Media Law - Code of Conduct in brief

In this session we learned about the four different codes of conduct for journalists:

1. The NUJ Code of Conduct
2. The Ofcom Code of Conduct
3. The Editor's Code of Conduct
4. The BBC Code of Conduct

The codes are not legally binding, but if you agree to them then it is assumed that you will uphold them at all times.
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Conduct

The NUJ code of conduct has fourteen codes:

1. Journalists must work to a high professional standard.
2. Defend the freedom of the press - work to eliminate censorship/suppression of the press.
3. Journalists must try to make reports fair and accurate.
4. Journalists must rectify any harmful inaccuracies.
5. Journalists must obtain photos/information by straightforward means.
6. Journalists must not report on private distress/grief.
7. Journalists must protect confidential sources.
8. Journalists must not accept bribes.
9. Journalists must not distort/suppress the truth because of advertising.
10. Journalists must only mention sex/age/race/religion if it is strictly relevant.
11. Journalists must not interview/photograph children without permission.
12. Journalists must not publish photographs which have been manipulated without identifying them as such.
13. Journalists must not take private advantage of information.
14. Journalists must not endorse by advertising any products.

The NUJ Code of Conduct are created by journalists for journalists. Today it is not a requirement for journalists to agree to the NUJ code of conduct, or even to be members of the NUJ. Previously though if a journalist was not a member of the NUJ then no one would ever hire them. Conversely, journalists who work for Murdoch publications are not allowed to be members of the NUJ, and if they are then they will be fired. Presumably this is because Murdoch wants journalists who will find or create stories by any means necessary, not only by straight forwards means (number 5

The Ofcom Code of Conduct applies to commercial television, for example Sky and ITV. The BBC Code of Conduct only applies for BBC establishments. It is taught at the BBC college of journalism and is also available online.

Journalists working for any Murdoch publication follow the Editor's Code of Conduct, which was established after Murdoch first broke down unions. This meant that there was no code of conduct for a while which resulted in unreliable and irresponsible journalism. Today, if you break the Editor's Code of Conduct then you will be sacked without any compensation.

Seminar Paper - Swift and Smith

Jonathan Swift was born in Dublin on November 30^th 1667, and died on October 19^th 1745 aged 77. He was a satirist who wrote essays and pamphlets and prose. When he started writing he published all his work either anonymously or he would create fictitious names such as M.B Drapier. He was a well educated man with a M.A from Hartford College in 1962. He is commonly remembered for his work Gulliver’s Travels, and A Modest Proposal.

A Modest Proposal was published in 1729 and outline’s Swift’s proposal “for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden to their parents and country.” He proposed that the young children of poor people in Ireland should be killed and eaten so that they were not a burden on society, and in order to create a smaller population.

This piece is an example of the satirical style of Swift’s writing, as he did not intend for the proposal to be taken seriously at all. I think that Swift could have been highlighting the seriousness of poverty and over population in Ireland. By suggesting such a ridiculous proposal, he could have been representing the fact that there was little that could be done about the situation, and that a valid solution would be very difficult to find.

Even the title of the essay prepares us for the satire of the piece. Swift’s use of the word ‘modest’ is satirical because it makes it seem as if the killing of children for food is something which is not very dramatic, and that Swift does not expect anyone to find his proposal shocking. Swift reinforces this by referring to his “humble” proposal. 

 Swift states that he would be willing to listen to any other proposal from a “wise man” which is as “equally innocent, cheap, easy and effectual.” At the time, this made have made the reader think about what other options there would actually be to the problem; supporting my idea that Swift was trying to highlight the fact that there was no simple solution available.

There were parts of the proposal that I found to be particularly humorous. For example, Swift offers his proposal as an alternative to what he describes as the “horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children” and suggests his disgust at the “sacrificing of innocent babes.” This is humorous because Swift’s proposal to this is in fact exactly the same; he too proposes to sacrifice “innocent children” for the benefit of society.

