Winol - Week one and two

Welcome back on le blog de Julie. I have finally decided to get started on this blog, and I'm going to write about Winol / media law as often as I can. There, I've said it. I've got no choice but to do it now.

So this year I am meant to be investigative reporter, which is a great job, as well as being extremely difficult. Being investigative reporter means finding stories that aren't in the news agenda. Which means... I've got to find ideas, question everything I see/hear/read etc. And read the news. Radio 4, the Guardian and BBC News have become my best friends. And for entertainment I watch the French news when I come home at night.

I have decided to focus mainly on Freedom of Information Requests. And it is not as easy as I thought. Take Hampshire Constabulary for instance. They really, really, really hate FOIs, and they'll do anything to delay your request. Sounds like they've got something to hide.... In any case, when I sent this request: "How many vehicles - including bicycles - computers and printers were stolen in the last 10 years from Hampshire Police?" I certainly did not expect this response:

" Dear Ms Cordier

Perhaps you can clarify your request, please - are you including computers and printers under the category of 'vehicles' ?"

When I said they'll do anything to delay your request, it means ANYTHING, including making themselves sound like retards.

Anyway, in the past two weeks I have not been investigating much I'm afraid. But it'll come. Instead, in week one, I mostly helped the second years with the technical side of news reporting. I went filming with Lou, and helped people on Final Cut Pro. In fact it was a great confidence boost as I remembered how nervous I was last year at the same time, and how much I've learnt since then. I don't stress anymore when I interview people, and I can edit a package in less than 2 hours. Which is pretty outstanding considering that in December I spent a whole night (from 7 pm til 5 am...) editing a 1'30" long package!

In week two, Chris walked into the room and stepped all over my beautiful news story-to be. I wanted to "investigate" whether the university had met their own targets regarding education access for people from disadvantaged background. Instead he entrusted me with an investigation that shall remain confidential for now...

Then Becky (my dear news editor) decided that I should do a story on bacon. Well, Chris had heard of a student who had to google how to cook bacon and thought that would make a fascinating story. Uldduz (second year news reporter) had already organised the interview with the girl-who-can't-cook-bacon, but as she had already a package in the news bulletin I was given the story. Putting this story together was very entertaining, but writing the script was difficult. I got help from Cara, Becky and Mikey - he's the one who thought about the "pig's ear" pun! And for those who thought I've been nasty in the script, I was strongly encouraged by Angus to do so. So I only followed my lecturer's advice really.

here's my tasty "news" story:

Grape picking

A glimpse of French education in philosophy - Part II

HISTORY

History... A topic particularly interesting for journalists since it deals with facts, figures and people‘s stories.

Can historians avoid interpreting History? Problem: Can historians be objective? How can history be a science?

History’s handicaps
There is no direct observation on history - only documents and people’s memory can reconstruct the events. From this point of view, historians cannot establish an objective truth about History. People who left the evidence were themselves biased - since they were going through the events -and therefore played an active roles, whether spectators or actors. Some documents are missing as well, which means that historians have to analyse partial and biased pieces of evidence. This issue would inevitably lead to interpretation.

There is also a problem linked to individuals: extremely biased people, like communists or Nazis would give a false account of their time in their writings. Some people would even deny that the Holocaust happened. How can historians deal with those issues in order to establish an accurate account of History?

A scientific reconstruction of History

a) Historians gather documents of the studied era, study and criticise them
b) Questionning of the authenticity, the source and value of the document
c)The historians must question the truthfulness of the document as well as the coherence of it. This is why it needs to be confronted with other documents of the same era. Like other sciences, History can improve with the new updates of database.
According to Popper, if all the available documents have been taken into account and if they allow historians to verify their facts and potential theories, then History has been reconstructed in a scientific manner.

But History is not really a science…
Historians consider the events in themselves, study different people, governements and eras and those cannot be simplified into a general rule like in science. History is not an exact science given that historians have to interpret the facts within their context.

A glimpse of French education in philosophy… part I

Going through my external hardrive this morning I was surprised to find that I had kept my philosophy revision notes for my Baccalaureate. Many topics that I studied aren’t included in the HCJ lectures, so I thought I’d share a few of them on this blog.

ART

Imitation principle

Art must represent something that already exists according to Aristotle, which distinguishes it from simple know-how. He believed that people had a natural tendency for representation of reality – poetry, plays – because it generates pleasure/joy. Aristotle wanted to give this natural dimension to pleasure: it can also be intellectual. In his theory he attacked Plato’s idea that separates imitation from truth and reason.

Genius

Art must involve genius, otherwise it is only a simple work, not a work of art. But philosophers had different ideas regarding the definition of genius.

According to Plato, genius is a phenomenon that cannot be explained, it’s a divine inspiration, a kind of surnatural delirium. The artist only becomes a medium between God and mortal people.

Kant believed that an artist had genius/talent when he was unable to explain how he made the work of art. If the “artist” follows determined rules, then he’s just applying general rules in order to make a product. The artistic product comes from talent and imagination. Technique and talent make the artist.

Stravinsky (XXth century Russian pianist) didn’t believe in genius. According to him, a work of art is made with technique/know-how and emotions. The creation process comes from inspiration, which is an emotion.

Nietszche demystified the idea of genius. The process of creation is a constant work, and the idea of genius itself is an illusion. The viewer has an impression that the result was easily achieved when watching the finished work of art.

Rules of art

Art revolutions don’t allow us to establish a knowledge/understanding of beauty.

Some works of art don’t suffer any change in rules/taste/fashion/current/genre. This is why we can empirically set rules of art – determined from the previous work of arts, what works and what doesn’t work, according to Hume.

Can anyone judge beauty?

Still according to Hume, a good judge must have an innate sensitivity, master a form of art, and must refuse any kind of prejudices.

Understanding, sensitivity and imagination are essential qualities when juding a work of art, according to Kant. Everyone is equal when it comes to art, it must generate pleasure without needing previous knowledge or concept.

Bourdieu disagreed with this idea: in his case he believed that the pleasure people get out of art is different according to which social class they come from.

If a group of people from various social backgrounds have a look at this picture - Hands of a farm woman by Russell Lee, it is quite likely that they will have different thoughts/feelings about it.

Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?

Click here to find out*

*Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Keynesianism for Dummies

Keynesianism is an influential economic theory developed by British economist John Maynard Keynes in the first half of the 20th century, according to which liberalism is not the answer in times of economical crisis. The market doesn't regulate itself, and the State needs to play an active role in the recovery. The State's role in this case is to reflate the economy.

The idea is simple: according to Keynes, wages regulate demand. The State must inject money into the economy in order to boost consumption. If wages go up, the demand will grow, and therefore the production will restart, which itself will create new jobs. If wages go down, it's the opposite scenario: unemployment, weak consumption & production. Keynes was also opposed to excessive saving, which was due to pessimistic speculation on the economy. It would then result in a climate of financial uncertainty and the consumption would be affected.

This theory refutes Say's law, or law of the market. Jean-Baptiste Say was a French economist born in the 18th century. The main idea in the theory is that if the product is a good quality product the demand will create itself, not needing the help of the State. Pumping money into the economy will just boost the inflation, it will not create a real demand.

"The production of commodities creates, and is the one and universal cause which creates a market for the commodities produced."

James Mill, Scottish economist

And here is a simple graphic that illustrates macroeconomics...

Poor students to get two years at university for free

My news report this week:

Overdraft charges to change