The Guardian picked up on Lilly’s coke scandal and this story is well worth a read but unfortunately I think the damage has already been done.

Ho hum. No more Lilly Allen after this. I promise.

Now I’m not a huge fan of Lilly Allen but I’ve got absolutely nothing against her.

The story, ‘Lilly Allen Cocaine Scandal,’ is posted in The Guestlist, a music blog, by Mitch Carter, and it appears to all intents and purposes, made up. Is it any wonder that people no longer trust the press?

Lilly Allen said this in an interview with Word magazine: “The only story is that drugs are bad and they will kill you – you will become a prostitute, a rapist or a dealer. But that’s not true.

“I know lots of people that take cocaine three nights a week and get up and go to work everyday, no problem at all.

“But we never hear that side of the story. I have no statement to make, I just wish people wouldn’t sensationalise this thing that just exists.”

And what do Yahoo! say under their headline Lilly Allen Cocaine Scandal? They say this: “Singer Lilly Allen has caused controversey by defending the use of a Class A drug.”

Sorry, let’s get this straight.Who caused the contoversey? Lilly Allen was that? The same Lilly Allen who said I wish people wouldn’t sensationalise this? Who, in fact, has said something quite sensible regarding the UK’s drug culture and about the side of the story that never gets heard.

And if you really want to be picky, how on earth does that quote in any way shape or form condone the use cocaine?

Defamation anyone?

If there is any ’controversey’ at all, it’s a controversey manufactured by The Guestlist and by the editors of Yahoo’s home page. 

Hideous. Disregard the facts, twist a quote and hey presto! Look what you have! A news story! Something to fill a hole because it’s the afternoon and the headlines need to change.

It’s irresponsible journalism, it isn’t accurate but it will still be viewed by millions of people.

This is what we’re up against.

It was in response to a post on their message board by Guardian columnist George Monbiot.

Monbiot’s post in turn was a response to this blog post by Robert Shone.

Now, I’ve been meaning to write a post on this for quite a while. But there have been a few reasons stopping me.

1. What can I say to add to the debate?
2. How do I go about saying it?
3. Is it important?

I’ve been trying to come to terms with these questions and it is with them in mind that this post is written.

In the argument itself there are three main players – Robert Shone at Dissident 93, David Edwards and David Cromwell the editors of Medialens and Guardian columnist George Monbiot.

I’m not going to go into the details of the argument itself because at this stage, the focus has shifted. And as Robert Shone noted on Chasing Answers last week, it has become lost in the quagmire of semantics.

To me, the point of interest in the argument is this: Should a journalist subject their host media (i.e. the media outlet that publishes their material) to criticism, be it ‘sustained’ or ‘serious’ or whispered by the coffee machine?

Swallowed in the Margins

Dissident journalists are already in the margins. I’m guessing it must be a struggle for them, and for sites like Medialens, to try and make themselves heard amidst the increasingly ‘noisy’ backdrop of mass-media.

Without wanting to generalise too much, journalism by the likes of Monbiot, Pilger and Milne tends to be read by people who are actively interested in what is really happening in the world.

Equally, on the whole, people who read the output from Medialens tend to be people who want to dig beneath the surface, who want a clearer view of what is happening in the world around them, who care about the future of the world they live in.

And therein lies the difficulty. This is journalism that preaches to the converted. The challenge, I believe, has to be in shaking the apathy from people. To find ways to make them care, awaken them from their hyper-real dream, and  welcome them to the Desert of the Real.

Perhaps this is gross naivety on my part and too idealistic.

But take the 10 o’clock news bulletin on Sky News this morning. Any guesses on the top story?

Could it be what’s happening in the Middle East? Could it be a package analysing how the situation won’t ever change until America stops blindly supporting Israel? Or how in the first three months of 2008 the UK Government confirmed £20 million worth of arms export to Israel?

None of these.

The top story was Kevin Pieterson resigns as England captain after a dispute with the English Cricket Board and the England coach Peter Moores.

In other words, a pseudo-event engineered and fuelled by a media that’s forgotten how to ask questions.

Being Heard

But, as small as it may be, and even if it’s only there to create the impression mass media provides balance, the voices of some dissident journalists are still heard, albeit by too few people and not as often or as loudly as they should be.

So should these journalists turn their gaze to their host media?

I would say integrity demands they do, if it is necessary to do so, but the consequences have to be measured.

There’s no point in cutting of your hand to spite your face. Scathing criticism by a journalist against their host media will, unfortunately, more often than not, be a battle they’ll never win.

This shouldn’t be the case but at the moment it is.

