Rules and Regulations - I would have gotten away with it!

As with any job, profession anything there are always rules and regulations. Journalism is no different. Not only is it affected by the law, it is also closely scrutinised by other organisations that set rules about conduct.
There are a few different organisations that have different codes of practice but all essentially serve the same purpose, to ensure that journalists adhere to a correct code of conduct
The different organisations that enforce codes of practice are:

PCC - Press complaints commission - Editor's code of practice.
Ofcom Broadcasting Code.
BBC Producer Guidlines.

These organisations are in practice to regulate the media and enforce that the correct conduct is followed in order to carry out a job.

Ofcom is basically the regulatory body for the media. It has a stutory right to promote competitions and protect consumers of the media against output which may be seen as harmful or offensive material. It has the power to impose fines and even remove licenses. It is also responsible for the management, regulation, assignment and licensing of the media. It licenses any broadcasting output and sometimes the proces is more difficult than others.
PCC and BBC broadcasting guidelines are both systems of self regulation. The PCC, or press complaints commission is a self regulating system for newspapers and magazines or any form of print journalism. Unlike Ofcom it has no legal power, it cannot impose fines or punishments. Everything to do with PCC is volutary. Newspapers and magazines adhere to the conditions and pay for the body voluntrily, meaning they CAN go against them.

The PCC code of practice has calls for correct code of conduct on the following:
1.Accuracy
2.Opportunity to reply
3.Privacy
4.Harassment
5.Intrusion into grief or shock
6.Children
7.Children in sex cases
8.Hospitals
9.Reporting of crime
10.Misrepresentation
11.Victims of sexual assault
12.Discrimination
13.Financial journalism
14.Confidential sources
15.Witness payments in criminal trials
16.Payment to criminals

The BBC editorial guideline is also a self regulating body of the media. Just like PCC it also covers many different sections about the code of conduct a journalist should use. It again has know legal power, hence the name, guidline. It can only boast to guide journalists in to exercising the correct conduct.
The most powerful of the three bodies is of course Ofcom. As that is the only one with statutory power. If their code is broken then they can enfore punishments. An example would be when ITV's Ant and Dec were fined £5.6 million for abusing a phone in competition in order to make money.
Ofcom calls for absolute accuracy and impartiality. If neither are present in a boradcast, story, report whatever, then there is a cause for investigation.

Just like any other form of law or rule breaking Ofcom is there to stop a journalist from stepping outside the area of being a normal everyday member of society. A journalist is not above the law or any human right act because they have the same rights as any other citizen. Just because they are on television doesn't mean they can use it to do what they want. This is why Ofcom and the other self regulatory bodies are there. To keep proper conduct in place and to remind journalists that they are merely 'the eyes and ears of the general public' nothing more.

Freedom of Information

The freedom of information act or FOI act is one of the greatest tools ever handed to the journalist for weeding out stories. The FOI was created as an act by Parliament to introduce a right to know.
The basic principle of the FOI is:

"Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled to have that information communicated to him."

Requests must be made in writing and are completely free.

The FOI was brought in by Tony Blair and New Labour, although Blair regrets bringing it in as he believes Parliament can no longer have conversations without it being brought into publication by the FOI act and for journalists to use it in stories.
It isn't just the Government who are covered by FOI. But there are over 130,000 public bodies covered by the act for example the NHS, board of education, etc.
Over 100,000 requests are made each year, with only about 12% being from journalists. Once a request is made the body has 20 days to respond, but they do not have to release the information if the it is going to cost the 0ver £600. The information becomes EXEMPT from being public knowledge.

There are two different types of expemtions...
Absolute and Qualified.

Absolute Exemptions
These have no public interest test attached to them the information is simply unattainable. Requests are absolute exemptions if the information:
+ Is attainable elsewhere.
+ Is given in confidence.
+ Is obtained from court records (contempt)
+ Which the applicant could obtain under the Data Protection Act 1998; or where release would breach the data protection principles.
+ Which would breach contempt of court or human rights act.
+ Where disclosure would disrupt the conduct of public affairs.
+ Relating to secutrity matters.

Qualified Exemptions
These are exemptions that are tested against the public interest test. Basically the authority the request is made to must decide whether information is first exempt, then they must decide whether to disclose the information based on whether the public would desire that information to be disclosed.
Qualified exemptions can be divided into two further categories - Harmful (likely to cause harm) and class (information to do with particular classes).

Class-based exemptions
Information intended for future publication
Information is exempt if required for the purpose of safeguarding national security
Information held for purposes of investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities
Information relating to the formation of government policy, ministerial communications, advice from government legal officers, and the operation of any ministerial private office
Information that relates to communications with members of the Royal family.
Prevents overlap between FoI Act and regulations requiring disclosure of environmental information.
Information covered by professional legal privilege
Trade secrets

Harm-based exemptions
Under these exemptions the exemption applies (subject to the public interest test) if complying with the duty under s.1 would or would be likely to:

Prejudice international relations
Prejudice relations between any administration in the United Kingdom and any other such administration
Prejudice the economic interests of the UK
Prejudice law enforcement
Prejudice the auditing functions of any public authorities
In the reasonable opinion of a qualified person: prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs; prejudice collective responsibility; or inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views
Endanger physical or mental health, or endanger the safety of the individual
Prejudice commercial interests

Personally I think society benefits from the FOI act. As a journalist having the responsibilty to be the eyes and ears of the public it enables us to make things known without being fed selective bits of information from and interviewee (ie a press officer.) The freedom of information act has unveiled many secrets that people have tried to keep hidden. For instance, one of the biggest examples I could use is the scandal of Government expenses. It was unveiled that members of the Government were listing things under expenses that shouldn't have been (new houses, duck ponds these are just examples). All I can say is this would be beneficial to the general public to know.
Just because certain bodies don't want you to know... doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Confidentiality - Shhh. Do you mind?

Section 8 of the Human Rights act states that EVERYONE has a right to privacy and the right to enjoy a private family life.
So what does that mean for journalists... Who yes. Make a living of delving into your dirty laundry to share things that SHOULD be known. Unfortunately the law says that a person who has obtained information in confidence must not take unfair advantage of it. Which means that journalists have to be careful when taking information from a source.

