In a moment of honesty, and a feeling of what seems to be a homesickness and a heavy heart for colleagues still in TV news…you go, reader:

I had lunch recently with a good friend who works as a television journalist.  This person is a no-nonsense type with a quick mind and sharp skills.  This person doesn’t talk a lot, but when words are spoken, ears listen.  Which is why, when the words, “I would get out tomorrow if I had another job” came out, my heart broke.

Seems I’m having a lot of these lunches lately, with people who work in various types of media and who live in various states.

Most journalists I know have dedicated years to getting to their large markets or major publications.  Most have logged many different zip codes, moving cities as they move up in their careers.  They’ve sacrificed much to “make it.”  They pride themselves in honing their skills, to be the best, and to keep striving for excellence.  They have such a passion for their responsibilities as gate-keepers.  They work in their off-time, they thrive on putting together quality stories, and they take criticism to heart, regardless of how “thick” their skin is, because in every story, they’ve injected their heart, sweat, tears, and frustrations.  And they love it.  And I’d be willing to bet they could all write books on their experiences.  We all have different stories.  Here’s just a glimpse into mine:

I was in television news (pause).  Scratch that.  I dedicated my life to television news for 10 years. Two of those were in college: giving up summer vacation to intern and study (good taste of what life would be after college…no more summer breaks), foregoing trips home for weddings and holidays to instead intern and study (welcome to life in TV news…which doesn’t allow itself holidays); and throughout the year, working at a student-run television station and nearly forgetting to study for my other classes because I loved television news.  In fact, I spent more time in the “Com” building than anywhere else during my final years in college.  Television was the path on which I pursued excellence.  And I loved every step.

I wasn’t the only one.

I’ve met many exceptional journalists over the years, especially in Arizona – people who are pursuing excellence in their own way.  I know writers whose columns, articles, or stories get more compelling with each sentence, who tirelessly research facts and investigate leads.  I’ve worked with quick-thinking photographers who communicate beauty through their expert composition of images, and who always have the best ideas for getting soundbites or “the money shot” when such things seem impossible from my place in front of the camera.  I’ve sat with editors who understand the intricacies of story construction, and the result of their work has a viewer on the edge of their seat.  Editors can put together puzzle-pieces of a story and when complete, it’s a masterpiece.  I’ve met on-air reporters with enviable delivery, and anchors with poise that commands attention, even under the most excruciating circumstances.

Put all of those elements together, and, you have grasped excellence for the moment.  The exhilaration comes with knowing that the next newscast brings another chance at it…the bar pushing higher.

. . . . .

Sadly, I don’t see the pursuit of excellence anymore.  What I’m witnessing is the trudge of mediocrity.  I see talent completely disregarded with no logical explanation – or at least none that has been openly communicated.  I see broken spirits among those who used to light up at the chance to shine and show their individual talent.  I hear of stress resulting from having to submit to completed products that are nominal, rather than celebrating an opportunity to be phenomenal.  Beyond that, I hear, “I want out.”  This, from some of the best in the business.

It’s discouraging when your passion is extinguished, and it’s worse when you end up owning that feeling of defeat.  Or perhaps it owns you, sinking its claws into your thoughts: “just get it done.  It doesn’t matter how.  Just make your deadline.”

There are always going to be trends and new ways of doing any job, media-related or not, especially with the abundance of technology.  I only hope that mediocrity is one trend that doesn’t last — for the sake of the viewers, and for the sake of friends who still pick up their pens and notebooks, their cameras and tripods, and head out to pursue excellence as best they can.

And to those former colleagues of mine, and there are so many scattered now throughout the U.S: it was truly an honor and a humbling experience working with you.  I admire and respect your excellence.

-Jenn Burgess

PTC New Journalist of the Year 2009, Winner: Hardeep Sandher, Property Week, United Business Media

It was the Periodical Training Council’s (PTC) New Journalist of the Year Awards on Friday in London. There was a maglab competition to win one of five places to go to the awards and a masterclass session with industry experts. We had to submit questions we’d ask during the masterclass and mine got picked:

1. Considering the rapid changes in social media technology (blogging etc.) how far do you see magazines changing from their original – glossy paged – format?
2. What makes magazine journalism continue to stay exciting for you and why did you choose this form to begin with?
3. What always stands out for you when interviewing potential employees?

Unfortunately, after a 6am megabus start (remind me not to bimble  round Cardiff in the dark, in the rain, on my own at 5am again), too long on the Jubilee line and an entrance that makes me thankful I didn’t wear heels, we got to the venue – Vinopolis at London Bridge – just shy of fashionably late, and I didn’t even get to ask any of my questions.

On top of that, I worked out beforehand how to tweet from my non-internet-friendly-phone and Orange coverage completely let me down. You would think social media could overcome the constraints of sitting in a railway bunker but apparently not. Apologies.

Inside Vinopolis where the awards were presented

The masterclass was really helpful though.

Sara Cremer, Editorial Director of Redwood Publishing introduced it and managed to outline how print media is facing its toughest time to date without making me want to cancel my tuition fees and go for my back up plan (marry someone rich).

