Hume would of thought that?

David Hume was an empirical philosopher who had a strong belief that the world exists though 'synthesised' mental phenomena.  For this very reason, Hume opposed the views of Decartes, an Idealist philosopher.
Hume was thought to be an Atheist, though through fear of death, this is something he never openly admitted.

Hume links to Journalism in a really important way and the main argument that is a crucial point to learn is that as journalists we must never jump to conclusions. This idea is derived from Hume's theory of causation. He believed that causation did not appear in nature and is actually a mental illusion that humans perceive to be real.
He offered an example to illustrate this...

The sun does neither rise nor set, this is a mental illusion. What is actually happening, is the Earth is orbiting the Sun making it appear to humans that the Sun is moving across the sky as the goes on.

He also provided a very famous example to explain how we can never really be completely sure that causation exists, he explained this through Billiard Balls. Hume explained how we would see a white ball hit into the red ball and would then automatically assume that the red ball's movement was a result of the impact from the white ball. Hume argued we cannot be sure that the impact was a result of the red ball's movement and suggested that an extraneous force could have been responsible and that the timing for this event coincided with the impact of the white ball perfectly. In my opinion, this argument by Hume is one that is very difficult to challenge as he is correct in saying that we cannot ever be 100% sure when we make this assumptions.

Hume was against synthetic logic and Induction. This is the idea that from past events and regular patterns that appear in our life we can make informed guesses about what might happen in the future. For example,  the sun rose today and yesterday so this must mean the sun will rise tomorrow. This is something Hume felt was inaccurate and he believed that past events such as the sun rising offered no accurate reason why the sun should rise tomorrow.

Hume took the work of John Locke and developed his ideas further, this is why Hume's work bears a lot of ideas that were mentioned by Locke in particular how knowledge is gained through experience and sensation. Hume developed this by suggesting that impressions are objects in our life or experiences that we have seen or have made us feel a particular way, these are then used at a later point to form an idea often when we are reminded of the impression or we reflect upon it. He also believed that many of our ideas come from our senses and he believed that causation acted almost like a seventh sense. From the reading, Bertrand Russell uses 'taste' to try and explain this. He said that when we look at an apple, we will naturally expect it to taste a particular way. This has happened through association. Hume suggests that there is no logical reason for us to assume that the apple will taste a particular way, just because it has every time we have eaten an apple in the past. He claimed that there is no reason why the next time we bite into an apple it will not taste of roast beef. Through association and habit, we assume there will be a connection but of course, according to Hume there might not be.

According to the views of Hume, things are only happening in the universe because humans perceive them to be. This is something I agree with, if I take colours for example, there is no real way of knowing we all as humans see exactly the same colours or if for instance I said 'emerald green', you would understand 'emerald green' to be the exact same colour as me. Colours are simply what we interpret them to be.
Hume did however mention that for more complex ideas, impressions are not always necessary as our brains have the power to synthesise. This meaning, that we are clearly able to imagine and winged horse because we have the impression of wings already along with a horse and we can put these together:

Wings + Horse = Winged Horse.

This idea then led him to question whether impressions were necessary at all. He used an example of a thirty year old man with perfect eyesight, he explained how the man had seen every shade of blue expect for one whilst he had been growing up. The man is then presented with a spectrum of all the shades of blue ranging from the lightest to the darkest, however, there is a gap where the shade he has not seen belongs. Hume questions whether it would be possible for the man to imagine what this shade of blue will look like using the impressions of all the other shades he has seen. In this occasion, I do agree that impressions are perhaps not always needed to imagine such objects, however some impressions are otherwise we would not have the ability to synthesise.

Most empiricists would agree with Hume by saying that causation cannot be accurately proved to exist, however there are some instances that would leave the the prospect of doubting causation absurd. For example, the way pain is usually followed by a cry. Although not impossible, that an extraneous force could have caused the cry, it seems unlikely.

I think I have learnt lots of knowledge from Hume and it certainly has made me ponder over the conclusions I make on an everyday basis. Perhaps, I will have to limit it somewhat though, after all, the idea of dismissing causation completely is enough to drive anyone crazy.

