Claire's Blog

Free Press, not Free Pass

2010-11-14T05:49:00.000-08:00

The United Kingdom has a tradition of 'free press' however journalists have few rights in UK law distinct from any other citizen.
Journalists are therefore required to act as 'the eyes and ears of the public' without much authority.

What facilitates journalism in our society is 'Freedom of Expression' .
There is no written constitution on the topic of freedom of expression however our rights are 'residual' -meaning you are allowed to exercise your freedom of expression without constraint as long as your activity is not in breach of the law.
The European Convention on Human Rights 2000, The Contempt of Court Act 1981 and The Human Rights Act 1998 all help in providing a rough code of how we should report fairly and accurately.

Freedom of Expression has depended traditionally on jury trial and the rule against prior restraint.

When acting as a practicing journalist it is essential that we acquire the ability to recognise risk.
Once a risk has been identified it is then necessary for the journalist to be able to indemnify him/herself.
Journalists who are guilty of 1) reporting/publishing errors 2) being careless 3) being neglectful are in breach of Media Law.

There are systems of regulation in place to help aid a 'fair press'.
Ofcom, the media regulator has a broadcasting code, if this is not adhered to, Ofcom has the power to fine or bring about sanctions against anyone in breach of their code of ethics.
There also exist the Press Complaints Commission which exists to adjudicate on complaints and comments regarding the press. The PCC's code of ethics also helps guide journalists in their work.

Law is a bore

2010-11-14T05:47:00.000-08:00

I cannot leave the HCJ module behind without a small obituary.
Essentially the syllabus encouraged us to be more knowledgeable, well-read individuals; we covered history, philosophy and economics. We studied music, literature, and art.
We developed our interests and our intellectual habits. Horrie didn’t seem interested in producing a class of students able merely to regurgitate text books onto paper in exams, he wanted to invest something in us that would keep and grow, that seed he planted was curiosity.
These ceaselessly curious minds that Horrie cultivated have now to reign themselves in, away from Joyce, Marx and Wagner, take leave of art and return to what really makes a journalist, FACTS.

Facts, just like the law can be dry and unimaginative, but it’s with a journalist’s knowledge and curiosity that the facts come alive.

If a journalists mind is like a book, with knowledge imprinted on every page, then there should be a whole chapter on Media Law.
This chapter is a tool, an essential tool to help journalists report fairly and accurately.
This knowledge on law is what sets us apart from other members of the public who produce citizen journalism to varying degrees of success.

The senior law lord, Lord Bingham emphasises the importance of the press and the requirement for it to be informed and diligent ‘The proper functioning of a modern participatory democracy requires that the media be free, active, professional and enquiring’.

In order for the press to meet these requirements, aspiring journalists must be conscientious in reporting according to the law. This blog, from now on, will follow areas of the law vital to any budding reporter or broadcaster.

Smith for my Supper

2010-08-12T12:46:00.000-07:00

Most of last terms lectures were dominated by revision for our unseen test.
We were spat out of Horrie's classroom with more information to digest than a nun in a strip joint.
Our revision brought together the vast, broad topics we had touched on over the year.
As a romantic thinker, the topic with gave me the most indigestion was Economic Theory.

I'd met Adam Smith in first year lectures but still felt if I saw him again, I wouldn't recognise him, let alone be able to tell you what he stood for.
Seeing as the test was fast approaching I set about trying to decipher my notes and here's what I understand of this Smith chap.
So as far as I can gather, Smith wanted to initiate a shift from mercantilism- Economic activity which solely benefits king or country, to encourage more production to help distribute the wealth of the country.
Smith felt feudalism-where citizens produced only what they needed for survival, curtailed 'the individual's right to wealth'.
To combat this, Smith pioneered 'the free market' which enabled individuals to pursue their inalienable rights, such as the right to the acquisition of wealth.

Smith pushed the idea that more production would bring the cost of products down and make products more available whilst insisting that the quality of the product would not decrease.
By these means, no doubt many of my dutch ancestors flourished, for the dutch had been busy manufacturing slim, fast ships which when legal restrictions were removed and free market trading was introduced, began jetting off to create a huge commercial empire for the Dutch.

The Brits of course, along with the Spanish and pretty much the rest of Europe (us Dutch are so advanced) were busy building huge, lumbering great vessels for war and defence.

Soon the rest of Europe caught on and the free market blossomed.
Smith pointed out in his work 'The Wealth of Nations' that the reason the free market was so proficient was because it relied on something called 'Spontaneous Order' or 'the hidden hand'.
This hand was regulating the economy in no organized or controlled way at all, Smith maintained that simply each individual pursuing their own economic interest would keep the economy afloat. There was no need for governmental control or a devised structure; this 'hands-off' objective became known as 'laissez faire' economics (essentially-leave alone).