In Mcnae's it is stated that, traditionally, there are three elements of a breach of confidence. These are:

+ The information muct have the 'necessary quality of confidence' - even though information can be freely used if it is in the public domain, if the information is obtained in a way that breaches confidence then it cannot be used.
+ The information must have been imparted in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence - Where there is an obligation to keep information private then you cannot use that information freely.
+ There must be an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the part communicating it - The person to whom the confidence is owned must not suffer in any form of detriment.

A claimant must prove EVERY single point in order to prove a breach has been made.
In some cases a breach may not have been made but a claimant may worry about a possible breach. If he/she has reason to suspect that this is going to happen they can get an injunction from a court against the information to stop it from being published. These are usually expensive and time sensitive. Once the injunction has been placed then the case is usually argued in front of a judge.

The law of confidence basically protects companies, organisations or even individuals against information obtained in confidential circumstances. There are usually only three areas which a journalist should be concerned with:

•Revealing state secrets or ‘official’ secrets
•Revealing commercial secrets
•Revealing facts about a person they would have expected to remain private.

'Official secrets' are protected by the Official secrets acts and usually involve the military or intelligence. Be wary when using photo's of military proceedings. Although it is rarely used as a jury find it hard to shop a 'whistle blower'.
Commercial secrets are usually protected by employer contracts. It is unusual for an employee taking information about a company to use it in detriment to that company. However if a publication is balanced against public interest then the story proves to b desirable and therefore unconfidential.

Personal/ private
•Risk an injunction (legal stop) by seeking a response to the allegation

OR

•Publish material and take the risk of legal action for breach of confidence or possibly defamation is there is inaccuracy.

Gagging clauses.
In most cases employees owe their employees an confidence. A gagging clause is a clause (a condition) set out in the employment contract of an employee ( normally senior)
It prevents the employee from discussing certain details considered important or sensitive with third parties.
While designed to protect the company from damage caused by leaks which could impact on their share price (takeover plans, insider trading, negative forecasts) they have become known to be used in the prevention of whistleblowing.
Whistleblowing is when an employee brings to the attention of the public/media actions carried out by the organisation which may be illegal or contrary to the common good. (inflated prices, dangerous products, unsafe practices etc etc etc)
By gagging the employees they prevent such information from coming to public attention. Many countries are enacting pro whistleblowing legislation to counter gagging clauses in the wake of the various financial scandals.

However, once again we come back to public interest. If something SHOULD be known then it is a reporters responsibilty to share. In this case you must make the employee fully aware of what you are doing/ try to protect them.

If they are happy to continue... Don't argue... Just listen!

********* Important ***********

These are some important cases highlighting privacy and confidentiality.

Max Mosley v News of the World- In 2008 the News of the World printed a story about Max Mosley having an orgy with 5 women saying it had a Nazi theme and he was dressed as a Nazi. But the High Court ruled that there was no public interest in revealing this, so Mosley had a right of privacy and damages were awarded.

Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group 2004 - The Mirror had published a couple of photographs of Naomi Campbell leaving a meeting for Narcotics Anonymous and of course reported her as trying to get over a drug addiction. The House of Lords ruled there was a breach of confidence, that she could have expected privacy to be able to attend such a meeting as it is 'anonymous'.

Copyright - Where have I seen that before!

Copyright is an area of the law that is changing rapidly. The law of copyright is there to protect intellectual property - the products of skill, labour, time and creativity i.e their creative WORK. It is important to remember that copyright doesn't protect IDEAS but the actual work as a result of those ideas.
The definition of copyright is

"the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same."

Copyright is a MASSIVE part of journalism, it has allowed journalism as a business to grow, seeing as journalism exists as a business by selling information it attains. Journalists turn information into sellable facts by applying an angle or turning those facts into a story - that is protected by copyright. An originator can print, publish, perform, photograph and film material and authorise others to do so and it is only the originator who has that power over it, until they decide to sell it. Once they sell for a fee or wage that property no longer belongs to them but the person they have sold it to.

There are certain defences that a journalist has from breaching the laws of copyright. You will notice that in many newspapers reporters will take information from one paper and put it in their own. In order to do this they must fully credit the original source even if it is a rival paper. The rules of fair dealing allow this to a certain point.

Fair dealing allows a journalist to 'lift' certain facts from a story (for example, from another newspaper) in order to report 'current events' there are certain rules for this though. When looking at fair dealing it must be found that in order to be able to a lift another story from a newspaper without infringing upon copyright the story must be in the interest of the public, the work CANNOT be passed off as your own and the original source should be accredited and usage of the story must be fair. It cannot be greater that the originators.


Creative commons is another way to protect against copyright. It allows photographs etc to be used but a publisher must inform and credit the original source. Also, they must share profits if at any point they arise.


As with any other laws journalists may find themselves in trouble with from time to time. The most important thing to remember is to check... and then check again. Learn to recognise risk, and know what to do when it arises.

Defamation and Libel - "What did you say about me!?"

Libel and Defamation are a problem that a journalist faces everyday, whether it be in print broadcast or even just reporting the courts.
Libel is all to do with damaging the reputation of members of society. Everyone has a reputation in the eyes of the people that know them. Celebrities and people who hold a public office even more so. In many cases these reputations (good) are worth a lot of money. If a journalist comes along and completely rips that reputation apart with no good reason to do so (public interest) then that person can sue for libel. It is important to recognise that it doesn't have to be proved that the reputation was ACTUALLY ruined, it only has to be proved that the reputation COULD HAVE been ruined for a libel case to be successful.
A journalist becomes libel through publication identification and defamation. This means that a defamatory comment must be published with a clear identification of who the comment has been made about. a comment that can be seen to be defamatory. A comment becomes defamatory when a reasonable man thinks the statement 'tends' to -

+ Lower someone in the estimation of right thinking members of the public.
+ Cause someone to be shunned or avoided.
+ Disparage someone in their trade, office or profession.
+ Expose someone to hatred, ridicule or contempt.

