This year I'm thrilled to announce I've been given the opportunity to write about the Edinburgh Festival for whatsonstage.com. I'll be writing three/four times a week from the point of view of a theatre person going through the process of getting a show on at the Fringe.
My first article is here:
http://www.whatsonstage.com/blog/theatre/edinburgh/E8831311752132/A+FALSE+START.html
You better like it.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Sometimes journalism sucks
When I was little I wanted to be a journalist so badly. I saw myself out there with my notebook and dictaphone, hunting out stories in crime-ridden areas, at celebrity bashes and on the streets of London, talking to the people affected by the big stories face to face. I wanted to be rushing against the clock to meet my deadline and then to wake up on Sunday mornings and see my byline in the national press. That's what I wanted.
And then I learnt what journalism was really all about. It was about constantly and aggressively bugging people who have just lost their friends, family or livelihood, forcing them to talk and, if they don't, scraping together a blend of fact and fiction from an uninspiring group of 'sources close to the subject'. It's, according to what's going on in our world today, about hacking into people's telephones and broadcasting their private lives to all and sundry. It's about pretending to listen to an interview you're given but then chopping and changing the text until it bears no resemblance to the original discussion, but plenty to the angle you're trying to take. It's also about hiding behind bushes and buildings, trying to take that photograph that could ruin someone's career, relationship or image.
When I was younger I thought journalism was about getting the story down on paper to share with the public. Now I'm not so sure. I think that it's about influencing and affecting the story, in much the same way that script writers influence the trajectory of a 'reality' television show. By creating situations to so aggressively extract information, I feel that journalists are starting to create, rather than just report, the stories of the time.
In light of the recent journalistic scandals, there have been a large amount of articles written by editors to claim that none of their journalists EVER break the law to get a story. And although I'm sure this isn't true 100% of the time, we must admit that Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, the Notw et al. aren't exactly 'getting away with it' this time. So, perhaps we're lucky in the sense that the Bureau of Investigative Journalism is looking out for us.
But, regardless of law-breaking or not, there is still plenty that's considered 'legal' if not 'moral' that journalists do to in order to get their story. I've seen plenty of situations where paparazzi are seen trying to push their way into the building of a recently bereaved family or a heartbroken new divorcee. However, the story that really hit home for me this week was the death of Amy Winehouse.
The Daily Mail released their first online report within two hours of her body behind found. It outlined the fact that she was confirmed dead, the time at which this occurred and that her body had been removed from the flat. It also included the fact that, as he was on a plane to New York, it was likely that her father had not been informed. WHAT? So the newspapers know, and are free to report, the unexpected death of a 27 year old celebrity. Outpourings of grief and tributes quickly follow on facebook and twitter, but her father hasn't been notified? I don't know whether this is legal or not. But I do know it's disgusting. Business is one thing, getting the story out there first is all important for today's journalists and papers, and yes Amy Winehouse was a celebrity but come on!
The sentence 'it's not yet clear whether her father Mitch has been notified' has since been removed from the article, and it's been suggested that her parents knew immediately. Frankly, I don't wish to dither about finding out which is true. The Daily Mail did not know for certain whether her parents had been notified, and they ran the story anyway. That's all I need to know.
And then I learnt what journalism was really all about. It was about constantly and aggressively bugging people who have just lost their friends, family or livelihood, forcing them to talk and, if they don't, scraping together a blend of fact and fiction from an uninspiring group of 'sources close to the subject'. It's, according to what's going on in our world today, about hacking into people's telephones and broadcasting their private lives to all and sundry. It's about pretending to listen to an interview you're given but then chopping and changing the text until it bears no resemblance to the original discussion, but plenty to the angle you're trying to take. It's also about hiding behind bushes and buildings, trying to take that photograph that could ruin someone's career, relationship or image.
When I was younger I thought journalism was about getting the story down on paper to share with the public. Now I'm not so sure. I think that it's about influencing and affecting the story, in much the same way that script writers influence the trajectory of a 'reality' television show. By creating situations to so aggressively extract information, I feel that journalists are starting to create, rather than just report, the stories of the time.
In light of the recent journalistic scandals, there have been a large amount of articles written by editors to claim that none of their journalists EVER break the law to get a story. And although I'm sure this isn't true 100% of the time, we must admit that Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, the Notw et al. aren't exactly 'getting away with it' this time. So, perhaps we're lucky in the sense that the Bureau of Investigative Journalism is looking out for us.
But, regardless of law-breaking or not, there is still plenty that's considered 'legal' if not 'moral' that journalists do to in order to get their story. I've seen plenty of situations where paparazzi are seen trying to push their way into the building of a recently bereaved family or a heartbroken new divorcee. However, the story that really hit home for me this week was the death of Amy Winehouse.