If you leave everyone alone to seek out their own profit and produce then everything, eventually on a large scale, will even out. He uses the example of a man buying dinner.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

i.e. they produce these goods for their own benefit and it's just a happy coincidence that we all benefit too.
I say hand me the Gaviscon!

2 hours with Johnny Depp or a good book?

2010-04-26T02:40:00.000-07:00

The incorrigible geek that I am, I’d already read the required reading for the Easter break, Tom Wolfe’s ‘The New Journalism’ and so set about working my way through the work of writers featured in Wolfe’s epilogue.
I started perhaps naively with the work of Hunter. S. Thompson.
This was a bit like a teetolleer downing a bottle of tequila and frankly I’m still hungover.
My prejudicial opinion of Thompson was inspired by the mumbling yank portrayed by Depp in the film of his epic novel/non-fiction ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’.
I presumed from the film that his journalistic writing would be a torrent of incoherent musings, only impressive by the scale of Thompson’s excess.

I decided to push aside my prudence however and delve into ‘Fear and Loathing’ myself.
I have to say I now understand why his writing was and still is so revered.
At a time when novelistic techniques were being used to such poignant effect, when Wolfe and Talease were breaking the seal of journalistic convention; Thompson stood out.
His writing doesn’t make you say ‘ohh this is different’ it simply take you by the scruff of the neck and nuts you in the head!

I’m currently half way through a biography entitled ‘Outlaw journalist: The life and Times of Hunter S Thompson in which his abusive persona and doubtless talent are laid next to one another.

Like someone playing a fantastic practical joke, his genius and his cruelty is exposed.

Rumour has it that our first lecture is a screening of ‘Fear and Loathing’.
My advice would be to bypass the eye candy and read the book which has pace and vigour. In fact the book is more exciting than 2 hours of Johnny Depp….

WOW big words. If Johnny would like to come round to my place and challenge that, he’s more than welcome.

When Wilhelm get's that feeling...

2010-03-14T12:05:00.000-07:00

And so Brian stood at the front of the room and gaily announced in his Irish lilt
‘you cannot be truly happy until you are having proper orgasms’ to which we inevitably laughed and waited for him to attribute his statement, which he did.
They were the words of Wilhelm Reich an Austrian psychoanalyst who followed Freud’s path of psychiatric discovery even deeper into the woods.

Reich concurred with much of what Freud deduced about the mind, he particularly bought into the idea that we are mentally made up of our ID (our instinctive impulses), our Ego (Our civilised self), and our Super Ego (our prohibitive self which controls our ID).
Freud believed we could aid behavioural or mental problems through talking, he practiced a lot of free association; letting his patients speak in a stream of conciousness until at some point they spewed up something which had a deeper significance, something which could explain all their hang ups and complexes (Freudian word).
Reich on the other hand thought that focusing on the mind had it’s constraints, he believed we should focus on our bodies, that we should self medicate our depression or insecurity with a lot of sex, whenever we feel like it, with whomever we fancy. The simple act of fornication would free us of what he called ‘Orgone Energy’, essentially a sexual tension which we accumulated day to day.
He believed that we were constantly absorbing this ‘Orgone Energy’ like a gas, and a build up of this gas would result in tension and stress, the only means of releasing this gas was through having an orgasm.

Reich thought our sexual desires, which were subdued by our Super-Ego were legitimate and one should satisfy them. He then began to consider the ID and whether our instinctive impulses were destructive, if not why should they be concealed? Why does society fulminate against sexual promiscuity?
Why were we so repressed and who was repressing us?
These were all questions that could only be answered by history, tradition and anthropology.
The 1960’s saw a resurgence in Reich’s philosophy, the idea that ‘free love’ was not only acceptable but ‘good for your soul’ dominated young culture.
Much was born from Reichian ideas but it he still present today?
We certainly have popularised a one-night stand culture and though men are often admired for sexual prowess, women are still berated and condemned.
Will Reich’s ideals ever become social norm? Would we be happier and healthier if we were just a little more focused on our pursuit for an orgasm and a little less on the latest episode of Eastenders?

Was Marvin Gaye was right all along? And we are just all in need of some ‘sexual healing’?