“The lunaries of the industry”

She introduced the first speaker, Julian Linley, Creative Director at Bauer Media. He started his career as Celeb Editor at Sugar magazine in 1994 before moving onto Heat despite having a self-confessed problem with spelling and no formal journalistic training. He gave us the 10 things he’d learnt from being a journalist:

1. Reach for the stars
2. Don’t be intimidated – just pick up the phone and get what you need
3. Remember your reader – always tune into what they are interested in, not just what you are interested in
4. Don’t take “no” for an answer – don’t get disheartened, persistence pays off
5. Trust your instincts – be passionate and enthusiastic
6. Make and cultivate contacts
7. Learn from your boss – find out how people became successful
8. Be confident but sensitive to get the best out of your sources
9. The paranoid survive – your mantra: “If I don’t get that story, someone else will”
10. Have a life – outside of work

Next up was Steve Barrett, the Editor of Media Week which has just become an online only publication. He tackled the state of the print industry and  how to get a job but maintained that journalism is still the best job in the world – and there are still opportunities regardless of the economy. He didn’t deny the struggle trainee journalists are going to face but did say that the industry is going to have to change its business models if it is to survive commercially. He argues more value has to be added if people are to pay for news and their habits will have to be changed. In terms of advice though:

• Journalism is a craft and we need our deadlines
• Accuracy is crucial
• Work experience is where you really start to learn what it means to be a journalist
• The more skills you have (video, podcast, online) the more attractive you will be
• Don’t be an “email” journalist
• Everyone gets nervous but just pick up the phone
• Shorthand really helps
• Build relationships to build your credibility
• It is not a 9-5 job – no clock watching
• Be a “magpie” and read everything you can
• Enthusiasm is your greatest asset

Mark Jones, Feature writing expert and Editorial Director of Cedar Communications went for a different tact with a presentation called:

You have to sell your soul: The Devil’s Guide to Journalism

1. Never give free advice (although he reckons sharing is actually a good thing)
2. When faced with a fact and a joke – take out the fact: said in relation to feature writing, clearly not news. He said there is a need for more people to write a bit differently
3. Decide if you are a man or a woman – ie. is your writing going to be show-offy? Or straightforward? Don’t ever be an inbetween case
4. Steal, filch and imitate – to understand how people do what they do, rip people off to make something original – study, copy, use and then find your own style
5. Write like an Iranian taxi driver drives, translation: take risks with your writing
6. Get into Private Eye a la Giles Coran, scandal will really help your career, especially as a columnist
7. Insult the Welsh (safe prejudice)… and if that fails…
8. Shoot a baboon a la AA Gill
9. Be a pest – get known
10. Find a pathway to what you really want to do

“Difference is good – be experimental”

Finally, Andy Cowles,  Group Creative Director of IPC Media took us through the importance of covers

• Covers stand outside of us – they say something about the person who buys a particular magazine – a lifestyle accessory and indicator
• Must sell the issue and identify the brand
• Must be reinvented every issue – always the same but always different
• Must be direct – “We live in a world of constant partial attention” – (he was all for us tweeting, posting and pottering about during his talk)
• Need: identifiable colour scheme, news event, great photos, memorable cover line, promises the reader something

What most struck me about all the talks is how the speakers frequently overlapped when it came to enthusiasm, passion and confidence. I really need to get to work on my telephone manner.

And don’t let people tell you print is dead. They are just scared of change.

P.S. The three course free lunch was pretty amazing too

This is too much. Or not enough. Jury’s still out. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

CALABASAS, Calif. — Authorities say a 12-year-old boy assaulted by a group of middle school classmates in Southern California may have been targeted after an Internet posting urged students to beat up redheads.

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Lt. Richard Erickson says the boy, who is redheaded, was kicked and hit in two incidents Friday at his school. As many as 14 students participated in the attacks.

Erickson says the attackers may have been motivated by a Facebook message announcing that Friday was “Kick a Ginger Day.” The posting may have been inspired by an episode of the television show “South Park.”

The boy was not seriously hurt. AP

This article appeared in the Spectator dated November 14th

Stravinsky once said that music was powerless to express anything at all. Leaving aside the niceties of whether a rising scale can at least represent something hopeful or aspiring, his music, like so much music, does nonetheless have the capacity to express the spirit of an age. Since this is a much vaguer procedure than trying to depict a concrete verbal image in sound – like bird song, or a drunken man, or climbing a ladder – it is surprising how successful composers have been at it. Unwittingly successful, I guess, since how would you deliberately set about writing a piece to capture 2009?

I became aware of this whilst watching some of my favourite television soaps – like The Tudors or Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man. Such programmes seem to need music to reinforce the world they depict. It is not enough to have costumes and user-friendly history; or Bruno emoting in front of Boltzmann’s statue. Words are not enough, there has to be music. And if this music is well chosen, it can be immensely powerful, arguably more powerful than the whole of the rest of the set put together.

Sibelius would not have known that when his Seventh Symphony is played alongside images of heavy hydrogen colliding and fusing to make a nucleus of helium – images which first became available at about the time he was writing it – the match is a perfect one. Nor would Prokofiev have guessed that his The Love for Three Oranges goes brilliantly with talk about unlikely molecules being found in interstellar spaces. Better still are the opening bars of Walton’s First Symphony underpinning a sequence showing the skyline of 1960s New York in the final programme of Clark’s Civilisation. To have spotted this match was sheer genius: the ticker-tape kinetic energy of Walton’s music tells you in a split second all you need to know about modern life in that modern city – telexes, type-writers and stock exchange computer read-outs coded in. Again, I’m not sure Walton quite intended this passage to be so graphic, though with him it is more likely that there was a concrete thought behind his writing than with less worldly composers. I’ve noticed elsewhere how electric rhythms were the vogue in music of all sorts during the 60s and 70s –Kenneth Leighton’s church music exemplifies it, as does Walton’s own. This is obviously not a complete coincidence, and yet I doubt it was fully conscious. Anyway so far as posterity is concerned the marriage of Zeitgeist and great composer can be far more powerful than any number of wannabe costumes and electrically-lit candle scenes.

