MJ’s ‘death’

It is with regret that I am writing that it seems that Michael Jackson has passed away.

With this terrible news, however, comes a classic example of how the different news agencies across the world work.

I heard the news firstly through the facebook status alerts of my friends.

I immediately logged onto BBC News Online, who were at the time (about 11.45 pm) reporting that the singer had been rushed to hospital following a suspected cardiac arrest.

Then I looked at Sky News website who used the headline Michael Jackson ‘is dead’.

Note the use of the speech marks, on the words ‘is dead’. This is Sky’s, and much of the global media’s way of attributing this claim to another source.

It is a classic use of technique by the news agencies famed for their ‘breaking news’, and interesting to compare with the more factually based BBC approach.

Where the BBC wait for a story to be confirmed, Sky pull and audience by breaking the news, be it a little wrong or not. Sky perhaps start and then correct, BBC correct and then start their report.

Anyway, a little interesting thing I noticed whilst watching this news break in the last 15 minutes. News breaking is very exciting and this is one worth keeping an eye on.

Sad news, and a big loss.

Tree Fellows

“Dig deep if you want a tree this Christmas” warns the Daily Mail today. Oh dear, don’t tell me, the credit crunch has stooped to new lows and decided to have a pop at Christmas.

Not content with fuel prices that could make a Royal gasp, those evil bankers have decided to charge us more to have a bloody Nordmann Fir in the house for two weeks of the year. Is nothing sacred?

The good news is my pre-empted eruption of hate at ‘the credit crunch’ was slightly misguided. The bad news is, Christmas trees are in short supply.

It turns out Denmark had a fantastic summer, and all of that sun must have made them forget to water the trees, because from a healthy 2 million last year, they have now left us with the impressively low amount of 300,000. I’m no mathematician but that seems a big drop.

On top of this, the Pound is putting on quite a weak show at the moment and does not have much clout in Denmark.

Thankfully it would seem that something very British is willing to come to the rescue. The weather.

You see, whilst the Danes were enjoying sun soaked afternoons we were watching national umbrella sales blossom.

Thanks to our dreery British summer the good folks of East Anglia, the Welsh Border and North East Scotland have all grown some nice Christmas trees for us to decorate.

Who said the British weather was bad? I’d certainly rather have a spindly tree for two weeks than sunburn on my nose for four.

It’s like they say, every cloud has a twinkly, angel topped lining.

Well Private

I awoke this morning, dangerously early considering my past week’s lack of sprightliness. I had just arrived at the cloudy end of a week long dose of the ‘lazys’, these things sometimes happen to ‘our’ generation.

‘Not to worry’, i convinced myself as I climbed out of bed. First things first, a good breakfast is in order. Sadly, it was still on order as when I opened my cupboard I was greeted with something of a bat cave. I was forced to eat the crumbs of a bag of Bran Flakes. Not the most cheery chow however it would provide some vital ‘rougage’, at least that is what my house mate assured me.

A cup of tea later and the clock was threataning to hit 8. Time to go and buy the morning newspapers and see what the world has been doing with its time.

“NHS medical research plan threatans patient privacy” announced The Guardian. A chance to have a moan at the NHS, things were getting interesting already, I hadn’t even seen the sun yet, the real sun that is.

It turns out that the NHS want to share ‘all of our records’ with ‘everybody’, and this everybody could, and probably does include a Dr Evil or two. Infact, not all of them will be Dr Evil’s, some could just be Mr Evil.

That’s right, because the NHS wants to hand out our information like it were made of hot potato, in the intriguing guise of research.

In short, you, my NHS using reader could find a nicely worded letter inviting you, and your fellow [insert illness name] suffering chums to attend a medical testing session.

A passage from The Guardian reads; “It would result in patients receiving a letter from a stranger who knew their most intimate medical secrets”.

This would be extra jaw dropping for many like me, who are themselves a little sketchy on their own ‘most intimate medical secrets’. 

Needless to say, the proposal has been deplored by a ‘chair of data watchdog’. I somewhat agree that this is an invasion of privacy however perhaps it is a better way to leak patients data rather than leaving it on a train seat, something of a fad at the moment.

Due to the story I have decided to improve my lifestyle, I have just returned from what I judge as a successful shopping trip at the local supermarket. The success factor comes from the amount of fruit and veg I forced into my basket.

