Week 3 of advanced media law and we privileged to be have a guest lecture from Peter Hodges. Peter has been in a variety of different industries over the last 35 years from music to television, but he is a expert in what today's lecture subject was about: copyright. Peter used to be the head of copyright at the BBC, therefore he has had to deal with almost everything you can think of when it comes from copyright to using the latest number 1 hit in Eastenders to the lighting arrangements in a BBC 2 play on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
Before we start lets have a small history lesson into copyright, which started with John Wilton and his verses of poem titled Paradise Lost first published in 1667 and was the first example of copyright. Copyright has then gone onto cover every aspect of the media and the arts including:
* Performing rights
* Dramatic performances including sound, lighting, stage and set designs etc.
* Television.
* Typography E.G. fonts
* Databases
* And even the Internet.
This brought into place the Copyright, Designs and Patents act 1988, which means everyone that has something published needs to ensure that their rights are protected and none of their work is copied or used without their permission. Therefore, if we wish to use someone else works for review, production or just as a name for their blog we need the person's permission (prior to contrary belief Has Lou got News for You does not sound anything like a topic BBC panel show). Once the work is published by any means or in any format (written, spoke, broadcasted) it can then be protected.
As a journalist working on WINOL I come across copyright almost every day. In particular in a recent story I covered on Barton Farm I used pictures of the development, but I needed permission from the developed, Cala Homes to use them and I also had to accredit them with their permission to use the pictures during the news package. The package in question if you want to view is shown below (plugging to get more views is necessary in any topic even copyright).
Peter Hodges then gave us a example of copyright, which you would not think of. The Eiffel Tower in Paris, France is one of the most iconic monuments in the world, but when it is illuminated at night would you think it is copyright? You would probably think no, but yes in fact it is copyright because it has been designed for use, therefore you would need to get the permission of the owners of the rights to take a photo or use it for any purpose.
Another topic came up was the chanting of songs at Football matches. Every team has their own series or songs that are usually about players, but are sung to the tune of a certain famous song. For example I am a season ticket holder at Southampton and one of the songs we use is When The Saints Go Marching In, which was originally a Belgian christian hymn. Now you cannot stop a team singing the song, but television and radio stations are usually skeptical of letting the viewer or listener hear the song, so unless the crowd is very loud (the away Southampton following) then they will not let the song be heard because of copyright laws. But, generally sometimes this is out of their control and clubs that use the song (nearly 40 across all sports worldwide) have not come to face any criminal law suit against them for using this song, so the likeliness of copyright issues in this case are rare, but you still need to be aware.
Copyright can last for literacy work in particular for the life of the author and another 70 years after they have died, therefore J.K Rowling and the works of Harry Potter will be labeled with copyright during my generation and beyond. This is the same for a movie, which will include the director/, the composers music and the even the cinematographer. For music it is a little different with songs have copyright for 50 years.
As a owner of a work you have the right to prevent copies and performances of this work taking place. It costs money to have works used E.G. music played or used. For example in the UK in 2009 the PRS (Performing Rights Society) started a legal battle against YouTube for the illegal use of music videos on it's site without any royalties being paid to the artists. This resulted in the pulling of music videos being unavailable to view in the UK during the summer of 2009. The dispute was settled towards the end of the year, which meant Google (the parent owners of YouTube) have paid a subscription fees for the use of these vidoes. The major dispute now is the battle between the PRS and illegal file sharing sites, which is allowing the broadcast and use of music artist's singles and albums for free as they are being downloaded illegally and are not being paid for.
If a copyright owner's rights are infringed then they have the right to put forward a injunction to stop the work being used and can even file for damages caused by the use of their work. In McNae's Essential Law for Journalist 21st edition it explains a key example of this. In 1997 the Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown stepped down and decided to publish his private diary, but before this was published The Sunday Telegraph published some of these diary entries. Mr Ashdown sued the paper for breach of copyright, but The Sunday Telegraph claimed it was being used as "fair dealing", but this judgement was quashed as the judge felt it was not being used for reviews purpose and that they had sensationalised the entries and was also a breach of confidence.
This brings me onto the subject of fair dealing. Fair dealing is the fair practice of using a small amount of a person work for various purposes that can include:
* For research of private study for dramatic or art works.
* For criticism and review for all works.
* Reporting currents events.
* Parliamentary procedures
* Royal commission.
However, photos can not be used without obtained consent from the owner. This is particular in news as if one reporter's photos from ITV were used by every major news outlet in the world, then this photographer would not make a living by selling these pictures.
A owner has the moral rights of copyright and have the right to be credited for any use of their work, the right to not have their work subject to derogatory treatment and the right to have privacy of their work being used at all.
We learn from Peter that £500,000 is a relatively small amount to be paid out in any breach of copyright case. Winol has covered a key example of copyright issues, which involved The Hobbit Pub in Southampton being sued by the Saul Zaentz production company earlier this year. The case involved the use of the films name without accreditation to the production company and a payment of royalties for the use of the film name and it's characters and trademarks. The dispute is interesting as the pub was running under this name for 20 years before any lawsuit came to light and this only occurred because The Hobbit is being made into a third-part feature length film and has now renewed publicity. The pub are still trying to negotiation for restricted rights. This was the story WINOL covered when the dispute came to light earlier this year:
What you have to remember is every time you hear a piece of music on the radio, the radio station are also paying part of the copyright out of their advertising payments to the published and even the BBC will used up to 55,000 clips of music a week ranging from a 1 second jingle on BBC Radio Solent to 3 hours of a opera on BBC Radio 3.
Copyright will always changes because people always push for changes, but as a journalist I will be more careful next time I edit a package to ensure that there is no music in the background during a interview grab or that a label is not visible when filming my GV's.
Until next time I remind you to watch out for those signs of copyright and do not be a plagiariser or you will be caught!
Sunday, 21 October 2012
Sunday, 7 October 2012
Media Law Lecutre 2: Confidentiality and Privacy... The battle between Articles 8 and 10 of the European Human Rights Act
Well we are back for the next dosage of Media Lawology (that will never be a word). This week I will be focusing on two words that when you think of keeping a secret you better and that is the battle between Confidentiality and Privacy.
Confidentiality came to pass through the disturbing and vicious legislation, which is The Official Secrets act of 1989. This piece of legislation would destroy what we know as the public interest. This was done mainly in protection to national defence and security. Journalists were no longer allowed to publish any military and national defences secret in order to protect the country who were in the midsts of the first Gulf War. Therefore, the only loophole you had would be under article 10 of the European Human's right act where you could suggest that the information is vital as it has damaged national security and every member of the British population should be made aware.
A DA notice could be served at any time, which acted as a self-restraint on publications of any national security information or secrets. A recent example of this was during the recent phone hacking scandal in October 2011 the London Metropolitan police order The Guardian newspaper to provide them with evidence of potential phone hackers. However, the British press stood up and attacked the Met who in turn backed down and did not press ahead with their pursuit of the information from The Guardian.
Now secrets are something we all have and it can be anything from who we have a crush on (I am not saying, but we all know who it is) to who was responsible for putting the black hole in the most recent WINOL bulletin (that could be seen as a defamatory statement, but that again will have to wait for a later time). However, there are common law secrets that as Journalists we must all be aware of.
People have the right to have secrets and as long as it is not against the public interest, secrets can be passed on. However, if they are revealed then a breach of confidence has been reached and as a journalist you are liable to both criminal and civil action against not just yourself, but the media organisation you work for as well.
If you reveal secrets to a journalist then this has the potential to be a third party breach of confidence. Therefore, you must ensure that you always protect your sources, even if it means you face a spell in prison because as journalists there are hidden rules we must abide to and one of the most important is to always protect your source at any cost.
A prime example of this is the case of the Journalist; Bill Godwinn who in 1989 faced prison, but decided to protect his sources as he felt that if he did oblige by this is would be a break of trust and would show that journalists could not be trusted with keeping information private and who gave them the information. In 1993 the European Court of Human Rights order that the British government came to an agreement that protect sources was important and should not be breached unless severe public interest is common ground for the source to be revealed.