‘As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams’

2010-03-04T06:57:00.000-08:00

And so we were introduced to Existentialism, the interest in human existence.
Who we are and how we function. It brought me back to my A-level drama, which was a 2 year course in existentialism, explored through Samuel Backett and Franz Kafka. Having studied ‘The Trail’ and crawled around stage in ‘The Metamorphosis’ I was encouraged to think about it what it means to live, day-to-day.
‘The Metamorphosis’ follows the reaction of a young man, waking up to find he has taken the form of insect. On this discovery, his main concern is how he will attend work, how he will converse with his parents and sister, essentially how he will continue to function as he had done before.
Kafka suggests through his novella that all humans are drawn to a life of routine, of ritualistic behaviour which we hold as our reason d’etre.
We wake in the morning to complete the tasks we have set ourselves for that day.
Gregor Samsa, leads a banal life of habit and although he appears a loving son and someone of a good nature he is not missed by his family when an infection eventually leads to his physical demise.
This story presents the idea that we live to function which is emulated in ‘The outsider’ by Albert Camus.
This novel presents Merasult, an unconscious nihilist who sees life with little perspective and no purpose. He lives in a scary world of calm observation which alienates/dislocates him from his peers. His extreme indifference hinders his ability to feel any emotion other than the physical feelings of hunger or tiredness. When he murders an Arab with no malice or antipathy he fails to emotively conceive what he has done.
Condemned for his lack of remorse and apparent nonchalance he is sentenced to death, which he waits for with fear only for the physical anquish.
During his last days in prison he is visited by a priest, who implores him to repent his sin. Mersault consistently shows disdain for the priest and for the religion he preaches ‘I hadn’t the time to work up an interest for something that didn’t interest me’ and is not concerned with any ‘after-life’ that might exist ‘Do you really think that when you die, you die outright, and nothing remains?’ ‘I said: yes’.

Merauslt’s disregard for morality contrasts to ‘The Fall’s’ protagonist Jean-Baptiste Clamence who is unequivocally quixotic in his pursuit of moral sanctity.
His endless yearning to succeed in everything in hidden by an apparent moral crusade which he eventually finds hollow. Clamence tells his story of realisation to a passing acquaintance, to whom he admits ‘I lived consequently without any other continuity than, from day to day, I, I, I.’

Existentialism is said to have been instigated by an incursion of atheism.
The increasingly popular idea that ‘God is Dead’ lead to a crisis of purpose.
No longer did people convince themselves they were born to ‘serve god’ or to fulfil some higher moral purpose. This gave way to the question ‘why are we here?’.

There's no such thing as good or bad; just thinking makes it so

2010-02-15T15:25:00.000-08:00

And so HCJ started again and we encircled Horrie to hear about Nietzsche, about the paradign shifts that have pulled along our cultural history like a horse drawn carriage. We learnt about the reluctant union of science and art and how scientific discoveries altered the worlds of our forefathers.
Amidst all this learning came a concurrent thread which I remember considering when reading Rousseau, is our behaviour predetermined when we are born or are we taught it?
In Emile, Rousseau explores this nature vs. nurture question.
The same question arises when studying Freud, who acknowledges we have an innate desire to behave in animalistic way, our ID and it’s our ego which prohibits, our ego is developed by our upbringing, so is our ID suppressed by society? Nietzsche believed so.
I think this is the basis of Kant and Nietzsche’s disagreement.
Are we naturally good or bad? Or is it thinking that makes it so?
Do we really have an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other from the day we’re born?
Nietzsche believed that morality was not something innate; humans have not anthropologically developed a sense of right and wrong. We are taught a societal perception of right and wrong and behaving in accordance with the social conventions, epitomises our enslaved mentality. We have confined and curtailed our behaviour to adhere to a dogmatic religious code which is Apollonian.
This contradicted Kant’s theory that we all have an instinctive knowledge of when we committing a moral sin.

Nietzsche thought moral and legal law infringed the pursuit of the individual, that it discouraged a life of Dionysian indulgence. Dionysus is the Ancient Greek god of wine, the inspirer of ritual madness and ecstacy and Nietzsche was a big fan, he criticized religon for it’s supression of innate hedonism, something which was encouraged by a Dionysian lifestyle.

Nietzsche believed our ideas of right and wrong or good and evil have evolved over time originating from religious doctrine, this was a form of control, which Nietzsche did not see as a bad thing necesserily, he believed religion should happily control the ‘common people’, the ‘bungled and the botched’ as long as the ‘hero’, the great man could suceed.
So does religion really breed control and restraint, or rather does it sustain a consensus for the masses, does soicety run more efficiently on the idea that we all share a common moral code? If an individual broke the law because he genuinely saw no wrong doing in taking drugs, he would have no defence. Law (generally) is not subjective and cannot be if it is to maintain order so is the same not true of moral law?
Obviously people have different spectrums of good and bad, some people do things which others would find abhorent, but Kant believed that even the people who do ‘bad’ things, have a conscience and a knowledge that what they’ve done is wrong, from telling a lie to murder. Neitzsche denounced this and in his book ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ stated ‘it was a mistake to regard it as a duty to aim at the victory of good and the anhiliation of evil’.