Media Law - Copyright & Investigative Journalism

Copyright has existed for over 200 years and the 1911 Copyright Act prevents another individual directly copying already published work and claiming that it is their own. This is a Civil Law and one that is important for Journalists to not only follow themselves but in many ways is a law they should also be grateful of.
However, there is a catch. Although, produced or published work cannot be directly copied; ideas can never be copyrighted meaning that so long as the idea is not made into formal work, absolutely anyone can use your idea(s) and make it their own. As annoying this may seem, it can work as an advantage for Journalists as inspiration for news and information can be gained from others.
Any information found on the internet, in published books or in other form of published work must not be copied directly as this is a breach of the 1911 Copyright Act.
There are some occasions when 'Fair Dealing' is permitted. This essentially involves you identically copying someone's work, e.g song lyrics etc but for the purpose to review. When adding comments or producing a review for someone, this is the only instance when you are allowed to copy another individual's work exactly.

Investigative Journalism was the topic that was discussed in today's Media Law lecture and one I found of interest. The definition for 'Journalism' is essentially a business in which we as Journalists sell information to the general public. Investigative Journalism differs as the Journalists find the information to report themselves. 'Subtifuge' is a key concept in Investigative Journalism and refers to the 'camera in a bag job'. This is a technique that can be used by Journalists to gain information without the individual it is involving being aware that they are under observation. There are however, three main rules that Journalists must obey in order for Subtifuge to go ahead. 1. The story must be completely free from malice, 2. the Journalist must have permission from OFCOM or the BBC and 3. It must be the only way that the necessary information could be obtained.
'Trawling' is not permitted. This would involve the act of having a hidden camera or tape recorder in a public place without a specific reason in hope of randomly finding a news story.
When Subtifuge is performed accurately, it can be very successful as proved in past cases.
'The Secret Policeman' was aired on Channel 4 as a documentary and showed Mark Daly, a Journalist for the BBC working undercover as a policeman in Manchester to investigate whether there were corrupt officers in the force.  Below is the link to watch the documentary shown on Google Videos.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5551329695583587541#

His work resulted in several policeman being removed from the force and proved a triumph for Journalists.

'The Evidence Gap'was an issue that was also discussed at the lecture. There are two types, the first occurs within a criminal case in which in order to convict an individual the jury must unanimously believe they are guilty 'beyond any reasonable doubt'. This of course cannot be proved exactly, there will always be an element in doubt within any court case. This links back to HCJ and philosopher, Decartes. 'I think therefore I am.'
Decartes is famous for his Cartesian Doubt theory in which it is possible to doubt everything you think you know, except your own mind. This means that it is not really possible to ever convict an individual 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The second type of  'Evidence Gap' is found within Civil Law cases in which there is a lack of evidence and instead a reliance on probability/likelihood. For example, if a Journalist is involved within a libel case so long as they have caused the person within the story to be potentially shunned or avoided, or potentially at risk to losing their job, this is enough evidence for the Journalist to lose in that particular case.

I found this lecture very interesting and made me aware of the different techniques that can be used within Journalism. As ever, I am looking keen to learn more.
For now, watch this space.

My First Seminar Paper

Below is the work I produced for my first seminar paper, some of it is written in note form but that was mainly to prompt me with further ideas. I felt like I enjoyed reading Addison, and I can't speak for anyone else but I also felt it offered a nice change - the reading was written in fairly modern language meaning it could be understood in less time. Enjoy - 

Joseph Addison – The Spectator

In the opening lines of The Spectator, Addison states that among his writings he adopts two styles. Some are of ‘Regularity and Method’; this I infer as being empirical/ factual or in other words something that another individual could understand and comprehend with ease whilst the other style is ‘Essay’ based and has a much more Idealist approach. He explains that in the first style, this format has structure and more often than not Addison knows exactly what his thought process is before he writes this down. On contrary to the latter, ‘Essay’ format is more fluid and has less structure; it can often lead to opinions and gaining answers through a figuration process. (Something that another individual may disagree with or struggle to understand.)

He offers examples of philosophers who follow both styles of writing: Seneca and Montagine follow ‘Essay’ whilst Aristotle and Tully support Method.