But, what actually constitutes a breach of confidence. In Mcnae's Essential Law for Journalists edition 21 they state for their to be a breach of confidence four things must first be established:
* The information must have "the necessary quality of confidence" E.G must not be made up or is just "hear-say."
* The information must have been imparted in circumstance imposing a obligation of confidence E.G. The person who has told you the information has asked for you to keep the information private and must not be passed on.
* There must be a unauthorised use of the information to the detriment of the party communicating it E.G. The information could personally affect the person involved and caused their reputation to be affected or even destroyed.
An example of this could be if I was to walk into the doctors and said that I had a rash on my hand. You telling them this information means that as a doctor they must keep this information secret as their duty with their patient to respect their wishes. However, if the doctor over the PA then ask the next patient to room 4 and says at the same time "Louis O'Brien has a rash on his hand", this is a breach of confidence as the information may be detrimental to myself.
Until the year 2000, confidentiality laws were used mainly to protect themselves from the threat of the media. But, the case involving the wedding photographs of Michael Douglas and Catherine Yeta-Jones and OK! magazine Hello! Magazine sued for breach of confidence. This was because Douglas has already agreed withe OK! Magazine that they would have exclusive right to the photos and had signed a contact with the financial agreement. However, it was established that a Hello! Magazine photographer had breach confidence by intruding (privacy) the wedding reception and was not a guest (breach of confidence).
The Judge justice Lindsay ruled in favours of the Douglas's and stated that "Privacy is a fundamental value and personal autotomy."
This brings me on nicely onto the second part of the lecture that focused on privacy. Privacy is centred around the Humans Right Act 1998 and the constant conflict that has continued ever since between Article 8 and Article 10. But, before we explain the conflict let's remind you and myself of what each Article entails
*Article 8 says that everyone has the right to respect got their private, family life. There must be no public interference by anyone unless their is a right in accordance with the law where there is a key public interest.
* Article 10 explains how everyone has their own right towards "Freedom of expression."
Privacy can also be described as "personal secrets". A breach of privacy can be established when it involve publication of someone personal or family life. It is very easy as a journalist to obtain photos, but do we have the right to broadcast or publish them?
Yes if we have the consent or if it is in the public interest, not just "in the interest of the public."
We do not have permission to use them if there has been no consent from the parties involved. Also do not assume that you can film someone because they are simply in a public place. This is very important to us on WINOL as we strive to be as careful as possible to who we film and where we film them. It is ok to film someone in the street, but do not film children in a school or have a extreme close up on someone on the street unless you are talking to them or they are directly affected by the story.
If we are looking for a example of a court case involving privacy then the case in 2004 of Princess Caroline of Monaco is ideal. The case revolved around the fact that pictures were taken of the Princess who was sat in a cafe, but at the very back away from sight of the general public, but no the cameras of the paparazzi who took pictures and published them. This led to Princess Caroline suing the publication under Article 8 and this case was taken to the European court. The ECHR ruled in favour of Princess Caroline as they felt that even under Article 8 she should be able to "enjoy social interaction with people."
This ruling meant that even famous people are allowed to have a private life even if it is in a public place. But, this was the first chapter in the story as this year the case was referred back to the ECHR who overruled the decision and felt that "newspapers should be able to publish stories about well-known people."
The judgement said that "They (Prince Caroline and her husband) were walking in a public place. therefore, the magazine had not infringed her privacy under Article 8."
This ruling is important as it means that we are not imposing as journalists if we take photos of celebrities and famous people in public places, but we have to be careful under what circumstances and what situation they are in when we taken them or decide to publish them.
If a person is not happy about a photo or some information that is about to published then they can take out a Injunction, which will put a pause in the publication. Injunction does not just stop the publication who was going to publish the information from using it, it stop all publications from broadcasting the information anywhere to anyone. Celebrities with deep pockets are prime examples of people who will file injunctions as they know they have the ability to deter journalists and media publications from broadcasting or publishing their information to a wide audience.
If you breach a injunction you are liable for Contempt of Court and may face a prison sentence, as well as a heavy fine for your and your employer.
Super-Injunctions is a injunction to stop another injunction being released a prime example of this is the case of the affair of Manchester United Footballer; Ryan Giggs. Giggs was having a affair, but took out a super-injunction to the stop this information being released. However, Member's of Parliament have the right to break a super-injunction using parliamentary privilege, which gives them to right to say things if they are in the public interest. This resulted in the follow newspaper front page:
The case involving former president of the F.I.A Max Mosley is significant. Mosley was involved in a sexual group act involving prostitutes taking part in Nazi-based sex acts, which even included the prostitutes being dressed as people from Concentration Camps. The News of the World published the story, comparing Mosley to his father; Oswald Mosley who was a fascist leader and had close ties to Adolf Hitler in the 1930's.
Mosley felt that the newspaper was in breach of his rights to respect his privacy and family life because the media had not been obliged to give away the information or publish it. his lawyer Mr Justice Eady ruled that "the women who was the paper's informant had a duty of confidence to Mr Mosley."
However in 2011 ECHR ruled against Mr Mosley against journalist having to let subjects know prior notification before a story is published about them.
I think that is enough for this week and I think that I have learnt that all secrets I will be keeping to myself from now on!
Confidentiality came to pass through the disturbing and vicious legislation, which is The Official Secrets act of 1989. This piece of legislation would destroy what we know as the public interest. This was done mainly in protection to national defence and security. Journalists were no longer allowed to publish any military and national defences secret in order to protect the country who were in the midsts of the first Gulf War. Therefore, the only loophole you had would be under article 10 of the European Human's right act where you could suggest that the information is vital as it has damaged national security and every member of the British population should be made aware.
A DA notice could be served at any time, which acted as a self-restraint on publications of any national security information or secrets. A recent example of this was during the recent phone hacking scandal in October 2011 the London Metropolitan police order The Guardian newspaper to provide them with evidence of potential phone hackers. However, the British press stood up and attacked the Met who in turn backed down and did not press ahead with their pursuit of the information from The Guardian.
Now secrets are something we all have and it can be anything from who we have a crush on (I am not saying, but we all know who it is) to who was responsible for putting the black hole in the most recent WINOL bulletin (that could be seen as a defamatory statement, but that again will have to wait for a later time). However, there are common law secrets that as Journalists we must all be aware of.
People have the right to have secrets and as long as it is not against the public interest, secrets can be passed on. However, if they are revealed then a breach of confidence has been reached and as a journalist you are liable to both criminal and civil action against not just yourself, but the media organisation you work for as well.
If you reveal secrets to a journalist then this has the potential to be a third party breach of confidence. Therefore, you must ensure that you always protect your sources, even if it means you face a spell in prison because as journalists there are hidden rules we must abide to and one of the most important is to always protect your source at any cost.
A prime example of this is the case of the Journalist; Bill Godwinn who in 1989 faced prison, but decided to protect his sources as he felt that if he did oblige by this is would be a break of trust and would show that journalists could not be trusted with keeping information private and who gave them the information. In 1993 the European Court of Human Rights order that the British government came to an agreement that protect sources was important and should not be breached unless severe public interest is common ground for the source to be revealed.
But, what actually constitutes a breach of confidence. In Mcnae's Essential Law for Journalists edition 21 they state for their to be a breach of confidence four things must first be established:
* The information must have "the necessary quality of confidence" E.G must not be made up or is just "hear-say."
* The information must have been imparted in circumstance imposing a obligation of confidence E.G. The person who has told you the information has asked for you to keep the information private and must not be passed on.
* There must be a unauthorised use of the information to the detriment of the party communicating it E.G. The information could personally affect the person involved and caused their reputation to be affected or even destroyed.
