30 October 2009
Skills test II
View Four Preston news stories in a larger map
This custom Google Map shows four news stories from the 29th October edition of the Lancashire Evening Post. Each icon gives some insight to the story and there are brief explanatory captions, as well as links to the original story and one related link.
29 October 2009
Death toll in Afghanistan still rising.
The number of British soldiers dying in Afghanistan per year is continuing to escalate according to figures released by the Ministry of Defence.
Conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq have raged on since 2001, yet despite the death toll in Iraq plummeting, Afghanistan’s continues to rise.
Whilst the figures released by the MOD only go up to July, 2009 is already the bloodiest of the war so far.
Afghanistan was invaded in 2001 as a response to 9/11 in a relatively bloodless campaign until 2006. A staggering 85 soldiers killed there this year, almost half of the 222 dead as a result of the whole conflict so far.
This compares unfavourably with the war in Iraq, which began in 2003, with that year its peak of violence. A total of 179 British soldiers have been killed there since, only one of which was this year.
Guardian data store: http://www.guardian.co.uk/data-store
MOD figures: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/17/afghanistan-casualties-dead-wounded-british-data
Conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq have raged on since 2001, yet despite the death toll in Iraq plummeting, Afghanistan’s continues to rise.
Whilst the figures released by the MOD only go up to July, 2009 is already the bloodiest of the war so far.
Afghanistan was invaded in 2001 as a response to 9/11 in a relatively bloodless campaign until 2006. A staggering 85 soldiers killed there this year, almost half of the 222 dead as a result of the whole conflict so far.
This compares unfavourably with the war in Iraq, which began in 2003, with that year its peak of violence. A total of 179 British soldiers have been killed there since, only one of which was this year.
Guardian data store: http://www.guardian.co.uk/data-store
MOD figures: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/17/afghanistan-casualties-dead-wounded-british-data
24 October 2009
Question Time? Target practice.
I'm sure that anyone who reads this blog will have seen Question Time, starring none other than our very own Nick Griffin.
Nick Griffin, that is, the leader of the BNP.
What an utterly pointless exercise this was.
This programme was a farce, an utter farce.
I am no fan of the British National Party. My fiancée is Asian, and I used to be so far left that I nearly voted for the Socialists.
But putting Nick Griffin in the figurative stocks and pounding him with sponges (well, questions) is going to achieve absolutely nothing. In fact, it's counter-productive.
Nick Griffin is a politician, and like any politician he will bend the truth and he will answer questions indirectly. These are two things it would appear that he did frequently on Question Time, but they're also things that other people on the same programme seem to have been doing, for as long as it has existed.
Making Griffin a target for a crowd of people is not only exactly what he wants, seeing as you attract attention to him, but it makes him sympathetic. This is the last thing we want to do if we want to stop him from gaining even more power by the next general election.
There have been discussions on the uni campus before about how if there's an association of BNP supporting students, they shouldn't be allowed to meet together in a uni building.
Of course they should be allowed, they have the right to have those viewpoints, as reprehensible as so many of us find it.
But the stupidest thing is, putting him on the programme with such a wide audience gives Griffin the opportunity to actually make some decent points.
The Qu'ran really does say some of that awful stuff in it. The Bible says some equally ridiculous stuff in it too, such as that when a woman is on her period she should stay indoors and sit on a silk pillow, not allowed to touch anyone or anything.
The BNP shouldn't be given this kind of platform. But they have the right to it. And if they didn't have that right, we'd live in far worse a country than we do right now.
A member of the Welsh Parliament (or a Welsh member of Parliament, I forget which) described this programme as an early Christmas present for the BNP, and that's just what it is.
Nick Griffin, that is, the leader of the BNP.
What an utterly pointless exercise this was.
This programme was a farce, an utter farce.
I am no fan of the British National Party. My fiancée is Asian, and I used to be so far left that I nearly voted for the Socialists.
But putting Nick Griffin in the figurative stocks and pounding him with sponges (well, questions) is going to achieve absolutely nothing. In fact, it's counter-productive.
Nick Griffin is a politician, and like any politician he will bend the truth and he will answer questions indirectly. These are two things it would appear that he did frequently on Question Time, but they're also things that other people on the same programme seem to have been doing, for as long as it has existed.