After all, I would rather be healthy than give them any other intimate medical secrets to write about.

The O2 Mickey Mouse Operation

I recently heard of a job opportunity at the local O2, mobile phone shop. Being in need of a job I decided to jump at the opportunity and contacted the store right away; as advised by a friend.

I walked into the branch and simply asked; “do you have any jobs going?”. As expected I was greeted with a “yes, two jobs actually”. Wonderful, things were running smoothly already.

It was here however that I was to meet one of my newly adopted ‘pet-hates’: Online job applications.

to apply for the job, I was told, one must go to the company’s website. Once there, locate the suspiciously small ‘jobs’ button and proceed.

The jobs section then introduced itself as a jumbled mess of O2 bubbles and the words ‘opportunity’ and ‘great’ like something out of a Derren Brown presentation.

Never mind, I thought to myself. I am, as they say, computer savvy, this website should be a veritable walk in the park.

After entering my e-mail address, and more information than even MI5 might find a use for I was there, the O2 jobs bit! Now to find that job in Winchester.

After some rather thorough searching I concluded that the job advertisement in question was something of a Houdini. No worry, I had been warned of this characteristic of the site. Luckily I had been well armed with a telephone number for the store. The time felt right to ring it-and that’s just what I did.

“Hello, O2 Winchester” spoke an uninspired voice. “Hello O2 Winchester, can I speak with (insert name of manager)”. As if by magic, there was the man I had spoken with only yesterday. I explained how his previous prediction of the job disappearing from the site was correct and asked how I may apply. He assured me this was normal and prompted me to await a call from him within a couple of days.

Content in the knowledge I was one of two people applying for two jobs, my maths confirmed that I was in a positive position to acquire a job.

The days came and passed, but my phone stayed quiet. It was time to give them call number two. Of course I was told that they were busy and I can definitely expect a call in two days time. Phew, that’s ok then.

Again, two nights passed and I was sat with a quiet phone again, I even waited two more days, nothing. I assumed a lack of phones in the store was unlikely to be the problem.

Maybe they just didn’t like me, this is one of those times mother had warned me about; time to sneak off quietly.

Alas a month had passed, my friend came with news of an O2 job, on the website! Sod it, I was going to go for it all out this time. I applied.

Cue the application questions: name something you’re proud of, how have you persuaded someone to come round to your way of thinking, what was your first dog’s name???

With deep breaths and a steady typing hand I braved the gauntlet and emerged at the other end with a e-mail thanking me for my application.

Only a day later, with un-characteristic urgency I received an e-mail prompting me to book a telephone interview.

A telephone interview? I beg your pardon. Whatever is a telephone interview, what ever happened to a good old fashioned face to face interview? bemused and intrigued in equal measure I booked myself an interview, 11 o’clock Tuesday.

Now, bearing in mind that I was applying for a part-time position, I was ill-prepared for the torrent of probing questions I was to be hit with.

The lady at the other end of the phone, and by the sound of it, the other end of the country introduced herself and the interview with military precision and a voice that could bend spoons. I certainly had the fear.

Apparently O2 need to know, in minute detail, ‘one of my proudest achievements’. Deciding being born was probably an unsuitable answer I went for my work to secure a university newspaper with a local publisher. I must admit, I consider this a rather nice achievement however Miss Hitler on the phone was not impressed.

I am a reasonable person, and I can see why an interview must be both uncomfortable and probing in order for the interviewer to see as much of the character of the subject in as short a time as possible.

I was relieved when I was told I had ‘passed’ this stage of the interview process. The relief was short lived as Miss Hitler machine gunned a list of ‘things i could improve on’.

Now, she explained, we must book you in for a face to face interview where I must talk to someone about four of my ‘proudest achievements’. It would seem achievements sell phones these days. I was told to expect an e-mail explaining the process in detail and some forms to print off and take with me.

Later that day I decided to withdraw my application due to securing a much better job in London. Good thing really, I recieved the e-mail this morning, a day later than my interview was due to take place.

This concludes my expose of the ‘Mickey Mouse Operation’ that is the O2 recruitment service. Considering I was going for a part time job, what must be required of a full-timer? One might assume a CV of past achievement so great that they are vastly over qualified, and a week at O2 boot camp, where Miss Hitler herself gets to wake you at the crack of sparrow fart and tell you just how crap you are.