An example of this could be if I was to walk into the doctors and said that I had a rash on my hand. You telling them this information means that as a doctor they must keep this information secret as their duty with their patient to respect their wishes. However, if the doctor over the PA then ask the next patient to room 4 and says at the same time "Louis O'Brien has a rash on his hand", this is a breach of confidence as the information may be detrimental to myself.
Until the year 2000, confidentiality laws were used mainly to protect themselves from the threat of the media. But, the case involving the wedding photographs of Michael Douglas and Catherine Yeta-Jones and OK! magazine Hello! Magazine sued for breach of confidence. This was because Douglas has already agreed withe OK! Magazine that they would have exclusive right to the photos and had signed a contact with the financial agreement. However, it was established that a Hello! Magazine photographer had breach confidence by intruding (privacy) the wedding reception and was not a guest (breach of confidence).
The Judge justice Lindsay ruled in favours of the Douglas's and stated that "Privacy is a fundamental value and personal autotomy."
This brings me on nicely onto the second part of the lecture that focused on privacy. Privacy is centred around the Humans Right Act 1998 and the constant conflict that has continued ever since between Article 8 and Article 10. But, before we explain the conflict let's remind you and myself of what each Article entails
*Article 8 says that everyone has the right to respect got their private, family life. There must be no public interference by anyone unless their is a right in accordance with the law where there is a key public interest.
* Article 10 explains how everyone has their own right towards "Freedom of expression."
Privacy can also be described as "personal secrets". A breach of privacy can be established when it involve publication of someone personal or family life. It is very easy as a journalist to obtain photos, but do we have the right to broadcast or publish them?
Yes if we have the consent or if it is in the public interest, not just "in the interest of the public."
We do not have permission to use them if there has been no consent from the parties involved. Also do not assume that you can film someone because they are simply in a public place. This is very important to us on WINOL as we strive to be as careful as possible to who we film and where we film them. It is ok to film someone in the street, but do not film children in a school or have a extreme close up on someone on the street unless you are talking to them or they are directly affected by the story.
If we are looking for a example of a court case involving privacy then the case in 2004 of Princess Caroline of Monaco is ideal. The case revolved around the fact that pictures were taken of the Princess who was sat in a cafe, but at the very back away from sight of the general public, but no the cameras of the paparazzi who took pictures and published them. This led to Princess Caroline suing the publication under Article 8 and this case was taken to the European court. The ECHR ruled in favour of Princess Caroline as they felt that even under Article 8 she should be able to "enjoy social interaction with people."
This ruling meant that even famous people are allowed to have a private life even if it is in a public place. But, this was the first chapter in the story as this year the case was referred back to the ECHR who overruled the decision and felt that "newspapers should be able to publish stories about well-known people."
The judgement said that "They (Prince Caroline and her husband) were walking in a public place. therefore, the magazine had not infringed her privacy under Article 8."
This ruling is important as it means that we are not imposing as journalists if we take photos of celebrities and famous people in public places, but we have to be careful under what circumstances and what situation they are in when we taken them or decide to publish them.
If a person is not happy about a photo or some information that is about to published then they can take out a Injunction, which will put a pause in the publication. Injunction does not just stop the publication who was going to publish the information from using it, it stop all publications from broadcasting the information anywhere to anyone. Celebrities with deep pockets are prime examples of people who will file injunctions as they know they have the ability to deter journalists and media publications from broadcasting or publishing their information to a wide audience.
If you breach a injunction you are liable for Contempt of Court and may face a prison sentence, as well as a heavy fine for your and your employer.
Super-Injunctions is a injunction to stop another injunction being released a prime example of this is the case of the affair of Manchester United Footballer; Ryan Giggs. Giggs was having a affair, but took out a super-injunction to the stop this information being released. However, Member's of Parliament have the right to break a super-injunction using parliamentary privilege, which gives them to right to say things if they are in the public interest. This resulted in the follow newspaper front page:
The case involving former president of the F.I.A Max Mosley is significant. Mosley was involved in a sexual group act involving prostitutes taking part in Nazi-based sex acts, which even included the prostitutes being dressed as people from Concentration Camps. The News of the World published the story, comparing Mosley to his father; Oswald Mosley who was a fascist leader and had close ties to Adolf Hitler in the 1930's.
Mosley felt that the newspaper was in breach of his rights to respect his privacy and family life because the media had not been obliged to give away the information or publish it. his lawyer Mr Justice Eady ruled that "the women who was the paper's informant had a duty of confidence to Mr Mosley."
However in 2011 ECHR ruled against Mr Mosley against journalist having to let subjects know prior notification before a story is published about them.
I think that is enough for this week and I think that I have learnt that all secrets I will be keeping to myself from now on!
Winol Special: Hampshire Police Commissioner Election debate plan
Editorial
Right guys the debate for The Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner election is now confirmed for Thursday 1st November between 7.45pm and 10pm to be held in the Stripe Auditorium. But, we will need to be setting up from as early as possible, therefore we will be moving the equipment from half 3 into the Stripe Auditorium for 4.
We will set up and then start rehearsals to make sure that the Tricaster will work with the cameras in the Stripe and to ensure that the sound is ok, as well as the stream. We will be streaming off the Winol livestream account (www.livestream.com/winol). This will be test prior to the day of the debate. If this does not work we will use the Winol ustream account.
I need you to be aware and know who the candidates are. These are the following candidates and which political party they are representing. I have also put a link to their website so you can have a read of their campaign plans and to ensure that you are in the know to what is going on:
Michael Mates (Conservative) www.michaelmates.org
Jacqui Rayment (Labour) www.jacquirayment.co.uk
David Goodall (Liberal Democrat) www.davidgoodall.org.uk
Stephen West (UKIP) www.vote4stephen.com
Simon Hayes (Independent) www.hayes4pcc.org
Don Jerrard (The Justice and Anti-Corruption party)
Also useful links for the post-debate interviewers to learn up on the elections and the candidates are www.policelections.com and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-19492607
The chair of the debate will no longer be Sally Taylor, but will now be Alex Forsyth who is the Home Affairs correspondent for BBC South. She has a vast knowledge of the upcoming election and has a extensive background in broadcast Journalism covering the stories that we focus on every week on Winol. Here is a link of her doing a preview of the election on this week's Sunday Politics. It is about 45 minutes into the programme.
Roles
I have decided to change the roles up a bit because I need to ensure that this looks really professional and well produced. I am playing people to their strengths for what I know so far, so please do not be offended if I have changed your role, but I do not know everyone strengths yet.
Managing Editor: Louis O'Brien
Tricaster/Producer: Henry Lewin-Titt
Director: Graham Marshall
Cameramen: George Berridge, Daniel Mackrell, Ewan Kennerell, Lee Jarvis plus one more who I need to decide on.
Ushers: Felicity Houston, Sophie Webb and Faith Thomas
Guest Reception: (checking off guests name to ensure they have been invited): Kate Drummond and Nicole Collas
Runners: Christina Michaels, Kirsty Phillips and Amy Moore. (you will be mainly going round with the microphone so people can ask their questions as the majority of the debate is a Q and A session with the candidates.
Online/graphics: Liam Garraham and Jason French (this is one of the most important jobs as we will need you to watch the stream throughout to ensure it is working and to have a graphics made ready to use if the stream goes down)
Post-debate interviewers: George Berridge, Spence Spencer, Tom Morgan, Thomas Baxter, Ali Al-Jamri and myself. I will need a couple of extra people to help with the cameras, as well as it will be two people per interview (one interviewer and one cameraman).
I will be holding a brief meeting with everyone tomorrow afternoon after the news and production conferences. I need to know if anyone else wants to help out as the more people we have helping the less pressure there will be (in particular the production team).
Everyone I know has either a HCJ seminar or Media Law. I will be consulting with Brian and Chris tomorrow to see how this will affect things. I gather that Law may be moved to a earlier time that day or we will be given the notes to catch up on. In regards to HCJ I think it may be working around your seminar time and then coming back after it has finished to continue to help out.
