Nineteenth Century Journalism
The nineteenth century saw Journalism begin to evolve into the industry that it is today. After ‘The Daily Courant’ was introduced in 1702, daily newspapers quickly became popular and therefore profitable. By the seventeenth century there were around 234 newspapers being published in America. The nineteenth century also saw a rise in investigative journalism.
The concept of ‘yellow press’ or ‘yellow journalism’ came about in nineteenth century America. This is the name that was given to the catchy headlines and the sensationalism that was used to sell papers. Techniques used today by British tabloid newspapers resemble yellow journalism, however, due to libel laws; stories tend to have a lot more truth to them today. This form of journalism peaked in 1861 due to the American Civil War where the demand for news increased. This meant more competition between newspapers. Around this time newspapers were beginning to be managed like businesses, looking to make money, rather than simply support political parties as they previously had done.
In Britain, journalism seemed to be developing quite differently. It is described by Denys Thompson in his text: ‘A Hundred Years of The Higher Journalism’ as providing ‘many intelligent people with a livelihood and an opportunity of using their talent without feeling that it was wasted.’ He also suggests that ‘Journalism gave expression to the greatest minds of the time’. It could be argued that the high quality of British Journalism in the nineteenth century is not surprising, as uneducated people would have been unable to read. Newspapers and magazines were being produced by wealthy, intelligent people, for other wealthy, intelligent people. Journalism in nineteenth century Britain (particularly London) can be characterised by consistently high standards, and an appreciation for politics and the arts.
One of the key factors of change to journalism in the nineteenth century was the development of photography. By 1840, Cameras were being used both commercially and as a hobby, although there was still no way of mass producing photographs. If a publication wanted to use a photo, they had to use a woodcut. By around 1890, photographs were able to be used with the printing press, thanks to the development of the ‘half-toning process’. These developments completely changed the way that journalists worked; they were now able to add in an element of evidence to their publications. This also expanded the target market of the journalist, causing people to buy newspapers and magazines even if they were unable to read.
It seems as though during the nineteenth century, journalism began its ascendance to prominence in both America and Britain. The American Civil War and the abolition of slavery made America pay attention to news in an entirely new way, whereas ‘higher journalism’ in Britain gave a platform to many 1people with opinions on politics, art and philosophy. The Industrial Revolution also helped with the mass production of newspapers and magazines throughout the world, and the rise in immigration led to these publications being recreated in different languages.
http://www.thefossils.org/horvat/higher/higher.htm
http://www.ablongman.com/stovall1e/chap21/chap21.html
Louis James: Print and the People 1819-1851
Aspinall: Politics and the press 1780-1830
Sam Ashton
Friday 29 October 2010
Sunday 24 October 2010
John Locke: An Essay Concering Human Understanding part one: Of Ideas in General and Their Origin.
This chapter of Locke's essay primarily outlines his key ideas on empiricism. Empiricism is the idea that we are born as a blank slate, a 'Tabula Rasa'. He entirely rejects the idea of innate ideas and insists that all of our ideas come from experience. He suggests that knowledge is not 'a priori', (before experience) but rather 'a posteriori' (after experience).
On the whole I found this piece of text reasonably easy to read and surprisingly accessible to a modern audience. Admittedly, this did have something to do with the nicely set out, separated and numbered points. Locke manages to outline his ideas clearly and concisely which is a skill I wish more philosophers would invest in.
Locke begins his essay by asserting that all 'conscious' men have ideas, having an idea basically meaning to think. He then goes on to say that it is possible for men to have more than one idea at once and mentions abstract ideas such as 'whiteness, drunkenness' and 'elephant'. These would be classified as abstract ideas because there tends not to be one individual thing that we can think of when we think about these things; they are concepts as a whole.
One thing that I found when reading this is that Locke seems to repeat his key point, that ideas come from experience, several times in slightly different ways, probably as to emphasise his point more clearly, which to his credit he certainly manages.
