Here are some of the highlights of my reporting for Exeter FM and Palm, check it out!
http://www.zshare.net/audio/79637642dc05e658/ – Radio sports package of Exeter City Striker Adam Stansfield
http://www.zshare.net/audio/79638194a5f2614d/ – Radio package from 2010 General Election
http://www.zshare.net/audio/7963835487237778/ – Sample bulletin
I love the X factor. There I said it. I can look past the clichés, the ‘fallings out’ and the constant playing of ‘what about now’ by daughtry. It attracts 15 million viewers for a reason, by going beyond the trashy scope of reality TV and delivering pure entertainment. It is a potent mix of tension, sarcastic put-downs, elation and draws some of the biggest stars in the music industry. In short, I believe it is the natural successor to top of the pops as a music entertainment show which appeals to the whole family.
So, four weeks into the live shows – here is my run-down of the remaining contestants:
THE BOYS:
Lloyd Daniels: This boy is no-where near as talented as the majority of acts remaining in the finals. Lloyd stumbles through songs, tuning out of every other verse and has no stage presence whatsoever. He is also victim to Cheryl Cole’s horrendous song choices (Katie Perry on Rock Night?) and also suffers from the fact that his mentor far far faaaaaar prefers Joe over himself (something to do with ‘Geordie Loyalty’). However, Lloyd has one thing on his side. His highlighted blonde hair and timid nature have made him incredibly popular with teenage girls and this has managed to carry him through the past few weeks.
Prediction: Out next week if teenage girls suddenly run out of mobile credit.
Joe McElderry: I’ll admit this chap has a very good singing voice which is surprisingly powerful. He’s also very likeable, even if is lower teeth are as wonky as rocks on a dry-stone wall. He’s obviously Cheryl’s little favourite and has a strong backing from people in the North East. It is likely that they watch X Factor in droves due to the incredibly harsh weather conditions in the North of England which prevent them from going outside.
Prediction: Final Three (Runner Up).
THE GIRLS:
Lucie Jones: She’s young, she’s gorgeous and she can sing, what’s not to like? Well she is Welsh, but I can look past that. Lucie can hold a note very well has a definite ‘sweetness’ about her. The problem is that she doesn’t really command the stage like the over 25s do and that could count against her later on. Still she’s a steady contender and perfectly likeable.
Prediction: Out two weeks before the final.
Stacey Solomon: Urgh, where do I start? This girl annoys me beyond measure! That dull-witted Essex giggle which she calls a voice cuts through me like a rusty razor. I also seriously seriously think (note I said THINK, defamation sharks) she may be a little bit slow. I admit her singing voice is pretty good, but her performances are always incredibly boring and her song choices are mediocre at best. That said, the public seem to love this dimwit from Dagenham, so unfortunately she may stay in the competition for a long time yet.
Prediction: Out the week before the final, cue tears and her shouting “I did it for my son” over and over and over again
THE OVER 25s:
Jamie Archer: Jamie is the oldest competitor and that seems to count against him. I honestly think he’s trying a little too hard to win over younger voters, when really he should be appealing to the older viewers who watch the show. I think his ‘Rock Voice’ is quite refreshing, reminds me of Ben Mills who reached the final three a few years back. However it seriously restricts his song choices and with Rock Week behind us, I feel he’s already peaked and will begin to fade while the other contestants get stronger.
Prediction: He won’t make it past the next two weeks.
Danyl Johnson: ‘The man who peaked too early’ as he has become widely known. Danyl blew everyone away with his audition, but I feel he’s been hit and miss ever since. When he’s good, he’s untouchable, but he’s far too susceptible to criticism and it shows through some very poor performances. To be honest I have no idea why the press give him so much stick as I can’t find anything about Danyl which is unlike-able. Maybe they believe he is cocky, but with such a raw talent I see no reason why he can’t walk onto the stage with confidence.