There are so many examples of cases for defamation and libel because in a journalist's life it is such a common occurance. A big case that highlights defamation or libel in journalism is:

Rahamin vs. Channel 4/ITN

In July 1998 channel 4 broadcast a major news report on the 7o’clock news that made allegations against locum consultant Joseph Rahamin that he maintained were completely untrue and defamatory as they damaged both his personal and professional reputations. The accusations made on the broadcast were that:

1. First that Mr. Rahamim was probably responsible for the death or serious injury of many of his patients including two who had died during their operations.
2. Secondly that Mr Rahamim was not competent to practice as a consultant thoracic surgeon and that he was seriously under qualified and inadequately trained.
3. Thirdly that he had fraudulently obtained his post as a Consultant by misrepresenting his qualifications and employment history.
4. Fourthly that Mr. Rahamim had dishonestly sent out letters to local GP’s in which he had falsely described himself as an FRCS
5. Fifthly that he had dishonestly concealed from his employers the fact that as a result of injuries sustained in a road accident he was unable to operate safely and
6. Lastly that by reason of these matters the GMC ought to have Mr. Rahamim struck off.

As a result of this broadcast Mr. Rahamim was subjected to a thorough investigation both by the Plymouth NHS Trust and a Government appointed independant enquiry which would automatically damage (or be seen to damage) his professional reputation as a medical consultant. But these confirmed that there was no reason to question his fitness to practice as a Consultant Thoracic Surgeon.
Shortly after the Channel 4 broadcast ITN published these same allegations on their news archive website under the heading "Bogus Doctor." Regrettably the allegations resurfaced in a programme entitled "Great Frauds" which was broadcast overseas where it was seen by relatives and friends of Mr. Rahamim. They were also distributed in this country in the form of a video and DVD, all of which greatly damaged his personal relationship and COULD have subjected him to hatred.
Mr. Rahamin won £1 million in damages as the allegations were wholly defamatory.


A more recent account of defamation that may make it clearer for young 'budding journalists' BBC news recently reported on solicitors in Cardiff taking defamatory cases arising because of the social networking site 'facebook.' It was stated in the report that anyone can be a publisher as once something is written down on facebook it is accessible by millions of people.
One example given in the story was of a woman who worked with children. Someone who she wasn't friends with wrote on her 'wall' making allegations of violence about her. This lead to an investigation of her by her employer which can be seen to damage her professional reputation or could expose her to hatred.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11610510

Something to remember when talking about the internet is that once something is published it can be passed on downloaded over and over again until it doesn't even matter if the sourse of the defamatory comment is removed. It is essentially there forever.

Even if it isn't an outright allegation that someone has made journalist also face subtle hazards that could land them face first in libel. Other things that journalist should beware of are innuendoes, inferences and defamation in pictures (wallpapering). Innuendoes in defamation can occur when a statement 'hints' at a defamatory suggestion that only people involved with the matter or knowledge would understand. Inferences in defamation are made when there is a secondary meaning behind the initial statement that is made.
Defamation in pictures is a big problem in television. If a picture of someone who can be clearly identified, for instance by strapline, is incorrectly paired with a voiceover to a story about a peadophile then it could be taken that that person is the accused peadophile - thus damaging their reputation. Once it is broadcasted it is technically a publication. This is commonly known as juxtaposition defamation, or puzzle defamation.

There ARE defences against libel cases. But you can only use these under certain circumstances.

Justification - The allegations made by the defendant against the claimant are true, and can be proved to be true in court. The standard of proof is that of civil law - on the balance of probabilities. It is solely the defendants responsibilty to prove that the allegations made are true, NOT the claimants.

Fair comment - It must be proved to be an honest opinion based on fact. It also must be on a matter that is regarded as 'public interest'

Privilege - Absolute privilege is only enjoyed by journalists when court reporting. Even then a report must be fast (as it happens) accurate (word for word of the judicial proceedings) and fair (a fair representation not prejudice) if any of these cannot be found then a journalist loses this privilege.
- Qualified privilege is a little more simple. It applies to ares of public interest. If knowledge published is deemed to be in the interest of the public to know then it is a journalists responsibilty to make it known as 'the eyes and ears' of the general public.

Reynolds defence
The defence was raised in the case Reynolds vs. Times Newspaper where it was found that a journalist could not be sued if it was found that they had a duty to publish an allegation even if it is wrong.
The reynolds defence will be judged against TEN criteria:

1.The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2.The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.
3.The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4.The steps taken to verify the information.
5.The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6.The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
7.Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.
8.Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story.
9.The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10.The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.

A journalist should always be aware when publishing material of the risk that may be around. They should always check with the editor as they are the absolute. Only then when they have checked and double checked the facts can they have the rights to the defence.

What journalists should know about law - And reporting on it

UK law is such a broad subject broken down into hundreds and hundreds of different sections (probably more). One of the most important things you should know the difference between? Criminal and Civil law.
Criminal law is the body of law pertaining to crimes against the the state or sovereign this is shown when criminal cases are listed as (for example) "R vs. Thomas." The R in the listing refers to Rex or Regina meaning King or Queen. These offences are usually harmful to the entire society.
Civil law is the opposite. It deals with disputes between individuals or organisations usually about financial matters or other entitlements. Civil cases will usually deal with acts or omissions that lead to a certain group or party being able to sue for a settlement but criminal cases will deal soley with guilty acts.
Although there are clear differences between the two in practice they can overlap. For instance in civil law an omission that entitles a party to a claim can also be an offence so it is important that journalists know the differences between the two to avoid prejudice or contempt. For instance cases involving breaches of copyright fall under civil law but they can be dealt with in criminal courts if thought to be in breach of criminal laws.
Basic differences between the two can be found within the terminology. For instance, in criminal law a journalist should refer to the individual who is on trial as the defendant. Whereas the individual or organisation involved with a civil law case would be a claimant. Small slip ups like this could make a render a journalist as being 'libel'.
Within these divisions of law there are different types of offences. The three main categories of offences are:

+ Indictable only offences - The most serious of the offences. Punishable by the most severe sentences like long prison terms. Offences that may fall under this category could be murder or rape. They will usually be tried at a crown court by a judge and jury.

