Archive for the ‘Events’ category

LCC alumna creates global platform for Congolese fashion

Bitshilux Mode 6

Congo Fashion Week 2014. Image © Etoile Photo

Marie-France Idikayi, a graduate of LCC’s BA (Hons) Live Events and Television course, has established a global showcase for African fashion in the Democratic Republic of Congo by founding Congo Fashion Week.

The week’s first events took place in Brazzaville and Kinshasa and were inspired by Marie-France’s desire to create a stronger fashion industry in the area by bringing together style and showbusiness.

The LCC alumna is keen to promote upcoming and established Congolese and African designers to the fast-growing international market. Congo Fashion Week features fashion shows, exhibitions and talks, giving buyers, members of the public and the media the opportunity to discover the latest trends in the industry.

IMG_0299

Congo Fashion Week 2014. Image © Etoile Photo

Marie-France hopes that her project will ultimately boost national tourism and contribute to the country’s economic empowerment and growth, building strong brands within the Congolese community both in Congo and the wider diaspora.

Congo Fashion Week attracted attention from Vogue Italia in December 2014 – see the feature here.

As part of her LCC degree, Marie-France also launched a fashion and lifestyle magazine called Molato, meaning fashion, outfit, garment or clothes in Lingala, one of the national languages of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The magazine’s aim is to promote African fashion and people making a difference in it. Marie-France explains: “Our societies are culturally rich but at times we fail to give them the attention required to share our pride with other nations.”

Marie-France is currently busy preparing this year’s events and building Molato’s audience after receiving business advice from the Congolese government.

IMG_2004

Congo Fashion Week 2014. Image © Etoile Photo

Cherry Esam 3

Congo Fashion Week 2014. Image © Etoile Photo

Fanny Mandina 7

Congo Fashion Week 2014. Image © Etoile Photo

IMG_2044

Congo Fashion Week 2014. Image © Etoile Photo

Read the latest edition of Molato

Read more about BA (Hons) Live Events and Television

The post LCC alumna creates global platform for Congolese fashion appeared first on London College of Communication Blog.

LCC Associate Lecturer for BA (Hons) Sound Arts and Design at Tate Britain

close group resized

Iris talks to visitors at Tate Britain

Iris Garrelfs, a PhD student and Associate Lecturer on LCC’s BA (Hons) Sound Arts and Design course, recently held a week-long project at Tate Britain in which she used visitors’ personal objects and stories to create a sound installation.

Part of a Radio City residency at the gallery, ‘Listening Room’ encouraged adults and children to bring along objects and stories around the theme of hearing and listening from 2-6 February 2015.

Iris recorded the stories from Monday to Wednesday, edited the audio recordings on Thursday and created a sound installation for four channels and objects for everyone’s listening pleasure on the Friday.

bell resized

Some of the objects contributed by the public

The conversations between Iris and gallery visitors often expanded into very personal areas, focusing on childhood experiences or caring for relatives, while others were responses to exploring the sonic environment of the Tate.

Iris explains: “I was struck by the generosity of everyone, as people contributed so freely even very personal experiences.

“What came out of it for me was a kind of democratisation that happened through the stories – artists next to children, local residents next to Italian tourists. But there was also a blurring between museum visitors and myself: as I had invited people into the Listening Room, I also became a listener.”

standing group resized

Exploring the objects used in ‘Listening Room’

listening statue resized

Listening to the installation at Tate Britain

A stereo version of the recording used in the installation was broadcast on Resonance FM and is archived here.

Read more about ‘Listening Room’ on Iris’s website

Read more about BA (Hons) Sound Arts and Design

 

The post LCC Associate Lecturer for BA (Hons) Sound Arts and Design at Tate Britain appeared first on London College of Communication Blog.

Faith and Fashion on the school run

Faith and Fashion school run

Panel discussion with Professor Reina Lewis of London College of Fashion, Claire Drucquer, a religious studies teacher and Patrick Moriarty, the Headteacher of JCoSS.

Context of the event

The premise that school uniforms encourage good behaviour among school students is unquestioned by many in the UK today. However what happens when dress codes ‘mission creep’?

Increasingly dress codes are being used to regulate the behaviour of teachers and parents as well as students in faith schools. In non-faith schools, local community norms can produce a de-facto dress code, policed by student peer groups in the playground and parents on the pavement.

About the speakers

To discuss what constitutes today’s school wardrobe, Professor Reina Lewis of London College of Fashion brings her Faith and Fashion series to JW3 to ask teachers, parents, and students if and how what they wear can cross the school gate.

