Revelations in the trial in Sheffield of two brothers who tortured another pair of young boys have shocked everyone.
The attackers, aged 10 and 11 at the time of the crime, have been sentenced to serve an indefinite term with a minimum of five years.
It is the savagery and apparent opportunistic nature of the crime which has outraged most people.
Edlington, the boys' home
The victims were lured into the woods with the only goal being to inflict harm on them. The attack itself lasted 90 minutes with the boys, who cannot be named for legal reasons, even filming part of the attack which was shown in court.
Many have pointed to their “toxic family life”, asking how social services had not seen this coming. Their violent and obsessive father and drug-dependent mother meant they grew up in an environment of routine chaos and destruction.
Allegedly when left unsupervised they often drank alcohol and smoke cigarettes and cannabis when visiting their father. This coupled with exposure to violent and pornographic films has been blamed for the sadistic and sexual nature of their crimes.
Both attackers had been in trouble with the police for violent crimes before including attacking both children and teachers at school, leading to many demanding the review into the incident be made public. The review claims the attacked were ‘preventable’ and has forced the council to apologise to the victims although the full report will probably never be published.
This bears striking resemblance to the Baby Peter scandal last year where Haringey Social Services were heavily criticised for failing to pick up on the signals before his tragic death.
In the aftermath of this verdict it now looks as if the parents may also face some kind of criminal prosecution although it is unclear on what charges.
Many have already criticised the 5-year-minimum the boys will receive claiming the sentence is to lenient and a 10-year-minimum would be more appropriate as they would then not be released until they were in their 20s.
Others have pointed out the success rehabilitation for violent young offenders has had citing the Jamie Bulger case in 1993 as an example.
Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who when 10 abducted and killed the 2-year-old, left custody in 2001 equipped with A-levels and the ability to speak fluently about the case and show remorse.
Whether or not the same can be achieved with these two remains to be seen, however sentencing children remains a difficult topic.
Conservative leader David Cameron has spoken of a “broken society” in the wake of this trial and has regularly talked of “Broken Britain”.
After the Jamie Bulger murder in 1993, then Home Secretary Tony Blair talked of the “moral vacuum” paving the way for “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.”
It could be argued 15 years after Blair’s speech we have clearly not moved on. Anti Social Behaviour Orders have become badges of honour for misbehaving youngsters and the rise in knife crime and this case in particular show youth violence is still a problem.
At the same time it could be said this modern concept of “Broken Britain” is not a modern concept at all but an interchangeable phrase used to describe the problems with the younger generation.
Is a limit to how many times you can blame drugs and alcohol and violent films for these problems?
If Social Services had taken them into care would it have made a difference? Or would they just have committed this crime when they were 18 years old and spent the rest of their lives behind bars, rather than being given a second chance?
Punishing parents is not a new idea. Many areas have tried to combat truancy in this way and criticising Social Services is an often heard excuse.
Something needs to be done and whether it is an overhaul of Social Services or an encouragement of family values there is no guarantee of success.
Colin Rowe
]]>
I was in India recently, and nearing Christmas and engaging in sometimes frivolous conversation with rickshaw drivers and the like, I often asked “what happens at Christmas time here?”. The general consensus was “a really big party”. – Nothing unusual there. But I had to ask, because I had to wonder. There aren’t decorations sprawling streetwards from businesses, or climbing lampposts and strangling trees. Christmas music doesn’t filter from speakers in lifts or lobbies or halls or rooms. There’s very little (if any) advertising for “Christmas bargains!” or anything of the sort.
Across one small span of ocean from India’s east coast however, you will find Christmas has taken on a traditional flavour of the sort we are more used to here in the western world. In Singapore, carols infest almost every space, with version upon version of all of the tunes we’ve come to know. There’s advertising on walls, televisions, radios, buses, trains and their stations – the list is almost endless. And I realise finally, after much detachment from the Christmas that I am used to, that we’re only a matter of days away, and the typical push for consumption and money that we see in the western world is indeed, slowly filtering in to the east.
But why not yet in India? Is this some measure of capitalism’s impression on a nation’s thinking? Is it a sign of just how far Singapore has come, and how far India is from really being the player on the world stage that they are hoping to be? (Don’t tell them). Look up how they celebrate Christmas in for example, Vietnam, Africa, Peru, Samoa or Uzbekistan (all of which aren’t yet dictated by capitalist ideas) and the focus seems to invariably be on celebrating family and feasting (just like India) – not spending and consuming.