A process which should take a matter of days turned into a web of half truths and lazy management of a recruitment system.

This O2 will only make you choke.

Is it right to tell lies?

A lie is defined as; “A false statement with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth”[1]. Alternatively a lie can also be defined as’ “An inaccurate or false statement”[2]. Both of these definitions are very similar, apart from one difference. The difference is that the first definition describes a lie to be ‘deliberate’, ‘intentional’ and with ‘intent to deceive’. These are important factors in the definition when compared with the second, which suggests a lie can simply be an ‘inaccuracy’. In short, the second definition alleges that it is possible to lie by mistake, and not actually intend to deceive.

Journalists are constantly faced with ethical and moral decisions. Journalists must make the decision weather to tell lies, and must also decide weather they wish to deceive their readers, editors and/or the personified focus of their reports.

There are many factors which can help a journalist make up their mind on the issue of telling lies. These can be moral standpoint, religious views, pressure from editors, pressure from PR and corporations, the need to expose a bigger truth amongst countless others.

One situation where the issue of lying in journalism is set underneath a microscope is within court reporting. Court reporting is an important part of journalism. In the book Law for Journalists, Sir John is quoted: “the media are the eyes and ears of the general public. They act on behalf of the general public. Their right to know and their right to publish is neither more nor less than that of the general public. Indeed it is that of the general public for whom they are trustees”[3].

Sir John raises an important point, that journalists are ‘the eyes and ears of the public’. As such when it comes to reporting on court proceedings, journalists must take great care to be accurate and truthful. As explained in the same book; “a mistake, exaggeration, distortion or avoidable ambiguity in a court report could leave a publisher exposed to libel”[4]. Not only do journalists risk clouding their readers view of what is happening in court but can also be taken to court themselves. This takes into account the belief of some that journalism and reporting is an important public service and one which must be unbiased and honest. When it comes to court reporting it is not only considered wrong to lie, but it is also dangerous to a journalist’s freedom and career.

If journalists must take care when reporting on legal cases, where does the law stand in terms of lying? In 2000 a Florida appeals court ruled, essentially that there is nothing illegal about lying. The case involved a Fox television journalist; Jane Akre who aired information she knew, and documented to be false. In the case “the ruling basically declares it is technically not against the law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast”[5]. Although this is specific to a television broadcast, it is still a telling ruling and highlights how blurred lines become when discussing the issue of journalists lying.

As Bok (1980) explains; “to lie is but one component in the art of deception”[6]. This is an important point. Lying can occur by mistake, although it may not be termed as such, a person can still lie without being aware of it. Lying however can also be used as a key ingredient of deception. If somebody wishes to deceive they can use lies and distortion of facts. Therefore in a court of law, the prosecution may focus on only the deception and not the single lie told. It must be said, a lie is only dangerous if it has a believer. Ignorance is not an offence and nor is lying. However deception can be dangerous and it does not matter how ignorant the victim is, they are still at risk of being duped.

Having said this, “German film director, Michael Bom served two years in prison for faking sixteen documentaries”[7]. In order to fake this amount of documentaries it is fair to assume that Michael Bom had to use numerous lies along the way, be it to acquire information and interviews or to sell his work. He received punishment for what he did, however his crime can again be seen as deception on a grand scale as opposed to simply lying.

One theme, which can factor heavily in a persons view on lying is religion. Needless to say, there are many different religions, all with different beliefs and all playing varying roles in people’s lives. Religion reaches all walks of life, and journalists are no exception.

In Britain the main religion is Christianity. A simple Google internet search finds many Christian religion websites offering their interpretations of the Bible on the theme of lying. One such website writes: “telling the truth is often difficult, and frequently places us in circumstances that are quite unpleasant”[8]. This is true with most people, of most upbringings. Lying can often avoid a greater problem than one would be presented with if they were to tell a lie. In this case it is fair to say that it is right to lie. However religion delves deeper into this debate.

One stance some Christians choose to take is that of ‘graded absolutism’: “A graded absolutist believes that there are many moral absolutes taught in the Bible and that they sometimes conflict…when moral laws conflict one is under obligation to follow the higher law”[9]. An extreme, but perfectly apt example of this would be that if one were presented with the choice of weather to lie and save someone’s life, or not lie and have to kill, a ‘graded absolutist’ would choose to lie. Even though one chooses to lie, in which case breaking a moral code, they accept that they are avoiding a greater evil.