To consider the nuance of school wear, Reina is joined by a panel including Claire Drucquer, a religious studies teacher who, as schools coordinator for Three Faiths Forum, works with people of all faiths and beliefs to build new intercommunal relationships, and Patrick Moriarty, the Headteacher of JCoSS, the UK’s first pluralist Jewish Secondary School who, himself training for ordination as an Anglican priest, has a keen interest in interfaith dialogue.

Event details:

Thursday 12th March 2015
18.30 – 19.30 - followed by a reception
JW3, 341-351 Finchley Road, London, NW3 6ET Please note that this event is not at our usual venue.

RSVP essential 

Find via Googlemaps
UNDERGROUND:Finchley Road (Metropolitan, Jubilee) and West Hampstead (Jubilee)
OVERGROUND:Finchley Road & Frognal and West Hampstead
BUSES: 13, 82, 113, 187 and 268

Further information:

Green Week: Fixing Fashion – Repair is the New Black

Bridget Harvey, Jumper: Fixing Fashion - Repair is the New Black.

Bridget Harvey, Jumper: Fixing Fashion – Repair is the New Black.

 

For UAL Green Week 2015, Bridget Harvey, CCW PhD student in the Textile Futures Research Centre (TFRC), invites you to experiment with mending your clothes and other textiles: customising them and fixing damage through patching, darning and adding new buttons.

In the UK we send over £200m of clothes to landfill each year. Mending can help keep these textiles in circulation, and help us love our clothes for longer. Learn hands-on skills for clothes mending – darning, patching and other small and simple mends. All the techniques can be done by hand, no previous skills or experience necessary.

Along with plenty of enthusiasm, all you need to bring with you are scrap fabrics or clothes with holes, stains, missing buttons etc!

Fixing Fashion | Repair is the New Black is part of Green Week 2015.

Friday 13 February
11:00 – 16:00
1st Floor – D1 Corridor
Central Saint Martins

Further information & contact:   Bridget Harvey website

Journalism Guest Speaker Review // Simon McGregor-Wood, Al Jazeera

Al-Jazeera

Al Jazeera’s Simon McGregor-Wood recently spoke to LCC Journalism students about the challenges and excitements of reporting from the Middle East. BA (Hons) Journalism student Luke O’Driscoll reports.

Simon McGregor-Wood is a broadcast journalist with over 25 years experience, nine of those working as ABC News’ Middle East Correspondent, as well as the news division’s Middle East Bureau Chief.

He came to LCC to give a talk about his experiences as a foreign correspondent, the difficulty of maintaining balance and objectivity and the changing nature of reporting news from war zones.

His time in the Middle-East, where he was based in Jerusalem, was characterised by the on-going Israeli/Palestine conflict in which he witnessed many of its defining events of the past decade including: “the second intifada, the battle between Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon, the emergence of Hamas, the occasional wars with Hezbollah and the spill over effect of the US-led invasion of Iraq, the growth of Jewish settlements and the Israeli right wing and the decline of Gaza.” On top of this he also had “responsibility for covering Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.”

Simon-McGregor-Wood-029-300x200.fw

LCC guest speaker Simon McGregor-Wood

Simon left Israel in 2011, just before the Arab Spring, and today he works as a freelance journalist for Al-Jazeera in Europe and the Middle East with a working schedule that sounds just as hectic: “I travel widely across Europe covering breaking news and features. I spent the New Year for example in Italy covering the Greek ferry which caught fire, and I stayed there to cover the arrival of Syrian migrants. I’m currently working on a story about the fourth anniversary of the Egyptian revolution, on Thursday I’m covering a foreign office conference on extremism, and then this weekend I will be in Auschwitz to cover next week’s 70th anniversary of its liberation.”

The importance, Simon advises, of “a proper foreign assignment is a chance to get to grips with the story and to gain real understanding of your subject. It’s a chance to gain expertise, something I think it’s important for journalists to do at some point in their career.”

Whilst the appeal of being a foreign correspondent is obvious, and something he says he is a proponent of, he acknowledges the changing face of foreign affairs reportage: “Good well-paid jobs are increasingly rare in a world dominated by freelancers like me and people on short-term contracts.

“A foreign correspondent has the luxury of time. He or she must know more than his or her editor – more than the editor reads in their morning newspaper or hears on their radio bulletin in the morning. Your role is to immerse yourself in the place you’re covering. To understand the context behind the stories of the day.”