Prediction: Final three
Olly Murs: I like Olly a lot, he’s the contestant who seems to get better every week. Whilst he was overshadowed by Danyl in the over 25s category during the early stages, in recent weeks Olly has shown that he isn’t just a cheeky chappy from Essex, but he is pretty talented too. I would certainly rank him as one of the better singers in the competition. In addition he is probably the most likeable individual and draws on a lot of public support. Very much the dark horse and I’d say may emerge as favourite in a few weeks time.
Prediction: Final Three (winner)
THE GROUPS:
John and Edward: I love everything about these two. I love the fact they are utterly talentless, cocky and deluded in their own abilities. For me, they prove you can be a success at something, despite being shite at it. To make up for their complete lack of vocal ability, Louis Walsh ensures that their performances something to behold, each more erratic and over the top than the last. Therefore they have managed to develop what Strictly fan’s know as ‘the John Sargent’ effect. Whereby someone so inextricably bad manages to remain in the competition because of public curiousity. In all honesty, These two are the one’s I look forward to seeing most every week and I want them to go all the way (to make a complete mockery of how seriously the show takes itself and just how much it will piss off Simon Cowell). However, despite their large and loyal fanbase, I think the novelty may wear off by week 7.
Prediction: They will hang on for another 3 weeks.
LEST WE FORGET:
Rachel Adedeji: I feel a little sorry for Rachel, she spent most of her time in the bottom two each week, despite being a pretty talented artist. That said, we’ve heard it all before. She’s far too similar to Alexandra Burke and the music market isn’t screaming out for an artist like her.
Miss Frank: They were different, I’ll give them that.
Ricky Loney: The twat in the hat. I have no idea why he even reached the judges houses stage of the competition. No talent, no charisma, nothing. Maybe the judges just felt that someone Scottish needed to be in the finals, but even his compatriots felt he didn’t deserve to make it past week two.
Kandi Rain: Shame they went out so early, the blonde one was pretty fit.
So we kick off party conference season and once again our “best and brightest” politicians descend on our nations seaside towns like some sort of bespoke-suited plague. The party conference strikes me as an unmistakably British political affair, maybe it is the humble alliterated locations (Blackpool, Bournemouth or Brighton) or the fact everyone in the audience looks like they bought their entire outfit from Marks and Spencer in 1979. However, this party conference season is the precursor to one of the most important elections in modern times and after months of public claims that politicians have lost touch with the “common man”, there are now suggestions of new platforms for our party leaders to convey their policies.
Recently, Sky News has invited all party leaders to take part in a live televised debate. On the first of September the broadcaster issued letters to David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown saying they will hold a debate involving whichever party leaders choose to attend. Cameron immediately stated his intent to take part, after all, the Tory leader has challenged both Gordon Brown and previously Tony Blair to a live debate on policy ever since he was appointed as Conservative leader. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has also stated he has accepted the invitation, after all despite considerable gains in recent local elections, the Lib Dems still need something which will give the party more of a nationwide profile. Also, Clegg is obviously eager to use the opportunity to try and justify himself as a man of considerable political influence and to give the majority of a public an idea of who he actually is!
This leads us to Gordon Brown who has so far sent mixed messages to such a debate. The fact both Clegg and Cameron seem to have accepted their invitations puts the Prime Minister in a rather awkward position as if he does not attend, he will be replaced by an ’empty chair’. Gordon does not have the oratory skills or media swagger of his predecessor, Tony Blair and often looks humbled and awkward when speaking in front of large audiences. Whereas declining when both his opponents have accepted will make Brown appear even weaker and give Clegg and Cameron the opportunity to denounce him as a party leader who does not have the time to remain in touch with his public.
That said however, back in July, Lord Mandleson said that Mr Brown “would not have a problem with a televised debate” when questioned about the prospect, and further stated that “whilst Cameron is good with words he is weak on policies”
“Such an opportunity would let the public see that Gordon is really the man with substance”.