Should they be doing more? Maybe but what weight of expectations is a dissident journalist expected to bear? Surely the critical focus should fall on the poor, lazy, thoughtless journalists who seem so happy to work with blinkers on?

And while the left is busy splitting hairs over who said what to who or how the structure of an argument is inherently flawed or having reasons to feel aggrieved, the media’s right is becoming ever more powerful.

As an example, look how a series of articles in the Daily Mail helped mobilise Middle England against Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand, to the extent that effigies of the pair were burnt on a bonfire.

Brave New World

It’s easy to believe in ideals, harder to have conviction in those beliefs. The Medialens alert states that, ‘we are all on the spot – the world is not changing fast enough.’

They are right.

But for progressive change to be a tangible change, I think to some extent, there as to be a unification of voices.

I have faith in people. I think they do care about social injustice on a global scale, the threat of climate change and the atrocities of war.

But the media and journalism are failing them. And it’s now so easy for them to turn the other cheek, to carry on dreaming.

It’s time to wake up but the slumber has become so deep the alarm bells must be ringing together and playing the same tune as loudly as they can.

And the snooze button has to be broken.

It’s been a strange old year in so many ways. The credit crunch seemed to grow and grow to the extent that the world’s financial systems pretty much crumbled into dust. I think the impact it’s already had, and will continue to have, has been severely underestimated.

Barack Obama will soon take up in the Oval Office, history really did seem to come alive in 2008.

Sport

It’s been an incredible year for sport.

The Olympics were a superb spectacle, the Premiership went down to the wire, the IPL was formed, Wales set the Six Nations alight, New Zealand pulled off one of the greatest sporting shocks in history by beating Australia in the Rugby League World Cup final and Lewis Hamilton became F1’s youngest ever World Champion.

Then there was the success of Andy Murray, the Wimbledon final between Nadal and Federer as well as countless other moments that have been equally enthralling.

Sport is still dogged by problems, right across the board, but still poses an inherent power to bring out the very best in people.

So here are my top three sporting moments of 2008:

3. New Zealand’s victory in the Rugby League World Cup. What a final, what a performance. To beat that Aussie team on their home turf was an unbelievable achievement.

2. Lewis Hamilton, the last corner. Last grand prix of the season, last lap and for all the world it looked like Hamilton had blown it. Again. But then, on the last corner, Timo Glock, still on dry tires, fell away, Hamilton over took him and Massa was denied. Enthralling.

1. Usain Bolt. He broke the 100m world record and still managed to ease over the line but when he broke Michael Johnson’s 200m record, well, what can you say? It was breath taking and again, like watching history come alive.

Music

Bit of a strange year for music if truth be told with manufactured pop making a disturbing resurgence and programmes like X-Factor still dominating the ratings.

Here’s my top three albums…

3. For Emma, Forever Ago – Bon Iver. This is a beautifully haunting album, listen to in front of a roaring fire, with snow falling outside and a lone wolf howling in the distance.

2. The Seldom Seen Kid – Elbow. Finally some well deserved success for a great band. Had a pint with them once, they’re a good bunch. And if you haven’t listened to this yet, please do.

1. Dear Science – TV on the Radio. Following up Return to Cookie Mountain is no easy feat but not only have the band from Brooklyn ventured in a new direction, they’ve produced an amazing record. 2009 watch this space, TV on the Radio are howling forever.

(Fleet Foxes and Sigur Ros also released stonking albums which you should listen to.)

Film

Since moving to rural back waters, I’ve not seen as many films as I’d have like to this year but here’s my top three anyway…

3. Wall-E. To be alive in a time when Pixar are making films is something we all should celebrate. There is a fine line between genius and madness, they tread it wonderfully.

2.No Country For Old Men. Difficult and challenging film from the Cohens. Not everyone’s cup of tea but well worth a watch.

1. The Dark Knight. A truly amazing performance from the late Heath Ledger as the Joker. The Dark Knight is a fitting tribute to his memory and by far the best film I saw in 2008.

TV

Two words – The Wire. Buy it, watch it, and never be the same again. No doubt.

Books

A completely subjective category. I’m sticking to fiction and to what I’ve been reading this year which to be honest are mostly fantasy books. My top three books of 2008 as follows…

3. Oath Breaker – Michelle Paver. These books, the Chronicles of Ancient Darkness, leave Potter and Rowling stumbling around in the dark with a broom and a snitch. A great story before bedtime.

2. The Steel Remains – Richard Morgan. Not for the faint hearted but immensely enjoyable.

1. Last Argument of Kings – Joe Abercrombie. An amazing conclusion to his First Law series. Abercrombie is a fierce talent and a writer working at the height of his craft. Even if your not a fan of fantasy, read these books! You won’t be disappointed.