I need all hands on deck with this guys as this will we a test run to see how the American Election goes as this will be streamed live for a hour and a half and the American election show will be four times the length. So, it will be good practice for the following Tuesday/Wednesday.
Hope this all makes sense and if you have any questions then please come see me tomorrow morning.
Right guys the debate for The Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner election is now confirmed for Thursday 1st November between 7.45pm and 10pm to be held in the Stripe Auditorium. But, we will need to be setting up from as early as possible, therefore we will be moving the equipment from half 3 into the Stripe Auditorium for 4.
We will set up and then start rehearsals to make sure that the Tricaster will work with the cameras in the Stripe and to ensure that the sound is ok, as well as the stream. We will be streaming off the Winol livestream account (www.livestream.com/winol). This will be test prior to the day of the debate. If this does not work we will use the Winol ustream account.
I need you to be aware and know who the candidates are. These are the following candidates and which political party they are representing. I have also put a link to their website so you can have a read of their campaign plans and to ensure that you are in the know to what is going on:
Michael Mates (Conservative) www.michaelmates.org
Jacqui Rayment (Labour) www.jacquirayment.co.uk
David Goodall (Liberal Democrat) www.davidgoodall.org.uk
Stephen West (UKIP) www.vote4stephen.com
Simon Hayes (Independent) www.hayes4pcc.org
Don Jerrard (The Justice and Anti-Corruption party)
Also useful links for the post-debate interviewers to learn up on the elections and the candidates are www.policelections.com and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-19492607
The chair of the debate will no longer be Sally Taylor, but will now be Alex Forsyth who is the Home Affairs correspondent for BBC South. She has a vast knowledge of the upcoming election and has a extensive background in broadcast Journalism covering the stories that we focus on every week on Winol. Here is a link of her doing a preview of the election on this week's Sunday Politics. It is about 45 minutes into the programme.
Roles
I have decided to change the roles up a bit because I need to ensure that this looks really professional and well produced. I am playing people to their strengths for what I know so far, so please do not be offended if I have changed your role, but I do not know everyone strengths yet.
Managing Editor: Louis O'Brien
Tricaster/Producer: Henry Lewin-Titt
Director: Graham Marshall
Cameramen: George Berridge, Daniel Mackrell, Ewan Kennerell, Lee Jarvis plus one more who I need to decide on.
Ushers: Felicity Houston, Sophie Webb and Faith Thomas
Guest Reception: (checking off guests name to ensure they have been invited): Kate Drummond and Nicole Collas
Runners: Christina Michaels, Kirsty Phillips and Amy Moore. (you will be mainly going round with the microphone so people can ask their questions as the majority of the debate is a Q and A session with the candidates.
Online/graphics: Liam Garraham and Jason French (this is one of the most important jobs as we will need you to watch the stream throughout to ensure it is working and to have a graphics made ready to use if the stream goes down)
Post-debate interviewers: George Berridge, Spence Spencer, Tom Morgan, Thomas Baxter, Ali Al-Jamri and myself. I will need a couple of extra people to help with the cameras, as well as it will be two people per interview (one interviewer and one cameraman).
I will be holding a brief meeting with everyone tomorrow afternoon after the news and production conferences. I need to know if anyone else wants to help out as the more people we have helping the less pressure there will be (in particular the production team).
Everyone I know has either a HCJ seminar or Media Law. I will be consulting with Brian and Chris tomorrow to see how this will affect things. I gather that Law may be moved to a earlier time that day or we will be given the notes to catch up on. In regards to HCJ I think it may be working around your seminar time and then coming back after it has finished to continue to help out.
I need all hands on deck with this guys as this will we a test run to see how the American Election goes as this will be streamed live for a hour and a half and the American election show will be four times the length. So, it will be good practice for the following Tuesday/Wednesday.
Hope this all makes sense and if you have any questions then please come see me tomorrow morning.
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Fatal Error will cost you a degree, but it won't if you read this blog post: Media Law Update lecture 1
Well it has been a while, six months to be exact since I did a blog post for all you lovely people out there in the World Wide Web. No longer will my postings be about the philosophical world of HCJ, but we are back to a topic that took over the majority of my blogging life during the first year of my Journalism course at The University of Winchester; media law. Now over the last two years I have drunk enough and had enough nervous breakdowns over WINOL to possibly forget the majority of the law that us as Journalists needs to be follow, therefore it was refreshing to be able to have a recap during the first lecture for what we are to expect over the next couple of months.
This series of lectures will be taken by Ian Anderson; former editor of the BBC Ten o'clock news. That's right the man who was responsible for giving us the dulcet, Welsh tones of Huw Edwards coming into our television sets every night for the last 10 years and beyond will be telling us third years all we need to know and this time try to remember in order to become responsible Journalists and not end up in the dock for libel or my personal favourite; Contempt of Court (not saying that I am intending to end up in The Old Bailey anytime soon other then to report).
Unfortunately Ian is away training Journalists somewhere in Indonesia, so for the next two weeks we have Brian Thornton explaining to us why we need to remember as Journalists that the law is paramount for everything we do when thinking about doing a story on absolutely anything. Coming from a BBC background he explained that the team of BBC lawyers (and no they are not 7 feet tall monsters waiting to pounce on our every wrong move or not what we were told) who will look over everything that the BBC broadcasts from the 10 o'clock news to Eastenders with a fine tooth comb.
We were then treated to a short video from a lecture given by Valerie Nazareth who is the head Lawyer for the BBC. We were shown what she feels student journalists need to know about the law when entering the profession. The main three things she feel were the most vital to learn and know were Defamation, Contempt of Court and Privacy. I will in turn refresh yours and my own memory on each of these terms and how they could affect journalists.
Defamation or slander is where you can make a defamatory statement about someone, which is not just wrong, but is also personal and insulting and could lead to them being ridiculed in the minds on right thinking people and affect them in their career. For a statement to be defamatory it must be publish and the person or subject must be clearly identified. However, if the person is dead there is no one there to support them, therefore if you want to be taking the mic out of a old Laurel and Hardy sketch (which has been done many a time by Hugh Lawrie and Stephen Fry) than this is better than saying something bad about a living person.
There are four defences to defamation, which are justification, fair comment, qualified privilege (this will only defend you from Libel) and public interest. The two main example of this recently is the two stories involving the Royal Family with Prince Harry's escapades in Las Vegas and the publication of Kate Middleton without having any clothes on to cover her up. In both situations there is a strong indication of public interest as everyone is interested in the Royal Family, but then they have the right to put in any legal action against the publication of these photos and the comment made about them in the newspapers.
The main difference between the two is the justification for the Prince Harry photo's are that at the time his secret service security had been told to leave, so there was no one there to protect him and stop the photo's being taken in clear public view. However, in the case of the Kate Middleton photo's it has been proved that the pictures could only have been taken by a camera with a long zoom as the area where the photos was taken was very secluded. Therefore, there is public interest, but there is no justified reason for the pictures being taken and that is why no British newspaper has dared to publish them in fear of the legal ramifications, which would more than likely follow.
There is also the recent statement that has been released from the BBC apologising for their reporter Frank Gardener who had mentioned about a previous conversation with the Queen where she had expressed her concerns over the prolonged legal proceedings involving the deportation of the radical cleric Abu Hamza. This is what was described as "Chatham House Rules" where you can report on what was said, but you must never mention who said it as it will encourage free and open debate throughout.
The next important part of the law we need to learn is Contempt of Court. If you forget this and get anything wrong there is a strong possibility that you will be facing a short or long term in prision. There is no defence against Contempt of Court, so you need to ensure that you do not annoy the court or do anything that will interfere with a active court case. Therefore, once a case has become active do not publish that the accused is guilty before the case has concluded. It will not only end up with yourself in prison and a heavy fine, it will destroy your journalistic career before you can say shorthand. The main example of this is the case involving Chris Jeferries who was accused of killing Joanna Yates in Bristol on 17th December 2010. He was accused of the murder by the press, due to his eccentric lifestyle and how he looked, but you cannot judge someone because they look weird and have different tastes and interests than most people. This accusation destroyed his life and has left him trying to piece together the reputation he will likely never get back, due to accusation that were false and untrue.