The fact of the matter is that now, more so than ever, Christmas is a time when retailers can push consumers to give their profits one last positive kick for the year. It’s the months leading in to it that determine whether or not salespeople hit their targets, and if you’re part of this machine (as we inevitably are in western society), you’ll jump right on to the train of thought that Christmas capitalism teaches. What’s the point of really pushing for that consumer dollar (or rupee, as it were) if they haven’t yet inherited our culture of consumption and growth?
Seriously though, do we (or does anyone) really need an excuse to encourage consumerism in today’s consumption and growth-driven society? Where over-consumption and the inherent consequences of it (pollution, waste, global warming, climate change, death, greed, hunger, excess, detachment, escapism – the list is almost endless) are continuously and increasingly inhibiting and harming our lives and futures.
Are retail and commercial organisations not simply “cashing in on Christmas” in order to improve their bottom line? Is the fact that India wasn’t gearing up for Christmas (even in December) – where big spending of a commercial nature is only now starting to really grow – some measure of their society’s ability (or current inability) to contribute cash to the machine that Christmas has become?
The point isn’t to get back into church, and pick up your bible and speak to “God” (whoever yours might be) on Christmas day. The point is that the capitalist machine further and further infiltrates more and more aspects of our lives, wherever and whenever it can. Getting back in touch with giving thanks for family, friends and our relationships, and sharing merriment ought to be far more important, especially over the behest of capitalism’s grave desire for growth – or should we call it a majority contribution to the destruction of our earth? I’m sure the rest of the world will soon follow suit, because money is most important, right?
Carlos Hurworth
Massive proposals for increases in tuition fees at UK universities has sparked widespread furore, and cries of injustice are being heard not only amongst the protests of those most affected (the students), but also within the education industry, and parliament itself.
Still in the process of being reviewed, the increases in tuition fees – some suggesting a raise of up to four times the current amount – supposedly support claims that increased fees will ensure that UK universities continue to deliver world class education of the highest standard – Undoubtedly something that the government places great importance upon not only for Londoners, but also for the considerable number of foreign students attracted to studying in London too.
The quandary for students however, is perhaps more complex than it may seem – While lower income households are screaming blue murder (with support of the National Union of Students – the NUS), menaced by the thought of not being able to afford university at all, middle class students may be worse affected, missing out on bursaries provided to bridge the gap for the poorer attendees. Look at the situation from all sides, and it seems there wont be any winners in this situation – except the government.
Be that as it may, the UK poses some intriguing questions when it comes to university education – some that clearly expose the British government’s frequent short-sightedness, and particularly at a time when strong economic management and foresight are imperative.
At present levels, Britain spends just 0.9% of its GDP on universities – a vast difference compared to the rest of Europe, which also lags behind the United States’ figure of 2.7%. Asking students to incur a cost that the government is effectively saying they are no longer willing to fully commit to is a failure – not only to its people, but to the future of an economy that is still struggling to free itself from the grip of a crippling recession.
Amongst all the noise though, it is as hard as ever to recognise any real dialogue, let alone a positive and fair solution – especially when some are suggesting (with unnecessary malice, it seems) that policy-makers and university vice-chancellors are out to bleed dry for their own financial benefit students and parents alike.
In the public arena though, debate has so far been dodged. Wes Streeting of the NUS has warned against “the scale of public opposition” and “the level of student anger”, though very rarely choosing to offer dialogue, in favour of a more belligerent approach – with very little focus on solutions – something which the NUS has failed to achieve in the past.
Undoubtedly, transparent, public debate is essential for this topic to be amicably solved. Governments responsible for diversifying their population have a commitment to contribute to, support or subsidise a nation’s higher education system – for the benefit of its people, and its economy. The sting of a recession shouldn’t be an excuse to neglect something that will surely see repercussions in the future. Concisely reviewing departmental performance, and genuinely measuring efficiency, relevance and need across the board, will no doubt facilitate measures to eliminate unnecessary costs – without sacrificing jobs as well.