There are many, many more things but this post has gone on long enough.

On a personal note, 2008 was a mix bag for me, highs and lows. But I learnt to surf, worked as and established myself as a respected reporter in Okehampton and managed to find my way back into education!

So long 2008, you were full of surprises and perhaps a catalyst in facilitating a global change in thinking. Maybe.

2009 is here and we are all peering over the edge, but which way will the scales tip? Or will balance be restored? I don’t know, yet, but here’s to the finding out.

Happy New Year.

So far the festive season has been full, quite literally, of death, despair and exams although these have been tempered somewhat with a degree of Christmas cheer.

Suffice to say everything is now hunky dory and normal blogging services will resume shortly.

Coming up on the horizon…

• I’ll be giving my take on the George Monbiot debate currently taking place over at Media Lens.
• I’m in the process of, excuses the pun, digging around the issues affecting my home town of Stratford-Upon-Avon. (There’s a crane, a huge crane and a series of beautiful gardens that look like a bomb site. Just what exactly are the RSC up to?)
• I’m intending to examine three of the major influences that brought me into the world of journalism: one an author, one a TV programme and the last one is the most incredible person I’ve ever met.

So thank you all again for reading and for all those who voted for Chasing Answersas the best blog in the end-of-year University College Falmouth Broadcast and International Journalism Christmas Awards.

Tears were shed, oracles consulted and inner wars were waged. Very disappointed we couldn’t collect the award in person and couldn’t collect the best bears award either – but watch out in the new year – the beard is coming.

And on that bombshell…

Here’s The Pogues to tickle your festive fancy and on a serious note, normal blogging practice will resume in the coming days.

Until then, good night and good luck. Kirsty, Shane. Take it away…

Even if you’ve been shot twice in the neck from point blank range, somehow survived and know who the shooter is, don’t snitch.

In the first part of his Law and Disorder series, Louis Theroux spoke to one such kid (and I use the word kid because he can’t have been much older than 18).

He’d been shot in the neck two times from close range and knew who did. His friends knew who did it, His family probably knew who did it.

But not one of them would speak to the police.

Why? (Theroux asked this on multiple occasions)

Because they’re scared of retribution? Because on the streets you live by a code? Because of a rife disaffection with the American justice system?

One things for sure. Frustration breeds violence. On both sides. The police become frustrated that no one talks to them so they come down on people harder.

They can’t touch the people controlling the drug trade so they beat on the corner boys, the slingers, the hoppers.

And then further alienate the community they are meant to serve and protect.

Welcome to Philadelphia.

Broken System

 In the first of a two-part series being aired on BBC2, Louis Theroux spent time on the streets of Philadelphia.

It’s the sixth largest city in America, is home to the Philadelphia Eagles, Phillies, Flyers and 76ers, and played a central role in American Independence.

It’s even home to the Liberty Bell.

But it’s also is, “a centre of activity for the importation, wholesale distribution and street level sales of illegal drugs on the East Coast.”

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, cocaine is the drug of choice. Heroin is the fastest growing drug. On the local produce front, Methamphetamine is readily available and cannabis is everywhere.

Alongside this, Philadelphia was one of the highest rates of violent and gun crime in America – linked explicitly to the drug trade.

Theroux spent his time with parts of the criminal investigation branch of the Philadelphia Police Department as well as the police officers on the ‘frontline.’

It’s incredibly difficult in the space of an hour to tackle all the issues around the subject.

David Simon and Ed Burns, writers of The Wire, use more than fifty hours of some of the best made TV ever produced to try and do this but still struggle to find any concrete answers.

There has to be a nod to The Wire here because without it, Theroux wouldn’t have been able to make his programme.

Even though it’s only an hour long, the programme is still essential viewing. And much more than, “an episode of Cops” as The Times says.

There are no answers. It’s a cycle in a broken system. At times, some of the police come across little better than those they are arresting.

They threaten, intimidate and are quick to resort to violence. Much like a mid-level player in the drugs trade.

So much so that one police officer, to paraphrase, says, “I’ve got a job, why can’t they get a job? I don’t feel bad when they get killed.” (see 11 minutes in on the programme).

Whereas on the flip side of that, the cop called Hunter, who grew up in the area, understands the street mentality so much better.

On arresting a teenager with a replica gun (Hunter didn’t know it was a replica and was prepared to shoot if the kid drew the gun) he words were, “you dumb, dumb little asshole.”

And then over to the drug side and you have ‘Reds,’ the highest level player Theroux could talk to.