The Daily Mail released their first online report within two hours of her body behind found. It outlined the fact that she was confirmed dead, the time at which this occurred and that her body had been removed from the flat. It also included the fact that, as he was on a plane to New York, it was likely that her father had not been informed. WHAT? So the newspapers know, and are free to report, the unexpected death of a 27 year old celebrity. Outpourings of grief and tributes quickly follow on facebook and twitter, but her father hasn't been notified? I don't know whether this is legal or not. But I do know it's disgusting. Business is one thing, getting the story out there first is all important for today's journalists and papers, and yes Amy Winehouse was a celebrity but come on!
The sentence 'it's not yet clear whether her father Mitch has been notified' has since been removed from the article, and it's been suggested that her parents knew immediately. Frankly, I don't wish to dither about finding out which is true. The Daily Mail did not know for certain whether her parents had been notified, and they ran the story anyway. That's all I need to know.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
My English Language
I love my language.
I can't say I feel terribly patriotic regarding most things about Britain these days. Apart from an unexplained passion for the monarchy -which I understand irritates many of my non-royalist friends greatly- I am firmly of the opinion that Britain is not currently occupying any pinnacle of greatness. I understand there is still plenty going on to be proud of -I'm a staunch fan of the NHS, despite it's many and varied issues, as I have seen first-hand the havoc that the American system can wreak on the lives of individuals and families. I also understand that the British do still create much more that is clearly obvious at first glance, as is proved in Evan Davis' recent book 'Made in Britain'. And I love British theatre...of course I do. All I'm saying is that I spend a lot of time looking at other countries, at their pride and dedication to so many aspects of their homeland- and I feel sad that I don't feel the same about my country. Or maybe that's not Britain's fault. Maybe it's mine, and has more to do with my needs, experiences and expectations.
Either way I'm thrilled to say that there is one thing I adore, and that is the English Language. I love it in all it's forms, I love the vast array of accents we have squished into this little Island of ours. I love that -whether it's for dodgy political reasons in the past or not- I can hear our language in countries all over the world. I adore that some of the greatest playwrights and novelists have written in English. I get excited when I hear an alliterated sentence, I'll never forget the first time I learnt about the mind blowing concept that is onomatopoeia and I still get a geeky thrill when I recognise the roots of our modern words in Latin vocabulary.
Which is why I, snobby as I'm about to sound, feel uncomfortable with the way I see language evolving. For a variety of reasons we are seeing letters being dropped from the ends of words, simple slang words being drafted in to apparently cover a whole variety of concepts, situations and expressions, grammar being neglected and emphasis being placed on all kinds of random words within sentences.
This is a surprisingly controversial issue and one that is very much class based, although it's certainly not a new concern. In Britain we used to be much stricter about how English should be spoken as a language: You had to take elocution lessons so that you could speak 'properly' before you could enter, for example, showbusiness. My Grandmother, who was in a number of high profile television and live shows during the WWII era, had her Manchester accent shaken out of her before the BBC would even consider hearing her voice. As a result she's particularly picky about language. I've grown up hearing her yelling at Eastenders 'It's ISN'T IT woman NOT INNIT...enunciate for heaven's sake!', so you'll have to forgive me if this is a topic particularly ingrained in my psyche.
I know that it seems quite middle-class to care so much about language and I've continuously landed myself in hot water for picking up on what I see as the bastardisation of the British language that I see my sister and her friends practising. At the end of the day: live and let live. It's certainly not my place to demand how anyone speaks. And I'm not saying that I want everyone to go around speaking like they have a poker up their butt. Much of my own extended family speak distinctly differently to my immediate one.
But why has it become considered 'posh' and 'hoity toity' to speak a neat, well-developed form of language? It's incomprehensible to me why young people who have grown up in affluent surroundings and speak in a way that reflects this, seem to consider it distasteful to sound as though this has been the case? Why this adoption of a dialect that, in many cases, isn't even theirs? And in my defense, or at least before anyone starts complaining that I'm behaving as though my way is the right way, I was picked up by a friend the other day for 'using good grammar'. He was shocked that, when writing on facebook, I used apostrophes and commas. His final declaration was that I was 'over educated'. Because I speak the Queen's English. That doesn't make sense. It seems like a civil war is taking place between classes in the UK- and language is the tool it's being expressed through.
I think I might need to elaborate on my point here. I don't have an issue with the evolution of language. I don't mind people adopting new ideas, accents changing as we come into contact with more and more different cultures etc. All of this is part of what makes it so exciting for linguists...what shows that words really do have an intense power to affect and be affected by the world and it's people. It never gets boring and new rhythms and ideas and opportunities just keep on coming.
What terrifies me is that we're doing it for the wrong reason. We're bastardising one of the most beautiful languages in the world because we think it epitomises what is wrong with our country. That's a terrible idea. Yes, language is used by all kinds of people in all kinds of positions to makes changes for good and for bad, but that's no reason to reject it's current form. Let it evolve by all means but don't do it out of spite. Don't make it harder and harder for people of different classes, different races, different generations to communicate. Because that is what's happening. People are disenchanted with those from backgrounds or communities other than theirs. But it's getting harder and harder to communicate this to each other. I don't advocate going back to the WWII ideal, I love hearing the sound of regional accents every day, and I love that the multiculturalism of our country is reflected in the changing vocabulary and rhythm of our discourse...but let's not ruin a language which has got this far. Which is so near perfection from years of being shaped and tested by some of the greatest linguists in the world.