Government should surely be encouraging business to sponsor the nation’s important sectors, while fees for courses usually associated with lower income earners (as well as the opposite end of the spectrum) should be heavily graded. Some anger over this proposed increase is certainly justifiable, but without creating a dialogue for solutions, any opposition to these changes is simply barking into the wind.
Carlos Hurworth – http://theinsideoutside.wordpress.com
]]>
Golf is what you would call a gentleman’s pursuit. The players have never really reached the levels of celebrity of premiership footballers and you would not expect to see pictures of them falling out of nightclubs. Their clean-cut image has allowed them to maintain a certain persona unlike any other in professional sport.
This was true until the early hours of November 27.
When the news broke of Tiger Woods’ car crash nobody could have expected the repercussions of it not only for him, but for his sport as well. Tiger’s image has been especially important to him since becoming the youngest ever winner of The Master in 1997.
This carefully crafted appearance combined with talent, resulted in him becoming the best paid man in sport with major sponsorship deals from Nike and Gillette. A man who on the face of it really did have everything, including a Swedish model for a wife.
Now after these revelations about his private life he may end up with nothing. Gillette have already said they are scaling back his involvement with the brand and his hiatus from golf may dent his chances of reaching Jack Nicklaus’s record of 18 major victories which the 33-year-old trails by just four.
Tiger’s status does belong to one of those who outgrew his sport. Like Ali or the Williams’ sisters Tiger had unintentionally become a statesman for the coloured community. However is it the tackiness of his departure that is likely to be the lasting legacy?He’s tried in the last two weeks to shield himself and his family from the looming catastrophe. In the days following the crash he pleaded for personal space with his family and even his “confession” was candid apologising for his ‘personal sins’ in a statement not lacking in poetic flair.
An injunction in the UK has also tried to halt his character erosion in Europe, although many have pointed out we are perfectly capable of logging-on to CNN who are not covered by the injunction.
Golfers have been especially quick to jump to the sporting defence of a modern legend. Peter Allis, Steve Stricker and rising star Anthony Kim all praised him as an ambassador of the sport and even more realise how damaging a permanent departure could be both in terms of the sport and financially.
But is it possible for this disgraced legend to tee-off again?
Premiership footballers Ashley Cole and David Beckham have made successful returns after similar disgraces, but the golfing fraternity are likely to be less forgiving. Footballers can have affairs with cocktail waitresses without really raising an eyebrow. In golf clubhouses across the world it is more likely to be rumour mongering behind the persons back.
You cannot deny his effect on a sport seen by many as stuffy and old fashioned and it would be impossible to calculate how many young people have taken up the sport because of Tiger’s influence. His caddy, Steve Williams, has said ‘everyone makes mistakes’, a sentiment many onlookers sympathise with and has been used by many over the years, including President Bill Clinton, to explain away infidelities.
The major change is likely to be the face of the sport. Tiger has not appeared in public since the accident demonstrating he is capable of living away from the limelight. But a return to golf cannot be shrouded in secrecy and a quick high profile return cannot be conducive to saving his marriage or his reputation.
Colin Rowe
]]>
We live in a world where news flows 24 hours a day. A world where you can find out anything that your heart desires without even leaving the comfort of your own home. In such a world rather than having to trust that sources like the BBC, tabloids or textbooks supply and interpret news and information accurately, we can merely seek a second, third, fourth or in fact any number of other opinions and sources.
The irony is, that this can have a negative effect in portraying a clear message, especially for those groups trying to get the climate change message out there. Countless reports and statistics begin to confuse the scientific arguments about climate change. When differing sources tell us that temperatures may rise by anywhere between 1 degree Celsius and 6.4 degrees Celsius and with some reputable sources still predicting global cooling, trying to make a judgement becomes difficult. Indeed, sea level rise predictions from the IPCC alone spread anywhere between 90mm and almost a metre. This means people don’t know what they are really facing in the future. Our obsession as a society for statistics just confuses the whole thing further. While scientists may debate the effect thermal expansion has on sea levels and how much extra carbon dioxide can be absorbed by plant life, the wider issue is surely more important.
