26/10/2011

Shhhh, it's a secret

This post will be based upon Tuesday's law lecture on breach of confidence and secrecy within the law. Consequently, i wasn't actually here for this lecture, thanks to being taken to the doctors for the third time this week, so therefore my notes may seem a little (ok, alot) like Chris's which are posted online. 
So, there are three main areas of concern when relating to breach of confidence and secrecy:


1. State Secrets (affecting people who are in investigative journalism)
2. Commercial Secrets (affecting those who do solid news reporting)
3. Privacy (usually print or broadcast journalism, relating to tabloid or celeb related news)


By breaching any of these it results in the following things (number 1 relating back to number 1 and so on)
1. Official secrets act
2. Common law confidentiality 
3. Human rights act, section 8 (normal enjoyment to a family life)


Official Secrets
This is often related to military or intelligence cases where highly important secrets are 'let out the bag'. The official secrets act in 1911 is related to the secret information, ultimately, revealing any of this information can lead to criminal prosecution. 


Common Law Confidentiality
Within common law confidentiality, people have the right to keep secrets, so long as its for the public interest. If someone who is not entitled to pass on their secrets e.g. a doctor/lawyer, does so that person has committed 'breach of confidence' which is essentially, a crime.
As journalists, we often want new and 'juicy' gossip and information to print and broadcast. If -as journalists- we get someone to reveal secret information, we may be involved in the crime of 3rd party breach of confidence. This is where injunctions fit in, as someone can obtain an injunction to prevent this specific story coming out for the public to read. Another name for this is 'gag on the press', as ultimately this makes journalists think twice as none of them want an injunction against them. This reminds me of the monkeys, hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil and do no evil (i think), and journalists are the complete opposite to that. Then again, as Chris often states 'RUDE IS GOOD!'


Breach of confidence
A person is in breach of confidence if;
1. They have the necessary quality of confidence (they do not 'tittle tattle')
2. The information was provided in - circumstances imposing an obligation
3. They had NO permission to do so
4. Detriment to person who gave information


Gagging Clauses
If someone becomes employed by another person for either money or volunteer work, they owe the employer a common law 'duty of confidence'. If someone has one, they are risking a lot by talking to a Journalists. Thus the public interest defence is limited when there are ways with these complaints internally. Where organisations are covered by the Official Secrets Act, the public interest defence is not allowed.

24/10/2011

illness

Pre-warning anyone who is beginning to read this post, this has not got anything to do with my Journalism course, it's really me moaning about the weekend i've had. So here goes, after being ill for over 2 weeks now you really would of thought I would of got even a tiny bit better. However, thanks to my body obviously loving me -more like paying me back for the number of take-aways and crisps i eat on a daily basis- it seems like my flu is only getting worse. I'm pretty certain during these past 2 weeks I've had everything, runny nose, cough, sore throat, sickness, fainting, headaches, aching, sneezing and annoying most people in my lectures or in fact everywhere i go by coughing, sneezing and blowing my nose constantly. Friday night I decided to go see Paranormal Activity 3,
Personally, although I hate scary films, I generally enjoy watching them to get a bit of a thrill. Much like everything else reckless I do. However, being ill and constantly hitting my head on the back of the chair due to jumping so much just didn't help anything. Not only due to being extremely terrified that Toby the ghost man would come find me in my house Friday night, i was constantly tossing and turning whilst having coughing fits in between. So fun!
Anyway, yesterday my cold/flu or whatever it is, took a turn for the worst when I began coughing so often it was clogging my throat and I was struggling to breathe. Being so worried about me, Mum had to rush me to the emergency doctors in Bitterne, and as she was panicking so much, managed to get us lost on the way even though we know Southampton like the back of our hand. Brilliant. After waiting in the faeces smelling waiting room for 2 hours we finally got to see the Doctor who told me; "to be honest there's not much we can do, coughing is good so do that." Yeah cheers for that Doc! Without undermining her, you would of thought she could of given me a bit more advice.


Still being no better, I have to miss my Media lectures and seminar today, which just leaves me to do even more work being this ill. On the upside, it does make me feel better that I'm living at home and commuting to uni, as I have my mum to run out and get me a Mcdonalds and make me hot chocolates!
Anyway, expect more posting today as I need to attempt to be productive instead of sitting around watching Harry Potter all day, which is what I normally do when I'm ill. Or watch Keeping up with the Kardashians, ooooh I might go do that now! Bye :)

21/10/2011

Dangling modifier mayhem

So, here is my new and improved 'what makes a good journalist' piece of writing and hopefully will be far more grammatically correct after taking out my dangling modifiers and wording issues.


