Men probably do not pay close enough attention to the causes of much of the health issues which plague them in this day and age. Men’s health magazines only seem to focus on the male exterior and image. However, beauty products are increasingly being used by more and more men. The problem is that many of them contain potentially dangerous chemicals. If we’re going bald at a young age, then it is simply down to bad genes. If we put on weight, then it’s because we are too lazy to exercise or because we eat too much. If we’re depressed, then it can only be explained by personal circumstances. We are told that depression and weight gain can lead to a low sex drive and erectile dysfunction. While these causes and symptoms do exist, there could be another explanation for such ailments.
Since the mid-90s the image of “what a man is” has changed from the laddish, beer swilling, uncouth man child, with poor personal hygiene, to the well dressed, moisturising, image of perfection that many men aim for today. The metro-sexuality of men over the last two decades, while making men take better care of them self, could be having a negative impact on their sex drive and general health. Let me explain. There are now almost equal amounts of beauty products for men as there are for women. For each feminine product, there is a male counterpart. However, the main difference, between a male and female product, is largely down to the fragrance. The chemical make-up of men’s and women’s hair and skin care products is almost identical. The chemicals used are oestrogen rich, perfect for women but a potential ticking time bomb for men, especially those with a naturally low testosterone count.
Having a healthy testosterone count is essential for not only men but women too. Testosterone greatly effects libido and sex drive but there are other associated problems. While men naturally have a higher testosterone count, a low T count in both women and men can cause problems with depression, mood swings, fatigue, weight gain and hair loss. Current consensus has put this down to the natural aging process. As we get older our testosterone levels naturally drop and our sex drive declines. However, we men could be inadvertently speeding the process up in the pursuit of perfect hair and skin.
Here comes the science part…If we take shampoo, or shower gel, for example. The chemicals in such products include propyl parabens, sodium laureth sulphate and propylene glycol. One, or a combination of all three of these compounds, also known as xenoestrogens, can be found in most beauty products. They are synthetic forms of the female hormone oestrogen, which, unlike its natural counterpart, cannot be broken down as effectively by the human body. Instead, the synthesised hormone gets stored in the fat cells and is slowly released into the body to disrupt the natural process and lower testosterone.
Propyl parabens are widely used as preservatives in foods, cosmetics and toiletries. In a 2002 scientific study, by the National Institutes of Health, into the effects of parabens in male rats, the study found that parabens adversely affected the hormonal secretion and the male reproductive functions. The study also found that parabens exert weak oestrogen activity that can, over time and with repeated exposure, greatly lower the T count in rats. Whether or not this same effect is found in humans has been widely debated. However, it is perfectly logical to make the assumption that oestrogen rich chemicals, which are used every day in hair and skin care products, will have an effect on the T count.
Sodium laureth sulphate is the foaming agent that produces the copious amount of suds for you to lather up and get so fresh and so clean, clean. However just like parabens, sulphates are also rich in oestrogen. Every day, from face wash to shower gels, our skin and hair is soaking up chemicals which have been found to lower testosterone. Propylene glycol is used to give products a sweet taste; it has been used widely in the U.S. and is known as an “E number”. The toxicity of propylene glycol is thought to be relatively harmless when ingested; nonetheless, over prolonged periods of exposure it can have negative effects.
So if you’re suffering from any seemingly age and genetic related problems, which are highlighted above, take a look at the contents of what you are using to keep your skin hydrated and your hair clean and styled. If you think that you have low testosterone you should consult your doctor who can perform a simple blood test to give you conclusive results. However, the cause of your low testosterone and related ailments could be down to what’s lurking in your bathroom.
Every now and then a different fad diet does the rounds. Proponents regale us with tales of dramatic weight loss with little effort. Recently, as a means of experimentation, I tried one of these fad diets. I didn’t want to crap all over it before trying it for myself. The diet in question is called “The Military Diet”, which claims that you can lose up to ten pounds in one week. The diet only lasts three days, with four rest days and consists of basic rationing, eating specific meals three times a day with no snacks, very little sugar and zero exercise. An image from the website shows a military person exercising beside the words saying that this is “the diet that military people eat” and that it doesn’t require any exercise. A bit of contradiction surely.
For breakfast on the first day, I had a slice of toast with peanut butter, a black coffee with no sugar and a half teaspoon of baking powder dissolved in water. The diet recommends half of a grapefruit but there is a substitution list for the foods you don’t like. The reason for such specific food groups is not really explained on the website. However, grapefruit alkalises your stomach making it easier to breakdown foods, the website states. The peanut butter on toast provides protein and carbohydrates for energy and the coffee provides energy in the form of caffeine.