This point is true not just to a Christian. A common misconception, as observed by Richard Dawkins, says that many believe religion and morality are the same thing: “Many religious people find it hard to imagine how, without religion, one can be good, or would even want to be good”[10]. Dawkins bases this on the many letters he receives from religious people. The point demonstrates the incorrect assumption that morality and religion are the same things. In reality, morality is something which one of a completely non-religious upbringing holds just as dearly as their religious counterparts. This then suggests that a person of non-religious belief can also be a ‘graded absolutist’ and choose to lie in order to save an even greater moral dilemma. This is the rule of ‘the lesser of two evils’, if you like.

It would seem then that it is absolutely acceptable to tell a lie when it is to protect one from having to face a larger and more dangerous dilemma. This however is not a belief always shared among religious and simply moral people alike. Some choose to follow the path of the ‘unqualified absolutist’. “the unqualified absolutist believes one cannot justify lying even when such lying is for the sole purpose of saving the life of another”[11]. This point shows the view of people who hold all moral ‘laws’ in the same light; an ‘extremist moralist’, if you will. For the ‘unqualified absolutist’ all morals hold the same value as each other and one cannot justify breaking one moral code to save another, because all morals are seen as important. From this point of view, a journalist would be unable to justify telling a lie in their work no matter what the reason for the lie was; be it to expose a major crook or wrong-doing, or to simply get a story. This is a fair point of view, as its only premise is to follow all rules; something which many believe will keep them clear of trouble at all times. If one follows all moral rules, they cannot be chastised for breaking any.

Clearly, religious point of view is a case of personal preference. If a journalist is of a religious point of view they may decide to become either a ‘graded absolutist’ or an ‘unqualified absolutist’, and as such their decision to lie will be decided by this choice. Likewise, a non-religious journalist who holds their moral point of view in high esteem may also choose one of these two points of view. Simply put, it is possible to justify the telling of lie with these views; however it is very much down to personal preference.

In his essay; The Sociology of News Production, Michael Schudson quotes Gieber (1964: 173): “News is what newspapermen make it”[12]. This is a bold statement, as it alleges that the news is not simply the news, but a fabrication of what the journalist, or ‘newspaperman’ makes it. Schudson continues, describing how journalists (in his experience) retort: “they just report the world as they see it, the facts, facts, and nothing but the facts, and yes, there’s the occasional bias, occasional sensationalism, occasional inaccuracy, but a responsible journalist never, never, never fakes the news”[13]. This is an interesting debate as it suggests that journalists have the capacity to ‘fake’ the news. It is of course true that journalists certainly have the opportunity to fake a news piece. Many believe, against common advice, what they read in the newspapers. A journalist can often write a piece without it being questioned by a large proportion of the article’s consumers. Although the opportunity is there, as Schudson points out in the above quotation, many journalists will defend their trade and claim that they ‘never fake the news’.

This may or may not be true, but it certainly is fact that in the past, news stories with no basis of fact or truth have still made it into the mainstream news. In this case, it is clear that somewhere along the news production line, someone, somewhere has told a lie; but why has this person told a lie, and can the lie be justified?

A contemporary publication which tackles this very issue is the book; Flat Earth News by Nick Davies. The book was published amid acclaim and controversy, and its by-line reads, ‘an award-winning reporter exposes falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media’. The begging chapter of the book looks at a major news story, which preceded the turn of the century. The news story was that of ‘the millennium bug’. Davies describes the furore the news story created: “All it needs is for the sun to move across the planet, hauling the darkness behind it, for midnight to strike, and, hour by hour, country by country, computers will die”[14]. The drama of this quotation (‘computers will die’) sums up the sensationalism many news organisations took towards the story. Prior to the turn of the century there was a widespread belief amongst the general public that the so called ‘millennium bug’ would see computers all over the world failing to cope with ‘the millennium bug’. News and broadcast corporations all joined in to report on the story. The BBC dedicated a section of its website entirely to the millennium big; titled ‘Y2K Millennium Bug’. The website explains, “Estimates of the damage that could be caused range from global meltdown to minor irritation”[15]. Although in this quotation, as with the rest of the site, the BBC ‘sits on the fence’ as to the scale of the issue, it is quite telling to take into consideration the design of the website.

