So George, Lou, Josh and I have spent the last few weeks working with Charlotte from the year above on radio interviews for WINOL. We've done two so far, but the first with Martin Tod (Lib Dem candidate for Winch) isn't up yet. The second, however, from last Friday with the lead singer of Good Shoes, is finally up on Youtube:
Credit goes to Josh for setting up the interview, myself for writing the interview and George for conducting the interview.
Friday 26 November 2010
Sunday 14 November 2010
What the hell.
I've just been reading this, and I'm honestly struggling for words.
And why should these banks get it so easy, when they're the reason we're in a financial crisis? They should be taxed, and their executives certainly shouldn't be allowed to give themselves the gluttonous bonuses they award themselves. If "we're all in this together", why the hell are the conservatives doing this?
It turns out the levy originally imposed is going to make more money than predicted... so they're going to cut the tax to make sure it doesn't? All this talk and all these figures thrown about about how bankrupt the United Kingdom is and how massive a deficit we've got to work through, and George Osborne is changing things so that his target isn't exceeded? How in the world is breaching the target a bad thing? Why wouldn't we want the additional £1.4bn in the treasury? This is like an unfit man going to the gym to shape up and then choosing not to exceed the limits of their body and improve.The government is preparing to cut the tax it expects to impose on City banks through George Osborne's £2.5bn a year levy, prompting a furious reaction from tax experts and opposition MPs.After being alerted by leading banks that the proposed levy could raise an unexpectedly high £3.9bn a year, the Treasury is considering cutting the rate of the tax on UK and international banks to ensure the chancellor's £2.5bn target is not breached.
And why should these banks get it so easy, when they're the reason we're in a financial crisis? They should be taxed, and their executives certainly shouldn't be allowed to give themselves the gluttonous bonuses they award themselves. If "we're all in this together", why the hell are the conservatives doing this?
Wednesday 10 November 2010
Let's hope today's rally was a big enough sign to Parliament...
Granted, I didn't go. I have three very good reasons why. The first is that I forgot to sign up with the SU (and that's a perfectly legitimate reason). Next time something big comes by, I'll remember to make a note of it - one that's not lost in the middle of a notebook dedicated to shorthand. Second, and I'll be honest for a second, there's no chance in hell that I would've gotten up at 8 AM to get on the coaches when I'm barely making it to 10 AM lectures (if I make them at all). And lastly, because I'm a very shoddy advertiser. Those of you asking "You were advertising something?", you've proven my point entirely. For the record, it's the WINOL radio interview with Martin Tod, the Lib Dem candidate for Winchester, that I should be shouting loudly in everyone's faces about. It's tomorrow! At 4 PM! On WINOL! So do check it out, lest I be murdered in my sleep for doing a poor job (probability of this happening: 10%; I expect I'll be awake at the time).
For those of you who don't know what's been going on today - what rock have you been living under? The coalition government has plans to raise tuition fees up to a maximum of £9000. To put that into perspective, a three year course comes up to £9870 under the current amount we pay. So if Browne's fees would come to effect, students would be paying just under 9 years worth of current fees for the average three year course. "But," some of you will say, "who cares? I'm already in uni, it won't effect me." It's a sentiment I've heard repeated since Browne's review was announced, and that sort of blind, self-centered thinking is really of no help. It's not just about you or me, it's about the future.
Clegg's said on today's Prime Minister's Questions that this will actually benefit students, as those from poor backgrounds will be able to get into uni paying less than they currently do today. This may be well and true, but there is one thing they're not thinking about: what £9000 looks like to the teenager who will likely never had to deal with that much money. It sucks to pay for uni, but £3290 is a swalloable number. £10,000 over three years is a swalloable number. £9000 for a year? That's a mind-blowing figure to the kid who's never had more than a couple hundred pounds in their bank, if even that. It's a very off-putting amount, and that's an initial reaction that in my opinion could be very dangerous to the future. Well before any higher education advisor could reach the student and convince them uni is more affordable than it appears, they will have been mentally defeated by that monstrous amount and be looking at alternative options.