The Copenhagen Summit is seen by many as crucial to future policy on climate change
The real inconvenient truth is that we don’t know. We know so little about our complex world and the workings of our atmospheric systems. With Climate being one of the most complex areas of science it is obvious why we do not have a complete picture. Add to this the scale of what we are trying to predict in both space, the entire globe, and time, predictions running ahead a century, then it is no wonder that certainty is hard to come by. Unfortunately for the well intentioned Green lobby, this uncertainty plays perfectly into the hands of the groups with a huge interest in the outcome of the climate debate. Groups such as the energy sector, oil industry and car industry. Their ability and motive to spread counter-intelligence thanks to their considerable influence in the worlds of science, the media and politics means it is not surprising people start to doubt reputable sources like the IPCC when these groups stoop to any means to protect the ‘business as usual’ mantra. This leads to the defenceless individual, just looking for direction, to get lost in a sea of incomprehensible and conflicting statistics.
The 10:10 Campaign, backed by The Guardian newspaper, binds those who sign up to reduce emissions by 10% by the end of 2010
However, for those who decide to sit on the fence. Those who reason that the science is not sure, the science is not perfect. The inconvenient truth is we know enough to be sure that messing with a complex and finely balanced system will have global and irreversible consequences. The question is, will we act as individuals and as a society now, to save the world of tomorrow from the consequences of climate change? Whilst the default setting for many well educated people is just to ignore the science and the logic, to believe the whole thing a myth, whilst others hide behind statistical uncertainty, our climate will steadily change as we fail to act. Our uncertainty will no longer be whether climate change is real but whether it will destroy the security of the way we live.
Anthony Barron
For more info about the Copenhagen summit, click here
For more info on 10:10, click here
]]>
Another topsy-turvy week for the financial sector looks set to get worse with Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling announcing a windfall tax on Christmas bonuses and profits.
It started in the middle of last week with reports claiming RBS directors threatened to resign if they were not allowed to claim a bonus. This was coupled with stories of Barclays increasing wages for 22,000 investment bankers by 150% to get around the government clampdown.]
RBS directors stated they must act in the interests of stakeholders and offer competitive bonuses otherwise talent will leave them and go elsewhere. Although people in the street may argue RBS practically went bankrupt so clearly, they don’t employ any talented bankers. Some, including Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman Vincent Cable, said the government should call their bluff and not allow themselves to be pushed around.
RBS were universally criticised for acting like petulant children while Barclays remained unscathed, largely because they are not owned by the tax-payer.
This was only the end of Act 1.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy caused a stir in the city when he claimed the financial crisis was due to the “free-wheeling Anglo-Saxon” model of financial markets. This was met largely by righteous indignation in London and by Darling who argued London was New York’s only true rival in the financial sector. Sarkozy said: “I want the world to see the victory of the European model, which has nothing to do with the excesses of financial capitalism.” and the French Premier was supported by EU commissioner for economic affairs Jaquin Almunia.
Mr Almunia echoed Sarkosy’s remarks saying : “The ‘freewheeling Anglo-Saxons’ proved remarkably impervious to warnings of dire consequences if they persisted in their reckless activities, preferring, in the immortal words of former Citigroup CEO Chuck Prince, to continue dancing while the music kept playing.”
This was not the first time this week the UK had come under fire for its role in the financial crisis. Ben Bernanke, head of the American Federal Reserve who is currently seeking re-election to the role, launched into a scathing attack on Gordon Brown claiming Brown’s decisions as Chancellor had left the UK ill-prepared to deal with the looming crisis. After this he launched into financial regulation arguing the erosion of the Bank of England’s powers as a supervisory authority was also to blame.
These remarks seem to have had little effect across the Atlantic with most claiming he is trying to pass-the-buck and is purely interested in saving his own job as the most powerful banker in the world.
This Shakespearian tragedy then came to a head when Darling went into general election mode on the Sunday talk-shows talking of super-taxes on the uber-wealthy ahead of his pre-budget report. He said one-year windfall taxes on bank bonuses and profits were necessary to slash to budget deficit and those with the broadest shoulders should bear the most weight.
This policy will be unanimously popular outside the financial sector but has already suffered from condemnation by those inside it.
Angela Knight from the British Bankers’ Association has called the policy “populist, political and penal” and it has been argued it will not have much effect on the budget deficit. Knight went on to argue this may force even more companies to abandon London in search on greener pastures abroad where they can pay bonuses as they see fit.
It is true the financial sector has had many worse weeks than this over the past year but with elections looming the hard facts of the case are likely to come to the fore.