In his proposal, Swift goes into a fair amount of detail about the calculations he has made before reaching his conclusion. For example he explains how he has calculated that “there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders; from which I subtract thirty thousand couple…”He continues with more sums which become increasingly hard to follow. This use of figures and calculations could have been used to make his proposal more valid, after all people would be more likely to accept his proposal in the knowledge that he had researched it thoroughly. I think that this was a clever devise because it is human nature to accept, rather blindly in some cases, any extensive research presented to them by an intellectual.

Swift could also have been trying to mock the way that the government at the time tried to find solutions through the use of hard, cold statistics, by giving an example of how numbers could be used to make even the most ridiculous proposal make sense.

Throughout the entire proposal Swift uses phrases such as “our merchants” and “we can”. By using words such as “we” and “our” Swift includes himself with his readers. This makes the reader feel involved with the proposal and also gives the impression that Swift is trying to find a solution for himself as well. This might make the reader trust the proposal more because they trust that Swift would not propose something which was going to be detrimental to him.   

Swift refers to a “very knowing American of my acquaintance in London” who assured him that a healthy child is a “most delicious, nourishing and wholesome food.” He also mentions “a very worthy person” who supports his proposal. I think that Swift purposely does not name either of the men.  By not giving them identities, he could be referring to anyone at all; and could mean member of the British government. He may also be poking fun at his own proposal because, at that time, Americans were considered to be farcical and were known for telling lies and exaggerating the truth.

Swift could be using the two examples to show his frustration that ‘quick fix’ solutions were being offered by people who were not being impacted by the poverty in Ireland, and so were not in a position to be giving advice. He could also be making the point that lower classes at the time were heavily influenced by the upper classes, and by mentioning upper class gentleman Swift was trying to make his proposal more appealing to the lower class mothers.

I think that throughout his Modest Proposal, Swift was trying to make a point about the exploitation of the poor for the sake of the wealthy. He describes how the children’s skin could be used to make “summer boots for fine gentlemen” and how his proposal can offer “relief to the poor and some pleasure to the rich.” This social observation could reflect how poor people were often servants to the rich, or had to beg on the streets hoping for a wealthy person to help them. His proposal would mean that poor women take care of a child for a whole year, so that a wealthy person may then take that child for food.

This very obvious class divide is one that I feel is still reflected in society today. For example, in African countries farmers work relentlessly to grow crops that are then shipped to wealthy people for them to eat, and once those crops have been sold; farmers start the whole process again.

Throughout the piece Swift refers to an advantage of his proposal being that “it would greatly lessen the number of Papists.” It is likely that he did this in order to encourage his readers to support his proposal because at the time there was a widespread hatred for the Irish. Again, this is a method which is used in today’s society, but instead of a social hatred for Catholics, this hatred is directed at Muslims, and many newspapers reflect this attitude in order to engage and appeal to readers.

Conclusively, I think that Swift’s ‘Modest Proposal’ is incredibly well written and is written with the typical attitude at the time, where writers were able to ridicule certain individuals or groups in subtle ways which may not even be detected by the people they are trying to insult.

The extract from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations had some similar themes to Swift’s proposal.

Adam Smith was born in June 1723 and died in July 1790 and like David Hume, he was a Scottish philosopher and economist. He is often referred to as the Father of Economics. His magnum opus is the Wealth of Nations. First published in 1776, nearly 50 years after Swift's Proposal, Wealth of Nations is an influential piece of work for the case of laissez faire in which Smith explains that the government should not control economic activity. Ths reminded me of Locke's ideas about not wanting the Government to have complete control.


Wealth of Nations is split into five books and comments on the economics of the Industrial Revolution. The first chapter of book three, of the different progress of opulence in different nations, focuses on the relationship between country and town.

Smith explains how the country and the town are interconnected and that one could not exist without the other. He describes how “the country supplies the town with the … materials of manufacture” and how the town then “repays this supply by sending back part of the manufactured produce...” and that the “gains of both are reciprocal.” This gives the image of a town and country co-existing peacefully and supporting one another equally.

Throughout this piece Smith highlights that the standard of living in both town and country is reliant on the productivity of labour as well as the relationship between the two. This relationship between town and country is something that we still see today, and something which works in a similar way to what Smith explains.