The colour of the site is yellow and black. These two colours connote ideas of panic and danger. Yellow and black stripes of course are used on warning signs and ribbon to alert people to a danger. This is an example of sensationalism.

When clocks around the world hit midnight on 1^st January 2000 it became apparent that the biggest news story of the last few months was to fail to be justified: “After the great non-event, some of those who had forecast doom tried to claim that the absence of catastrophe must be evidence of their own success in preventing it”[16]. Here, Davies describes the millennium bug as ‘the great non-event’, something which sums up the whole news story. There was no justification for reports of disaster at the turn of the century, even though in some newspapers it was presented as fact: “Life-saving hospital equipment and 999 services in London face total breakdown on January 1 2000 (Evening Standard)”[17]. It is fair to say that somewhere along the production line, somebody had lied about what the millennium bug was; but who and why?

The answer which Nick Davies would put forward to this question is that it is the PR (public relations) industry which created the story and spread what were essentially lies.

The PR industry is extremely large and is found at the core of most public figures and large companies. The purpose of PR is to form, or change, in a positive way (from the point of view of the client), the public opinion of its client. A large part of PR is to get their ‘news stories’ picked up in the press. The book; The Management and Practice of Public Relations, by Norman Stone, makes a judgement on what journalists look for:

• A good story
• A story that is better than their competitors’
• A story that is better than their competitors’ and also true
• A story that is better than their competitors’, that is also true and in the public interest. (Source: The Management and Practice of Public Relations, Page 160).

Stone then continues: “And the greatest of these – by far – is a good story”[18]. Clearly, this book, which is designed to explain to, and train the reader in the art of PR. Clearly those in PR, of Stone’s persuasion, have a clear idea of what they believe to be the way to get a story into the press. It simply has to be a good story.

In the case of the millennium bug, this was indeed a ‘good story’. From a journalistic point of view the story was good because it was on a large scale, it would affect a large proportion of their target audience (many homes and workplaces have computers), and the story had the capacity to be sensationalised, something which would be particularly appealing to the tabloid industry.

From a PR perspective, the story of the millennium bug was again appealing because of its capacity to be ‘lapped’ up by the global media. The story could in turn promote the business of PR clients such as computer repair companies.

So who was the liar in this story? In terms of motive, both the PR industry and the media had benefits. The story sold newspapers, but it also made money for PR companies. It would appear that perhaps the story originally came from bad information. This could have come from PR, or simply picked up on. Once PR companies began to run with this story, the newspapers picked it up. What ensued was what Nick Davies calls: “…Flat Earth news. A story appears to be true. It is widely accepted as true. It becomes heresy to suggest that it is not true”[19]. This could be a case of; ‘it takes two to tango’. Both the PR industry and the global media lied and distorted facts to promote each other. Is it right to tell a lie in this situation? From a business point of view, a lie can be fully justified. If one’s sole motive is to make money, then a lie to do so is justified. From a moral point of view, this type of lie cannot be justified. The story created panic (on a global scale), it caused innocent people to spend money to try and avoid the problem and put fiction into the public domain as fact, causing a snowball effect which saw the story become accepted as pure truth. Telling a lie in this situation can be both profitable and dangerous; I feel in this case, the industries involved would have experienced more profit than danger.

The question of ‘is it right to tell lies’ will continue to fuel debate. Morals and religion can give an answer. Some believe a lie can often avoid a bigger moral problem; the idea of a ‘white lie’ in everyday life is based on this very principle. Others believe, be it for personal or religious reasons, that it is never right to tell a lie.

Money can also be added to the equation. PR often works by: “Arranging incidents, ‘spontaneous’ happenings, dates, even staged relationships to be reported by the media as news”[20]. This shows how the PR industry uses deception to make profit, and of course a key ingredient of deception is lying. The PR industry equally thrives off of the editorial hunger for stories of the media industry: “Journalists operate in a hostile environment that values commodity ‘production’ over principle and disregards an individual’s claim to moral sanctity”[21]. Here news is described as a ‘commodity’; Nick Davies calls this type of journalism: ‘churnalism’. The fact that journalists are working in such a hostile environment means that they willingly accept stories from the PR industry; actively playing a role in the deception and lying of the industry. This is justified by alleviating their personal industry pressures and letting them get paid. This justification is challenged by moral point of view.

