Sigmund Freud was born on May 6 1856 in a place called Freiberg that was at that time part of the Austrian Empire. His interest to the world is mainly in the field of psychoanalysis, which he pioneered and championed throughout his life.
Freud looked at a person's mind as being composed of three parts (in a similar way to Plato's Tripartite Theory of the Soul) with the mind being split into:
Id (our 'animal' brain, made up of base desires)
Ego (the rational part of our minds)
Super-Ego (our internal policeman, that perpetually berates us for our actions or inaction)
Freud was a pessimist, and believed that the Ego was hopelessly out-gunned by the Id and the Super-Ego. He believed that only by psychoanalysis could the Ego be helped to hold its own against this two-pronged attack.
However, Plato argued that the soul was split into Appetitive, Rational and Spirited parts, and that it was possible for the rational part of the mind to control the more appetitive and spirited parts of the mind.
At the time of Freud's work becoming available, it was considered ground-breaking and exciting, Freud gained a great deal of popularity and his work was initially widely accepted with little criticism. It was only after careful study that criticisms of his work began to surface, in some cases among former students who had previously followed him avidly.
Freud is not held in such high regard today. It was found upon attempting to repeat his techniques, that the results of some of his case studies may have been falsified, and that psychoanalysis does not, in fact, offer the benefits suggested by Freud.
In addition, Freud's attitude to, and explanations of, female sexuality are without merit, except as an example of misogyny at work.
Freud's concepts of the Id, Ego and SuperEgo remain popular and widely used today, but his views on sexuality generally, and female sexuality in particular, have been dis-proven as conjecture. In reading his work today, you'd be forgiven for suggesting he should see a therapist...
Friday, 21 October 2011
Monday, 3 October 2011
Citizen Kane
In the HCJ lecture on 29th of October, we were introduced to modernism. Modernism marked a move away from the passion and fervour of the Romantic period and back towards a scientific world view that was similar in some respects to the enlightenment. However, modernism, as the name suggests, was concerned mainly with 'newness'. Modernism sought to eradicate unnecessary tradition and was obsessed with finding new ways of creating and interpreting art, literature and the world around us.
Modernism was the age of Nietzsche and Freud, of Joyce in literature, and of Wagner in music.
During this period, an American press baron (one of the first of the modern type) grew to prominence in the United States. His name was William Randolph Hearst, and his life formed the starting point for the screenplay that became Citizen Kane. As such, although it is possible to view Citizen Kane as simply a well-written motion picture, the viewer should be aware that they are watching a thinly disguised biography of the life of one of the first press barons ever to grace America. It is interesting to note how 'proactive' the tabloid press became under Hearst's leadership, when it came to getting news stories.
Modernism was the age of Nietzsche and Freud, of Joyce in literature, and of Wagner in music.
During this period, an American press baron (one of the first of the modern type) grew to prominence in the United States. His name was William Randolph Hearst, and his life formed the starting point for the screenplay that became Citizen Kane. As such, although it is possible to view Citizen Kane as simply a well-written motion picture, the viewer should be aware that they are watching a thinly disguised biography of the life of one of the first press barons ever to grace America. It is interesting to note how 'proactive' the tabloid press became under Hearst's leadership, when it came to getting news stories.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
Again with the Daily Mash....
Every now and again, the Daily Mash publishes an article that is absolutely spot on. One such article is linked to here.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Marx and Engels - Manifesto of the Communist Party
Karl Marx was born in Germany on May 5th 1818, to a wealthy middle-class family. He began to study law at university, but later switched to philosophy. After completing his studies, Marx worked as a journalist, writing for and editing 'Rhienische Zeitung', a radical newspaper. The paper was suppressed by the German authorities for its radicalism, and Marx left Germany to study socialism in France. It was in Paris that Marx met Friedrich Engels, with whom he co-wrote some of his later works, including the Manifesto of the Communist Party.
The Manifesto of the Communist Party was written by Marx and Engels in Brussels, and presented to the Communist League in London in 1848. As a work it is split into four main sections.
The first section is 'Bourgeois and Proletarians', this section is mainly concerned with what has already happened, and discusses in detail the rise of the bourgeoisie, how they have dismantled the feudal systems that preceded them, and effectively managed to simplify class antagonisms to 'a two horse race'. These are the bourgeoisie (who have power) and the proletariat (who have none). Marx argues that the bourgeoisie have reduced human interaction and worth to being considered purely on financial terms. He also points out the most obvious fault of the capitalist system, in that for it to continue to succeed, it needs perpetual growth. As such, it continually needs to be fed by either gaining new markets, or by finding methods by which it can further saturate existing markets.