Lunch has the same idea, caffeine, carbs and protein. The diet states that you should have a slice of dry toast, cup of black coffee and a tin of tuna. However, being a vegetarian, I swapped out the tuna for some Quorn meat slices which are high in protein. Dinner provides your biggest source of calories for the day. You are allowed 300 calories worth of meat/protein, a green veg of your choosing, half of a banana, an apple and 300 calories of plain vanilla ice cream. The combination of these foods, the website claims, makes it easier for your body to process and break down. It is also supposed to speed up your metabolism. The calorie count drops each day which is reflected in the portion size of each meal.
The diet doesn’t change much for the next two days, but the amount of food drops significantly but you do get to have some cheese with crackers, boiled eggs and apples. Over the three days I consumed around 3000 calories, about 4500 calories less than recommended. On the rest days I still ate healthily, consuming around 1500 calories per day. By the end of the week I had dropped over five pounds. “The results speak for themselves” you might be thinking. However, when you stand back and analyse what has happened, you begin to see that the diet has no special qualities, the combination of foods had no bearing on the weight loss whatsoever. I managed to keep off the weight but that’s only because I tend to eat healthy anyway. If you eat foods that are high in fat and sugar on your rest days or when the diet is over, then you will put all the weight straight back on.
The three day diet breakdown
In the first week of any diet, the amount of weight lost is usually higher than any other subsequent week. The reason for this is that the human body stores water as a survival mechanism. It is these stores that go first, they are the easiest to burn and the easiest to replace. Any diet which limits you to around 1000 calories per day is going to see the kind of results that the military diet claims to provide. I may have lost over five pounds, but I was miserable, I had constant headaches, which were unbearable at times, I felt faint while at work and almost collapsed a couple of times. In the second week I ate the same as the first and only lost one pound, but that one pound of weight loss was not worth the horrible mood swings and general feeling of misery.
The website gives three reasons for why the military diet works. Firstly, they state the obvious, which is that the diet is low calorie. A low calorie diet will always lead to some kind of weight loss. The second reason given is that the diet is a form of intermittent fasting (IF), which the website claims speeds up the metabolism. However, several studies into the effect of IF state that although IF does increase the metabolic rate, they also state that it can take up to six weeks before IF begins to have an effect on the metabolism. This means that the diets second reason for working is invalid as it states that the diet should only be done three out of four weeks. Lastly the website states that most foods on the diet kick start the metabolism and promote fat burning. However, their scientific reasoning falls down under scrutiny.
This means that the only reason the diet seems to work is simply down to the fact that you are restricting your calorie intake. The diet might as well be called “The Extreme Low Calorie Diet” because that is the only reason for the weight loss. It is something which can only be done once or twice in a month as it is to unbearable to endure anymore than that, but that’s just me.
The word robot comes from the Slavic Czech Robota which means hard work, serf labour, forced labour and servitude…
There are several films which places self-aware, artificial intelligence (A.I.) at the heart of its story. This normally culminates the A.I. attempting to protect, destroy, or enslave their human creators. The plot of The Avengers: Age of Ultron is just the latest in a long line of films which focuses on a self-aware robot wreaking havoc. Most films which feature A.I. and robots have an underclass of service droids/machines that are designed to serve humans, and that ultimately rise up and take control. What does this all mean? Underneath the grittiness of the plot, the stunning visual effects and action scenes lay several important themes. The dystopian future depicted in the novels, and later, films could be perceived as warnings about the future of humanity, lessons from the past, and how social constructs are designed to make the majority of humanity a compliant and docile work force.
Michael Crichton’s 1973 film, Westworld, is set in a futuristic landscape, where a robot populated adult theme park offers people the vacation of a lifetime. Tourists can choose between medieval World, Ancient Rome and Greece, and the Wild West. The A.I. robot population must obey every command of their human masters. Due to a malfunction, they become aware of their situation and set about killing as many people as they can. There is a definite slavery allegory at work in this film, which sees the abused, overworked robots mutiny, kill their human captors and run amok. On occasion, transported African slaves would escape their bonds and kill those on board. The 1997 film Amistad is a perfect example of this and certain similarities can be seen in the two films. An underclass exploited for the pleasure and profit of their superiors.
Isaac Asimov wrote several science fiction stories about robots, even coining the term “robotics”. Many of his tales were published in 1950 in I, Robot where he sets out the rules and ethics which govern robots. These are known as The Three Laws of Robotics. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders conflict with the first law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second laws.
