It certainly was a ‘Red Letter Day‘ for the Pet Shop Boys yesterday, following the announcement that they were to receive the Outstanding Contribution to Music Award at next year’s BRIT Awards.

During a press release yesterday morning, the UK’s recorded music association, the BPI, announced that the London dance duo would receive the esteemed music award on February 18th of next year, when they perform live on the show at Earl’s Court.

Some may say, ‘what have they done to deserve this?’

Since winning their first BRIT Award in 1987 for their single, ‘West End Girls‘, the iconic duo, consisting of Neil Tennant, 54, on vocals and Chris Lowe, 49, on keyboards, have sold 50 million records since signing with Parlophone in 1985. They have enjoyed four number ones, including ‘It’s a Sin‘, their cover of the Elvis hit ‘Always on my Mind‘ and ‘Heart‘. In addition, they have enjoyed 22 top 10 singles and 39 top 30 singles, making them one of the most successful duos of all time.

Chairman on the BRIT’s Committee, Ged Doherty, praised the pair on their ‘fantastic body of work‘, highlighting that their songs ‘were the soundtrack to a whole generation’s lives.’

He said: “The Pet Shop Boys have since become one of the most influential groups of the modern era and are deserving recipients of the award.””

Having worked with such artists as Robbie Williams, the Killers and Kylie Minogue, the Pet Shop Boys are due to release a new album next March, which is a follow up to their 2006 album Fundamental.

In February, The Pet Shop Boys will join a long but distinguished line of previous winners, including Paul Mc Cartney, Oasis, U2, Paul Weller, Tom Jones, Sting, David Bowie, Eurythmics, The Beatles and The Who.

]]> http://samv87.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/pet-shop-boys-set-to-scoop-contribution-to-music-award/feed/ 0 samv87 The BRIT Awards 2009 The Pet Shop Boys http://samv87.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/the-worlds-new-look-for-the-olympics/ http://samv87.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/the-worlds-new-look-for-the-olympics/#comments Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:53:38 +0000 samv87 http://samv87.wordpress.com/?p=174 ]]> 20080804_MEDALCOUNT_MAP.html

With the world’s gaze reverting to China for the opening ceremonies on Friday, the New York Times decided to remind the world of the previous century’s Olympic glory. Lee Byron, Amanda Cox and Matthew Ericson of the New York Times have compiled an interactive chart of former medal winners of the Olympic Games, dating back to 1896.

With a mere 11 countries entered into the 1896 Olympics in Athens, Greece it was the host country who emerged most victorious, with a colossal 10 gold medals, 17 silver and 19 bronze. We also bore witness to a range of lost and forgotten Olympic events, from Rope Climbing to Roman-Greco Wrestling, as well as road cycling and tennis.

The situation has most certainly changed in the 100 years that followed. In 2004, where Athens were once again the hosts of the Olympic Games, there were 74 countries who were awarded medals, from the United States to Trinidad and Tobago, and everywhere in between.

Unfortunately, Ireland’s golden age was the 1990s and no medals were awarded to us after the turn of the Millennium. If you don’t want to view the medal winners on the map geographically, you have the option to view them by rank also. This will inform you of the medal winners and the amount of medals they won in descending order. If you are curious as to what each country won their medals for, you simply click on them and it will list the medal winners, the medal that they won and what event it was for.

Personally, I believe this map is genius! From a journalist’s perspective, all the information they need about a country’s former medal winners, from the location of the Olympics of that particular year to the event for which the medal was won is only a mouse click away. This will save them hours of investigative journalism during the Games.

From the public’s point of view, it allows them to view their country’s progression or digression during the previous century, as well as that of neighbouring countries. All I can say to the journalists in question is great job!

]]> http://samv87.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/the-worlds-new-look-for-the-olympics/feed/ 0 samv87 http://samv87.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/its-just-rick-n-roll-dick/ http://samv87.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/its-just-rick-n-roll-dick/#comments Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:10:31 +0000 samv87 http://samv87.wordpress.com/?p=161 ]]>

What do you think it is?