Reds has a cow, a goat, a few dogs, a $30,000 diamond chain. But he uses his muscle to keep violence off his patch. In a semi-philanthropic way, he is trying to establish a community where people can step outside without the fear of being shot.

Real Victims

 The real victims are the users. People who have to score every two hours to stop getting sick. These are the people who society is failing the most. They are ADDICTS. They can’t just stop.

The argument, surely, has to come down to legalisation (see ‘Hamsterdam’ in The Wire). If drugs were legalised much of the illegal trade would stop, users would get clean drugs (which contrary to popular belief aren’t the moral evil many people perceive them as – see Nick Davies’ Flat Earth News) and violent crime would fall.

But still stigmas, ignorance and fear exist around drugs. Not just in America. But wherever you look.

Education needs to be better, the media have to stop pushing the popular drugs myths and a serious debate as to whether illegal drugs should be legalised on a global scale needs to be entered into.

And the argument applies to drug users to. There’s a great post at Starkadder on the economic impact of cocaine use which is well worth a read.

But something needs to change. Across streets in America, in areas across the UK, on a global scale, there is a vicious self-perpetuating circle.

The problems between the police, drugs and violence spiral downwards and will continue to do so.

If politicians are serious about fixing them, then they need to start thinking outside of the box and be prepared to make tough, maybe even radical, decisions.

Let me put this in context. It was early this morning when I woke. I stumbled, somewhere between sleep and awake, into the kitchen and put the kettle on.

I sat, with strong coffee in hand, on the sofa and turned on the TV, eager to see how the situation in Mumbai had developed while I had slept.

I’ve never been to Mumbai, never been to India and have little to no idea of the history and politics of the situation.

The news bulletin was grim. Massacre in Mumbai, bankruptcy on the streets of England, Thailand in turmoil.

It made me realise what I’m stepping into and how, if I succeed in what I want to do, I’ll be reporting on death, injustice, hypocrisy and all that lies (and all the lies) in between.

Yet, I watched. I watched fire tear through a hotel. I let images, sound, wash over me. Felt angry at the world again. Shocked. Sickened.

I’m training to be a journalist. I think the world needs to change. There are atrocities every day, locally, nationally, globally.

I’m not naïve enough to think I can change this. But I know I can report on it, and hopefully report on it in a way that the people who can change things will sit up and take notice of.

Today at university, we’ve looked at reporting trauma. Trauma in all its different forms.

A line from a cameraman who covered the Bosnian conflict: “War for work. Heroin for holidays.”

I believe that as a journalist I have a duty to report on society’s failings, to expose corruption, to fight to find the truth.

Like any fight, this will inevitably take its toll. There are only so many punches to roll with, only so many times you can brush it off and throw yourself back into the breach.

I’d like to think it’s a battle I can fight, it’s a battle I want to fight because I can and because if I don’t, who else will?

But, as has been highlighted today there are huge dangers, not just physical dangers but emotional dangers.

It’s so easy to lose yourself in the chase. To keep chasing and to keep fighting until there’s nothing left.

Because of the way news is evolving, because it’s so accessible, because it’s so available, because it’s everywhere all the time, in no time at all it can consume everything. Life. Dreams.

So, again, with everything, there must be balance.

Today, the balance came in standing in the rain, with smoke and thoughts.

How this balance becomes something more secure and tangible I don’t know.

How can you be switched on and clued in to all that’s happening yet still find time to switch off and retreat back into the warm embrace of the self?

It’s a paradox. The world is terrible but the world is beautiful. And I’m sorry if this is an indulgence in whimsy but I believe it’s true.

Sat by the sea, in an electric blue dawn, watching surf crash free on shingled beaches, hands entwined with a shared heart, the first glimmer of the new day on the horizon – this is when time stands still, when magic lives.

These moments as well exist everywhere, all the time. Maybe the trick’s in learning to see them at the same time, juxtaposed with pain and suffering.

I guess the key is staying true to yourself, true to what you believe in and finding the time, amongst everything else, to never forget how our lives are the smallest stitches in an ever growing tapestry.

So I’ll try to do my best, to be honest to myself and others, to smile more and laugh longer, to learn lessons, to apply knowledge, to listen, to hear, to take wisdom from wherever it comes from, to respect, to love freely and to walk forward with my head held high and hope in my heart.

Dartmoor at dawn.

 

That in itself and the media’s reaction to it has posed all sorts of question.

So lets start from the top…should the list have been leaked and should the 10,000 or so BNP members be exposed?

Article 10 of the European Human Rights Act – freedom of information (separate point, do the BNP pay any heed to this seeing as it’s European?).

Article 8 – the right to privacy.

The point then boils down to, is the data sufficiently in the public interest to be released?

