There are three main codes of conduct within the journalism profession, each with its own specific set of rules and guidelines. The main codes of conduct comes from The National Unions of Journalists (NUJ) because it is our own self written code. In the past most media organisations, especially the BBC would only employ people who were members of the NUJ unions. This is not compulsory today, however if you break any part of the code you are automatically removed from the union and are very likely to be sacked by your employer.
Alternatively Ruppert Murdoch has established another code of conduct for his multi-media empire. The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) was created by Murdoch in order to remove the intervention of trade unions who has no codes of conduct. This led to many controversial stories in Murdoch's publications, most notably The Hillsbrorough disaster in April 1989. The disaster at the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest was abandoned six minutes into the game, due to a stampede of fans causing a crush and the death of 96 Liverpool fans. Kelvin Mckenzie, the editor of The Sun at the time of the disaster ordered a publication blaming the Liverpool fans for the deaths and accusing fellow supporters in intervening in the help of trying to revive some of the supporters.
This led to uproar throughout Liverpool and the citizens of Merseyside decided to boycott The Sun and this remain to this very day with many Liverpool fans referring to the paper as "the scum". It would take 15 years for The Sun to produce an written apology to the city of Liverpool in 2004.
The PCC was then brought in to control these problems and if any journalist working for News Corporation breaks the editors code then they will face a tribunal in front of members of "the establishment". The likely outcome for any journalist is being dismissed from their employment and given no compensation.
The third main code for journalists is the BBC producers guidelines. These were brought into affect to cover the problematic areas within the BBC.
The OFCOM code of conduct is guidelines set out for commercial television channels, such as ITV and Sky who must have a license to broadcast and have to abide to the OFCOM code.
I will go into further details in the main guidelines set out by the NUJ code of conduct because it is the code written by journalists for journalists. For each point I will express my own opinion of what I think it means written in Blue.
1. At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed. I feel this means as a journalist we must abide to the code and act in a respectful and ethical way towards our peers and the industry with what we write in our views and opinions. Ensuring that we do not bring the profession into disrepute.
2. Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair. A journalist must ensure that everything they are is in the public interest. It should not have any form of malice that may results in prosecution for defamation, slander or libel.
3. Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies. To ensure that everything you right as a journalist is accurate and the information used is fair. If any information is correct, you put your hands up and admit you have made a mistake and try to rectify it.
4. Differentiates between fact and opinion. Always ensure that everything you write is factual and do not give your own biased opinion. This is different when written in a column or opinions page, but ensure that every word written is abiding the code.
5. Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means. As long as you are not working for The News of the World, ensure that you do not try by obtain information through subterfuge. It means no "camera in the bag" job, no phone-tapping, no hacking into someone computer. Make sure that everything you do in done in the correct way with permission from your editor.
6. Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest. Never under any circumstances try to write something that is intruding someone person life and could potentially defame them within society. Ensure that if you are taken a photograph that the person is engaging in a public act e.g. Princess Caroline of Monaco.
7. Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work. Always protect your source and if you have to go to jail, you go to jail. We must protect the journalists written code and be careful before we decided to give someone protection. A perfect example of this would be the investigative stories into the Birmingham Six or the Omagh Bombing by World in Action.
8. Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information. Never be influenced or threatened by anyone who trying to influence you by trying to change your story. The NUJ guidelines are there to protect us as journalists and can also protects you if you face any danger. Also do not accept any bribes because this will tarnish your reputation and destroy your career.
9. Takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge. Do not under any circumstance publish any information until you know that the relevant parties have been informed. The prime example of this is a death of someone in the military on the front line (Afghanistan/ Iraq) until you know that the family has been informed and the MOD have given permission to release the information.
10. Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation. Never discriminate against anyone that is different in any way. Never create any unbiased opinion about any individual because it is more than likely that you will end up in court.
11. Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed. Under no circumstances must you endorse any product that is given to you. You can enjoy the product by all mean, but never endorse it in your writing.
12. Avoids plagiarism. Basically, never use anyones work without their permission or you will be sacked and will likely be sued by the individual.
The NUJ code is like green kryptonite to journalists as it is the guidelines set out to protect us and to ensure that we are abiding by the law and always acting in the public interest.
Tuesday 7 December 2010
Monday 6 December 2010
The Freedom of information Act and the reasons why we love the American government
The Freedom of Information Act was established in 2005 and gives the citizens of the United Kingdom access to information and data produced by organisations within the public sector when requested. McNae's states that they are around 100,000 major and minors bodies within the public sector that are covered by the act, they include:
* National Government, departments and ministries e.g. The office of the Prime Minister, the Home office
* The House of Commons, the House of Lords and the national assemblies of Northern Ireland and Wales
* The armed forces.
* Local government authorities
* Universities, colleges and schools e.g. The University of Winchester
You have the right to request information from any of these bodies within the public sector by writing to the agencies requesting the information. However, there are several restrictions that can allow a public sector body to refuse any access to information being released.
The main operation of the act is to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it hold the specified information that you have requested. If this is the case then the information will then be communicated to you. The local authority must respond to your request within 20 working days, either by supplying the requested information or explaining why it cannot be supplied.
For example, you can request information from The University of Winchester on the number of students that have dropped out of their course and have discontinued their studies at the university. However, you cannot obtain information about an individual person, only a group, this is because of confidentiality. Confidentiality is where you need to obtain the individuals permission to have access to and obtain confidential information about them. This is because once the information is giving by the person, the public sector authority have entered into a contract and therefore the information cannot be released.
This is also the case for matters of official secrecy, meaning that information held about defence plans within the Ministry of Defence will not be divulged. It is key as journalists that we stay away from any information that can affect national security. I will move onto the exception of this rule later on (please do not read on if you are a politician in the American or British government).
Another exemption to the FOIA is what is defined as information. Information can only be asked for if it has been recorded and must count as information that is available to the public. If the information is recorded then public sector authorities have the right to charge individuals to obtain the requested information. The charge is normally around £450 and will cover the costs of obtaining the information from files and then forwarding the information to the individual.
Every public sector must ensure that that have a freedom of information officer who are responsible to reply to every letter that is sent to the public sector authority requesting specific information. If your request for information is turned down by the information office, then there is two stages of appeal where you can go to contest the rejection.
The first stage is appealing to the Information Commissioner and if the Information Commissioner turns down your request you can then the decision to the Information Tribunal. However, it is not just individual that can appeal to the Information Tribunal. If the Information Commissioner has accepted that the information is in the public interest and demands that the information should be released, then the public sector authority can appeal to the Information Tribunal.
There are cases where the Freedom of information act has been mistaken to the point where Britain has nearly reached the point of World War Three. In 2006, the British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen brought his alter-ego Borat to the big screen. The film depicts Borat as a reporter from Kazakhstan, but his depiction of the character caused uproar throughout the Asian nation with some diplomats believing that the film had been used as a propaganda video against the Kazakhstan people by the British. None of the information in the film was true, apart from the map showing where Kazakhstan is located.
This strained relation between the two nations to the point that Kazakhstan were threatening legal action and potential warfare against Britain. It expresses that public culture can influence what is deemed to be seen as information and the freedom that the media can express in influencing opinions and perceptions within society. Lets just all hope for the sake of the British nation that Sacha Baron Cohen does not think about realising Borat 2 any time soon.