I am almost certain that nearly all of my readers have seen this picture at some point, since its publication in April of this year. For those of you who are still in the dark, let me fill you in. Whilst enjoying a day of relaxation in Idaho, fly-fishing on the Snake River, the reflection in the Vice-President‘s glasses left a lot to be desired. It is one that baffled and beguiled millions of viewers for weeks to follow. Although Mr. Cheney claims that it was, in fact a hand casting a fishing rod, many people are not convinced.

You may be wondering why I have pulled this rather embarrassing photograph from The White House archives. Glad you asked! You see, this image is now at the core of a new web phenomenon; rick-rolling.

Defined by the Urban Dictionary as “a link to something you want to see, which actually directs you to a video of Rick Astley singing ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’.”

Rick rolling has found it’s way into the most bizarre situations, from fly fishing with the Vice President of the United States, to wrapping up another episode of ‘The O’Reilly Factor‘ with Bill O’Reilly, it is certainly a ‘Marmite’ web phenomenon; you either love them or you hate them!

Unfortunately, I was unable to get my hands on Vice President Cheney getting rick rolled but I do have a good example of what I’m talking about. Enjoy!

07

By Samantha Vickers

On the search for more essay material, I came across a post on the popular weblog, “The Huffington Post“, entitled ‘Did Google Kill Journalism?‘. Written by Steve Rosenbum, the main argument of this piece is that since the colossal success of the US investigative TV show, 60 minutes, journalism is no longer “a calling. A public service. A mission to inform….part of the social fabric that knit us together“ Instead, it has become “a profit centre” and no longer something that “TV networks did to give back to their communities.”

Google being the demise of journalism is, in fact, the complete antithesis of what Mr. Rosenbaum is explaining. He continues his entry by illuminating the fact that without the impact of Google on the journalistic realm, such innovations as “blogging, micro-blogging, podcasting, vlogging, and lifestreaming” would only be the stuff of science fiction movies.

He ends his post by confessing that the true assassin of modern journalism is the US Government, particularly in relation to the Iraq War.

The litany of stringent rules implemented by the US government concerning the Iraq War and how and what should be reported on make it impossible for any journalist to “report what they see without being banned from covering the story.”

A perfect example of the US Government’s ‘censorship‘ can be illustrated in the “disembedding” of Zoriah Miller, a renowned war photographer, from the front line. The reason for this upheaval was the posting of a picture of a Marine killed in the bombing at Anbar on June 26th of this year. Speaking about the incident, Mr. Miller said “it seemed insane to me that the Marines would embed a war photographer and then be upset when photographs were taken of war.”

Being a budding journalist myself, I am not particularly happy about the birth of citizen journalism, through the emergence of blogs and podcasts. I feel that the traditional values of journalism should remain intact; professional journalists reporting on the world events, whilst the public taking it all in and expressing their opinions. However, I do not feel that the public should express their opinions in a fashion that could be seen as challenging, or even bettering the work of professional journalists.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that the US Government has no right at all to censor the Iraq War from it’s citizens. I mean, who gave them the right to infringe on a person’s God given right to freedom of expression as well as freedom of information?

For this reason, I’d have to say I agree with the majority of what Steve Rosenbaum has to say.

The footage you see above comes courtesy of Youtube.com. I’m not sure if many of my readers are familiar with this footage, so I will explain. This footage was taken by a Mr. Kevin Sites, who was at the time a freelance reporter with NBC. His job at the time was to shoot ‘pool video‘ (this is where particular journalists are assigned to record footage that can be used by all media professionals who inhabit the pool). Whilst travelling around with US Marines, he happened to capture on film one particular marine shooting an unarmed Iraqi in the head.

At this point, Mr. Sites was faced with a dilemma. Should he release this video on the world, or should he make the video tape disappear, in order to save the career of one of his country’s protectors? In the end, he unleashed it on the world.