+ Either way offences - Its all in the name really, not the most serious but in some cases can be extremely distressing and harmful. It all depends on the facts of the case as to whether it is tried at a crown court or a magistrates. The defendant does have a right to request a jury in which case it would go to trial at a crown court. Offences that could be either way offences are robbery, assault, sexual assault etc.

+ Summary offences - These are considered the most minor offences. Tried at a magistrates courts where the defendant has no right to a jury but benefits from the whole process being dealt with quicker. Offences that fall into this category are usually small offences such as common assault, drunkenness etc.

The two different courts mentioned here have significant differences. Obviously I have established in explaining the offences that the Crown court is responsible for trying more serious offences. But it also serves many other purposes, the crown court allows the defendant to a right of a jury as it is essential (with the consequence of harsher sentencing) that it must be proved beyone all reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed that crime. However it is also responsible for hearing appeals and it can simply deal with cases sent for sentencing from magistrates courts.
It is important to remember that all court cases are heard first at the magistrates courts for a summary hearing, they can then be sent on the the crown courts depending on the seriousness of the crime. I will cover the courts in more detail when taling about reporting of the courts in a later blog.

As I mentioned earlier journalists enjoy the same rights as any other civillian. In the UK that means freedom of expression and the principle that a journalist can report anything that is believed to be in the interest of the public. So these can be used in favour of the journalist. Another principle is that justice must be seen to be done. This entitles a journalist to report the courts in certain cases as the 'eyes and ears' of the general public.

Media Law - A cheeky introduction to the freedoms we enjoy and why we are so closely entwined with the law.

Us journalists are sometimes hated, sometimes judged, sometimes we're just regarded as right nosey old parkers. Its not that we're nosey, we just have a responsibility to inform, expose wrongdoing and let you 'the majority' know what is going on in YOUR democratic society. But we are restricted by laws just like everyone else and this little note is to let you good people (but also to help me in my upcoming exam) know what's what in our little corner of the law. Media law.
Even though critisised for what they do and bound by the same laws as an ordinary citizen, a journalist holds an important role in democratic society. Their importance was emphasised in the ruling that a press conference was in fact a public meeting. A ruling in which a statement was made by Lord Bingham pretty much saying that as a democracy the majority of society cannot directly participate in decisions that are made. They can only have their say indirectly in the form of voting, pressure groups, express their opinions etc. They can only do this if they have been informed about these decisions and actions first. How do they do this? Well in modern society you can know anything thats going on in Government simply by reading the paper, watching the news or at a click of a mouse (the internet). It was also said that if modern society was to work properly that the media, including the press, need to be 'free, active. professional and enquiring' if they are to be 'the eyes and ears' of the public.
The biggest freedom that journalists and every other resident of the UK can enjoy is the freedom of expression. This includes the right to freely communicate information and ideas. However, even this can be restricted by the law. Laws such as 'Contempt of Court act 1981" can prevent or prolong a report on a court case. Staturary restrictions on this freedom have progressed and there are many that can prove difficult for journalists to get around. But without a written constitution in the UK the freedom of expression has depended on two things - a jury trial and the rule against prior restraint.
A jury trial refers to several incidents in the past being brought to trial in front of 12 independently minded jurors where journalist's have been aquitted of flagrant disregards of the law. It has been argued that the freedom of expressions is merely the right to say or write anything that 12 ordinary people deem SHOULD be said. Whether factually in breach of the laws or not.

The most important factor that a journalist should be concerned about when looking at law... Always learn to recognise risk and then be able to seek advice before publishing!

A football chant take on the eurovision song contest song for this year! Really made me chuckle. Thought i would share...

BUT... Even if we don't win on saturday..

One thing is for sure... This summer. The world cup. Watching it with my fam and mates. Epic.

Come on ENGLANDDDD!!!

The Outdsider... Meursault

Meursault in the novel 'The Outsider' is an existentialist hero. He displays all of the characteristics of the existentialists such as a complete uncaring for society and its moral values or even his own life.
In the story Meursault kills a black Algerian man in a French economy simply because he is bored. In this time, the court and jury are completely racist so they are uncaring about the facts of the murder and are in fact quite prepared to let Meursault off. BUT he has to go through the normal social/moral conventions of being tried and then apologising (recognising) for his crime and saying that he didn't mean it. He is even told that he should use being upset at the recent death of his mother as an excuse.

He clearly refuses.

He doesn't care about the death of his mother, something that upsets the jury greatly. He doesm't care about what he did and he certainly isn't sorry. He believes that the universe does not care about life and death or his life or anyones so it doesn't really matter.
Needless to point out he is viewed as evil in our western society and convicted of his crime and is later sentenced to execution!
Mersault although unconventional is definately a prime example of existentialism. Existentialist (like I have said in a previous blog) believe in existence preceding essesnce. Meaning that, we re born just as we are, no moral constraints. No laws, nothing. So why should we live any other way. Existentialists live from moment to moment, where moral vaues always change depending on the sitution. Meursault lived moment to moment, and this particular moment he was so bored he was driven to kill someone.
A prime existentialist.

Keynes - Digging and filling holes - Pointless or Perfect?

John Maynard Keynes was an economist who completely changed the face of the economy and indeed the capitalist system. But whether for better or worse is still debated in todays modern society. He completely rejected current economical theories like the free market.
His main theories are on money, what it is and what it does. He completely overturned any conventional views of money that it was a commodity and that it had a price based on supply and demand.
Therefore in conventional terms, the price of money would be interest rates. So if there was a high demand for money but a lack of it then the interest rate would rise, whereas if you flooded the market with money then the interest rate would fall drmatically. This was deemed by classical economist as the key to economic growth.
Keynes went against all the conventional views and believed that money was merely a SECONDARY factor in economy, and in fact it was the real economy, the REAL resources of the economy, precious metals or materials etc. He believed that in order to ensure economical growth you had to mirror the real economy, ensure that there was economical production going on this would create more jobs, for instance digging holes just to fill them again. His idea was to create jobs in order to put money in everyone's pocket so that they will go out and spend that money ensuring economical growth. However, there are negative points. In order to pay everyone the Government had to print MORE money, devaluing currency just so they could keep people employed in pointless jobs and undermining social stability.
So for Keynes, money is not an active factor in the economy, it doesn't make a difference to the rate of economical growth. The only thing you have to do with money is make sure there is enough of it going round in order to keep economical activity going. Completely opposite to classical economists who believe that money IS the key factor of economical growth. It is the only activity in the economy.
This can be mirrored in todays soceity. You can see with Labour, they took a more Keynesian view by creating government benifits and giving money to those who needed it. These people can then take these benefits and spend them how they like and investing money in infrastructure to create more jobs. But the Conservatives, believe that making cuts is the only way to save us from a recession. They believe cutting back on benefits will improve the value of the economy because there is a higher demand for money pushing up interest rates.

