Cole points out, this has in no way lessened the "press's influence on the national agenda", or the power they can still wield.


I have to say that Cole amused me with his comments on the Express (this also happens to be the paper I have to read for the news agenda presentations). He says that he can never understand why anyone would choose to read it. Now, I have never read it before, but honestly, I can't see why anyone would. It's not as though it's a particularly classy looking thing, and surely if you're going to buy a paper your first thought wouldn't be 'I know, I'll get an Express!'. Maybe when I start reading it I'll find hidden treasures that make it all worthwhile. Not to mention that I have to have a broad world view if I'm to be a fantabulous journalist. Though I should probably never use that word again...

I have to say, it seems odd that Cole's referring to the Daily Mail as "mid-market". Now don't get me wrong, I know what he means. But I don't think I've ever heard the words 'middle' and 'Daily Mail' in the same sentence. I don't really have much to say about the Mail, I was brought up well. "Ewan, if you don't have anything nice to say..." but honestly you cannot fault the Mail for giving it's readers what they want to hear (/read. Be quiet!), even if you can fault it for pretty much everything else.

The next two articles consider the tabloids and broadsheets, and the changes they have had to make; Or should have made. While he claims that some of the best journalists work for tabloids, and that tabloid techniques are the hardest to acquire. He criticises way in which they failed to change with the times and are beginning to go the way of the 'small' McDonald's portion (my words, not his). Tabloids have always been the voice of the masses and for that reason, if no others, they are read by the Great and the Good, as talismans of acceptance, and therefore, 'electability'. Nonetheless, in the last 20 years, sales between the Sun and the Mirror have fallen by 2.5m copies. For some it has been poor managerial decisions, for many it has simply been a change in attitudes. Some, like the Star, have suffered very poorly and have had to resort 'Big Brother' stories and what is essentially soft porn.

The main, and obvious difference that separates the tabloid from the broadsheet is the content. Tabloids offer what could be considered the more tedious stories in terms of taste, I, for example, could not care less which X Factor contestant threatened to head-butt someone, or which 'celebrity' has had a nose job (as far as the writing goes, it's quite enjoyable to read. I just can't stand some of the subject matter). Broadsheets tend to err on the side of what is (arguably) more important. Political news and international crises for example. However, it is in the shape of the more "serious" papers that the difference is lessening. The Times, Guardian, and Independent have all downsized their formats to fit a more compact size. Initially this resulted in an increase in sales and indeed, still show a higher sales rate than their ancestors, 32,000 more per day for the Independent, 20,000 more for the Times. The main 4 broadsheets have not, despite all changes in format and style, have not changed their relative positions in circulation: Telegraph, Times, which lean to the right; Guardian, Independent, which lean left.

The last article discusses the Sunday papers. These multi-sectioned monsters take up half the kitchen table and most of it is thrown in the bin without even a glance. However, according to Cole, people somehow take comfort in the size of these creatures. They believe that they are getting their money's worth (something that Is becoming predominantly more important in our current financial climate), never mind that only half of it is read. Although it can also be said that they'd get whichever paper is cheapest, with the same satisfaction. But within the Sunday paper ranks, there seems to have been terrific upheaval. Both the Independent and the Telegraph have had a succession of new editors and owners, bringing about constant changing and shifting in styles, content, and overall appeal.

Cole also touched on the Saturday papers, calling them being pale imitations of the culture-embedded Sunday paper. That is not to say that they aren't successful, as they sell more than Monday to Friday, raising the average per-week sale. Cole also comments on how relevant the Sunday paper is, with the advent of the Saturday paper filing the gap of weekend reading. Though Sunday will in my opinion, always be more of a day of rest and reading than Saturdays will ever be.

Confidentiality and State Secrets - Leg Shots, Tittle-Tattle and Area 51 is in Cheltenham

Our confidentiality law lecture mildly surprised me as to the level of confidentiality that people (I suppose I'm thinking more along the lines of celebrities) are given. It does explain the reasoning behind the 'leg shots' often used when filming in a busy street or area. This is also known in journalist jargon as a general view (GV). It seems that you cannot photograph anyone who has not given their consent to be photographed, unless they are performing a public duty. In the case of Princess Caroline, pictures were taken of her riding a horse on her estates, and were published. Caroline did not take this favourably and sued them under the Human Rights Act, as an intrusion of her privacy. In contrast, pictures of her that were taken as she presented the European Cup, were not an intrusion of privacy because of the aforementioned public duty. This means that any and all paparazzi shots in magazines such as Hello! Or OK! Have either been bought with the permission of whomever is the subject of the shots. Or they will be sued for using them. another famous example of intrusion of privacy in this way, was the case of Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers. Campbell was photographed leaving a known Narcotics Anonymous building and a story was published around it. Campbell sued for breach of confidence and infringement of the data protection act 1998, and was awarded £2,500 damages for distress and injury to her feelings.

