Saturday, 27 June 2009
A Legend Never Dies
The news of Michael Jackson's death, for me, was both shocking but unsurprising. Here was a man who abused his body in every way imaginable; anorexia, a former drug addiction and an unhealthy fondness of recreating his facial features time and time again but somehow still seemed invincible to every person who had followed him through-out his stardom.
The saddening realisation to the public was that, afterall... he was only human.
Michael Jackson's music influenced every modern artist of today in some way and I believe if Michael had not risen to fame as that cheeky faced, afro headed boy in the late 60's, that music today would just not be what it is. He brought music to life and many of his songs are still relevent in the music scene today.
But where did it all go wrong for the self proclaimed "King of Pop" to justify the tabloids to re-brand him as "Wacko Jacko"? I believe that Michael's issues were deep rooted and personal, going back to his childhood where he was forced to perform and beaten by his father but one thing is for certain... a little bit of privacy in Michael's more vunerable years would not have gone a miss. Michael was faced with new stories being published about him day after day which soon encouraged him to go along with it and give the press something to write about, even claiming he slept in an Oxygen tank to stop the ageing process! It is unclear whether this is true but I would not be surprised if Michael had made some stories up when where the character of Jacko stopped and the person Michael Jackson began became unclear to the public and indeed himself.
I believe he was a genuine soul who was just mislead in life and failed to relate to people in the adult world and so living his life as a child to make up for lost time. The name "Michael Jackson" will be a household name for years to come, the rumours and the allegations will be forgotten, but the music and the legend will live on forever.
R.I.P Michael, gone but not forgotten x
The saddening realisation to the public was that, afterall... he was only human.
Michael Jackson's music influenced every modern artist of today in some way and I believe if Michael had not risen to fame as that cheeky faced, afro headed boy in the late 60's, that music today would just not be what it is. He brought music to life and many of his songs are still relevent in the music scene today.
But where did it all go wrong for the self proclaimed "King of Pop" to justify the tabloids to re-brand him as "Wacko Jacko"? I believe that Michael's issues were deep rooted and personal, going back to his childhood where he was forced to perform and beaten by his father but one thing is for certain... a little bit of privacy in Michael's more vunerable years would not have gone a miss. Michael was faced with new stories being published about him day after day which soon encouraged him to go along with it and give the press something to write about, even claiming he slept in an Oxygen tank to stop the ageing process! It is unclear whether this is true but I would not be surprised if Michael had made some stories up when where the character of Jacko stopped and the person Michael Jackson began became unclear to the public and indeed himself.
I believe he was a genuine soul who was just mislead in life and failed to relate to people in the adult world and so living his life as a child to make up for lost time. The name "Michael Jackson" will be a household name for years to come, the rumours and the allegations will be forgotten, but the music and the legend will live on forever.
R.I.P Michael, gone but not forgotten x
Friday, 3 April 2009
Barack Obama
I really do believe that in today's society where youths are totally out of control like never before (teenage knife and gun crime is soaring compared to as little as ten years ago) that America has adopted a shining light in Barack Obama. On his visit to Buckingham palace yesterday with wife Michelle, the couple took to the Queen so endearingly that her majesty reportly said "Now that we have met, won't you please stay in touch."
The president of America even presented the Queen with a gift... an IPod! What a way to bring the Monarch rocking into the 21st century! A brave present but received with charm and humour. This is why we need to fully support Barack Obama. He is so in touch with today's technological society that he may well be the perfect role model to bring our countries out of turmoil and brings MORALS back into lives of youngsters.
The President has definitely lived up to his "yes we can" attitude so far. Let's just hope that we see a quick turn around in the residents of 10 Downing Street!
The president of America even presented the Queen with a gift... an IPod! What a way to bring the Monarch rocking into the 21st century! A brave present but received with charm and humour. This is why we need to fully support Barack Obama. He is so in touch with today's technological society that he may well be the perfect role model to bring our countries out of turmoil and brings MORALS back into lives of youngsters.
The President has definitely lived up to his "yes we can" attitude so far. Let's just hope that we see a quick turn around in the residents of 10 Downing Street!
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Loving Uni!
I have had the best few days!!!!!
I spent yesterday on the beach in the sun taking pictures for Media Skills which I am looking forward to editing tomorrow :) Today we had a radio news day... and even though I am a retard who said "regulation" instead of "relegation" in the football news... I enjoyed it :) :)
Life is good right now...
I spent yesterday on the beach in the sun taking pictures for Media Skills which I am looking forward to editing tomorrow :) Today we had a radio news day... and even though I am a retard who said "regulation" instead of "relegation" in the football news... I enjoyed it :) :)
Life is good right now...
Monday, 9 March 2009
Why I Write...
I have just finished reading the 1946 short book by George Orwell, 'Why I Write', and to be honest... the book has had me questioning myself and why I write... which I guess is the point.
George Orwell believes that there are four main reasons that people write. These are;
1. Sheer egoism - the desire to seem clever and wanting your work to be talked about.
2. Aesthetic enthusiasm - desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed.
3. Historical impulse - desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.
4. Political purpose - desire to push the world in a certain direction and to alter other people's idea of the society they should be striving towards.
So which of these, as young budding journo's do we categorically fit into? Well the answer is up for debate but I believe that all of the reasons can be applied to some of us and at least one to everybody else.
Reading everybody's blogs I would say some of us are very interested in our work being noticed and praised by the lecturers (and in the working world, a publicist). Others are passionate about getting a point across in which they think is too valuable to miss to their peers. (Lucy Pilgrims attitude to grieving in her blog is a good example of this). Some are written with historical impulse to gather facts and indeed others are written with political purpose. (Andrew Emmerson :D).