For example:
• 'All ideas come from sensation or reflection'
• 'The soul begins to have ideas when it begins to perceive'
• 'A man begins to have ideas when he first has sensations'
• 'No ideas but from sensation and reflection, evident, if we observe children'
• 'a foetus in the mother’s womb differs not much from the state of a vegetable'
• (A foetus shows) 'few signs of a soul accustomed to much thinking'
• 'I see no reason, therefore, to believe that the soul thinks before the senses have furnished it with ideas to think on'
He also mentions without experience, we would always stay as 'Tabula Rasa'. This is hard to even conceptualise, but it is even harder to imagine never having any sensations. He suggests that ideas at first may be vague, until they are explored in more depth through conversation. This seems like a typical thing for any philosopher to assert, however it does seem to make sense, as the power to communicate is what sets Humans apart from other mammals, and could also be the key to our superior understanding of the world.
Locke talks in depth about dreaming, and this is the area that I found a little less straightforward. He suggests that the soul, which he seems to use interchangeably with the mind, does not think when we sleep, and even when we do think we cannot always perceive this thought. He uses the idea of dreaming to back this up by suggesting that the sleeping man thinks without knowing, he then goes on to say that the sleeping man and the awake man are separate people. He does manage to keep his arguments empirical by saying that if we cannot remember a dream, then there is no proof at all that there was a dream at all.
I personally like the way that Locke was free in his writing and was able to write what he thought without having to worry about official opinions. It is reported that the government supported his ideas. Although he is believed to be religious, he comes across as being a deist, so he tends not to involve God in his philosophy. It comes as little surprise to me that Locke is still so respected in the world of empiricist philosophy.
On the whole I found this piece of text reasonably easy to read and surprisingly accessible to a modern audience. Admittedly, this did have something to do with the nicely set out, separated and numbered points. Locke manages to outline his ideas clearly and concisely which is a skill I wish more philosophers would invest in.
Locke begins his essay by asserting that all 'conscious' men have ideas, having an idea basically meaning to think. He then goes on to say that it is possible for men to have more than one idea at once and mentions abstract ideas such as 'whiteness, drunkenness' and 'elephant'. These would be classified as abstract ideas because there tends not to be one individual thing that we can think of when we think about these things; they are concepts as a whole.
One thing that I found when reading this is that Locke seems to repeat his key point, that ideas come from experience, several times in slightly different ways, probably as to emphasise his point more clearly, which to his credit he certainly manages.
For example:
• 'All ideas come from sensation or reflection'
• 'The soul begins to have ideas when it begins to perceive'
• 'A man begins to have ideas when he first has sensations'
• 'No ideas but from sensation and reflection, evident, if we observe children'
• 'a foetus in the mother’s womb differs not much from the state of a vegetable'
• (A foetus shows) 'few signs of a soul accustomed to much thinking'
• 'I see no reason, therefore, to believe that the soul thinks before the senses have furnished it with ideas to think on'
He also mentions without experience, we would always stay as 'Tabula Rasa'. This is hard to even conceptualise, but it is even harder to imagine never having any sensations. He suggests that ideas at first may be vague, until they are explored in more depth through conversation. This seems like a typical thing for any philosopher to assert, however it does seem to make sense, as the power to communicate is what sets Humans apart from other mammals, and could also be the key to our superior understanding of the world.
Locke talks in depth about dreaming, and this is the area that I found a little less straightforward. He suggests that the soul, which he seems to use interchangeably with the mind, does not think when we sleep, and even when we do think we cannot always perceive this thought. He uses the idea of dreaming to back this up by suggesting that the sleeping man thinks without knowing, he then goes on to say that the sleeping man and the awake man are separate people. He does manage to keep his arguments empirical by saying that if we cannot remember a dream, then there is no proof at all that there was a dream at all.
I personally like the way that Locke was free in his writing and was able to write what he thought without having to worry about official opinions. It is reported that the government supported his ideas. Although he is believed to be religious, he comes across as being a deist, so he tends not to involve God in his philosophy. It comes as little surprise to me that Locke is still so respected in the world of empiricist philosophy.
Saturday 16 October 2010
Mcnae's essential law for Journalists. Defamation
What is Defamation?
Defamation is one of the most common causes for action to be taken against a journalist therefore it is important for me to be aware of it and well informed about it. When something is printed about somebody that may damage their reputation in the mind of right thinking members of society, this is defamation. It must be seen to lower peoples estimations of the person in question, it must be published to a third party and the person must be clearly identified. Defamation can lead to people being shunned from society or avoided, it can discredit people in their trade or profession and it can expose people to ridicule and even hatred.
