As part of my course I am having to learn about the law in the context of what journalists can and cannot legally report.
This is proving significantly more complex than I had anticipated.
Firstly, I seem to have inherited selective narcolepsy. Unfortunately, the main trigger for a spontaneous and uncontrollable nap appears to be reading about journalism law.
This is becoming a considerable hindrance to my progress in understanding what on earth it all means. As soon as I am half way through a chapter of my book, I drop off, waking up a few hours later having had a terrifying nightmare about the impending law exam.
Secondly, what I have managed to successfully read and understand of the law with regards to journalism has scared me half to death.
If my understanding thus far is correct, then I find it very hard not to believe that prisons up and down the country are severely over-crowded with bewildered young hacks who have unwittingly commited contempt of court and still can't figure out how.
However, I am determined to master this law lark. It is clearly very important for young journalists to be acutely aware of our legal limits when venturing into the profession, where several tabloids will undoubtedly attempt to mislead us into reporting less than legal material for their own sensationalist gain, and then leave us to face the music of the courts.
I'm off now for a double espresso and a read!
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Friday, November 17, 2006
Horror in the Congo Wars
Sarah blogs here on the horiffic implementation of rape as a weapon of war. She discusses her thoughts on the related Guardian article raising much-needed awareness of the subject.
The behaviour of these soldiers, like that participants in countless other wars, is characterised by dehumanisation, outlined here by Amnesty International.
As Kate Bermingham asks, how can a man do this to another human being?
The answer is that they are not doing it to another human being, they are doing it to an anonymous representative of their opposition.
We have seen pictures of Iraqi prisoners of war being tortured by our forces with bags over their heads. This is a common way of physically dehumanising victims of abuse.
Hitler managed to persuade thousands of Nazis to take part in the Holocaust, in which millions of Jews were murdered.
He engineered their dehumanisation through mass propaganda dealing with them as a parasitic collective devoid of individual identities. He also forced all Jews to wear their religious symbol, a star, stripping them of any overriding physical differences within their community.
Now women are being raped in the context of war. I wonder if any of these women's heads are covered too.
Unfortunately women are an easily dehumanised target of abuse in some cultures becase they are considered inferior to men anyway.
War does terrible things to its victims, but also to the minds of its perpetrators. William Golding's 'Lord of the Flies' depicts how 'man is inherently tied to society, and without it, we would likely return to savagery'.
When society degenerates into a state of war, many of its citizens, denied the social structure to which their moral and social values are attached, regress into an animalistic state and become members of a pack, shedding their own value systems for an often vicious group mentality that allows them to abdicate from personal responsibility.
In this way, they dehumanise themselves as well as their victims.
Donate to the victims of rape in the Congo Wars
The behaviour of these soldiers, like that participants in countless other wars, is characterised by dehumanisation, outlined here by Amnesty International.
As Kate Bermingham asks, how can a man do this to another human being?
The answer is that they are not doing it to another human being, they are doing it to an anonymous representative of their opposition.
We have seen pictures of Iraqi prisoners of war being tortured by our forces with bags over their heads. This is a common way of physically dehumanising victims of abuse.
Hitler managed to persuade thousands of Nazis to take part in the Holocaust, in which millions of Jews were murdered.
He engineered their dehumanisation through mass propaganda dealing with them as a parasitic collective devoid of individual identities. He also forced all Jews to wear their religious symbol, a star, stripping them of any overriding physical differences within their community.
Now women are being raped in the context of war. I wonder if any of these women's heads are covered too.
Unfortunately women are an easily dehumanised target of abuse in some cultures becase they are considered inferior to men anyway.
War does terrible things to its victims, but also to the minds of its perpetrators. William Golding's 'Lord of the Flies' depicts how 'man is inherently tied to society, and without it, we would likely return to savagery'.
When society degenerates into a state of war, many of its citizens, denied the social structure to which their moral and social values are attached, regress into an animalistic state and become members of a pack, shedding their own value systems for an often vicious group mentality that allows them to abdicate from personal responsibility.
In this way, they dehumanise themselves as well as their victims.
Donate to the victims of rape in the Congo Wars
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Winter Blues
Winter has always been my least favourite season, and this year's is a definite contender for 'Worst Winter Ever'.
Here are some reasons why:
My Bed
This is usually my favourite place.