Making Griffin a target for a crowd of people is not only exactly what he wants, seeing as you attract attention to him, but it makes him sympathetic. This is the last thing we want to do if we want to stop him from gaining even more power by the next general election.
There have been discussions on the uni campus before about how if there's an association of BNP supporting students, they shouldn't be allowed to meet together in a uni building.
Of course they should be allowed, they have the right to have those viewpoints, as reprehensible as so many of us find it.
But the stupidest thing is, putting him on the programme with such a wide audience gives Griffin the opportunity to actually make some decent points.
The Qu'ran really does say some of that awful stuff in it. The Bible says some equally ridiculous stuff in it too, such as that when a woman is on her period she should stay indoors and sit on a silk pillow, not allowed to touch anyone or anything.
The BNP shouldn't be given this kind of platform. But they have the right to it. And if they didn't have that right, we'd live in far worse a country than we do right now.
A member of the Welsh Parliament (or a Welsh member of Parliament, I forget which) described this programme as an early Christmas present for the BNP, and that's just what it is.
16 October 2009
Leggings.
Sorry, Olivia, but...
Fashion is stupid.
Fashions as far back as... forever, have been stupid. People will do anything to be in style, and this has led to some utterly idiotic trends in the past.
Look no farther than any 1980s music video, each one a horrifying collision of asymmetrical haircuts, neon and chain-link fences, to see my point.
There was a period where I thought that our generation had squeaked by without too many hideously embarassing trends to look back on in a few years.
But then emo happened.
(No, not emo, emo!).
But no, as if floppy fringes and idiotically tight skinny jeans weren't enough, this year's dumb fashion choice du jour is... leggings.
Leggings.
That is to say, tights, but a bit thicker.
Everywhere you look now, people are wearing leggings and thinking that constitutes being fully dressed from the waist down.
And not just scandalously short dresses and leggings, either. I'm starting to see people wearing cardigans and leggings and thinking this means they're decent.
How is this possible? Leggings leave exactly nothing to the imagination. It's ridiculous.
I hesitate to use the phrase which properly describes it, but let's just say we're seeing a lot of outlines to things we shouldn't be seeing without at least paying for dinner first.
Honestly, I feel embarassed being near people wearing them. I seriously feel like I should avert my eyes the entire time.
It's like being shoved into the girls' locker room against your will, all the time.
So come on girls. Show some class. Leggings are not trousers, they are leggings. You're supposed to wear something over them.
Fashion is stupid.
Fashions as far back as... forever, have been stupid. People will do anything to be in style, and this has led to some utterly idiotic trends in the past.
Look no farther than any 1980s music video, each one a horrifying collision of asymmetrical haircuts, neon and chain-link fences, to see my point.
There was a period where I thought that our generation had squeaked by without too many hideously embarassing trends to look back on in a few years.
But then emo happened.
(No, not emo, emo!).
But no, as if floppy fringes and idiotically tight skinny jeans weren't enough, this year's dumb fashion choice du jour is... leggings.
Leggings.
That is to say, tights, but a bit thicker.
Everywhere you look now, people are wearing leggings and thinking that constitutes being fully dressed from the waist down.
And not just scandalously short dresses and leggings, either. I'm starting to see people wearing cardigans and leggings and thinking this means they're decent.
How is this possible? Leggings leave exactly nothing to the imagination. It's ridiculous.
I hesitate to use the phrase which properly describes it, but let's just say we're seeing a lot of outlines to things we shouldn't be seeing without at least paying for dinner first.
Honestly, I feel embarassed being near people wearing them. I seriously feel like I should avert my eyes the entire time.
It's like being shoved into the girls' locker room against your will, all the time.
So come on girls. Show some class. Leggings are not trousers, they are leggings. You're supposed to wear something over them.
13 October 2009
Faking it in journalism
Not twenty minutes ago, my Print Journalism Practice lecture was completed. The lecture constituted a list of invaluable tips for interviewing as a journalist, such as checking the facts and doing your homework ahead of time.
On the way home, I discussed with everyone's favourite Cambridge native some of the things that weren't mentioned in the lecture that might be useful.
As a music journalist myself, I had one big tip - contextualise what you're doing.
My somewhat cynical tip I've given to other music journos before is that our job is 50% knowing what you're talking about and 50% pretending that you do. But I think maybe that's more accurate than I'd otherwise like to admit.
