What is Post- Murdoch future of the media?

For a while now, I have been more irritated by the way the media has been tirelessly covering the Phone Hacking Scandal than by the crimes they are actually reporting on. It's as if every other journalist has felt the need to jump on this self-righteous band wagon as if to prove their own wide-eyed innocence. When, ironically enough,the whole industry was probably vaguely aware of what was going on in the first place.


 Don't get me wrong, of course every story News International hacked open was so completely and utterly sick, but why did this even need to happen? Milly Dowler,9/11 victims, Hugh Grant - Why? Who cares about medical records and affairs? Sadly,the answer is we do. Our nation's inexhaustible hunger for scandal, celebrity sex and drug deals has fueled Murdoch's empire for years and has contributed to what the morally bankrupt system News International is today- or rather was.


But, for me, the big question that still remains is why phone hacking has transpired in to such a huge scandal anyway - when everyone has known for a long time that this is where tabloid newspapers find their stories. Perhaps News International was just a ticking time bomb sticking to a system which sells but eventually had to end when the world decided to open their eyes.Yes, journalism is about exposing the truth, but not truth that tears families apart, interferes with police investigations or gives parents hope that their little girl is still alive. Surely it is time for responsible journalism. 


After all this I still feel left thinking: do I really want to enter this world, do I want to become a writer, a journalist, a vulture? This scandal may have permanently scarred the reputation of British journalism forever, but after really thinking about it, this has actually made me more determined to become a writer, to become a part of the new media, post Murdoch. 

The changing nature of protest . 2011- Year of Revolution?

When I first heard about the protests in London at the end of last year I thought it was great. People were finally standing up to Government cuts, for what they believed in, and what they won't accept. After all, what is more important than education?


But after the graffiti A symbols began to appear around London, among the fire and the broken glass, my heart sank. What began as a protest to conserve an vital part of the British State, became an opportunity for balaclava-clad anarchists and public school boys alike to swing from flags and leave a trail of destruction cleared up by those who are actually subjected to job cuts. 


But then something happened to put it all in to persepctive. First Egypt, then Tunisia and Yemen and Libya- protests began spreading across the Middle East,bringing the realisation that petty conflicts in an incredibly fortunate Western society are comparatively insignificant. Students are not protesting for their freedom or livelihood in the same way rebel forces risk their lives. 


Egypt got their way, a moment in history, but as more and more blood is shed elsewhere and more lives are lost, Civil Wars are developing.  I feel quite sick that I ever felt excited by marches in London.


Protest in principle is a good thing but when shallow graves are being dug and men will not leave power, protest is war and destruction. The cause is right, but the consequences are so huge. People in Syria are fleeing as others fight for freedom. I was wrong, this is so much more than protest- it's bloody revolution.

Libya: A war to save the lives of an oppressed nation or a fight to conserve the West's oil supplies?

Libya: A war to save the lives of an oppressed nation or a fight to conserve the West's oil supplies? 

Will having less students studying at University due to rising fees break the backbone of our future society?

Will less students studying at University due to rising fees break the backbone of our future society? 

When the news is on, it seems to be constantly about cuts and deficit and how the country is planning to deal with it- but can we? 


Now, I'm no expert, but David Cameron and his Lib Dems appear to be scrambling for anything, anywhere to find somewhere to save a few million (be it the NHS or free cheese)- but isn't the whole point of recovering from a recession ensuring it never happens again? This Weimar Germany-style approach to the future, making as many short-term fixes as possible to sustain the maximum level of votes doesn't bode well. Never mind students, we may well have a Neo-Nazi uprising on our hands.

Yes, making students pay triple the current rate for their further education will save millions- but how does this actually help? Surely, getting the maximum amount of students through University and in to jobs, where they will actually begin to financially contribute to society makes more sense than leaving thousands of students with thousands of pounds in lifelong debt; placing a further financial burden on society. But, maybe that's just me.

 Worse still, in classic Conservative fashion,the move predominately benefits the rich of our free society. But,of course, in honour of political correctness they have shoved in a claim to help the poorest of families, to subdue the media and anarchists alike. But where does this leave the millions of families who earn too much to claim help, but earn too little to cope with the financial burden of sending their children to University? People say the class system is dead, but why is it that the living standards of the average earner has become a no man's land, where no Tory cares nor dares to explore (for fear of damaging his spotless suit and already not so spotless reputation).

Maybe limiting the amount of students allowed in to Universities each year would be a positive thing. But, surely, University places should be allocated on intelligence and potential rather than the size of a parent's pay slip.