Marx argues that another effect of the rise of the bourgeoisie has been to concentrate wealth in a few hands. He states "The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradespeople generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production."
I think the above is a statement that could be ratified by anybody who has witnessed the growth of Tesco across the UK in the last few years, especially when they launched 'Tesco Express' and moved into providing 'local' stores that displaced many sole traders trying to run an independent village or suburban store. Another example would be the independent record shops or bookshops, that were first attacked by Virgin, HMV, Waterstones and WH Smith, who are now themselves being out-muscled by Amazon.
It is simply impossible for a sole trader or small company to compete with the economies of scale that a highly capitalised market leader can call upon. If Tesco open a new store near an existing general store, they can afford to run that store at a loss for several years if necessary, often providing more convenience by offering longer opening hours and better stock levels than the competition. The sole trader cannot afford to run at a loss, if they slash their prices to compete, they make a loss and have to close. Similarly if they try to keep the store open longer, they have to pay more in wages/lighting/heating and have to put their prices up, making Tesco even more attractive to the shopper and losing them their regular custom. In short, they can't win.
The second section is entitled 'Proletarians and Communists', and deals mainly with the relationship between the Communist Party and the proletariat. Marx asserts that "In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole."
This, for me, is where Marx runs into trouble. The statement above contains one massive unproven assumption. It assumes that the proletariat speak with one unified voice, and call for the same things. Just from my own personal experience, it is obvious to me that everybody that I've met, regardless of their wealth or social status, has to one extent or another had their own individual opinions on almost every subject. The idea that all working people without property would have identical views on how a nation, or even the world, should be governed, strikes me as hopelessly idealistic, despite Marx's protestations to the contrary.
The second section also details the changes that the Communist Party would make to everyday life. These include the abolishment of private property (Locke would be spinning in his grave) as well as changes to education (children to be raised and educated by the state, living in state homes, not with their parents)
In effect, Marx argues that by workers producing sufficient for everyone, there will be no need for wages, each will be provided for and able to develop the skills and work in the areas that interest them.
Again, my personal belief is that Marx has once again failed to take human nature into account, as well as Adam Smith's laws of supply and demand. If ninety-nine percent of the population wanted to be doctors, who's going to collect the rubbish? Also, how many of the people that want to be doctors actually have the required intelligence, analytical skills, steadiness of hand, and personality to make a good doctor? Marx does not suggest a mechanism by which he could actually deliver on what he's promised in terms of career choice.
Likewise, suppose an individual decides they want to be something public facing, such as a pub landlord. Among the regular customers are some people that the landlord likes and considers friends, and some other people that the landlord dislikes. The principles of communism suggest that everybody should be treated equally, but there is no profit motive to make the inn appealing to the widest possible customer base, so what incentive does the innkeeper have to not simply make the place entirely to his own tastes, and drink with his friends every evening ignoring (as far as possible) other customers.
In a city, people can just move to another pub, but in a village a partisan landlord could render the local pub unpleasant to all but a favoured few. This is just one example of how an individuals natural tendency to favouritism, renders the system Marx suggests as unlikely to succeed. In order to work, communism would require workers with no strong personal attachments, with the strength of will to consistently refuse their friends, and who were all incorruptible. It's my belief that very few such people exist, and that they are certainly not a majority.
The alternative would be to have inspectors, or officers, who travelled the communist state, judging the impartiality of each establishment. However, this would actually raise the inspector or officer above the proletariat, causing the communist party to have effectively created its own bourgeoisie. Again, I believe that such an inspector would require an iron will to not succumb to the many offers of bribery that would be certain to come their way.
The third section of the Manifesto is entitled 'Socialist and Communist Literature', and is devoted largely to the categorisation and criticism of various types of socialist and communist literature. Marx uses this section of the manifesto to attack other forms of socialism. In it he describes reactionary socialism as being motivated by those who want to take the world back into the feudal system.
Marx also describes Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, as being designed by those who "...want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat."
Lastly, Marx tackles the literature of Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. Far from being critical of Critical-Utopian Socialist literature, he embraces it regardless of the fantastic and utopian nature of some of the remedies it proposes. He does this because "...these socialist and communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence, they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class."