The FOIA has been used to try and expose the political secrets of not just the American government, but many others. The website WikiLeaks has released various sets of information from the American governments, which has been described as possible being a serious leak to national security on a global scale. The website was closed down by the American government, however the information has been sold to various number of British and international newspapers. Julian Assange, the owner of WikiLeaks is facing criminal charges due to sexual assault claims in Sweden, however he face even worse claims due to the importance of national security on a global scale. The latest news about the action being taken against WikiLeaks can be found at this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-julian-assange-police
As a journalist you must ensure that you never take no for a answer and keep rephrasing your request until you get the information you need. Just ensure that if you obtain information that if it is of great importance or of national security that you dispose of the information or just say that you found it in the good old skip.
* National Government, departments and ministries e.g. The office of the Prime Minister, the Home office
* The House of Commons, the House of Lords and the national assemblies of Northern Ireland and Wales
* The armed forces.
* Local government authorities
* Universities, colleges and schools e.g. The University of Winchester
You have the right to request information from any of these bodies within the public sector by writing to the agencies requesting the information. However, there are several restrictions that can allow a public sector body to refuse any access to information being released.
The main operation of the act is to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it hold the specified information that you have requested. If this is the case then the information will then be communicated to you. The local authority must respond to your request within 20 working days, either by supplying the requested information or explaining why it cannot be supplied.
For example, you can request information from The University of Winchester on the number of students that have dropped out of their course and have discontinued their studies at the university. However, you cannot obtain information about an individual person, only a group, this is because of confidentiality. Confidentiality is where you need to obtain the individuals permission to have access to and obtain confidential information about them. This is because once the information is giving by the person, the public sector authority have entered into a contract and therefore the information cannot be released.
This is also the case for matters of official secrecy, meaning that information held about defence plans within the Ministry of Defence will not be divulged. It is key as journalists that we stay away from any information that can affect national security. I will move onto the exception of this rule later on (please do not read on if you are a politician in the American or British government).
Another exemption to the FOIA is what is defined as information. Information can only be asked for if it has been recorded and must count as information that is available to the public. If the information is recorded then public sector authorities have the right to charge individuals to obtain the requested information. The charge is normally around £450 and will cover the costs of obtaining the information from files and then forwarding the information to the individual.
Every public sector must ensure that that have a freedom of information officer who are responsible to reply to every letter that is sent to the public sector authority requesting specific information. If your request for information is turned down by the information office, then there is two stages of appeal where you can go to contest the rejection.
The first stage is appealing to the Information Commissioner and if the Information Commissioner turns down your request you can then the decision to the Information Tribunal. However, it is not just individual that can appeal to the Information Tribunal. If the Information Commissioner has accepted that the information is in the public interest and demands that the information should be released, then the public sector authority can appeal to the Information Tribunal.
There are cases where the Freedom of information act has been mistaken to the point where Britain has nearly reached the point of World War Three. In 2006, the British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen brought his alter-ego Borat to the big screen. The film depicts Borat as a reporter from Kazakhstan, but his depiction of the character caused uproar throughout the Asian nation with some diplomats believing that the film had been used as a propaganda video against the Kazakhstan people by the British. None of the information in the film was true, apart from the map showing where Kazakhstan is located.
This strained relation between the two nations to the point that Kazakhstan were threatening legal action and potential warfare against Britain. It expresses that public culture can influence what is deemed to be seen as information and the freedom that the media can express in influencing opinions and perceptions within society. Lets just all hope for the sake of the British nation that Sacha Baron Cohen does not think about realising Borat 2 any time soon.
The FOIA has been used to try and expose the political secrets of not just the American government, but many others. The website WikiLeaks has released various sets of information from the American governments, which has been described as possible being a serious leak to national security on a global scale. The website was closed down by the American government, however the information has been sold to various number of British and international newspapers. Julian Assange, the owner of WikiLeaks is facing criminal charges due to sexual assault claims in Sweden, however he face even worse claims due to the importance of national security on a global scale. The latest news about the action being taken against WikiLeaks can be found at this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-julian-assange-police
As a journalist you must ensure that you never take no for a answer and keep rephrasing your request until you get the information you need. Just ensure that if you obtain information that if it is of great importance or of national security that you dispose of the information or just say that you found it in the good old skip.
Sunday 5 December 2010
The Today Programme on BBC Radio 4: Journalism Now
The Today Programme was launched on 28th October 1957 on the original BBC Home Service. The initial concept of the programme was to give listeners a morning alternative to light music, through the medium of factual debate and analysis of the day's news and current affairs.
Jack De Manio was the first principal presenter of The Today Programme from 1958 until 1971. This is when the format of the programme changed from one to two presenters, which remains the same up to the present day. The Today programme has drastically changed since it's original broadcast with more focus on national politics and under the leadership of John Humphries has become the third most popular radio programme in the United Kingdom
The main aspect of the programme is to keep the listeners engaged on the main news topics of the day. Many of the leading politician and businessmen listen to Today, even The Queen has confessed to being an avid listener. The "Big 8.10 " interview has become the main institution for British politics and current affairs as it features an interview focusing on the main news topics of the day.
According to RAJAR (Radio Joint Research Audience Limited) in August 2010 The Today Programme had listening figures of 6.98 million listeners, compared to 6.44 million listeners in the previous quarter and 6.51 million in 2009. This has made The Today Programme the third most popular radio programme in the UK behind The Chris Moyles breakfast show on BBC Radio One and The Chris Evans Breakfast on BBC Radio Two.
Coincidentally all three programmes are breakfast shows, showing competition for listeners is at it's highest during this time frame. This shows that the general consensus over the last year has seen The Today Programme have the biggest rise in listening figures. I feel this is because of the affect the credit crunch has had on the country as a whole. This has meant that the British population has become more reliant on wanting to know about the latest business and financial news that may affect them personally.
It was difficult to establish the target demographic for The Today Programme, as the information was very limited on the RAJAR and BBC websites. However, I would suspect that the majority of the targeted demographic for The Today programme would lie in the ABC1 social grouping. This cannot be fully determined though, due to the lack of information that I had available.
The BBC is not permitted to advertise or carry sponsorship on any of its broadcasts and public services, including radio. This is because the BBC is funded by the taxpayer via the television license and has to remain free from dictation from commercial advertising. This means that is a presenter is talking about the clothing they are wearing, the person can only describe the brand and cannot name it under any circumstances. This is because it would be endorsing the brand and promoting their products to listeners and viewers.
The way the BBC will advertise is by presenting trails promoting their own programming. This is evident within The Today Programme where a trail for a programme being broadcasted later on in the day will be played after or being the news to keep to listeners informed about what is coming up later, trying to entice them to keep listening.
The news agenda of The Today Programme tries to keep an unbiased stance on the news, but will aim to keep the public informed and to generate opinion throughout the masses. The BBC has to keep an unbiased opinion on the news, as it is a neutral medium for news in the United Kingdom. However I do feel that Today is generally more right wing and supportive of the Conservative in the way they handle and broadcast the news. This may be because of the station being stereotyped as an "old person" radio station and if they lie within the ABC1 audience grouping, then their political allegiance will be mainly Conservative.
I feel personally that both The Today Programme and The Daily Telegraph both have a news agenda that generate opinions from facts and statistics, as well as their key right wing stance about the state of the economical and political climate currently being faced in the United Kingdom.
Personally I feel that The Today Programme has become an institution for news and current affairs in the United Kingdom. However I can not see our generation listening to BBC Radio Four in 40 or 50 years time because of the fear of growing old and society perceptions of trying to feel as young as possible.
The Today Programme I feel though can break the age barrier because after listening to the programme, my opinion has changed and I feel I could listen to the programme now for enjoyment. I think The Today Programme will exist in 50 years time, but I am not sure if it will be broadcasted on the same radio station.