Appears to be in favour of ‘Method’. ‘Method is of advantage to a work, both to the writer and the reader.’ He explains that if a piece of writing/work is carefully planned and thought out, it will raise questions (notably more intelligible questions!) that may not be necessarily linked to the subject but offer interpretation and meaning, perhaps gaining a better insight than writing which lacks order and connection. This makes sense, for example if you were to prepare some work on an area that you were unfamiliar with and did not produce any research, somebody who had done research; they would hold a more accurate and detailed account.

He explains that the reader gains advantages from reading methodical data – it is easy for him to read and he will retain it for a long time.

“He comprehends everything easily, takes it in with pleasure and retains it long.”

He further explains that ‘Method’ is not necessarily needed in everyday conversation so long as other individuals can interpret the meaning you are trying to create. He states that there is ‘ not one Dispute in ten that is managed in those Schools of Politics, where, after the first three sentences, the question is not lost.”

He explains that a man who cannot methodise his thoughts is basically invisible and his thoughts and ideas become lost.

Refers to Tom Puzzle, he claims Puzzle is one of the most immethodical philosophers he has come across. Addison explains that his ‘sufficient’ knowledge but is pitied by the idea that he has not been involved in more education. “It is a pity he has had so much Learning, or that he has not had a great deal more.”  I interpret as though Addison is suggesting that had he had more education or gained further qualifications, Puzzle may be more coherent. Addison claims that Puzzle is an Atheist and judging my Addisons remarks, this is something that I feel he disapproves of. ‘…finds a great many things to blame in the Constitution of his Country, and gives shrewd imitations that he does not believe in another world.”

It seems that Tom Puzzle is a man admired by those who are beneath him in status; however, he is not favoured by those gifted with more intelligence. Mentions Will Dry towards the conclusion; this is a man that is very logically minded and tries to ‘help’ Puzzle be more logical with his work/writings.

The Royal Exchange –

First paragraph or so suggests his love and admiration for The Royal Exchange. Explains the basic point behind trading with foreign countries and in one sentence compares them to that of the politic world: ‘Factors in the trading world are what ambassadors are in the politic world; they negotiate affairs and conclude affairs etc’. Suggests how he likes the trading business and in a rather humorous way explains how it almost seems like he can switch nationalities due to the sheer number of ministers from different walks of life that he engages with. Claims that a happy and wealthy country makes him happy – so much so that his level of joy causes him to shed tears. This, to Addison, provides evidence why he favours the Royal Exchange (it means that the country is provided with items necessary i.e through foreign trading and in turn creating wealth.)

Addison goes on to suggest that as a nation we rely on foreign trading and often sources from different regions/countries compliment each other whilst creating what it is we need. He provides example of this ‘The food is often grown in one country and the sauce in another. The fruits of Portugal are corrected by the produce of Barbados.’  

I found the range of exaggerated examples amusing –

‘The single dress of a woman of quality is a product of a hundred climates’

‘ The petticoat rises out of the mines of Peru, whilst the diamond necklace comes out of the bowels of Indostan.’

Claims that if our country did not have foreign exchange, it would be an unhappy, somewhat miserable place and would not be as wealthy. A lot of what we consider to be ‘ours’ has actually been imported from other countries in the past and has ‘been polished in our English Gardens’.

‘Nature furnishes us with the bare necessities of life but traffic gives us a great variety and at the same time supplies us with everything that is convenient and ornamental.’ From what I can infer from this quote, Addison is suggesting that although our country supplies with good produce, items that we need, we gain BETTER sources and supplies from other countries and by using trafficking we can gain produce and materials that compliment each other meaning that we are as successfully and prosperous as we can be.

Again, Addison provides a humorous statement by saying that another advantage of trafficking is that we can gain the fruits and produce from other countries but we do not have to endure the weather/climate in order to grow such items. Bizarre?

Trafficking as a whole ‘knits’ mankind together, it also allows us to form (what Addison describes as) an ‘empire’. Not only can we gain foreign produce but we can meet other people and their land meaning that the value of our country is ultimately increased. 

Peter Cole's Take on Newspapers.

Having read the articles produced by Peter Cole, I found his views and his writing style easy to follow and interesting. However, he does refer to Broadsheet newspapers as 'serious' newspapers suggesting that Tabloid newspapers are not. I feel that the two formats simply have different ways of writing, they supply different types of content and as a result are writing for different audiences, but this is something that does not make them any less serious than The Times or The Independent, for example. Broadsheets tend to be more neutral and do not contain celebrity news, but they are also newspapers read by those exceeding the age of 35, in that way, it would be not suitable and best left to the Tabloids.