I’d argue yes, not because everyone should know where their nearest BNP-er is so they can go round for a lively debate on the benefits of multiculturalism, but because if someone is a signed up member of a political party, then they shouldn’t be ashamed of the fact or unwilling to embrace it publicly.

If, as the BNP claims, they are a party with a legititmate manifesto, then why be ashamed of membership? (Don’t get me wrong the list of reasons to be ashamed is long, long, long.)

So then to the internet, where in many ways ‘future media,’ to use the buzz phrase, came into it’s own.

There was the Google ‘mashup’ map created by Ben Charlton, the posting of it by different news outlets, the outcry from Twitter, the subsequent taking down of the map, not just by the media but by its creator, but not before the map itself and the list had already become embedded so far in the public domain, it’s now impossible to get them out.

On these points, if you want to find the map and the list you’ll have to look for them. But the mobilisation of the internet in reporting on the leaked names, I think, is just a small taste of what the future holds in the way news is reported.

Even more interesting is a cursory view of the BNP’s website (sorry, I’m not linking to it). Nick Griffin, the BNP’s leader, is now using the net as a tool and already their site has a graphic showing that it’s receiving many more hits than other political parties.

That they’re receiving these hits because they essentially betrayed their members by losing their details doesn’t seem to matter to Mr Griffin. 

And this also begs another question (brought to light by Tom Allan). Was the leak engineered? Hits on the BNP website have gone through the roof, Nick Griffin is claiming the ‘liberal elite’ are ‘scared’, claiming some kind of small victory.

Maybe this was one big stunt. If it was, the brains behind certainly new how to make the most of ‘future’ media.

On a different note, just read a comment from a BNP member on Nick Griffin’s open letter on the BNP’s website – starts off with a quote from an American Indian Proverb, then talks about ‘the natural population of this Great Country.’

Oh the irony.

Undoubtably, there is an agenda behind certain media outlets. The culture of fear that has arisen in the post-9/11 era is largely down to propoganda pedalled by the media. Adam Curtis explores this in his powerful documentary The Power of Nightmares.

Organisations like Meialens are vital in exposing the agenda behind the media.

But they can’t help but to continually shoot themselves in the both feet. With a shotgun. A sawn-off shotgun. From close range.

Not great for shooting self in feet with.

In fact, it all starts with The Power of Nightmares. Back in 2004 Medialens launched an attack on Curtis’ documentary.

Briefly put, in The Power of Nightmares, Curtis outlines two dominate lines of thought through the 21st century that essentially sowed the seeds of 9/11. The two schools of thoughts belong to Islamic fundamentalists, in the form of Sayyed Qutb, and American Neo-cons, in the form of Leo Strauss.

Curtis’ argument and the three part film are compelling viewing. But not in the eyes of Medialens.

Medialens criticise Curtis (see full transcript here and here) because his analysis of ideologies fails to focus at all on corporate greed, business and the relationship of the two with the state (perhaps in the current economic climate this is something that does need further exploration).

However, Curtis was never trying to make a film about business, as he notes in his response to Medialens. He was making a film about the power of ideas and how ideas, if pushed hard and for long enough, can fundamentally change the way people think. 

Medialens missed the point and in trying to push their own agenda, essentially become everything they are trying not to be.

I’m sad to say they’ve done it again.

Medialens have taken objection to the media’s coverage of Barrack Obama’s victory in the US presidential election.

I’ll be the first to admit that, potentially, I, along with many others, have become carried away with Obama’s victory. What the promise of change will eventuate to be, no one knows. It could be more false promises but I sincerely hope it’s not.

In the article, Medialens say in reference to Obama’s victory, “Over the last two weeks, the public has been subjected to a one-way delusional deluge by the media.”

They then go on to criticise the BBC, The Guardian, Jon Snow and The Independent, among others.

Their criticism could be justified, maybe it is justifed, but that’s a different arguement.

Medialens shoot themselves in the foot (again) and in my eyes lose credibility because a few pars later and they are then quoting The Guardian as a publication providing, in their words, a more realistic appraisal.

So how can there be a “one-way delusional deluge” if they are then quoting the same publication as providing an opposing argument later on in the article?

It just doesn’t make sense. And if, as they argue, this is a case of the media helping American re-brand itself, then why not let America re-brand itself?

It might not be perfect but it has to be better what the last eight years have given us.

The goal of Medialens is to “to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others.” I couldn’t agree more with this and fully applaud Medialens for the work  they do.

I just wish they wouldn’t embrace their own form of propaganda when arguing their points. Then they become as bad as those they are trying to hold to account.

And this doesn’t acheive anything.