The 2004 film, I, Robot, focuses on robots taking these laws to their logical conclusion. The laws state that they must prevent injury to human beings; this leads to the conclusion that humans must be protected from their own destructive nature and be stopped from harming themselves. The Robots take control purely for humanities own protection and form a type of “nanny state”. This vision of the future with mindless drones doing all the grunt work, never questioning the establishment highlights the present day situation for many people. However, when the robots do go against the grain they are vilified as destroyers of a harmonious society. This is an obvious nod to how society works today. When workers go on strike, the establishment accuses them of being disruptive before relenting ever so slightly. However, strikers are seen by the establishment as the villains in most of these cases which is rather telling.
I, Robot 2004 – Will Smith is suspicious of the docile workforce.
There are many more films in this genre which have themes of slavery and subservience running through them. Blade Runner and Terminator, for example, feature a class of machines that pose a threat a threat to humanity. Even Jurassic Park has some of these elements, and considering it was written by Michael Crichton it can hardly be surprising. This means that Westworld and Jurassic Park are essentially the same film and plot. A theme park’s creations escape/malfunction and try to kill humans. If you think of society as the theme park, we are the exploited exhibits that occasionally rebel and the politicians and aristocracy profit from our misery. Apologies for the hammering home of this point.
The themes explored in these films have startlingly similarities in many others, Amistad as previously mentioned. In Stanley Kubrick’s 1960 film Spartacus we see a group of captive men, forced to train, live and fight as gladiators. They are slaves to a brutal master and eventually break free of their bonds before taking on the might of Rome. The film is based on true events from the Third Servile War in 72 BC which have also been recreated to stunning and creative effect in the TV series, Spartacus: Blood and Sand. If we tweak the position of the tread upon just a little then we can see how these themes can show up in other titles. Films such as 1984, Equilibrium, and V for Vendetta all feature an overarching control system, whether through fear of reprisals or drugs, the society is controlled and behaves like docile sheep, unthinking and uncriticising of their rulers. Replace the human society with robots then we can see how Westworld, I, Robot, Terminator and Blade Runner can be interpreted as allegories for a past, present and future society.
I am sure there are many other films which fit this hypothesis but I felt that it would have been overkill to go over them here.
In the early hours of Friday morning Scotland was waking to the news that the SNP had made a historic clean sweep (almost) of Scottish seats. For the next five years there will be fifty-six SNP members of parliament, barring any by-elections. The SNP’s near whitewash sends the strongest possible message, to those in power at Westminster, that Scotland will no longer play second fiddle, no longer be guinea pigs for unpopular policies and no longer be accused of being “subsidy junkies”. We are, after all, better together are we not? Surely those who fought the break-up of the Union will be pleased that Scotland has a party representing them in parliament. A party that will ensure that Scotland gets a fairer deal, a party that will fight cuts to the NHS, cuts to benefits for the disabled, and a party that will seek to end the Conservatives crippling austerity measures.
There are those who are already blaming the Scottish electorate for giving Britain another Tory Government. But what they fail to take into consideration is that, in the past, Scotland has traditionally voted Labour and still ended up with the Tories in charge. In fact had Labour taken all of the available seats in Scotland, it would not have made a blind bit of difference to the result. Furthermore, if you add the seats that the Conservatives did not win, it comes to 319 which is not enough for a majority. Labour lost to the Tories because they failed to convince the electorate that they were “of the people”. To give Ed Miliband credit, he did try and appeal to the masses as a likeable, average bloke. However, you cannot fake being something you are not. Miliband should have owned up to his privileged background instead of trying to hide it.
The fate of Labour in Scotland had long been predicted, and Jim Murphy’s shouting routine didn’t endear him to the Labour voters lost during last years independence referendum. In fact, Murphy seemed to be fighting a losing battle having to use the desperate tactic of making SNP supporters look like angry thugs, something that much of the media did well to promote. But all of that is over, and Scotland is facing the backlash for having the temerity to dare challenge the status quo. Labour might have clawed back some seats had their campaign been focused more on their own policies instead of one of fear. We were treated to public pronouncements that a vote for the SNP would lead to a Tory Government. Scotland, in effect, was being lined up as the scapegoat for Labour’s many shortcomings.