According to the Human Rights Act, section 8, all citizens are guaranteed the right to a normal home life. This links to the above paragraph

Defining what is confidential information can be tricky as it often depends on the quality of information. To be considered confidential, it is necessary that:
•    It has the 'quality' of confidential information. Not "Tittle-Tattle"
•    It must have been imparted in a situation implying an obligation of confidence e.g. Doctor-patient confidentiality
•    It was not imparted with permission to publish
•    The information must be shown to cause detriment to whomever is concerned (as opposed to defamation which only has to show that it could cause detriment)

To be sure that confidentiality is not breached, consent must be obtained. There are two types of consent, explicit, and implied. Explicit consent, is very simple. The person has agreed to be interviewed or to appear on camera in some form. Implied consent is when a person intentionally calls attention to themselves in some form E.g. Football fans that paint their faces, or those idiots who wave at cameras during live broadcasts. If either of these forms of consent is given, or implied, then the subject of consent is not allowed to sue for breach of confidentiality.

During the lecture, we also discussed state secrets. According to the Official Secrets Act 1911, it is a crime to reveal state secrets. The severity of the crime depends on which section of the secrets act is broken. If you break section 1, then you have committed treason. To break section 1, you would have to, for example, disclose classified information (say, locations of British troops) to an enemy (the Taliban, or the French). A famous example of the breaking of section 1 was when the British Intelligence's electronic spying centre, GCHQ (based in Cheltenham), was reported on. Before this, GCHQ did not officially exist (our own Area 51). The report, which revealed the location and purpose of the spy centre. Was taken to court and it was ruled to be in the public interest to know that it existed, and its use (though it would be treason to report on the exact nature of whatever it was currently investigating).

Section 2 secrets, however, are any document produced by the military. (this includes the canteen menu for the MOD). You could quite happily call these 'silly secrets'. And being sued for publishing them could well be more profitable then not doing so.

The vast majority of confidential information is found through sources. Sources are among the most useful tools a journalist can have. Provided that they are trustworthy, accurate, and willing. Most companies will have what is known as a gagging clause in every employees contract. This is to prevent them discussing the business of whatever company it is they work for. This means that if you have a source willing to provide you with confidential information, you must not reveal that person to their employer. They have trusted you with their livelihood and as part of the journalist's code of conduct they have to be protected. To the point of jail. A very famous case involving Bill Goodwin (a 'hero' of journalists) was sent to jail for publishing a story about an engineering firm who, he found out, sold faulty parts. The firm obtained a court order demanding that he reveal his source. He refused and was fined £5000 and sent to jail for 5 months. Yet he never revealed his source. This sort of story can help journalists convince potential sources that we will protect them, earning their trust, and their information.

The last thing to consider with confidential information is the dreaded injunction. Injunctions are usually triggered when journalists contact the subject of a story to verify details. Once said subject realises there is a potentially damaging story, they contact a judge who can them issue an injunction to prevent publication of the details. By any journalist, or other media outlet. It is also sable to obtain a 'super-injunction'. This stops journalists from revealing that there has even been an injunction, and therefore, that there is something that they may be trying to hide.

Citizen Journalism

Citizen Journalism (CJ) refers to a wide range of activities that members of the public can contribute information and opinions concerning news events to. CJ is a very old, perhaps even ancient, practice that has evolved along with the technology of the age. The first major technological breakthrough to give CJ an effective outlet was Gutenberg’s moveable type printing press. The Gutenberg press revolutionised the media, effectively making scribes redundant and allowing publications to be made by anyone who could afford to produce them. These publications ranged from simple pamphlets and newsletters, to books and, eventually, newspapers. CJ was used in this way by Suffragettes during the early 1900s. By handing out pamphlets and flyers, they hoped to put across their message, change current opinion, and grant women equal rights.

As with the printing press, many think that the telegraph, radio, and television made significant contributions to this field. But it was not until the advent of digital technologies and media were the public given such unparalleled access to new production and investigative software, as well as an immensely improved systems of communication in the form of email, instant messaging, and web forums. This allowed CJ to develop into a media field that was increasingly professional, accurate, and world-wide.

Initially, the citizen journalists on the internet were primarily bloggers. These bloggers would not, in the same way as conventional journalists, investigate stories or use sources to gain information. They would take the information that had already been published and using their own style, reformat the story for their own use. Many bloggers have thousands of subscribers and can exert an increasing amount of influence. This style of blogger has become more popular since the creation of sites such as YouTube, home to the ‘Philip DeFranco Show’ and ‘What the Buck‘.

Of the more promising neo-CJ that has developed in recent years, the Huffington Post has emerged as a first-rate news source. From its formation in May 2005 as a forum for various bloggers, including Rob Reiner and Larry David. The Huffington Post has become a fully fledged news website, with over 3000 bloggers, and coverage that ranges from politics and religion, to entertainment and education.