One of the themes in Smith’s piece is how cooperation is needed to attain the best results. He also highlights how work should be broken down into small parts and given to people who are best able to complete the tasks. I think that this is a similar theme is Swift’s Modest Proposal because he suggests that the work of raising a child in preparation to kill it should be split into parts. For example, it is the father’s job not to abuse the wife while she is pregnant to avoid miscarriage, it is the mother’s job to pay for and feed the child for the first year, then it is the job of a cook to prepare the food for the wealthy people.

In Smith’s piece there is a divide between country and town, although they help each other. This is similar to Swift’s proposal in which there is a divide between rich and poor who also help each other. In Smith’s extract the country provides materials to the town and the town supplies the products made with the materials in return. In A Modest Proposal, the poor provide the rich with children to eat, and the rich give the poor money in exchange for this service.

In conclusion, there are similar themes in Swift's Proposal and Smith's Wealth of Nations and they are both well written and are easy to read even to this day.

The Financial Times - Journalism Now

The Financial Times was founded in 1888 by James Sheridan. I was quite surprised to learn that when the Financial Times was first published, it was in competition with three other finance based newspapers. I later found that the reason I had never heard of any of the other finance papers was largely because by 1945 the Financial Times had been so successful that all the other finance papers were pushed out of the market. This meant that the Financial Times had no direct competition from any other daily paper, which has largely contributed to its success

The Financial Times is the only daily finance paper in the UK, but despite this it does not have mass appeal with the British population. The Financial Times define their readers as; business leaders, government ministers, international entrepreneurs, bankers, investors, educators and students. So what are the reasons for such a relatively niche audience?

It is probable that the lower classes would not read the Financial Times for the simple reason that it does not interest them. An average lower class citizen has no need to know about the worldwide business market, or the London stock exchange in any detail.

 It could be argued that it is always useful to know what is happening in the financial world but I, and I’m sure a lot of you, only take notice of the financial world if something is happening that is going to directly affect me. And in cases where the financial world is going to impact me dramatically, it is quite likely that ordinary daily papers will pick up on the story.

Take for example, the Credit Crunch. Essentially, this is a financial matter, but it was covered by every newspaper, including papers which do not specialise in finance because it was something that had a huge impact on the general population. Even the Daily Sport reported on the Credit Crunch with the headline “£5 a pint – Credit Crunch gets serious”.

Some of the headline news stories of the Financial Times are also featured in other daily papers. Take for example the story a couple of weeks ago about the engine failure of the Qantas Airbus. The Daily Mail headline for this story read “World is watching Qantas after midair explosion.” The Financial Times however, went with the headline “Airbus superjumbo under scrutiny after engine failure on Qantas flight.”

It is clear from these two examples that stories in the Financial Times are very factual rather than being exaggerated in order to make them more interesting. After reading the Financial Times I have become quite used to this, and find the exaggerated headline of other newspapers to be rather amusing. I think that the Financial Times is more factual because it knows that the readers are only interested in the actual facts.

Every day on the cover of the Financial Times is a section called “News Briefing” which sums up the news for the reader. This means that before even opening the paper, readers are able to see what the main news stories are instead of just the headline stories. This could be because readers of the FT perhaps do not have the time to sit and read the paper during their busy day, so instead they are told the summarised news in a simple and efficient manner.

Ultimately, the Financial Times is a well established and respected finance paper with loyal readers in the ABC1 social brackets.

BBC Radio 4 - Journalism Now

BBC Radio 4 first aired on September 30^th 1967, taking the place of the BBC Home Service. Since airing in 1967 the content of the programmes have not varied much, with a regular mixture of news, history, science, comedy and drama. As the content has largely remained the same, as has the audience.

The programme schedule for Radio 4 is quite varied from sitcoms and stand up comedy to news and topical lectures. With such an apparent mix of programmes it could be assumed that Radio 4 has something for everyone – but in fact there is not much variation away from the stereotypical listeners, give or take a few exceptions.