When broaching the subject of objectivity in the field he explains: “you have to be able to provide reporting that nobody else but you can provide, you must do this whilst maintaining your objectivity and balance and this is nowhere more true than in the Middle East and nowhere more true than in reporting the core of Middle East conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Possibly the most scrutinised story there is.”

The value of which, Simon notes, cannot be downplayed: “Managing your personal views on a story like this is hard but crucial!

“Where your Israeli and Palestinian colleagues may carry a natural bias you must steer a course through that and through torrents of opinion and propaganda. Personal sympathies must always be tempered by self-criticism and analysis.”

Maintaining these standards, however, is not always straightforward and there is a struggle faced by foreign correspondents: “One of the biggest challenges in the Middle East is navigating between two very well rehearsed narratives and avoiding the manipulation of both sides. There are two opposing versions of an historical dispute, two sets of people – well educated if not brainwashed into their version of the truth where even the children in Palestinian refugee camps or Jewish settlements are fluent in the discourse of their narrative.

“Furthermore help carries the risk of manipulation. Are you going to be able to get somewhere without the help of the Israeli army? What price do you pay if you accept their facilitation? How far does help corrupt your reporting?”

The showing of radical views in the Middle East is also something Simon is more than aware of: “This is also a story dominated by the extremists and too often they’re the only voices you hear. There are Israelis and Palestinians who like each other and who at least want to sit down together. And they are rarely heard. As journalists, is it our job to seek them out?”

The discourse of political language is another factor the Al Jazeera journalist believes budding foreign correspondents need to be wary of: “This is a story where even language carries the potential for bias. What do you call a settlement in occupied East Jerusalem? Do you call it Jerusalem occupied?

“Some American newspapers I have noticed have started to call East Jerusalem settlements contested neighbourhoods. What does that do? Whose interests does that serve? Whose language are you using? Are you undermining a report by politicising your language? If you refuse to use one side’s terminology does that necessarily mean you support the other side? Is there ever a perfect middle way? Is there ever a perfect word?”

This on-going self-evaluation and self-critique is something Simon refers to throughout his talk, the importance of which is made evidently clear by his experience and strength as a reporter.

“Personal sympathies must always be tempered by self-criticism and analysis. How best to develop trustworthy sources on both sides? How to avoid being tarnished with perceptions of institutional bias because you work for an American network or because you work for Al Jazeera? In the Middle East your greatest solace are the pillars of your professional standards, objectivity and balance.”

When questioned about the future for prospective foreign correspondents wishing to cover conflict in the Middle East his response is ominous: “I think one of the big problems today is that outlets, whatever their media, are in danger of exploiting young freelancers who want to get into the business, who want to go [to the Middle East]. And often you hear horrific stories of photographers who find themselves in somewhere like Syria or Lebanon or Iraq and they’re not necessarily being paid properly, they’re being paid on what they are able to provide, they don’t necessarily have the right experience, they have no backup and they are being exploited.

“While I can understand the instincts of wanting to be there, in this fractured world of young people trying to get into the business, it’s a very dangerous temptation. I think people need to be very careful. There are too many young freelancers getting killed and it’s costing the outlets practically nothing.”

He puts this largely down to the huge economic shift journalism has seen over past decade stating “the financial model of what we [journalists] do has changed beyond recognition. Twenty years ago at the BBC or ABC or ITN, if you went to cover a war, the first thing is there was a lot of experienced people who had done it before and there was the resources to do it properly, to mitigate some of the risk.”

Despite this, the longstanding journalist believes there is a future for foreign correspondents, with “foreign news [being] something I would recommend to anyone.”

You can follow Simon on twitter @simonmcgw and find out more about him through his website http://www.simonmcgregorwood.co.uk

Words by Luke O’Driscoll

Read more about BA (Hons) Journalism

The post Journalism Guest Speaker Review // Simon McGregor-Wood, Al Jazeera appeared first on London College of Communication Blog.

Journalism Guest Speaker Review // Simon McGregor-Wood, Al Jazeera

Al-Jazeera

Al Jazeera’s Simon McGregor-Wood recently spoke to LCC Journalism students about the challenges and excitements of reporting from the Middle East. BA (Hons) Journalism student Luke O’Driscoll reports.

Simon McGregor-Wood is a broadcast journalist with over 25 years experience, nine of those working as ABC News’ Middle East Correspondent, as well as the news division’s Middle East Bureau Chief.

He came to LCC to give a talk about his experiences as a foreign correspondent, the difficulty of maintaining balance and objectivity and the changing nature of reporting news from war zones.

