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".
Monday 22 November 2010
Wednesday 10 November 2010
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:
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!
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.
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!
Tuesday 9 November 2010
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday 8 November 2010
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.
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.
Sunday 7 November 2010
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!
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!
Friday 5 November 2010
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.
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.
Thursday 4 November 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)