Rather than turn to writing about previous Journalism lectures, I have decided to blog on a topic of my choice today. We all know that on the 22nd of March, just two days ago, Jade Goody lost her battle with cancer. I realise how tedious it got for everyone; a new story about her every day without fail on the cover of every tabloid newspaper, with headlines such as 'Jade's final wish', 'Jade's last word', 'Jade struggles on' etc etc. But to put up with the masses of stories we did have to read about we have to look at the reasoning behind her decision to make her story so public. Jade wanted to raise as much money as she could for her two sons, so as to enable them a secure future with good education. She believed that to do this she could, in a sense, use the media to make the money, by selling her story and doing interviews and photo shoots for the papers. This meant that journalists would be prying into her life constantly, wanting more and more up to date stories to write about. But was her decision a good one? Certainly for her sons futures it was, but we can ask the question, did Jade lose all her right to privacy when she made this decision to sell her story? Did she deserve to be left alone to deal with her cancer more than she was? Some can argue that the moment she chose to go public with her ordeal was the moment she lost all of her privacy rights, and I agree. Jade should, and probably did, realise that she would be followed and snapped up until her death. If she hadn't chosen to be open with her story then I would understand if she had a problem with being harassed by the paparazzi, but hers was the opposite choice, so I disagree with anyone who thinks it was unfair of the newspapers to follow her relentlessly.
OK! Magazine was accused of making a huge misjudgement after publishing a tribute edition which was said to contain the 'final words' of Jade. But, this was all published before she had died, so how could they be final words?? The magazine edition even had a black border around the front page with a sub-headline ''in loving memory 1981-2009". Mildy humorous it may be, thinking of the editors sitting around in their office, unable to stand one more day of waiting for the ball to drop, so to speak, Jade's friends and family were less than happy to hear about this tribute turned obituary. The Press Complaints Commission received complaints about the edition, and is making an initial assessment of whether an investigation is necessary after friends said it was "bloody disgusting", and "all that was agreed was a tribute. This is clearly an obituary, they got it totally wrong."
I think that her idea to use the media for her family's gain was a positive step, but with that she had most likely gained enemies through her constant updates in the news. From talking to people about it I know that reading her stories, although saddening, has proved tiresome over the last few weeks, but for Jade all that mattered was her family, and I think she used the media to her full advantage.
Tuesday 24 March 2009
Tuesday 3 March 2009
Jonathan Swift
So this is my separate blog on the poet Jonathan Swift, who became Dean of St. Patricks in Dublin. A Modest Proposal is one of many of his works that he is famously remembered for; its full name being 'A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents of Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public'. It is a Juvenalian satirical essay written and published in 1729. The essay seems to suggest that the poverty stricken Irish may ease their economic troubles by selling children as food for rich men and women. Here is a quote I found from the proposal:
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”
Where this quote is both humorous and fairly disturbing, Swift is in fact using this extreme way of writing as a metaphor for the can-do spirit of the times that led people to devise a number of illogical schemes that would supposedly solve social and economic ills. Some scholars have argued that Swift's idea was inspired by Tertullian's Apology, which was a satirical attack against early Roman persecution of Christianity. The difference between these two being that Swift was addressing the Anglo-Irish situation in the 1720s, but perhaps he saw some similarities between the two situations. A good similarity voiced by James William Johnson was that they both have central themes of cannibalism and eating babies, and both share the same final argument; "human depravity is such that men will attempt to justify their own cruelty by accusing their victims of being lower than human." Both authors imply an ironic justification by ownership over the subject of sacrificing children - Tertullian whilst attacking pagan parents, and Swift whilst attacking the English mistreatment of the poor Irish.
Overall, Swift's writing relies heavily on metaphorical use and irony, in an attempt to get his point across of the seriousness of poverty related problems in the 18th century. I have to say that Swift's methods, although dramatic, are effective, and help raise issues to people about the economic and social troubles.
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”
Where this quote is both humorous and fairly disturbing, Swift is in fact using this extreme way of writing as a metaphor for the can-do spirit of the times that led people to devise a number of illogical schemes that would supposedly solve social and economic ills. Some scholars have argued that Swift's idea was inspired by Tertullian's Apology, which was a satirical attack against early Roman persecution of Christianity. The difference between these two being that Swift was addressing the Anglo-Irish situation in the 1720s, but perhaps he saw some similarities between the two situations. A good similarity voiced by James William Johnson was that they both have central themes of cannibalism and eating babies, and both share the same final argument; "human depravity is such that men will attempt to justify their own cruelty by accusing their victims of being lower than human." Both authors imply an ironic justification by ownership over the subject of sacrificing children - Tertullian whilst attacking pagan parents, and Swift whilst attacking the English mistreatment of the poor Irish.
Overall, Swift's writing relies heavily on metaphorical use and irony, in an attempt to get his point across of the seriousness of poverty related problems in the 18th century. I have to say that Swift's methods, although dramatic, are effective, and help raise issues to people about the economic and social troubles.
Evolution of the UK State
Last week in our Politics lecture for Journalism we learnt about the evolution of the UK, and something that particularly interested me was the mention of Oliver Cromwell, who is, as Chris liked to describe him, "up there with Hitler". Cromwell was an English military and political leader best known for his involvement in making England into a republican commonwealth, and for later becoming Lord Protector (a head of the state) of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Cromwell was one of the commanders of the New Model Army which defeated the royalists in the English Civil War. He dominated the Commonwealth of England, conquered Ireland and Scotland, and ruled as Lord Protector from 1653 until his death in 1658. His New Model Army was described by Chris as "the Taliban meet the Nazis", leaving what they were like only to the greatest of imaginations.
Another topic in the lecture that I found amusing was the discussion of national days for various countries, for example Independence Day for America. The national day we have is November 5th, bonfire night, of course when Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. It is fairly strange that we would celebrate an event that could have been potentially fatal, and if I may take another quote from the lecture, "burning Catholics...that's what our country's all about." Again it does seem strange that our country's national day is based around an act of conflict, the Catholics vs. the Protestants. Also in this period of 1688, King William of Orange was brought over to Torquay and agreed never to rule without parliament, and agreed he would be a Protestant; this was the Act of Settlement 1688.
Something else that we were told to blog about is Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal, which I will do a separate blog about, so this lecture blog is to be continued...
Another topic in the lecture that I found amusing was the discussion of national days for various countries, for example Independence Day for America. The national day we have is November 5th, bonfire night, of course when Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. It is fairly strange that we would celebrate an event that could have been potentially fatal, and if I may take another quote from the lecture, "burning Catholics...that's what our country's all about." Again it does seem strange that our country's national day is based around an act of conflict, the Catholics vs. the Protestants. Also in this period of 1688, King William of Orange was brought over to Torquay and agreed never to rule without parliament, and agreed he would be a Protestant; this was the Act of Settlement 1688.
Something else that we were told to blog about is Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal, which I will do a separate blog about, so this lecture blog is to be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