His time in the Middle-East, where he was based in Jerusalem, was characterised by the on-going Israeli/Palestine conflict in which he witnessed many of its defining events of the past decade including: “the second intifada, the battle between Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon, the emergence of Hamas, the occasional wars with Hezbollah and the spill over effect of the US-led invasion of Iraq, the growth of Jewish settlements and the Israeli right wing and the decline of Gaza.” On top of this he also had “responsibility for covering Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.”

Simon-McGregor-Wood-029-300x200.fw

LCC guest speaker Simon McGregor-Wood

Simon left Israel in 2011, just before the Arab Spring, and today he works as a freelance journalist for Al-Jazeera in Europe and the Middle East with a working schedule that sounds just as hectic: “I travel widely across Europe covering breaking news and features. I spent the New Year for example in Italy covering the Greek ferry which caught fire, and I stayed there to cover the arrival of Syrian migrants. I’m currently working on a story about the fourth anniversary of the Egyptian revolution, on Thursday I’m covering a foreign office conference on extremism, and then this weekend I will be in Auschwitz to cover next week’s 70th anniversary of its liberation.”

The importance, Simon advises, of “a proper foreign assignment is a chance to get to grips with the story and to gain real understanding of your subject. It’s a chance to gain expertise, something I think it’s important for journalists to do at some point in their career.”

Whilst the appeal of being a foreign correspondent is obvious, and something he says he is a proponent of, he acknowledges the changing face of foreign affairs reportage: “Good well-paid jobs are increasingly rare in a world dominated by freelancers like me and people on short-term contracts.

“A foreign correspondent has the luxury of time. He or she must know more than his or her editor – more than the editor reads in their morning newspaper or hears on their radio bulletin in the morning. Your role is to immerse yourself in the place you’re covering. To understand the context behind the stories of the day.”

When broaching the subject of objectivity in the field he explains: “you have to be able to provide reporting that nobody else but you can provide, you must do this whilst maintaining your objectivity and balance and this is nowhere more true than in the Middle East and nowhere more true than in reporting the core of Middle East conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Possibly the most scrutinised story there is.”

The value of which, Simon notes, cannot be downplayed: “Managing your personal views on a story like this is hard but crucial!

“Where your Israeli and Palestinian colleagues may carry a natural bias you must steer a course through that and through torrents of opinion and propaganda. Personal sympathies must always be tempered by self-criticism and analysis.”

Maintaining these standards, however, is not always straightforward and there is a struggle faced by foreign correspondents: “One of the biggest challenges in the Middle East is navigating between two very well rehearsed narratives and avoiding the manipulation of both sides. There are two opposing versions of an historical dispute, two sets of people – well educated if not brainwashed into their version of the truth where even the children in Palestinian refugee camps or Jewish settlements are fluent in the discourse of their narrative.

“Furthermore help carries the risk of manipulation. Are you going to be able to get somewhere without the help of the Israeli army? What price do you pay if you accept their facilitation? How far does help corrupt your reporting?”

The showing of radical views in the Middle East is also something Simon is more than aware of: “This is also a story dominated by the extremists and too often they’re the only voices you hear. There are Israelis and Palestinians who like each other and who at least want to sit down together. And they are rarely heard. As journalists, is it our job to seek them out?”

The discourse of political language is another factor the Al Jazeera journalist believes budding foreign correspondents need to be wary of: “This is a story where even language carries the potential for bias. What do you call a settlement in occupied East Jerusalem? Do you call it Jerusalem occupied?

“Some American newspapers I have noticed have started to call East Jerusalem settlements contested neighbourhoods. What does that do? Whose interests does that serve? Whose language are you using? Are you undermining a report by politicising your language? If you refuse to use one side’s terminology does that necessarily mean you support the other side? Is there ever a perfect middle way? Is there ever a perfect word?”

This on-going self-evaluation and self-critique is something Simon refers to throughout his talk, the importance of which is made evidently clear by his experience and strength as a reporter.

“Personal sympathies must always be tempered by self-criticism and analysis. How best to develop trustworthy sources on both sides? How to avoid being tarnished with perceptions of institutional bias because you work for an American network or because you work for Al Jazeera? In the Middle East your greatest solace are the pillars of your professional standards, objectivity and balance.”

When questioned about the future for prospective foreign correspondents wishing to cover conflict in the Middle East his response is ominous: “I think one of the big problems today is that outlets, whatever their media, are in danger of exploiting young freelancers who want to get into the business, who want to go [to the Middle East]. And often you hear horrific stories of photographers who find themselves in somewhere like Syria or Lebanon or Iraq and they’re not necessarily being paid properly, they’re being paid on what they are able to provide, they don’t necessarily have the right experience, they have no backup and they are being exploited.