In the late 60s it was not uncommon for listening to the radio to be a social, or family past time; although it was not nearly as common as it used to be after the introduction of television. The children who grew up listening to the BBC Home Service continued listening as it changed to Radio 4, as the content was similar and in a way, comforting. This could be one of the reasons why Radio 4 listeners are older generations rather than younger ones.

The youth of today are not bought up listening to the radio as a past time. Very often the radio is put on as background noise to other daily goings on, for example in the car. For this reason, it is not likely that Radio 4 is going to appeal to younger generations because they do not clear their schedules to listen to specific segments on the radio in the way that an older person might do.

The programmes are designed to target older generations. For example, I listened to a segment about what it means to be a drummer in a band. Instead of interviewing the drummers of modern bands, they interviewed Phil Collins; presumably this is because listeners would not know much about modern bands.

Radio 4 covers both the national and international news with an average of 7 news programmes over a 24 hour period. As well as having all the news available to listeners at multiple times throughout the day, all the news programmes are available to listen to on BBC Iplayer each day. The news shows focus on different aspects of the news, and some shows going into great detail, while others sum up the news briefly in 15 minute segments.

I thought that this was quite a good idea because it means that if you have a large amount of time to listen to the news you are able to do so, but if you are in a rush then there are also times when you can be given the news in brief.

The news on Radio 4 is presented in a very formal manner. The news is usually reported by one presenter and includes relevant interviews. As well as being told the news of the day, we are also told the headlines of national papers, including the Financial Times. We are not however, given the headlines from publications such as The Sun. This could be because it is assumed that listeners of Radio 4 are not likely to be interested in papers like The Sun.

One of the features I found most interesting on the news on Radio 4 is that as part of the 05.30am News Briefing programme, we are told about major news stories that happened on this date but in past years. Personally I found this to be interesting because it is not something that I have heard done on other news programmes before. This might be because listeners of Radio 4 are often of an older generation, and so they may enjoy reminiscing on stories from their pasts.

I cannot see the youth of today listening to Radio 4 as they mature, largely because it is stereotyped as an “old person” radio station, and we as a society are increasingly fearful of ageing. I think that it would be best if Radio 4 kept producing programmes which can be enjoyed by their loyal listeners and accept the fact that Radio 4 listeners are a dying breed.

HCJ Lecture Notes - David Hume

David Hume was a Scottish 18th Century atheist, writer, philosopher are sceptic. He was an empiricist who believed that events in the universe are constructed in our minds through our sense experience. His work has been incredibly influential and is still used today; not only because his ideas were revolutionary, but also because he wrote in a very clear and methodical way which is still easily read. In this post I will cover some of Hume's key ideas and how his work has inspired people I will also give my own thoughts and opinions into his ideas. (my thoughts will be coloured red)

Hume and Causation:

Hume did not believe in causation in the universe; he suggested that any apparent causes are constructed in our minds, they do not exist in reality. He used the example of billiard balls to explain this. He said that just because you hit a white billiard ball into a red one and the red one starts at the moments of impact does mean that the while ball caused the red one to move. It appears to have caused that movement, but there is no evidence to suggest this; it could simply be a matter of random chance. Similarly, Hume applied this theory to a sun rise claiming that just because the sun rose today and yesterday does not guarantee that it will rise tomorrow. This again could all be coincidence, and it is never possible to say with absolute certainty that any natural event will occur in the future.

While I understand Hume's principle, and in some ways agree, I find that it is not an easy position to hold in some circumstance. For example, if a man were to stab another man repeatedly until he died, it would be very difficult to claim that the stabbing did not cause the death. Using Hume's theory I could claim that the victim coincidentally had a heart attack at the exact same time that he was stabbed, and his death was not actually related to his stab wounds. I will agree that this is not completely beyond the realms of reasonable doubt, but it would be incredibly difficult for this to be understood. On the other hand, it could be true that the only reason I am thinking, even in theory, that the stabbing and the death would be related is because I am using my experience to make a judgement.

Hume believed that nothing has a cause, that everything is simply random. When considering human beings themselves, this theory again has problems. For example, I know that my existence has been directly caused as a result of my parent's actions - this is scientific fact. It would be difficult to argue that my existence was going to happen anyway, and my parent's actions simply appear to have caused me.