Jack De Manio was the first principal presenter of The Today Programme from 1958 until 1971. This is when the format of the programme changed from one to two presenters, which remains the same up to the present day. The Today programme has drastically changed since it's original broadcast with more focus on national politics and under the leadership of John Humphries has become the third most popular radio programme in the United Kingdom
The main aspect of the programme is to keep the listeners engaged on the main news topics of the day. Many of the leading politician and businessmen listen to Today, even The Queen has confessed to being an avid listener. The "Big 8.10 " interview has become the main institution for British politics and current affairs as it features an interview focusing on the main news topics of the day.
According to RAJAR (Radio Joint Research Audience Limited) in August 2010 The Today Programme had listening figures of 6.98 million listeners, compared to 6.44 million listeners in the previous quarter and 6.51 million in 2009. This has made The Today Programme the third most popular radio programme in the UK behind The Chris Moyles breakfast show on BBC Radio One and The Chris Evans Breakfast on BBC Radio Two.
Coincidentally all three programmes are breakfast shows, showing competition for listeners is at it's highest during this time frame. This shows that the general consensus over the last year has seen The Today Programme have the biggest rise in listening figures. I feel this is because of the affect the credit crunch has had on the country as a whole. This has meant that the British population has become more reliant on wanting to know about the latest business and financial news that may affect them personally.
It was difficult to establish the target demographic for The Today Programme, as the information was very limited on the RAJAR and BBC websites. However, I would suspect that the majority of the targeted demographic for The Today programme would lie in the ABC1 social grouping. This cannot be fully determined though, due to the lack of information that I had available.
The BBC is not permitted to advertise or carry sponsorship on any of its broadcasts and public services, including radio. This is because the BBC is funded by the taxpayer via the television license and has to remain free from dictation from commercial advertising. This means that is a presenter is talking about the clothing they are wearing, the person can only describe the brand and cannot name it under any circumstances. This is because it would be endorsing the brand and promoting their products to listeners and viewers.
The way the BBC will advertise is by presenting trails promoting their own programming. This is evident within The Today Programme where a trail for a programme being broadcasted later on in the day will be played after or being the news to keep to listeners informed about what is coming up later, trying to entice them to keep listening.
The news agenda of The Today Programme tries to keep an unbiased stance on the news, but will aim to keep the public informed and to generate opinion throughout the masses. The BBC has to keep an unbiased opinion on the news, as it is a neutral medium for news in the United Kingdom. However I do feel that Today is generally more right wing and supportive of the Conservative in the way they handle and broadcast the news. This may be because of the station being stereotyped as an "old person" radio station and if they lie within the ABC1 audience grouping, then their political allegiance will be mainly Conservative.
I feel personally that both The Today Programme and The Daily Telegraph both have a news agenda that generate opinions from facts and statistics, as well as their key right wing stance about the state of the economical and political climate currently being faced in the United Kingdom.
Personally I feel that The Today Programme has become an institution for news and current affairs in the United Kingdom. However I can not see our generation listening to BBC Radio Four in 40 or 50 years time because of the fear of growing old and society perceptions of trying to feel as young as possible.
The Today Programme I feel though can break the age barrier because after listening to the programme, my opinion has changed and I feel I could listen to the programme now for enjoyment. I think The Today Programme will exist in 50 years time, but I am not sure if it will be broadcasted on the same radio station.
The Daily Telegraph: Journalism Now
Colonel Arthur B. Sleigh founded The Daily Telegraph in June 1855. The first edition was published on June 18th 1855 at the cost of 2d. The initial printing of the newspaper was carried out by Joseph Moses Levy, the owner of The Sunday Times, however the paper was not an initial success and was taken over by Levy.
Levy's aim was to produce The Daily Telegraph at a cheaper rate than its rival competitors in London, such as The Morning Post and The Daily News. This would increase the readership figures for newspapers in London and led to The Daily Telegraph absorbing The Morning Post in 1937 to become one of the biggest newspapers in Great Britain.
The Daily Telegraph has become the biggest seller of all the "quality" newspapers with an daily average of 669,445 copies sold in September 2010, compared to its nearest rival The Times, which sold a daily average of 486,868 copies in September. This shows that The Telegraph is still the leading seller within the "quality" newspapers. This may have happened, due to the paper staying in the same traditional broadsheet size format compared to their rivals who have all moved into the smaller Berliner, tabloid size format.
The Daily Telegraph's online rate card describes their audience in four words: Affluent, loyal, influential and elusive. I feel they are trying to suggest that the readership of their newspaper are some of the highest earning people in the country, who will stay loyal to the newspaper, be influential in their social groupings and be some of the hardest people to find anywhere in the country.
The is backed up in the readership survey carried out by The Daily Telegraph where it shows that the average Telegraph reader will earn upwards of £100,000, compared to their nearest "quality" newspaper rival The Guardian whose audience will earn on average £65,000 a year. It also shows that 81% of Telegraph readers will not read any other "quality" newspaper.
The is backed up in the readership survey carried out by The Daily Telegraph where it shows that the average Telegraph reader will earn upwards of £100,000, compared to their nearest "quality" newspaper rival The Guardian whose audience will earn on average £65,000 a year. It also shows that 81% of Telegraph readers will not read any other "quality" newspaper.
The National readership survey from June 2010 shows that the majority of Daily Telegraph readers will come from the ABC1 social grouping with 87% of it's readership coming from this social grouping and 60% coming from the AB category. This shows that the target demographic for The Telegraph will be from the upper-middle social classes in Great Britain, with interests in politics and current affairs. The political alliance this demographic will support is generally Conservative, which led to the labelling of The Daily Telegraph nickname: "The Daily Torygraph".
Within the advertising used in The Daily Telegraph, I have some advertisements that I did not personally think would be included in the newspaper. In one edition, I found on one page an advertisement for Dior watches, an item that would cost a student a year's tuition fees to buy. On the next page, I found a complete contrast with an advertisement from the supermarket Morrison’s, advertising half price shampoo.
The was the general theme for almost every edition I purchased. I think that this reflects upon the tough economic climate the country has faced over the last 18 months. I feel that the "quality" newspapers like The Daily Telegraph have reacted upon this situation and have started to include advertisements from different companies. However at the same time they are advertising the types of "bargains" that the readership of The Telegraph would buy.
The Daily telegraph are very selective in the types of advertisements they use. This is reflected in the advertising rates with a full page colour advertisement costing £68,000. The rates will change for the supplements and smaller parts of the newspaper with a full page advertisement in the business section of The Telegraph costing £46,000 and an advertisement in The Sunday Telegraph costing £34,000. I feel this reflects the importance of advertising as the companies who advertise in The Daily Telegraph are the companies who are likely the sell the luxury items suited towards the "affluent" Telegraph readership.
This advertisement for the Audi A1 has featured in every edition of The Daily Telegraph for the first two weeks of November. If a full page advertisement costs £68,000, then Audi have spent almost £1 million on an advertisement for a car costing £13,000. I feel this expresses the hard advertising some companies will present in order to target the correct cliental for their products.
The Irish government bail-out has been the main news topics of the last month. Bruno Waterfield has been the main reporter covering the story and has been on a constant tirade of the Irish, constantly referring them as being "humiliated". Waterfield also points the blame at the former Labour government and explains that the last few movements made by the Labour government has left a burden over the taxpayer and Great Britain as a whole.