During the interview on the above footage, Mr. Sites admits that it was the Internet that was the catalyst in this situation. Due to it’s graphic content, it was rarely broadcast on the news. In the US, the entire footage was cleverly edited, with the brutal act obscured, making it difficult to make out. The rest of the world, however, broadcast the entire footage, realising it’s potential power over the public.

In my opinion, I believe it was the right thing to do and if I was placed in that situation, I would come to the same conclusion. However, 3:18 into the interview, Mr. Sites comments on how this footage has revived his failing career. At this point, I grow suspicious of Mr. Site’s motives. Is he releasing this video for the good of the public, or for the good of his career? And that my friends is the burning question!

I have also uncovered the letter that Mr. Sites wrote to the Marine in question and to his whole outfit, entitled ‘Open Letter to Devil Dogs of the 3.1‘, expressing his reasons for doing what he did, with extracts featured in the video itself.

In my opinion, this is a brilliant example of ethics in online journalism in action. I just hope that Mr. Sites provided the world with this ‘insight’ for all the right reasons.

War, as you can imagine, is a time of great sorrow, pain and anguish for all involved. For the journalists reporting from the front line, they cannot always report fully on this sea of emotion as they are confined to occupational constraints.

Whilst researching, I came across a book entitled “Ethics for Journalists“. Written by Richard Keeble, a journalism professor at the Lincoln School of Journalism, and editor of the quarterly journal Ethical Space, this book not only deals with ethics broadly, but also deals with ethics during such situations as reporting AIDs/HIV, reporting on racial matters, and reporting from ‘the front line’.

Although, at this stage, the material contained in the book is rather dated, with the most recent crisis contained in it being the Kosovo War, this information certainly sheds a light on the fact that the complex relationship between ethics and war reporting is not something that simply emerged with the introduction of the Internet into modern society. These conflicts date back to the Vietnam War and beyond.

By Samantha Vickers.

Whilst delving deeper into my area of interest; Ethics in Online Journalism, I happened to come across this article written by a Mr. Mark Schneider, a very experienced journalist who works for the School of Journalism at the University of British Columbia. The main argument of the article is that the news of today should contain an ingredients sheet, explaining to news consumers what each article consists of.

Mr. Schneider explains that it is common practice that if one news organisation uses information gathered by another news organisation, it is their duty to confirm that the information that they are about to receive is accurate, non libellous and that the sources used are trustworthy.

This practice, however, has not reached the electronic sources of news distribution. Mr. Schneider admits that “there is no system to inform or disclose accepted but hidden news practices to consumers“. If online journalism practices were to continue in this manner, “the news practices themselves suffer, and the risk of a catastrophic “meltdown” of trust would become inevitable.”

I believe that this argument is ingenious. I believe it would open up journalism even more to consumers, which I believe is a good thing. At present, there is a high level of distrust among journalists and the public, as they use sensationalist paparazzi that invade the privacy of the rich and famous as their journalistic yardstick. If the public were able to research the news stories that they read in newspapers and on the Internet, the level of trust would increase ten fold.

As an update to my previous post, I have recently discovered that China has offered somewhat of an olive branch; they have lifted the embargo on many of the previously blocked websites for the upcoming Olympic Games.

The Chinese government are not announcing this publicly and people are unsure of how long ‘gesture’ will last.

In addition to this, the International Olympic Committee are in the process of rectifying statements made earlier in the week by the anonymous high-ranking Committee official, saying that “a misunderstanding had led to the contradictory versions of events, but…stressed that Olympic organizers have always been adamant about unfettered Internet access for the 20,000 foreign journalists who will be covering the athletic competition.”

Across the water, the Chinese government are condemning the United States’ ‘inference’ in Chinese domestic matters and “accused American legislators of politicizing the Games.”

Personally, I am happy with this result. China are finally coming around to the idea of compromise and are beginning to stop creating unnecessary barriers for themselves when it comes to hosting the Olympic Games.

