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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)