In comparison, political columnist Andrew Gimson in his column Sketch reviews his own views and opinions over the main political stories of the day. He has made a firm stance over his hatred of former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He refers to "the G20 without Gordon Brown" like "Hamlet without the prince. Meaning gone, but easily forgotten as "the grass is always browner on the other side of the fence"
Overall I feel that The Daily Telegraph is a very respected, "quality newspapers with a very loyal readership mainly in the ABC1 social demographic.
Friday 3 December 2010
My Seminar Paper on Adam Smith and Jonathan Swift
Adam Smith: An economist dream and vision and Jonathan Swift: The cannibal of Cork
Opulence is the wealth we obtain through the ownership of our possessions and valuable resources and how we strive to keep control of such assets. In book three of Adam Smith economic dictionary, Wealth of nations he explains how the opulence of a town can affect and help develop an entire nation. I feel this is the basis for any national economy and proves how modern Adam Smith’s concepts of economics were to today’s civilized western society.
Adam Smith believed that the inhabitants of the town and those of the entire country carry upon the great commerce of every civilized nation’s wealth and fortune. It is the country that will provide the substance and the material of manufactured resources needed to help provide the product back for the country. I feel that this is the basis for today’s modern society because the wealth and fortune of every country is dependant on the goods and services we provide in order to make a profit not just for ourselves as individuals, but also for the country as a whole.
However, in a town where the produce is not reproduced on a mass scale, the produce benefits the town alone and leaves the country at a loss. This could cause conflict though as the manufactures and proprietors of the produce and land may be reluctant to share and sell his produce due to unwanted competition or rivalry.
Smith goes on to explain how the country will “buy great quantities of manufactured goods from the town through a much smaller quantity of staff.” This is compared to the vast number of people who have helped in mass-producing the product for the town to sell. A production surplus may occur where a product has been mass-produced and will then be traded for what is in demand. This will work better in more populated areas where there will be more manufactures with a greater number of goods to sell and trade. It expresses his view on the hidden hand of the market where Smith thinks that each people who trades will be give a specialist skill for what they will then sell.
This would base the foundations for the industrial revolution, where the mass manufactured Northern towns, such as Manchester thrived through the selling and trading of goods and services, and became known as “boom towns.”
However, Smith agrees that it is more beneficial and financially stable for a producer to strive beyond the needs of substance and act upon mans natural inclinations to sell their product through “foreign trade.” This will thwart any chance of rivalry and sabotage through human intervention and to promote the produce to foreign soil. This has worked to this very day with the exporting and importing of goods helping to maintain the financial stability of the sovereign state and of its inhabitants.
He uses the fall of the Roman Empire as an example of how possible the most civilised society in the history of western civilisation through conflict and battle caused the complete shutdown of commerce between the towns and the country. It also explains how the corruption of the chiefs and leaders of obtaining land due to the lack of proprietors and landowners. (Machiavelli/Locke “Life, Liberty and Property).
This led to the succession of land through alienation or through the primogeniture law of succession. It shows how the progression of the law of primogeniture was not just used just in the right of land ownership, but in the succession of the royal family and within the business world. If it was not for the law of primogeniture than the succession of landlords would have stayed in effect, which in Roman times could cause warfare, due to the landlord’s discretion against his neighbours and even the roman sovereignty.
Smith explanations of this I feel shows how beneficial the Roman Empire was to helping establish and build the modern western society we live in today, even though some of the laws they established were unknown to them. However, I also feel that the Roman Empire also shows how the ruling of the landlords and the sovereignty towards their Servile (slaves/workers) expresses Smith’s opinion of how government can do greater harm than good. This is reflected in the eventual fall of the empire.
Man’s main way of living and surviving is through his property and main source of income, his land. The land he owns will lay the foundations for the manufactured produce he will try to sell, in order to maintain the income needed to maximize profit and pleasure and avoid pain.
Smith explains though how it would be hard to maintain and keep ownership of land and that through taxation and created the opportunity for free trade. Smith believed in morality an was in favour of free trade as it helped establish the links between countries and gave us some of the products that we take for granted. For example without free trade we would not of been able to of obtained the cocoa beans or the cotton from the plantations in the West Indies, which are vital for some of the necessities that we need to this very day. This I feel is vital as it is proven that a country that allows free trade is wealthier than a country that has government dictation from selling e.g. Zimbabwe “hyper-inflation.
A country without these three things is a country that will crumble from within and will enter into economic and financial meltdown. Adam Smith explains how firstly a country with a “great and ready market for the rude produce of the country will improve not only the financial stability of the country, but the facilities and resources needed for production. Secondly, the wealth acquired by the inhabitants of cities will help purchase the land left uncultivated and I feel this helps not just improve land, but also the jobs prospects and unemployment levels of a county. Thirdly it introduces good government and secures the liberty and security of the inhabitants of the country. It mentions Hume as the only person who taken notice upon the great affect that free liberty can have in projecting good government and freedom for the entire population.
When you look at Adam Smith’s view on Opulence and trade, you can see a very modern approach to economics and business, which has been ignored by the whole of western society. This is expressed in the banking crisis and rising debts that have seen some countries having to be bailed out.
This moves me onto the second topic of my seminar paper and the solution of the Irish people in the 18th century in Jonathan Swift’s, A Modest Proposal. By 1729 the Irish nation was rife in poverty and that women were begging on the street for money, but were followed by the masses of their children. Swift expresses his views that they re living off the states and have no means for working for an honest livelihood.
The proposal comes from two views: The views of Swift and the Views of the proposer. The initial proposal is the barbaric slaughter of children in Ireland, once they have had their First birthday and the meat will then be used as produce to sell and be consumed by The Irish population. I initially thought why would anyone ever think of resorting to cannibalism and selling their children like lambs to the slaughter in the needs of surviving and maintaining the financial stability of the Irish population. This is probably because I am quarter Irish and I would not of liked the prospect of being fattened up for the purpose of being killed and then consumed.
Swift expresses the extent of Ireland debt, which stood at £2 million and proposed that the slaughter and sale of 100,000 carcasses to the richest and wealthiest of the burghers and nobleman would help decrease the extent of Ireland debt and protect the sovereignty. At the same time his proposers is suggest leaving a further 20,000 to be brought up and used for breeding to continue the trade and to use the meat as an alternative source of food.
I feel this expresses the traditional medieval economic view of mercantilism where under state rule; the inhabitants will make money for the state. This expresses that due to severity of Ireland’s debt, it is the duty of the parents to breed children for sale and consumption in order to help recover the financial stability of the sovereignty, as well as the health of the Irish population. This is done In order to make the state strong again.
I can understand the proposal, as it is vital to ensure that a country financial and economic stability is secure and that it expresses the need for the trade of goods and services of the towns that will help finance the commerce of the country. Adam Smith believed that trade promotes peace, civility, and toleration, but how can you suggest that the mass slaughter of young children to be used as meat to be sold is peaceful and civil.
The proposer has backed up his proposal with financial proof expressing how the sales of each child would bring 10 shillings with 2 shillings needed for the upbringing of the child and then the remaining 8-shilling belonging to the family of the child, once they are sold and then slaughtered. I feel this could have developed into another civil war because of the basis of trade. If selling children for consumption became the main economic produce in Ireland, than each person and each individual family will be breeding in order to enrich themselves. However this could of caused uproar from both religious circles and jealousy from the older population who have become too old to give birth and may have resorted to stealing in order to maintain their livelihood and existence.