Despite the fact that it is on wheels and therefore prone to skid halfway across my wooded bedroom floor if I get too excited during an episode of Eastenders (I mean the news), it is comfy and warm.
In winter, however, it transforms into somewhat of a smiling assassin. As it masquerades as its usual cosy self, I am continually fooled by its fluffed up pillows and squidgy duvet.
But once I have hopped in, I find myself in what I can only assume is a freezer cleverly covered with bedsheets.
So instead of enjoying my well-earnt sleep, I develop seriously frost-bitten toes and a red nose.
The Shower
This is the only reason I don't spring out of the freezer in relief the second my alarm goes off.
The shower is a constant reminder of my father's decision to single-handedly renovate our house, a project that spanned the latter nineties and early noughties, and looks set to continue well into the 21st century.
Anyway, the water to the shower is plumbed wrong. You have to turn the water to cold if you want it hotter and hot if you want it colder.
Having stripped groggily out of my pyjamas and dived A Team-style into the shower, however, I am usually in such a hurry to thaw out the two blocks of ice that I formerly referred to as my legs, that I turn the tap as far as it will go in the hot direction, and am promptly slapped across the face with a jet of icy water.
My Hair
Having recovered from my brush with hypothermia, my battle with the straighteners commences.
Which really is the most awful waste of time considering that the second I step outside the front door, I am either met with a watery mist or swept off the road Mary Poppins-style in a galeforce gust of wind.
Either way I am left looking as though a bird's nest has just dropped out of a nearby tree onto my head.
The Train
The tube is a sweatpit all year round, which does not bode well when, like me, you feel the cold more than most and don at least ten layers before leaving the house during the winter months.
Once I manage to fit through the doors (a considerable task when sporting half my wardrobe) I embark upon the odious task of removing layerscopious amounts of woollen clothing whilst growing faint from heat exhaustion and trying not to elbow my commuting neighbour in the eye.
And by the time I have managed to free myself from my material sauna, it's time to deboard the train and brave the university air con, which I could swear is still being utilised in the middle of November...
Here are some reasons why:
My Bed
This is usually my favourite place.
Despite the fact that it is on wheels and therefore prone to skid halfway across my wooded bedroom floor if I get too excited during an episode of Eastenders (I mean the news), it is comfy and warm.
In winter, however, it transforms into somewhat of a smiling assassin. As it masquerades as its usual cosy self, I am continually fooled by its fluffed up pillows and squidgy duvet.
But once I have hopped in, I find myself in what I can only assume is a freezer cleverly covered with bedsheets.
So instead of enjoying my well-earnt sleep, I develop seriously frost-bitten toes and a red nose.
The Shower
This is the only reason I don't spring out of the freezer in relief the second my alarm goes off.
The shower is a constant reminder of my father's decision to single-handedly renovate our house, a project that spanned the latter nineties and early noughties, and looks set to continue well into the 21st century.
Anyway, the water to the shower is plumbed wrong. You have to turn the water to cold if you want it hotter and hot if you want it colder.
Having stripped groggily out of my pyjamas and dived A Team-style into the shower, however, I am usually in such a hurry to thaw out the two blocks of ice that I formerly referred to as my legs, that I turn the tap as far as it will go in the hot direction, and am promptly slapped across the face with a jet of icy water.
My Hair
Having recovered from my brush with hypothermia, my battle with the straighteners commences.
Which really is the most awful waste of time considering that the second I step outside the front door, I am either met with a watery mist or swept off the road Mary Poppins-style in a galeforce gust of wind.
Either way I am left looking as though a bird's nest has just dropped out of a nearby tree onto my head.
The Train
The tube is a sweatpit all year round, which does not bode well when, like me, you feel the cold more than most and don at least ten layers before leaving the house during the winter months.
Once I manage to fit through the doors (a considerable task when sporting half my wardrobe) I embark upon the odious task of removing layerscopious amounts of woollen clothing whilst growing faint from heat exhaustion and trying not to elbow my commuting neighbour in the eye.
And by the time I have managed to free myself from my material sauna, it's time to deboard the train and brave the university air con, which I could swear is still being utilised in the middle of November...
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Oh Baby
Today's Observer features a piece (here) about the Church of England agreeing in its contribution to a recent inquiry that in some cases premature babies ought not to be kept alive - in other words, that euthanasia can be a favourable option.