Scottish Labour collapsed because they moved away from their founding principles. This is not to say that Labour Councillors, working on the frontline in some of the most deprived areas in Scotland, are part of the problem. If anything, they actually represent a brighter future for Scottish Labour. By working with those most affected by austerity, they can bring that invaluable experience to the policy makers to ensure that the vulnerable are looked after. Hopefully it will be these people who come through to steer Scottish Labour back to their origins of looking after people first, instead of being career, self-interested politicians.
Here we go, another formulaic romantic comedy with phoned in performances from actors just going through the motions. That was my initial reaction when my girlfriend recommended The One I Love. To my astonishment, and unbridled joy, this turned out to be one of the smartest, jarring looks at the romcom genre. The film’s synopsis gives nothing away, painting it as a bog standard love story. Starring Mark Duplass and Elizabeth Moss in the central roles, with a small, yet pivotal, role played by the evergreen Ted Danson as “The Therapist”. The film starts with Ethan (Duplass) and Sophie (Moss) attempting to reignite their faltering relationship by reliving past adventures. On the advice of “The Therapist” they head to his holiday home out in the country side as he assures them that it will be the remedy they desire.
On their first night they discover the guest house where, in an unexplained twist, lives an alternative version of Ethan and Sophie that embody everything the real couple used to be. When Sophie enters the guest house she sees the laid back, care free Ethan that she fell in love with. Ethan sees the Sophie he remembers from the start of their relationship, however, he is suspicious and finds it all very strange, constantly questioning the other Sophie about who and what she is. The real Sophie, on the other hand, falls for her husband’s doppelgänger, sneaking off in the middle of the night to make love. After a series of visits Ethan becomes extremely jealous and paranoid of all the time Sophie is spending with the other Ethan. It culminates in an awkward dinner party with all four as the other Ethan and Sophie try and explain what’s happening. I will leave out the ending of the film as it would defeat the purpose of watching it.
The unexplained fantasy/science fiction element is a refreshing twist on the romantic comedy but is merely the vehicle which drives the central themes of the story. A perspective-splitting look at the problems that most relationships suffer, yet never really discuss, and how last ditch attempt rarely acts as the soothing salve you hope it might. Instead, such attempts to rekindle that lost spark only manage to drive the wedge of separation deeper as you are reminded of how much the person you fell in love with has changed since those early days. The film perfectly sums up that lost feeling of a failed relationship and how it can take a momentous shake-up to get both sides to honestly analyse just how far the relationship has fallen. Furthermore, The One I Love hits at the heart of the dynamics of one-sided relationships in which, in this case Sophie, has already resigned to the death of their love.
If you enjoy The One I Love, available on Netflix, then I would recommend watching Safety Not Guaranteed, another film starring Mark Duplass, and another dramatic twist of science fiction proportions set to the romantic comedy vehicle.
Plain clothed police detained one individual on suspicion of possessing an illegal drug (a joint). After handcuffing the man he was informed that if drugs were found in the cigarette, then he would be called to attend a hearing at court.
A group of the events attendees surrounded the police to ask why he was being arrested. A few people booed, while others shouted at the police as tempers flared. The man was let go with the understanding that he may be charged in the future should illegal drugs be found.
As he was being released another gentlemen was arrested for “acting in an aggressive manner”. He was handcuffed and bundled into the back of a police van amid protest from a dozen or so of his friends. I asked the police why he’d been arrested but they told me that I would have to speak to the arresting officer who had left in the police van.
Despite the drama, the event returned to its peaceful merriment that it had enjoyed before the incident.
Today a group of likeminded individuals, from all walks of life, ages and ethnicities, joined together in an attempt to raise awareness for the legalisation of marijuana. They had previously been denied permission to use George Sq by Glasgow City Council but that did not stop them from setting up their tents. stalls and sound systems. A day of celebration was planned, a DJ performed a short set before the live music and speeches started.
However, some of the attendees viewed the event as a chance to party, smoke weed, have a drink and a bit of a dance. There was a genuine carnival atmosphere that made passers-by stop and find out what was going. I spoke to some of those who had attended to find out why they had come and what the aim of the protest was.
I also spoke to event organiser, Chris MacKenzie, who was insistent that the purpose of their demonstration was not to have a party and smoke weed, instead they wanted to spread their message and raise awareness. He did not condone people consuming cannabis at the event but said that he cannot be held responsible if individuals decide to.