Throughout Swift’s satire is expressed through various anecdotes and views from his friends. He mentions a very worthy person who was a true lover of Ireland who feels many farmers would destroy their cattle and livestock if it meant they supplies meat through the process of breeding. He also expressed how his friend felt that men would treat their wife with the same respect and sense of pride, which would be compared to the pride they had for their livestock. If this is what he is suggesting then it is time to remove all mothers from their homes and let them graze on the fields and will be giving birth in the shed.
Swift also expresses that if his proposal if not carried out, then it may be that one nation (England) would take great pleasure in eating the entire Irish nation. I feel there is he trying to mock the English by suggesting that the Irish carry out the proposal before England take hold of the idea and continue their barbaric ways.
I feel that that Swifts proposal does reflect Adam Smith’s view that the opulence of a town can help develop an entire nation because initially if this concept was conceived then it would help generate a town produce and help establish and redevelop the Irish economy in the 18th century.
Looking at this from a modern aspect, the same situation is occurring over 300 years later with the Irish again in financial ruin with debts upwards of £70 billion. Could it be the case that the Irish follows the guidelines set out by The Modest Proposal and create mass cannibalism in Cork or to have all of the young children in Ireland sent to the abattoir for slaughter and then sell them in the local butchers. In these modern times, society would not accept this as we have morals and have developed others way of dealing with financial struggles.
Swift even concludes by admitting he has no personal interest in this venture, but feels that he has no other motive than to account upon the public interest of the Irish people. Again it promotes the mercantilism of state rule and that Swift must act upon the rule and benefit of the states wealthiest.
I generally feel that the proposal cannot be take seriously because I think it is not a serious economic proposal, but if you look at it from an historical aspect you can see the mercantilism themes it represents that during the economic age of the 18th century that “the people were the riches of the states” as expressed by economic author George Wittkowsky.
Overall I feel that when you look at Adam Smith, you see a very modern man whose ideas were revolutionary and helped base the foundations of the economic and financial world we live in today. Jonathan Swift, in contrast did not have the chance to base his ideas upon Smith’s work as it was just before his time. If he had been given the chance to of read Smith’s Wealth of Nations, then possibly his merchantilian modest proposal may have found a different way of solving the financial burden and reputation of the Irish, instead of resorting to having Sheamus O’Finnigan as the main course for Sunday Roast at the Lord mayor of Dublin.
Thursday 11 November 2010
Investigative Journalism: The MI5 of Journalists (without the insane murders)
Investigative journalism is defined as a story where the information is obtained by a reporter, collected through months of planning and investigation about a single topic. The journalists goes to the news, the news never goes to the journalist.
Harry Evans, the former editor of The Sunday Times gathered a famous team comprising of some of the best journalists in the country and formed what is now known as, The Sunday Times insight team. The insight team would solely look at investigative stories, which in my opinion I think is the hardest form of journalism, as you have to find the story that relates to the public interest. I would think though that some of the stories that the insight team reported on are some of the most memorable and respected pieces of journalism in recent memory.
One of the most famous stories reported by the insight was the Thalidomide scandal. Thalidomide was introduced as a sedative drug for pregnant women in the late 1950's. The drug was sold in circulation from 1957 until 1961 when the drug was withdrawn due to the revelations that it caused birth defects in children.
It was not until The Sunday Times exposed the true extent of the damage that had left 100,000 unborn babies dead in the womb and a further 10,000 were born with some form of disability. The Stillian, the British distributor of Thalidomide rejected the initial claims that their drug had cause these birth defects, this was until the revelations revealed by The Sunday Times who has received a document from an inside source revealing the true extent of the drug's problems. This would cause The Stillians to drop the libel case against The Sunday Times and proved a success for the Insight team as the story was in the public interest.
It was not until The Sunday Times exposed the true extent of the damage that had left 100,000 unborn babies dead in the womb and a further 10,000 were born with some form of disability. The Stillian, the British distributor of Thalidomide rejected the initial claims that their drug had cause these birth defects, this was until the revelations revealed by The Sunday Times who has received a document from an inside source revealing the true extent of the drug's problems. This would cause The Stillians to drop the libel case against The Sunday Times and proved a success for the Insight team as the story was in the public interest.
Another famous investigative news team was the ITV investigative program, World in Action. World in Action would break the mould for current affairs on television and would take calculated risks to ensure that they got the story they needed to report, in order to have a major impact on the new events of the day. There are many famous examples of the work World in Action accomplished, but one of the main stories was brought up by Chris Horrie who was working for World in Action during the time of the Manchester meat fiasco.
The Edwards family were the sole owners of Manchester United from the early 1960's until the purchase by The Glazer Family in 2005. In 1980 World in Action investigated into the Edwards meat packing company, who were responsible for many of the local school food contracts in and around the Greater Manchester area. They claimed that they had evidence that showed that the meat that had been supplied to the local primary schools in Rochdale was tainted and unfit for human consumption. They also found that The Edwards family had been bribing the local school officials in Greater Manchester in order to obtain the contract for school dinners in the local surrounding areas.
The program was broadcasted on 28th January 1980. Four weeks later Louis Edwards died of a massive heart attack. It is unknown if the stress brought upon by the broadcast contributed to the death of Edwards, however it left the director Paul Greengrass labelled with the infamous nickname "Killer Greengrass". Paul Greengrass career would not be affected though as he would go on to produce some of the most critically acclaimed films in the last 10 years, most notably United 93. It seems that he always has to be involved in something United, Don't you think?
World in Action most famous story is the case involving The Birmingham Six. On 21st November 1974 two pubs in Birmingham: The Mulberry Bush and The Tavern in the town was both bomb by IRA activists. The two bombs results in a total of 21 deaths and 162 others were injured. Initially six Irish people, living in and around the Birmingham area were arrested and charged with murder and conspiracy to cause explosions All were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. This led to the investigation by World in Action in 1986 where they felt that the men had been framed, as they were known criminals in the area, but only for low-level crimes.
After two unsuccessful appeal attempts, in 1991 the Birmingham six was cleared of all charges due to new evidence of police fabrication and suppression of evidence. There are member of the World in Action who to this day known members of the IRA and had a good idea of who had was responsible for the bombings, these claims though have never been proven or released.
This video shows the innocence of the Birmingham Six through the eyes of Irish folk band The Pogues who wrote a song expression their distain for the situation.
One way you can find out information though is through subterfuge. It is very important for investigative journalists as they can use gather secret information through hidden cameras in a technique known as a "camera in a bag job". The only key constraint is that you have to ensure that all the information you obtain is legit, accurate and is in the public interest (it always seems to creep up). One thing you most never do is something called trawling. This is when you leave a hidden camera behind with the aspect of catching someone off guard in order to obtain the truth. So it is safe to say never go to a job interview and decide to leave your bag behind if there is a camera inside.
Now Investigative Journalism used to stand for pride and was respected by the journalistic community, This was until one man came in and decided to turn investigation journalism into a dirty word and his name is Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch since he took control of The Sun and The News of the World has turned investigative journalism into pure scandal, using questionable tactics in order to obtain the right story.
There are two key stories I will use as examples for this the first is involving the former multiple time Snooker world champion, John Higgins. In May 2010, The News of the World ran a story trying to expose Higgins and his manager Pat Mooney of trying to bring the game of Snooker into disrepute by accepting bribes from alleged Ukrainian businessmen to influence the decision of matches. The sting was infact two News of the World journalists posing as the Ukrainian businessmen, who were offering Higgins and Mooney 300,000 Euros to throw four frames in four separate tournaments.
They had been serious doubts cast about the reliability and accuracy of the story. John Higgins was charged with match fixing, but was found not guilty on 8th September 2010. However he was charged with bringing the game of Snooker into disrepute by not informing the approach made by The News of the World. He was banned from the game for six months and is due to play his first tournament next week.
