Lindsay Hoyle MP for Chorley is urging Ministers to help university graduates and those applying to universities during the current economic downturn. Continue Reading

A revolutionary new internet talent show is aiming to give student bands and performers the chance to hit the big time. Continue Reading

“Journalists are faced with eternally recurring dilemmas and paradoxes; to what extent should one try to remain aloof?”                                    Jap Van Ginneken, author

 It is a question for all the budding journalists out there, but in recent days it’s also become a prominent one for audiences of television news, particularly the BBC.

 It is a tricky dilemma: Do the British Broadcasting Corporation, with news audiences the world over and a long established journalistic reputation, preserve their impartiality and journalistic responsibilities or follow the pack; bow under the pressure of 50 MP and 15,000 public complaints and screen an appeal for the “victims of Gaza”?

The film by DEC (Disasters Emergency Committee) isn’t easy watching. Like the news pictures filmed by the few journalists actually in Gaza, they are harrowing, horrific and chosen to hit home.

But that isn’t why the BBC has refused to screen it, instead stating “impartiality” as their motive. The debate has now intensified to such a degree Mark Thompson has stepped in to address the critics. And, as is the usual drill during BBC-related debates, everybody is a critic.

Thompson reiterated the importance of the objectivity of news organisations during a conflict with even more spin and devastation than usual. He also voiced concerns of the dangers of embroiling the corporation beyond their journalistic remit in such an “emotive and political story”. Sky News, after a brief period of indecision, is behind them all the way.

BBC supporters insist ITV, Channel 4 and Five are showing the appeal not as news providers, but broadcasters; something the BBC and Sky are not at liberty to do because of obligations to their world wide news audiences.

But with so many people now feeling disassociated with the news providers they once respected, the emerging issue has become the role of the press; both in the eyes of the press and the eyes of the audiences, readers and consumers of the news; the people who want every news source they access to fall inline with their own perception and ideology of world events.

Amongst the angry mob are more than a few MPs. The relationship between politics and the press is fascinating at the best of times, but in light of the recent allegations against Labour peers (once again uncovered by pesky reporters doing their jobs) it seems MPs may never fully grasp just how important press impartiality is, for democracy, society and our own day to day information sources.

Why do people look to the media to take action they don’t take themselves? The media’s role is to cover events as they “become news”, not to be a PR platform to charities and causes. Setting such precedents would only leave them vulnerable to further backlash in the future.

Suspend reality for one moment… last week the BBC screened a humanitarian appeal for Gaza … do you think that both British Muslims and Jews would have felt equally represented by such an appeal? Do you think media analysts, commentators and staff would have agreed with the BBC’s decision to screen the appeal? The BBC may be a national institution, but it cannot be everything to everyone.

The BBC’s decision has been interpreted in many ways, but has largely led to finger pointing and accusations of pro and anti behaviour from both sides. In contrast, Sky has enjoyed relative calm.

In reality the decision doesn’t make the BBC pro or anti anything… it makes them impartial. According to Van Ginneken a prominent academic on the media, “Impartiality isn’t the attainment of objectivity but the elimination of subjectivity.”

In previous Israel/ Palestine conflicts the BBC has been accused of both pro Israeli and pro Palestinian bias, occasionally simultaneously, by people upset that TV doesn’t agree with their views.

It is sad that on this occasion, despite trying to preserve public confidence in their news services, many viewers now feel unsupported by the BBC in their personal ideology and beliefs; so much so they are turning their backs on a unique and important institution. 

Have the powers that be in the world of snooker not taken any notice of Ronnie O’Sullivan’s latest comments on the game? 

 The three-time world champion called upon Simon Cowell to give the sport a facelift, adding glitz to a game struggling for sponsorship, and lacking the household names once seen in bygone years.

 Surely then, there can only be one answer.  Bring back Big Break. 

 First of all, this is by no means a ploy to get Jim Davidson back on the telly, his ship has certainly sailed far away on the old terrestrial ocean, and let’s be honest, we all hope it hits an iceberg.

 But the fact is that Big Break ran on BBC1 for over eleven years, becoming a British Saturday evening institution. Its popularity was partly due to its time slot, following the football scores on Grandstand and unless they’re at a match, the main demographic of Big Break’s audience are sat on the sofa already – how could it fail!  Instead we get treated to watching an ex-actor from Holby City ineptly attempting the foxtrot against a former presenter of Top Gear failing at the cha-cha-fucking-cha! 

 Worse still, the same goings on get covered on BBC news on a Monday morning.  I know people say the TV is dumbing down, but has it gone clinically insane?  If it’s not Strictly Come Dancing, then it’s Cowell’s very own brain child the X-Factor on ITV; the television show that enhances the despair of people’s childhoods to increase viewing figures.  Because when someone mentions their mum dying when they were nine, we’re really surprised that they get through!  I think not. 

