two

Media is a broad word. The Oxford dictionary gives it this meaning: “the means of mass communication, especially television, radio, and newspapers collectively”. It goes on to state; “The word media comes from the Latin plural of medium. In the normal sense ‘television, radio, and the press collectively’, it often behaves as a collective noun (for example like staff), and can be used with either a singular or a plural verb. Although some people regard the singular use as incorrect, it is now generally accepted in standard English.”
So, like many other words commonly used in the English language, the context we use the word media in is often incorrect, but should the fact that the use of a word incorrectly has become standard make it then correct to use it in such a way? Doesn’t it still remain incorrect? This is a strange problem… who decides these things anyway? Who’s place is it to say what is and isn’t correct. The English language has evolved hugely as has every language into its modern dialect. If it is the English language – the language of the English people –then surely the only people who can say what is, and is not correct, are those using the language. So, if it has become common place for users of the English language to use media in the wrong context, making it grammatically incorrect, it has therefore become the English language, meaning it must be correct.
Many people’s look on life is governed by the past. What is right or wrong, how things should be done, what is acceptable and what should be looked down upon. This is both very helpful, but also extremely limiting. Looking at what history has taught us is vital in knowing what to do next, but it is not the whole story. When studying what has been done well, and what could have been done better, one can understand the pitfalls of leaders and nations. Retrospect is a powerful tool. The underlying problem is how much to rely on retrospect and how much to allow new ideas to influence you.
A simple example would be a King who has a large castle. An enemy army comes to try and take it but the castle protects the King and his army, and they win the battle. The King dies an old man in peace and his son takes the throne. An army comes to take the castle, but this time technology has improved and they have cannons. The King is unfazed because he knows the castle did not fall under his father and so is sure he too will have victory that day. The cannons destroy the castle walls and the battle is lost.
The second King relied completely on retrospect. He became too comfortable because everything had been fine in the past. He didn’t modernise his castle, he didn’t get new weapons and he didn’t adopt new battle strategy which resulted in his downfall. Comfort is a very dangerous feeling. It is extremely difficult to carry on pushing for improvement when things are generally fine. The moment you stop, you are already one step behind and if something goes wrong it is your entire fault.
Another simple example would be a company director works extremely hard for a few years, desperately trying to improve the business. Then suddenly things start to improve, and he feels comfortable so slows down and relaxes a bit. The growth continues for a couple of years by which time he is doing hardly anything to improve the company because he can see it is going so well. Then suddenly the company begins to plummet and he cannot work out why. He then loses his job as the shareholders are fed up with him. They then hire another director and the process starts again.
The effects of hard work and improvement are often undetectable for a substantial amount of time. When things do start to improve it is easy to become complacent, or to think what you are doing at that moment is improving things, when in actual fact what you are doing has no bearing on the current situation, and may be detrimental when its effect takes place.
This can be seen in recent British history. Many historians believe the ‘Ten Golden Years’ of growth that we (Britain) experienced whilst Gordon Brown was chancellor had very little to do with him at all. In fact it can be said that the remarkable economic stability felt during the takeover and majority of rule of new labour was completely down to the Thatcher government. The move to monetarism, and crushing of the trade unions released Britain’s economic potential. In Gordon Brown’s defence, one very notable act was his move to give the Bank of England independency, but still make them accountable. This meant the Bank of England had no hidden agenda other than to try and encourage moderate growth and keep a hold on inflation. It also meant any problems felt economically could easily be blamed on the Bank of England by the Government. However, independent BoE or not, Britain was following economic principles laid down by the preceding Conservative government. The other policies adopted by Gordon Brown could be seen as irresponsible, for example selling off the last of the gold reserves. Yes, it promoted economic growth, but realistically that stability as I have already mentioned came from other policies, and that particular policy may have left us on unstable ground. Gordon Brown was comfortable, and took the credit for the continuing growth, which was not really anything to do with him. Currently Britain is facing the largest economic challenge of recent times (now Brown is Prime Minister – but lets be honest darling is purely a puppet chancellor) and some commentators would blame wholly this on Brown’s complacency. However, I think to do this is very simple minded. Of course he may have contributed, but the fact is that there are hundreds of pushes and pulls on the British economy, most notably recently, international financial difficulties. Therefore to blame it all on Brown would be like a conclusion from a GCSE history essay, and be using him as a cheap scapegoat. Brown himself was a puppet chancellor to the conservative economic foundations laid down before him. Perhaps this recent rift in the economic climate in Britain may do us good – it will force MPs into action, and hopefully they will be able to pull us out of it into another 10 years of growth, during which another chancellor will become comfortable and set us up for another fall.