The idea of such a debate is obviously coined from the grand American ‘Presidential debate’ which famously began in the run up to the 1960 elections where John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon faced each other as Democratic and Republican candidates live on television for the very first time. Ever since these debates and have become a staple of the US election campaign trail and it is often said a candidates performance at such a debate will be a decisive factor in making, or breaking their campaign. In reference to the previous example, it was Kennedy’s youthful looks, suave oratory skills and beaming smile which saw him conquer Nixon who looked tired, shabby and flatly refused to wear any make up for the cameras.
However, I am still uncertain if such a debate is actually suited to our own election system. Whilst in America, the focus is very much on ‘Presidential Politics’ where the focus is primarily towards two candidates, the British pride in their ‘multi-party-system’ and localisation where we can elect our own MPS and vote for the party, not the man who would be Prime Minister. That said, similar debates are now commonplace in Australia or Canada who’s political systems are based on our own.
One thing is for sure, if all candidates do attend it will provide compelling viewing. Whereas political suicide may be the outcome for any leader who does not.
I have finally managed to upload my MA dissertation documentary to youtube. In the final months of my broadcasting course, I filmed and edited my very own extended news piece on the threats facing honeybees in the UK. Filmed mostly in Devon, although extended filming locations include the Eden Project and the University of Sussex.
Hope you enjoy it and I welcome any feedback!
Ah blog, how I have neglected thee. But now my dreaded MA dissertation is behind me (and a well deserved holiday), I am back to scrutinise the world of politics, sport and celebrity. This brings me to Sunday night’s MTV Video Music awards and Kanye West’s utter humiliation of Taylor Swift, during her acceptance speech for best Female Music Video. For those who missed this narcissistic-oversized-child in action, take a look:
Now no-one else in their right mind would be so misguided into believing they are self-righteous enough to storm the stage, interrupt a young female artist during one of the highlights of her career and state another artist should have won. Well I suppose at least this time he didn’t believe it was an injustice against him. Mr West has caught the spotlight a number of times for being outspoken in recent years. Back in 2004 he accused George Bush of ‘not caring about black people’ during the rescue efforts in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. In 2006 he developed his first taste for stage storming when his video for ‘Touch the Sky’ lost out on best music video to Justice and Simian’s ‘We are your friends’. West interrupted their speech and claimed the awards lost ‘credibility’ if he didn’t win as he had spent over $4 million on his video which featured Pamela Anderson.
Kanye West really needs a reality check. I am convinced the man puts himself in the same bracket as Frank Sinatra, Elvis and Michael Jackson. He describes himself as the ‘thinking man’s rapper’ who believes his lyrics are somewhat comparable to Shakespearian sonnets. In truth, whilst his albums certainly are a fresh approach to the hip hop genre, at the end of the day he is only human and should not strut around like there is an aura of greatness surrounding him. To effective ruin a young artists big night is downright shameful. I accept West has come out to apologise to Swift, but I question what convinced him to interrupt her in the first place? This man clearly has a number of self indulgent issues which he needs to put right before he can be accepted as anything close to the musical icon which he believes himself to be.
In the end, the real winner of ‘Westgate 2009’ is Beyonce. Embarrassed and humbled, when she took to the stage after winning several awards for her track ‘Single Ladies’, she invited Swift back to the stage to complete her speech. She made the best of a very awkward situation and came out smelling of roses, good on her!
The last two weeks of bitter fighing in Helmand Province has finally pushed the British forces death toll in Afghanistan to 186, just over the number of casualties in the Iraq conflict. Furthermore, with 18 deaths this month and counting, the number of British men losing their lives to the Taliban has reached a peak not seen since 2006. Quite naturally, the level of public outrage is high. Especially after it was revealed that the Americans have over three times as many helicopters per 1000 troops when compared to the British forces.
David Cameron has already spoken out against the Prime Minister, who claims that the number of helicopters assisting our troops is sufficient for their safety. Mr Cameron claims Gordon Brown has already been contradicted by a number of high ranking officials within the armed forces, as well as a number of troops who have served in the conflict and have spoken to the media.