“While I can understand the instincts of wanting to be there, in this fractured world of young people trying to get into the business, it’s a very dangerous temptation. I think people need to be very careful. There are too many young freelancers getting killed and it’s costing the outlets practically nothing.”

He puts this largely down to the huge economic shift journalism has seen over past decade stating “the financial model of what we [journalists] do has changed beyond recognition. Twenty years ago at the BBC or ABC or ITN, if you went to cover a war, the first thing is there was a lot of experienced people who had done it before and there was the resources to do it properly, to mitigate some of the risk.”

Despite this, the longstanding journalist believes there is a future for foreign correspondents, with “foreign news [being] something I would recommend to anyone.”

You can follow Simon on twitter @simonmcgw and find out more about him through his website http://www.simonmcgregorwood.co.uk

Words by Luke O’Driscoll

Read more about BA (Hons) Journalism

The post Journalism Guest Speaker Review // Simon McGregor-Wood, Al Jazeera appeared first on London College of Communication Blog.

Journalism Guest Speaker Review // Simon McGregor-Wood, Al Jazeera

Al-Jazeera

Al Jazeera’s Simon McGregor-Wood recently spoke to LCC Journalism students about the challenges and excitements of reporting from the Middle East. BA (Hons) Journalism student Luke O’Driscoll reports.

Simon McGregor-Wood is a broadcast journalist with over 25 years experience, nine of those working as ABC News’ Middle East Correspondent, as well as the news division’s Middle East Bureau Chief.

He came to LCC to give a talk about his experiences as a foreign correspondent, the difficulty of maintaining balance and objectivity and the changing nature of reporting news from war zones.

His time in the Middle-East, where he was based in Jerusalem, was characterised by the on-going Israeli/Palestine conflict in which he witnessed many of its defining events of the past decade including: “the second intifada, the battle between Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon, the emergence of Hamas, the occasional wars with Hezbollah and the spill over effect of the US-led invasion of Iraq, the growth of Jewish settlements and the Israeli right wing and the decline of Gaza.” On top of this he also had “responsibility for covering Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.”

Simon-McGregor-Wood-029-300x200.fw

LCC guest speaker Simon McGregor-Wood

Simon left Israel in 2011, just before the Arab Spring, and today he works as a freelance journalist for Al-Jazeera in Europe and the Middle East with a working schedule that sounds just as hectic: “I travel widely across Europe covering breaking news and features. I spent the New Year for example in Italy covering the Greek ferry which caught fire, and I stayed there to cover the arrival of Syrian migrants. I’m currently working on a story about the fourth anniversary of the Egyptian revolution, on Thursday I’m covering a foreign office conference on extremism, and then this weekend I will be in Auschwitz to cover next week’s 70th anniversary of its liberation.”

The importance, Simon advises, of “a proper foreign assignment is a chance to get to grips with the story and to gain real understanding of your subject. It’s a chance to gain expertise, something I think it’s important for journalists to do at some point in their career.”

Whilst the appeal of being a foreign correspondent is obvious, and something he says he is a proponent of, he acknowledges the changing face of foreign affairs reportage: “Good well-paid jobs are increasingly rare in a world dominated by freelancers like me and people on short-term contracts.

“A foreign correspondent has the luxury of time. He or she must know more than his or her editor – more than the editor reads in their morning newspaper or hears on their radio bulletin in the morning. Your role is to immerse yourself in the place you’re covering. To understand the context behind the stories of the day.”

When broaching the subject of objectivity in the field he explains: “you have to be able to provide reporting that nobody else but you can provide, you must do this whilst maintaining your objectivity and balance and this is nowhere more true than in the Middle East and nowhere more true than in reporting the core of Middle East conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Possibly the most scrutinised story there is.”

The value of which, Simon notes, cannot be downplayed: “Managing your personal views on a story like this is hard but crucial!

“Where your Israeli and Palestinian colleagues may carry a natural bias you must steer a course through that and through torrents of opinion and propaganda. Personal sympathies must always be tempered by self-criticism and analysis.”

Maintaining these standards, however, is not always straightforward and there is a struggle faced by foreign correspondents: “One of the biggest challenges in the Middle East is navigating between two very well rehearsed narratives and avoiding the manipulation of both sides. There are two opposing versions of an historical dispute, two sets of people – well educated if not brainwashed into their version of the truth where even the children in Palestinian refugee camps or Jewish settlements are fluent in the discourse of their narrative.