The final section of the Manifesto is perhaps the least interesting to the modern reader, as it deals largely with Communist Parties relations with opposition political parties at the time that the manifesto was written. As Marx and Engels remarked in the preface to the 1872 German edition "...it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated."
Having read the manifesto in its entirety, my personal feeling is that Marx's observations on the flaws within the capitalist system are well researched, accurate and still applicable today. The UK's current financial crisis is to some extent the natural result of the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small number of global companies (rather than individuals)
However, the communist remedies for capitalism seem to me, to present at least as many problems as they solve, requiring the slavish obedience of every individual within the system for it to work correctly. It's my personal belief that there would have to be a significant fundamental shift in human nature before the communist system became workable, an opinion that seems to have been borne out by those countries that have experienced communism first-hand.
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Kant and Hegel
Kant (1724-1804) was educated to believe in Leibniz, but rejected Leibniz's teachings in favour of Rousseau and Hume. Kant considered Hume an enemy, and it was in partly in order to be able to reject Hume's teachings that Kant worked to master his own philosophy.
Rousseau had a much deeper effect on Kant, inflaming Kant's liberal leanings and causing him to embrace the ideas of the Romantics when forming his own philosophy.
Kant's most important work is generally considered to be 'The Critique of Pure Reason', which was first published in 1781. Of particular importance are Kant's views on space and time. Kant argues that each object that exists, does so partly due to the external object itself, but partly due to our perceptive apparatus (eyes, ears etc.) He holds that all of the qualities of an object are subjective. Kant calls the act of perceiving an object a phenomenon, which he claims can be split into two parts. First, is the part of the phenomenon that is due to the object itself, which he describes as the sensation. Secondly, there is the part that is due to our subjective apparatus, which Kant describes as the form of the phenomenon.
Kant states that the form is not part of the sensation, and that as it is with us at all times, it is a priori as it is not dependent upon our personal experiences. In fact, Kant argues that both time and space are a priori knowledge, which is an interesting viewpoint.
Personally, I am not certain that I was born with a pre-existing knowledge of time, though it must surely be one of the first things of which every sentient creature becomes aware. If time and space did exist a priori in the human mind, how is it that among the many different disorders with which the human mind can be afflicted, there is no evidence of a condition which leaves the sufferer with a different interpretation of time to the norm? I find it difficult to believe that this knowledge could be in a part of the brain so resistant to injury that there is not one recorded case of a person becoming 'chronologically dislocated'.
The absence of any scientific evidence to support this theory, even after many years of detailed medical histories being recorded on the majority of psychiatric and head trauma patients, suggest that Kant is wrong on this point. In fact the closest point of reference I can find to this idea is Old Mother Dismass in Witches Abroad. (I apologise to those allergic to Terry Pratchett)
Moving from Kant to Hegel, Georg Hegel (1770-1831) was a critic of Kant, who nevertheless relied on Kant for a starting point in his philosophy. Hegel believed that there was a 'whole' that was purely spiritual, and that Hegel calls 'the Absolute'. In Hegel's view, nothing is real except 'the Absolute', and everything else is just a facet of the Absolute. Given that nothing but the Absolute is real according to Hegel, everything that is can be determined by using Hegel's most famous contribution to modern philosophy, which is the dialectic. Hegel stated that a dialectic consisted of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
For example, if you state 'the Absolute is a sister.', that becomes a thesis. However, the fact that there is a sister implies that there is at least one sibling, so the antithesis of this would be to conclude 'The absolute is a sibling.' As this antithesis contradicts the thesis, it is then necessary to form a synthesis that encompasses both the thesis and antithesis, such as 'The absolute is a sister and a sibling.'
The above is still clearly incomplete, as the existence of a sister and a sibling implies that there must be a Mother (and a Father) as well, so a new thesis must be formed. In Hegel's view, if you carried this step by step through to its logical conclusion, you would have catalogued everything that exists within the Absolute.
Dialectics may be an OCD list-maker's dream, but is of little practical use as has been proven when used by Marx to formulate his political theories on what the future would look like, as it takes no account of the whims and desires of humanity.
It should also be noted that Hegel was fiercely nationalistic, glorifying Germany to the point of idolisation. Despite this, Hegel contended that America was where the final embodiment of the 'Absolute Idea' would reveal itself, "perhaps in a contest between North and South America". Hegel greatly admired conquering heroes, and spoke of the ability of individuals with the ability to shape world history. Examples given by Hegel included Caesar and Napoleon, suggesting that Hegel valued military prowess over other thinkers.