Latest WINOL story on Potholes in Winchester

2010-02-10T09:01:00.000-08:00

Crosswords and Crufts

2010-01-29T06:19:00.000-08:00

So we return from our Christmas break, a break of over-indulgence and likely lethargy. What have we learned? Not to buy so many Christmas presents? That turkey dinner is fattening? Has in turn the arrival of the new year initiated new resolutions and new habits? I’ve certainly made a big effort to read as many newspapers as I can get my mitts on and not only do I watch BBC but I watch Sky, Al Jazeera, Fox, CNN and Euronews. I listen to vast array of radio stations (except radio 1, no newsjunkie in the world should have to subject themselves to Moyles)
I have developed a penchant for Private Eye and have forced myself to once in a while by The Daily Mail ( I actually like the crossword) (only because I can complete it, unlike The Times). Despite all this dedication, I think what I have learned above all is HOW I absorb my news. I pay stringent attention to words used, my latest gripe is the use of the word ‘quiz’ particularly in The Sun. It is usually used in reference to a murder enquiry, ‘So and So was quizzed on the murder of her two children’….I’m sorry was Anne Robinson conducting the investigation? ‘Quizzed’ to me seems like a light inquiry, such as where the nearest post office is, not what possessed someone to commit a murder! Argh!

Anyway I digress….(horrie trademark) The point is that every word printed and every phrase spoken has been chosen by a producer or editor or journalist for a specific effect, when you analyse each word it becomes easier to fathom the effect the author wishes to create.
I now see myself walking through a park full of dog walkers as a crufts official, intently assessing factors which would otherwise go over my head.

This attention to detail has spawned from our latest project, to find and research an example of something Orwellian. Namely something that relates to the totalitarian state depicted in Nineteen Eighty Four.
Horrie as an example showed us an advert for Dasdani, a bottled water produced by the coca-cola company, which was laced with bromate, essentially a carcinogenic poison.
Although this had at the time of the water’s release become public knowledge, when asked about the brand of water, most of the class, including myself inaccurately recalled the bottled water was proven to just be tap water.
This scary untruth was published after the scandal had leaked that the water contained poison, basically Coca-Cola had published ‘Mis-information’ which successfully altered the memory of the public, making the company look like silly con-men as opposed to murderers who could have poisoned millions.

My point of interest was going to be on NESTLE a company which has long suffered contention due to it’s aggressive marketing of it’s baby milk formula in the third world. I researched the subject concentrating on the language Nestle used to defend claims and the language used by the accusatory force 'Boycott Nestle'. A short video will follow this blog displaying my findings.

Clear Language: Practical or Prosiac?

2009-12-01T04:24:00.000-08:00

Having just finished reading ‘Down and out in Paris and London’ by George Orwell I went on to read his essay ‘Politics and the English Language’ which was suggested reading for our History and Context of Journalism lecture. In reading the latter I noted Orwell’s rules of English language; examples of which were

Don’t use metaphors
Use plain/simple everyday language
Never use a long word, where a short one will do
If it is possible to cut a line, cut it
Never use the passive voice if you can use the active voice

Having read the essay it was easy to recognise the author of that and the novel were one in the same.

I have to say that the novel was rather dull, it offered a factual account of Orwell’s time on the brink of poverty in Paris and London. I turned the pages will little anticipation or emotion.

It turns out; there is something to be said of ornate language.

Metaphors, similes and such provide perspective, insight. Writers often talk about their voice and what simplifying the English language does is take away that voice.

Elaborate language and detailed descriptions set the scene, set the tone, the mood.

Without these things people and places become lifeless.

Obviously dependant on vocation, reading an account of someone’s daily routine, event by event can become immensely tedious, it’s their reaction, their perspective that we value.

I recently read a novel ‘Buddha Da’ by Anne Donavon, the novel follows a Glaswegian family as their father/husband discovers and turns to Buddhism. The novel is split into chapters each written in first person narrative from the perspective of each family member, each angle is refreshing, each character tells their story in a different way. Were this novel to follow Orwell’s rules the tale would become an agenda of a family. Little more.

Don’t get me wrong there is certainly place for Orwell’s rules, administration is shrouded in jargon and vague, unclear lexis. And like most it takes me hours to dissect. Terms and conditions are usually pages of scrawl, so unclear the reader has little knowledge at all of what he/she is reading. Orwell’s named this language ‘Contagion’, essentially ‘pollution’ of language. Orwell believed contagion was used to hide the truth, which in the case of T’s and C’s is obviously the intention.