The other case involved the infamous News of the World spoof, "The Fake Sheikh". Mazher Mahmood has been used constantly by The News of the World posing as the fake sheikh trying to expose celebrities and criminals by gaining their trust and then exposing them. One of the most famous stories involving the fake shiekh was with the former Labour MP and political activist, George Galloway. On 20th March 2006 Galloway claimed that Mahmood and a accomplice had sought out to expose Galloway not only as being involved in illegal political funding, but also as having expressed anti-semitic views, including the denial of the Holocaust.
George Galloway was infamous for having constant meetings with former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussian and was throughout his political career was opposed to any form of war, most notably the Gulf War in 1991. The Daily Telegraph also tried to expose Galloway as an Arabic sympathiser and they were claming to of obtaining documents after the death of Saddam Hussain in 2005 that exposed Galloway as a potential traitor and spy.
These two stories are just two of the many stories that The News of the World and the Murdoch empire have tried to create in order to entertain the public through scandal and corruption. They have given investigative journalism a dirty name and will try to produce a story, even if it means having to lie. There is one man, who if he were alive today would be disgusted and ashamed by the means that journalists take to find a story and his name is Emile Zola.
Emile Zola (1840-1902) is seen by many as the founder father of investigative journalism. After the French defeat to the Prussian (German) army in 1870, the French army were trying to find someone to blame and started to blame French-Jewish soldiers. They were accused of selling French army military secrets to the Prussian army. Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused of being the ringleader of the group. He was found guilty in a show trial and was sentenced to life on Devil's Island in French Guiana and placed in solitary confinement.
Emile Zola believed that the French army had framed Dreyfus, however after being trialed and found guilty for criminal libel, Zola was exiled to live the rest of his life in Surrey. The trial was brought about due to the letter Zola published, which possibly is the most famous piece of investigative journalism in history.
J'accuse was an open letter written by Zola in the French newspaper L'Aurore. The letter was directed at the French premier, Felix Faure, accusing the French of the unlawful and wrong imprisonment of Dreyfus and brought upon the famous quote: "We name the guilty men". This was supported by the first usage of photojournalism, exposing the corruption of the French army.
J'accuse was an open letter written by Zola in the French newspaper L'Aurore. The letter was directed at the French premier, Felix Faure, accusing the French of the unlawful and wrong imprisonment of Dreyfus and brought upon the famous quote: "We name the guilty men". This was supported by the first usage of photojournalism, exposing the corruption of the French army.
Even though it would take 15 years after Emile Zola's death for Alfred Dreyfus to be exonerated, it proved that the famous words of Zola laided down the foundations for the careers and success of all investigative journalists, up to this very day.
However when it comes to investigative journalism, there is one serious legal implication that can affect the standard needed to defend an investigative report, the evidence gap. In criminal law the evidence gap is harder to prove as the defendant has to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is not the same in civil court cases where they only requires lower levels of proof and can be determined by the balance of probability.
One of the most famous cases involving the evidence gap is the case of the Omagh bombings in August 1998. The bombings left 29 dead and over 220 people were injured in the worst terrorist act ever to take place in the turbulent history of Northern Ireland. There were claims that the police knew who were responsible for the bombings, but they did not have enough substantial proof to charge anyone with the bombings. It also would of been hard to select a jury due to the strong support for the IRA throughout Ireland during the late 20th century.
The police in Omagh decided to go the BBC Panorama program in order to try and help establish who was truly involved in the bombings and to bring the people responsible to justice. Panorama revealed the information they had behind who could potentially be responsible for the bombings. However the broadcast would backfire as the IRA retaliated by trying to bomb BBC television centre on 4th March 2001.
Sunday 7 November 2010
Media Law lecture 3: Defamation
Well it has been a while since I produced a media law blog, so tonight (and possibly tomorrow) you have the pleasure of sitting through a mini-marathon of media law. Tonight we will start with the word that strikes fear into the hearts of all journalists: Defamation.
Defamation is how you make someone appear to the outside world. This statement or accusation has to be beyond personally hurtful and potentially threaten their personal life, as well as their reputation within society. This defamatory statement will be made through riddle, malice or with the intent of lowering a person's reputation within social circles and personally affect their earning power within their profession or trade.
This means, for example if I was to say that after playing Tennis with Andy Murray that I had a better serve than him, this could be seen as a defamatory statement as it could affect his standing within his profession. However, if I was to suggest that my ironing was better than my housemate's then this statement would not be seen as defamatory as this is not my housemate's profession and could not affect his earning power.
Defamation can have the affect to financially ruin someone. Within whole news organisations there are certain celebrities who they will stay away from in any way where they could defame this person's reputation. This is known as "the chilling effect". "The chilling effect" can be caused when a newspaper print a story about a certain celebrity, who will then automatically sue the newspaper and try to cause major financial damages to that newspapers. The way this will be done is in a long drawn-out libel case where the legal costs for the newspaper could become astronomical. Therefore there is one key statement that every journalists needs to follow: NEVER WRITE ANYTHING DEFAMATORY ABOUT ELTON JOHN OR YOUR GETTING SUED!
It is not just publishing a story yourself where you can be caught for making a defamatory statement. Publishing through a third party can catch you out, even thought the person does not need to be named. This is because there are three things that need to be accomplished before a statement can be seen as defamatory:
1. The statement needs to be defamatory.
2. The statement needs to be published someone.
3. The person needs to be indentified.
One safeguard we have as journalists is justification. Justification is the sheer truth of the story, however you need to have the evidence or the facts required to back up your statement. The most high-profile case where justification has been used was in the case of the former Conservative minister, Jonathan Aitken. In 1995 The Guardian with help from the ITV programme World In Action exposed Aitken for meeting up with leading Saudi who has been paying for his lengthy stay at The Ritz in Paris.
The World in Action filmed named "Jonathan of Arabia" was broadcasted and let to a libel case being filed by Jonathan Aitken against World In Action. However the case was dropped in June 1997 due to the evidence brought upon by the joint Guardian/World in action venture exposing the potential arms deals Aitken had with his Saudi associate.
The substantial amount of evidence against Jonathan Aitken led to him being charged with perjury and perverting the courts of justice and was handed an 18-month prison sentence in 1999. This was due to the justification that The Guardian and World in Action had against Aitken as they had the evidence to support their statement.
Another key defence Journalists have against defamation is that lovely word that keep cropping up time and time again; Privilege. Qualified privilege gives used us the protection to write something that is damaging. However this needs to be done in the public interest in order to show that no malice has been intended. An prime example of this would be in the an murder case, showing that the justice in the United Kingdom is doing the right thing as it will gain positivity and the backing of the general public. As journalists we have to remember that these laws have been created by the government to protect us and to ensure that we do not end up in front of a judge in breach of contempt of court.
The Third and final defence that we have as journalists is fair comment. Fair comment will be honest comment which you believe as a journalist is based upon truthful facts. The law on fair comment is questionable, therefore it can be easily interpreted and you will lose and defence you have against you if their is any malice or intent in your statement to damage someone personally. According to McNae's the main requirement of the fair comment defence can be summarised as being that:
* The published comment must be honestly held opinion of the person making it (thought it may have been published by another party);
* The comment should be recognisable (i.e. to the reader/viewer/listener) as opinion i.e. it should not be worded to be perceived as factual allegation;
* The comment must be based upon provably true facts/privileged matter;
* Those facts/ that matter must be recognisably alluded to or state in what is published with the comment, unless widely known that this is not necessary;
* The subject commented on should be a matter of public interest
For the defence to succeed, all of there requirement must be met. However there is another way that fair comment can be hidden in the form of bone and antidote. This is when you will say something that may be seen as defamatory, but you will qualify and back your statement up later on in the article.