Personally, I am appalled at, although unshocked by, the Church's hypocrisy considering that the abortion section of its website features the biblical quote 'All human life, including life developing in the womb, is created by God in his own image and is, therefore, to be nurtured, supported and protected'.
I suppose, though, that a branch of Christianity created for the purpose of bending national law to suit the powers that be (Henry viii's divorce) cannot really be expected to unconditionally maintain its morals.
In the report Church of England leaders say that the 'enormous cost implications to the NHS of keeping very premature and sick babies alive with invasive medical care and the burden on the parents should also be taken into consideration.' (The Observer)
This is the kind of thing that really makes me feel sick.
A 'burden on the parents'? The parents of Charlotte Wyatt, the baby famously kept alive after a court battle last year, would surely not consider having her alive any more of a burden than the guilt and grief of having lost her to euthanasia.
They have admittedly found it extremely difficult to provide her with the care she needs, and she is subsequently living in care. But why is this something that should be called into question? The families of terminally ill patients are not expected to care for them at home, and I wouldn't like to imagine the outrage if doctors wanted to give them a lethal injection to economise or ease the 'burden' on their families.
The parents of these babies are citizens who (presumably) have paid taxes for most of their lives. Their children deserve the same entitlement to health care as everyone else's.
As the children's nearest relatives, they are the only ones who should be able to speak for the child in the absence of its ability to defend itself.
People may argue that the children's parents should not be allowed to decide if they are kept alive as their love for their offspring is likely to impair their judgment of what is in the best interest of their baby.
But how is the Church a better judge of what is in the best interest of a premature baby if its overriding concern is NHS cost, making their view just as likely to be biased?
If a child can be kept alive, it should receive the treatment that will achieve this. Anyone else suffering from a life-threatening illness receives this privilege. If we start evaluating who is more entitled to life than others, we are playing God and on extremely dangerous ground.
UK taxes go towards keeping mass murderers and rapists alive because the UK is against capital punishment. These people are evil and will never be allowed to contribute to society again, but are kept alive, largely because in some cases the judiciary fails and we may end up executing innocent people.
But doesn't this apply to these premature babies? No one can know beyond a shadow of a doubt how much pain they are in, and therefore euthanasia is surely out of the question.
No one has the right to end another's life, and that everyone has the right to any treatment that will keep them alive. This is the national sentiment of the UK, and there is no room for selectiveness. Otherwise, questions about who is authorised to implement such selection create the kind of discrepancies we are now seeing.
Personally, I am appalled at, although unshocked by, the Church's hypocrisy considering that the abortion section of its website features the biblical quote 'All human life, including life developing in the womb, is created by God in his own image and is, therefore, to be nurtured, supported and protected'.
I suppose, though, that a branch of Christianity created for the purpose of bending national law to suit the powers that be (Henry viii's divorce) cannot really be expected to unconditionally maintain its morals.
In the report Church of England leaders say that the 'enormous cost implications to the NHS of keeping very premature and sick babies alive with invasive medical care and the burden on the parents should also be taken into consideration.' (The Observer)
This is the kind of thing that really makes me feel sick.
A 'burden on the parents'? The parents of Charlotte Wyatt, the baby famously kept alive after a court battle last year, would surely not consider having her alive any more of a burden than the guilt and grief of having lost her to euthanasia.
They have admittedly found it extremely difficult to provide her with the care she needs, and she is subsequently living in care. But why is this something that should be called into question? The families of terminally ill patients are not expected to care for them at home, and I wouldn't like to imagine the outrage if doctors wanted to give them a lethal injection to economise or ease the 'burden' on their families.
The parents of these babies are citizens who (presumably) have paid taxes for most of their lives. Their children deserve the same entitlement to health care as everyone else's.
As the children's nearest relatives, they are the only ones who should be able to speak for the child in the absence of its ability to defend itself.
People may argue that the children's parents should not be allowed to decide if they are kept alive as their love for their offspring is likely to impair their judgment of what is in the best interest of their baby.
But how is the Church a better judge of what is in the best interest of a premature baby if its overriding concern is NHS cost, making their view just as likely to be biased?
If a child can be kept alive, it should receive the treatment that will achieve this. Anyone else suffering from a life-threatening illness receives this privilege. If we start evaluating who is more entitled to life than others, we are playing God and on extremely dangerous ground.
UK taxes go towards keeping mass murderers and rapists alive because the UK is against capital punishment. These people are evil and will never be allowed to contribute to society again, but are kept alive, largely because in some cases the judiciary fails and we may end up executing innocent people.