In my opinion, dedication, passion and confidence make a good journalist. Having confidence allows journalists to deal with any heated discussions which often arise when being a journalist. From a young age, I have believed passion will get you very far, along with being highly dedicated. The reason these qualities would make a good journalist is because journalists often have to be very tough skinned; therefore by being driven, it allows them to get through any problems they face. Being opinionated is a quality which many journalists have, and without this, many stories would not be as interesting, as opinion is necessary to make a good story. All of the above reasons are why I think I would make a good journalist, as I believe I have all of the above qualities and as I am highly ambitious and dedicated it allows me to strive towards my goals.

12/10/2011

Political Science and a bit of Plato

Today's Philosophy lecture was based upon political science. Being honest, the lecture for me felt like an on going day of someone punching me constantly in the head, having cold sweats and having a tissue on me at all times! Ultimately, being ill and commuting to Uni is no fun at all, making the drive all the worse as sneezing whilst driving is pretty dangerous at the best of times. So on to some of the stuff i learnt and fingers crossed to showing I even slightly understand what I'm learning about.



Plato's Crito
Basically, some man called Socrates gets imprisoned and his buddy Crito tries to influence him to escape from prison. Socrates dismisses Crito's statement as he describes how he has a loyalty to his friends and family, feeling the need to face his sentence rather than escaping as Crito tells him to. Socrates describes how he has lived in the city of Athens for a long time and he has benefited from it through such things as education, therefore he must abide by the laws of the city and face his sentence. Essentially, Socrates is arguing Kantain's principles - what if everyone did that? If everyone began escaping from prison, what would happen then. 
This leads us on to the Social Contract. This was 'created' although it was never wrote down, it was merely a spoken agreement which said that without it there would ultimately be a collapse in society. This 'spoken agreement' was in the Leviathan who was a 'biblical monster of unstoppable power' dun dun dunnnnnn. The power of the Leviathan was limitless and this can then be related easily to the State of Nature.


Right, the state of nature, basically Hobbes stated in the state of nature there will be "no arts; no letters; no society and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, poor, nasty, brutish and short." The state is explicitly a war machine; organised for war against subjects who resist and organised for war against rival states. The Leviathan made a basic contract which in simple terms meant he will enable civilisation to happen and will stop any mayhem happening but wanted all the power. In the state of nature, peoples dominant passions are aggressive, people acting on their passions will produce a state of war, therefore people lived in fear.


Locke
Locke is a philosopher during the late 1600's who proposed the idea that God had given Adam the right to rule; "Let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air." - Genesis. Locke opposed Hobbes theory and his belief in the state of nature, he unlike Hobbes believed the state of nature was nice and that everyone should get on, not live in fear. Locke proposed a concept of government by consent and limited by law - its powers mainly used for the protection of property. He insisted that a need for a higher level (such as government, police etc) was needed to choose sides with arguments and so on. However, he stated that he thought the government should only rule if society agree. Pretty good theories if you ask me!
Locke believed that citizens could rebel if their government ceased to respect the law. It therefore meant that Locke was suggesting that the right of revolution was one of the natural rights of man. 


Rousseau
Rousseau believes that our freedom is to be guided by our own will. He wanted civil freedom and that if everyone is involved in making the law, they will only be following their own will. Essentially, he says that society makes us unhappy. Therefore he wants the state of nature back. So yeah, it is obviously right at this present moment in time I hardly know anything about Rousseau, he probably wasn't even THAT interesting anyway!


Simply all three philosophers where different and wanting different things;


Hobbes - A complete collapse of society
Locke - A collaborate state
Roussea - A state of freedom


Plato's Forms
Plato believed of a distinct perfect world/universe and his forms are represented in an imperfect way in our world. This idea is shown through Plato's cave analogy where prisoners were forced to stare at the side of the cave and the only world they ever knew was the world of shadows, one day one of the prisoners decided to turn around and saw the 'perfect world' and tried to influence the others to do so. Basically, he believed that everything we saw, such as my mac laptop now, is an imperfect version, that ultimately, there is a better mac in the real 'perfect world'. This can be related to Christianity and the way they believe there is a heaven which would be the ultimate perfect world. 
Plato also believed that the soul is organised into three parts;
1. Reason - Knows the forms, and therefore reality
2. Spirit  - Courage, ferocity, aggression - wants honour but does not know what honour is
3. Desire - Constant craving, pushed hopelessly from one desire to another


^ He believes we know of these forms before we were born.


Another one of his beliefs had to do with the Chariot, shown below;


The Charioteer = Reason
One Horse = Spirit/Aggression
The Other Horse = Desire


Plato argued that if there are 3 types of soul, then there are 3 types of state. The Mass are dominated by one of the horses that is desire, therefore that is why we need to be governed relating to Locke. 


Machiavelli
Machiavelli wrote the famous book, The Prince, which was written for the Medici rulers of Florance. He says to hold on to power you must learn how to not be good, therefore guided by being efficient. Basically, a ruler can do whatever to get power then to hold on to that power, relating to Leviathan.