Yesterday on our way to another lecture, an amusing argument broke out amongst my friends and I over whether Trivium sound like Megadeth.
I am no fan of either band. I listen to plenty of Metallica - though not enough to call myself a fan, my favourite song is 'Mama Said' after all - but never Megadeth. And Trivium I just hated from the few notes of their music I had heard.
However, through my hours of background reading online and in press releases, I know enough about both bands to distinguish between the two without even knowing their music.
Megadeth are icons of thrash, probably second only behind Metallica themselves. They've been around since the 1980s and they still sell respectable amounts of records.
Trivium have existed for about a week and a half, aren't particularly acclaimed and are infamous among most 'real' metal fans for sounding like a rubbish version of Metallica.
I'm not about to kick at Trivium here, nor am I going to defend them, because whether or not the above statement is true is irrelevant. The point is, public opinion is against them.
If I was to write a biography of them in ten years time, the early chapters would involve discussion of how much 'real' metal fans hated them alot of the time.
Megadeth are hugely respected, Trivium are not; Megadeth are original, Trivium are not. They may have some similarities in sound at a basic level - and to the untrained ear - but they are by no means the same group.
Now this may all seem a bit roundabout, but it illustrates my point pretty well. I could contribute to this argument - and indeed write a blog post - despite having virtually no knowledge of either group.
Knowing historical context is vital in music, and not knowing it can make you easily look like an idiot. This is something even mainstream news sources and papers get wrong - such as when E! news managed to refer to Nirvana's Nevermind as their debut album.
So there you have it. My big tip for music - or at least, creative media - journalists; know what you're talking about even if you don't know what you're talking about.
On the way home, I discussed with everyone's favourite Cambridge native some of the things that weren't mentioned in the lecture that might be useful.
As a music journalist myself, I had one big tip - contextualise what you're doing.
My somewhat cynical tip I've given to other music journos before is that our job is 50% knowing what you're talking about and 50% pretending that you do. But I think maybe that's more accurate than I'd otherwise like to admit.
Yesterday on our way to another lecture, an amusing argument broke out amongst my friends and I over whether Trivium sound like Megadeth.
I am no fan of either band. I listen to plenty of Metallica - though not enough to call myself a fan, my favourite song is 'Mama Said' after all - but never Megadeth. And Trivium I just hated from the few notes of their music I had heard.
However, through my hours of background reading online and in press releases, I know enough about both bands to distinguish between the two without even knowing their music.
Megadeth are icons of thrash, probably second only behind Metallica themselves. They've been around since the 1980s and they still sell respectable amounts of records.
Trivium have existed for about a week and a half, aren't particularly acclaimed and are infamous among most 'real' metal fans for sounding like a rubbish version of Metallica.
I'm not about to kick at Trivium here, nor am I going to defend them, because whether or not the above statement is true is irrelevant. The point is, public opinion is against them.
If I was to write a biography of them in ten years time, the early chapters would involve discussion of how much 'real' metal fans hated them alot of the time.
Megadeth are hugely respected, Trivium are not; Megadeth are original, Trivium are not. They may have some similarities in sound at a basic level - and to the untrained ear - but they are by no means the same group.
Now this may all seem a bit roundabout, but it illustrates my point pretty well. I could contribute to this argument - and indeed write a blog post - despite having virtually no knowledge of either group.
Knowing historical context is vital in music, and not knowing it can make you easily look like an idiot. This is something even mainstream news sources and papers get wrong - such as when E! news managed to refer to Nirvana's Nevermind as their debut album.
So there you have it. My big tip for music - or at least, creative media - journalists; know what you're talking about even if you don't know what you're talking about.
6 October 2009
No-one gets The Beatles Remasters
On the 9th of September 2009 - 09.09.09 if you're counting - every single Beatles studio album, plus the Past Masters singles collection, was re-released in a remastered form.
Yesterday I purchased the remastered Revolver and a while back I reviewed a sample of the remasters for www.rockmidgets.com.
Now maybe I'm biased just because of the angle my review took. But am the only one who thinks that literally every single other review has totally missed the point?
Every review I read, be it in the Times or on Pitchfork (don't get me started on how much I despise them) has reviewed the albums one by one based on their merits as records. How completely pointless.
We all know The Beatles were probably the greatest band ever. They were pioneering, they were brilliant, they've sold literally a billion records - what more can you say about them?