In April 2008, during the run-up to the American presidential election, there was a demonstration of the influence that can be exerted by CJ; in this case through the Huffington Post. Mayhill Fowler, a blogger on the Post was following Barack Obama’s campaign through Pennsylvania to California. At a fundraiser in California, Obama, after asking members of the press to leave, gave a speech that discussed the cultural gap in certain states such as Pennsylvania, as opposed to richer, more liberal states, such as California. Fowler, not technically a member of the press was not required to leave and was able to record the speech. As a result, she was able to publish a story that quoted him saying that Pennsylvanians, “cling to guns or religion”. Regardless of Obama’s intentions, this remark almost cost him the election. If Fowler had not been there as a representative of CJ, this may never have been reported and a huge amount of controversy would have been avoided. Nonetheless, the public had a right to know such statements were being made and CJ was able to provide the medium.

Strictly Come Copyright

The Copyright lecture started… well it didn’t start when it was supposed to, so me and the rest of the intrepid investigative explorers decided to try and find out what was going on. An hour later following a trip to the faculty office, the Thomas Atkinson Building and generally a lot of wandering around. We decided to have a quick look into the stripe just to check. Lo and behold it was just about to start, apparently there had been a mix up with the drama lot so it had been moved back. Thrilled to hear it was still on, we enthusiastically bounded into the lecture theatre and took our seats (I wouldn’t normally advertise my mistakes but, in the previous line, instead of enthusiastically, for some reason I’d written atheistically. The picture in my head made me laugh so I thought I‘d share).

Mr Hodges opened the Lecture by telling us that a mistake with copyright could cost us our money, our job, or our house. Luckily at the moment I have none of these things to lose, but I have a feeling that this will stick with me for a while. He proceeded to give us several example of things that are copyrighted. I have never put much thought to this before, but I imagined that it would involve music and movies as well as logos. Turns out that basically everything you’ve ever seen is protected by copyright law. On a CD jacket there is the type face, the photo/drawing, the logo, the sound recording not to mention the songs and performance of the artists. Another good example is the television program ‘Strictly Come Dancing’. when you watch this program the copyrighted material starts at the songs and choreography, down to the clothing and the set itself.

Copyright can cost productions a lot of money as the majority of the time they will have to pay the creator/author/designer to use their material. There are, however, some exceptions when copyright will not have to be paid. In the case of songs,  a recording’s copyright will last for 50 years before it is no longer mandatory to pay royalties to the artist. This has caused some unhappy murmurings recently as, with the advent of ever more powerful drugs, artists are starting to live longer, and have started to put up a fuss when they stop getting royalties. most notably at the moment is Cliff Richard (poor old Cliff’s run out of money I guess).

Halfway through the lecture we were treated to a short film of an opera. Afterwards we were asked to list as many copyrighted things as possible to the best of my memory, during the credits at the start there were: the author of the opera,  the produce, the conductor, the orchestra, the director, the main actors, and various designers. During the actual opera, there were: paintings, costumes, clocks, wigs, and many, many others. This was more to show how many copyrights have to be checked, approved and paid for, during the making of any kind of production.

Perhaps one of the more important things to take away from the lecture was that an idea cannot be copyrighted. If you were to come up with a brilliant new game show that doesn’t at all resemble X-Factor or Family Fortunes, or any successful current show. For the love of God, don’t share your idea with any shady exec-types. They will steal it! And you won’t see so much as a shiny penny of it. However, once an idea is published, it becomes copyright protected. This is what you have to do to make a million. Publish your idea, then sell it.

The best part of the lecture for me was when, after about an hour and a half of this excitement, Mr Hodges asked if their were any journalists in the room. The 5 or 6 of us who had made it there raised our hands. “Well” he said, “you don’t have to worry about this as anything you write about will be covered by fair comment… Great.

Privilege - A Defence Against Popes and Pussycats

Privilege is essentially exemption from the law, and as great as that sounds, unfortunately there are rules to abide by. Absolute privilege (AP) is granted to Members of Parliament whenever they are in session at the House of Commons. This allows MPs to speak freely without any fear of libel action against them from anyone they may slander or defame by doing so. This can be especially juicy as it does not matter if  it is malicious. If they really wanted to they could forget politics and have a slagging match in which they call each other Martian-Yeti Gigolos (I hope I didn’t just discriminate against female MPs). Of course, the odds on that happening are pretty slim, yet we will stand ready, just in case.

There seems to be a bone of contention between McNae’s and the Privilege Notes on the website, as McNae‘s claims that under some circumstances journalists are afforded AP. This is contradicted by the course notes. As a compromise I’ll simply write what the book says on the subject, then carry on as if nothing has happened (hopefully I’ll be corrected one way or the other).

Journalists are permitted absolute privilege when reporting court cases or the proceedings of certain types of tribunals. Journalists are only granted absolute privilege if the material they publish is: Fair, Accurate and published contemporaneously (it’s a posh word for quickly). For a report to be fair and accurate it needs:

• A summary of both sides.