 To be fair to phone-vote orientated television, the viewing figures speak for themselves.  But surely the network stations have a duty to supply entertainment to everyone at that important time of the week? 

 Big Break has to be the answer, if you’re not interested in which second-rate cabaret act gets eliminated against the other second-rate cabaret act, then I bet you would love to see a bit of snooker action with some general knowledge thrown in for good measure. 

 With Jim Davidson out of the frame (pardon the pun), the host is certainly an issue worth discussing.  Matt Dawson can certainly stay away, as can Vernon Kay and Ant and Dec.  Why not give Ian Wright a chance? Everyone likes a bit of Ian Wright, he lacks the control in his pundit chair, but on Big Break he would be ideal.  Obviously Virgo stays; Big Break would not be Big Break without him, his waistcoats and his trickshots.

 The fact is that when Big Break was on the telly, snooker players were in people’s living rooms, thus enhancing their popularity and boosting the profile of the game.  It also gave us the chance of seeing a human side of what tends to be a rather deadpan sport.  There was always sincerity when they failed to win money or prizes for their team-mate. 

 Plus, has there ever been a more thrilling finale to a gameshow?  Countless times I re-call being so far from the edge of my seat that my face was pressed against the screen, seconds left on the clock, pink and black to go, pink’s there, “Just the black to go!” screams Virgo, “It’s there!”  The delight on the face of the player is equal to that of the contestant, they go on holiday, the player goes home, and the viewers aren’t asked to pick up their phone once!  Everyone’s a winner!

John Snow’s Dispatches on Channel 4 last night tried to address the question of whether the reporting in Gaza had been able to get to the truth.

Of course, it hasn’t. As we know, foreign journalists have been barred from entering the highly populated region, but they also claimed that the Israelis had been planning the assault for months, and planning how to control the media.

The argument for this can be rationalized. The Israelis believe that Western media treat them unfairly. They believe the 2006 war in Lebanon illustrates this; the media had free reign, and showed much of the violence and death that occurred there.

They believe they were treated unfairly, because they believe the violence is justified, in view of their own feelings of security.

Many of the images flooding our screens have come from journalists already living in Gaza due to the restriction on reporting from the frontline, and the scenes are devastating. Instead of focusing journalists on the attacks from Hamas on Israel, Israel has accidentally engineered it so this footage is in the foreground.

Both Muslim and Jewish families were interviewed in the programme, both arguing that the Western media was favouring the other side. Both arguing that people wouldn’t be able to get to the truth.

They gave a general audience no credit for being able to accept that on both sides people would be trying to show things in their own favour, and so would probably not come to a decision, indiscriminately who was right, or rather, who was the most wrong.

Furthermore, they were not even entertaining the idea that they themselves, no matter their allegiance, might not ever really be receiving the entire truth.

And that the opposing sides ‘truths’ might be mutually exclusive.

A key question was whether the media was justified in showing graphic images of dead bodies in Gaza, those of children, and particularly that of a charred and disfigured body of a five-month-old girl.

In the UK, they, with the exception of a highly edited version shown on the Channel 4 news, did not show it.

Was it too graphic, offensive, inappropriate, or was not showing it too sanitized, not a true reflection of reality?

Although possibly fulfilling their role of informing, although another question is, how informative can selecting to show graphic or less graphic scenes be to the public, how empowered could the public feel with any information to make a difference?

Clearly from how the United Nations tried to intervene quickly, with limited success, and the eventual agreement of a ceasefire which appears to be being breached on both sides, even international peace-keeping bodies cannot ultimately dissuade those who really want to kill each other, from doing just that.

What showing graphic images does highlight is the plight of those that are needlessly suffering, to the people who can’t do a lot about it. If those who are committing the attacks can live with the knowledge that that is what they are doing, then how could anyone persuade them they are wrong? If indeed they are wrong.

The truth is an admirable goal of a journalist, but what is needed is a solution. A solution that is most likely hinged on the efforts of the incoming President Barack Obama. But is an agreement what either side wants? Their ideals and aims are in such conflict, and even if an official agreement is reached, what is to stop one person with their own cause going against that for what they believe is right?

The University calendar as we know it could be scrapped, as ministers have recently considered more flexible timetables, to allow students to enrol at any time throughout the academic year. Continue Reading

As a former A-level student who received education maintenance allowance (EMA) at college, reading about the delays in payment this year was rather interesting. Continue Reading

An egg-obsessed prankster has been the talk of the campus in the past weeks, leaving unexpected presents outside student’s flats. Continue Reading

UCLan has recently announced that it will be introducing a new BA (Hons) Asian Fashion degree to its prospectus. Continue Reading

Pluto reported two issues ago that the Multi-Faith centre on St. Peters Square had been branded “unfit for purpose” by Director of Student Affairs, Ian McMillan. Continue Reading