So how are any negative newspaper stories ever published?
Defamation is not always illegal. In many circumstances, defamation is in the public interest and needs to be reported. For example if a newspaper was to report that a public figure was sent to prison for murder, it would be damaging his reputation, however if it was true and can be proved, this is called justification. A journalist can still be sued if the story is true, this is why it is important to always have absolute empirical evidence for anything written. Privilege is another defence for journalists, if the news is in the interest of the public, this is slightly more risky however as it is often hard to tell what is and what isn't in the public interest. If a Journalist is reporting from court and he is seen to defame somebody (factually) then he has what is known as absolute privilege, complete protection from legal action.
In a newspaper, the whole article needs to be taken into consideration. For example if a headline says something that could be considered defamatory, but the article underneath explains that in actual fact it is not, that would be acceptable. This is known as Bane and antidote. It is important that the antidote is sufficient in explaining the bane.
If a Journalist was to defame somebody without justification, it is possible that they could correct it to appease the victim. They can include a correction in the newspaper stating that what they said was incorrect and often apologising. (This will be small, near the back of the newspaper and will rarely get seen.)
Purposefully saying something in order to damage a reputation or something that you know to be untrue is known as malice. This is illegal and should be avoided at all costs in journalism.
Defamation is one of the most common causes for action to be taken against a journalist therefore it is important for me to be aware of it and well informed about it. When something is printed about somebody that may damage their reputation in the mind of right thinking members of society, this is defamation. It must be seen to lower peoples estimations of the person in question, it must be published to a third party and the person must be clearly identified. Defamation can lead to people being shunned from society or avoided, it can discredit people in their trade or profession and it can expose people to ridicule and even hatred.
So how are any negative newspaper stories ever published?
Defamation is not always illegal. In many circumstances, defamation is in the public interest and needs to be reported. For example if a newspaper was to report that a public figure was sent to prison for murder, it would be damaging his reputation, however if it was true and can be proved, this is called justification. A journalist can still be sued if the story is true, this is why it is important to always have absolute empirical evidence for anything written. Privilege is another defence for journalists, if the news is in the interest of the public, this is slightly more risky however as it is often hard to tell what is and what isn't in the public interest. If a Journalist is reporting from court and he is seen to defame somebody (factually) then he has what is known as absolute privilege, complete protection from legal action.
In a newspaper, the whole article needs to be taken into consideration. For example if a headline says something that could be considered defamatory, but the article underneath explains that in actual fact it is not, that would be acceptable. This is known as Bane and antidote. It is important that the antidote is sufficient in explaining the bane.
If a Journalist was to defame somebody without justification, it is possible that they could correct it to appease the victim. They can include a correction in the newspaper stating that what they said was incorrect and often apologising. (This will be small, near the back of the newspaper and will rarely get seen.)
Purposefully saying something in order to damage a reputation or something that you know to be untrue is known as malice. This is illegal and should be avoided at all costs in journalism.
Thursday 14 October 2010
What makes a good journalist?
I believe that a good journalist will always write truthfully, obeying all laws and avoiding defamation where possible. They will always report on things that are in the interest of the public in an engaging way. It is important that a journalist has a lot of contacts; this will increase their ability to produce interesting and informative news reports on a broad range of topics. Interviewing technique is also important, journalists must have an attitude that will encourage people to be open with them and give them information without fear of it being taken out of context. Journalists should have a broad knowledge of what they are writing about as well as an interest and a passion for the topic, this will come across in the writing and therefore be far more interesting for the reader. Like most professions, Journalistic technique improves with experience.
Winchester News Online
Winchester news online looks extremely professional and the main anchor does an extremely good job, as does the sports reader. Both have extremely good voices and sound as though they are well practiced and experienced in news reading. I feel as though to focus on only one of them with the camera when it becomes clear that they have both been sitting together for the entire broadcast seems a little strange, it may as well show both presenters throughout or just stick with one presenter. The stories seem relevant, particularly regarding student finance, and it is clear that these have been well thought out. It disappointed me slightly that the video of the Queen was a recording of a screen; however it is understandable that it may not have been possible to show the footage any other way. The sports highlights were particularly good, due to the good quality of the footage that had been recorded live, the commentary was clear but could have been more enthusiastic.