I did notice that there is one reason for writing that Orwell did not mention directly in his book. This is writing for money. Having little passion for writing as such... just wanting to make a quid or two from it. He did however argue that egoistic writers share the same charicteristics as scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, successful business people etc. I think he may have been trying to say that egoistic writers are the ones in general who make a living from writing.
I'm still not sure why I write... maybe because if I didn't I would have a hard time passing this degree?? Answers on a postcard!
George Orwell believes that there are four main reasons that people write. These are;
1. Sheer egoism - the desire to seem clever and wanting your work to be talked about.
2. Aesthetic enthusiasm - desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed.
3. Historical impulse - desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.
4. Political purpose - desire to push the world in a certain direction and to alter other people's idea of the society they should be striving towards.
So which of these, as young budding journo's do we categorically fit into? Well the answer is up for debate but I believe that all of the reasons can be applied to some of us and at least one to everybody else.
Reading everybody's blogs I would say some of us are very interested in our work being noticed and praised by the lecturers (and in the working world, a publicist). Others are passionate about getting a point across in which they think is too valuable to miss to their peers. (Lucy Pilgrims attitude to grieving in her blog is a good example of this). Some are written with historical impulse to gather facts and indeed others are written with political purpose. (Andrew Emmerson :D).
I did notice that there is one reason for writing that Orwell did not mention directly in his book. This is writing for money. Having little passion for writing as such... just wanting to make a quid or two from it. He did however argue that egoistic writers share the same charicteristics as scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, successful business people etc. I think he may have been trying to say that egoistic writers are the ones in general who make a living from writing.
I'm still not sure why I write... maybe because if I didn't I would have a hard time passing this degree?? Answers on a postcard!
Monday, 23 February 2009
Gordon Brown holds cabinet meeting in Southampton
It was by pure coincidence I realised that Gordon Brown was holding a meeting in Southampton today. I happened to walk past the Southampton civic centre to witness the british home secretary, Jacqui Smith leaving the building. For the fourth time since Brown has been in power there has been a cabinet meeting held outside of London. Today the meeting was held to discuss more apprenticeship places being opened in hospitals and schools... but it is thought Brown took a minute to praise the British success at last night's Oscars though... good to see he has his priorities right at a time of a major economic break-down.
A-priori and Empiricism
Last weeks People and Politics lecture moved away from what I would call "safe territory" and we moved onto full on economic theories and concepts from the 17th and 18th century. I, like I'm sure most of you in our group spent the lecture very very confused trying to grasp on to the few aspects I actually could comprehend.
I didn't get most of it first time round but upon some brief nerding this is what I have come to understand;
Empiricism - A view that you can not believe something until you have experienced it first hand. Empiricism is often contrasted to rationalisation. Refusing to believe before seeing Vs Using common sense to eliminate the latter. I would say that today's society has both empiricist and rationalised values alike but today we lean towards empiricism in my opinion. In 1920's newspaper journalism, a big story about UFO's being spotted and a mediocre photo showing a dark object in the sky which may or may not very well be a UFO... would probably be believed and cause a local uproar. Todays newspaper consumers are much more active whilst reading the news. We have an opinion, we have our own views. We also have grown up in a world where crop circles, bleeding statues and ghosts have been created by hoaxers. It is easy to see why today as a community people choose to believe something is real after they have seen it, touched it, smelt it, sensed it.
John Locke is thought to be the founder of British Empiricism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InO9xLuutuU this is quite useful to explain empiricism furthur... apologies for the cheesy music!
Ok and now the harder concept to grasp of the two. I am actually going to go into this in the most basic terms as it has been a bitch to get my head around.
A-priori - The view that something will be believed to be true without evidence until there is reason to believe otherwise. I would like to suggest that religious people all hold a-priori views. Religious folk all believe in a God being present without evidence. There is no solid reasoning that suggests there is a heaven/hell society after death but if you are Christian I presume you believe regardless of any social doubts... I guess that's why it's called a "faith". But also it seems to me to seem A-PRIORI.
I didn't get most of it first time round but upon some brief nerding this is what I have come to understand;
Empiricism - A view that you can not believe something until you have experienced it first hand. Empiricism is often contrasted to rationalisation. Refusing to believe before seeing Vs Using common sense to eliminate the latter. I would say that today's society has both empiricist and rationalised values alike but today we lean towards empiricism in my opinion. In 1920's newspaper journalism, a big story about UFO's being spotted and a mediocre photo showing a dark object in the sky which may or may not very well be a UFO... would probably be believed and cause a local uproar. Todays newspaper consumers are much more active whilst reading the news. We have an opinion, we have our own views. We also have grown up in a world where crop circles, bleeding statues and ghosts have been created by hoaxers. It is easy to see why today as a community people choose to believe something is real after they have seen it, touched it, smelt it, sensed it.
John Locke is thought to be the founder of British Empiricism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InO9xLuutuU this is quite useful to explain empiricism furthur... apologies for the cheesy music!
Ok and now the harder concept to grasp of the two. I am actually going to go into this in the most basic terms as it has been a bitch to get my head around.
A-priori - The view that something will be believed to be true without evidence until there is reason to believe otherwise. I would like to suggest that religious people all hold a-priori views. Religious folk all believe in a God being present without evidence. There is no solid reasoning that suggests there is a heaven/hell society after death but if you are Christian I presume you believe regardless of any social doubts... I guess that's why it's called a "faith". But also it seems to me to seem A-PRIORI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