Rousseau had a much deeper effect on Kant, inflaming Kant's liberal leanings and causing him to embrace the ideas of the Romantics when forming his own philosophy.
Kant's most important work is generally considered to be 'The Critique of Pure Reason', which was first published in 1781. Of particular importance are Kant's views on space and time. Kant argues that each object that exists, does so partly due to the external object itself, but partly due to our perceptive apparatus (eyes, ears etc.) He holds that all of the qualities of an object are subjective. Kant calls the act of perceiving an object a phenomenon, which he claims can be split into two parts. First, is the part of the phenomenon that is due to the object itself, which he describes as the sensation. Secondly, there is the part that is due to our subjective apparatus, which Kant describes as the form of the phenomenon.
Kant states that the form is not part of the sensation, and that as it is with us at all times, it is a priori as it is not dependent upon our personal experiences. In fact, Kant argues that both time and space are a priori knowledge, which is an interesting viewpoint.
Personally, I am not certain that I was born with a pre-existing knowledge of time, though it must surely be one of the first things of which every sentient creature becomes aware. If time and space did exist a priori in the human mind, how is it that among the many different disorders with which the human mind can be afflicted, there is no evidence of a condition which leaves the sufferer with a different interpretation of time to the norm? I find it difficult to believe that this knowledge could be in a part of the brain so resistant to injury that there is not one recorded case of a person becoming 'chronologically dislocated'.
The absence of any scientific evidence to support this theory, even after many years of detailed medical histories being recorded on the majority of psychiatric and head trauma patients, suggest that Kant is wrong on this point. In fact the closest point of reference I can find to this idea is Old Mother Dismass in Witches Abroad. (I apologise to those allergic to Terry Pratchett)
Moving from Kant to Hegel, Georg Hegel (1770-1831) was a critic of Kant, who nevertheless relied on Kant for a starting point in his philosophy. Hegel believed that there was a 'whole' that was purely spiritual, and that Hegel calls 'the Absolute'. In Hegel's view, nothing is real except 'the Absolute', and everything else is just a facet of the Absolute. Given that nothing but the Absolute is real according to Hegel, everything that is can be determined by using Hegel's most famous contribution to modern philosophy, which is the dialectic. Hegel stated that a dialectic consisted of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
For example, if you state 'the Absolute is a sister.', that becomes a thesis. However, the fact that there is a sister implies that there is at least one sibling, so the antithesis of this would be to conclude 'The absolute is a sibling.' As this antithesis contradicts the thesis, it is then necessary to form a synthesis that encompasses both the thesis and antithesis, such as 'The absolute is a sister and a sibling.'
The above is still clearly incomplete, as the existence of a sister and a sibling implies that there must be a Mother (and a Father) as well, so a new thesis must be formed. In Hegel's view, if you carried this step by step through to its logical conclusion, you would have catalogued everything that exists within the Absolute.
Dialectics may be an OCD list-maker's dream, but is of little practical use as has been proven when used by Marx to formulate his political theories on what the future would look like, as it takes no account of the whims and desires of humanity.
It should also be noted that Hegel was fiercely nationalistic, glorifying Germany to the point of idolisation. Despite this, Hegel contended that America was where the final embodiment of the 'Absolute Idea' would reveal itself, "perhaps in a contest between North and South America". Hegel greatly admired conquering heroes, and spoke of the ability of individuals with the ability to shape world history. Examples given by Hegel included Caesar and Napoleon, suggesting that Hegel valued military prowess over other thinkers.
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Rousseau - Romanticism
Rousseau (1712-1778) was born in Geneva, but came to France in 1743, when after a quarrel with his employer (the French Ambassador to Venice) over unpaid wages, he travelled to Paris to obtain justice for himself.
His first literary work was not published until 1950, it was an essay on the question: 'Have The Arts and Sciences conferred benefits on mankind?'. Rousseau argued that they had not, and did so with such success that he was awarded the prize.
Rousseau's argument was that science, letters and the arts were the enemy of morals, and that by creating desires in people, they led away from a peoples 'natural' state of being. Believing that science and virtue were incompatible, Rousseau argued that the 'noble savage' was the closest to a human ideal, and that everything that made up civilisation was to be despised and deplored, as it led to great evil.
Rousseau followed up his first essay with a second entitled 'Discourse on Inequality' which was published in 1754. In this he stated 'man is naturally good, and only by institutions is he made bad'. Rousseau sent the essay to his contemporary Voltaire, who responded 'I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours.'
