Journoblog

As Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Price on the grounds that he is not George W. Bush, I feel obliged to point out to the world that I am also not George W. Bush.

Plus, Mr Obama has recently sent 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
I have sent fewer troops to Afghanistan than this. To date, I have sent approximately zero troops into Afghanistan. That's a difference of about 30,000.

I would also wager that Mr Obama's carbon footprint is several thousand times greater than mine. Living in a white house is supposed to be good for the environment, but i think I still have the edge.

However, I must confess that neither of us have signed the Kyoto agreement, so we're on an equal footing there.

I broke up a fight in a pub once. Barack killed a fly on telly.

It's right there in facts and figures, folks. They can't argue with it. See you in Oslo.

The Freedom of Information Act makes it mandatory for a public authority to disclose whether or not it has the information requested of it. The same is also required of privatised bodies (such as utilities companies), police and fire authorities and quangos.


Exciting piece of information: Quango is an acronym for "QUasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation."


There are some exemptions, such as security and intelligence services, Special Air Service, Special Boat Service, and GCHQ (never ask for information from someone who loves in a doughnut). Chris also mentioned NCIS (National Crime intelligence Service). It's worth mentioning that this organisation ceased to exist in 2006, when it was merged into SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency), amusingly on April Fools' Day. 


Information must be released unless it is judged that the public interest is not served, or if the public interest in NOT releasing the information is greater than in releasing it. See PCC Code of Conduct if you're not sure what public interest means.


The body from which the request is made must respond within 20 days:
"Do you have this information?" - 20 days
"Can I have it?" - another 20 days


What is "information"?
The act specifies that only information that is recorded or written down can be requested. "Sofa conversations" don't count. None of the information about the initiating of the war in Iraq was written down, so it remains largely secret.  Nice to know that the decision to go to war was made on a Chesterfield over a cup of tea and some French fancies.


Section 16 of the act says they must assist you and must not mislead you, but they can charge you a "reasonable" price and can also refuse information on the basis of "prohibitive expense".

Rousseau felt that the best and most pure existence that man has enjoyed took place in a state of nature- before society formed and oppressed us. Or, perhaps more accurately, we oppressed ourselves. He understands that we cannot go back to this easily, and so suggests ways of bringing ourselves closer to the state of nature without dismantling everything completely.

The basic idea is that if we make our own rules through direct democracy (not elected representatives) and follow those rules, we have order but are still free as no one is putting their rules upon us.

This works nicely provided you are in the majority. the real point of The Social Contract is this:
The Social Contract is built on the fundamental rules which are built into us; hardwired and instinctive, so the rules and laws which come as a result of the public vote are normal and natural. This means that if you don't agree with them, you must be missing something which makes everyone else human.

I can't help feeling that under this system, those in the minority are being oppressed by those in the majority. I'm not saying this is any worse than our current system- just that I can't see how it's much better. Especially when the idea of "forcing people to be free" is put forward. What about peoples' freedom to be caged if they so wish?

But according to The Social Contract, if you're in the minority you're sub-human and the world is better off without you. It's a fairly common tactic utilised by leaders to encourage conformity: If you don't want something in society, make it socially unacceptable. It has been used against Communists, smokers, drink-drivers, drug-users, Jews... I could go on. I should probably be clear that I'm not saying any two things in that list are related in any way other than in the methods employed against them!

Here's a big thing for me: We must consider 'votes' to be cast not just in marking a ballot paper, but in the actions we take. With this in mind, have we not voted for the system in which we live? If we were to vote against it through action, we'd have a revolution on our hands, but we don't. We choose to be accepting, or at least apathetic. Those who rail against this system are in the minority. Therefore, would Rousseau not have to accept that our system is the result of popular opinion?

If we take this any further we fall into a paradox: For Rousseau's ideas to be put into action according to his ways, a vote according to his rules would need to be held. But then we would already be working to his system just for the chance to oppose it.