• No substantial inaccuracies (in this case, inaccuracies that create a false or misleading impression).

• To be unbiased.

For a report to be contemporaneous means it must be published as soon as possible so that would be the next possible publication. If the report is not published as quickly as possible it may still enjoy qualified privilege if it fits the statutes required under common law.

Qualified privilege (QP) is a defence that can be used in situations where it is considered important that the facts should be freely known to the public. Circumstances where this defence can be used include court cases, council meetings and police statements. The requirements to use qualified privilege differ from absolute privilege in that motives play a key part in the former as there can be no evidence of malicious intent. General requirements for qualified privilege are that the report must be:

• Fair, accurate, and published without malice.

• Of public concern/be of benefit to the public.

It is important to note that there is no qualified privilege for a report of defamatory statements made after a case or meeting when people involved are asked to expand on statements made during the proceedings.

QP in common law is formed by judges and convention as opposed to statute. Common law QP applies to certain circumstances where potentially defamatory statements are protected for “the common convenience and welfare of society”. One circumstance where a person may make a defamatory statement in a moral, legal, or social duty to another who has a vested interest in receiving it, would be in the case of someone asking for a reference from a past employer, or lecturer. The lecturer would have to tell the truth and as long as it is not malicious, he cannot be sued for libel over the reference.

A highly important and influential case involving Albert Reynolds vs. Sunday Times further defined QP protection outside of a court reporting situation. Reynolds, the then Prime Minister of Ireland was reported by the Sunday Times to have tried to (and lied about) cover up a child abuse scandal in the Catholic church (A similar case has been ongoing for a while involving the Pope when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger). Reynolds sued for defamation and the newspaper said that while it believed it to be true, there was no evidence. This could have been a very sticky situation, however, on reaching the higher courts, the judges thought the paper had had a duty to publish the allegations. this was due to a relevance to public interest and simply that they weren't unreasonable. Lord Nicholls, the Judge in the appeal stage of the case, decided that the media needed more protection so that they could continue to report stories in the name of the public interest. He set out a list of 10 points that will provide QP if covered in writing such a report. I wont write these out as will no doubt take up a lot of space, however they can be found in the qualified privilege course notes.

It must be noted that the Reynolds defence is not an automatic protection as long as you make a token gesture for any of the points. An important case involving George Galloway showcased this point. The Daily Telegraph made serious defamatory statements against George Galloway for which there was no defence of justification or fair comment. The Telegraph claimed it had documents found by one of its reporters that suggested Galloway was in the pay of Saddam Hussein. It further claimed that it had a duty to publish the allegations even if they were untrue. The paper lost the case because it failed the 10 points of the Reynolds defence. Apart from a quick call to Galloway, they did not make any real attempt to put the allegations to him and recieve comment from him reagrding the truth of them. The Telegraph were ordered to pay £150,000 in damages as well as around £1.2 million in costs.

If there's anything I've gleaned from this, it's that as long as you are very diligent and careful, without sacrificing haste, you should be well defended in terms of Privilege. That and not to mess with George Galloway. He's a meaner pussycat than Big Brother would have had me believe.

John Locke: Life, Liberty and (if you're American) the Pursuit of Happiness

Our third HCJ lecture focused mainly on John Locke’s ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding’ and his thoughts on Social Contracts. This was also linked with Hobbes and his work ‘Leviathan’, both of which were written following the aftermath of the English civil war, as well as being influenced by this period of political upheaval. However both doctrines disagree with each other more often than they are in accord.

Locke and Hobbes both wanted the monarchy to be rid of it’s ‘mystical quality’, meaning that Kings should stop claiming to have divine power and authority. Locke attacks this point, especially in reference to Sir Robert Filmer, whose work ‘Patriarcha’ deals with the hereditary principle that Adam was given Kingly authority by God, and therefore all subsequent monarchs are heirs to Adam’s Authority. Locke tore Filmer’s arguments apart following simple logical reasoning that if this hereditary power were so important, it would make no difference to be born male or female (but most monarchies are heavily misogynistic). Not to mention that surely Adam would only have one true heir, and therefore all other kings are usurpers. From this basis Locke decides that a system of  hereditary leadership is unjust and a people should be given the ability to choose who is to lead them.

Both men talk about a ‘State of Nature’ which could have existed before any form of government. Hobbes theorised that in such a world, people would act on their passions, would have no inhibitions, and would have a right to everything and anything he wanted. This would lead to wars following an every man for himself policy. He claim life in that time would be
“Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Therefore, the people would choose to give absolute power to a leader who would hold their natural rights for the sake of protection. Locke opposes this argument, saying that exchanging all rights for personal safety with an absolute ruler will not work in the long run. He has a very different impression of this State of Nature: Everyone has natural freedom, but will follow natural laws governed by a set of morals known by everyone intuitively as they are “interwoven in the constitution of the human mind”. He goes on to state that these morals would be discovered by human reason, but were originally given by God (He is lovely isn’t he, that God). Not only does reason give us moral guidelines however, oh no, Locke states that there is nothing in our brain, no knowledge or ideas, that don’t come from experience. This flies directly against Cartesian thinking and no doubt caused a ruckus in their camp. But then when you present any kind of dogmatic thinking with other reasoning, you will no doubt receive a backlash of some kind.