So, remember when reporting on court cases only a fair and accurate report of the day's proceedings will be acceptable. Do not make up lies and be very careful in sensitive cases involving sexual offences and children.
The third and possible most difficult part of the law to understand and follow as journalists is Privacy as journalists we have to be careful that we are not intruding on the lives of people as this violates article 8 of the European Humans Right Act where one has the right to have a personal family life without any fear or intrusion. But, article 10 of the act gives everyone the right to free expression, which protects the press to the point in dealings of privacy, but these will be discussed further in a whole topic dedicated to Privacy later on this year.
This brought us to the final point of the lecture; The WINOL Fatal Errors system. This system protects us as student journalists from any problem we may face, but if we break any of these rules we are liable to no only failing our course, but liable to criminal prosecution. These are the five things that we are liable against and have no protection over:
1. Malice.
2. Dishonest presentation of sources/dishonest generally.
3. Causing disrepute/disruption.
4. Reckless inaccuracy in basic expression.
5. Legal problems (without justification).
6. Regulatory problems (without justification).
If any of these offences are committed do not just expect to say goodbye to a BA Journalism degree from the University of Winchester, but also expect a brief trip to Winchester Magistrates or even Crown Court sometime in the near future.
That wraps up this instalment for the week that was in TAB9's Law Lecture. Tune in next week where we will discuss privacy, confidentiality and data protection law. By the way my number is 07 (wait can not be handing out number of the internet it's a breach of date protection).
This series of lectures will be taken by Ian Anderson; former editor of the BBC Ten o'clock news. That's right the man who was responsible for giving us the dulcet, Welsh tones of Huw Edwards coming into our television sets every night for the last 10 years and beyond will be telling us third years all we need to know and this time try to remember in order to become responsible Journalists and not end up in the dock for libel or my personal favourite; Contempt of Court (not saying that I am intending to end up in The Old Bailey anytime soon other then to report).
Unfortunately Ian is away training Journalists somewhere in Indonesia, so for the next two weeks we have Brian Thornton explaining to us why we need to remember as Journalists that the law is paramount for everything we do when thinking about doing a story on absolutely anything. Coming from a BBC background he explained that the team of BBC lawyers (and no they are not 7 feet tall monsters waiting to pounce on our every wrong move or not what we were told) who will look over everything that the BBC broadcasts from the 10 o'clock news to Eastenders with a fine tooth comb.
We were then treated to a short video from a lecture given by Valerie Nazareth who is the head Lawyer for the BBC. We were shown what she feels student journalists need to know about the law when entering the profession. The main three things she feel were the most vital to learn and know were Defamation, Contempt of Court and Privacy. I will in turn refresh yours and my own memory on each of these terms and how they could affect journalists.
Defamation or slander is where you can make a defamatory statement about someone, which is not just wrong, but is also personal and insulting and could lead to them being ridiculed in the minds on right thinking people and affect them in their career. For a statement to be defamatory it must be publish and the person or subject must be clearly identified. However, if the person is dead there is no one there to support them, therefore if you want to be taking the mic out of a old Laurel and Hardy sketch (which has been done many a time by Hugh Lawrie and Stephen Fry) than this is better than saying something bad about a living person.
There are four defences to defamation, which are justification, fair comment, qualified privilege (this will only defend you from Libel) and public interest. The two main example of this recently is the two stories involving the Royal Family with Prince Harry's escapades in Las Vegas and the publication of Kate Middleton without having any clothes on to cover her up. In both situations there is a strong indication of public interest as everyone is interested in the Royal Family, but then they have the right to put in any legal action against the publication of these photos and the comment made about them in the newspapers.
The main difference between the two is the justification for the Prince Harry photo's are that at the time his secret service security had been told to leave, so there was no one there to protect him and stop the photo's being taken in clear public view. However, in the case of the Kate Middleton photo's it has been proved that the pictures could only have been taken by a camera with a long zoom as the area where the photos was taken was very secluded. Therefore, there is public interest, but there is no justified reason for the pictures being taken and that is why no British newspaper has dared to publish them in fear of the legal ramifications, which would more than likely follow.
There is also the recent statement that has been released from the BBC apologising for their reporter Frank Gardener who had mentioned about a previous conversation with the Queen where she had expressed her concerns over the prolonged legal proceedings involving the deportation of the radical cleric Abu Hamza. This is what was described as "Chatham House Rules" where you can report on what was said, but you must never mention who said it as it will encourage free and open debate throughout.
The next important part of the law we need to learn is Contempt of Court. If you forget this and get anything wrong there is a strong possibility that you will be facing a short or long term in prision. There is no defence against Contempt of Court, so you need to ensure that you do not annoy the court or do anything that will interfere with a active court case. Therefore, once a case has become active do not publish that the accused is guilty before the case has concluded. It will not only end up with yourself in prison and a heavy fine, it will destroy your journalistic career before you can say shorthand. The main example of this is the case involving Chris Jeferries who was accused of killing Joanna Yates in Bristol on 17th December 2010. He was accused of the murder by the press, due to his eccentric lifestyle and how he looked, but you cannot judge someone because they look weird and have different tastes and interests than most people. This accusation destroyed his life and has left him trying to piece together the reputation he will likely never get back, due to accusation that were false and untrue.
So, remember when reporting on court cases only a fair and accurate report of the day's proceedings will be acceptable. Do not make up lies and be very careful in sensitive cases involving sexual offences and children.
The third and possible most difficult part of the law to understand and follow as journalists is Privacy as journalists we have to be careful that we are not intruding on the lives of people as this violates article 8 of the European Humans Right Act where one has the right to have a personal family life without any fear or intrusion. But, article 10 of the act gives everyone the right to free expression, which protects the press to the point in dealings of privacy, but these will be discussed further in a whole topic dedicated to Privacy later on this year.
This brought us to the final point of the lecture; The WINOL Fatal Errors system. This system protects us as student journalists from any problem we may face, but if we break any of these rules we are liable to no only failing our course, but liable to criminal prosecution. These are the five things that we are liable against and have no protection over:
1. Malice.
2. Dishonest presentation of sources/dishonest generally.
3. Causing disrepute/disruption.
4. Reckless inaccuracy in basic expression.
5. Legal problems (without justification).
6. Regulatory problems (without justification).
If any of these offences are committed do not just expect to say goodbye to a BA Journalism degree from the University of Winchester, but also expect a brief trip to Winchester Magistrates or even Crown Court sometime in the near future.
That wraps up this instalment for the week that was in TAB9's Law Lecture. Tune in next week where we will discuss privacy, confidentiality and data protection law. By the way my number is 07 (wait can not be handing out number of the internet it's a breach of date protection).
Sunday, 11 March 2012
HCJ Lecture/Seminar 4: Tom Wolfe and The New Journalism
New Journalism was a movement that was prominent throughout America during the 1960's and 70's where the country was enthralled in the changes in social and political rebellion. It was during a time where the American were engulfed in the only war that could be classed as a defeat in Vietnam and where the country was embraced in the mentality of free love and freedom brought upon by the hippies movement.
Journalism was also changing from the period where William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer changes the face of Journalism from the world of "Yellow Journalism" and was moving away from stories that would follows the basic new writing narrative rule of the 5 W's (who, what, why, where and when) and the man who epitomised these changes was Tom Wolfe.
Wolfe was born in Richmond, Virginia on March 2 1931 and throughout his youth was interested in journalism from a young age and went onto graduate with a doctrine in American Studies from Yale University. Wolfe decided that he wanted to follow his passion of Journalism into his vocation and moved to New York to work on the Herald Tribune and this is where he would form the foundation of The New Journalism.
