Journoblog

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.