There exists an independent body that aims to work with government administrations to clarify their language, they are called the ‘Campaign for Plain English’. I think this is brilliant, political and governmental language should reveal itself, rather than hide behind the metaphorical bush of buzz words and vague phrases.

Horrie, who seems a strong advocate of Orwell’s rules recently patented his ‘bullshit generator’ aiming to decipher elaborate laguage.

Nevertheless (or ‘but’ as Horrie would prefer) plain language has it’s place, it might be in admin, even news journalism. But it is not in literature, music or poetry.

Let us enjoy the beauty of an incomprehensible piece of prose that finds a new way to describe the sway of tree’s branches in the wind.

Take Keats for example….

Tis not through envy of thy happy lot,

But being too happy in thine happiness,—

That thou, light-winged Dryad of the trees,

In some melodious plot

Of beechen green, and shadows numberless,

Singest of summer in full-throated ease.

Go on Horrie, I dare you to put that through your ‘Bullshit Generator’

Freud & Frolicking

2009-11-03T07:52:00.000-08:00

Feeling a little peaky of late, I am determined not to let my ‘blogasm’ (Chris Horrie coined this term, not me) cease. I’m going to continue and try achieving multiple ‘blogasms’. This enthusiasm for sexual metaphors has spawned from the sexual nature of recent lectures. Some cry out to return to the sexual repression of previous weeks but no we have been thrown into the works of Joyce and teachings of Freud like lamb thrown to the slaughter.

I did however did very much enjoy last week’s lecture.

Horrie of course did not hold back; he introduced the surrealism of psychoanalysis, music and art and it’s relationship with sex and let’s face it, its influence is clear.

I knew a little about the work of Freud, (and even played in a production of Oedipus at school), I also knew Kate Bush (I have 2 LP’s of hers) but I did not know that the song ‘Running up that Hill’ was based on Freud’s idea that our sexual frustration manifests itself in the form of a shadow chasing us in our dreams, the song is about running from that shadow, essentially the shady figure of sexual tension, let’s call him ‘Horny’. Horny shows up in every medium, as Chris points out.

I have lots (and lots) of books about surrealism; it is my favourite period in art. My father first encouraged my love of surrealist art by giving me a huge tome of Dali paintings when I was but a nipper. (Freud might have something to say about the fact my relationship with surrealism was born from my father, still.)

I have books on M.C.Escher and Andre Breton. I am obsessed with Salvador Dali, have visited lots of exhibitions of his work and his biggest museum and home in Figures Spain.I also love Rene Magritte, and know a great deal about him (I did my AS level French oral on ‘The life and works of Magritte’) I visited fairly recently an exhibition of his in Brussels, and want to go back, as they have a new museum there dedicated to him.

The beauty of surrealism is that there is always a sub-text, a hidden idea. Our friend 'horny' often lurks behind a giant lizard or floating limbs. There are artistic analysts how aim to understand the mind through the examination of art, there has even been testimony's in court by such people attempting to 'expertly' asses the mind of a suicide victim before she died by looking at their recent artwork.

Often within surrealism the image presents an expression of the sub-conscious. The famous melting clocks of Dali, have a definite dream-like quality. The idea of art creating a reverie, has allowed an expression of the sub-conscious. Freud believed that the sub-conscious was preoccupied more often than not with sex; this suggests artistic expression can be an outlet for sexual repression or anxiety.

Art is not the only medium that seeks to express the sub-conscious. As I look at my abundant book- shelves, I suddenly notice they ooze with sexual literature, Ideas of sexual repression and the character’s quest for liberation.

Anais Nin

Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Arthur Golden

D.H.Lawrence

Michael Houellebecq

Vladimir Nabokov

Hanif Kureishi

The last, Kureishi is my favourite writer and in novels such as ‘Intimacy’ and ‘The Black Album’ seeks to create an expose of political and sexual discovery. In ‘Intimacy’ the narrative concerns the protagonist’s yearning for sexual satisfaction, the character’s journey becomes a quest for sexual experimentation. In many of Kureishi’s novels he provides a harsh, crude portrayal of the human condition and suggests that men’s fixation with sex is their reason d’etre and there life is esstentially a quest for pleasure. Like Kureishi, Freud’s analysis of the human mind can leave one with a feeling of sadness, their idea’s reduce men to animals and the idea that the sub-conscious is pre-occupied with sex, lacks a true representation of the complexity of the mind.

I intentionally don’t touch on his portrayal of women, which is arguably misguided; I somehow think his portrayal of man is somewhat more insulting.

Why Gag Griffin?

2009-10-22T06:53:00.001-07:00

The BBC are preparing for impending doom this afternoon. Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right British National Party is set (despite much objection) to appear on tonight’s highly anticipated Question Time. Predicted protests promise to be a thousand strong.