Defamation could end up potentially destroying your career and ruining your reputation as a journalist. The key to ensuring that you do not end up facing a libel case is to ensure that everything you write is based on facts, you have the evidence to back up those facts and that the article is written in the public interested without MALICE OR INTENT.
There is one other thing you can do and that is write an article without prejudice against someone and then the law will become blind to the article. However everyone loves a little bit of scandal when reading their morning newspaper. Just make sure that everything you write is the less and not a point blank lie.
One safeguard we have as journalists is justification. Justification is the sheer truth of the story, however you need to have the evidence or the facts required to back up your statement. The most high-profile case where justification has been used was in the case of the former Conservative minister, Jonathan Aitken. In 1995 The Guardian with help from the ITV programme World In Action exposed Aitken for meeting up with leading Saudi who has been paying for his lengthy stay at The Ritz in Paris.
The World in Action filmed named "Jonathan of Arabia" was broadcasted and let to a libel case being filed by Jonathan Aitken against World In Action. However the case was dropped in June 1997 due to the evidence brought upon by the joint Guardian/World in action venture exposing the potential arms deals Aitken had with his Saudi associate.
The substantial amount of evidence against Jonathan Aitken led to him being charged with perjury and perverting the courts of justice and was handed an 18-month prison sentence in 1999. This was due to the justification that The Guardian and World in Action had against Aitken as they had the evidence to support their statement.
Another key defence Journalists have against defamation is that lovely word that keep cropping up time and time again; Privilege. Qualified privilege gives used us the protection to write something that is damaging. However this needs to be done in the public interest in order to show that no malice has been intended. An prime example of this would be in the an murder case, showing that the justice in the United Kingdom is doing the right thing as it will gain positivity and the backing of the general public. As journalists we have to remember that these laws have been created by the government to protect us and to ensure that we do not end up in front of a judge in breach of contempt of court.
The Third and final defence that we have as journalists is fair comment. Fair comment will be honest comment which you believe as a journalist is based upon truthful facts. The law on fair comment is questionable, therefore it can be easily interpreted and you will lose and defence you have against you if their is any malice or intent in your statement to damage someone personally. According to McNae's the main requirement of the fair comment defence can be summarised as being that:
* The published comment must be honestly held opinion of the person making it (thought it may have been published by another party);
* The comment should be recognisable (i.e. to the reader/viewer/listener) as opinion i.e. it should not be worded to be perceived as factual allegation;
* The comment must be based upon provably true facts/privileged matter;
* Those facts/ that matter must be recognisably alluded to or state in what is published with the comment, unless widely known that this is not necessary;
* The subject commented on should be a matter of public interest
For the defence to succeed, all of there requirement must be met. However there is another way that fair comment can be hidden in the form of bone and antidote. This is when you will say something that may be seen as defamatory, but you will qualify and back your statement up later on in the article.
Defamation could end up potentially destroying your career and ruining your reputation as a journalist. The key to ensuring that you do not end up facing a libel case is to ensure that everything you write is based on facts, you have the evidence to back up those facts and that the article is written in the public interested without MALICE OR INTENT.
There is one other thing you can do and that is write an article without prejudice against someone and then the law will become blind to the article. However everyone loves a little bit of scandal when reading their morning newspaper. Just make sure that everything you write is the less and not a point blank lie.
Peter Cole on Newspapers
From reading the four articles from Peter Cole about the newspapers in the United Kingdom, I think I have grasped a new and profound understanding about the every changing climate facing newspapers in Britain. With our news agenda presentations starting over the next few weeks, I felt that it would be beneficial to look at not only all of the UK newspapers as a whole, but focus on my chosen newspaper, The Telegraph.
Cole profoundly accepts that The Telegraph has stuck to its morals and has not adopted the Berliner format that has seen many broadsheets newspapers reduce the size format of their newspaper to tabloid size. The Telegraph is seen by Cole as the newspapers for the conservative middle class, with the majority of it's readership coming from the over 55's. Is Cole suggesting that The Telegraph is directed at the older population within the United Kingdom, with only 20% of it's readership being aged 35 or under.
Peter Cole explains how The Telegraph has improved on it's extensive news coverage and hows it continues to provide provocative comment and opinion. It also explains the extensive sports coverage that The Telegraph presents. Now being an avid sports fanatic, I was curious to see what the sports coverage was like in The Telegraph and I am one to say I was impressed. It provides extensive, factual stories and is opening my eyes to analysing sport in ways previously I would not of thought of.
Peter Cole finishes his article by asking if The Telegraph can take their reader with them, or find news one with the increasingly moving towards digital hyperactivity. I think if the younger population took the time to read The Telegraph then possibly this would be the case, but I will not have them losing the daily Matt Cartoon, which has made me chuckle most of this evening.
Now I will move on to the other parts of Peter Cole's views on newspapers.
Now we have all heard the views that the sales of newspapers are in decline and that eventually all news will be broadcast either on television or online. Well when 11.7 million people buy a newspaper on a weekday and with that figure rising to 12.5 million on a Sunday, this shows that they are quite a few people buying a newspaper in the UK on a daily basis. I can not think of a day where I have not brought a newspaper in the last six months at least because I need to know what is going on in the world.
What you do need to take into account is that these articles by Peter Cole were published 3 years ago and the amount of changes there have been to online subscriptions for newspapers has been significant with more newspapers starting to rely on their online content. The numbers of newspapers paper being brought every day may have increased or declined, however what has not changed is the daily hunger for news.
The next thing that caught my attention was Professor Cole's view that The Daily Mail's audience could be described as "middle England". Now he does not meant that everyone from Coventry to Stoke-On-Trent reads The Daily Mail, what Cole is trying to suggest is that The Daily Mail have set out their targeted audience and kept it constant over the past 100 years. This could be down to the fact that the ownership of The Mail has stayed the same with not interference from the government. With an ageing population and a Conservative Prime Minister to boost the readership's confidence and support, I think potentially it could be just a matter of time before The Daily Mail overtakes The Sun as the biggest selling newspapers in the United Kingdom.
Peter Cole would give a very controversial opinion of the tabloids as he claims that the reader of tabloids are "another country to readers of this and other serious newspapers". Well then I welcome you to the planet of The Sun (there is no chance of getting burnt thought), which is inhabited daily by nearly 2.5 million readers. The Sun dominated the tabloid market during the week, with The News of the World taking the reign of tabloid supremacy on Sunday's.
What you need to take into account is that the three highest selling newspapers in the country are all owned by the Murdoch owned news conglomerate: News Corporation. Even though sales in tabloid newspapers continue to decline, Rupert Murdoch still has the winning solution when it comes to selling newspapers, however as Cole suggest the "golden age" of newspaper has long past it's sell by date.
Tabloid newspapers have increasingly over the past decade latched themselves onto popular television show, such as Big Brother and The X Factor. They have become more dependant on writing stories on which X Factor contestants are sleeping with each other or Which Big Brother contestant has cheated on their girlfriend. This latching on effect has left tabloid newspapers going more down-market and at the same time taking it's readership with them.
Peter Cole's final article talked about the rise of the "serious" sunday newspapers. He refers to the four serious sunday newspapers: The Independent on Sunday, The Sunday Times, The Observer and The Sunday Telegraph. Cole goes on to list the vast number of sections you will find in the sunday newspapers and the fact that there is so much variety, but will every reader devote their time to reading each section?