So, I hope this information I can described during this long and winding blog is correct otherwise I have wasted over an hour writing up notes which are completely wrong. However, if this is so, I blame my illness so technically it is not my fault :)

Garry Glitter; Forever Defamed

Today's Law lecture was all based upon Defamation. In lamans terms for those who are not in my course and who are reading this (probably no-one) Defamation describes a civil dispute between parties. For one to be Defamed the candidate is often branded that for the rest of their lives. Garry Glitter is an easy example of this as now he has been branded as a pedophile, even if he has changed his ways, that reputation will stay with him.


Unfortuntely, whilst trying to find an image of Garry Glitter looking slightly more like his title, this image occured which seems to frame him in a light that makes him look guilty through his use of a baseball hat and sunglasses as if he is trying to hide his identity. Luckily for me, he has been convicted as a Pedophile so I can't get in trouble for this! Phew! Getting back on track, it means whatever you do does have consequences kids! See, the amount of times i've told my parents the embaressing things they do will tarnish my 'rep' IS true. Generally, if you say something about a person which may tend to diminish their reputation "in the eyes of the right thinking people", then you have defamed them.


Another example of this is Harold Shipman, the mass-murdering doctor who was jailed for life in 2000 for killing 15 patients whilst working in Hyde, Manchester. A later report found he had killed between 215 and 260 people in a 23 year period. Shipman was found hanging in his cell on Tuesday 13th January 2004, and it can be said due to Shipman being defamed he knew -although he was given 15 life sentences meaning he wouldn't ever see daylight again- his whole reputation had been ruined and he would never get that back. 
Image above taken from Flickr, by: John Dorschner | The Miami Heraldwww.truthout.org/033009C



The guidelines for juries are that a statement is defamatory if it merely tends to lower their reputation in any of the following ways;
1. Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt (definitely in Gazza Glitter's case)
2. Causes them to be shunned/avoided (and again)
3. Discredits them in their trade, business or profession (hardly like Garry's got much of a career anymore due to what he gets up to in his spare time)
and 4. Generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society.
Consequently, what do people like Garry Glitter and mass-murderer Harold Shipman expect? A wave of new friends?


Slander
Ultimately, if you defame a person in a non-permanent form such as a conversation for example, then you have slander them. Putting it simply, you have defamed them by hurling abuse or calling them any name under the sun, but it's during conversation so it's cool. 


For those who are just looking for a simple answer relating to the definition of slander, here's all i can give you;


Publication (magazine/newspaper) + Defamation + Identification (particular person, image etc) = LIBEL 


Accidental libel, relates to if a publication/person has identified someone as a murderer, however there is someone who has exactly the same name, and for example, job description as given, they can sue for accidental libel as without meaning to, they have been in some ways 'wrongly identified'. 


Libel Defences
1. Justification - That the statement is true and we can prove it
2. Fair Comment - Comment and not fact of the Journalist, including their honest opinion 
3. Absolute Privilege - When people such as Soldiers are given absolute privilege to commit murder and get away with it.
4. Qualified Privilege - When people such as Journalists get certain excepts to laws under particular conditions.

08/10/2011

Shorthand Hell

Thank god for Barton Peveril College is all I can say! Luckily enough i've always known I have wanted to go into Journalism so I picked my college courses appropriately, and them having a Shorthand course was (as i have now realised) a god-send! Although I am having to spend 8 hours on a Thursday and Friday together on something I already know and have already acquired a speed of 40wpm, it is so nice to be able to have a head-start at something; especially in comparison to subjects such as Philosophy which I feel I am a thousand years behind everyone else. Consequently, both Thursday and Friday nearly sent me to sleep countless times and I ended up feeling like I was learning the English alphabet all over again. However, subtitute teacher Margaret who we had on Thursday, pushed my boundaries by personally testing me at 50wpm, which made me feel far more intellectually tested than in previous lessons.


I'm sat saying all of this, and over half of my classmates probably hate me due to how much many of them are struggling with Shorthand at the moment. But if any of you are reading this, I PROMISE it does get easier, it's all down to practice. Practice every day for half an hour like they advise and within 2 weeks you will find yourself being able to write it without any problems :)
Unfortunately, I've spent the beginning of this weekend feeling extremely ill which is absolutely no fun when trying to read more Russell, especially when being honest, I don't really have a clue what he is talking about most of the time. Hopefully as the course progresses this will change, otherwise I'm pretty stuffed.

04/10/2011

He's wearing a big hat with bobbles on, now you're in trouble!

Lectures in the morning a certainly not made for me, considering I spent 4 months off during summer waking up after 1. Consequently, waking before then would bring me back to my younger years as my mum would congratulate me for waking up early. A little praise never goes a miss. After running (or in my case 'fast walking') up the hill towards uni for 10 minutes left me feeling both physically and mentally exhausted before the day had even began, what a great start! Not! But here I am sat in the library at 11.50am instead of either sleeping or going home, so hopefully this will earn me some more of that praise which is always greatly appreciated.