Is it ever right to lie? Put simply, the answer to this depends entirely on one’s moral and religious opinions, their current situation (both financially and other constraints) and their own personal opinion.

---

[1] www.dictionary.com

[2] www.dictionary.com

[3] Tom Welsh et al, Essential Law For Journalists (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005) page 1

[4] Tom Welsh et al, Essential Law For Journalists (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005) page 1

[5] www.cpbf.org.uk

[6] David Berry, Ethics and Media Culture (Oxford, Focal Press, 2000) page 32

[7] David Berry, Ethics and Media Culture (Oxford, Focal Press, 2000) page 32

[8] www.allanturner.com/lying

[9] www.allanturner.com/lying

[10] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London, Transworld, 2006) page 211

[11] www.allanturner.com/lying

[12] Dan Berkowitz, Social Meanings of News (London, SAGE, 1997) page 7

[13] Dan Berkowitz, Social Meanings of News (London, SAGE, 1997) page 7

[14] Nick Davies, Flat Earth News (London, Chatto & Windus, 2008) page 9

[15] http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/millennium_bug/countries/

[16] Nick Davies, Flat Earth News (London, Chatto & Windus, 2008) page 27

[17] Quotation Sourced from: Nick Davies, Flat Earth News (London, Chatto & Windus, 2008) page 9

[18] Norman Stone, The Management and Practice of Public Relations (London, Macmillan, 1995) page 160

[19] Nick Davies, Flat Earth News (London, Chatto & Windus, 2008) page 12

[20] Gill Branston & Roy Stafford, The Media Students Book: Third Edition, (London; Routledge, 2003) page 371

[21] David Berry, Ethics and Media Culture (Oxford, Focal Press, 2000) page 33

Oh Conspiracy

I am utterly astonished by Mohamed Fayed’s outburst in court yesterday. Astonished in a thoroughly entertained way that is. It feels like the first series of Big Brother all over again.

The Diana inquest should be televised, become a franchise. It would be like Jurrassic Park. You could go on the theme park ride, wear the baseball cap and drink Coke through the cup whilst jeering and shaking your fist wildly.

This would certainly have matched the mood in court yesterday as Fayed calmly put forward his case for murder. I am of course being ironic.

Yesterday saw Mohamed Fayed spectacularly indulge in one of my favorite past-times. A conspiracy theory. I and, I am sure, much of the Sun reading British public enjoy a conspiracy theory like nothing else. It is an opportunity to take a break from sipping beer and ‘prove’ that our lives are being controlled by an evil power.

I have it on good knowledge that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were in-fact carried out by the American government in what they call a ‘false flag’ operation (I particularly took an interest in this as one of my favorite Massive Attack songs is called False Flags, how fickle). This theory is backed up on Wikipedia.

David Shayler, an ex MI5 officer also informed me via his Mind the Gap documentary that the July 7th London bombings were also ‘something to do with the government’.  This theory is given extra clout when we consider that Shayler is indeed the ‘Messiah reincarnated’ (he really believes this, please check out his website: www.daveshayler.com)

So, back to Mohamed Fayed who has told everybody who cared to listen that Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed were murdered. The motive is a little muddled but I seem to gather that it was because Charles wanted to marry Camilla. Crafty.

Oh, by the way Fayed has presented the court with absolutely no evidence. A bit of a downside to the theory in my eyes because law courts generally deal in evidence. Never mind, it hasn’t stopped Fayed.

I don’t mean to mock the man, I respect his passion. I do however find it shocking that such a successful man can make such a fuss without considering to bring some facts. If he is having trouble with his theories might i suggest the team who wrote BBC’s Spooks. They came up with a refreshingly convincing conspiracy for the very theme in question back in series four, episode ten. I hope this helps.

George Orwell

“Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way”. Orwell starts his essay; Politics and the English Language with an assumption. Something I would see as a negative, but let us not be too hasty to judge.

My knowledge of George Orwell is fantastically average. I have read both Nineteen-Eighty Four and Animal Farm. Both are impressive ventures, particularly the latter in my opinion. This is beside the point.