As part of Locke’s Social Contract he maintained that civil government is the result of a contract and should be in no way hindered by any divine authority. The difference in Locke’s Contract compared to others (especially Hobbes, who claimed that once established, the government had complete authority to the point of tyranny, and the people had no right to rebellion) is that the sovereign was party to the contract and can be rightly resisted if it fails to keep its part of the bargain. Parallel to this is the natural right of every man to revolt against a government that ceases to respect the law.

A subject which Locke seems to be obsessed with is the concept of property. He claims that the formation of all governments was to protect the property of all within it. One of his main tenets is that every man has a right to Life, Liberty, and Property (on the assumption that the second two don’t impeach on another’s). The American constitution quotes this when they say that every man has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. His proposed concept of Government is one made by consent from the majority of people populating it, and limited by laws (that effect everyone), and powers used mainly for the protection of property. This is taken to such an extent that he presents an example of a soldier in an army. If this soldier breaks any rules or oaths required of him, he may be disciplined . But not by the taking of his property. Locke considers that to be a terrible act. He may however be punished in so far as his body may be punished, by flogging for example. I’m sure that would certainly be the much preferred choice.

Locke’s theories on Human Understanding are a bold innovation compared to pretty much every philosopher since Plato, as he uses empiricist theory to state that there is no such thing as innate ideas, and all knowledge comes from sensation, and the perception of the operation of the mind. Locke’s empiricist teachings directly contradict those of Plato, down to and including Descartes and his contemporary Leibniz. He was wholly against ‘Innate Ideas’ as described by Plato and Descartes, which  he discusses in great detail in the first book of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He claims that rather than giving us a vague blueprint; God gave us the ability to discover knowledge and morality through reasoning.

It is interesting to note that Locke, a believer in God (though it is difficult to name his exact religion), was of the opinion that religion should never mix with politics. One could say that this is obvious concerning his thoughts on hereditary divinity, and perhaps he simply saw the effect religion can have on an otherwise sensible constitution of government. I certainly wonder what he would think of the situation in America, where it’s practically anathema to admit to being an atheist, and in some cases to being anything other than Christian. I think that Locke simply saw how chaotic things can become when you mix fundamentalism with power. To quote Douglas Adams:
“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job”.
I'm not 100% sure of how relevant that is but I have put up 7 posts and haven't quoted Adams in any of them, so I think I owe him a shout out.

WINOL Bulletin Criticism

After Watching the latest WINOL bulletin in my first instance of a critically minded journalist peer. I think that in general, it is of very high quality, in terms of editing, presentation, and professionalism. This is not to say that it was flawless however. The first instance of what I considered of poor quality, was the sound of the section filmed in the multimedia centre, discussing pass cards for international students' entry into clubs. Of course, this could be an equipment related issue, in which case this may be something the media department should look into as it spoils the flow of dialogue.

I was very impressed by the performance of the presenters who, apart from some minor slip-ups, were very eloquent and on a par with many professional anchors. That said, the in-field reporters could have been a touch more enthusiastic, especially in the case of one of the sport reporters. If I'm not mistaken, the roles of the WINOL team are continually rotated so as to maximise the experience in different aspects of Broadcast journalism. However, if you happen to be given a role is not necessarily your favourite, you should try and at least make a pretense of not being bored with the whole thing.

In the case of the stories covered in the bulletin, the first two stories were well considered in that they directly affected the target audience: Students. While the first was more directed to international students, rather than the main populace, the second concerned almost everyone attending or soon-to-be attending university. In that respect I think they could have been reversed so as to provide a better hook to non- internationals who could well stop watching if the initial piece doesn't affect them. The Housing and Queen stories were les important in my opinion and were therefore well placed in the midsection. The final story concerning the BJTC award was very well presented and all of the footage piqued my interest (clap clap, by the way), with any luck I'll be able to do the same in a year or two.

A major mistake for which I believe the editor took a lot of flak, was a spelling mistake in the score sheet during the sports section, misspelling some of the names of sports teams. You wouldn't expect such schoolboy mistakes from what is otherwise a very competent piece of journalsm.