On the other hand, Hume's theory that nothing in nature has a cause could be argued to be accurate using science; take, for example, quantum electro dynamics (QED). QED is the scientific research which proves that the smaller something is, the less energy is needed to make it, and so in theory, it would be possible for something to be so small that it take no energy to create. Everything in the world is made of tiny atoms, which in turn are constructed, in the simplest terms, or vibrations. These vibrations are so tiny that it could be possible that no energy is need to create them, meaning that when everything is broken down to its smallest, most simple form, we are left with things which needed no energy to make, and so had no original cause.

This would mean that minuscule objects are popping in and out of existence all the time without recognition, and without having any cause at all - so Hume's theory could be accurate.

Hume claimed that things in the universe appear to be happening because humans interpret things in a certain way; this is one of Hume's claims that I completely agree with. We have all heard the riddle-type question if a tree falls in a wood with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I would argue that the tree would not make a sound unless a person were there to hear it. This can be scientifically proved because all sounds are simply vibrations of different frequencies, these vibrations are interpreted by our ears and our minds into different sounds. This means that if the tree were to fall with no one around, then the vibrations would travel uninterpreted until they either completely vanished, or until they reached an ear that would be able to interpret them.


Sound vibrations are much like ripples in a pond. They start off very close together but the further they travel the further they move apart. This is why the closer you are to a noise, the louder it appears to be. Sounds are therefore completely subjective, depending on who is interpreting them.

The same is true of colours in the world. Colours, in their simplest forms, are rays of light which, again, have different frequencies. Our eyes are "designed" to interpret these frequencies as different colours. This means that we have absolutely no proof that our eyes are working the same as anyone elses. Look at the image on the right of the ripples. I can see an image containing different shades. It is possible that you would agree that there are shades of blue in the image, although there is absolutely no way to prove that what I consider to be blue, is the same as what you consider to be blue.

I have used the example of sound and colour to try and prove Hume's theory right. It is true that all things in the world are interpreted by humans to have meaning and causes. If humans were not on the planet then there would be no causation and no meaning, they are simply things which we think are true but are not based on any evidence at all.

Hume and induction:

Hume believed that statements can either be synthetic or analytic. Analytic statements are ones in which the conclusion can be derived by the subject - they are self evident. For example the sentence all cats are feline is analytic because it verifies itself, there is no need to research it any further. Synthetic statements can be verified if the axiom is accepted as truth:

• All humans are mortal, I am human, therefore I am mortal

The second part of the above sentence cannot be verifiable unless the first part is accepted as the truth. A synthetic statements adds knowledge to the axiom. Hume believed that there was no place for induction in the world.

Hume's epistemology:

Hume believed that sense impressions such as pain or heat are formed in word; they do not exist in the external world, only in our minds. He also claims that we use building blocks of our simple knowledge in order to imagine much more complex things. For example, we can imagine an angel by combining our knowledge of a human and a bird, similarly we can imagine a unicorn combining our knowledge of a horse and a rhino.

I find Hume's point about pain and heat being simply constructs of our minds because it would, perhaps, help to explain why people are able to handle different amounts of pain. Surely if pain was an external element then we would all feel different kinds of pain the same as one another and no one would be able to cope with more pain that someone is able to. The same is true of feelings of hot and cold. It is perfectly possible that two people could be sat in a room, and with all factors of them being the same, one could feel cold and the other hot. If heat and cold were external elements then surely we would all feel the same at the same time as one another. The same is true of emotion; the only difference being that it is widely accepted that emotions are internal.

Hume and morality:

Hume stated that it is not possible to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.

I would agree with Hume on this point because I cannot understand the relationship between 'is' and 'ought'. They are completely separate to one another, yet it is very common that we derive an ought from an is, in fact our entire legal system is based upon this.

For example, we are taught that 'stealing is wrong, so you ought not to do it'. There is a logical leap from saying something is wrong so you ought not to do it. The more I consider it, the more ridiculous it appears to me that we live our lives by a principle that does not make sense.  I am not suggesting that crimes are acceptable and there is no reason not to commit murder or theft, it it simply my observation that it is very odd that we do not question the logic of the jump from an 'is' to an 'ought', especially when this is in an idea which has been around for hundreds of years!