There will be some readers who will spend their Sunday scoping through and reading each section in details (my uncle for one), but their will be the majority that will focus on the sections that interest them and leave the rest unopened. As Cole suggests, do we truly know the cost of producing the unopened sections that we leave to the unopened section of our Sunday newspaper.
Cole goes onto express how each newspaper specific unique qualities will keep their niche audience interested and give them their much needed weekend reading material. Sunday newspapers are embedded into national culture, just like the traditional Sunday roast, the Sunday newspaper has become part of our daily routine. Even though Sales of Sunday broadsheets have fallen 13%, if you compare these figures to the market as a whole then you can see that The Sunday Broadsheet will continue to stay strong into the future. I for one will certainly contemplate swapping my Sunday dose of gossip and phone-tapping lies to the unique and well-written Sunday broadsheet.
Finally I can wake up on a Sunday not having to wonder which page the life and times of Katie Price will end up on. Until next time readers I will leave you with one thought; Is the world really ready for the global broadcast domination that could soon be the Murdoch empire??
I think we will ponder on that situation very soon.
Now we have all heard the views that the sales of newspapers are in decline and that eventually all news will be broadcast either on television or online. Well when 11.7 million people buy a newspaper on a weekday and with that figure rising to 12.5 million on a Sunday, this shows that they are quite a few people buying a newspaper in the UK on a daily basis. I can not think of a day where I have not brought a newspaper in the last six months at least because I need to know what is going on in the world.
What you do need to take into account is that these articles by Peter Cole were published 3 years ago and the amount of changes there have been to online subscriptions for newspapers has been significant with more newspapers starting to rely on their online content. The numbers of newspapers paper being brought every day may have increased or declined, however what has not changed is the daily hunger for news.
The next thing that caught my attention was Professor Cole's view that The Daily Mail's audience could be described as "middle England". Now he does not meant that everyone from Coventry to Stoke-On-Trent reads The Daily Mail, what Cole is trying to suggest is that The Daily Mail have set out their targeted audience and kept it constant over the past 100 years. This could be down to the fact that the ownership of The Mail has stayed the same with not interference from the government. With an ageing population and a Conservative Prime Minister to boost the readership's confidence and support, I think potentially it could be just a matter of time before The Daily Mail overtakes The Sun as the biggest selling newspapers in the United Kingdom.
Peter Cole would give a very controversial opinion of the tabloids as he claims that the reader of tabloids are "another country to readers of this and other serious newspapers". Well then I welcome you to the planet of The Sun (there is no chance of getting burnt thought), which is inhabited daily by nearly 2.5 million readers. The Sun dominated the tabloid market during the week, with The News of the World taking the reign of tabloid supremacy on Sunday's.
What you need to take into account is that the three highest selling newspapers in the country are all owned by the Murdoch owned news conglomerate: News Corporation. Even though sales in tabloid newspapers continue to decline, Rupert Murdoch still has the winning solution when it comes to selling newspapers, however as Cole suggest the "golden age" of newspaper has long past it's sell by date.
Tabloid newspapers have increasingly over the past decade latched themselves onto popular television show, such as Big Brother and The X Factor. They have become more dependant on writing stories on which X Factor contestants are sleeping with each other or Which Big Brother contestant has cheated on their girlfriend. This latching on effect has left tabloid newspapers going more down-market and at the same time taking it's readership with them.
Peter Cole's final article talked about the rise of the "serious" sunday newspapers. He refers to the four serious sunday newspapers: The Independent on Sunday, The Sunday Times, The Observer and The Sunday Telegraph. Cole goes on to list the vast number of sections you will find in the sunday newspapers and the fact that there is so much variety, but will every reader devote their time to reading each section?
There will be some readers who will spend their Sunday scoping through and reading each section in details (my uncle for one), but their will be the majority that will focus on the sections that interest them and leave the rest unopened. As Cole suggests, do we truly know the cost of producing the unopened sections that we leave to the unopened section of our Sunday newspaper.
Cole goes onto express how each newspaper specific unique qualities will keep their niche audience interested and give them their much needed weekend reading material. Sunday newspapers are embedded into national culture, just like the traditional Sunday roast, the Sunday newspaper has become part of our daily routine. Even though Sales of Sunday broadsheets have fallen 13%, if you compare these figures to the market as a whole then you can see that The Sunday Broadsheet will continue to stay strong into the future. I for one will certainly contemplate swapping my Sunday dose of gossip and phone-tapping lies to the unique and well-written Sunday broadsheet.
Finally I can wake up on a Sunday not having to wonder which page the life and times of Katie Price will end up on. Until next time readers I will leave you with one thought; Is the world really ready for the global broadcast domination that could soon be the Murdoch empire??
I think we will ponder on that situation very soon.
Friday 29 October 2010
Early Journalism-Invention of the Printing Press
German inventor Johannes Gutenberg is seen by many as the "founding father of journalism". In 1436 Gutenberg began work inventing the printing press. Gutenberg was inspired by some of the earliest pressing machines, such as the screw press, which was mainly used in agricultural production. Gutenberg by 1440 had completed his wooden machine, however the most important aspect of his invention was that is was the first form of printing to use movable type.
The movable print was significant as it was the first type of print that could move the lettering around separately. Before Gutenberg's invention was used, the transcriptions and publications of books were completed by hand in the monasteries by thousands of well-educated monks.
In 1440 the first set of publications created by Gutenberg's printing press were released. The mass-produced indulgences were printed slips of paper sold by the Catholic Church to remit temporal punishments for sins committed in this life. By 1450 Johannes Gutenberg had started producing publications of the bible, this was mainly due to the partnership Gutenberg had formed with Johann Fust. Fust had financed the publications, which led to a printing boom all across Europe.
Many saw Gutenberg's 42-page bible as his most accomplished work. Despite the success and admiration, Gutenberg was not making much money. This would change when Gutenberg started selling copies of his two-volume bible for a price significantly cheaper than the handwritten copies, which could take at least 20 years for one monk to transcribe.
By 1455 Gutenberg has perfected the formula used for his printing press. This was accomplished by creating an oil-based ink that was suitable for the high quality printing being created by the metal type. However, this was soon to change as Johann Fust sued Gutenberg. This led to Fust gaining ownership of the printing equipment, enabling him and Gutenberg's former assistant, Peter Schoffer to publish the completed bible in 1456.
This did not stop Gutenberg as he managed to manufacture a new printing press with help from Conrad Humery. This printing outfit comprised of a set of small types fashioned after the long cursive handwriting used in books at the time. Gutenberg's invention continued to spread across western society until his death in 1468.
Around the time of Gutenberg's death, there was another man who had begun to form his own printing press in England. His name was William Caxton. Caxton had travelled to Germany and learnt his craft through the expertise of famous German printer Johannes Veledener. In 1474 Caxton would take this knowledge and set up his own printing press near Westminster Abbey. This would be where he produced the first printing works written entirely in English. They included the famous works of Geoffrey Chaucer, most notably The Canterbury Tales.
Johannes Gutenberg and William Caxton have had major influence over civilisation and the modern world. These two men influenced every local and national newspaper, as well as every book published. Even though they were scrutinised by many within high society during the 15th century. No one can argue the fact that the world we live in today, where we are allowed freedom of expression. This would have not of been possible without help from "The Gutenberg Galaxy.”
http://www.suite101.com/content/william-caxton-a83142 (3)
www.wikipedia.org (4)
www.google.com (5)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)