There has been much discussion about the party’s legality, cabinet minister Peter Hain still argues that the party are an ‘unlawful body’ as there white’s only membership rule breached codes of race relations laws. However right now, they stand as a legally elected party. They gained six percent of the vote in last European election and won two MEP seats.
What irritates me about this particular debacle is that lefties are always banging on about free speech, there favourite past-time is standing outside parliament with lentil soup lobbying on behalf of some pressure group about some fellow’s human rights.
Surely if they really believe in human rights for all they should support the public’s right to a free political opinion, however abhorrent one may find it on a personal level. If free speech is something to be valued then why gag Griffin? Even if we let him speak only to be horrified or amused at the lunacy of such a man, don’t prevent him from expressing his political point of view just because the majority oppose it.
Pressure groups love the phrase ‘infringing human rights’, by having their membership lists printed in the press, surely the rights of the member’s are infringed?
It seems the left advocate free speech as long as it is free speech that concurs with their ideals.
I believe in freedom, freedom to vote, freedom to choose.
The BNP hold a horrendous reputation and I certainly would not support them, however I believe there are a lot of people who jump on the political bang-wagon, who in reality know very little about the party. The BBC has always claimed to be an impartial informant to the public. The BBC maintains they represent a fair proportion of the public. So let’s hear what Griffin has to say for himself, let’s hear what his party stands for, what his manifesto contains, what they would like to achieve, and more importantly let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth! This is an opportunity to challenge him, to expose his party’s weaknesses.
I commend the BBC for having the courage to stand up to politicians and viewers alike. I believe it to be the right decision. Not because I excuse the BNP but because I believe it just to represent all extremes of the political spectrum.
Geert Wilders, the far right wing Dutch MP, if you remember was refused entry to the UK, under the grounds that he would incite racial hatred.
This decision was overturned this month and he has since gained entry. What the public forgot was that this man, who was immediately dubbed a racist because of which side of the fence he sat politically was invited to the UK by The House of Lords. The House of Lords invited him to provide an acute party perspective. Let there be more of this, if there is not debate, if both sides of the coin are not fairly represented that what does that mean for the future of democracy?

A little aside article which i thought should go up

2009-10-20T04:08:00.000-07:00

Students; Allies or Aliens?

Students. This word once conjured the image of a studious looking fellow, standing in front of an archetypal Oxbridgesque building, gowned, wearing a graduation cap and looking decidedly smug.

Today I feel we have a somewhat different reputation. Human beings seem to view us with pitying disdain. They appear to cower away believing that our disease ridden, spot infested bodies may infect them with some sort of anti-social plague.

I like fight with full iron fist this stereotype. I talk to old ladies at bus stops, I hold doors open for people, I even smile.

‘What? Why?’ I hear you cry; surely you are too hung over, drugged up or illiterate to make any of the aforementioned gestures, but no; Arguable though it is, we students have a brain and heart. We, as a breed can even be respectful.

My grandma, living in a bungalow on a busy street, curses like a scullion at us ‘youth’. What precisely is it Nanna that you dislike about today’s student generation? I ask facetiously. ‘Well, they’re noisy, vandalising yobs, who litter our streets and clutter our pubs.’ Admittedly find me a student who doesn’t enjoy a night out, even a night out which results in inebriation and sometimes vomiting. Nevertheless, drinking copious amounts of alcohol and sleeping in until noon is not all we are good for.

In July this Year, question-time produced a novelty ‘young persons’ special and keen teen Suzanne Burlton’s competency made me squeal with joy, there are indeed teenagers with something to say who hope to go on and invest their time and energy into books and politics as opposed to beer and one night stands.

Still, the younger generations are taking less interest in politics. During the recent Tory party conference I conducted a ‘vox-pop’ for my journalism degree; I asked nigh on fifteen students whether they thought David Cameron would make a good prime-minister, a startling response re-occurred time and time again.

‘Who’s David Cameron?’ this makes my political blood curdle and my heart weep.

We are the generation who will inherit the repercussions of the recession; we are the generation who will have to live with the decisions of our forefathers. We must take an interest in the world around us, because even if politics affects us little now, it will certainly affect us later.

In the 2009 UK European Elections the turnout was 35 per cent of the population entitled to vote. I daresay more people vote on x-factor. Whilst I do watch x-factor, this statistic is abysmal.

So whilst I firmly denounce the stereotype of the student I believe that we collectively need to do more to regain our once prestigious reputation. In light of the recession it’s highly likely that we, upon graduation will find it hard to gain our dream job, which the government unrealistically promise as a prize for completing our degree.