Come on. Let's hang on to English.
I can't say I feel terribly patriotic regarding most things about Britain these days. Apart from an unexplained passion for the monarchy -which I understand irritates many of my non-royalist friends greatly- I am firmly of the opinion that Britain is not currently occupying any pinnacle of greatness. I understand there is still plenty going on to be proud of -I'm a staunch fan of the NHS, despite it's many and varied issues, as I have seen first-hand the havoc that the American system can wreak on the lives of individuals and families. I also understand that the British do still create much more that is clearly obvious at first glance, as is proved in Evan Davis' recent book 'Made in Britain'. And I love British theatre...of course I do. All I'm saying is that I spend a lot of time looking at other countries, at their pride and dedication to so many aspects of their homeland- and I feel sad that I don't feel the same about my country. Or maybe that's not Britain's fault. Maybe it's mine, and has more to do with my needs, experiences and expectations.
Either way I'm thrilled to say that there is one thing I adore, and that is the English Language. I love it in all it's forms, I love the vast array of accents we have squished into this little Island of ours. I love that -whether it's for dodgy political reasons in the past or not- I can hear our language in countries all over the world. I adore that some of the greatest playwrights and novelists have written in English. I get excited when I hear an alliterated sentence, I'll never forget the first time I learnt about the mind blowing concept that is onomatopoeia and I still get a geeky thrill when I recognise the roots of our modern words in Latin vocabulary.
Which is why I, snobby as I'm about to sound, feel uncomfortable with the way I see language evolving. For a variety of reasons we are seeing letters being dropped from the ends of words, simple slang words being drafted in to apparently cover a whole variety of concepts, situations and expressions, grammar being neglected and emphasis being placed on all kinds of random words within sentences.
This is a surprisingly controversial issue and one that is very much class based, although it's certainly not a new concern. In Britain we used to be much stricter about how English should be spoken as a language: You had to take elocution lessons so that you could speak 'properly' before you could enter, for example, showbusiness. My Grandmother, who was in a number of high profile television and live shows during the WWII era, had her Manchester accent shaken out of her before the BBC would even consider hearing her voice. As a result she's particularly picky about language. I've grown up hearing her yelling at Eastenders 'It's ISN'T IT woman NOT INNIT...enunciate for heaven's sake!', so you'll have to forgive me if this is a topic particularly ingrained in my psyche.
I know that it seems quite middle-class to care so much about language and I've continuously landed myself in hot water for picking up on what I see as the bastardisation of the British language that I see my sister and her friends practising. At the end of the day: live and let live. It's certainly not my place to demand how anyone speaks. And I'm not saying that I want everyone to go around speaking like they have a poker up their butt. Much of my own extended family speak distinctly differently to my immediate one.
But why has it become considered 'posh' and 'hoity toity' to speak a neat, well-developed form of language? It's incomprehensible to me why young people who have grown up in affluent surroundings and speak in a way that reflects this, seem to consider it distasteful to sound as though this has been the case? Why this adoption of a dialect that, in many cases, isn't even theirs? And in my defense, or at least before anyone starts complaining that I'm behaving as though my way is the right way, I was picked up by a friend the other day for 'using good grammar'. He was shocked that, when writing on facebook, I used apostrophes and commas. His final declaration was that I was 'over educated'. Because I speak the Queen's English. That doesn't make sense. It seems like a civil war is taking place between classes in the UK- and language is the tool it's being expressed through.
I think I might need to elaborate on my point here. I don't have an issue with the evolution of language. I don't mind people adopting new ideas, accents changing as we come into contact with more and more different cultures etc. All of this is part of what makes it so exciting for linguists...what shows that words really do have an intense power to affect and be affected by the world and it's people. It never gets boring and new rhythms and ideas and opportunities just keep on coming.
What terrifies me is that we're doing it for the wrong reason. We're bastardising one of the most beautiful languages in the world because we think it epitomises what is wrong with our country. That's a terrible idea. Yes, language is used by all kinds of people in all kinds of positions to makes changes for good and for bad, but that's no reason to reject it's current form. Let it evolve by all means but don't do it out of spite. Don't make it harder and harder for people of different classes, different races, different generations to communicate. Because that is what's happening. People are disenchanted with those from backgrounds or communities other than theirs. But it's getting harder and harder to communicate this to each other. I don't advocate going back to the WWII ideal, I love hearing the sound of regional accents every day, and I love that the multiculturalism of our country is reflected in the changing vocabulary and rhythm of our discourse...but let's not ruin a language which has got this far. Which is so near perfection from years of being shaped and tested by some of the greatest linguists in the world.
Come on. Let's hang on to English.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)