Policies similar to Darling’s are likely to be the norm from the major parties as they try to seal up the popular vote by condemning perpetually unpopular bankers. However with such announcements becoming more frequent so the unsympathetic voices from inside the sector are likely to get louder.
Colin Rowe
]]>
It’s remarkable how some people in power either ignore, or refuse to see things which are staring them straight in the face.
This was the prevailing theme today when myself and an audience met with Ivan Lewis, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs. The topic on the agenda was primarily the war in Afghanistan, the logistics, ethics and practicalities involved in such a war. Lewis spoke for around a quarter of an hour before opening it up to the floor for questions.
It’s here when I’m going to check myself slightly. I am constantly defending politicians against others’ insults. For every expenses abusing, sleaze ridden corrupt cabinet minister, there are constituency MPs who work hard for their electorate, and want (to use a cliché) “to make a difference”. But given the responses supplied by Lewis today, can you blame young people for feeling disenfranchised and apathetic about politics? Typical politicians answers were given, instead of answering the question directly, policy was trotted out with all the panache of a Michael Howard Newsnight interview. The audience looked on incredulously as good, constructive questions were left unanswered.
Lewis is currently on a roadshow (his own words) visiting every region in the UK to stir up support for the war in Afghanistan, to “assure forces that the British people support them”. I have no doubt that the British people support them, but their ringleaders…I’m not so sure. Lions led by Lambs indeed.
Furthermore, Lewis constantly emphasised that we were in Afghanistan to rid the world of the greatest threat to our way of life. It would be churlish to point out the not-insignificant problem of climate change as our greatest threat, but you can’t have everything. For a man so clearly preoccupied with the modern threat of terrorism (Lewis voted for the Iraq war, for ID cards and against an investigation into the Iraq war) he seemed stupendously blind to it’s root causes. Much of the argument seemed to take the view that we stamp out any insurgents in Iraq and by proxy safeguard our own country. What he fails to take into account is that much of the terrorist bombings in the UK (including July 7th in London) were propagated by British residents. How exterminating members of Al-Qaeda 3000 miles around the world is going to help us, I don’t know.
Moreover, he incessantly referred to the British people being in a state of fear as “the security of the people of this country lay in the hands of extremists”. Have I ruptured the space-time continuum into a Daily Mail alternate reality? I’ve yet to meet a single person who is genuinely worried about the threat of terrorism to this country. It’s happened before, but the chances of you being in the wrong place at the wrong time are so minute that it’s hardly worth thinking about. Did people stop using the Tube when London was under threat? No, because they had to get on with their lives and it was business as usual.
Towards the end of the talk we were bombarded with statistics showing “improving” living conditions in Afghanistan. Much has been made of the effort to rebuild and reinvigorate Afghanistan. While this may be true, it still doesn’t explain the fundamental point of the whole debate:
Why are we there in the first place?
Joseph Stashko-Adamaszek
]]>It’s been about three days since Ireland dropped out of the World Cup, and quite frankly I will hurt the next person who whines about it. It’s plastered the press, been a hot topic of discussion; mainly amongst people who can’t place Galway on a map and think “slainte” is a Russian cocktail, and just generally been everywhere.
Before tackle this properly, let me explain something: I’m Irish by nationality, I love Ireland, I think the British owe the Irish an apology, I ride horses, I can hold my drink and so on and so forth. Anyone with a pair of eyes (or just one half functioning one) could have seen that Henry handled the ball, but Ireland did the same in the same game, it was just bad luck it was not picked up by the referee. The amount of interest on Twitter and and Facebook has been truly ridiculous, behold the following creation, made only a few moments after the game:
It was not as bad as the hand of God incident, and I think it’s hugely doubtful (as the Sun were claiming) that the whole thing has been a scheme organized by Adidas, it was just unlucky, end. Fifa have said no replay, thus there shall be no replay, unless France offer a replay, which would do them no harm (Ireland aren’t great at football anyway), but they won’t, so final point, no sodding replay. Not to mention the logistics of organizing an international match with a few days notice.