All in all I was very impressed with the slick editing (except for one instance during an interview within the tuition fee story, where it seems as though someone was cut off midsentence) and very proffesional appearance of what I would call a top-notch broadcast

The Simple Sword of Truth, and the Trusty Barge Pole of Cowardice

Defamation is perhaps one of the most worrying things a journalist can confront. Usually encountered while court reporting (but by no means limited to), a claim of defamation means an accuser thinks that something published concerning them has damaged their reputation and lowered right-minded peoples opinion of them. In many cases, a defamatory statement will expose the subject to hatred, ridicule and contempt from their peers, often resulting in Libel action. You can get an idea of how journalists view being presented with a defamation charge, in that there is actually a name for the feeling you get when considering even a genuine, unbiased story on a person or group that is particularly litigious: The 'Chilling Effect'. For example, the Church of Scientology has filed dozens upon dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of lawsuits, funded by their enormous wealth and influence. Here is a policy letter written by L. Ron Hubbard (the founder of the Church of Scientology), distributed in early 1966:

This is correct procedure:

1. Spot who is attacking us.
2. Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
3. Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
4. Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.

Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way.

Against such a code of conduct, I don't blame people for getting the willies.

Fear not however, we aren't doomed to the dole queue just yet. Journalists are awarded certain defences, provided that they follow a certain code of conduct. The first of these defences is Justification, or to put it simply, Truth. If the reporter can present evidence showing that the published matter in question is in fact true, then this provides complete protection against any libel action. A very famous example of justification at work was that of Conservative cabinet minister Jonathon Aitken who filed Libel actions against The Guardian for reporting that his bill for the Ritz hotel in Paris was paid for by an Arab associate, in direct breach of ministerial guidelines. He even resigned from his post stating that he would:
 "Fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play". 
After four years of investigations and court trials, evidence was found that proved that Aitken had been lying all along, and that he had been willing to have his daughter lie under oath to protect him, saying that it was his wife Lolicia Aitken who had paid for his hotel stay, when it was in fact found that she had been in Switzerland at the time and it would have been impossible for her to have done so. Aitken was faced with legal costs of £2 million and an 18 month prison sentence (of which he served 7) for committing perjury and perverting the course of justice.

While the Aitken case is a fantastic example of justification at its best, they aren't all quite as interesting. Another defence afforded to journalists is Privilege. This gives protection to publish potentially damaging material in accordance with the principle that justice must be seen to be done. As journalist are the eyes and ears of the public, they are allowed to report things that could be defamatory, as long as it is considered in the public interest to do so. Reports may only hold privilege if they are fair and accurate, otherwise you may well find out just how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

The last main defence of defamation is known as Fair Comment. This is essentially exactly what it says on the tin. Such a comment may be published as long as it is: the honestly held opinion of the writer; recognisable as opinion (not presented as fact); based on provably true facts; linked to theprovably true facts, in the same publishing (unless so well known as to make it unnecessary); on a subject that is a matter of public interest. On the plus side it doesn't have to be 'fair' (I know, the name confused me too), a judge/ jury does not have to agree with it to rule it fair comment, as long as it is honest opinion - in other words, not malicious - then we're home free.

The 'Bane and Antidote' defense was also discussed, which is where One would write something negative, followed by something appealing to kiss it all better. However, as far as I can make out, this is very dodgy ground to be used as a defence for defamation, so I would personally not touch it with the preverbial barge pole, could it be avoided.

Law n' Order Laid Out

Following the second Law lecture, I found my views on how journalists affect the law, and how the law affects journalists weren't quite up to scratch. While I was aware that newspapers and other media outlets had to be very careful as to what they published, providing they didn't want to be sued. I was not aware of how precise and clear-cut the rules are concerning court reporting, and reporting in general and how very careful Journalists have to be.

After a brief outline of how courts are established i.e. a judge, 12 members of the jury, barristers representing each side etc. (this being, let's say, a hypothetical Crown Court) We became enlightened to the (many) different codes and laws concerning court proceedings, and Court reporting. One of the most basic, and yet most important fundamentals to all cases, is the 'Presumption of Innocence'. This can be recognised mostly by the fact that someone should never have to prove their innocence, only that the prosecuting party has to prove their guilt. In this respect, especially in those involving juries, it is critical that this is not breached, as it can result in prejudice (influencing a juries decision). This applies to journalists in that, if they report on a defendant as having committed the offence, rather than saying, they are accused of having committed the offence. They are implying guilt on said defendant, which could sway a jury's decision. If a reporter or newspaper is found to have done this, they are in danger of 'Contempt of Court' for which there is no defense. An individual found to have contempt of court could be faced with up to a £40,000 fine, or a 6 month sentence.

Providing however, that any reporting is unbiased, fair, and above-all, accurate.Journalists are granted Qualified Privilege meaning they are exempt from any Libel law action. This does not mean they can simply make it up as they go along (although that would be a hell of an easy job) for that would be Malice: The telling of a lie (whether you believe it to be true makes no difference, as that shows negligence on behalf of the reporter).

Despite whatever apparent limitations on court reporting however, Journalists - in the case of court reporting - are the eyes and ears of the public. Journalists are there to make sure that the law is carried out in full. We help to confirm one of the basic legal principles, 'Justice must be seen to be done'.
Is it just me who thinks that sounds a touch Machiavellian?

The Laws of the Great and the Good, and the not so good.