Personally, I disagree with Rousseau. The French Revolution exemplifies the result of an attempt to put his ideas into practice.

I think one flaw is in the belief that people are basically good. But I think to say that people are basically bad is wrong as well, as to do so would be to speak of 'good' and 'bad' as we understand them in today's society- you can't really do that when considering how people would behave in the absence of that society. The truth is humans are humans, as dogs are dogs and rats are rats. I don't believe human nature alone allows for large societies; only law and order make that possible. Without it, i believe we would be much more tribal (isn't that how we lived before law and order?).

I'm afraid the vision of Hobbes and the Mad Max scenario is the most likely.

In our Media Studies lecture today, we were discussing the Internet. In my opinion, the net is one of the best things ever. I love the idea of this kind of world within our world. It exists in its own dimension and can expand forever as long as people continue to contribute. I think the day is coming where everyone will have personal website (probably a customisable template supplied by Google); Facebook is already halfway there. A job application will be a case of giving your potential employer your URL which they can visit to pick up a CV and look at your certificates hanging on your tastefully decorated wall. The history of the internet can be seen here.

The exchange of information, the meetings between people and the buying and selling are mind boggling. The lovely thing is we built it and will continue to build it. It's like everyone has a few bricks which we can add to this billion-storey sky-scraper which shows no sign of toppling under its own weight.

The Internet does have some bad points; a lot of crime happens or begins online. But crime is a by product of any social structure. To say that the web is bad because of the crime is no different to suggesting that no one should interact in societies. However, one facet of this sprawling system which hangs over our heads is the death of journalism as we know it.

Newspapers are in decline, and it seems almost certain that within our careers they will be a thing of the past as people opt for tailor made news bulletins. We can see this taking shape already with devices such as RSS feeds. But will professional journalists also become a thing of the past? Anyone can post news online and this crowdsourcing of information often happens at a rate faster that any traditional news provider could hope to match. Does this mean that studying for a journalism degree is akin to learning to be a dodo farmer? I doubt it.

The fact remains that journalism offered by amateurs is likely to be about is trustworthy as Pennywise the Dancing Clown. Thanks to media law, people know that what they read and see in professional publications and broadcast is much closer to a guarantee of fact that anything they can get from Twitter or a blog, and they will continue to pay for that guarantee. The law we study is exactly what will keep the craft alive. Yes, it will change; we just have to be quick-witted enough to change with it.

Apologies for the delay. Here are the notes from which I delivered the Joseph Addison seminar:

Investigative journalism is my biggest interest, and so I really enjoyed the lecture on Tuesday. I've always felt that investigative journalism, as well is being exciting, is an opportunity for a someone to change things or expose corruption.


The story of Veronica Guerin is frightening but inspiring. I can only imagine someone would put themselves in such danger if it was for something which they believed was more important than their own life. There aren't many jobs which give you the opportunity to play a part in something with that much weight.


I can't help wondering, what would I have done? I understand that death threats may be something a journalist has to get used to, but if the death threat came after being shot in the kneecaps, I'd probably think twice about going on to identify everyone involved. That took guts and I definitely think it's right that we have Veronica Guerin's picture up in the newsroom; it tells a heroic story and serves as both motivation to bring truth to the public and as a reminder that investigative journalism isn't a game.


Here are my lecture notes:
Investigative journalists:
Expose danger to the community
Expose miscarriages of justice
Expose corruption
Expose political manipulation

The fall of the Berlin Wall, of course! 

But how many people know why it was there, what it meant for the people trapped by it, what the world behind the wall was like and why it fell?


Not enough, in my opinion. Although you'd have probably brushed on it if you took GCSE History (I wish I did), there is a shortage of education on this subject, and not just in schools. I say self-educate, and keep in mind the fact that this affair was very recent and how those who lived under the rule of the GDR/DDR before continue to be affected by that time.

I strongly recommend reading "Stasiland", by Anna Funder. It's an amazing book. Try to get an old copy if you can. I hear that, somewhat ironically, former Stasi people forced her to edit it in the later editions.