The biggest irritation of the entire scandal has been the involvement of politicians, especially on the Irish side. I didn’t expect anything else of Sarkozy, but Irish politicians should just leave matters alone. The day following the match, Dermot Ahern, the justice minister was demanding a rematch. Frankly, there are many other things the Irish government could be concerning themselves with, for a start, they are currently the only country making Britain’s economy look alright, and anyone who’s tried to apply for university with CAO will probably quite happily go to great lengths to see the system reformed. It is also a country that’s population said NO to Lisbon, only to be told that this was the wrong answer, and that they would have another referendum so they said yes. What Henry did was not right, but not only is it not a political issue; it’s slightly ridiculous of the Irish government to preach ‘fairness.’
Yes, I would love the French to offer a rematch, even though I can tell you they would win, simply on the grounds of integrity and decency, but I doubt they will, not least because of the implications of organizing an international match with less than a few days notice, and if FIFA have refused the pleas, would they count it in the first place?
If the Irish can come out the better side in the Irish war of independence, survive a famine and create a ridiculously strong national identity and pride for such a small nation from which so many people emigrate I’m sure they can get through a handball against France. We’ll hold our heads up high, as always, and go and numb the pain with some bushmills whiskey, and come the big rugby matches, no doubt we’ll be dismissing football as a sport for puny girly men. Our national anthem is called “Amhran na bhFiann” which basically means the soldier’s song, and I think it’s time we start living up to this, not behaving like the whiney kid in the playground because some fat kid gave him a shove.
Emma-Louise Kerwin
]]>
Psst, come here! Yeah, you, over there, with the yellow tinge running all over your face and far too much time on your hands, sitting there, idly trolling through the web looking for your next fix of pointless information to repeat to your friends in an even more pointless fashion. Yeah, that’s it, you! Let me tell you a little secret… one that I’ve really tried to keep quiet for the best part of the year, not that I’m ashamed or anything, and not that you’re probably not already aware, but just because it may be a little bit boring, but anyway… I fucking love Twitter.
Like, I really love it. I spend more time on it than anything else, I tweet more than I sleep. I tweet outside, inside, upside down, whilst having sex, whilst on the toilet, I tweet trying on shoes, making toast and shaving. Hell, I’ve tweeted in my dreams three times before. But I love it for reasons you may not quite expect.
Twitter is the best thing on the internet right now, and I really don’t care if you disagree. You hear the same thing all the time from the boring doubters; “It’s not as good as Facebook, it doesn’t have pictures”, “It’s just a load of people talking at each other”, “It’s only good for celebrities”. It’s this latter part that completely defines Twitter for me: Celebrities. But I don’t mean following them or caring about anything at all that comes from their scabby, money-grabbing fingers (even though Peter Serafinowicz is absolutely HIGHLARRYOOS on there). Oh God no. As if I care about the words of some egotistical, vain, self-obsessed show off who only cares about his own opinions and isn’t a single bit arsed about anyone else’s (err…).
The true reason I totally bum Twitter to death isn’t to hear, acknowledge or understand why Jonathan Ross is still banging on about Sachs-gate, or why Stephen Fry wants to make love to a tiny chimp-like creature, no, I bum Twitter ‘cos I like the celebrity death rumours that seem to occur almost all the time.
With this ever growing list of famous people dying throughout the year, people across the globe seem to have really been inspired by all these dead celebrities. One bored person decides to make a mock up of a popular, trusted news provider and, usually never actually intending on it going further than a few friends who are no doubt ‘in on the joke’, they link it on their Twitter.
Then some numb nuts (usually a slightly stalkerish fanboy/fangirl) happens to search for said celebrity, sees the tweet, believes the hype and passes it on to all their silly little followers.
About a month ago, before attempting to enter the land of nod, I saw Zach Braff on the trending topics. Which would be odd ‘cos Zach Braff just left Scrubs and was probably sat at home, crying in the corner, smashing his against the wall screaming “idiot!” whilst waiting for his career to completely nosedive. But people probably wouldn’t have known that.
Actual photo of Braff pre skull-bashing
Anyway, so news spreads that Braff had died when really he was fine and dandy and probably a tad confused. Apparently it all started from this website – which has now been changed to some kind of statement explaining all what happened, including Braff himself calling the guy a “douchebag”.
I, of course, find it all hilarious, the way such ‘news’ can travel around the world in an instant – to the point where actual news providers have to come out and deflate the claims – just ‘cos some geek in the States knows how to use Photoshop a little bit.