After having read the first chapter of ‘McNae’s’ and watching our first Law lecture, I would have to admit certain passages caught my attention. Now don’t get me wrong, but reading law in a book is never going to be thrilling. However, I found that once given examples of these codes, it allows you to see what they actually lead to. Or prevent, given the circumstances. The laws relating to Human Rights in particular caught my eye. I had never before connected corruption and political violence in Third World countries to the lack of a Free Press. Now that it’s been pointed out, I can see the impact that Investigative Journalists can have on society by exposing these wrongdoings. It makes one wonder what would be dug up should a Free Press ever be established in, say North Korea. It certainly helps to explain how these dictatorships manage to stay in power so easily. As opposed to the petty fraud of our own ‘Higher-ups’ who can barely sneeze without appearing on the cover of ‘The Sun‘. But then you can’t compare a madman in control of a country on the brink, to a bit of on-the-side moat cleaning, or a little free porn.

I was also quite interested in the court system of the UK, learning about the differences between the Civil and Criminal courts. I wasn’t aware of the court-specific jargon used in each: Found guilty against being ‘held liable’; Only using the term ‘sentence’ in criminal courts etc. I had also never thought much about appeals, I had assumed that if a defendant appealed a decision, the case would be repeated with a new jury and judge. This seemed logical to me as it helps to eliminate the chances of any kind of accidental ruling (looking back I can see how that sounds stupid, but in fairness I’ve not had much experience in these matters till now). In a sense the appeals moving up a court, does introduce a new ‘audience’ and as it moves up, the standard of conduct would be expected to rise in tangent. Therefore, if you were innocent and had been convicted, new evidence would be much more likely to be found or re-examined. It could definitely prove to be interesting to have the number 2 Crown Court in the country here in Winchester. Never know, we could get lucky.

I myself could be getting some first-hand experience of the UK’s court system as I’m currently engaged in a GBH case against a bouncer, so I’ll certainly be taking notes if it comes to that.

I welcome any and all criticism on this post, as with a constitutional code as ever-changing and complicated (to me) as ours, I’m certain I’ll have misunderstood something along the line.

Thanks for bearing with me.

On the Renaissance and Remarkable Men.

After this first in-depth lecture on the Renaissance, I can't help but picture it stepping out of what can be safely described as a quagmire of ignorance. Free Thought finds it's feet (metaphorically) shackled by the dogged stubbornness of the Church and it's vehement control of ideas that dare to step outside the iron word of the Bible and it's accompanying philosophies. The rediscovery of ancient Greek writings and dialogues breathe new life into this stagnation and free thought as hasn't been known for 1000 odd years. Renaissance Italy finds itself redeveloping in style of these "new" Hellenistic teachings. A new age had begun and people seemed desperate to have a part. Perhaps the most influential of these philosophers was Plato, best known for his 'Theory of Forms' which states that the world in which we live is but a crude copy of a perfect world. To demonstrate this simply, I could say "this is a window. But somewhere there is a better window, and somewhere else is a perfect window". Plato demonstrates his theory using his 'Cave' analogy, in which, men are trapped in a cave, whilst outside is a wondrous world. However all the men can see are the pale shadows of this world falling on the cave walls. He did go further in describing his Forms using a straight line and a circle.  He says that no one has ever seen a perfect circle, or a perfect line (he must be right about this as no matter how small you make the building blocks, there will be some smaller still that we can't see), and yet everybody knows what a circle and a line are. He claims that this knowledge or blueprint that we innately have, is evidence that somewhere, these fabled Forms exist.

Another famous Greek philosopher was Aristotle, Plato's student. Aristotle is well known for (among many other things) his use of logic through deductive reasoning or 'Analytics' as he called it. Using both inductive and deductive logic (unlike Plato who used only deductive logic). I think it can be argued that most, if not all modern scientific study follows Aristotle's Example in using inductive reasoning, as we have come to the conclusion that pretty much everything we know could be wrong. Therefore inductive reasoning is less potentially embarrassing for all concerned. Both Plato and Aristotle are depicted in Raphael's 'School of Athens' showing their philosophical differences, Plato gestures toward the heavens, Demonstrating his confidence in the Forms. While Aristotle indicates the Earth, communicating belief in his theories through empirical evidence and a solid trust in his senses.