Perhaps to some extent it's a good thing - it could mean potential students would focus more on courses that would set them up for something in life than ones whose use aren't readily apparent, and perhaps it would also mean alternative options like apprenticeships would become more viable. I know back in my college, we were beaten over the head by our teachers with this rhetoric that if we don't get into uni, we will get absolutely nowhere in life. They'd tell us we'd be forced out into the streets, naked to British rain, begging outside malls. We would ask passerbys not for pennies, no, but for the charitable souls to grant us a cent or a rupee, for so uneducated would we be that we wouldn't even know what currency is used in our own country. They told us, should we not go to university and have our minds educated, we would eventually find ourselves in housing estates living off benefits with ten children - not all of them ours - and we'd be abusive to our wife-and/or-husband. We would drink ourselves into a devil's rage and come home carrying a segment a plywood flooring we viciously ripped out of the local Co-Operative on our way home, which we would then use to beat our weeping spouse in the kitchen with. When not reading the Daily Mail, we would make a hobby out of screaming at them bloody foreigners.
Er, where was I? Oh yes, the potential good of the rising tuition fees. Still, it remains that people, especially of poorer backgrounds, would find it discouraging to go to university, and those lucky enough to have parents that could foot the £27,000 bill would come out at a very significant advantage.
I keep hearing the politicians say they aim to be like the American universities that charge extortionate fees, and I have to ask, why on earth would you want that? Americans come out with over $50,000 (approx £30,000) of debt from their higher education and spend the rest of their lives paying these fees back. Who on Earth would willingly want to live like that? I really don't think the USA, where everything is for profit and social care is actively shunned by a large portion of the voting population, as the loud-mouthed Tea Party has exhibited, is a good model to follow. Surely there's a better model to look to than gun-toting USA, where the people are slaves to debt and mega-corporations (The Corporation and Food, Inc are enlightening documentaries) and the 'American Dream' of prosperity is unattainable for the vast majority of the public. Let's not forget that there is a vehemently anti-intellectual movement that the Tea Party (a driving force behind the Republican victory) characterises. One of their candidates, Christine O'Donnell, isn't even aware that the seperation of church and state is written in the American constitution.
And these are the people we look to? Why isn't the government looking towards Switzerland or the Scandinavian countries, where higher education is free and the gap between the rich and poor is very low?
This issue's really riled me up recently and I just had to let some steam out. It's not the only issue of the spending cuts I've got a problem with, but I've gone on long enough so I'll just link you to Science Is Vital instead, where they can far more eloquently describe why the £1 billion cuts in science funding is an incredibly bad idea of the government's.
For those of you who don't know what's been going on today - what rock have you been living under? The coalition government has plans to raise tuition fees up to a maximum of £9000. To put that into perspective, a three year course comes up to £9870 under the current amount we pay. So if Browne's fees would come to effect, students would be paying just under 9 years worth of current fees for the average three year course. "But," some of you will say, "who cares? I'm already in uni, it won't effect me." It's a sentiment I've heard repeated since Browne's review was announced, and that sort of blind, self-centered thinking is really of no help. It's not just about you or me, it's about the future.
Clegg's said on today's Prime Minister's Questions that this will actually benefit students, as those from poor backgrounds will be able to get into uni paying less than they currently do today. This may be well and true, but there is one thing they're not thinking about: what £9000 looks like to the teenager who will likely never had to deal with that much money. It sucks to pay for uni, but £3290 is a swalloable number. £10,000 over three years is a swalloable number. £9000 for a year? That's a mind-blowing figure to the kid who's never had more than a couple hundred pounds in their bank, if even that. It's a very off-putting amount, and that's an initial reaction that in my opinion could be very dangerous to the future. Well before any higher education advisor could reach the student and convince them uni is more affordable than it appears, they will have been mentally defeated by that monstrous amount and be looking at alternative options.
Perhaps to some extent it's a good thing - it could mean potential students would focus more on courses that would set them up for something in life than ones whose use aren't readily apparent, and perhaps it would also mean alternative options like apprenticeships would become more viable. I know back in my college, we were beaten over the head by our teachers with this rhetoric that if we don't get into uni, we will get absolutely nowhere in life. They'd tell us we'd be forced out into the streets, naked to British rain, begging outside malls. We would ask passerbys not for pennies, no, but for the charitable souls to grant us a cent or a rupee, for so uneducated would we be that we wouldn't even know what currency is used in our own country. They told us, should we not go to university and have our minds educated, we would eventually find ourselves in housing estates living off benefits with ten children - not all of them ours - and we'd be abusive to our wife-and/or-husband. We would drink ourselves into a devil's rage and come home carrying a segment a plywood flooring we viciously ripped out of the local Co-Operative on our way home, which we would then use to beat our weeping spouse in the kitchen with. When not reading the Daily Mail, we would make a hobby out of screaming at them bloody foreigners.