New Journalism would blur the line between fiction and non-fiction as Wolfe felt that the novel was in steep decline due to the affect of realism on society and that the novel was practically dead and buried.This would reflect in a quote from Christopher Hitchens who felt that "Everyone has a book inside them."
In Wolfe's book The New Journalism on pages 46 and 47 he describes the four main characteristics that are needed to make the perfect feature piece. Each of these four elements are vital to not just a feature piece, but also a news package that is seen on a weekly basis on WINOL as you have to ensure that the story is about people doing things or being affected by something:
1. Scene by scene construction: Wolfe simply believes that you tell the story as you see it scene by scene to ensure that every details is captured and that you do not try and go down the historical narrative route.
2. Dialogue: Dialogue will help construct the story with help from the characters and how they speak and what they say. This will define and establish your characters and through subjectivity will see the true realism of their character. Regional accents can be key during dialogue as it can also establish the time period or the setting of the piece as well as the characters you are trying to show.
3. 3rd Persons Point of View: This again is key in establishing and defining a character through realism will give a perfection form of fiction. Observing the story from the character point of view and using subjectivity to show how the subject is the focus point of the story. Within a new package or a feature this is where the interview is key as if you can exploit and show an interviewee's true emotion and feelings you can use this as a tool to entice the reader in and play with their emotions to evoke a reaction from them.
4. Status Details: The surroundings of which the characters will take place in. For journalist status details and settings are the perfect tool for a social autopsy as you can see people as they are within themselves from their natural surroundings. This will also help the readers with the descriptions of the setting and paints a picture of the characters.
Wolfe felt that the best examples of New Journalism was in action and emotions drawing the thoughts and feelings of people and the people who knew them. This is where the first breed of new journalists came into spotlight with Truman Capote and his famous work "In Cold Blood" where these emotions and the point of view of the third person is exemplified.
Other example of New Journalism include Hunter S. Thompson, the inventor of Gonzo Journalism, which will see people take an active role of what they want to find out. This form of journalism is the closest you will find to a novel where the narrative and creative elements of the piece will explore different topics than in standard journalism.
The example of this is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas where Thompson portrays himself as a Raoul Drake and alongside his Samoan sidekick Dr Gonzo embarks on a drug-fulled trip to Las Vegas to cover the Mint 400 motorcycle desert race. The two main characters throughout the trip take copious amounts of alcohol and drugs to escape reality
Journalism has moved on from objectivity to subjectivity, from seeing to telling and from the journalist would take a back seat and write down everything he saw, they would take a greater role into their story and would sometime go far as they would become the story themselves without realising it. This new role of performance journalism is epitomised in the role of Michael Moore and even though most people hate the man to the point where you want to point a gun to his head, you can not underestimate his influence where he has taken new journalism to a new level where the story is more stressed on the dialogue and the point of view of the characters now more than ever.
With every new packages you have to find a story and then stand it up. In Journalism up to the present day it is evident that to stand the story out you need to combine the objectivity of the fact of the story with the subjectivity of the people who are affected and obtained the verbal (quote) and non-verbal (emotions/gestures) needed to establish a story that will interest your viewer. This is what shows that Tom Wolfe's form of New Journalism is still relevant and being updated 40 years later.
Journalism was also changing from the period where William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer changes the face of Journalism from the world of "Yellow Journalism" and was moving away from stories that would follows the basic new writing narrative rule of the 5 W's (who, what, why, where and when) and the man who epitomised these changes was Tom Wolfe.
Wolfe was born in Richmond, Virginia on March 2 1931 and throughout his youth was interested in journalism from a young age and went onto graduate with a doctrine in American Studies from Yale University. Wolfe decided that he wanted to follow his passion of Journalism into his vocation and moved to New York to work on the Herald Tribune and this is where he would form the foundation of The New Journalism.
New Journalism would blur the line between fiction and non-fiction as Wolfe felt that the novel was in steep decline due to the affect of realism on society and that the novel was practically dead and buried.This would reflect in a quote from Christopher Hitchens who felt that "Everyone has a book inside them."
In Wolfe's book The New Journalism on pages 46 and 47 he describes the four main characteristics that are needed to make the perfect feature piece. Each of these four elements are vital to not just a feature piece, but also a news package that is seen on a weekly basis on WINOL as you have to ensure that the story is about people doing things or being affected by something:
1. Scene by scene construction: Wolfe simply believes that you tell the story as you see it scene by scene to ensure that every details is captured and that you do not try and go down the historical narrative route.
2. Dialogue: Dialogue will help construct the story with help from the characters and how they speak and what they say. This will define and establish your characters and through subjectivity will see the true realism of their character. Regional accents can be key during dialogue as it can also establish the time period or the setting of the piece as well as the characters you are trying to show.
3. 3rd Persons Point of View: This again is key in establishing and defining a character through realism will give a perfection form of fiction. Observing the story from the character point of view and using subjectivity to show how the subject is the focus point of the story. Within a new package or a feature this is where the interview is key as if you can exploit and show an interviewee's true emotion and feelings you can use this as a tool to entice the reader in and play with their emotions to evoke a reaction from them.
4. Status Details: The surroundings of which the characters will take place in. For journalist status details and settings are the perfect tool for a social autopsy as you can see people as they are within themselves from their natural surroundings. This will also help the readers with the descriptions of the setting and paints a picture of the characters.
Wolfe felt that the best examples of New Journalism was in action and emotions drawing the thoughts and feelings of people and the people who knew them. This is where the first breed of new journalists came into spotlight with Truman Capote and his famous work "In Cold Blood" where these emotions and the point of view of the third person is exemplified.
Other example of New Journalism include Hunter S. Thompson, the inventor of Gonzo Journalism, which will see people take an active role of what they want to find out. This form of journalism is the closest you will find to a novel where the narrative and creative elements of the piece will explore different topics than in standard journalism.
The example of this is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas where Thompson portrays himself as a Raoul Drake and alongside his Samoan sidekick Dr Gonzo embarks on a drug-fulled trip to Las Vegas to cover the Mint 400 motorcycle desert race. The two main characters throughout the trip take copious amounts of alcohol and drugs to escape reality
Journalism has moved on from objectivity to subjectivity, from seeing to telling and from the journalist would take a back seat and write down everything he saw, they would take a greater role into their story and would sometime go far as they would become the story themselves without realising it. This new role of performance journalism is epitomised in the role of Michael Moore and even though most people hate the man to the point where you want to point a gun to his head, you can not underestimate his influence where he has taken new journalism to a new level where the story is more stressed on the dialogue and the point of view of the characters now more than ever.
With every new packages you have to find a story and then stand it up. In Journalism up to the present day it is evident that to stand the story out you need to combine the objectivity of the fact of the story with the subjectivity of the people who are affected and obtained the verbal (quote) and non-verbal (emotions/gestures) needed to establish a story that will interest your viewer. This is what shows that Tom Wolfe's form of New Journalism is still relevant and being updated 40 years later.
Sunday, 19 February 2012
HCJ Lecture 3: Mathematics, Logic, Language and Marilyn Monroe has a brain, who would have thought it!
Right, it's been a couple of week since I blogged, so it's time to dust the cobwebs off the keyboard and start enlightening everyone with the latest instalment in the world of HCJ. This week's topic will focus on the world according to our good old friend Bertrand Russell and his theories of mathematics and how these numbers can attribute to everyday language.
Mathematics is made up out natural numbers, which are words used to count things and this will then create a category of grouping. Going back to evolution and our primatial cousins they needs only three numbers: one thing, more than one thing and many things. In reality this does make perfect sense as smaller numbers will have different functions than to larger numbers.
Basic mathematical functions, such as add and multiple are empirically plurals of plurals. Creating words and abstract symbols for plurals requires a number-word system and logical syntax, which is then able to combine numbers-words to imply predicates and then these predicates can be analysed.
