So I looked through Vice UK instead. It’s much more on the other side of things, VERY edgy with lots of music and culture… but a little obsessed about taking drugs. Which is probably why it’s called Vice, but still, it’d be nice if I could have a magazine which combines the world reporting of monocle and combined it with the non-druggy culture sections of vice.

Next up, there’s a bilingual magazine called Style and the Family Tunes – interesting name for a magazine btw – interesting articles on culture and art/design, but the fashion section is a bit out of my league. Im not a fashionista, but whilst it’s nice to see good design, also with regards to fashion, some of it seems to be catwalk style, which ive always found a bit weird. But at least it has some non-pervy naked photos in it, and i like the mix of topics it covers.

Can we get these magazines to merge, or do i have to buy all three and read a third of each?

P.S.: I’m starting to realise how much I hate irrelevant advertising. I feel like such a consumer whore whenever i see ads for expensive watches and cool clothes. But yet without advertising, most media wouldn’t exist. I still acknowledge its importance, but the less manipulative the better. “Buy this or you’re not cool” or “look at this guy, he’s sexy because he’s wearing our brand” is something that is starting to irritate me, especially as I realise theyre aimed at me. Can’t we just have nicer advertising? Please? No? Ok.

There’s been a lot happening in the past year – I’ve completed my bachelor degree and I’m now working for the German public broadcaster MDR, as a production assistant on a news programme. Let’s hope this next year goes well – though I doubt I’ll be posting here very often, I’m hoping to still manage at least one post a month!

As I’m setting up home in Germany, I’ve noticed that Adobe’s wonderful CS4 Production Premium package costs considerably more in Germany than in the USA. €2,500 is how much the English language version in Germany costs, compared with the lower price of  €1,250 in America. Not good.

To take a listen, click here – just click play or download to listen later!

Comments are welcome as always.

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.

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.

Windows users have had Live Writer for a while now, created as part of Microsoft’s Live package (including Live Search, Live Messenger, and so on). But where has that left Mac users, such as myself?

Currently I’m testing out Blogo, a simple, tidy and clean application for Mac OS X. As this is my first post using it, it’s difficult to say exactly whether it’s a Live Writer-beater, and already I can say it seems a little more stripped down than its PC-based cousin.

However, it does include that most important of modern online journalistic tools: Twitter integration. Yes, Blogo is not only a blogging tool but a Twitter tool as well, which can be handy (though you do get the feeling that, if you’re going to tweet, you may as well do it with a dedicated program).

Still, the jury’s out on this – the full price is $25 but there’s a 21-day trial.

So, if you’re interested, check it out at .
drinkbrainjuice.com/blogo

‘Dr* T.’ from the blog Thinking Is Dangerous came up with the notion:

Any tabloid heading that starts ‘Is this….’, ‘Could this be…’ etc. can be safely answered ‘No’.

I discovered this theory via The Lay Scientist – who also provide a wonderfully detailed analysis of the theory. After analysing 44 headlines from the Daily Mail, they came up with the following results.

Shocking, but true. Quite a curious theory to explain attention-grabbing headlines which, in the essence of the article, hold no truth whatsoever, giving journalists a licence to shock with controversial and counter-intuitive statements, clearly to draw the reader in.

In summary,

“…if they try to insinuate something in the form of a question, it’s probably wrong. After all, if they were right, they wouldn’t have to resort to such weasel-worded tactics.” The Lay Scientist

Tomlinson, who appears to be uninvolved in any of the surrounding demonstrations, is shown to be standing with his hands in his pockets before the camera turns away. Moments later, he is seen to hit the ground, his head slamming off the pavement.

The 47-year-old died moments later, from what a recent post mortem reported as internal abdominal bleeding.

The footage was sent to the Guardian newspaper and the Independent Police Complaints Commission. After being made aware of the footage, the IPCC sought an injunction against Channel 4 News from broadcasting the clip, which was for a short time also posted on YouTube before being removed from the site. The injunction was not granted and Channel 4 News will broadcast the clip tonight.

The IPCC felt that making the clip public could potentially damage their investigation.

According to the Guardian, the full video apparently reveals much more about the police brutality surrounding the G20 protests:

“The full version of the video handed to the Guardian and the IPCC shows the lead-up to the alleged assault on Tomlinson, including an incident in which a policeman appeared to grab a protester. The protester’s head was then hit against the door of a police van. That sparked an angry reaction from the crowd, which began running toward Royal Exchange Passage.”

This is yet another example of how, despite terror laws banning filming and taking photos of police officers (amongst other proclusions), it is the rule of the public working in conjunction with ‘old media’ that can bring injustices to court. The officer who came forward as the possible killer of Ian Tomlinson is now facing manslaughter charges – without the evidence presented by such videos, would he ever have been taken to court? Unlikely.

This new clip is a boon for the Guardian, having also had the exclusive on the first, and arguably the most emotive, of the video clips to come out of the events surrounding Tomlinson’s sad and unnecessary death. So much so, it has left the Guardian’s Media Talk podcast musing over the reliance of the newspapers on ‘citizen journalists’ to catch the news the moment it happens, and the dependence of those people capturing it on old media to distribute their footage, images and audio via the internet, as well as newspapers’ television and radio partners.

The video clip, with commentary, can be found on the Guardian’s website through the link below.

‘New G20 protest footage shows moment Ian Tomlinson’s head hit the pavement‘

Plus:
The first video of police mistreatment of Tomlinson
Media Talk on the first video

As it turns out, not only did the BBC tell Smart in no uncertain terms that the rumours (wherever he picked them up, or as Moyles says, made them up) are completely false, but also neither Chris Moyles nor his agent were contacted for comment.

It was put forward on the popular breakfast show that, as he was told the opposite from official sources and still not dropping the story, Gordon Smart could have little other agenda than to personally attack and offend Chris Moyles.

Whilst journalists should never need to reveal their sources, but at times it gives them a cover to just make things up. As it was very clearly said on Monday’s show, there’s very little excuse for Gordon Smart’s poor journalism.

Now Moyles has said his piece: Smart, it’s your move.

Listen to the tirade here, 1hr 36mins:
BBC iPlayer – The Chris Moyles Show: 20/04/2009