Er, where was I? Oh yes, the potential good of the rising tuition fees. Still, it remains that people, especially of poorer backgrounds, would find it discouraging to go to university, and those lucky enough to have parents that could foot the £27,000 bill would come out at a very significant advantage.
I keep hearing the politicians say they aim to be like the American universities that charge extortionate fees, and I have to ask, why on earth would you want that? Americans come out with over $50,000 (approx £30,000) of debt from their higher education and spend the rest of their lives paying these fees back. Who on Earth would willingly want to live like that? I really don't think the USA, where everything is for profit and social care is actively shunned by a large portion of the voting population, as the loud-mouthed Tea Party has exhibited, is a good model to follow. Surely there's a better model to look to than gun-toting USA, where the people are slaves to debt and mega-corporations (The Corporation and Food, Inc are enlightening documentaries) and the 'American Dream' of prosperity is unattainable for the vast majority of the public. Let's not forget that there is a vehemently anti-intellectual movement that the Tea Party (a driving force behind the Republican victory) characterises. One of their candidates, Christine O'Donnell, isn't even aware that the seperation of church and state is written in the American constitution.
And these are the people we look to? Why isn't the government looking towards Switzerland or the Scandinavian countries, where higher education is free and the gap between the rich and poor is very low?
This issue's really riled me up recently and I just had to let some steam out. It's not the only issue of the spending cuts I've got a problem with, but I've gone on long enough so I'll just link you to Science Is Vital instead, where they can far more eloquently describe why the £1 billion cuts in science funding is an incredibly bad idea of the government's.
Thursday 4 November 2010
Peter Cole's essays on the life of newspapers
The four essays are found here: 1, 2, 3, 4
The first thing that really struck out to me was this quote from Sylvester Bolam, a former editor of the Mirror, defining sensationalism: "Sensationalism doesn't mean the distortion of the truth. It means the vivid and dramatic presentation of events so as to give them a forceful impact on the mind of the reader."
We briefly touched on sensationalism this morning, so this definition tied the loose end from that discussion nicely. I agree with the definition and sensationalism is certainly a large element of the media, however I think Bolam has left out one very crucial fact, which is that this 'forceful impact on the mind of the reader' can most definitely distort the truth. If a news piece is presented with a massive space-eating headline, multiple pictures and a lengthy article, the reader will be led to believe that this is an important matter. There wouldn't have to be anything factually incorrect, but presenting something in such a way that it creates mass-moral panic (e.g., reporting on a paedophilia ring in such a way that it implies paedophilia is a larger problem than it is in reality*) would most certainly distort the truth, by making the problem seem more than it is.
Another quote that sticks out to me:
"That paper too has changed. The "poster", single-issue, front pages have become its trademark, the daily statement that, in the words of its editor, make it a "viewspaper". When it works, as in the paper's consistent opposition to the war in Iraq, it is convincing. When it involves clingfilm-wrapped celeriac it tends to provoke mirth."
I only find this interesting, because one of last week's Independent front pages really made me stop and think, "What the hell are you reporting?" It was Saturday and I walked into WHSmith. The news of the printer bomb was on the front page of ever paper. My eyes glazed over the same-y papers, and then I saw The Independent. Its 'poster' today was of a rare frog in some forest or jungle, and its headline news was about something or other happening in nature preservation. It really made me stop - why would they report about that when the printer bomb is all anyone's interested in at the moment? I opened it to check - the news of the bomb was on Page 4.
So yeah. I don't think my little anecdote has much of a point to it, except to say "Yes, I agree with you there."
Overall though, I found it very interesting and, as he goes on to say, the Death of Print Press is over exaggerated. Still, it's a pity that the essays are 3 years old and ignore online media. I'd be interested to read what Cole has to say about the new model for The Times Online and News of the World.
The first thing that really struck out to me was this quote from Sylvester Bolam, a former editor of the Mirror, defining sensationalism: "Sensationalism doesn't mean the distortion of the truth. It means the vivid and dramatic presentation of events so as to give them a forceful impact on the mind of the reader."
We briefly touched on sensationalism this morning, so this definition tied the loose end from that discussion nicely. I agree with the definition and sensationalism is certainly a large element of the media, however I think Bolam has left out one very crucial fact, which is that this 'forceful impact on the mind of the reader' can most definitely distort the truth. If a news piece is presented with a massive space-eating headline, multiple pictures and a lengthy article, the reader will be led to believe that this is an important matter. There wouldn't have to be anything factually incorrect, but presenting something in such a way that it creates mass-moral panic (e.g., reporting on a paedophilia ring in such a way that it implies paedophilia is a larger problem than it is in reality*) would most certainly distort the truth, by making the problem seem more than it is.