This can then help determine what is "Analytic Philosophy." It has been determined as the paradigm of analysis and modernism by synthetic German philosophers and shows how language is a vocabulary of symbols, syntax and grammar (predicate). However, there are limits the logical modelling of human intelligence.
Ancient civilisations such as the Egyptians used hieroglyphics for numbers and multiples. The Greeks and Romans system depended on numeric symbols and decided that 0 and 1 were not numbers and in Pythagorean logic, counting started with 2. In India the introduction of Leo came, but it was different as they determined that 0 equaled nothing and something at the same time, which was then adopted by Aristotle as the law of excluded logic.
Modern philosophers of mathematics have asserted 0 as a natural numbers. Number are seen as major and a platonic form with attributed magical properties E.G. 3, 7 and 13. From Greek numbers comes A priori from geometry and aesthetics. Special ratios are shown as the best example of Platonists and Pythagoreans as ratios are perfect and true and this also brought upon the beginning of the now close relationships between music and numbers. Now this is the point in the blog where we stop for our scheduled YouTube video, but instead of a cheesy pop number this week, we will go with something from the left field and with a Latin flavour:
Ok back to the world of mathematics and following Kant, Bertrand Russell believed that numbers and arithmetic were neither platonic ideal forms, nor empirical generalisations, but synthetic A Priori properties, which could in principle be defined logically.
Now after a year and a half of HCJ finally it is time for a brief summary of the life and times of Bertrand Russell. Russell was born in Trellech, Monmouthshire in 1872 into British aristocracy and was one of the first male supporters of the suffragette movement and even stood as an MP for the movement. In 1913 he wrote "Principia Mathematica" in opposition to Einstein's book on his theories of relativity. During World War 1 he was one of few who expressed Pacifist views and these views would lead to his eventual sacking in 1940 from New York University for immolation. He was also a campaigner for nuclear disarmament throughout the 1950's and was very vocal politically until his death in 1970, aged 98.
Russell began his career as a dedicated Hegelian idealist, but he retained some social theories, especially believing scientifically the media was strongly progressive. Maths did appear to be a contradiction of idealism because numbers appear to have objective existence in some cases and their nature is not determined by observation. According to Russell, number can not be understood unless in relation to another number E.G. the questions "What is number?", "What is a number?" and "What is meant by arithmetic?"
Peano showed how numbers van be deduced by the following axioms:
1. The constant 0 is a natural number.
2. X=Y every number has it's own equivalent.
3. Every natural numbers had a successor number.
4. There is no natural number whose successor is 0.
5. If the successor of N is equal to M , then N is equal to M in all number series.
The terms Zero, number and successor were remained undefined by Peano.
Nassau wanted to complete the project by providing objective definitions for zero, number and successor by using class, belonging to a class and similarity. Number is "the class of class similar to a given class."
So, there are number words that numerically corresponding a logical class composed of possible clauses have three members E.G. three cats, three dogs, three students. This will avoid the complication of 3 cats + 4 dogs equals 5 cat dogs. 3 is abstracted because it is from the empirical basis and is purely a logical category. The ultimate basis of the system is empirical observation, therefore platonic idealism is avoided by 3 as "this in itself."
Mathematics is made up out natural numbers, which are words used to count things and this will then create a category of grouping. Going back to evolution and our primatial cousins they needs only three numbers: one thing, more than one thing and many things. In reality this does make perfect sense as smaller numbers will have different functions than to larger numbers.
Basic mathematical functions, such as add and multiple are empirically plurals of plurals. Creating words and abstract symbols for plurals requires a number-word system and logical syntax, which is then able to combine numbers-words to imply predicates and then these predicates can be analysed.
This can then help determine what is "Analytic Philosophy." It has been determined as the paradigm of analysis and modernism by synthetic German philosophers and shows how language is a vocabulary of symbols, syntax and grammar (predicate). However, there are limits the logical modelling of human intelligence.
Ancient civilisations such as the Egyptians used hieroglyphics for numbers and multiples. The Greeks and Romans system depended on numeric symbols and decided that 0 and 1 were not numbers and in Pythagorean logic, counting started with 2. In India the introduction of Leo came, but it was different as they determined that 0 equaled nothing and something at the same time, which was then adopted by Aristotle as the law of excluded logic.
Modern philosophers of mathematics have asserted 0 as a natural numbers. Number are seen as major and a platonic form with attributed magical properties E.G. 3, 7 and 13. From Greek numbers comes A priori from geometry and aesthetics. Special ratios are shown as the best example of Platonists and Pythagoreans as ratios are perfect and true and this also brought upon the beginning of the now close relationships between music and numbers. Now this is the point in the blog where we stop for our scheduled YouTube video, but instead of a cheesy pop number this week, we will go with something from the left field and with a Latin flavour:
Ok back to the world of mathematics and following Kant, Bertrand Russell believed that numbers and arithmetic were neither platonic ideal forms, nor empirical generalisations, but synthetic A Priori properties, which could in principle be defined logically.
Now after a year and a half of HCJ finally it is time for a brief summary of the life and times of Bertrand Russell. Russell was born in Trellech, Monmouthshire in 1872 into British aristocracy and was one of the first male supporters of the suffragette movement and even stood as an MP for the movement. In 1913 he wrote "Principia Mathematica" in opposition to Einstein's book on his theories of relativity. During World War 1 he was one of few who expressed Pacifist views and these views would lead to his eventual sacking in 1940 from New York University for immolation. He was also a campaigner for nuclear disarmament throughout the 1950's and was very vocal politically until his death in 1970, aged 98.
Russell began his career as a dedicated Hegelian idealist, but he retained some social theories, especially believing scientifically the media was strongly progressive. Maths did appear to be a contradiction of idealism because numbers appear to have objective existence in some cases and their nature is not determined by observation. According to Russell, number can not be understood unless in relation to another number E.G. the questions "What is number?", "What is a number?" and "What is meant by arithmetic?"
Peano showed how numbers van be deduced by the following axioms:
1. The constant 0 is a natural number.
2. X=Y every number has it's own equivalent.
3. Every natural numbers had a successor number.
4. There is no natural number whose successor is 0.
5. If the successor of N is equal to M , then N is equal to M in all number series.
The terms Zero, number and successor were remained undefined by Peano.
Nassau wanted to complete the project by providing objective definitions for zero, number and successor by using class, belonging to a class and similarity. Number is "the class of class similar to a given class."
So, there are number words that numerically corresponding a logical class composed of possible clauses have three members E.G. three cats, three dogs, three students. This will avoid the complication of 3 cats + 4 dogs equals 5 cat dogs. 3 is abstracted because it is from the empirical basis and is purely a logical category. The ultimate basis of the system is empirical observation, therefore platonic idealism is avoided by 3 as "this in itself."
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Winol Week 1-3: The Dummy Edition.... Chapter 1 of the Political Diaries
I am back at the the training base of Winchester News Online and after the first couple week's of a refresher course into both the reporting and technical aspects of being a video journalist, which we had been lacking last year, it was time and ready for the first dummy edition of WINOL. With a semester of reporting in my back pocket, it was refreshing to be back reporting, but it a more important role of Chief Reporter and Political Editor. This means that I am the "fireman" of WINOL, which means that if there are any breaking news events in Winchester and the surrounding areas, I will be assigned to this story as I do not have one designated patch.
I also have that freedom to research and carry out my own political stories, as after a semester of being Local Government reporters, I felt it was time to take my political reporting to the next level and move onto from reporting on local council issues to national parliamentary issues, including interviewing the local MP's across Hampshire and hopefully within the Coalition cabinet as the week's progress.
Within the first two week's, I was able to establish my first two news stories and I will not dwell on the 2nd until next week. So my first story for our "dummy edition" focused on the ongoing debate of supermarkets building within traditional market towns and the stance of one local Hampshire MP who is trying to allows communities to have more freedom on choosing if they want supermarkets to be built in their local community.