For people on my course, I'll lend you a movie called "The Lives of Others", if you ask nicely. Just remember that, while it's a cinematic masterpiece, it's fiction and no Stasi agent could have done what Wiesler did in the movie!

For now, read this excellent article from The Times.

Here is a good example of a copyright case, and as it's very recent (at the time of writing) the precedent set is unlikely to have been superseded.

The web page outlines the case in which a photographer's work was reproduced by the Mirror Group without permission.

It's interesting as it involves use of the photographer's work in back issues made available online, but the really good part is this: When the photographs were originally supplied to the Mirror Group, the internet wasn't around. If use of the images online wasn't mentioned in the agreement, but the internet wasn't a consideration when the agreement was made, then who's right and who's wrong?

Click here to find out.

Journalism is the profession of turning information into money. Copyright law protects this by preventing work from being stolen.

A journalist has the right to their work. It is by selling this right that a journalist can earn money. But 'information' is not valuable, since there is no copyright in mere information. The journalist must turn this information into news before it is something which can be sold.

For a journalist, selling their work is selling the rights to that work. It is intellectual property, and the law sees no distinction between work done by hand or by brain. Anything you create, you own absolutely- it is a residual right which you can sign away.

There are three ways in which you can normally sell the right to your intellectual work:

This is a post to make everyone aware of the Journalism Committee. As journalism students we are fortunate enough to have faculty around us who have taken the trouble to set up a committee dedicated to improving the course. It is composed of both staff and students from each year who each offer input such as ways in which the facilities can be improved, course content can be developed and how any problems can be solved.

I attended one the first meeting of the year and I'm happy to say the arrangement is very effective and worthwhile. I've attended committees and meetings held by some of the employers for whom I've worked which have ended up being all talk and no action, but with gentlemen like Chris Horrie and Paul Manning running the show I can promise you all that anything raised will be dealt with if at all possible. If someone has a suggestion which can't be actioned, you will at least get an honest and thorough explanation. And believe me, I've been fobbed off by enough bosses to know that bit of honesty is quite often enough to relieve your frustration.

Remember last week when the whiteboard in TAB 9 was moved so people don't have to reach over the desks to get to it? That was a suggestion from the 3rd Year students. Pretty soon there will be a cover over the isolation switch which turns all the Macs off. Plans to allow 24 hour access to TAB9 are under discussion, plus steps are being made towards a radio station to be shared between the Media and Journalism students.

There will be several meetings per year. There's a lot going on and all ideas are welcome, so please email me with and suggestions or problems. As I said, we're lucky to have the support of staff who are as interested in the course quality as the students are, so let's get excited about the opportunity to develop the it further and make use of the committee that's been organised for us.

Please click here to read this article.

Sources:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/BUharmsworth.htm">http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/BUharmsworth.htm 
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Daily_Mirror 
http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/exhibition/extraextra/DailyHeraldHistory.pdf
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Lord_Rothermere 
http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/northcliffe_alfred_charles_william_harmsworth_viscount.jsp 
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554279/Harmsworth_Alfred_Charles_William_Viscount_Northcliffe.html 

This is all about secrets. As far as the law is concerned, there are two types of secret: Official Secrets and Private Secrets.

I showed one of restaurant critic and swearing enthusiast Giles Coren's emails to Dave earlier, who said it was the best thing he's ever read (he clearly hasn't read this blog), so I thought I'd link to a page of them here. Be warned, they contain a lot of effing and jeffing as well as, somewhat ironically, typing errors. Enjoy.

"IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST" does not mean "INTERESTING"

Qualified Privilege, the third defence against libel, gives the journalists the right to make defamatory statements under special circumstances. There are two main types of QP:

This site may well be one of the best things on the web. Wikileaks is a medium through which documents and information may be leaked by people who's conscience outweighs the rules and laws imposed upon them. Very interesting stuff and a great tool for investigative journalism.