Another quote that sticks out to me:
"That paper too has changed. The "poster", single-issue, front pages have become its trademark, the daily statement that, in the words of its editor, make it a "viewspaper". When it works, as in the paper's consistent opposition to the war in Iraq, it is convincing. When it involves clingfilm-wrapped celeriac it tends to provoke mirth."
I only find this interesting, because one of last week's Independent front pages really made me stop and think, "What the hell are you reporting?" It was Saturday and I walked into WHSmith. The news of the printer bomb was on the front page of ever paper. My eyes glazed over the same-y papers, and then I saw The Independent. Its 'poster' today was of a rare frog in some forest or jungle, and its headline news was about something or other happening in nature preservation. It really made me stop - why would they report about that when the printer bomb is all anyone's interested in at the moment? I opened it to check - the news of the bomb was on Page 4.
So yeah. I don't think my little anecdote has much of a point to it, except to say "Yes, I agree with you there."
Overall though, I found it very interesting and, as he goes on to say, the Death of Print Press is over exaggerated. Still, it's a pity that the essays are 3 years old and ignore online media. I'd be interested to read what Cole has to say about the new model for The Times Online and News of the World.
Wednesday 3 November 2010
Seminar paper - Addison
I think that in many ways, Joseph Addison was a modern man, as several of his ideas and musings put out hold true today. The first to strike me is his essay The Royal Exchange, which describes a budding global market that he describes as 'a kind of additional empire'. Today, past the colonial era and the dissolution of the European empires after the second World War, the empires that now stand are multinational corporate ones.
In On the Essay Form he says that the those who write their works in a volume have the advantage of being able to get away with being dull, saying that even 'the most severe reader makes allowances for many rests and nodding-places'. Addison compares this to the essay, which must delve right into the matter and be immediately interesting, or fail to inspire anyone to read on. He seems to admonish the essay's primary use as a vehicle for 'news-writers' and 'zealots of parties' – that is to say propagandists – when it would be better used to instruct men in 'wisdom' and 'virtue'. He also seems certain that had the ancient philosophers had the printing press and essay available to them, they would have put it to much better use than its current use today. I personally find this to be a somewhat ignorant assumption, as he appears to assume that the more popular 'news-writers' and 'zealots' of today would not have been as prolific in ancient Greece.
I also think he comes across as a bit pompous in this article when he says that there is 'a kind of heaviness and ignorance that hangs upon the minds of ordinary men, which is too thick for knowledge to break through', but perhaps I'm misinterpreting him, as he ends the article with a promise to make an example of 'such voluntary moles'. The word voluntary suggests that he is not condemning ignorance but wilful ignorance, which in my opinion validates his criticism towards these people who actively refuse to be less ignorant. Related to the art of the essay, in another of his articles he says:
“A Writer who makes fame the chief end of his endeavours, and would be more desirous of pleasing than of improving his readers, might find an inexhaustible fund of mirth in politics. Scandal and satire are never-failing gratifications to the public. Detraction and obloquy are received with as much eagerness as wit and humour. Should a writer single out particular persons, or point his rallery at any order of men, who by their profession ought to be exempt from it; should he slander the innocent, or satirize the miserable; or should he, even on the proper subjects of derision, give the full play to his mirth, without regard to decency and good-manners; he might be sure of pleasing a great part of his readers, but must be a very ill man, if by such a proceeding he could please himself.”
It's an interesting point he makes. Written three hundred years ago, it unfortunately still holds true today, perfectly describing the tabloids. Channel 4's Dispatches brought to light the phone hacking that had been carried out by News of the World to net private information regarding celebrities and public figures.
In his essay “Laughter”, Addison acknowledges that laughter is naturally 'amiable and beautiful' but has a low opinion of how it is inspired in writing, that is 'ridicule'. He says:
“If the talent of ridicule were employed to laugh men out of vice and folly, it might be of some use to the world; but instead of this, we find that it is generally made use of to laugh men out of virtue and good sense, by attacking every thing that is solemn and serious, decent and praiseworthy in human life.”
Perhaps it was true in Addison's time that ridicule was directed at undeserving men, but I think this particular insight is behind us today. The UK is rich with comedians, the majority of whom ridicule not the man of 'virtue and good sense' but the men, culture and institutions of 'vice and folly'. Maybe we should be worried that it's often the comedians who are the most sensible public figures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)