Everyone can play the game of which piece of music best conjures up their favourite moods and epochs. My mind inevitably turns to how sacred polyphony represents several hundred years of Western civilization. Play an unaccompanied piece of polyphony from any decade of the 15^th or 16^th century and you have instant placement. Play Gregorian chant and you have an even wider recognition: a wash of dearly loved images come straight to the minds of just about everybody: monks, Gothic buildings, pilgrimages, thatched cottages and mud. Something in the very vagueness of the music tells us something uniquely accurate about those times – not in words but in atmosphere, and above all in how our understanding of time has evolved.

I’m interested to know what contemporary composition will tell future generations about ourselves. For example, what do we make of composers who cannot possibly hear in their heads what they have written? Some recent music is so multi-layered and so dissonant that it has to be played before anyone can say exactly what it sounds like, and even then it may be frankly admitted that it is unplayable. Not long ago, in the music of composers like Cornelius Cardew or Brian Ferneyhough, this music would have to be notated in some way or other by hand. Now, of course, computers can do the job for you, making complexity even less circumscribed by human limitations. Have our posher artists given up trying to communicate with people, rejoicing in locking themelves away whilst demanding respect?

We cannot know exactly which contemporary sounds encapsulate how we are today. We’ll have to wait for that. Will it be jazz or popular music or dissonant complexity or holy minimalism, or all of these? Where is the composer who can put his or her finger on what is happening now, as Sibelius and Walton could do 70 years ago? Is the world so diverse that it is simply not possible for one piece of music to represent anything valuable at all? The fear, of course, is that there is nothing worth putting one’s finger on, and that indeed no-one is doing it.

Comcast Sports Net Anchor Amy Fadool came to speak in my Sports Production class today. Amy graduated from the University of Kentucky and before she was hired by CSN last January Amy worked in Kentucky, Nashville, and Baltimore. She gave everyone practical advice about finding our first jobs and also critiqued our work.

I love going to school in such a large city (#5 largest in USA) because it allows working professionals to become adjunct professors, and also opens the door to guest speakers throughout the semesters. For example this semester my professor, Matt Fine, teaches my Sports Production class and used to work to anchor at CSN. Additionally my Broadcast News Writing professor, Windsor Johnston, is the news director at WRTI radio located here on campus.

I’ve got an article in the Daily Mail today and I’m rather proud of it. I’m not mad about the cartoon or the headline (there was no screaming either), but I do think it’s an important subject so I’d be grateful if you’d have a read.

I had the (mis)fortune of attending The Straits Times redesign pre-launch event for staff, circa July 2008. It was a little under a lifetime ago; back then, Man plodded the 100m at a ponderous 9.72s, Michael was the only Palin we knew, and Lehman Brothers were a bank.

As an intern journalist, I took my place alongside a docile audience before deputy editor Alan John, who doled out the customary analytical fluff to clarify the rationale for the paper’s cosmetic rejigging - surveys, numbers, graphs et al. Somewhere in the midst of that pablum, he noted, with customary indignance, the prevalent public perception of the Straits Times being a government mouthpiece.

John was quick to brush off such a notion, offering examples of unique insight and salient commentary the paper offered through the expert opinion featured on its Review pages and special reports from foreign correspondents. You might think, if his own staff needed the reassurance (even convincing) that their paper was not a government mouthpiece, something is awfully awry. Not to mention that all that smoke is giving away the fire. But those groping their way up the greasy pole wouldn’t so much as blink if it meant public contrition and consequently career suicide.

But it hardly matters whether he believes that stuff himself or not, and it’s irrelevant for anyone’s purpose. What people think of the Straits Times matters; the public fascination with and succumbing to the allure of superficial simulacra is not something a newspaper editor can dispel or wish away in an infantile denial.

And regardless where his conscience truly lies on the matter, even John must realise that his Forum editor does him little favours with regards to public perception, as yesterday’s paper shows.

A fawning Dr John Ng patently wet himself when he picked up the Straits Times last week to read about his hero, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, and his public act of contrition over his bilingual education policy. But he recovered sufficiently to pen a note to the Straits Times, published yesterday. Don’t read if you can help it. It’s soaked in dripping saccharine so sugary thick, it ought to have carried a health warning for diabetics. You’d blush, cringe your face into desiccated prune, and die of neurological complications triggered by vicarious shame.

If you would still like to discover the banality of Dr John “Fanboy” Ng for yourself, I may recommend you begin with starters – warm-up acts if you will – from Boon Chin Aun and Mrs Goh Su San.

Yet in all honesty, there is no news here. The Straits Times offering one-sided, trite and embarrassingly positive affirmations for the government? No shit, Sherlock.

But even so, over-eager critics (see: Temasek Review) take the bait (see: “Doc expressed admiration of MM Lee for “admitting” his mistake“). Which is fine really, only if the Review had published it as opinion or commentary. But once again, the cardinal sin – to opine and editorialise within the guise of news.

The Review writes: “A doctor by the name of Dr John Ng had written a letter to the Straits Times Forum today expressing his gratitude and admiration for MM Lee Kuan Yew after his recent speech to encourage the study of Chinese language differently.”

I ask for your understanding as I swing into pedantism here. A doctor by the name of Dr John Ng? How does the Review know if he’s a medical doctor as opposed to a doctor of philosophy? Assuming he was, why did they have to tell us twice? The title “Dr” is rendered superfluous in this sentence.

The Review then goes off into the deep end: “Singapore’s bilingual education policy was not the only mistake made by Lee during his 25-year tenure as Prime Minister.