These releases are about the mastering. The first four or five albums have only previously been available in mono anyway, that's why they were re-released. We don't need telling again that Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is one of the greatest albums ever made. Tell us how they sound.
They sound great, by the way.
So, I'm going to shamelessly self-promote and say read my review, because mine is the only review that addresses these recordings the way they should be addressed.
Yesterday I purchased the remastered Revolver and a while back I reviewed a sample of the remasters for www.rockmidgets.com.
Now maybe I'm biased just because of the angle my review took. But am the only one who thinks that literally every single other review has totally missed the point?
Every review I read, be it in the Times or on Pitchfork (don't get me started on how much I despise them) has reviewed the albums one by one based on their merits as records. How completely pointless.
We all know The Beatles were probably the greatest band ever. They were pioneering, they were brilliant, they've sold literally a billion records - what more can you say about them?
These releases are about the mastering. The first four or five albums have only previously been available in mono anyway, that's why they were re-released. We don't need telling again that Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is one of the greatest albums ever made. Tell us how they sound.
They sound great, by the way.
So, I'm going to shamelessly self-promote and say read my review, because mine is the only review that addresses these recordings the way they should be addressed.
5 October 2009
Five tips for internet headline writing
In today's Digital Newsroom workshops at UCLan we've been discussing the top tips for internet headline writing, based on this article by Jakob Nielsen.
Having read through the article, and working with Olivia, we've come up with five tip-top top tips for internet headline writing.
1. Use as few words as possible - Headlines are meant to be brief, so that you can get the picture quickly, like in this headline. It tells you everything in five-words, although I suppose one of them is hyphenated.
2. Make every word mean something - Headlines cannot waste words. That means no adjectives, no 'the' or 'a' or 'be'. Take this headline. It's a quote, so every word counts there, and it doesn't even bother to say 'Prime Minister,' it instead says 'PM' to save even more space. Not an ounce of fat.
3. Reveal as much information as possible - A headline should tell you all you need to know, as this headline about a bombing in the Pakistan branch of the UN indicates. I've heard nothing about this story - mainly because my housemate Olivia stole my paper this morning - but that headline has told me virtually everything about the basics of the story in six words.
4. Search engine optimisation - This is apparently a point of contention for many papers, a source of pride to not need to be 'search engine friendly,' but using key words that'll be virtually unique to your headline will make it a lot easier for your article or story to show up. This is why band names like "A" are stupid because of being virtually impossible to find on Google, whereas searching for The Mad Capsule Markets, you know exactly what you're going to get. Those may not be headlines, but you get the point.
5. Headlines should be understandable out of context - For an example of this, look no further than the title of this very post. You're at no loss for knowing what this post is about, all the information is there and you know exactly what's contained within. If you don't deliver on what you promise in a headline, your readership will dwindle as people stop believing your headlines.
Having read through the article, and working with Olivia, we've come up with five tip-top top tips for internet headline writing.
1. Use as few words as possible - Headlines are meant to be brief, so that you can get the picture quickly, like in this headline. It tells you everything in five-words, although I suppose one of them is hyphenated.
2. Make every word mean something - Headlines cannot waste words. That means no adjectives, no 'the' or 'a' or 'be'. Take this headline. It's a quote, so every word counts there, and it doesn't even bother to say 'Prime Minister,' it instead says 'PM' to save even more space. Not an ounce of fat.
3. Reveal as much information as possible - A headline should tell you all you need to know, as this headline about a bombing in the Pakistan branch of the UN indicates. I've heard nothing about this story - mainly because my housemate Olivia stole my paper this morning - but that headline has told me virtually everything about the basics of the story in six words.
4. Search engine optimisation - This is apparently a point of contention for many papers, a source of pride to not need to be 'search engine friendly,' but using key words that'll be virtually unique to your headline will make it a lot easier for your article or story to show up. This is why band names like "A" are stupid because of being virtually impossible to find on Google, whereas searching for The Mad Capsule Markets, you know exactly what you're going to get. Those may not be headlines, but you get the point.
5. Headlines should be understandable out of context - For an example of this, look no further than the title of this very post. You're at no loss for knowing what this post is about, all the information is there and you know exactly what's contained within. If you don't deliver on what you promise in a headline, your readership will dwindle as people stop believing your headlines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