Within Court reporting it is essential Journalists remember the important principles of law, such as Qualified Privallage. This ultimately refers to being able to say anything as a Journalist without being sued. In reference to the title, you can tell how much trouble you are in by the type of hat/wig the judge is wearing. Basically, if you are sitting infront of a judge with a large hat and bobbles on it, you are in the European Court and are in BIG trouble, or you could just be in a court with a judge who looks like this:
On a serious note, the basic legal principles are as followed;
1. Pressumption of Innocence - The pressumption of innocence describes the way the trialed party must be treated as innocent until they are proven guilty in a Criminal Court.

This can relate to Mens Rea which describes a guilty mind, and Actus Reus which therefore describes an act which is potentially criminal.
2. Justice must seen to be done - Trials must be held in public and according to know rules of evidence and procedure, unless there is a strong reason why not, e.g. national security, rape cases and protection of children.
3. Evidence-based justice - The right to have evidence test by jury of peers (effectively now- fellow citizens)


The Press = 'eyes and ears of the public'


In a criminal court -which usually hold the murderers, rapists and basically anyone you wouldn't want anywhere near you- there are a few main roles which Journalists need to be able to recognise. Really,even un-qualified Journalists should be able to.
Firstly, there is the Jury, who decide who is innocent or guiltly and utlimately, they can only judge on the evidence given.
Secondly, there are the Baristers who is on two teams, one to represent the prosecution. They must prove their case to thej ury 'beyond resonable doubt' using witnesses. The defence barrister is there but the case of the accused person, who is known as the defendent once the trial has started.

Finally, the Judge who is there to decide on admissibility of evidence and advise the jury on points of law. Overall, the Judge makes sure the court and case runs smoothly and deicde on the sentence given.


Crown Court
Crown Courts try serious crimes and have 3 types of judges who are as followed;
High Court: Mr Justice Smith
Circuit Court: Judge John Smith
City Crown Court: London, Manchester: Recorder Mr John Smith


A Crown Courts key functions are to try indictable offences sent for trial by magistrates, to deal with cases sent for sentence and to hear appeals. Either way, most cases dealt with at the crown court are minor/summary cases.
A final thought is a main point a Journalist must not only know, but live by; Do NOT jump to conclusions!

03/10/2011

Studying Culture: Popular, Mass and High

After a weekend full of non-stop Bertrand Russel and Mcnae, the thought of Uni this morning was pretty off-putting. Out of all my subjects within Journalism, Key Concepts is one which i understand the most, which being honest, has got me down most weekend. Adding to this, the amount of reading for tomorrow I have to complete is pretty large and considering I am a reasonably fast and capable reader is extremeley dissapointing on my behalf. But, positive head, positive head. 
Today's lecture for Key Concepts based around the idea of popular culture and the mass. Constructions of taste and quality are constructed in a series of binary oppositions (good and bad, priests and gang leaders.)



Pierre Bourdieu -I am guessing you are attempting to say his name in a French accent much like I did, or if you wern't you are now- studying the french class systems and argued that no one is born with taste, it is merely something you establish through socialising with certain people and understanding the culture put towards you. An exsample of this is if you are brought up into eating meals cooked by a chef most nights, and spending luxorious days out at the Opera or Ballet, this is the taste you will have because ultimately, it has been put infront of you and you have therefore acquired it. Consequently, if you are used to eating takeaway food infront of the TV and Big Brother is on, this does eventually become the taste you are used to. 
Me for instance, I grew up with my mum listening to Aerosmith, Guns 'n' Roses and so on, at the age I was i never realised the signifance it had on me, however now I am older and my taste of music is extremeley versitile, I have discovered such music is also my taste due to the way it was opened up to me. This can also be an example of Cultural Capital. This relates to how knowledgable you are about the culture around you e.g. if you listen to classical music and visit art musuems you can be said to have a high cultural capital due to the wider variety of knowledge you know capitally.

For example from the images above, the first image is a 50cent concert which can be described by many people as having low cultural capital due to it being highly related to gang culture. However in comparison the image below this is of the Ballet, which for many people is classed as having a high cultural capital due to it being around for many years. Ultimately, it can be debated whether this is fair? Does something have to be around for many years for it to be classed as high culture? In my opinion no. Commonly, cultural capital can shift in value much like the exchange rate, it can move up and down quickly or over a long period of time. This can be related to the Theatre, which in a high culture way, it makes me think of Shakespeare and so on. However in a low culture way, it reminds me of Pantomimes and the way you don't have to have a proper education to be able to visit the theatre/broadway and so on. 

Being honest, I'm using this as a way of getting out of reading my Philosophy book so I better be a good and dedicated student and get on with it!





Pages