Rousseau's belief in natural instinct over rational thought is still very much with us today and used frequently in advertising and by politicians, when making an appeal to the emotion, rather than logic. Just as one example, watch this advertisement for a mobile phone, in which some overly photogenic young people frolic in a variety of settings, while the voice-over extols the virtues of impatience. Do we believe that it was impatience that led to the development of that mobile phone? Or is it possible that hundreds of years of scientific advance have contributed towards this particular device?
Rousseau's most important work was his 'Social Contract', published in 1762. In which he speaks of 'general will' in relation to democracy. Rousseau also speaks of 'The Sovereign', in this work, but does not mean an individual, such as a king or leader. Instead he means that the people of a state, will form the sovereign and determine the general will.
Rousseau's democracy is a 'true' democracy, where all the people of the state come together to form the sovereign and determine what the 'general will' might be. In Rousseau's world, this could lead to somebody who held a viewpoint that ran contrary to the general will, being 'forced to be free'. E.g. being forced to act contrary to their own will and inclination.
Rousseau's argument for this system, was that if each individual is forced to vote alone, acting only for their own self-interest, then the result of such a vote, would be the best possible outcome for the state as a whole, as the majority of people would have their interests looked after.
The obvious downside of such an approach, would be that anybody who's viewpoint differed from the general will, would be forced to follow the general will, or presumably leave the state. I do not believe that Rousseau himself offered any alternative to following the general will.
His first literary work was not published until 1950, it was an essay on the question: 'Have The Arts and Sciences conferred benefits on mankind?'. Rousseau argued that they had not, and did so with such success that he was awarded the prize.
Rousseau's argument was that science, letters and the arts were the enemy of morals, and that by creating desires in people, they led away from a peoples 'natural' state of being. Believing that science and virtue were incompatible, Rousseau argued that the 'noble savage' was the closest to a human ideal, and that everything that made up civilisation was to be despised and deplored, as it led to great evil.
Rousseau followed up his first essay with a second entitled 'Discourse on Inequality' which was published in 1754. In this he stated 'man is naturally good, and only by institutions is he made bad'. Rousseau sent the essay to his contemporary Voltaire, who responded 'I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours.'
Rousseau's belief in natural instinct over rational thought is still very much with us today and used frequently in advertising and by politicians, when making an appeal to the emotion, rather than logic. Just as one example, watch this advertisement for a mobile phone, in which some overly photogenic young people frolic in a variety of settings, while the voice-over extols the virtues of impatience. Do we believe that it was impatience that led to the development of that mobile phone? Or is it possible that hundreds of years of scientific advance have contributed towards this particular device?
Rousseau's most important work was his 'Social Contract', published in 1762. In which he speaks of 'general will' in relation to democracy. Rousseau also speaks of 'The Sovereign', in this work, but does not mean an individual, such as a king or leader. Instead he means that the people of a state, will form the sovereign and determine the general will.
Rousseau's democracy is a 'true' democracy, where all the people of the state come together to form the sovereign and determine what the 'general will' might be. In Rousseau's world, this could lead to somebody who held a viewpoint that ran contrary to the general will, being 'forced to be free'. E.g. being forced to act contrary to their own will and inclination.
Rousseau's argument for this system, was that if each individual is forced to vote alone, acting only for their own self-interest, then the result of such a vote, would be the best possible outcome for the state as a whole, as the majority of people would have their interests looked after.
The obvious downside of such an approach, would be that anybody who's viewpoint differed from the general will, would be forced to follow the general will, or presumably leave the state. I do not believe that Rousseau himself offered any alternative to following the general will.
Friday, 31 December 2010
The Daily Mash
Just for fun this one, but I love the Daily Mash and try and spread the good word when I can. This particular article is my favourite of the year and links in nicely with my thoughts on journalism in Britain at the present time. It should be noted that the below are my personal thoughts and opinions now at the beginning of the course, and it will be interesting to see how they differ by the end....
As somebody on the first year of a course that will hopefully lead me into the world of journalism, what am I heading towards? To be honest, the future seems bleak. As far as I can tell, none of the broadsheets seem to have retained any appetite for real investigative journalism. While this is almost certainly down to the cost of it (time is money and we're in an environment of falling sales and thus falling advertising revenue) you'd hope the proprietors would realise that a paper that doesn't offer anything meaningful to read is no longer fit for purpose.
Watching from the outside it almost seems as if investigative journalism is seen as 'bad form', and there's been a gentleman's agreement not to do any.