Logical Posivitism - If it can't be bottled, don't use it!

Logical positivism was born out of a movement known as the 'Vienna circle'. Members of this movement completely relied on science and rejected everything that couldn't be proved to be true, i.e anything metaphysical for instance.




From this movement logical positivism was born. Logical positivists work on a theory called the verification principle. Basically they believe that anything that cannot be verified cannot be trusted and should be completly rejected. Something must be true independently and could be codified in a scientific manner in order for it to be verified. In this, logical positivists largely rejected anything metaphysical, as these were merely essences or assertions they could not be verified or codified and therefore could not be trusted. They were not rejected as being wrong, merely not as having a meaning.
HOWEVER, there are criticisms of this theory. Karl popper, one of the most influencial characters in philosophy destroyed the verification principle claiming it to be ridiculous as it could not be verified to be correct or true itself! This meant that in the eyes of Karl popper, if he was a logical positivist the verification principle is merely an assertion of what could prove something to be true (if that makes any sense!)
A lot of philosophical theories are based on assertions, for instance Sigmeund Freud's theory on the ID being the repressed part of the ego and causing the animal urges could be completely rejected, as the ID cannot be bottled and examined to be the 'caveman' part of the brain.
I think a lot of this applies to journalism today in that Journalism in news can only be based on fact, completely accurate fact. Anything else that cannot be verified is merely dismissed as comment, and as I know from doing journalism, comment can NOT be trusted! Just like the logical positivists!

Tom Wolfe - The new journalism

New journalism is a term referring to the new style of reporting that was used by journalists such a Tom Wolfe and others.

Although described as a feauture/magazine style of writing Tom Wolfe wrote in an article that it wasn't like that at all. In fact it was more like writing a story, reporters who adopted this style of writing had to apply a fictional characteristics to the article.

It isn't really known where and how this new style of writing came from or who used it first.

New journalism can be closely linked with realism, in fact Tom Wolfe and the other advocates of the new style of reporting actually adopted elements of realism into their work. This was because their was no way of lying or hiding the truth. All of the information was there. For the reader to see. Everything that happened was there and there was no spin, or altering the truth.

The were criticisms of the new style. But mostly about the writers that adopted it. For instance, it was claimed that while Wolfe insisted that using the new technique expressed the personality of the subjects he was writing about, he was in fact just holding up a 'fun house mirror' meaning that people didn't really care whether it was a true representation or not.

'Gonzo journalism' something we have practiced ourselves is actually a form of new journalism. Gonzo journalism, does take a fictional stance on what you are writing about, but it is where uninteresting things become interesting and vice versa. I really enjoy Gonzo journalism, however, I can see that people may not take to it as it merely mentions the actual facts of what you are writing about rather than them being concentrated on as in a normal news piece.

New journalism really applies to modern society. Look at The Sun for instance, doesn't stick to the same conventions as say The Times, new journalism in a way can be compared to the debate about the tabloid journalism. People need change o be kept interested, evolution and improvement are needed in society to keep up with peoples needs rather that people changing themselves to meet the needs of society.

Election Night – A Gonzo Description.

Walking down the road I knew that this wasn’t just a normal walk in. I knew, as I was walking down that road at half nine, that I probably wouldn’t be walking back until about six the following morning. That was the worst thought. That I was going to be at university for a full day. No sleep. No break. No decent food, nothing but the vending machine, the studio and the newsroom.
So, I finally arrived at about 10am, not that the time is important. Why bother looking at the time when I knew this room was going to be my new friend for the next, well what seemed an eternity.
The hustle and bustle had already started. Surprising, usually its dead at ten. The room seemed to be filled with excitement at the upcoming event, a feeling that would switch throughout the day from excitement to stress, stress to dread, dread to exhaustion, then back to excitement again.
12pm. Ten hours to go till we started our LIVE coverage. Everyone was starting to settle in to their individual roles. I think the anticipation of what was going to happen made people panic more than actually doing it. OB’s were being planned and tested all over the shop. First years were working on camera skills, whilst presenters were sitting around just waiting for their time to shine. How had people prepared, early nights? Coffee? Sugary food? Sending your body into sudden shock by breaking away from normal routine was insane. I decided to keep mine normal lots of water and a late night. This felt better. I had pushed my body clock back to a time my body could accept. Not quite six am, but now my body was used to staying up late rather than think it was getting an early night.
The night grew closer and closer and with going live looming ever nearer the mood turned into stress. What still needed to be done? A big sign on the board saying rehearsals at 7.30pm meant that it must be close. This still needed to be done. That still needed to be done. In actual fact, everything was done. The studio was up running. All skype connections had been established. We had OB’s. We had presenters. We had cameras. It was ready. Everyone returned to the newsroom. All sitting together there had already been tension within the group. Catherine was right. The last thing we needed was to fight with each other, for the sake of the coverage running smoothly it was important to listen to one another and not get touchy when we were asked to do something. At the end of the day we were all doing a job, and trying to get it done.
The sun was finally disappearing. People were playing various sports games out on the field. People were drinking in the terrace bar. People were going home. Not us. We were there still in that newsroom probably being watched by the site stewards on the little camera. OB reporters had left for their posts, people were now coming back and forth between the studio and the news room all the time keeping their eyes on the big screen that had constantly been playing BBC live coverage of the election watching for any inkling there might be.
9pm. The smell of Chinese food had absolutely stunk out the newsroom. People were hungry and desperately eyeing up the vending machine for anything they hadn’t eaten that day. Please. No more teas, crunchies and mini cheddars.
10pm. This was it. That edgy tense music started. Graham Bell took to the presenting like a duck to water. There was not a single nervous energy coming off him. Sure there was sweat, but those lights, the whole room was boiling. Stress, bodies and lighting made sure it was like that all night. The first two hours I was too excited, too nervous, for any tiredness to even come into the equation.
I can remember thinking how uncomfortable the poor first year lying on the floor with the boom mic must have been.
Shit. My concentration slipped, the autocue froze, I panicked but managed to find where I was. Saved myself. Couldn’t let that happen again, I MUST concentrate.
12pm. The studio was even hotter. A couple of minutes break as the top of the hour rolled forward. Adverts were playing; I can’t even remember what they were the only advertisement I remember that night was from the Pudsey bear on Graham’s towel. He switched with Claire. The only person who could follow his lead, I swapped with Kayleigh. I was now presenting the OB’s and was terrified. The one thing I remember thinking. What If I can’t understand any of them!
The talkback in my ear ALWAYS hurts. Talking both to Brian, the director and listening to Claire while she was throwing over to me was hard, and sometimes I was nearly caught out on camera. I knew my friends were watching.
The final two hours or so we thought. We’d completely lost autocue but Graham had done this enough to know exactly what he was doing. At this point I had changed into a large hoodie. The studio just smelt of sweat and bodies. It was too hot. Too tense. We just wanted the result. Who was going to be Winchesters representative?
As OB’s dried up and Southampton ordering a recount it was down to Stu, our reporter down at the Winchester count. 6am. The sound had gone. I was literally on the edge of my seat waiting. “What’s happening Stu? Stu? Can you hear me Stuart?” No one knew what to do. Deathly silence filled he studio. Everyone was in there now.