Helicopters are certainly a huge advantage in a conflict like Afghanistan. When fighting an enemy like the Taliban, who often move with very little detection over vast spaces, the element of surprise is crucial. NATO forces need to travel quickly in order to launch quick offensives or move troops from dangerous situations. Roadside bombs are a constant threat on the ground, as well as the threat of fire from rocket propelled grenades or ‘RPGs’. Helicopters are therefore the safest and most practical means of moving troops as they are able to fly outside of the range of Taliban rockets and can avoid strategically placed mines or bombs.
Furthermore they give allied troops a crucial edge over an enemy which is evasive and secretive in its tactics.
Guerilla warfare is something which the forces of the United States and the UK have had to gradually become accustomed to over the last 60 years. Vietnam proved exactly how difficult it can be to fight against an enemy which does not abide by the conventional ‘rules’ of warfare. The huge military might of the USA was floundered by an army which had minute resources in comparison, but a wealth of knowledge and skill in how to use the terrain to their advantage. The Taliban have exactly the same vantage point. Whilst their equipment may be inferior, it can be concealed and moved across the Afghan deserts without being noticed by the sophisticated satellite surveillence technology at our disposal. Furthermore, the Taliban forces can easily blend with local populations, meaning the enemy can literally become invisible to our troops. Local civilians can also assist them in supply and safehousing.
Our troops need equipment which can overcome this. The Taliban can attack from almost anywhere and without any warning. Our troops need to have the safe knowledge that helicopters are available to bail them out if they come under serious pressure, and be security that they can be moved around without the risk of being caught in a explosion.
This month marks the 40th anniversary of the moon landings. Which in my eyes, and I’m guessing in the eyes of millions of others must surely be considered as one of the finest examples of human achievement in all of history. However, in that final word lies the problem: ‘history’. The anniversay of the moon landings is something to be celebrated and the missions stand as landmark moments in the 2oth century. My problem is that the frontier of space is something which we as humans should be making considerable progress in conquering, but we haven’t sent men further than the outer reaches of our atmosphere since 1972. Now, call me a little too ‘science fiction’ but it shocks me that in just under 40 years, we haven’t managed to send human’s beyond the moon, or even as far as it!
I accept that unmanned probes have reached the far corners of our solar system and told us more about our neighbouring planets than we would ever have thought possible. The hubble space telescope and other obersation satellites have also mapped large sections of our uniververse and even begun to identify planets which are similar to our own. But they are still all waiting to be explored.
The idea of sending manned missions out beyond our planet’s orbit is something which for now, risks being consigned to the history books. I often compare the moon landings to the fate of Concorde. The plane which was and still is the most advanced achievement in civil aviation, yet it was never bettered from it’s original design back in the late 1960s. Instead it was consigned to the halls of aircraft museums. Much like the Lunar Module from Apollo 11 that now sits in Washington’s Smithsonian museum, gathering dust, as a reminder of an era which passed decades ago.
Of course, the enthusiasm for space travel was far greater back in the 1960s. It was a sense of daring and adventure, coupled with the desire of ‘one-up-manship’ over the Soviet Union who were also racing to reach the surface of the moon. It was a time when the American Government could throw billions upon billions of dollars into the space programme and prioritise it as a department of national importance second only to the military. Today the story is very different. The economic crisis has crippled the spending of the US Government and the global threat of climate change means the public’s eyes are very much focused on what we can do to preserve the health of this planet, rather than making a huge effort to explore new ones.
But there is hope, over the next decade the prospect of manned space exploration could capture the public’s imagination once again.
After a forty year absence of human presence, astronauts are set to grace the moon’s surface within the next 10 years or so. In spite of all of the economic problems which it faces, the NASA have stated their desire to go back to the moon to conduct further research.