But doesn't this apply to these premature babies? No one can know beyond a shadow of a doubt how much pain they are in, and therefore euthanasia is surely out of the question.
No one has the right to end another's life, and that everyone has the right to any treatment that will keep them alive. This is the national sentiment of the UK, and there is no room for selectiveness. Otherwise, questions about who is authorised to implement such selection create the kind of discrepancies we are now seeing.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Total Eclipse of the Sun?
I have just read a really interesting post by Mary-Ann Williams ('We Got Him'), in which she brands the proposed regulation of blogging as elitist.
This week Wikipedia has reportedly banned additions to certain pages on its database due to the deliberate posting of misinformation.
Despite this, I have to agree with Mary-Ann's point.
Her example of the media's reaction to Saddam Hussein's execution sentence perfectly highlights the dangers of restricted news coverage.
The tabloid press has erupted in a frenzy of blood-lust, stepping down from its pedestal as informed reporter and joining the baying crowds chanting their support for the punishment. The Sun's 'Hang to Rights' headline exhibits the paper's aggressive support for the sentence.
This is a dangerously senstationalist stance for the king of the British tabloids to take in a country which often loves nothing better than a scapegoat or a political drama. It is a particularly dangerous stance to take considering that the core audience of the tabloids is of the C2DE demographic and therefore perhaps likely to take their chosen paper's ramblings as gospel.
I am not debating the justification of such venom towards the former dictator, or people's right to euphoria at his demise. What I am saying is that the issue should have been dealt with more responsibly by the British tabloids.
As a medium of overwhelming power over their readers' perceptions of the world around them, they ought to have honoured their influencial position instead of subscribing so totally to a particular viewpoint to the detriment of any semblance of balance or impartiality.
It is in instances such as this that the internet's full value as an unregulated source can truly be seen. Explore a cross-section of only ten blogs and you are likely to stumble across a huge variety of viewpoints on the Saddam subject.
And while it is true that users should approach the use of blogs as reliable sources of information with extreme caution, surely the thinly-veiled censorship increasingly exercised by the British tabloids merits the same wary treatment.
Unlike the tabloids of today, blogging allows us a wide and reasonably balanced sample of opinions from which to discern the reliable from the rubbish. And while the powers that be may not relish the prospect of the uncontrolled musings of citizen journalism - as I suspect is the case from the level of anti-blogging propaganda appearing lately - I think it can only enrich our society in the long-run.
This week Wikipedia has reportedly banned additions to certain pages on its database due to the deliberate posting of misinformation.
Despite this, I have to agree with Mary-Ann's point.
Her example of the media's reaction to Saddam Hussein's execution sentence perfectly highlights the dangers of restricted news coverage.
The tabloid press has erupted in a frenzy of blood-lust, stepping down from its pedestal as informed reporter and joining the baying crowds chanting their support for the punishment. The Sun's 'Hang to Rights' headline exhibits the paper's aggressive support for the sentence.
This is a dangerously senstationalist stance for the king of the British tabloids to take in a country which often loves nothing better than a scapegoat or a political drama. It is a particularly dangerous stance to take considering that the core audience of the tabloids is of the C2DE demographic and therefore perhaps likely to take their chosen paper's ramblings as gospel.
I am not debating the justification of such venom towards the former dictator, or people's right to euphoria at his demise. What I am saying is that the issue should have been dealt with more responsibly by the British tabloids.
As a medium of overwhelming power over their readers' perceptions of the world around them, they ought to have honoured their influencial position instead of subscribing so totally to a particular viewpoint to the detriment of any semblance of balance or impartiality.
It is in instances such as this that the internet's full value as an unregulated source can truly be seen. Explore a cross-section of only ten blogs and you are likely to stumble across a huge variety of viewpoints on the Saddam subject.
And while it is true that users should approach the use of blogs as reliable sources of information with extreme caution, surely the thinly-veiled censorship increasingly exercised by the British tabloids merits the same wary treatment.
Unlike the tabloids of today, blogging allows us a wide and reasonably balanced sample of opinions from which to discern the reliable from the rubbish. And while the powers that be may not relish the prospect of the uncontrolled musings of citizen journalism - as I suspect is the case from the level of anti-blogging propaganda appearing lately - I think it can only enrich our society in the long-run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