My opinions and thoughts on the essay in question are what I wish to discuss. Orwell first describes his discontent towards the English language. The title of the essay includes the word politics, this is important as the argument presented in the piece should not be used to judge the ‘art of writing’, rather we must consider the ‘art of communicating’.

Allow me to explain what I mean by these ‘terms’. I use ‘the art of writing’ to describe writing which is used as an art form. Its purpose is to entertain/dazzle(etc) its audience. Poetry to me is a form of art. As a poet language is your pallet of colours (excuse the poor metaphor, I am fearful that Orwell would have disapproved).

The term ‘art of communicating’ is something very different. Communicating via language has only one primary function. This function is to express thoughts and feelings to another person/s.

Politics (should) deal in the ‘art of communication’ (I shall stop calling it an art now). When a politician is delivering a speech it is important that they are honest and clear. Orwell fears that if such a politician was to use unsuitable language it could cloak the message being delivered, thus not allowing the listener to think clearly.

I have to say, I agree with Orwell’s six ‘rules’ for clear communication. Infact I have no real argument against his ideas of language. I believe that when writing to simply communicate it is very important not to use ‘stale metaphors’ and jargon etc.

My main opposition with this essay regards Orwell’s apparent lack of consideration for something which (as far as I am aware) goes constantly together with language: structure. Communication can be seen as the sum of two things. These things are language and the structural framework in which this language is used. Orwell’s rules are completely reasonable however they are nothing if not placed in a well structured piece of writing or dialog.

This in my mind builds as an argument for the use of perhaps more ‘adventurous’ language. If structured correctly why not use more lavish words? Communication still needs something to make it appealing. Listeners will switch off if there is nothing interesting to listen to.

I have a feeling that George Orwell was not a fan of clutter. Writing which uses over expressed metaphors often paves the way for lazy writing. Cluttered writing with long words to give the appearance of intelligence and a messy structure.

I also feel that there is something in todays society which actively works against what Orwell has said. This is the Thesaurus which we find on PC word processors, offering lazy writers the opportunity to use over complicated words where a simple one would suffice.

I agree with what Orwell has said in this essay, however I also feel that he has failed to look at the complete argument. The rules he lays down should be regarded more as guidelines and not relied upon, there is after all no substitute for common sense.

Me, Myself…

Firstly I shall introduce myself. My name is Paul Wood and I am a second year journalism student studying at the University of Winchester…and yes, I quite enjoy it! I am originally from Sutton, just outside London. My interests include music and blah blah blah. I like to take an interest in as much as I can.

Talking of my interests, one such theme which strikes passion into my very soul is any debate regarding religion and where we (the humans) actually came from. I stand on the side of Richard Dawkins (quite a hero of mine) who is an Oxford University scientist and what I like to call an ‘active athiest’. I must decide what this actually means because I feel I could be onto a winner. I will create a new blog entry regarding this when I have given it some time to brew, it shall be called ‘the active athiest’. How exciting indeed.

A story which has grabbed me like the hand of a grizzly this week is centered around the Archbishop of Canterbury’s incredible words on Sharia law. On Thursday Archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams said in a lecture that he believed the inclusion of Muslim Sharia law in Britain was”inevitable” and that parts of Islamic law should co-exist alongside our own law.

There are a few things which strike me here. Firstly these ideas are coming from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the Church of England. This puts him in a very biased role indeed and I for one want him to be biased. Let me explain. As the leader of the Church of England he is clearly a strong Christian. An extremist Christian one might say. As such I feel he should be spouting Christian dreams 25 hours a day (that wasn’t a typo, it was my attempt at irony or something, judge how you see fit), rather than trying to please other groups.

This is not the main issue for me however. He was addressing a lecture about law. I am a strong believer that the law, especially in todays modern society should be decided by morals, not religious belief. A common misconception is that religion means morals. This is simply not true. I think morals are more a humanity thing. Don’t do to others what you don’t want done to you etc. I don’t claim to be an expert and I will do some research into the topic and report my findings back. Anyway, this story should not be as big as it is. Dr Rowan Williams is a religious leader, an extremist. Surely the law of Britain is about fairness, yes it must take into account all beliefs but it should not be based on any one belief, be it Christian or Muslim. The law should be separate. As such I think we should ignore this buffoon and he should learn to stop saying the wrong things.

I welcome any comments, destroy my argument and I will learn from it.