Hot on NASA’s heels are the Chinese and Japanese Space Agencies who have created the possibility of a new 21st century space race back to the moon! It’s surface hides millions of tonnes of ‘helium-3’, a resource which if harnessed, has the potential of producing clean energy to meet the demands of the Earth’s population for thousands of years. Therefore NASA and many other global space agencies have pledged to build lunar bases to mine the precious minerals from the moon’s crust.
And that’s not all.
The NASA ‘manned mission to Mars’ has been pencilled in for the late 2020’s in cooperation with the European Space Agency.
BUT, and this is a strong but, there are huge problems which need to be overcome. Travelling to the moon is one thing, it is only a mere 250,000 miles away from earth. Which in relation to distances in the Universe is absolutely minute. Mars is over 150 MILLION miles away from earth which means by current technological expectations, the whole manned mission would take over a year. Another difficulty is the highly dangerous cosmic rays which travel through the vacuum of space. Once astronauts break out of the Earth and Moon’s orbit, they are exposed to these rays, which cause a severe risk of cancer amongst other things. A way needs to be developed which can offer them protection.
However, I believe these challenges can and should be overcome. After all as Stephen Hawking once said
“I don’t think the human race will survive the next 1,000 years unless we spread into space”.
Therefore, manned space travel is hugely important, our very race depends on harnessing it’s secrets and who knows what we might find out there?
I’m currently in my third week of a work placement at my local BBC newstation. Luckily I’ve been given the chance to research a story which geniunely interested me: a WW2 rescue mission launched from Plymouth in 1940.
Take a look: http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/articles/2009/06/29/walrus_aquarium_feature.shtml
Throughout this week, the world’s eyes have laid on Iran and the extraordinary scenes which are unfolding across the nation’s cities. Only 30 years ago, similar scenes of revolution were powerful enough to overthrow the Shah, a leader who’s ancestors had ruled over the nation for centuries. This began the so called ‘Fundementalist Revolution’ among many Muslim states and turned Iran into the powerhouse of the Middle East. Yet at the moment it seems to be a nation on its knees with citizens running wild in the streets and the very authority of the nation’s government brought into serious question.
It would be wrong to make an assumption that foul play definately occured in the Iranian elections earlier this month, yet the reaction of many of the nation’s citizens does suggest that Mr Ahmadinejad may have not achieved his decisive 23% majority over his cheif rival Mr Mousavi.
The key difficultly in implementing censorship upon its population for the existing Iranian regime is the fact that many Iranians have become familiar with Western technologies. Through social networking and ‘the new media’ there are hundreds of thousands of educated ‘citizen journalists’. The state may be able to restrict the access of foreign journalists, their own media coverage and the use of it’s people’s mobile phones, but they cannot seem to prevent salient information about the election protests from leaking out via Facebook, Twitter and Blogs. By contrast, nations such as Bruma or North Korea which have banned virtually all Western websites and new technological advances in social networking – find it far more feasible to restrict the information which their people recieve and the information which is recieved by other nations. Yet Iran seems to be caught in a Catch 22 situation supplemented by an odd paradox. The supreme leadership of Ayatollah’s suggests a nation which should follow a doctrine of autarky, yet they have their own elected Presidential governments (although this constitutional element is in serious dispute). They are a nation which strives to restrict Western influence and promote strict Islamic values, but at they same time they have embraced certain aspects of Western technonlogical developments and this has allowed influence from the Western World to penetrate their population.
This is why we see the scenes of violence and disorder on the streets of Tehran. Iranian citizens do not blindly follow the abject rule of their government. When a few citizens question the validity of a government, they have the means of discussing it and publishing their views outside of government control. The next few weeks will be extremely interesting, we shall observe whether the state can implement enough control and authority to restore order, or if citizens long dissatisfied with Ahmadinejad’s governence will be able to exert enough influence to force another election.