We need more apprenticeships, we need companies to take bigger risks on graduates without much experience but who are enthusiastic and eager to learn. There are no pub crawl apprenticeships.

Joyce & Zola: Salacious & Scintillating

2009-10-20T03:50:00.000-07:00

After two fascinating concurrent lectures, one common theme leapt from the warm, dark lecture theatre. Sensationalism. The ramblings of Joyce (Ulysses) and the drama of Zola (Germinal) both seek to evoke a strong reaction from their readers.You can taste the bile of both writers; the novels are bold and uncompromising.

They strip away convention and etiquette and expose what they believe to be the harsh reality of the world. I think of dipping into Ulysses, like a child dipping into a huge tub of chocolate ice cream; it’s messy but good. I enjoy the raw semantics, the crude depiction of war, sex and suppression. Both Novels convey a powerful message and create allegories for social injustice. Ulysses’ modernist style permits the idea of liberty, the freedom of the writing and the freedom of the thought. Much of the novel reads like a stream of consciousness, the voice of the novel is heard through the imagery; Joyce paints us a picture of the time. Zola does the same, rather than using the voices of the characters to tell the story, he uses the suffering and the hardship of their lives to show the audience who his characters are. The writing in both novels has clear inspiration from the time they were created.

Germinal (1885) has a clear motivation to reveal the oppression of capitalism, the influence of Carl Marx has a clear voice. The ‘iron fist inside the velvet glove’ is what is keeping Germinal’s characters from reasonable living conditions. Zola’s character Etienne provides an insight into the world of the proletariat. The struggle for a voice under suppression. Throughout the novel, the conditions of the miners worsen and the result can only be a strike, where they can use the only strength they have, numbers.

This inevitable revolt is an example of the dialectic theory; synthesis Hegel defined as the result of a thesis and an antithesis co-existing; the synthesis is the consequence, in this case a strike.

Germinal’s title refers to the name of a month in the French Republican Calendar, a spring month, as ‘German’ derives from the Latin word meaning ‘seed’, the novel describes the hope for a better future, Zola plants a seed he hopes will grow into realisation of the need for change.

Hegel

2009-10-01T14:47:00.000-07:00

Having been granted an incredibly lengthy summer break, I thought only fair to intellectually challenge myself. ‘The History of Western Philosophy’ by Bertrand Russell has long graced my bookshelf, used only as a resource. When coming across philosophers in other literature, I could easily refer to this book to glean a little information on their theories. I have found this an immensely useful tool. However I firmly believed it would be nigh on impossible to read this book cover to cover as if an Austen novel. Nevertheless (hopefully I get some points for endeavour) I tried. I have to say to varying degrees of success. I skipped some bits, I read with intrigue some bits, overall I found much of it relatively comprehendible, the chapter titled Hegel was not one of these bits.
However since today’s lecture I have put together a mini-analysis of Hegel, which I think one can digest with relative ease.
Hegel has three major theories which you can dissect to understand his wider philosophy.
1) Alienation. This is the idea that the mind can perceive it’s own thoughts, thus being alienated from itself. Hegel has a circular conception of life, starting from an ‘enlightened’ state, being ‘at one’ with god, at this point our consciousness is internalised. Then, after ‘the fall’ from the garden of Eden (when Adam and Eve eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge) our thoughts become externalised. Our minds will only internalise again when humans regress to a state of ‘oneness’ with god.
2) Change. Hegel believes, contrary to empiricists that there are no objects, there is only change. Nothing is static. This preceded the scientific idea that all matter is an evolving chemical reaction. Furthermore, he believes change is constantly occurring, change is time. Therefore you can only understand what is happening to you after it is has happened, and it is therefore no longer happening. This suggests to me that we are only able to conceive our thoughts retrospectively.
3) The previous theories of Hegel are substantiated by the last, which is Dialectic. This theory explains that everything has a counterpart, and an outcome. ‘Dialectic’ coming from the Greek, meaning debate is defined as ‘the investigation of the truth of opinions, especially logical discussion.’
The idea of a debate is that there are two opposing sides of an argument and a result, this result may not necessarily be a solution, one of Hegel’s favourite outcomes was often revolt or war. However there will always be a result.This affirms again the scientific atomic theory, as a good example would be a proton existing, it’s counterpart being an electron and matter being the result of these two co-existing. The proton would be the thesis, the electron, the antithesis and the matter would be the synthesis. The idea can be used in an abstract sense or a more practical sense such as the Thesis; a home team Antithesis; an away team and the synthesis being the game.

What's hard and pink in the morning?