“His “stop at two” policy in the 1970s is the main culprit of Singapore’s declining birth rates todays and we are still paying the price for it.”

This is not a statement of fact. It’s an opinion, which should have no place in a news article, not supported by empirical evidence. Declining birth rates is a common phenomenon across developed economies. The Review’s statement supposes that without the “stop at two” policy, the declining birth rates would not exist, or at the very least will not be pronounced. A problematic assertion to say the very least.

“As a result, the government has to resort to importing foreigners en masse from countries like China and India to boost Singapore’s flagging population at the expense of the locals.”

This is the stuff Daily Mail writers revel in. Paul Dacre would have been so proud. The less charitable lefties call this racism. I just call it bad journalism.

“Dr John Ng’s impression of Lee is probably formed from reading the state-controlled papers, history textbooks and Lee’s memoirs.”

The Review calls this news. News! All conjecture, no evidence. Or as Stephen Colbert would have put it: “All heart, no facts.”

And as the saying goes, one abysmally contrived opinion deserves another. The correspondent, now capable of mindreading, babbles on fecklessly: “Had he read other “censored” sources like the recently launched “The Fajar Generation” by a group of student leaders from the University Socialist Club in the 1950s and 1960s, his views of Lee will change radically.”

Several paragraphs later, we learn that the Review’s correspondent is omniscient, and magnanimous to boot. “Dr John Ng is probably too young to recall the events during the tumultuous period of Singapore’s history and can be forgiven for his ignorance.”

Dear correspondent, if you are reading this, I would love to know how you could have discerned so many “facts” about this Dr John Ng – his profession, the formative historical and political exposure he was subjected to, and his approximate age – from just a simple letter bereft of any revealing details. Who needs to do any real journalistic investigations and legwork if they could divine the truth as effortlessly as you can? 

The Temasek Review exhorts its readers to pick up copies of The Fajar Generation to get a dose of alternate perspectives on modern political history of Singapore. A good idea I would imagine; it should many young ones so good. Some historical revisionism to displace the monopoly of orthodoxy is very welcome.

And if I may return the favour to the Review, please pick up copies of the Associated Press Stylebook (disclosure: I am currently interning with the AP) and Nick Davies’ Flat Earth News (disclosure: I love this book). The journalistic profession is in bad enough shape as it is without half-baked bloggers confusing their art for news reporting.

Note: I’ve decided to name my press review column (of sorts). As you would have noticed, it’s got the unimaginative title of “Press muse”. As for primer for this post, Hobsbawm is brilliant. Comments and insults are welcome; flame me in the comment box below, or via email at measuredmuse @ gmail (you get the idea).

Can press freedom ever be compatible with press censorship?

There are two very important aspects of journalism that influence any writer or owner, and these are press freedom and press censorship. It is highly debatable whether or not the fundamental human right that is press freedom can ever be compatible with the recent rise of press censorship, and this is the argument I shall outline and discuss in this essay. I am of the position that press freedom cannot be compatible with press censorship, as they are two totally opposing factors that continuously clash in today’s society. With the sudden introduction of extreme political correctness in British culture, it has become harder than ever for people to express their opinions and views without causing offense, making writing pieces on controversial topics a minefield for journalists, and with that, the government and owners of press have increased censorship to coincide with the expectations of society and to avoid confrontation that can arise when offense is taken. In this essay I will discuss the basics and history of press freedom, including reasons why it is so important in society, and press censorship and the ways in which it affects journalism, as well as the owners and laws that inflict it. I will also discuss the reasons why press censorship is not compatible with press freedom and offer several different examples to support my argument.

The freedom of press is a clear symbol of a democracy, a way to combat repression and the restrictive control that governments can hold over their people. Freedom of speech is a right that has been hard fought for throughout history, and freedom of press, while being a branch of freedom of speech, it has always held a special place in our democracy, as it is the press that is the voice of a large majority of people instead of just one individual, to serve the nation in the name of public interest (Giles and Snyder: 75). Press freedom essentially means that any person can express and/or exchange their opinions and the information they carry and can hold any beliefs that they choose, and that if a person is able, they are free to publish a newspaper, magazine or website that puts across their views without restriction. Press freedom is highly important in societies throughout the world as it gives people accurate and fair news coverage and keeps them informed, assisting people in forming opinions, views and creating discussion. It also allows people to follow the seemingly untouchable politicians and peers in their society, causing greater caution to be taken by said individuals and preventing the country from being mislead. One example of this was the expenses scandal in 2009, where newspapers reported that MP’s were found to be claiming for ridiculous items such as dog food and expensive luxuries such as a second home, all of which was being paid for by the public. If this scandal had been censored by the government, a majority of the British public would be unaware of what had taken place.

Censorship can be defined as the control of distribution and the restriction of information that is given out to the masses. Press censorship is usually carried out by the owners and highly influential advertisers who fund newspapers, and are a function of all governments, regardless of how Liberal, especially during times of conflict (Woolmar, 1990). Censorship has been frequently used in news circulation throughout history, such as King Henry VIII’s banning of unauthorised news stories during his reign in the 16^th century. If something is to be censored in the UK, it is usually done using the system of D Notices, the restrictions that are put in place by the Official Secrets Act and on occasion formal censorship of news providers that forbids them from covering particular events and reporting on certain processes. An example of this is the problems and political campaigns that took during the troubles in Northern Ireland in 1988, when the Home Secretary banned 11 different political parties, including the legitimate party Sinn Fein, from television and radio in the UK, which lasted for six years and resulted in many educational programmes having to be edited to remove Nationalist politicians. Censorship of the press is an important issue because it prevents the general public from receiving all the facts and limits the information that is available, which can also result in key issues and events being poorly covered (if at all) and the level of truthfulness in the content of the news that is being reported becoming limited, which is a sign of repression within a society.

