Among yesterday’s front pages was a data visualisation which, at first glance, was one of the most effective I’ve ever seen: the Independent had made an infographic showing yesterday’s £6bn budget cuts in context - as a fraction of a debt mountain.
Then I looked closer - and something’s very, very wrong.
Can you tell what it […]
Professor Adrian Monck has thrown his hat into the ring in the current round of NUJ-bashing.
Having had very few dealings with the NUJ (short of binning the Journalist magazine), I’m in absolutely no position to comment of the merits of the NUJ. Indeed, I would be more than happy to take Professors Greenslade and Monck at their word and not join. But for one thing.
Professor Monck is the head of City university’s school of journalism, and Roy Greenslade teaches there. I, as most of you know, am a student of said school. And when we had out induction last month, we were “advised” in no uncertain terms to join the NUJ (at a bargain student rate of £25 - a 150 per cent price hike on last year).
In fairness, this advice didn’t come from Prof. Monck himself, but still: the blog post indicates quite strong longstanding opinions on the NUJ, from someone whose faculty then delivers some 150 or so new journalists into the organisation. Can’t help but feel that someone, somewhere down the line, needs to make their mind up, here. Union membership for students is all about getting the press card - but would the BAJ or some other body perhaps be able to do the job?
I hesitate to criticise (even flippantly) someone who not only writes a blog I very much enjoy, but also heads up my educational facility. However, I’m sure Adrian Monck is a very reasonable man. Here’s hoping.
So, Albus is out of the closet. Seems someone not a million miles away from me has something to say about that on Comment is Free
It’s with some reluctance I find myself defending someone like Dr James Watson, the scientist in the middle of the current race row over DNA. Dr Watson suggested in an Sunday Times Magazine interview last weekend that black people were less intelligent than whites. An almighty row emerged, and his speaking engagement at the science museum was canceled. The Oxford Union is enjoying a similar row: it has invited Nick Griffin (leader of the BNP) and David Irving to speak in a debate on the holocaust, to much protest.
DNA claim first: what would these campaigners do if this claim were true? Dr Watson’s prodigious scientific reputation is rock solid. His social record is less so - he has suggested that mothers should be allowed to abort their child if it were gay, or that genetic engineering to make all girls attractive would be desirable. There’s a good deal of evidence to suggest this latest claim is based on personal prejudice, too. Make no mistake, I’m not standing up for this bigot.
But what he claims is possible. There are many genetic differences between different ethnic groups - well evidenced by different propensity to catch diseases. Africans, for example, are much more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia. IQ is strongly hereditary. It’s entirely possible for different ethnicities to have different average intelligence. This could mean black people have higher or lower IQs than white. If such a claim were based on solid evidence, would the scientist concerned still be shouted down?
Some say it’s wrong even to look. To that I’d say if it’s legitimate to study differences between genders (life expectancy, map reading, or sex drive jump to mind) without being sexist, or whether a gay gene exists without being homophobic, then studying differences between races does not make you racist.
There’s a worrying trend to believe that “accepting diversity” means ignoring differences between us, or sweeping opinions we dislike under the rug. Not giving parties like the BNP, or holocaust deniers like David Irving a platform is part of the same problem. Ignoring differences between different social groups, whether gender, race, or anything else, means we risk ignoring potential strengths, weaknesses and vulnerabilities. If it could be shown that women were far more intelligent than men would we expect gender parity at university? Or would we allow a greater number of women to attend due to greater ability? I’d favour the latter, myself.
Even more foolish is sweeping views we don’t like under the rug. The BNP is an increasingly powerful political force in the UK - their website has more hits than any other party. Their views are those of a large section of the population. If we allow other minority groups a voice, we must allow the BNP a voice.
Naturally, I have an alternative agenda. I don’t like the BNP all that much. While they are excluded from mainstream discussion, their views are unchallenged. No arguments, no condemnation, nothing - just them canvassing, campaigning and protesting. Too many people worry that if the BNP are given a platform, other people will be swayed. This is a common effect - we all believe other people are more easily led than we are. Patronising or what?
There is no dictatorship, junta or nationalistic ideology that won’t allow its supporters to speak out in its favour. ‘Liberals’, by banning speakers with ‘extreme’ views, are proving themselves in one specific area, little different. Free speech means allowing people who oppose your views to speak, even (especially?) if they wouldn’t give you the same privilege. The same goes for persecuting science that challenges beliefs you’d like to hold. Truth will out, and all that.
We’re all different. The people who’ve accepted that seem to be the ones who dislike them - the racists, the misogynists, the bigots. It’s the people who supposedly embrace diversity who are desperately pretending we’re all the same. Time to see black and white, and not just shades of grey.
Update 19/10 2pm: Dr Watson has been suspended by his US research institution.
The Government has announced a Minister for Students. I can barely contain my disgust. May return later to pour vitriol over this at length.
Gosh, that was unexpected - Ming just resigned - more soon. Why on earth did he not do his own resignation speech though? Weird.
Has anyone let Media Monkey know that there’s no snap election coming up? The poor creature’s still mentioning it - have a look at “Gordon snubs Sun”
Just wanted to belatedly express my delight that Natasha Kaplinsky is leaving the BBC. But who’ll host their yoof-friendly one minute 8pm bulletin now? Would be tragic if they had to axe it…
New site in a nutshell: big clever stuff will be in the top left, regular articles below “Featured Articles”. Short and older stuff will be in “recent posts”, and stupid links and comments will be right here. Where this is. Clever, innit?
Sony’s Bravia ads are bloody great - remember the bouncing balls? And paint exploding from the tower? Well, the new one’s here - and it has plasticine bunnies. Watch it, it’s ace.
This is Paul. For now, he’s just illustrating new layout stuff.
And here we are, TwentyNothing has a new layout. The new setup should prove much more versatile, visual and lively. For one, I can post pictures for the latest post, as shown above. Featuring articles lets me highlight some of the longer “think” pieces I occasionally publish. I can even do pullquotes and standfirsts and stuff. Woo. The old sidenotes are now below, as “asides”, which is much less cluttered. The whole thing should be at least as functional as before, and hopefully a good deal more interesting.
Be warned: some of the old posts now look bloody awful, and I’m unlikely to go back and fix ‘em
A few warnings though: some of the old posts look bloody awful. Sorry. I’m unlikely to go back through and fix it, so it’s a bit of a grin-and-bear-it thing. I’ve also deleted a stack of categories, as I’m no longer using them in place of tags. This might mess up the archives a little. Search still works, and everything’s still there, so if you have something in mind it will be around. The blogroll’s shifted to its own page, too. The idea of the new front page is essentially a magazine-style content page.
Finally, the picture on the front page is Paul, a guy I featured in an article on homelessness. He lives in a tent, despite hostel rooms sitting empty right around him - and not by choice. For now, he’s just illustrating the potential of the new layout. I’ll likely post some of my material on him soon.
Please do let me know what you think of everything. Any feedback’s okay, providing it’s overwhelmingly positive.