2009-05-12T05:02:00.000-07:00

The Financial times crossword!
Forget the crossword, how about the workings of the entire financial world, which the class were asked to get their heads round in an ambitious two hours. Nevertheless, with the help of Horrie's metaphors and the recurring exchange of a ten pound note between him and Josh, I found myself grasping many ideas that previously had seemed alien to me. Maths and finances has never been my forte, I'm a student with a taste for shoes and dining out. I've simply never had a head for numbers but here I was, mouth agape(proof of concentration) , fathoming the concept of hedge funds and credit creation ratio. And it's affect was long lasting. Yesterday whilst watching television with my cricket obsessed boyfriend, I became (shock horror) quite interested. We were watching, (not yet another test match) but Panorama, which was looking into the life of Sir Allen Stanford, owner of Stanford International Bank, business mogul and large sponsor of the English Cricket team.
Standford is awaiting criminal charges whilst a fully fledged investigation is carried out into fraud claims. A Venezuelan financial analyst, Alexis Dalmandy is claimed to have discovered the fraud whilst looking over SIB's banking history.
He explains: “I was stunned. First, it looked so simple, so unsophisticated. The language used was not quite right. I downloaded the financial statements and to my surprise the “business model” jumped out at me: investing in Stocks, Bonds, Hedge Funds and the like. That’s OK if you’re managing a fund, but not a bank.”
No matter how hard he tried, he could see no way in which SIB’s business model could produce the returns it claimed to or fund the dividends it was continuing to pay its investors.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint alleges that SIB has sold approximately $8 billion of so-called "certificates of deposit" to investors by promising improbable and unsubstantiated high interest rates. These rates were supposedly earned through SIB's unique investment strategy, which allowed the bank to achieve double-digit returns on its investments.

How did I understand all this? Simple. The credit creation ratio, by establishing a respectable looking bank in Antigua, by (as Horrie says) building a fountain in the lobby, flitting around in a few private SIB jets, buying up lots of land and sitting on the laps of the Antiguan government, people put their faith, but more importantly their money in SIB.
Only when, Dalmandy published his article revealing his suspicions that Stanford was acting fraudulently, did it's customers rush to withdraw their funds. As we learnt in last week's lecture, the cash is there on the basis that all account holders will only ever withdraw a certain percentage of their balance at any one time. The fact that everyone enveloped SIB looking for final withdrawals meant that the equilibrium that kept the bank afloat, fell and the bank drowned. Leaving investors with shortfalls or losses and Stanford with world of trouble.

Why Empiricists are contrary Marys.

2009-02-19T02:00:00.000-08:00

You know the phase that children go through, aged around 10 when every response to their parents becomes ‘why?’
Parent ;‘It’s time for bed now’……child; ‘why?’ parent; ‘because you’ll be tired tomorrow’…child ‘why?’…parent; ‘because you won’t have had enough sleep’…child ‘why?’ etc. etc.
When I, as a delightful 10 year old would play this world renowned game with my mother she would say ‘Because I say so contrary Mary’ and send me to my bedroom without further ado.
I feel this behaviour can be likened to that of an empiricist. By nature, an empiricist is required to ask ‘how?’ and demand proof of every fact presented to them. Surely this can become inextricably tedious?? ‘it’s time to go Chris’
‘how do you know?’….‘because we have to be there at two’…. ‘how do you know?’….’because Brian told me’….. ‘how does he know?? Etc etc

How can an empiricist not make their own lives and the lives of those around them hell? by constantly requiring physical evidence.
Kant draws to my mind a sensible conclusion. A metaphor he uses to illustrate his conclusion shows perhaps an initial need for proof; A child may use marbles when first learning mathematics he can see (with his own eyes) that when he places two marbles next to another two marbles, it leaves him with four marbles. Nevertheless once the child has grasped the idea that two and two equal four, he no longer requires the marbles in order to prove it each time he adds up his toy cars. He has then an A-priori understanding that two and two equals four.

I do not believe in God and were someone to try and convince me of his existence, I would undoubtedly use the lack of proof as a defence for my belief. On other hand if Josh told me that we had no lectures next week, I would be inclined to believe him...because he is a friend and with an establishment of friendship comes a level of trust. In the first instance, I am an empiricist, demanding proof of a higher power that I don’t believe exists on the other hand, I’m quite lazy and am happy to believe Josh’s (perhaps unreliable) information if it means I can have a chocolate bar and read the paper as opposed to running around looking for Horrie to check my information.
I think as a journalist is important to have an empiricist view point to avoid getting into libel suits, as a human I think it is important not to be too cynical. So perhaps to be like one of my favourite comedians, Bill Bailey says ‘a relaxed empiricist’ is a happy medium. Bailey says whilst he demands proof for some things, if someone he knows well tells him a fact, he’s inclined to believe him.