“Furthermore help carries the risk of manipulation. Are you going to be able to get somewhere without the help of the Israeli army? What price do you pay if you accept their facilitation? How far does help corrupt your reporting?”

The showing of radical views in the Middle East is also something Simon is more than aware of: “This is also a story dominated by the extremists and too often they’re the only voices you hear. There are Israelis and Palestinians who like each other and who at least want to sit down together. And they are rarely heard. As journalists, is it our job to seek them out?”

The discourse of political language is another factor the Al Jazeera journalist believes budding foreign correspondents need to be wary of: “This is a story where even language carries the potential for bias. What do you call a settlement in occupied East Jerusalem? Do you call it Jerusalem occupied?

“Some American newspapers I have noticed have started to call East Jerusalem settlements contested neighbourhoods. What does that do? Whose interests does that serve? Whose language are you using? Are you undermining a report by politicising your language? If you refuse to use one side’s terminology does that necessarily mean you support the other side? Is there ever a perfect middle way? Is there ever a perfect word?”

This on-going self-evaluation and self-critique is something Simon refers to throughout his talk, the importance of which is made evidently clear by his experience and strength as a reporter.

“Personal sympathies must always be tempered by self-criticism and analysis. How best to develop trustworthy sources on both sides? How to avoid being tarnished with perceptions of institutional bias because you work for an American network or because you work for Al Jazeera? In the Middle East your greatest solace are the pillars of your professional standards, objectivity and balance.”

When questioned about the future for prospective foreign correspondents wishing to cover conflict in the Middle East his response is ominous: “I think one of the big problems today is that outlets, whatever their media, are in danger of exploiting young freelancers who want to get into the business, who want to go [to the Middle East]. And often you hear horrific stories of photographers who find themselves in somewhere like Syria or Lebanon or Iraq and they’re not necessarily being paid properly, they’re being paid on what they are able to provide, they don’t necessarily have the right experience, they have no backup and they are being exploited.

“While I can understand the instincts of wanting to be there, in this fractured world of young people trying to get into the business, it’s a very dangerous temptation. I think people need to be very careful. There are too many young freelancers getting killed and it’s costing the outlets practically nothing.”

He puts this largely down to the huge economic shift journalism has seen over past decade stating “the financial model of what we [journalists] do has changed beyond recognition. Twenty years ago at the BBC or ABC or ITN, if you went to cover a war, the first thing is there was a lot of experienced people who had done it before and there was the resources to do it properly, to mitigate some of the risk.”

Despite this, the longstanding journalist believes there is a future for foreign correspondents, with “foreign news [being] something I would recommend to anyone.”

You can follow Simon on twitter @simonmcgw and find out more about him through his website http://www.simonmcgregorwood.co.uk

Words by Luke O’Driscoll

Read more about BA (Hons) Journalism

The post Journalism Guest Speaker Review // Simon McGregor-Wood, Al Jazeera appeared first on London College of Communication Blog.

Emily Bell’s 2015 Hugh Cudlipp Lecture in full

emily bell gesture

Emily Bell shares her view of the future of digital journalism. © Lewis Bush

On Monday 26 January 2015, Emily Bell, Founder Director to the Tow Centre for Digital Journalism at Columbia Graduate School of Journalism in New York City, gave the annual Hugh Cudlipp Lecture here at LCC.

As former Editor in Chief of the Guardian’s websites and director of digital content, Emily led the strategy to make the Guardian an open platform for journalism.

Video //

Watch Emily’s Hugh Cudlipp Lecture in full

Now in its twelfth year, the Lecture – named in memory of the late Lord Cudlipp, former Editorial Director of the Daily Mirror – also serves as a platform for the Hugh Cudlipp Award.

winners small

Ryan Ramgobin and Adam Barr, ‘The Referendum Boys’, accept their award for student journalism. © Lewis Bush

This year’s student journalism prize of £2,000 went to Ryan Ramgobin and Adam Barr, ‘The Referendum Boys’, for their outstanding on-the-ground coverage of the Scottish Referendum from Glasgow city centre.

LCC has been the proud host of the Hugh Cudlipp Lecture since 2005 and we once again partnered with The Daily Mirror for the event.

View images from the event on Flickr

Emily Bell’s speech, on journalism’s response to the changing digital landscape, can be found in full below:

Good evening everyone, I want to thank Natalie Brett, Karin Askham, Paul Charman, the Cudlipp Trust, London College of Communication, UAL, the Daily Mirror, and Hugh Cudlipp in absentia for giving me the great honour of talking to you all tonight.