To improve the look of the programme as a whole, I think it would be a good idea to have a consistent background theme when showing text, for example statements from people and sports results. When names are displayed at the bottom of the screen when somebody is speaking, they should sometimes be displayed for slightly longer, as sometimes it is hard to read the name of the speaker, whilst staying concentrated on what they were saying.
Monday 11 October 2010
Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy.
I have been reading Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' and in this blog I will be focusing on Descartes, Machiavelli and Thomas More; three of the characters he discusses in his book, it will also be neccessary to involve Plato due to the similarities his ideas have with their modern counterparts.
The ideas outlined in Machiavelli's 'The Prince' (15143) seem as relevant today as they did when they were written. He suggests that the best way of gaining power is cruelty and deception. He believes that a leader should be feared as opposed to liked. Machiavelli was possibly the first person to argue that morality has nothing to do with leadership, he also dismissed the idea of rulers having a divine right to rule, passed to them from God. These ideas contradict Plato's ideas in 'The Republic'. Plato believes that a ruler should be a Philosopher, who doesn't want to rule, but feels morally obliged to due to his belief that he is the best option. Although in our society, modern rulers tend not to be brutal tyrants, it often seems as though politicians would do anything at all for power.
Renee Descartes's was a rationalist philosopher who came up with 'Cogito Ergo Sum', meaning 'I think therefore I am'. He challenged every piece of knowledge he thought he had and only accepted facts that he thought could be rationally verified. He eventually decided that his existence could only be proved due to the fact that he thinks. Descartes then went on to 'prove' the existence of God, unforunately this was done poorly, particularly by Descartes standards. It is hard to tell however whether or not he did believe in God or if he was doing so as not to ruin his reputation in such a religious society.
Thomas More, much like Plato wrote about an ideal state for man to live in, Called Utopia. According to More everything in Utopia is perfect, it is basically a communist state. There is no private ownership of property, all houses are alike and fashions never change. People work for six hours per day and have eight hours of sleep, they can play for one hour. Everybody is expected to believe in some kind of god, those who do not are seen as lesser citizens and everybody believes that there is an afterlife, promoting good behaviour. Good family ethics are practiced, children are expected to stay silent and criminals may become 'Bondmen'. These Bondmen are used to serve the community as a whole. The main problem with this (aside from the fact that in practice it would never actually work) is that it would be painfully dull. There would be no diversity or excitment whatsoever.
The ideas outlined in Machiavelli's 'The Prince' (15143) seem as relevant today as they did when they were written. He suggests that the best way of gaining power is cruelty and deception. He believes that a leader should be feared as opposed to liked. Machiavelli was possibly the first person to argue that morality has nothing to do with leadership, he also dismissed the idea of rulers having a divine right to rule, passed to them from God. These ideas contradict Plato's ideas in 'The Republic'. Plato believes that a ruler should be a Philosopher, who doesn't want to rule, but feels morally obliged to due to his belief that he is the best option. Although in our society, modern rulers tend not to be brutal tyrants, it often seems as though politicians would do anything at all for power.
Renee Descartes's was a rationalist philosopher who came up with 'Cogito Ergo Sum', meaning 'I think therefore I am'. He challenged every piece of knowledge he thought he had and only accepted facts that he thought could be rationally verified. He eventually decided that his existence could only be proved due to the fact that he thinks. Descartes then went on to 'prove' the existence of God, unforunately this was done poorly, particularly by Descartes standards. It is hard to tell however whether or not he did believe in God or if he was doing so as not to ruin his reputation in such a religious society.
Thomas More, much like Plato wrote about an ideal state for man to live in, Called Utopia. According to More everything in Utopia is perfect, it is basically a communist state. There is no private ownership of property, all houses are alike and fashions never change. People work for six hours per day and have eight hours of sleep, they can play for one hour. Everybody is expected to believe in some kind of god, those who do not are seen as lesser citizens and everybody believes that there is an afterlife, promoting good behaviour. Good family ethics are practiced, children are expected to stay silent and criminals may become 'Bondmen'. These Bondmen are used to serve the community as a whole. The main problem with this (aside from the fact that in practice it would never actually work) is that it would be painfully dull. There would be no diversity or excitment whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)