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.
Sunday, 12 December 2010
Monday, 22 November 2010
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".
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".
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)