“IT’S BRINE. STEVE BRINE’S GOT IT!”

We had got through it without falling asleep. People were complaining about stomach aches, the smell in the studio and the fact it was daylight outside. But it was done.

We had done it. The only student live election coverage.
And we had done it.

Wilhelm Reich - Here's to the orgasm!

Now that I have grabbed your attention...

Reich, a psychoanalysist and Psychiatrist was an avid follower and supporter of Freud's theories about sexual repression. One of the most radical and unconventional figures in psychiatry he was a MASSIVE believer in the power of the orgasm. He believed that every living thing had an energy inside them that could only be released by an orgasm. The bigger the orgasm the more pent up energy was released.
He believed the orgasm was an energy regulator. But because people are constrained by social conventions and expectations we have developed this armour to block sexual energy from being released leading to a build up and potential mental health issues. A theory that is compatible with those views of Freud.
Reich also claimed to have discovered 'orgone' energy. This is a cosmic energy that Reich claimed could be collected in orgone energy accumulatores or 'cloud busters', which he would often make his patients sit in. He believed it had a healing potential.




All in all, reich believed we had an orgiastic potency. Basically, people who were abe to really free themselves and surrender themselves to the orgasm were trully happier people and had a greater 'ogiastic potency', but those who were more confined by their armour, or social constraints had a low potency, and were more at risk of poor mental health.

Well then!

WINOL - Week 5

Ok. So I haven't updated for a little while. Computor has been messing up a bit but I though I would just do a little blog about the last few weeks of WINOL.
So week five, I was presenting sports again for the third time. This time I was definately A LOT calmer. I felt like I was used to the whole process and due to great directing by Josh the whole studio felt quite calm (even though Stu is calm EVERY TIME he presents!) Every week we have been improving on deadlines and scripting getting it all done early so as to leave the production people with enough time to get the studio prepared and run through so that when it comes to the live runs it is SPOT on.
There are always a few glitches, but presenting I felt quite calm and actually excited about it. I know that I still have a few things to work on in regards to my London accent but with more practice I hope to be able to switch it on and off whenever I have to. I think a lot of the issue is with nerves but over the last couple of weeks, not just in presenting but in reporting too, I feel like my confidence has grown and that I feel like I CAN do it whereas before I would always doubt myself.
In regards to the story in week 5, Catherine and myself went to film a piece on the fairtrade fashion show. It was an 'And finally..." piece so we wanted to make it very entertaining. As well as the fashion show there was music and dancing so we got a lot of footage of that. We had taken two camera's so that we could get loads of different angles and put them together in a sequence. Unfortunately when it came to editing, the tape from one of the camera's had NOTHING on it even though whilst recording we always double check. So we worked with what we had from camera one. We managed to make it look quite good, it could have looked better with more angles but that's just the way things go sometimes. Again, due to the fact I was presenting someone else had to do the voiceover, and sometimes in the feedback sessions I wonder if people know that I went and got the package! Haha. Unfortunately, our bulletin ran over the ten minutes which was a MASSIVE problem so my story was cut from the package... AGAIN. But it happens although we were reminded that this was a very bad thing as in a real situation there would have been all sorts of problems with scheduling and if we were an advertisement reliant channel like ITV then we could have lost the company A LOT of money!

EXISTENTIALISM - Who are you?

You are in charge of your own life. You are responsible for giving your own life meaning. If you don't YOU are ruled over by other people. This is existentialism. Well not just that, but that is one of the general views. You're in charge of giving your own life meaning and being passionate about it despite certain obstacles that may drag you down, like grief, boredom, despair etc.
One of the main themes in existentialism was "existence before essence" which meant that a persons actions and what they did or their 'actual life' defined who they were instead of some predetermined 'wish to be' that lead them to behave in a way that was human.
Essence is therefore not what makes you human but your own decisions and actions. The way you are creates your meaning in life, your desire to be something does not. Existentialism relates alot to news. "News is about people doing things", rather than what people are thinking or feeling to do. Existentialism, is about people 'doing things' to give them a purpose, not about their desire to be something. Thus through your own choices and actions you give purpose and value to your life. Nothing else can affect this, nothing outside the person himself can dictate his own essence, so existence defines essence.
But once people have defined themselves, Sartre (a philosopher who followed existentialism) said that as humans we must then be responsible for the essence or profile that we create for ourselves only then can man be trully free.

WINOL week 4.