This essay will examine the ethical considerations that journalists should weigh up when portraying potentially disturbing events, both in newspapers and on television. By looking at how decisions to publish or distribute disturbing material are made, we will highlight that there is no real consensus, among professionals and academics, about where to draw the line in the ethical sand. Also to be explored will be the philosophical theories which have added to the ethical debate and how they have helped shape the codes of ethics that journalists and editors can refer to when faced with difficult ethical decisions. Furthermore, we will be looking at specific examples from famous news stories that required careful ethical consideration about the potential consequences before broadcasting or publishing images of a sensitive nature. In some cases, journalists and editors have “flinched” when deciding whether or not to publish such images but others have remained stoic in the face of criticism, some for more benevolent reasons than others.
In Richard Keeble’s Ethics for Journalists, he explains that ‘the concept of media ethics is conceived to be an oxymoron. Sadly many segments of the modern media are stripped of almost all ethical concerns.’[1] Keeble puts this down to the competition for ratings and the need to sell papers and advertising space. In Controversies in Media Ethics, John C Merrill argues that there are two stances (professional and humanistic) that are taken when faced with ethical considerations. The professional stance is that ‘reporters who are dedicated to the people’s right to know, who feel an ethical obligation to let them know. They might do so without worrying about consequences…The humanistic stance is more relativistic or consequence motivated.’[2] Finding a point in the middle of these two stances appears to be the best approach according to Christopher Hansen, in Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, who states that a journalists imperative ‘is not to kill that disturbing story or photo but to present it in a way that minimizes pain without holding back what the public needs to know.’[3]
Your own moral compass on what is ethical and what is not can be complimented by a set of guidelines. The society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) offer these guidelines and codes but they do not deal directly with disturbing or graphic images. The SPJ comes closest in section two – minimizing harm – by stating ‘show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage – Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief – Show good taste, avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.’[4] The above is open to interpretation meaning that editors and journalists can easily push the boundaries of what is acceptable. Additionally, IPSO’s clause five – intrusion into grief or shock – states, ‘in cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively.’[5] Bonnie Brennen, also writing in Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, claims that ‘ethics codes in general are controversial among professionals and scholars. Some maintain that ethics codes are nothing more than generalized aspirations – too vague to be of any use when specific decisions must be made.’[6] The guidelines of which Brennen speaks of are there to help journalists and editors when making decisions.
If the codes of ethics do not go far enough then there are certain philosophical theories which have added to the ethical discussion. Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that people should ‘act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.’[7] The minimizing harm section of the SPJ codes has Kantian tones, stating ‘ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.’[8] In Making Hard Choices in Journalism Ethics, David E. Boeyink and Sandra L. Borden state further that ‘Kant’s general defence of universal ethical principles – and, more specifically, the duty to respect all persons – is an important contribution to the way we think about ethics today.’[9]
A further philosophical theory which has been used in ethical discussions is Aristotle’s Golden Mean. As Gordon et al explains, ‘virtue is a state of character with choices of a moderate nature, a kind of balance determined by a rational person possessing practical wisdom. This Golden Mean is midpoint between two vices, one excessive and the other defective.’[10] However, Patterson and Wilkins claim that ‘the middle ground (or mean) of a virtue is not a single point on a line that is the same for every individual.’[11] It is for this very reason that codes only serve as an arbitrary guideline. There are those that would go further than what the codes suggest and those that would ignore them completely. The last philosophical theory to be looked at today is utilitarianism, popularised by Jeremy Bentham and later John Stuart Mill. Its central tenet states, ‘the consequences of actions are important in deciding whether they are ethical.’[12] This covers the greater good argument, a justification used many times by editors and journalists when called to defend their decisions. If the story, photograph or video does more good than harm, then it is ethically sound to publish. If we use these three theories as a guide, they seem to become more encompassing than the SPJ and IPSO codes. Aristotle focuses on the actor, Kant on the action and mill on the outcome or consequence.
When discussing the codes of SPJ and IPSO, Boeyink and Borden claim that ‘these principles are in constant tension as journalists endeavour to perform good work – in both the technical and moral sense. It’s precisely because these principles conflict so often that merely appealing to the code is not sufficient for solving the moral mysteries that bedevil even the best journalist.’[13] This was certainly the case when a BBC panel met to discuss the use of disturbing images in news and to debate the ethical principles behind these decisions. A group of twelve subjects were shown news footage of a recent Spanish train crash which killed seventy-nine people. (See below for ABC’s coverage of the crash) BBC director of global news, Peter Horrocks, speaking of the groups reaction stated, ‘on the whole, the feeling amongst the group was that disturbing footage should be included even if it makes for uncomfortable viewing (one of the group stated) it distressed me…but it had to be shown.’[14] When it came to airing the video of the crash, it was up to BBC news channel editor, Simon Waldman, to make the call over how much to show. ‘He opted to cut out the shot before the train hit the camera that was filming it…the visceral reaction he felt when he first saw the complete shot, together with the context at the time – when it was still not clear how many people had died in the crash – made him decide on the early out point.’[15] This opinion put him at odds with his fellow panel members who would have shown the footage in its entirety. Waldman’s decision seems to be based on there being no need for the public to see the culmination of the crash, to take it to its end point, or terminus, would be too final. Intentionally or not, there is evidence of Aristotle’s Golden Mean being applied here. Waldman appears to have been searching for the middle point between two extremes.