It is clear that in recent years, the idea and so called fundamental human right that is press freedom has been restricted by the limitations in place throughout society. Opinions and views that are put across by journalists can sometimes be seen as offensive, or deemed inappropriate, which can lead to public backlash. An example of this is the opinions put across by Jan Moir in 2009 after celebrity Steven Gately’s sudden death, where she classed the circumstances surrounding the singer’s demise as ‘sleazy’. Causing offense to thousands of people, Moir was forced to defend herself in a later statement, though when examined as an issue of press freedom, she was well within her rights to voice her thoughts on the subject. This implies that public opinion is a huge limiting factor on press freedom, and is a reason for the growing amount of press censorship. Public opinion and reaction to news is a form of censorship in itself. Another limiting factor on the freedom of the press that coincides with press censorship is the competing human right that is the protection of reputation against defamation, which falls under the libel act, and the preservation of public order. If a writer who was working for a newspaper breached any of these human rights, or any other restricting factors such as protection of minors, contempt of court or race relations (Harrison: 99), not only would the writer face legal action, but the paper may lose readers and respect if it developed an unflattering image, and so editors are known to censor and proof read the work of journalists who are reporting on a difficult case so they avoid controversy and damage to the paper.

It is also known for journalists to avoid the hardest hitting or dangerous stories in order to keep their jobs, which is known as self-censorship. A journalist who covers such stories can often face expensive libel action from offended parties claiming their names have been smeared, which is a black mark on any journalist’s record and can make employment in the future more difficult to find and limit career advancement. The main point is that writers are on the papers pay roll, and are there to impress and essentially please their editors and, more importantly, their audience, making them more unwilling to take risks that could lose them their jobs or their reputations. “…reporting is a high calling which has fallen into disrepute because news writers have been too often degraded as hirelings compelled by their employers to serve the purposes of politicians, monopolists , speculators in the necessaries of life, exploiters of labour and fomenters of war” (McChesney and Scott: 304) Self censorship can become an automatic way of thinking and an instinctive reflex for a journalist, preventing essential aspects of freedom of press such as objectivity and fairness. Self censorship spawns from the fear of repercussion, which is a reasonable concern, with it become so easy of late to claim your human rights have been breached. It is such aspects of censorship that prevent journalists from doing an honest and accurate report when covering difficult topics, which are in most cases the stories that the public are eager to know (Franklin, Hamer etc.: 194).

Ownership is another factor in press censorship. As mentioned previously, one of the points of press freedom is that any person has the right to publish a newspaper, magazine or website that puts across their views without restriction. Today, there are many aspects that restrict newspaper ownership in this country. It is highly expensive to set up and effectively run any kind of publication, meaning that the average person cannot own their own newspaper or magazine to put across their views or concerns. Historically, any person could circulate unaltered news stories, such as in 16^th century Germany where reports that it can be safely assumed were not entirely accurate surrounding witch hunts, murders and superstition were published and circulated (Conboy: 18). However, the only way today to own your own news publication would be to create a website or a newsletter or pamphlet, which would reach a far smaller audience and so limiting the impact of the information being put forward. Another problem is that the amount of newspapers and media that you are allowed to own in Britain is limited to a certain percentage, with the idea being that it stops media barons taking control of what is being printed and circulated to the world. However, this is a limit on freedom, as it can stop the people who can afford to provide the truth owning newspapers where others will toe the line. The main issue, however, is that the power that news owners hold can be corrupting, and so they have the ability to censor anything they deem unfit, including dangerous facts about individuals that could cause scandal as well as information about partners and business relations that could potentially damage the paper itself if released. “Whereas, freedom of the press is a right of the readers of news and a responsibility upon the producers of news; and is not a privilege for owners of news channels to exploit” (taken from the Newspaper Guild resolution, McChesney and Scott: 304).

In conclusion, I believe that press freedom cannot be compatible with press censorship, as censorship is the main barrier that prevents press freedom in its entirety. Censorship of the press can take many forms, and in today’s society, limiting factors such as owner censorship, self censorship, censorship through the law and human rights all restrict press freedom, and the simple fact is that if something is censored, it is not and cannot ever be fully free, as it cannot express itself fully and represent every side of the story. The increase of excessive political correctness in the United Kingdom has made it harder for people to put across their thoughts and opinions without causing offense to someone else, and the government and proprietors of the press have amplified censorship to coincide with the expectations of society and to avoid confrontation. In this essay I have discussed press freedom and its importance, censorship and its history in society, the censorship that news readers have placed upon the press itself, self censorship, and the links between self censorship and ownership, as well as several examples to support my argument. Freedom of the press is a fundamental human right, but censorship is put in place in order to restrict it and the damage it can do, which is why I believe these two important factors in the press cannot be compatible.

All weekend, I was a wreck. I was feverously prepping for my interview with Alyssa, the head of the Page Program, that took place this morning.  What if she didn’t like me, what if I didnt make a good impression… the what if’s were plaguing my all night long, hence the coffee addiction haze that I am in while writing this current post.

Leaving my desk at Studio 7E at 945 for the 14th floor, I made my way down to the west bank elevators and went up… here goes nothing.

Entering the studio, I saw a room full of pages, working diligantly at their desks, frazzled yet.. empowered. They were doing what so many young people like myself would kill for the opportunity to do. Oh how I want to be frazzled!