It’s happened tonnes of times though, and always with the most random of celebrities. When Patrick Swayze died a few weeks ago, I remained sceptical for hours until the beeb finally reported it, simply because I was pretty sure I’d heard about him dying at least three times in the past, and I might have already thought he was dead and still not given a shit.
A lot of these hoaxes tend to follow the exact same pattern as well, presumably because of any such web-page generator they’re using. In 2006 – obviously pre-Twitter – Tom Hanks was the subject of a mass e-mail rumour when someone clocked on to a website stating that he’d “fallen off a cliff somewhere in New Zealand”. Obviously this wasn’t true, he was in California or somewhere else utterly generic, but people believed it so his people had to make a statement.
A mere few months later, the same thing happened Tom Cruise. Like, exactly the same. He also conveniently fell off some cliffs in New Zealand. And people still believed it. Admittedly it’s quite a rural country and no doubt those cliffs are some slippery motherflippers, and maybe they weren’t signposted enough or something, but who’d have funk those cliffs would kill two Hollywood stars in a matter of months? If I were famous I’d stay well clear of New Zealand, let alone it’s cliffs.
But wait, hang on, the holy grail of celebrity death hoaxes, and probably Twitter peaking in its own brilliance
This, right here, is the reason I fell in love with Twitter. In amongst the tragic and downright earth-shattering news of Michael Jackson’s death, some guy on the other side of the world thought it would be “well funny” to pretend that Jeff Goldblum, JEFF GOLDBLUM was dead. Now who the hell conjures up that idea? Someone with the best imagination ever? Totally. Someone I’d probably want to be friends with? Totally.
But you know what they say, so long as you believe in something enough, it’ll happen. And so vast is the speed and power of Twitter, anyone can be proclaimed dead within a couple of hours. So I’m gonna start hash tagging #JohnnyBorrellRIP and see what happens. Feel free to join me.
Brad Ferguson
Those of you who look keen-eyed over the jobs section in newspapers must have noticed the journalism vacancies advertised by The Guardian over the past month.
With advertising, circulation and staff all being subject to cuts, it’s surprising to see a 12 month freelance position up for grabs. The Guardian is recruiting “beatbloggers” in Cardiff, Leeds and Edinburgh to document happenings in the community, as part of the Guardian Local campaign. While jobs in the media are slim pickings at the moment (does anyone still work in newspapers, or are we just reading archive manuscripts?) it’s reflective of the way the media will evolve in the future.
Citizen journalism, it seems, is the way forward.The ascent of blogging, social networking and rapid upload means that anyone can be a journalist, anywhere.While this raises issues about the quality of journalism being sustained, the fact remains that the media has been democratised like never before. With local newspapers in rapid decline, there is a fear that local authorities will be allowed to become corrupt. However, this hyper-local style of citizen reporting could help keep checks and balances on public institutions, as well as giving opportunity to people who traditionally saw the media as a closed and elitist world.
Getting a job in the media, and in particular as a journalist, has never been more difficult, but at this rate, the balance has somewhat been shifted in the advantage of the individual, not the organisation. The New York Times and Newsweek have announced massive cuts, and are panicking as to what to do next. We’re talking huge companies here, who are scrabbling around desperately to find ways to sustain their outdated business models.
Meanwhile an army of online bloggers provide easily accessible opinion and art available online for free. Granted, the development of the blog as a popular media platform has meant that a lot of self indulgent, narcissistic material gets produced. But at the same time, global networks are being set up between users, content is freely exchanged, criticised and promoted. At last month’s Journalism Leaders conference in Preston, Frederic Filloux, author of Monday Note blog, stated that the future lay in the mobile phone, and once technology was significantly improved, we would truly be able to produce and have access to news 24 hours a day.
I always think that there will be room for good quality analysis and comment in newspapers. I’ve yet to see anything that’s available exclusively online, bar The Huffington Post, that can consistently outclass broadsheet newspapers. But maybe I’m missing the point. Instead, online journalism needs to find it’s own niche. There’s no going back from this, the internet has opened up a whole range of opportunities to the media and to the individual. Where we go from here is unclear, but what is clear is that media corporations will have to gain greater understanding of the way the web works and how people want their news.
Joseph Stashko-Adamaszek
]]>