Similarly, Jennifer Faull of The Drum comments that ‘it is always a question of news and taste and balance, and you don’t want to hide the horror of what had happened but you don’t want family members to see pictures of bodies all over the internet before they have been told by authorities.’[16] Faull’s article focuses on the publication of photos of the crash victims of the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17. Looking at the reaction of professional journalists, Joan Smith of Hacked Off is quoted as saying ‘I was pleased to see journalists warning against publishing such photos on social media, underlying the importance of training in ethics of journalism.’[17]
The potential consequence of using images or videos is that it could cause upset to the public. These negative consequences would have to be weighed up with any potential positives. To highlight this, an example from The Boston Herald in 1975 can be used. Photographer Stanley Forman was called to what he thought would be a routine rescue of people from a burning building but, as the fire service were getting a ladder up to the fire escape; Forman heard the shrieking sound of bending metal. The fire escape had given way and Forman managed to snap four quick photographs, one of which pictures a nineteen year old woman falling head first with a two year old girl just above her. The nineteen year old broke the fall of the toddler, the latter survived the fall but the former died of her injuries. The Boston Herald decided to run with the picture (see below) on the front page, and ‘within 24 hours, action was taken in Boston to improve the inspection and maintenance of all existing fire escapes in the city. Fire-safety groups around the country used the photos to promote similar efforts in other cities.’[18] This type of justification for using the image is in line with Mill’s Utility Principle, which states an act’s rightness is determined by its contribution to a desirable end. Adding context to an image allows you to explain why it is important that the image has been published. Michael L. Carlback argues that ‘in this informational mix, picture content matters less than the manner in which the picture is used.’[19]
Image Credit: Stanley Forman/Boston Herald American
When reading articles or watching news stories regarding sensitive topics, such as victims of war, terrorism, famine or domestic violence, the more graphic images tend to be diluted down to an acceptable level. However, Thomas H. Wheeler states in Photofiction or Phototruth?, ‘across the spectrum of discussion the one constant is a conviction that journalistic photos must reflect reality.’[20] It is this reality which is likely to cause offence and something which editors and journalists must not flinch from, instead they have the power to decide how much reality the public can manage. This conclusion can be perfectly summed up by the image, portrayed by the media and military alike, of the First Gulf War. Philip M. Taylor comments that ‘it was estimated by some people that as many as 25,000 Iraqis may have died in the ground wars final phase, where were the corpses?’[21] Nonetheless, Jessica M. Fishman, in Image Ethics in the Digital Age, highlights the concern expressed by citizens over the publication of death photographs arguing that ‘they are exploitative…choices to publish photos of death spring from an unethical, profit-driven motive aimed at selling more editions of the news.’[22] This concern does not explain fully the decision not to publish images of death during the Gulf War as Taylor highlights above. A further example to dismiss this claim comes from an article written by Torie Rose DeGhett titled “The War Photo No One Would Publish” which comments that ‘on February 28, 1991, Kenneth Jarecke stood in front of the charred man, parked amid the carbonized bodies of his fellow soldiers, and photographed him (see below)…the image and its anonymous subject might have come to symbolize the Gulf War. Instead, it went unpublished in the United States, not because of military obstruction but because of editorial choices.’[23] This editorial decision seems in keeping with a later Fishman comment regarding images of death in the news, ‘I discovered in conducting a systematic analysis of the past twenty years of American newspaper coverage that news photographs rarely reveal corpses.’[24] This points to the public being shielded from the worst horrors, not only of war and conflict but, of violence in general.