Turning the corner, I immediately meet Alyssa, who greets me with a warm smile. I realize then and there that I was nervous for nothing! After having a long conversation with here about her experience with the program, the ins and outs of what will be expected, and where the interview process will go from here, I know this is what I want.

“Alyssa… may I be honest with you?”

“Of course,” she says, with a slight bit of hesitation.

“I know this is what I want to do. I know that NBC is it, where I belong, and I know that I want to be a page.”

It may have been a bit blunt for the first meeting, but I could not contain the words in my mouth. It was the truth.

“Great”, she said, to my suprise and delight. “I’ll definitely be putting your name at the top of the list for the next round of interviews.”

Leaving her office, for this first time in my young career, I felt a feeling that I have never felt before. Confidence. While my other interviews I had left always feeling uneasy, I had a very good feeling about this one.  I have a very strong feeling that becoming a page is my path…. and I’m definitely going to take it!

This post is primarily directed towards the 20-somethings in the Twin Cities working, or trying to work, in communications. I’d love your feedback on this so please feel free to comment or shoot me an e-mail.

I’ve been on a major networking kick recently and started to think about how many awesome connections I’ve made in the last few months.  I’ve met and talked with people from a wide range of industries that have helped me both professionally and personally. I really wish I had started to do this sooner.

So it got me thinking about groups of people that I want to meet but haven’t yet. And the biggest group I could think of were people like me. People who work in communications and are in the beginning stages of their careers. It seems to me that there isn’t really a venue to connect with other young professionals in the Twin Cities who are interested in public relations, journalism, marketing, advertising, or communications.

I know there are groups like PRSA and IABC – both hugely popular associations that I hope to be a part of real soon. But the thing with those are that they aren’t cheap to join and they aren’t directly focused on the young professional. Don’t get me wrong, being a part of a group with seasoned vets in your industry is wildly appealing and beneficial on so many levels.

But right now, I’d love to hear how others my age are doing professionally when it comes to job searching, dealing with timely issues, learning about agency vs. corporate life, etc.

What could be the benefits of a group like this? Meeting people, of course. But also learning about the different corners of communications. Public relations, journalism, marketing, and advertising people work together all the time in the real world. Wouldn’t it be nice to establish relationships with people in those fields now and make our lives easier in the future?

So my question to all you young Twin Cities communicators: Would a group with a focus like this be appealing to you?

Maybe there’s a group already out there that I’ve completely missed. If that’s the case – please let me know!

But if not, would people be interested in figuring out a time and place to meet? I’m thinking on a weekday for a happy hour-ish thing?

If there’s enough interest, I’m willing to organize something and get back to those people. So please comment, tweet, or e-mail me any feedback, ideas, or suggestions! 

Thanks, peeps.

Now I didn’t submit this as my final piece, but this was the first interview I did for our ‘Interview a randomer from Princes Street Gardens’ assignment. I didn’t hand it in for three reasons. Firstly, Ruta is neither a tourist nor an old person, so she didn’t count according to the criteria of the assignment. Secondly, she’s not really a randomer. She’s my flatmate, and is currently two doors away from me. Thirdly, I interviewed her in our kitchen, not Princes Street Gardens. Still, I liked it, and so am putting it up for the world to see.

Princes Street Gardens Interview Number 1

As anyone who has studied at university will know, leaving home and moving to an entirely new place can be incredibly daunting, and is one of the most emotional parts of beginning a new life. Despite studying abroad becoming an increasingly popular option for young people all over the globe, there are still few people who are driven enough to leave their home country to pursue a dream, a challenge which Ruta, originally from Lithuania, has undertaken. Born in Kaunas, the second biggest city after the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius, the 19 year old planned her trip here to study for four years before actually being accepted into university and starting her journey. According to Ruta, the schools and universities in Lithuania were of such a poor standard that she made the decision to come to Scotland to study Film and Photography this August, a course she is studying for one year in the hopes of becoming a professional photographer.

Having left behind her parents and a younger brother in the city she was born and raised in, Ruta tells me that leaving her home country was incredibly difficult, and she had expected to find it easier than she has in reality these past few months. However, she feels she has finally settled into her new life, and from simply talking to her you can see how at ease she is with her surroundings. Ambitious Ruta has dreams of travelling to the places she is yet to see, such as France and Spain, and is eager to make a trip around the United States, with the possibility of living there at some point. These plans may surprise her friends and family in Lithuania, as her original idea was to return to Kaunas after her studies were completed. As I watch Ruta walk away laughing with her friend, I feel a surge of respect for her. She has proven herself brave enough to make a jump into the unknown, and ultimately succeed, and with such drive, I have no doubt that whatever plans she makes in the future, she will find the courage to dive into. If you can cross a continent to chase a dream, you can find the strength to do anything.

From the ECREA listserv 11/22/09:

WORLDS OF JOURNALISMS, FIRST DATA AVAILABLE

First comparative data from the Worlds of Journalisms project is now available for download from the project web site. The Worlds of Journalisms study set out to compare journalism cultures across nations, news organizations and professional milieus. Another major goal was to identify the driving forces behind still existing differences in journalistic cultures. The data is based on interviews with 1800 journalists working for 356 news organizations in 18 countries.

The study is one of the largest collaborative endeavors of journalism scholars from different countries. These countries include: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, Israel, Mexico, Romania, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Uganda and the United States.