It seems that whenever the renaissance is mentioned, people have this image in their mind of a glorious shining beacon of learning  and enlightenment. This is fairly accurate, in it's way. Art took on a new depth and beauty as opposed to the stark austerity of the Dark Ages preceding it. Not to mention great names such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael rising to become masters of Renaissance art. Considering all of this refinement and prosperity of learning. I was very surprised to learn about the various undercurrents running throughout Italy which seem to show them all to be morally bankrupt swine. Albeit cunning swine. It seems as though, if they weren't all constantly engaging in civil war; Then they were going to an audience with the Pope, afraid to drink the wine in case it were poisoned. Now, don't get me wrong I'm not exactly an advocate of Christianity (nor of religion in general) but still, the Pope! Christ knows how these guys felt about so much as leaving the house without wearing a full suit of armour! Bertrand Russell does make a point of highlighting Pope Alexander VI, along with his son Caesor Borgia (who I'll mention later concerning Machiavelli) saying of the two:
"The wickedness off these two men soon became legendary, and it is difficult to disentangle truth from falsehood as regards to the innumerable murders of which they are accused"
The fact that this can be said about two men, one of which would be held up as an example of piety and of representing the highest orders of the Church, Holding the keys to Heaven no less! Says something about the sort of times in which they lived. A keen sense of politics and an ability to manipulate, would have been crucial to success. and in this respect we move on to the works of Niccolò Machiavelli.

Niccolò Machiavelli 1467 - 1527 was a very clever man, if not exactly the most ethical. He was a master of political science and wrote the first (I believe) 'How To' guide for rulers. More specifically, he wrote it as a peace-offering to the Medici family, the current rulers of Florence, who he had angered by serving another ruler. He gathered many of his frames of reference for his book 'The Prince' through his own first-hand experience of the successes and failures of various nobles of the times. Perhaps most notably Savonarola, who seems a particularly dour person to be around, especially considering the general Renaissance brightness and artfulness. After burning everything he considered gaudy or creative (or fun) in his infamous 'Burning of the Vanities' and generally making the lives of everyone in Florence a misery he was torn apart and burnt on a cross for heresy among other crimes, as demanded by Pope Alexander VI (and we know how much of a saint he was). After witnessing this execution, Machiavelli put together one of his most important statements "all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed prophets have come to grief”. This, along with his other works, have since changed the way in which people went about looking for and seizing power. Many critics of Machiavelli claim he was amoral, even evil. I disagree. I see him as the ultimate pragmatist. A man who saw that while certain methods were not the most ethical, they did the job they were meant for. And they did it well. He uses the example of Caesar Borgia (mentioned earlier) as one of the greatest 'Princes' of the time. he portrayed him as a man who saw what was needed, and how to do it so that it least affected himself negatively. He knew that cruelty is inevitable, and while Borgia was indeed cruel Machiavelli wrote that "his harsh measures restored order to the Romagna, unifying it and rendering it peaceful and loyal". He continues this by pointing out that it is always preferable to be cruel to the few, so that you wont have to be cruel to many. Otherwise you will be hated by your people and that is one of the worst things for a ruler to have happen "My view it that it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved.". Machiavelli wrote many other worthy books of note, although only one of the was published during his lifetime: 'The Art of War'. This was probably because many of his books would have gotten him killed, had they been published while he was alive.
Machiavelli died in 1527, the same year as the sack of Rome. Some people also regard it as the death of the Renaissance. He was buried with the inscription "TANTO NOMINI NULLUM PAR ELOGIUM", possibly translated as "So great a name has no adequate praise".

The final part of the lecture that I will be covering that of René Descartes. Now, in my previous post, I made a rather frank appraisal of Descartes 'Cogito' saying that it was simplistic, that it was too easy to say that we're here because we are. However, after a more detailed look at his work I have decided that I need to reassess my thinking. Here goes, beginning at the beginning.

Descartes was born post-Renaissance into the Age of Reason, in fact, one could make the argument that it was he that began it. He is the founder of Cartesian Doubt. This, as a mainstay for his other arguments demands drawing conclusions only from what you can and cannot doubt. For example, you cannot doubt (in his mind) the truths of mathematics or mechanical science. However, before he could believe in these things. He had to believe in himself. And now we come to his deductive reasoning. He used doubt to decide what things around him he could believe were true i.e. Can I doubt that I am in this room? Yes, because it could be a dream. And so forth until he came to the last part of himself he may be able to doubt. Can I doubt I am thinking? No, because the fact that I can think of doubting it, means that I'm thinking "Cogito ergo sum", "I think, therefore I am". Here was where I had a problem, but my problem was that by itself  "I think, therefore I am" means nothing. But with all the background I realised, that was not his philosophy. 'Cogito ergo sum' was Square One of his philosophy. Before he had that established, he could do nothing. And so from his first square he decided that if he existed, God must exist, and he must be a benevolent God, and therefore he can trust himself because God - being good - would not mislead him. If he can trust himself, then everything else begins to fall into place as according to his own reasoning. I have to say that I'm still not 100% on this, as it is crucially linked to a belief in God, which I lack. However it is extremely well thought out, and very logical (which I approve of) and he uses his system to demonstrate a number of different suppositions in support of Rationalism, and leading into Idealism in which his work becomes a springboard for later philosophers such as Kant and Hegel.

Looking back I'm beginning to think i should have split this in half. I seem to have gotten very enthusiastic once I got to Machiavelli and Descartes, people I can actually wrap my head around. Nonetheless you're stuck with it now, I'm off to make an awful attempt at some shorthand.