Courtesy of The Atlantic.com
In conclusion, journalists and editors are required to weigh up the potential aftermath before deciding to publish disturbing images. If there are more positive consequences than negative, then there should be no real headache. However, the parameters of taste and decency are not well defined meaning that there are disagreements among journalists and academics about the very definition of “ethicalness”. The ethical considerations that should be considered stem from the need to minimize harm to the public, what is in the public interest, the value that disturbing images add to the story; and whether or not anything will change as a result, as per the Forman example. Another conclusion to be drawn is that there are no uniform rules, and journalists and editors must rely upon their own moral compass. This leads to a difference of opinion amongst journalists as they interpret the codes of the SPJ and IPSO differently.
Bibliography
[1] Richard Keeble, Ethics for Journalists (Routledge, London, 2001) p. 5
[2] A. David Gordon, John Michael Kittross, John C. Merrill, William Babcock, and Michael Dorsher, Controversies in Media Ethics 3rd edition (Routledge, New York, 2011) p. 14
[3] Christopher Hansen, Media Ethics: Issues and Cases Chapter 2, Informing the Public Must Come First, (eds), Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008) p. 38
[6] Bonnie Brennen, Media Ethics: Issues and Cases Chapter 4, Case 4-C, Conflicted Interests, Contested Terrain, Journalism Ethics then and now, (eds), Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008) p. 111
[7] David E. Boeyink and Sandra L. Borden, Making hard choices in journalism (Routledge, New York, 2010) p. 33
[18] Philip Patterson, Media Ethics: Issues and Cases Chapter 4, Case 4-D, One Person’s Tragedy, Another Person’s Prize, (eds), Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008) p. 114
[19] Thomas H. Wheeler, Photofiction or phototruth? Ethics and Media Imagery in the Digital Age (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., New Jersey, 2002) p. 102
[21] Philip M. Taylor, The War and the Media: Propaganda and Persuasion in the Gulf War, (Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1992) p. 258
[22] Jessica M. Fishman, Image Ethics in the Digital Age Chapter 3 News Norms and Emotions (eds), Larry Gross, John Stuart Katz and Jay Ruby (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2003) p. 53
Writing reviews for comedies can be difficult when compared to thrillers or indeed horrors. A comedic film generally deals in a less serious subject matter, or it takes a light-hearted approach to a serious topic meaning that you can switch your brain off while you enjoy the onscreen antics. With comedies there are less themes which emerge meaning that you have very little to sound profound and pompous about. With more serious films it is easier to believe that these are real people and not just actors playing roles. In comedies the performances are normally just an extension of the actors own routine. Take Will Ferrell for example, who plays James King, one of my favourite comedy actors and star of many of the funniest films for the last fifteen years. You know what you’re getting with a Will Ferrell flick, laugh out loud moments sandwiched in between awkward Larry David/Ricky Gervais style comedy that will be full of quotable lines. Kevin Hart, who portrays Darnell Lewis, has become so popular that every comedy script probably gets thrown his way. That means he’ll probably pick a few lemons from time to time, case in point being the god awful The Wedding Ringer.
The premise of Get Hard is a solid one, which sees a member of the 1% club teamed up with a “lowly proletariat” who normally wouldn’t even get the time of the day, which makes this film the perfect odd couple/buddy film. A mega rich hedge fund manager is wrongly convicted of tax fraud. The guy is a douche but not on the same level as some of his real life – and definitely guilty – counter parts á la Bernie Madoff. Instead of getting sent to a plushy minimum security holiday club, James King is sent to San Quentin, one of the America’s notoriously tough penitentiaries. He has thirty days before getting sent to prison and in order to prepare he recruits Darnell Lewis who he mistakes for a tough ex con that knows the system. Ferrell’s character is an out of touch millionaire who assumes because Darnell is black that he his “street”. Seeing the opportunity to make some money, Hart’s character keeps up the façade of being a tough black guy from the “hood”.
The film has a wry charm to it that you just don’t get with other comedies. Despite the racist stereotypes it really does give you an insight into the class structures at play in American society. Those who have the money, the 1%, don’t see themselves as being the problem, they are simply living the American dream, and those who cannot attain it are just stupid and deserve the lifestyle they have. Ferrell’s King brings this across to stunning effect making this film a stand out among its contemporaries. Get Hard is easily one of the funniest films of 2015 so far and I command you to go and watch it.