——————————————————————
Dr. Thomas Hanitzsch
Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research
University of Zurich
Andreasstrasse 15
8050 Zurich, Switzerland
Tel. +41 (0)44 635 20 41
Fax +41 (0)44 634 49 34

“Worlds of Journalisms” Project
www.worldsofjournalisms.org

Forty-six years ago, yesterday, John F. Kennedy was shot. Forty-six years ago, Wednesday, John F. Kennedy was buried at Arlington Cemetary. Forty-six years ago, Thursday, this article by Jimmy Breslin ran in the New York Herald Tribune:

Washington — Clifton Pollard was pretty sure he was going to be working on Sunday, so when he woke up at 9 a.m., in his three-room apartment on Corcoran Street, he put on khaki overalls before going into the kitchen for breakfast. His wife, Hettie, made bacon and eggs for him. Pollard was in the middle of eating them when he received the phone call he had been expecting. It was from Mazo Kawalchik, who is the foreman of the gravediggers at Arlington National Cemetery, which is where Pollard works for a living. “Polly, could you please be here by eleven o’clock this morning?” Kawalchik asked. “I guess you know what it’s for.” Pollard did. He hung up the phone, finished breakfast, and left his apartment so he could spend Sunday digging a grave for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

It’s a classic, and short, if you haven’t read it. Do so here.

I have to confess that even I think this piece is rubbish, and when I’m failed for it, I won’t be surprised. The Economic Development Committee that I attended to find a story for this article lasted half an hour, and was basically a summary of previous meetings, which was no help at all. This was the best I could get out of it, and in reality I have no interest in council meetings what so ever, so it definetely won’t be my forte when I graduate. However, it had to be done and I gave it my best, so I’m happy!

Predicted Megrahi release backlash proved incorrect

The release of convicted terrorist Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi has not had a direct impact on Scottish tourism, new information has shown. The Economic Development Committee meeting held last week at Edinburgh City Council headquarters have disclosed the latest figures on incoming tourism to Scotland, which has indicated that there has been no decrease in the level of tourism Scotland receives after the Lockerbie bomber was returned to Libya in August.

Megrahi was accused of the bombing in Lockerbie, where a bomb detonated on Pan Am flight 103 which crashed over the small town in the south of Scotland on the 21^st of December 1988, killing 270 people. Thirteen years later, he was convicted of the crime, the largest scale terrorist attack in Scottish history, and was sentenced to life in prison. On the 20^th of August this year, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill released Megrahi on compassionate grounds, as it transpired the criminal was suffering from terminal prostate cancer. After medical officials declared he had less than 3 months to live, the father of five returned to his home country after serving a mere 8 years of his sentence in Greenock Prison.

After Megrahi’s release, it was expected that Scotland would face a widespread negative backlash from around the globe. American President Barack Obama openly criticized the decision, as a majority of the victims of the bombing were American citizens, and there was a public outcry throughout the US. A website called www.boycottscotland.com was set up immediately after the release, urging people not to ‘travel to Scotland or do business there (or in the United Kingdom in general) and don’t buy any British or Scottish products’. The Tourist organization VisitScotland claimed it had received e-mails from Americans determined to cancel holidays in Scotland. Visitors from the United States accounted for approximately 340,000 trips to Scotland in 2008, and spent £260 million in the country, which accounted for around 21% of spending by people outside the United Kingdom according to last years figures.

As damaging as an American boycott of all things Scottish would be, the latest tourism figures show that the short lived uproar from the United States was basically an empty threat, as no real change has been seen since the release. The latest figures will come as a relief to the Scottish government, as no more damage has been done regarding relations with the US government, which was predicted to become a major issue.

And what it means in relation to tree ring proxies, by Hrynyshyn, reviewing a book.

That excerpt appears immediately above a graph that shows how temperatures inferred from tree-ring records since about 1850 (the “proxies”) are a pretty good match for actual temperature records derived from thermometers right up until the 1980s. After that, the tree-ring data begin to show lower temperatures than were actually recorded.

Just why tree rings no longer provide useful proxy data for temperatures is not known. There are several theories, many of which suggest that climate change itself is the problem. Trees no longer grow as they once did before the climate started changing so rapidly. But the point is, there is no question that tree-ring growth rates of the past — before we had thermometers — can serve as useful proxies for historical temperature data. They are much less useful now, but that doesn’t matter so much because we have actual temperature records. All of this was sorted out back in 1998. It’s not new, nor even particularly interesting, to anyone familiar with the science.

It makes sense but at the same time I’m a bit baffled by this – how do you calibrate then? If you assume the trees are behaving nowadays than before…

This unpublished piece was written some time ago.

Photo courtesy of Stinkee Beek

A piece of Singapore parliamentary elections history question to all of you readers:”Elections results and contesting candidates aside, what is another difference between the close contest at Cheng San GRC in 1997 and that of Aljunied GRC in 2006?

The answer may not be obvious, but a big hint lies in the participation or non-participation of the then Prime Ministers in the campaigning at these ‘troubled’ GRCs, albeit from the PAP’s perspective.

Recall that during the 1997 General Elections, the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had a walkover in his Marine Parade GRC. Freed of any possible participation of a contest at his own backyard, Goh was to enter the cauldron of contest at Cheng San GRC, where he campaigned aggressively on behalf of the PAP candidates. Goh declared himself as a ’special’ candidate of the constituency and upped the stakes by declaring that his credibility and reputation as Prime Minister was at stake during the Cheng San contest. The Workers’ Party helmed by the late Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam lost out by a close margin of 45.2% of votes.