Just a quick thought on the subject of politicians – the House of Commons is an absolute joke, but so incredibly important. It’s just such a shame it is overshadowed by ‘Punch and Judy’ exchanges. The whole thing is just one cheap jibe after another, trying to get ‘one up’ on the other side, its like being in a primary school playground when the daily cussing matches have commenced. How can important subjects be decided upon in such undignified exchanges. What has happened to honour and pride? Plus MP attendance is on the whole abysmal. I think everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed.
Similarly I am daily shocked at the extremely poor level of journalism that graces our newspapers, magazines, and also television. Just like the style of the House of Commons, media seems to be a little out of control. It’s easy to see why. Newspaper sales are on the fall due to the internet, so in order to sell they need to have mass appeal. Broadsheets are in the biggest decline as they seem to have some restraint as to not delving into what is just cheap. I was shocked when watching the BBC news at six, to find an MP being actively bullied by a newsreader over an issue of absolutely no importance. I was stunned that the story was even deemed newsworthy on a national level, let alone that someone deserved bullying over it. I can understand over contentious issues, when interviewing someone people have to be firm (Jeremy Paxman for example), but this issue was far from controversial. I almost wrote a letter of complaint, I would have expected that from maybe channel 4 or 5 but I count the BBC as the broadcasters of truth, the one channel left with the slightest hint of dignity. It seems on this occasion I was wrong.
Why are we as a nation so obsessed with celebrities? Why do people care what Posh has worn this week, or that a certain couple may be breaking up. Surely it is none of our business. If there is any section of the printed media world that is not in decline it is that of the gossip magazines. People can't seem to get enough of them, and even buy several different ones each week that actually have exactly the same stories and pictures in. Isn’t it an invasion of privacy and also a bit lame? Why can’t we live our own lives instead of trying to pursue other peoples? On that subject, I can’t understand why members of the paparazzi are not currently in jail. If I stood outside someone’s house all day and night, followed them wherever they went in a very harassing way, constantly in their face, I would be arrested. So why then does it make it alright for someone to do it because they have a camera in their hand – surely that should make it worse. Also at least when they are in someone’s face they are aware they are being photographed, what about celebrities who are on holiday on the beach being snapped by a paparazzi using an ultra long camera lens? Why is it not illegal to use those photographs – the person had no idea they were being taken, and they surely have no right to print a picture of someone without their permission, at least not of that nature. If I was being harassed in such a manor because I was famous I would definitely take them to court, and I’m not quite sure why celebrities don’t. The only reason I can think of is that many celebrities love the attention and feel that they need to be in the tabloids in order to retain their social position, which is very sad.

Degrees are a commodity with higher and higher importance, or rather, less and less importance depending on your viewpoint. The number of people doing degrees has gone up dramatically in the last decade due to the increasing necessity of one to gain a job that pays above the minimum wage. Degrees are now so commonplace that other methods of choosing between job applicants are having to stretch further than where and what you studied at degree level. More people are being pushed into masters or PhD research in order to stand out from the rest of the crowd, leaving them in higher debt and often spending time doing something they didn’t really want to do. This in itself is not the biggest problem caused by this huge influx of degree hungry students. The push by the Government to get more people into higher education has meant there are a whole load of people at University that shouldn’t really be there, but because of false aspirations that have been forced upon them the feel they need to go. These are people that really should have left school at 16 and gone onto a building site, done an apprentice in some sort of trade, or something like that. Not everyone is an academic so why are we so obsessed with forcing people to be academic. Some people do not want to study for longer and will simply fail because of lack of drive. Young people are being brain washed into thinking they need a degree.
In fact I know two people a couple of years older than me, who didn’t finish their A-levels and went to straight to work in estate agents. Both of them have done very well for themselves, rent their own place and own their own cars. They have moved up the company quickly and after just a few years are earning a serious amount of money. At 20, one of them is earning enough to buy his own house in London. Similarly I know another man, aged 21 who did complete his A-levels, but skipped university and went straight into an admin job at an investment bank. He then was asked to stay on, was trained internally and also is earning enough to buy his own house in London. While other people their age have been at university, these people have gone straight into work. At the end of those three years at university, their friends have a degree and are looking for a job. Those that have worked have three year of experience and expertise behind them, property investments and are not burdened with any student debt. These three people are very fortunate to have had such great opportunities, and I am not saying no one should go to university, but university is not the only way to have a successful career, experience is hugely important.
Degrees in media and such subjects are commonplace, but what media organisation would want someone with just a media degree? Wouldn’t they rather have someone who made films in their spare time at school, didn’t go to university as they had started working freelance because they loved it so much and then decided they might like to work full time so applied for a job. True – this will not happen for the vast majority, but it’s a question of supply and demand. There are not enough doctors, economists, mathematicians etc and far too many music technology, media and photography students that there cannot possibly be enough jobs for them. When doing creative subjects, taking your own initiative is paramount. If doing music technology you need to be recording bands in your spare time, remixing famous songs, DJing every week, just doing as many things and gaining as many contacts as you possibly can. Then when it comes to an interview your portfolio of work will actually be impressive, and maybe even inspiring. Passion shines through above all else, and you need to prove that passion through things you have done outside of your course, otherwise there really is no hope.
Effectively a media degree alone means nothing. A lot of degrees are leaving people thousands of pounds in debt and with no job prospects – even well regarded degrees. Am I saying people should not go to university? No. I am saying University is not suited to everyone and some people shouldn’t be bullied into going. I am saying the school leaver’s age should definitely remain at 16 (what’s the point of forcing people through A-levels if they don’t want to do them – they will probably not even turn up to the exams. It’s a waste of their time and taxpayers money). I am saying that degrees are vital to get well paid jobs in most sectors, but often not even enough to get one for many people, and I am saying that many subjects at degree level are largely pointless unless individual initiative and creative thought is used to stand out form the crowd.