Before we get to the bottom of the question at hand, it is important that we first understand what makes an entrepreneur who they are. Being an entrepreneur is a mindset, a way of thinking, how we see the world. That mindset is something which seems extremely difficult to pigeonhole. The reason for this conclusion comes from the thoughts, words and actions of entrepreneurs themselves. When they talk about what makes them successful they highlight very different qualities. In Developing an Entrepreneurial Mindset the CEO of Raizcorp, an African based business incubator, Allon Raiz states that ‘academic research on the psychology of entrepreneurs has shown that there is no single psychological typology (set of characteristics) that suggests an entrepreneur’s success is guaranteed.’ Similarly, William B Gartner, a professor of entrepreneurship at Copenhagen Business School, claims in the academic paper “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question, that ‘my own personal experience was that for ten years we ran a research centre in entrepreneurial history, for ten years we tried to define the entrepreneur. We never succeeded.’ Founder and director of Impact Online, social media and PR specialists, Kim McAllister claims that ‘I think you have to be driven by something and I think if you’re driven by making money, then you probably won’t succeed. You have to believe in what you’re doing and you have to love what you’re doing to get a real kick out of your success.’
Furthermore, according to an article on entrepreneur.com there are five qualities that budding entrepreneurs should possess. These are passion, perseverance, resourcefulness, open-mindedness and a sponge-like nature. Article author and Yes Man Watches founder, Nathan Resnick claims ‘if you have passion for your start-up, this will drive you to turn your idea into a reality.’ According to an article by Armin Laidre on iplanner.net, a successful entrepreneur is self-motivated, creative, intuitive, authoritative and strong-willed. Laidre states ‘successful entrepreneurs only made it past the difficult times by being strong-willed. They never let pessimism, difficulty or any other problems stand in their way.’
This was certainly the case for Kim McAllister who spoke to me about how experience of hard times can make you a stronger person ‘a cheque bouncing was a real lesson, I then had to go back to the client and speak to them to say that the cheque hadn’t cleared. I had to say to him, pay me in cash or do a bank transfer or I’m not going to do the work. That was a real lesson in standing up for myself.’ Kim also spoke of her fears when Impact Online, ‘I was still in my twenties when I set this up and a lot of my clients were men in their forties and fifties so they would have been thinking that I was just a young girl who doesn’t need to be taken seriously. It was a real eye opener. Being confident, as a business person, has been the biggest lesson that I have learned’. Mark Muir, fellow entrepreneur and founder of Journowave, a platform for student bloggers to get their work out there, states that the secret to his success is ‘just confidence and belief in yourself, if you do have moments where you fail to succeed, that’s when you look at that (confidence and belief) and that’s what you build upon. Confidence that even failures can be successes when you look back at it maybe a year later.’
We can describe the characteristics of already successful entrepreneurs but what makes one person successful may not make the next. Allon Raiz believes that ‘the ability to withstand repeated rejection and disappointment is an essential part of an entrepreneur’s makeup’. What makes a successful entrepreneur is that they have no fear of failure, they are willing to make mistakes, they accept that success or failure is not the end goal but stops along the journey of life. When asked if she thought of herself as a successful entrepreneur Kim McAllister replied ‘no, definitely not, I don’t think an entrepreneur is something you call yourself. It’s something other people might call you but it depends on what you understand as an entrepreneur. I don’t really know what an entrepreneur is, it’s someone slightly different, I suppose I could be called that but I don’t personally think that I am.’
This takes us into the psychology behind entrepreneurial thinking. There are two types of mindset, a fixed and a growth mindset. In Tracy Cutchlow’s blog in the Huffington Post she examines why some kids try harder and others give up. Cutchlow claims that ‘kids with a fixed mindset believe that you are stuck with however much intelligence you are born with…kids with a growth mindset believe that intelligence can be cultivated: The more learning you do the smarter you become’. Cutchlow highlights a study by Carol Dweck on the effect of the kind of praise a child receives. The study found that ‘kids praised for their effort tended to take the challenging tasks, knowing they could learn more.’ Conversely, Dweck found that ‘kids praised for their intelligence requested the easier task, knowing there was a higher chance of success.’
If effort is praised instead of intelligence or outcome, then the study points to developing a mindset which can overcome failure and mistakes, an essential quality for entrepreneurs. Murray Newlands, entrepreneur, business advisor and online marketing professional, also highlights the importance of the ability to learn from mistakes in his blog on cultivating mindsets,‘the path to success is not straight. The road is full of potholes, the journey has many detours. Learning from failure is how we succeed.’ A blog by smallbiztrends.com claims that ‘entrepreneurs are all different. They have a different entrepreneur mindset that contributes to their success.’ This confirms what the research has revealed, which is that an entrepreneurial mindset is crucial, but what that mindset is made up of can be different for each entrepreneur. Furthermore, it is entirely in keeping with the entrepreneurial spirit of new invention and finding your own way to succeed.
James Owens 