So, haven't blogged for a bit. I'm getting stuff together to blog on HCJ at the minute. I thought I would update you on the most recent WINOL. So. I had gone out and filmed my package before the news meeting had come round. I had followed the volunteers on the 'Big Tidy Up' which is an event organised by the university to clean up the local area. I had spent ages thinking about what shots I wanted and the interviews I should get. It took a couple of hours to get together and finding that only SEVEN students had volunteered I decided that that should be my angle. I've realised, doing journalism in Winchester, NO ONE will bad mouth anyone, especially not at the university. So explaining my footage at the news meeting on Monday, we decided it wasn't strong enough and went to film fair trade instead. Making the 'rubbish flop' story a nib. I went out and filmed and edited both, but as i was presenting could not voice the VT which Kayleigh James did for me instead, a very good job too! I feel like I did a really good job on filming the nib, but as fairtrade was really rushed and last minute I didn't put as much thought into the detail. The story was better for fairtrade than for the big tidy up though. So I clearly have to work on my putting together of stories.
I had finished and handed in all the times in/out words and links with fifteen minutes to spare. Now all I had to worry about, was presenting.
To be honest, I wasn't as nervous about presenting as I had been the previous week. I think confidence helped me as well. Over coming my 'glottlestop' is something that will come with practice but I feel like I tried extremely hard throughout my own part in the bulletin. Everything was very calm in the gallery and having time to go over and over the bulletin made me feel a lot better and a lot less rushed. I found myself really enjoying it this week, and hope next week goes even better! Especially as the BJTC are in!

WINOL - Week Three

Week three... ALREADY! So this week I was informed that I was going to be the presenter for sports! EEK. I know what you're thinking... "Oh no!" Do you know how i know that? Becuase I thought the EXACT same thing!
I went to the news meeting Monday morning, but before anything kicked off I was asked by the news editor to go and sit in on a meeting of the Hampshire cabinet. I was quite nervous. I hadn't done it before and could picture myself saying something pretty stupid and being laughed out of the place! I was greeted by the press officer who introduced me to a few of the members and then the meeting kicked off, not before the head of the meeting welcomed me (all very embarrassing when everyone turns to look at you and your fumbling with an umbrella!) but I smiled and the meeting began! Mostly they were talking about reaching 80% of the targets that had been set for them and what they were going to do with the reward grants that were given to them. So I took a few notes and then came back to the newsroom. I missed the meeting unfortunately but had been told by the union president that there was a staff and student car parking forum that I could cover on Tuesday afternoon. I booked out a camera and tripod and went down there. Tommy Geddes was holding the meeting and was discussing the new park and ride opening in April. I got a few GV's and an interview with the guy in charge of campus travel etc and managed to get a good clip of him talking about how they had huge trouble with parking and that it was massively in demand.
There was one problem. I was presenter so I was unable to do a PTC or a voice over. Myself and the news editor decided to make it a nib. But because we made this decision so last minute I had already edited it as a VT so there were silent gaps on either side of the interview for a voiceover where usually it should just be an interview at the end. Because I had to practice the script and do run throughs I had no time to write a script or do timing so I left that to another member of the team. A mistake as when it came to the bulletin the timing was off and the script was not long enough for the presenter to cover the silent parts of the nib.
However, the studio element of the bulletin is improving week by week (no i'm not just saying that because I was one of the presenters) production members had said it felt alot calmer and although I was nervous, when it came to the live broadcast I was feeling alot more confident. All it came down to was being calm and reading the autocue slowly and clearly. If I had panicked it would have been a completely different story!
Well done this week! Hope it goes just as smooth in the coming weeks!

WINOL - Week 2

So Winol in general this week was alot better than last week. But still not upto scratch. The lack of news on Mondays news meeting made it difficult for everyone to get kick started. Two of our reporters Claire and Jon had already filmed things where the rest of us produced ideas that were simply put down to not being very news worthy.
I had come in with a couple of ideas, but for various reasons i've had to either push them back a bit, or not do them at all. Our news editor had told us it had been a slow news week, and it was. In the end I had decided to go with a nib for the national NUS elections, it was only going to be twenty seconds and could fit in with Jon's story on the general elections and how students were not doing enough.
Luckily on tuesday the student union president Jimmy Weighall and the rest of his team were holding a meeting about it so I decided to get in touch to see if I could go down and interview him about the elections and whether he thought students paid enough attention or even really cared about voting in someone that was supposed to be representing THEM at a conference discussing policies that solely affected them. He said that it was always and always will be a big debate. But really they should do because its discussions about things like student loans, a big problem currently among students, and if you don't pick someone who is going to represent YOUR ideas then things will simply not change.
I thought he had made a valid point. I then worked hard to get some GV's. Footage of students, of the uni and also of the meeting itself and thought I had done a good job. Even my news editor had said that it was good. I then had to write a script and organise a link with on of the production team so that it fitted in with what Jon had already covered in his own.
Editing was easier and quicker this week. I felt confident that i knew what to do, there were one or two little hiccups where I had to ask for help, but overall i felt the process was alot easier and faster.
I finally had everything finished and it now just needed to be put in the bulletin. Paul (the managing editor) asked if I could be on one of the cameras in the studio to help them film. I thought this would be a good oppertunity to see what goes on in the studio as eventually I will probably be in there so I decided to go and do it. After the seven attempt shambles of last week Brian had told everyone they had one take and one take only. The team had a quick run through/rehersal and then went for it. It was going really well until... sods law... my package.
Now, I still don't really know what happened, but they started running my nib as planned and then started reading out another reporters audio for their own nib about a flasher who had flashed children. I believe the suspect being a peadophile was mentioned or something along those lines and then low and behold, MY interviewee appeared talking about the NUS elections, making him look like a suspect. So the whole thing had to be taken out of the bulletin as that simply wasnt the truth. Gutting for me because I wouldnt get any credit or feedback and it was an entire waste of my week!
However, I felt like the bulletin went ALOT better this week and Joey did a really good job presenting and kept his cool when there was a hiccup in production so well done to him, and well done to everyone else for pulling together especially after the ear bashing we got last week haha!
So next week is another week of WINOL, and i'll just work harder so this time my package will hopefully be even better!

Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche was a nineteenth century German philosopher who in the end went insane and died!
Its often claimed by people of religion that he was a Nazi because of his hatred of religion. He believed that religion like judaism and christianity was a religion of slaves. The Jews and christians were restricted by moral codes that were largely based on following this one 'God.' Nietzsche himself believed that 'God is dead'. He believed that there was no creator of the universe, and that time was just a continuous thing with no beginning or end.

He truly HATED religion and in his theory of the ubermensch and untermensch he deemed those that followed religion as the weaker race. Basically in this theory he outlined that there was a race made of higher beings and that these 'supermen' would evolve and rule over the weaker race. Many of these 'supermen' were influential cultural figures such as Napoleon and Wagnar, people who changed history, or were unique and different.

Another substantial theory was Nietzsche's theory on what drove man, or the 'will to power'. He believed that things like ambition, achievement, the drive to reach top goals in life were all examples of the will to power. There are many different theories on what drives man, for instance Freuds theory on the will to pleasure, or another, the will to live. Each have very different outlines on what drives man, but with Nietzsche, he believes that the determination to be great is what pushes man.

I guess a lot of this can be seen in journalism. Newspapers, news channels even magazines strive to be the ubermensch or claim to be so. The drive to be the best source for news pushes people to go to extreme measures to get the best story. But I guess it can be seen in all measures of society. Everyone wants to be the best they can, but it doesn't mean we are weaker or stronger than anyone else. Just different.

WINOL - Semester 2

This week was the re launch of WINOL - Winchester News Online. I'm not going to lie, being given the new role of news reporter absolutely terrified me! I don't say that easily... but I was scared! Scared of being the one to mess up, the one to let people down but I thought what the hell! A new role, more hands on a chance to really put in some good work. I was nervous but looking forward to it!
We had our first weekly news meeting at twelve on monday. This is where we discussed ideas that we had for the upcoming bulletin. Ideally we should probably have a few ideas or even have something already rolling just incase our initial idea falls through and we're left with nothing as we discovered on Tuesday when pretty much every story had been left dead in the water. Myself and the news editor decided it might be a good idea for me to book out a camera and go and film the universitys 'green day' as part of 'Go Green Week', my beat was the union and the students so as this had been organised by an events management student it was a good idea for me to cover.
I booked out a camera and went to see what I could film (after a refreshment on cameras given by Kayleigh James). As expected there were a few stalls but... something that might be fun! An energy bike. Surely if I got shots of a student on the bike it may make the package a bit more interesting! We managed to get the student union president on the bike, but unfortunately I did not use as much of this as i should have in the package. I thought that my package might have needed to be a bit serious as I didn't know it was going to be an 'An Finally..." peice. So I didn't really use much of the light hearted footage I filmed.
I decided to get an interview with the organiser and also the environment manager for the university. Unfortunately the first interview was over exposed and then when I went back to redo the interview it was too dark!! I decided to use the darker one as it was the better interview to use. Although I feel like it has taught me to always go with the prefect location and always to check the camera!
So the time eventually came to edit it. In all honesty once I was out filming the time flew by and it wasn't as hard as I thought it would be (minus the one dodgy interview). With careful planning it would have been much better! Editing it... was going to be a different story. I literally sat there in front of the computor like 'OHHHHHH SHOOT' with probably more choice language. I didn't know what I was doing! Luckily my lovely group mates were one hand to answer any question and eventually I had the hang of it! "Lucy its literally just A and B" as Kayleigh AND Catherine had told me. And it was! Once I had the hang of it I literally got it edited inside a day and managed to get my voiceover and headline done the next day. Although in future i'll make sure I need a headline clip I will do it first, just so its the best bit! My voiceover was a bit quiet so i've decided to book out a camera and practice with the audio levels just so I can test out what works best in different situations. I think nerves didn't help the voice over too much which is something I WILL learn to control!!
There are LOADS of things I have to work on next week but Brian suggested that we take one thing that we're week on and kick it completely. Which is what I aim to do. On the brighter side... Loads of people said I sounded well posh! HAHAA!

Newspeak in Consumer Society - SUNNY DELIGHT!

[Scroll down for video.]

I chose ‘Sunny Delight’ as an Orwellian example in modern society because I thought that it demonstrated where the fictional language newspeak, in ‘1984’ is most used… Consumerism.
The company responsible for Sunny Delight promoted it as being healthy and something that kids would pick over fizzy junk drinks like coca cola and cherryade despite the fact it was actually good for them. Sunny Delight was marketed on the basis that it was an orange juice. Technically this was right, but by neglecting to mention it was largely made of water and corn syrup and only 2% juice and had additives in it such as Beta Carotene (used for the orange colour) consumers were manipulated both visually and psychologically into believing that the drink was in fact a type of orange juice.
So mum’s all over the UK rushed out to buy a drink that their children finally enjoyed that was healthier than the ‘yummy’ soft drinks like coca cola, this was because they were manipulated by the use of language and the removal of certain facts which lead them to believe they simply had to go out and buy the drink.
The marketing hype lead the food commission to launch an investigation into the drink. The BBC later released a report saying that the food commission agency had actually found it to be “roughly equivalent to a Coca Cola-type product.” Their expensive marketing campaign which had been extremely successful finally crashed when it emerged that a little girl had actually turned orange as a result of drinking too much, largely because of the beta carotene.
Sunny delight had to be redesigned and re-launched as ‘SunnyD’ which contains 70% juice and NO added sugar or additives.
Overall, the company behind sunny delight decided to omit certain facts from their advertisements and made the drink to be something it wasn’t. To think otherwise would have been completely ridiculous. Simply by marketing it on being orange juice it became “the healthy alternative” thus making mums rush out and buy it for their children.
I think that this applies a lot to our consumer society. So many adverts omit certain facts about their products in an attempt to manipulate the audience into buying/behaving in a certain way. Their control of language allows them to manipulate people into thinking a certain way, for instance, for men, if you buy lynx you will instantly become attractive to hot women.
So next time you watch an advert, just remember, who know what they’re trying to make you do!


P.S – Hope you like our mock advert. We did this to show just how manipulative advertisements can be!!




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSK0RJFxJNQ