Pieced together from several news sources (Sky News, BBC, Independent), the story goes like this:

A multi-national oil firm called Trafigura dumped 500 tons of toxic waste on the Ivory Coast of Abidjan, West Africa. Official estimates said 15 people died and tens of thousands of people fell ill as a result. Trafigura deny any deaths took place, but offered £950 to each of the 31,000 people afffected, as well as around £100million to the Ivorian Government towards the clean-up.

The Guardian newspaper plans to report this, but Trafigura's lawyers, Carter-Ruck, issued a 'super-injunction' to prevent from being made public. A super-injunction is basically the stuffing a big, smelly sock into the mouth of the media. It's obtained at the High Court, and it means that not only is everyone gagged, they're not even allowed to say they've been gagged about anything. They're not even allowed to report that an MP has tabled a question about it. This was effective on anyone investigating Trafigura.



Everyone should look at this video about a lawsuit. Basically, a blogger who uses this very site defamed a model. The model managed to get a court to order Google to identify the blogger so she could sue. Google complied, and are now being sued by the blogger for failing to preserve her privacy. This is one of those cases which will become more common as the internet is increasingly considered to be a real source of publication, and organisations like Google increasingly hoard peoples' information. I shall now be making it clear that everything I write on here is comment.

I must confess, when I first read this story about a 16-year-old who died after drinking a lethal amount of vodka, my first thoughts revolved around the questioning of  whether A* GSCE grades are proof of intelligence.

The key to libel, and to avoiding legal action, is the ability to differentiate between FACT and COMMENT.  Learning this skill is absolutely vital.

C.P Scott said “Comment is cheap, fact is priceless.” This may apply value to each word, but not meaning, so here is an attempt at simple definition:

The key thing here is that Leibniz argues that the world we live in is built on logic. All of his arguments are the result of an attempt to put a system or formula on existence which is naturally occurring and self-regulating. Russell ends the chapter by offering his opinion which also summarises one facet of Leibniz’ philosophy: “What I, for my part, think best in his theory of monads is his two kinds of space, one subjective, in the perceptions of each monad, and one objective, consisting of the assemblage of points of view of the various monads. This, I believe, is still useful in relating perception to physics.” 

During Media Law today, we spent some time discussing when a case becomes active. Pinpointing this moment is very important as it affects what can be published (as we know, publishing anything which could be seen to influence the outcome of the trial will get you told off). So I have found a website explaining this very clearly, in my opinion more clearly than McNae's. There's quite a lot of good stuff about media law on there actually, so I'd recommend a browse, but the linked page is particularly relevant to today's lecture.

In the afternoon we enjoyed a seminar led by Cara, who wrote a cracking essay which did a great job of getting a conversation moving about the Renaissance, Reformation and the tipping point between pre-modern and modern philosophy with Descartes' decision to wipe the slate of philosophy clean by rejecting Aristotle, along with everything else he couldn't be 100% sure of, before starting again with the one thing he could guarantee: Cogito ergo sum.


It was the first seminar of that kind that we've had, and I have to say I found it enormously helpful and would like to thank everyone in Group B for such a great discussion. I think when you're constantly trying to absorb facts and information during lectures and private study it can become difficult to really digest everything. Group discussion seems to help the mind make sense of everything as you put it into your own words as well as and processing several other people's ideas and points of view. The only sad thing is, I don't think that an hour every other week is enough to properly get one's teeth into the discussion.

I'm posting the notes I've made on our Media Studies reading for a couple of reasons. Firstly so the tutors can see what how I did this and hopefully offer advice on improving my technique. Secondly for other students to look at as an example of how to, or how not to, depending on tutor comments, do this kind of thing. Thirdly, as a sort of practise at critical analysis. We do have a heavily weighted analysis to do this semester, after all. Again, I'd appreciate any comments and advice with regards to that. I also apologise for not proof reading this, but I am running short of time and so corrections will have to be made later.