Captain Brown on the Goodship Labour threatened to go the way of the Titanic earlier this week. The loss of all Shire counties to the Tories in the local elections saw five cabinet resignations in one day, coupled with a further two after the announcement of the European Elections where Labour polled barely 15% of the vote, their lowest for at least three generations. By Monday, the mutiny looked to be in full swing as the motley crew of various back benchers once again made their feelings known, that they believe under Gordon Brown, Labour could actually fall below the Liberal Democrat vote at the next General Election.With gaping wound holes in the party’s hull, one would expect the ship would go under in the tirade of defeats and resignations the part has suffered in recent weeks. Yet, once again Gordon has proved whilst he is not a charisma-driven all smiley Presidential Prime Minister like his predecessor, he is instead the stubborn survivor. He’s like a boxer who takes hit, after hit, after hit. But instead of falling to the floor, he steadies himself and soldiers on – albeit failing to deliver anything back. That is until Tuesday when Mr Brown met the Parliamentary Labour Party in a speech which has proved to save his grace for the time being at least. Hammering his fist against the desk, he promised he would listen and he promised he would change.
He has clung on two reasons. Number one – opposition is divided, there is no single channel of support for any of the Prime Minister’s would-be replacement, which means there no individual has enough power of oust him directly. This brings me to my second reason: the of the high-ranking party members who are capable of replacing Gordon Brown still support him. During the spate of resignations over the past two weeks, only one cabinet member has left the ‘big four’, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. The pundit’s favourite for Brown’s replacement, Alan Johnson has shown his outright commitment to supporting the Prime Minister. As has the second favourite for the new leader: David Miliband. It seems for the most part, the high-ranking secretaries and ministers either still support Mr Brown or do not believe this is the time for a leadership change.
So, that is all well and good for Gordon in the short term. But what will be the situation come June next year when he will have to face the public vote he has so far been so desperate to avoid? The situation is pretty grim, because even if some in his party have continued to show their faith in Gordon, the public do not. Today Britain is a nation which seems to thrive on ‘Presidential leaders’. Blair proved this in 1997, where I believe his charm and oratory skills saw the public vote no so much for the party but for him. We have seen this mirrored in Cameron’s popularity, who has influenced a Conservative revival through saying the right things at the right time and holding himself in interviews and public events exceptionally well. There seems to be no room anymore for Gordon’s stile of premiership. There is no question about his commitment to the job, nor his expertise in finances which is crucial at this moment in time. Yet he blabbers through interviews, pulls the sort of smile which makes you think someone has kicked him in the crotch but he’s trying to keep a brave face and never seems to show decisiveness of flair. His own achievements: the organisation of the G20, aversion of a banking crisis and the possibility (at the time of writing) of some noticeable economic recovery by the end of this year have also been overshadowed by the expenses crisis. Gordon is not to blame, but he certainly failed to make the kind of re-assurances to clean up his own party and the conduct of all MPs which Cameron and Nick Clegg were professing.
There are however, four things Gordon can do to, if not win the election, at least implement some form of damage limitation to prevent the Conservatives from gaining a decisive majority:
1. Continue an economic policy which will encourage consumer spending and the strengthening on the pound in foreign markets.
2. Re-affirm and clarify his spending commitments if re-elected. Especially is Social security and increases in affordable housing are issues, which are especially important to a large number of the population who are either redundant, face redundancy or have taken severe wage-cuts.
3. Take decisive action on the expenses scandal with positive and comprehensive policy changes that will satisfy the public.
4. Ensure the party is united. Labour cannot enter an election with any slight chance of success when the majority of MP candidates do not back their leader.
Furthermore, Cameron is not untouchable. The Conservatives only polled less than 28% at the European elections, if this was mirrored at a general election and Labour managed a resurgence then the Conservatives would not have a decisive majority. Also it is far easier to be a leader of the Opposition than it is to be in Government. Cameron does have a knack for exposing Brown’s weaknesses, yet time and time again he fails to back these up with concrete examples of Conservative policy proposals. Gordon needs to address this, and try to expose the true spending commitments of the next Conservative government.
If he can manage these things in the remaing 12 months of his time as Prime Minister, he might just be able to save face.
The Life and Times of Nick Smith 