I was a tabloid journalist for one day.

This is not the beginning of a Daily Mail confessional but a statement of fact.

I did one shift on the Londoner’s Diary at the Evening Standard when I was a student. The highlight of the day, and probably my career, was lunch in the pub with Keith Waterhouse – for the students here looking bemused, in those days lunch in the pub with Keith Waterhouse for a student journalist would be the equivalent today of Taylor Swift liking your tumblr post and sending you a box of biscuits. Despite bonding with Keith and writing a lead item after three gin and tonics, I was sacked. Or rather not asked back. Not it seems for being drunk at my desk, that seemed entirely expected, but for not being posh enough.

I had a posh name, I went to a posh University so they assumed I would be posh – a conduit for the goings on in Eton Square. So before you say what does a Guardian journalist who teaches at an Ivy League university know about tabloid journalism, I just want you to know, I was once a tabloid journalist but not posh enough to make a career out of it…

Tonight I want to talk to you about the ‘Digital Tabloid’.

What is happening to popular journalism on the web. Tabloids always had the biggest reach, the largest impact, the most flexible standards. On the web, however, we are seeing the tabloidisation of everything. I don’t mean this as a negative. Far from it. All news outlets need numbers in the web economy that are vastly greater than they had in an analogue world firstly to make the economics work and secondly to have an impact. The demands of web scale economics have torpedoed the local news model; they have also driven great invention and a new set of entrepreneurial skills into journalism.

But attaining size in the world we are going into means surrendering control to the systems that deliver it. Going viral is a goal in nearly all newsrooms. The protocols and networks that deliver it were never conceived with the idea of journalism in mind.

I think this has brought us to a very interesting and challenging moment in the press and in broader society. The ‘too long didn’t read’ version of this speech is journalism needs a lot more journalists who are technically proficient, and the new gods, the platform companies, social networks and search engines, need to hire a lot more technologists who are proficient in news. Because at the moment we have a situation which is not working for either of us.

Those of us engaged with what journalism is and will be, who have a direct and vested interest in the protection of free speech and standards for information have a lot to do, and we need to work together, because we are now part of one continuous global information loop.

Hugh Cudlipp – Lord Cudlipp, as he became – understood that to have authority, impact and a business model you had to achieve scale. And he did. At its peak of 5 million the Daily Mirror was the bestselling newspaper in the world.

It achieved that by a combination of three things: a strong sense of what role journalism could play in the lives of its audience, great reporting and courageous independent editing, and a thorough knowledge of how to put contemporary technology to the service of journalism.

Cudlipp was highly creative within the boundaries of his time. I wonder now, confronted with unbounded possibilities, what would Hugh Cudlipp do?  How would he interpret the job of the editor and journalist in the digital age?

When he was appointed editorial director of the Mirror in 1952, newspaper groups were the big beasts in the information landscape. They were the way that people found out about the world, their only competition coming from BBC radio news and from newsreels. At that time, there was not really a proper television news service.

Even during the rise of TV news, which changed journalism profoundly, newspaper businesses retained a dominant position in the media industry and in popular culture.

The internet and the worldwide web have transformed that landscape.

We are seeing unimaginably large new entities, which get their size from publishing not just a selected number of stories but everything in the world.  Social networks and search engines are the masters of this universe.

As we see the disappearance of print as a significant medium, and the likely decline of broadcast television, the paths our stories and journalism must travel down to reach readers and viewers are being shaped by technologies beyond our control.

A recent study from the Pew Research Center suggested that 39 per cent of Americans had seen news on politics and government on Facebook in the past week. Another Pew study confirmed that thirty per cent of US adults consider Facebook to be a key source of all news.

In Britain, the number of people getting their news from social media is rising. A poll for Havas, quoted in the Press Gazette in October, found 27 per cent of people used Facebook as a source for local news, and 11 per cent used Twitter. The platforms might change, next year WhatsApp, the year after who knows, but the behaviour will not – these numbers will only increase.

And we as journalists have been in turn both enthusiastically and reluctantly complicit in this growth.

The most powerful trend in journalism today is full integration with reporting, presentation and distribution of journalism through the social web. The sharing and liking economy is literally changing the shape of what we do at a pace we are running to keep up with.

Twenty years ago we had the first creaky efforts to get newspapers onto the internet at all, squeezed through copper wires and dial up modems. Fifteen years ago no one had a camera in their mobile phone, ten years ago no-one had a smartphone. Five years ago Instagram didn’t exist.