This is going to make for a pretty big post, so I'm probably going set up a new blog containing just my notes and essays, then linking through to it from this one to keep things tidy. But for now, here we go:

A fiery baptism into the world of shorthand today. Tough but necessary.

Taking recording equipment into (or even close to) a courtroom is something of a no-no. The answer to this is shorthand; a fiendishly clever method of writing which works by simplifying letters and, when assembling them into words, dropping any letters which aren't completely necessary and pressing what's left together into a squiggle. All this in order to make writing as fast as possible so that a reporter can keep up with a court case. It looks like this:

This video (the best I could find) shows teeline shorthand at 40 words per minute. You're considered good when you reach 100 words per minute. I think it looks stunning when it's done well. We're doing this for 10 hours per week for the first two weeks, then it continues with shorter sessions every week, though having spoken to our lovely tutor I realise that a lot of private study will be required in order to get my pace up to the magic 100 words per minute. I love a challenge.

Shorthand is a tough thing to learn, but while we students grumbled about this and that, Indonesia was hit by another earthquake. As if the first one wasn't enough. Even people who don't like journalists would find it hard to argue against the fact that they provide the valuable public service of offering some perspective on the petty issues we whine about every day. As history is the most reliable way predicting the future, expect a blog entry discussing the spectacularly disorganised aid efforts and half-hearted token gestures from the superpowers.

Meanwhile, the House of Lords is no longer the highest court in the land. I've never felt totally comfortable with the court that is more of a commitee and I think this looks a lot better to the public and I think this is fine news as it should help to separate our legal system from our political system. Hopefully it'll be different from the US system, which is rather political. However, I don't yet know enough about politics to be confident that I'm not about to embarrass myself if I continue, and unfortunately I have so much reading and shorthand practice to do that I don't have time to research it properly. Time to hit the books.

You can't survive without The Sun, and you can't escape its gravity. It's big news, everyone's talking about it, and why not? After all, The Sun's chosen allegiance does seem to dictate the future of the Government.

But let's be honest for a moment, does The Sun's shift spell the end for Labour? Let me try to answer that by posing another question: Who, before this landmark event, thought that Labour had the remotest chance of winning the next general election? Anyone?

This is a pretty obvious case of switching teams according to whoever sits at the top of the league. Once again, The Sun will be able to claim that they were the influence; that Labour dominated for fifteen years while The Sun held their hand, but they sank as soon as they lost the support of Britain's favourite rag.

Well I have a bigger claim: Every year, I decide to support a Formula 1 driver. Every year, my chosen driver wins the championship. This has never failed! Honestly, my influence is undeniable; whichever driver gains my backing is victorious. I simply wait until the last corner of the last lap of the last race of the season before deciding who to cheer for.

I can't help wondering why The Sun waiting for so long before changing beds. They give Labour's failures as the reason for abandoning them, even including an actual poster entitled "DOSSIER OF THEIR FAILURES". Why on Earth would a paper shout about the fact that they've been supporting a spectacularly failing political party for so long? It makes them look a bit silly to me.

By the way, it might be worth mentioning that there's water on our Moon. I know; it's easy to overlook something as scientifically and historically insignificant as the discovery of life's most essential substance on the only celestial body to bear human footprints. We could even be forgiven for neglecting to spare a thought for the years of scientific research bound to result from this at a time when a newspaper has decided to change teams for a few years. In case anyone is interested, I suppose I'll sheepishly put forth the fact that this discovery has been made right when China and India are getting stuck into the whole space race thing, the glory on offer further accelerating progress in this area and giving space travel the dose of nitrogen tetroxide that it has needed for years.

Oh, and on the subject of scientific research, the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is scheduled to be fired up again in about six weeks. If it doesn't break this time, The Sun may turn away from David Cameron and become a supporter of Higgs Boson in time for the election.

I've been cruisin' and perusin' the internet and have found some interesting stuff to share.

Today's lectures were Media Law and History and Context of Journalism.