I’ve just finished my radio programme (and, with that, my degree!). It’s styled as if it were to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 3:45pm on a weekday.
To take a listen, click here – just click play or download to listen later!
Comments are welcome as always.
Allow me to deviate a little in this blog post: I’m more of a media commentator than someone who can claim to know much about technology (I can use it, but don’t know how it’s built, in terms of both software and hardware), but I have to vent my frustration on one particular subject.
A while ago I bought my MacBook, and upon receiving it, I could find the clear benefits of the operating system in comparison to Windows. I’m not some kind of weird Apple fanboy, though I do happen to love Macs, iPods and iPhones, I can certainly understand why Windows is far and away the most useful OS for many users – primary because of compatibility and a large library of software. Still, I remain true to Mac OS X, but I was curious to try out Linux, which I had heard so much about.
I downloaded a copy of Ubuntu from their website (it’s free), burnt it to a disk and installed it as a virtual machine on my Mac. I have to say, after playing about with it for a bit I still don’t get it. Ubuntu may offer a lot to those who need a free OS, or one that doesn’t have high system requirements, but for those who already have OS X on their Mac, there’s not much reason to switch.
Many of the blogs I’ve been reading to try and get a handle on where the benefits come from with regards to Ubuntu, have listed several, mainly moot points.
The arguments seem to centre around the free software available for it, despite many of these programs either already available on Windows and Mac, or having very similar, and in some cases superior, competitors which perform the same tasks. Microsoft Office can easily be substituted for Open Office (also free), whether using Ubuntu, Mac or Windows.
You can’t sell me on the ideas of ‘not having to restart’ or ‘Ubuntu is more stable’, as such issues I’ve never had with Mac. Similarly, the fact that it has automatic system updates is replicated in Mac.
The author of the blog post I’ve linked to above for some reason mentioned a plus point as being the fact that you can “use MSN, AIM, ICQ, Jabber, Gtalk, Yahoo and many more with a single program. No need to install separate software for the same thing,” which is exactly what Adium and Trillian do for the Mac and Windows respectively.
Aside from all that, the aesthetic aspect of this Linux platform leaves a lot to be desired: as standard, the desktop wallpaper and the windows all come smeared in a foul poo-brown. Whilst you can customise it, I’ve never really had the need to with other operating systems I’ve used. Ubuntu is all well and good for Dell’s popular range of netbooks: providing all the basics to get online, check emails, talk on Skype, so on and so forth… but only if it comes pre-installed, as a cheaper alternative to the Windows version of the very same netbook.
Put simply: if I already have a Mac, why should I bother switching? Yeah if I didn’t have a computer, and wanted a cheap option which did all the basics to a perfectly standard degree, it would be a candidate. But for those of us who’ve already shelled out the cash – there’s very little competition.
Tabloid newspapers get a lot of stick, especially in the UK. People castigate them as being manipulators of the truth, recklessly crafting false and misleading articles from a grain of reality (and sometimes, not even a grain).
To rule out the popular press in such a way is simply snobbery.
Yes, there is such thing as bad journalism, and whilst some may say it’s rife in tabloid newspapers, tabloids provide a much-needed source of information to their readership.
Do you think that if the Sun’s readers would totter off to the champagne socialism of the Guardian should News Corp’s tabloid wing pop its clogs? Of course not. On a similar note, would they perhaps read the Times? Unlikely. Times readers, on the whole, enjoy being informed by their paper. Sun readers are likely to read to be entertained by their daily: they’re different approaches to entirely different markets.
For some, their tabloid is their only source of news and information as it presents the details of the world in a format which they enjoy and willingly digest. Take that away, and perhaps you’re leaving a significant amount of that readership simply apathetic to the day’s events… suddenly, the world becomes less entertaining.
Different people have different needs, which are in turn gratified by certain varying formats of content. It’s clear from the advertising alone that these are different people which the papers approach. Furthermore, it’s not the responsibility of newspapers to ‘educate’ the public, but rather to profit from sympathising with the views of their readership.
Those complaining about the state of British tabloids should take a second to note their importance in the regulation of politics. Newspapers stand up for the views of their target market, give a voice to their readers, the voters: by papers writing what the readers want, politicians can examine public opinion. According to ABC, the Sun alone has an average net circulation of 3 million: and that’s just the amount of copies circulated, not counting the amount of readers per copy – the readership, which is even higher. Neglect the importance of this market at your peril.
Tabloids get stick, and sometimes for the right reasons. Without tabloids, a large section of society would be left without a source of news which is meaningful to them, leaving them underinformed and, perhaps worse, without a voice.
Next time you feel like complaining about an article you read, don’t blame the readers, and don’t write off the newspaper. I agree on this point: out with bad journalism. But the popular press has got to do what it’s got to do – appeal to a broad audience. And by the looks of it, that’s what it does.
The latest from Photoshop Disasters