Nick Davies suggests in his 'Flat Earth News' that a large number of articles published today are rewrites or even verbatim reprints of items from the Press Association wire, printed without any serious checking or research taking place before being pushed out for the next edition. Especially in the financial services and technical world, I often see the same 'article' reprinted verbatim on multiple sites, which is clearly just a press release being regurgitated. As somebody hoping to enter the industry, it's a worry. I don't want to earn a living copying and pasting other people's press releases.
The BBC is (I suspect) actually a large part of why it's so difficult to make money from news in the UK. As much as I love the BBC, how can any private enterprise compete against an organisation that is essentially funded by a tax on owning a TV set, and that is able to maintain such a strong news team and web presence?
So, should I look for a job at the BBC? If Flat Earth News is correct, only if I want a job that is effectively typing. Nick Davies alleges that on 9th December 2005, Rod Liddle wrote a memo to the online news team suggesting that breaking news should be up on the website within five minutes. That five minutes was supposed to be enough time to write a one-liner for the website ticker, send an email to the news desk to alert them to the story, write a four paragraph 'stub' article to put on the website and perform any necessary checking. (p69 Davies, 2008)
How much checking do you think you could do in those five minutes? Unless the story was extremely straightforward , I couldn't vouch for a story's accuracy under those circumstances. Given that part of the BBC's recent settlement under George Osborne's spending review is that they have to limit their local news reporting (sorry for linking to the Mirror) I'm not convinced that things will be getting any easier there either.
All this could potentially leave me a bit gloomy about future job prospects, but I'm not despairing just yet. I've got two and a bit more years at university during which the situation will continue to change, and if nobody else has worked it out by the time I finish, then I'll have to find a financial backer and do something about it myself....
Happy New Year!
References:
Davies, Nick (2008) Flat Earth News, London: Vintage Books
As somebody on the first year of a course that will hopefully lead me into the world of journalism, what am I heading towards? To be honest, the future seems bleak. As far as I can tell, none of the broadsheets seem to have retained any appetite for real investigative journalism. While this is almost certainly down to the cost of it (time is money and we're in an environment of falling sales and thus falling advertising revenue) you'd hope the proprietors would realise that a paper that doesn't offer anything meaningful to read is no longer fit for purpose.
Watching from the outside it almost seems as if investigative journalism is seen as 'bad form', and there's been a gentleman's agreement not to do any.
Nick Davies suggests in his 'Flat Earth News' that a large number of articles published today are rewrites or even verbatim reprints of items from the Press Association wire, printed without any serious checking or research taking place before being pushed out for the next edition. Especially in the financial services and technical world, I often see the same 'article' reprinted verbatim on multiple sites, which is clearly just a press release being regurgitated. As somebody hoping to enter the industry, it's a worry. I don't want to earn a living copying and pasting other people's press releases.
TV news is also of quite a poor quality in the UK at present.. Channel 4 news is, in my opinion, the best of the current crop, while the BBC and Sky compete in their attempts to repeat the fewest possible number of articles the largest number of times across our screens, in headlines sized for the hard of thinking.
The BBC is (I suspect) actually a large part of why it's so difficult to make money from news in the UK. As much as I love the BBC, how can any private enterprise compete against an organisation that is essentially funded by a tax on owning a TV set, and that is able to maintain such a strong news team and web presence?
So, should I look for a job at the BBC? If Flat Earth News is correct, only if I want a job that is effectively typing. Nick Davies alleges that on 9th December 2005, Rod Liddle wrote a memo to the online news team suggesting that breaking news should be up on the website within five minutes. That five minutes was supposed to be enough time to write a one-liner for the website ticker, send an email to the news desk to alert them to the story, write a four paragraph 'stub' article to put on the website and perform any necessary checking. (p69 Davies, 2008)
How much checking do you think you could do in those five minutes? Unless the story was extremely straightforward , I couldn't vouch for a story's accuracy under those circumstances. Given that part of the BBC's recent settlement under George Osborne's spending review is that they have to limit their local news reporting (sorry for linking to the Mirror) I'm not convinced that things will be getting any easier there either.
All this could potentially leave me a bit gloomy about future job prospects, but I'm not despairing just yet. I've got two and a bit more years at university during which the situation will continue to change, and if nobody else has worked it out by the time I finish, then I'll have to find a financial backer and do something about it myself....
Happy New Year!
References:
Davies, Nick (2008) Flat Earth News, London: Vintage Books
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)