I went to Westminster on the first Tuesday back to interview Conservative MP for Meon Valley; George Hollingbery. The interview with Mr Hollingbery went very well as he provided my with a number of very good grabs and with his background being a member of the Select Committee for Communities and Local Government is made the interview easier. This was helped with relaxed atmosphere, which is key when interviewing important figures such as MP's, therefore you need to treat them as any other person and not become nervous or overwhelmed.
This was the groundwork finished and now I had to find balance for my story and tried to contact Sainsburys who were building a store within Bishop's Waltham; A "exceptional town" as described by George Hollingbery, which is within his constituency. They were very helpful, but I was unable to secure an interview as they did not want to comment for the entire supermarket trade on a national issue.
They did back me onto the BRC (British Retail Consortium) who again could not provide anyone for an interview because the Business Director was on holiday, but they were kinda enough to provide a statement from him. Now I know that we strive not use statements on WINOL, but I felt and was agreed by my News Editor, I had tried all relevant channels and this was now in "exceptional circumstances."
Now we move onto this week and I missed Monday's debrief in order to reinterview Caroline Ford from CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) Hampshire who lived close to Bishops Waltham to get her views on how these new supermarkets builds would affect the local economy and trade. The initial problem with the original interview was the sounds quality, but this time the interview was washed out and this was just the beginning of the technical problems.
I was able to gain all of my gv's across Monday and Tuesday and then felt that I had gained enough shots to establish and make a very effective story. This is where my problems began though because we have decided to start filming WINOL in 16'9, instead of 4'3 to bring ourselves up to industry standards and make the overall visual quality of the broadcast easier on the eye (I will not deny I have had to squint when I have full-screened WINOL last semester on YouTube).
This meant that I had to change the initial camera settings before filming, but when it came to editing it seems that I had not done this for some of my filming and made an initial problem with editing on Final Cut. What I did not also realise it that I had left a gap in the tape, which meant that the timecode would be completely out of sync, Which meant It took longer to edit and having to swap between using the tape deck and the camera.
After hours of stress, I was able to put the story together and many thanks to Henry for helping me with editing, which I will still admit is a weakness I need to possibly get more training on in order to make sure I meet the deadline, which I did unfortunately miss and in a real news room that would mean the story would have been spiked.
I will not go into my story into too much details, but will bullet point what I felt where the strengths and weaknesses in my piece:
Strength
* My voice- I have been working on my voice over the Christmas break and after feedback from fellows Journo's It seem that I have made my voice stronger, but at the same time taken myself out of the story to make my view more unbiased.
* Gv's: I felt this is where my weakness was last semester as I did not have any interesting GV's that stood out and were memorable. Even though this sentiment was the same this week, I was able to put a sequence together and felt my shots were stronger than at the end of last semester.
Weaknesses
Interviews/framing: My framing again this week was not as well framed as it could of been. My interview with George Hollingbery should have been framed more left, then centre-left. But, I feel this was recovered by the backdrop as it was in a relevant location to the story. My second interview with Caroline Ford should not of been broadcast. We should always strive to make every story 10/10 and the washed out interview did disappoint me, but I will strive to ensure I do not let any of my stories look average or second-best.
Editing: I again need to realise that editing can sometimes take longer and when you change to different settings, you should strive to take a bit longer to edit and ask for help if needed. I feel another couple of training sessions on Final Cut will help me in the long run.
I will not dwell on the bulletin overall for now and I will make more notes after tomorrow's debrief. I am looking forward to my story next week as I have got the interview and the GV's, it just needs to be edited and checked to ensure that every angle is covered to make sure there is key balance. On and upwards to next week and also my first chance to present Sportsweek (It only took a semester of badgering)!
I also have that freedom to research and carry out my own political stories, as after a semester of being Local Government reporters, I felt it was time to take my political reporting to the next level and move onto from reporting on local council issues to national parliamentary issues, including interviewing the local MP's across Hampshire and hopefully within the Coalition cabinet as the week's progress.
Within the first two week's, I was able to establish my first two news stories and I will not dwell on the 2nd until next week. So my first story for our "dummy edition" focused on the ongoing debate of supermarkets building within traditional market towns and the stance of one local Hampshire MP who is trying to allows communities to have more freedom on choosing if they want supermarkets to be built in their local community.
I went to Westminster on the first Tuesday back to interview Conservative MP for Meon Valley; George Hollingbery. The interview with Mr Hollingbery went very well as he provided my with a number of very good grabs and with his background being a member of the Select Committee for Communities and Local Government is made the interview easier. This was helped with relaxed atmosphere, which is key when interviewing important figures such as MP's, therefore you need to treat them as any other person and not become nervous or overwhelmed.
This was the groundwork finished and now I had to find balance for my story and tried to contact Sainsburys who were building a store within Bishop's Waltham; A "exceptional town" as described by George Hollingbery, which is within his constituency. They were very helpful, but I was unable to secure an interview as they did not want to comment for the entire supermarket trade on a national issue.
They did back me onto the BRC (British Retail Consortium) who again could not provide anyone for an interview because the Business Director was on holiday, but they were kinda enough to provide a statement from him. Now I know that we strive not use statements on WINOL, but I felt and was agreed by my News Editor, I had tried all relevant channels and this was now in "exceptional circumstances."
Now we move onto this week and I missed Monday's debrief in order to reinterview Caroline Ford from CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) Hampshire who lived close to Bishops Waltham to get her views on how these new supermarkets builds would affect the local economy and trade. The initial problem with the original interview was the sounds quality, but this time the interview was washed out and this was just the beginning of the technical problems.
I was able to gain all of my gv's across Monday and Tuesday and then felt that I had gained enough shots to establish and make a very effective story. This is where my problems began though because we have decided to start filming WINOL in 16'9, instead of 4'3 to bring ourselves up to industry standards and make the overall visual quality of the broadcast easier on the eye (I will not deny I have had to squint when I have full-screened WINOL last semester on YouTube).
This meant that I had to change the initial camera settings before filming, but when it came to editing it seems that I had not done this for some of my filming and made an initial problem with editing on Final Cut. What I did not also realise it that I had left a gap in the tape, which meant that the timecode would be completely out of sync, Which meant It took longer to edit and having to swap between using the tape deck and the camera.
After hours of stress, I was able to put the story together and many thanks to Henry for helping me with editing, which I will still admit is a weakness I need to possibly get more training on in order to make sure I meet the deadline, which I did unfortunately miss and in a real news room that would mean the story would have been spiked.
I will not go into my story into too much details, but will bullet point what I felt where the strengths and weaknesses in my piece:
Strength
* My voice- I have been working on my voice over the Christmas break and after feedback from fellows Journo's It seem that I have made my voice stronger, but at the same time taken myself out of the story to make my view more unbiased.
* Gv's: I felt this is where my weakness was last semester as I did not have any interesting GV's that stood out and were memorable. Even though this sentiment was the same this week, I was able to put a sequence together and felt my shots were stronger than at the end of last semester.
Weaknesses
Interviews/framing: My framing again this week was not as well framed as it could of been. My interview with George Hollingbery should have been framed more left, then centre-left. But, I feel this was recovered by the backdrop as it was in a relevant location to the story. My second interview with Caroline Ford should not of been broadcast. We should always strive to make every story 10/10 and the washed out interview did disappoint me, but I will strive to ensure I do not let any of my stories look average or second-best.
Editing: I again need to realise that editing can sometimes take longer and when you change to different settings, you should strive to take a bit longer to edit and ask for help if needed. I feel another couple of training sessions on Final Cut will help me in the long run.
I will not dwell on the bulletin overall for now and I will make more notes after tomorrow's debrief. I am looking forward to my story next week as I have got the interview and the GV's, it just needs to be edited and checked to ensure that every angle is covered to make sure there is key balance. On and upwards to next week and also my first chance to present Sportsweek (It only took a semester of badgering)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)