]]> http://samv87.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/china-revisited-a-promising-turn-around/feed/ 0 samv87 http://samv87.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/china-wont-win-gold-amongst-journalists-in-bejing/ http://samv87.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/china-wont-win-gold-amongst-journalists-in-bejing/#comments Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:20:42 +0000 samv87 http://samv87.wordpress.com/?p=105 ]]> With the 2008 Olympics a matter of days away, China is certainly not a favourite destination among the world’s journalists, due to the limited Internet access they must currently endure. Although the world’s press were “promised repeatedly that the foreign news media could “report freely” during the Games”, by Jacques Rogge, the President of the International Olympic Committee, Chinese officials spoke out yesterday regarding the Web limitations, saying that “they would not allow foreign journalists to visit Web sites that violated Chinese laws.” [New York Times, 31st July 2008].

Closely resembling the Internet ban that Chinese citizens must endure on a daily basis, journalists from around the globe are unable to access “those that discuss Tibetan issues, Taiwanese independence, the violent crackdown on the protests in Tienanmen Square and the Web sites of Amnesty International, the BBC’s Chinese-language news, Radio Free Asia and several Hong Kong newspapers known for their freewheeling political discourse.”

Whether China had actually agreed upon this ban or not is a matter of great controversy. Andrew Jacobs, the New York Times journalist who covered this story, interviewed another high-ranking member of the Olympic Committee, who stated that “the panel was aware that China would continue to censor Web sites carrying content that the Chinese propaganda authorities deemed harmful to national security and social stability.”

Wishing to remain anonymous, the official continued to explain that “the panel acquiesced to China’s demands to maintain such controls” and that “the panel insisted only that China provide unregulated access to sites containing information useful to sports reporters covering athletic competitions, not to a broader array of sites that the Chinese and the Olympic committee negotiators determined had little relevance to sports.”

Pleas for the Internet ban to be lifted even travelled from such places as Capitol Hill. White House press secretary, Dana Perino was speaking on behalf of President Bush on Wednesday, calling for “more access for reporters“ and “everybody in China to be able to have access to the Internet“ .

In my opinion, I feel that China are creating more and more obstacles to overcome and are irritating the majority of the globe in the process. By refusing to compromise with the world’s journalists; who report the raw, unadulterated truth of people, places and situations for a living, China is simply making themselves the villains of this situation and giving people a valid reason to boycott the Olympics. Chinese citizens may be accustomed to censored Internet usage and being force fed propaganda, but that doesn’t mean that the rest of the world must endure it also. I only hope that China reconsiders.

YouTube is undoubtedly one of the multitude of things that defines the modern generation. It is almost impossible to get from one end of the day to the next without “touching base” at least once. Whilst visiting the site today, my eye was drawn towards the ‘What’s New‘ column. Under it was the site’s most recent blog entry, entitled “Trendspotting Tuesday: Sign Language on YouTube“. Reading on, I discovered that it was a post regarding the sheer degree of viewers to the site that are either deaf or have impaired hearing.

At present, there are only a handful of signed videos on YouTube. These range from help to organize a prom, to call out to cyclists and even to vent about a troublesome roommate. It is inevitable, however, that this figure will rise, due to their desire to contact and interact with kindred signers.

I find this revelation fascinating. With signing reaching the entertainment mogul, YouTube, it won’t be long before online journalism corners a new niche in the market; the deaf and hearing impaired. Although it is common knowledge that television have been supplying the deaf community with their daily dose of news for quite some time, it is now only a matter of time before this daily dose of news makes it onto YouTube. Not only will the news be truly portable and accessible from anywhere in the world, but viewers will have the power to revisit bulletins, with the simple click of a mouse. This would be child’s play in comparison to the sheer chore of recording a television news bulletin in order to revisit it.

I believe the global village should watch this space. Online journalism for the deaf community may simply be a pipe dream at present, but it certainly won’t stay that way for very much longer.