The Verification Principle:

Logical Positivists, who base their beliefs and values on Hume's work, believe that statements are only worth discussing if they are capable of independent verification. The statement "ducks can fly" can be verified by finding a duck and seeing if it can fly. The statement "God exists" cannot be verified and therefore, according to Hume, is not worth discussing.

This claim from Hume reminded me of a clip from the TV Series friends:



This may seem like a rather unimportant clip to have added to my notes, although I feel that it helps to explain how Hume would feel about non-verifiable statements - they would all be moo points.

There is also the Falsification Principle; statements are also meaningful is they can be falsified, or falsified in principle. For example the statement "all ducks have webbed feet" could be falsified or verified in principle because you could theoretically check all the ducks in existence. This of course would be a ridiculous thing to do, but it the fact that there would be a way to falsify the statement makes in meaningful.

In his book, Language, Truth and Logic, philosopher A.J Ayer tried to use the verification principle to prove certain things to be nonsense (moo points) including metaphysics and religion. He argued that only statements which can be empirically verified are meaningful.  

Philosopher Richard Swinburne had an interesting retaliation to this theory, claiming that statements which can't be empirically verified could also be meaningful. He used an example of toys to try and make his point clear. He said that there are toys in his room that come out only when when they cannot be detected. It would never be possible to empirically verify the claim because the toys would not appear when they humans can detect them, but Swinburne argues that the statement is still meaningful because it can be conceived by the human mind.

Personally I think there is point in discussing most things, whether I agree with them or not. Like Swinburne, I would argue that anything that the human mind can conceive is worth discussing.

Karl Popper, a "disciple" of Hume objected to the verification principle, pointing out that the principle itself could not be empirically verified, and so was meaningless. Popper, instead, followed the falsification principle. An example to explain the falsification principle would be the statement 'all men are mortal' - this statement is not meaningful because just because all men so far have been mortal does not mean that a man won't be born one day who is immortal; it is not possible to check this. However, the statement 'all men are immortal' could be easily falsified at the presentation of just one dead body.

I would say that for the most part I agree with Hume's empiricist beliefs, and for the parts I don't agree with, I still appreciate that he is one of the most influential philosophers there has ever been.

Media Law Lecture - 09/11/10

The topic of today's media law lecture was investigative journalism. Investigative journalism is when, rather than reporting on well publicised news, journalists go out of their way to find stories that have not been reported or made public for various reasons; the journalist creates the news. Investigative journalism, I would imagine, is quite challenging work but it must be very rewarding when you are able to report on something that the rest of the world had no idea was happening. There have been cases in where investigative journalists have uncovered incredibly scandalous stories and have been able to make a real difference.

It is thought that Emile Zola (2/4/1840 - 29/9/1902) was the founder of investigative journalism. He risked his entire career in order to try and prove that Alfred Dreyfus, accused of spying for the Germans, was innocent. Zola wrote an article entitled 'J'accuse...! Lettre au President de la Rebublique.' (I accuse.. A letter to the President of the Republic.) The letter was published on the front of the daily paper L'Aurore on January 13th 1898. This was very risky for Zola because it meant he was publicly claiming that Dreyfus had been framed by French officials. He was convicted of criminal libel, but rather than face jail he went into hiding in England. The case is thought to be one of the first instances of investigative journalism.

Two of the most famous investigative journalists are Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein who were the journalists behind the Watergate scandal. On the 17th of June 1972 five men broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Evidence showed a link between the five men and the President at the time, Richard Nixon. Woodward and Bernstein took it upon themselves to find out what the story really was behind Watergate; what they found out shocked the nation. They found out that Nixon recorded almost all the conversations that he had because he suffered from paranoia. They managed to get hold of the tapes and came across a conversation in which Nixon could clearly be heard discussing how to cover up the Watergate scandal.