Fast forward 9 years during the elections of 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was to be kept busy when the Workers’ Party sent in what was famously known as the “suicide six” comprising new candidates in their virgin electoral contest. Unlike Goh 9 years before, Lee didn’t have the luxury of assisting the PAP campaign at Aljunied GRC. He simply had to work the ground at his own backyard of Ang Mo Kio GRC. Expectations from the PAP camp were high and Lee was expected to romp to victory, only for the latter to fall short of expectations set by his party mates when he secured 66.14% of the votes.

Thus, this other difference between Cheng San 1997 and Aljunied 2006 shows us the utility of what is known as ‘electoral suicide squads’ in keeping the bigwigs busy defending their own turf and reducing the likelihood of them aggressively campaigning at troubled GRCs. Hence, an interesting food for thought will be – will the Workers’ Party win Cheng San GRC if a suicide squad was sent to Marine Parade GRC to keep Goh busy in defending his own turf? Or alternatively, if no suicide squad was sent to Ang Mo Kio GRC, Lee would surely aid his party counterparts at Aljunied and what would such have on the impact of the results?

There are a few bigwigs whom some believe have the credibility and reputation to win support at other GRCs if they happened to assist their party mates’ campaign. Thus, it would take more than one ’suicide squad’ to keep them busy in defending their own turf. Already, online observers and commentators are suggesting such squads to be sent to places like Tanjong Pagar, Marine Parade and Ang Mo Kio.

The next question is will the contest against the bigwigs do the suicide squads any good? Some believe it does them the whole world of good. After all, the latter will be thrusted into immediate public limelight within the full face of the media, both mainstream and alternative. If the candidates manage their public relations aspects well, it could be a profile-booster for them in the eyes of the electorate. However, detractors feel that pitting greenhorns against bigwigs may seem a little disrespectful on the part of the opposition. True, from the sporting viewpoint as it shows a certain disregard for the calibre of the opponent by pitting the weakest competitor. But if we analyzed the results of the 2006 General Elections, the Workers’ Party didn’t suffer any ill effects of such ‘disrespect’. It also makes tactical sense be it in sports or any other similar contest to pit the weakest competitor against the strongest opponent so that other stronger competitors would have a better chance against less strong opponents. We see that in racket sports team competitions and the same concept applies in the electoral contest too. Thus, the benefits arguably outweigh the negatives.

Hence, is there any utility in electoral ’sucide squads’? Yes, there definitely is as it reduces the likelihood of bigwig ’special’ candidates appearing at ‘troubled’ GRCs other than their own, which may result in the swing of support towards the latter’s party.

This is yet another assessed piece for my Multimedia Reporting 1 class, and is basically an interview with the journalist Pat Nevin. Now, I got a lot of credit for bagging this interview from my lecturer, but in all honesty I have known him and his family for years, and we are all very close. We used to have chinese at their house every friday night. Still, you’ve got to use whatever resources you have available to you wisely!

Interview with a Journalist

Pat Nevin was too short to play for Celtic Football Club. He admits to this with a sigh, and then refuses to elaborate on the issue. He might be a well known journalist, commentator, presenter and sports personality, yet he clearly still feels the pang of embarrassment he did as a teenager when he was rejected by the team he then loved. Despite this demoralising set back, he has had a successful career in football, playing as a winger for Chelsea, Everton and Kilmarnock, as well as Scotland’s national squad. Living in the Scottish Borders with his wife and two children, the 46 year old is not only a journalist and a sports commentator, but has a love for travel, music and has co-written his own book named ‘In Ma Head, Son’ with psychologist Doctor George Sik which was published in 1997.

Contrary to popular belief, Pat’s journalism career began when he started writing for publications during his football career, and not after it. ‘I knew the job (football) wouldn’t last forever, and I didn’t want to be bored’ he tells me evenly. ‘I started writing near the start of my career, when I was around 21, but it was three or four years after that I was asked to write about football’. Pat’s journalistic career has been a full one, having written for national newspapers such as the Scotsman, the Times, the Independent and the Guardian. He has interviewed many big names, his favourite interviews to date being with José Mourinho and Alex Ferguson, has a weekly column on the Chelsea website, has regular spots on television and radio as a commentator and a football analyst, and has done coverage of events not only in the world of football, but in his other great passion that is music too, having done work for the magazine NME.

Although Pat is a successful journalist with a prominent career and a lengthy list of achievements in the field, and has been involved in the media from two angles; as a journalist, but also as a sportsman who has been in the public eye, a position that is quite rare to come across. ‘It is astonishing to be in the centre of a media storm, and it’s a very difficult place to be. It’s hard to know that there are people watching you.’ Never finding the media particularly intrusive into his private life, his general perception was never one of distaste towards reporters, although he accredits this to the fact that he has always kept his personal life shielded from public attention and has consistently refused to answer any questions that may spark controversy.

Pat’s advice to any aspiring journalist is to be as professional as you can be at all times. ‘When I was being interviewed during my career, I could pick out the good journalists from the people who were just looking to get the quotes they wanted and get a story, as they always reacted to the answers I was giving and asked questions about things I hadn’t really considered before.’ To be successful in the media, Pat suggests participation in several different fields, instead of concentrating your career on just the one area of journalism. It is his opinion that regular, sustainable jobs in the media are always the better choice over working on a story that is huge at the time, but in months will be of little significance.

Pat is currently developing an idea for a new radio show, and hopes to continue be a familiar face not only in the world of sports journalism but in the media generally for many years to come. His success as a journalist does not come from the drive to make a name for himself, nor the will to earn a large salary, but because he discusses what he knows, and more importantly, what he is passionate about, which is a blessing in the current climate of the media, but one that is clearly greatly appreciated.