Recently, there has been a panic within society about the decline in newspapers and the controversial predictions on whether the production of newspapers will come to an end, with the internet being their replacement. Cole touches on this and freely admits that there has been a fall in newspaper sales, however, he does insist that this is a gradual process (much to my relief, as I like having a newspaper to read whilst eating my lunch!) He stated that   around 11.7 million newspapers are during the week whilst 12.5 million are sold on Sundays. This I found interesting, but does make sense as Sunday is the day that most people have off from work and are more likely to have time to sit down and engage with the world's news on that particular day. Aside of this, Sunday is the day that all the freebie supplements arrive, for example 'Fabulous' magazine found inside the News of the World.
Cole mentions how many people have one paper they love to read, maybe it's one that they have been brought up to have on their coffee table, one that their parents love or one that they simply enjoy but the point being that most people rarely read two papers on the same day without a reason for doing so. This, from my experiences seems to be true. For example, my grandparents for as long as I can remember have always without fail bought The Sun each day. This may seem odd as it is usually full of the latest celebrity gossip, but it is hard to deny that most people do not enjoy reading gossip and to many people this is sometimes enjoyable. (After all, what with The Sun being the best selling newspapers, they must be doing some thing right for British consumers!) My parents however, read The Guardian or The Times but never usually anything else. This, I think goes to show that Peter Cole could be right about that.

Cole explains with regards to Sunday newspapers, that these are embedded into our culture and is something that will always remain even if the nature of our Sunday is dramatically changed. This may be true as linked to what I said earlier, Sunday is the one day a week which most people are likely to be free from work and have more time to read making this an enjoyable time when they do engage with their favourite Sunday newspaper.
He also suggests that Saturday papers are imitations of the successful Sunday newspapers, as they too provide small supplements on various different topics of interest including property, finance, G2 (found in the Guardian), technology etc and Cole suggests that this offers some good reading for the weekend. I feel this is true, and I like the style that many broadsheet newspapers adopt where each section is covered in a 'miniature' version making easy reading. I'm learning to appreciate all the national newspapers for what they do and their viewpoints. I have to say I like reading The Guardian and all the mini pull outs that cover the latest Apple 'Apps', I like reading the 'Fe-Mail' section of The Daily Mail and I think everyone has a soft spot for The Sun now and again. Cole has helped me understand about newspapers and media as a business and how successful they really are. I feel I have a better knowledge now on the background of many of the newspapers mentioned in his articles and overall found it very interesting. 

A Visit To Winchester Law Courts...

I have to say that I really underestimated how amazing observing a court case would really be. I have never been inside a court room before and as far as the room goes, it was exactly what I was expecting. The judge, individuals in the press box scribbling furiously, the jury and of course the individuals accused were give or take a few features, what I was expecting to see.  However what I did not expect, was the feeling I felt when listening to the shocking details of a murder trial.

It almost seemed surreal sitting in the presence of people who were accused of such a crime and actually being able to hear first hand of the questions being asked and the individuals responses to these. It dawned on me how difficult it must be to be asked to become a member of the jury service, and as I looked around the room I could see how so many of them were writing very fast trying to capture every detail. I also realised how (for want of a better word) 'normal' these people were. They were all dressed in normal clothes, drinking water and listening intensively, I suddenly considered that perhaps one day that could be me.

On television, you often see clips from court trials, perhaps in soap operas and various other shows of a similar nature and what I found interesting was observing whether the people involved in the court case behaved and spoke how they often get portrayed. To some extent they do, the clear cut voices of the prosecutor and how they wear curly, white wigs and it has to be said on some occasions they can seem intimidating. However, the judge spoke (although clearly) very calmly and at times often asked the individual within the box if they felt okay to continue. This is something that perhaps television neglects to show. When I first entered the public gallery, I felt unsure where to look but as the case went on, I relaxed slightly and really began to appreciate how fascinating it really is. It may sound slightly odd but I would love to go again and watch a case for the whole duration as I think the experience I had was one I will not forget for some time.