Woodward and Bernstein publicised their findings, revealing Nixon as a liar and a crook. This was, of course, incredibly embarrassing to Nixon. He was the first, and so far only, President to resign. It is an incredible achievement of the two journalists who single handedly shamed the President of the United States and forced him to resign.

The story of Woodward and Bernstein is legendary and was even made into a film called "All the President's men" starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford.

I first saw this film when I was about 10 years old and I have to admit it bored me mindless. As I learned about the Watergate scandal as part of my history course at school I decided to watch the film again; I loved it. Since then I have seen the film over 10 times and I am fascinated every time I watch it. I think that the story is incredibly inspiring, and is one of the things which sparked my interest in journalism.  

Another high profile where investigative journalists have been able to make a difference by rev

The effect of Thalidomide

ealing  scandal is in the Thalidomide case. Thalidomide was a sedative drug which was prescribed to many pregnant women in the 1960s who suffered from morning sickness. At the time Harry Evans was the editor of the Sunday Times and he had a team of highly successful investigative journalists, referred to as 'The Insight Team'. The Insight Team researched Thalidomide because they thought that they could prove that it caused birth defects in the children of women who had taken the drug. They proved their theory to be true and Thalidominde.

Again this case proves the power of investigative journalism. Without the Insight Team the effects of Thalidomide may have taken years and years longer, or perhaps never have been discovered.

Journalism can also be used to publicise stories in cases where justice has not been served accurately or at all. Take, for example, the case of the Omagh bombings. At the time the police were unable to charge anyone for causing the bombings, even though policemen on either side of the Irish boarder claimed to be certain as to who was responsible. They were not able to charge the suspected arsonist because they did not have any evidence that would show beyond reasonable doubt who was responsible. The police took the case to the BBC investigative show Panorama. Journalist, John Ware, investigated the case and exposed those responsible on the Panorama show in October of 2000. After being proved guilty on the programme, although it was not proven in a court of law, the RIRA retaliated by bombing the BBC. The five men who were responsible for this retaliation were arrested and sentenced to between 16 and 22 years in jail.

The Omagh case shows how investigative journalism can be used not only to expose atrocities, by also to make sure justice is served on those who are guilty but were not found guilty in a court of law. A similar situation happened was the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. After a £30 million court case, five men were cleared of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, even though the police, and majority of the population knew that the men were part of a racist group and that it was incredibly likely that it was them. However, once proven innocent in a court of law, individuals cannot be charged for the same offence again, and so there was no possibility of justice being served on the men. It is incredibly defamatory to call someone a murderer when they have been proven innocent, and any journalist who does so will be suseptible to a libel case against them.

In 1997 The Daily Mail printed this on their front cover:

All five of the men pictured had been proven innocent, however the Mail still positively identified them as the murderers stating "If we are wrong, let them sue us". This very public defamation of the men was an incredibly bold move by the Mail, which was applauded by the population. None of the five men sued the Mail, and their decision not to sue, in a way, proved to the public that they were guilty of the murder.

Investigative journalism can not only be used to expose those who have broken the law, it can also identify individuals who are going to commit crimes in the future. This was true in the case of the Secret Policeman. The Secret Policeman was a programme on Panorama in which journalist Mark Daly went undercover in a police academy to try to expose a trainee policeman who was a racist. As part of the investigation Daly needed to use subterfuge in order to gather evidence against the corrupt policeman. He used a hidden camera and was able to capture video evidence of the man admitting that he only joined the police force so that he would be able to accuse black people of crimes they did not commit.

Subterfuge is a risky method for a journalist to use and there are certain restrictions on when it can be used as a method of research:

1. It must be the only way to obtain the information
2. It must be in the public interest
3. It must be carried out under the permission of the head office - for example Ofcom.

If a journalist does not have permission then they are not able to use subterfuge, even if it is the only way to get the information and is n the public interest.

I think that investigative journalism is a risky, but ultimately worthwhile career because the possibilities are endless and you could end up exposes an injustice or cover a story that no one has ever covered before.

Joseph Addison

Joseph Addison was born in 1672 and died in 1719. He is often considered to be one of the first journalists because his work was largely social commentary on his observations, and he produced essays and articles with the intention of making a profit. The invention of the printing press was invaluable to Addison because it meant that he was able to produce his work on a "mass" scale rather than having only one copy. This allowed him to make numerous copies and sell them to an audience who had not experienced mass produced writing other than the Bible. The move away from Puritan society was very important to Addison's work because it meant that he was writing for a readership who wanted entertaining and informative writing.

Addison, along side Richard Steele introduced magazines into society. Steele created Tatler in 1709 and Addison contributed to it regularly. Steele and Addison produced the first daily newspaper called The Spectator. In preparation for the seminar this week I read issue #476 of The Spectator. I was surprised when I read the issue to find that it was written similarly to how we write today, and was always surprised to find it entertaining as well as insightful.

Addison discusses whether it is best to write with method or not. He states that of his work there are "some which are written with regularity and method, and other that run out into the wilderness of these compositions, which go by the name of Essays.' I understood this to mean that Addison only wrote with a plan in mind when producing his articles, and wrote in a slightly more relaxed way when composing his essays. However, he did explain that he thinks it is important to have method in writing. He also expanded on this saying that it is also best to have method in conversation. Addison believed that conversation was almost an art form in itself and that appropriate consideration was needed before engaging in it.

He gave the example of Tom Puzzle, a character who he created to represent particular types of people and behaviour he has observed. Addison explained how Tom Puzzle was not a master of conversation because he only had a small amount of knowledge on a few topics, and so would try and change the conversation to something that he was able to comment on. I found this point to be an accurate observation of some people in society as I have met a great number of people who behave in the same way as Tom Puzzle.

In Addison's time people who were stupid and couldn't hold intellectual conversation were ridiculed and I think that is also true of society today. Today we get enjoyment out of the stupidity of other people. For example, in the popular sitcom Friends, the character of Joey was entertaining because he was so stupid, and many other sitcoms have also used stupidity as a form of entertainment.



The character of Joey is obviously fictional, designed to be stupid for our amusement. Reality TV shows have created a new form of this entertainment by showing the public people who genuinely are completely unintellectual. Jade Goody is a classic example of this, but in her case, it was her stupidity which made her a celebrity in Britain and she earned an awful lot of money as result.



Addison's values of method an intelligence were the founding of his journalistic style of writing. He seems to have found a good balance of humour in his writing, although it is not the obvious humour we would expect to read in the media today. His humour is "classically English", by which I mean it is rather dry and sarcastic, much like his way of insulting people. Addison was a typical gentleman in the sense that he insulted people in his work in such a way that it would have been difficult to see that he was actually making an insult. For example, in his piece The Royal Exchange he states that he does "rather fancy my self like the old Philosopher, who upon being asked what country-man he was, replied that he was a citizen of the world." This very dry sense of humour was popular at the time and was a contributing factor in the success of his work, largely because the previous Puritan regime had not allowed for humour of any kind.

The Puritans had imposed a culture in which things such as humour, reading and fashioned were deemed immoral, with the exception of reading the Bible. This made citizens extremely oppressed, and meant that when Addison produced work that went against the old beliefs, it was found very exciting in comparison. In The Royal Exchange, Addison writes:

"The Single Dress of a Woman of Quality is often the Product of an hundred Climates. The Muff and the Fan come together from the different Ends of the Earth. The Scarf is sent from the Torrid Zone, and the Tippet from beneath the Pole. The Brocade Petticoat rises out of the Mines of Peru, and the Diamond Necklace out of the Bowels of Indostan"

This description of fashion was very popular with the readers at the time. Pieces such as this would appeal to men as well as women because everyone was very interested in fashion, after years of dull clothes in a Puritan culture. The fact that Addison wrote pieces which would also appeal to women meant that he was appealing to the largest readership he possibly could, which ultimately would make more money for him. Women at the time would buy a copy of The Spectator, for example, and meet in groups to read it together and discuss the topics. This became a social event and meant that Addison's could secure buyers for his future copies.

Addison wrote in a clear and entertaining way which won him a large readerships and allowed him to earn a lot of money in a way that no done had really previously.