Today, the ‘new newsroom’ has optimisation desks, to make stories work better on social media, data scientists who analyse the information about story performance to tell journalists how to write headlines, produce photographs and report stories which will be ‘liked’ and ‘shared’ more than others. It has aggregation desks, which scour the web to find news that ordinary people have posted for a wider audience. It has audience insight desks that work on how to get more people to spend longer reading more journalism. And it has data desks, which take the newly available sources of information in vast quantities and use the latest mining tools and techniques to clean, interpret and visualise information in new ways.

The “social media team” is no longer the group of people bullying you to tweet your story, but now key to the operation of how and what you report. The practice of good social media use, finding verifying and disseminating stories, are core to reporting, not simply a wrapper for ‘proper journalism’. No matter where a journalist’s work is published, on television, in a glossy magazine or on page three, it is now shared and discussed in a digital environment. Increasingly as a journalist you do your work in public and away from the content management system of your own publication.

Integrating with the web means responding, quickly, to what people want. The way the new social media platforms have been designed encourages certain types of use and elevates certain types of journalism.  The formats that work well on social media have certain characteristics Hugh Cudlipp would have been familiar with.

Lists work well, pictures are even better, games are even better than that, headlines need to be intriguing and chatty, there needs to be bathos and pathos: a cat involved, or a wombat falling off a sofa. A viral story is the holy grail. And viral does not mean a couple of hundred thousand any more, it means millions. Sometimes tens of millions.

Almost every news operation, with a very small number of exceptions, is pursuing this model in some form or another. Tabloid or popular journalism is being done by the same outlets that produce the most serious chin-stroking think-pieces.  In 2005 the Huffington Post pioneered this ‘mullet strategy’ for journalism, which looked neat and respectable at the front, wild and hairy at the back. The overall effect might be jarring, but generally people are choosing to only look at one side at once. That approach is now refined by a new generation of digitally native news organisations like Buzzfeed, Vice, Upworthy and Mashable.

Even legacy news companies are getting in on the act. It is great to be giving this talk at the Mirror because of the ‘red top’ papers, it is making the most progress on the web. Through the snappy news games and visualisations of its own internal start-ups, UsVsTh3m and Ampped, it is experimenting with the different ways serious news can reach a wider audience.

A few months ago I had coffee with a senior journalist in New York whose editor-in-chief had been expressing dismay at how little traffic was being referred back to their stories from social media platforms. ‘What is the right percentage?’ they asked, ‘does anybody know?’. No. But it seems we are all working on it and the general view is: the higher the better. There is a whole other talk I could give at how bad we are currently at measuring journalism.

Social media companies know that having the news industry fully engaged and using their tools is important to them.  Every major social platform has a team dedicated to working with newsrooms to help them get the most out of their technologies.

Until now, though, this relationship has been mostly a one-way street. Journalism has been engaging on the terms of technological values created in Silicon Valley. And Silicon Valley has in return been putting a tiny fraction of its billions into working with journalists.

The balance has now tipped though to a point where this is likely to change.

The numbers suggest that these super platforms ARE the free press, taking over many of the functions of the mainstream media. Social networks are now attracting the same pressures and challenges at a much larger scale that journalism and civic media has wrestled with for years.

YouTube has one billion visitors a month, four hundred hours of video is uploaded every minute, we watch on average an hour of video on YouTube every month for every person on earth.

In social networks the numbers are similarly impressive. Facebook has over 800 million active users, WhatsApp has 700 million, Instagram has over 300m… and for the astute in the audience, you will know that Facebook owns all three of those properties.

Twitter has 300 million active users, but 40 per cent of people just use Twitter to read not tweet.

Google, which owns YouTube, has a market capitalisation of $340 billion. By contrast, the once unstoppable Murdoch companies, across publishing and TV, have a combined market capitalisation of around $80 billion. That’s only just about twice the size of Twitter. And on the web, Britain’s largest daily newspaper, The Sun has 225,000 subscribers.

I say that not to make a cheap joke, but to illustrate an important point. The Sun on the web has a paywall, a subscription model which works for News International, but it is no longer part of the popular journalism ecosystem, because its young male readership are all laughing at the Lad Bible on Facebook.

Journalism is a thin thread in a vast new global tapestry of conversation and information. But that thread, I would argue, keeps the whole cloth together, because when it works as it should, gives people a daily feed of important, entertaining, interesting and vital information.

As social media become increasingly powerful in our economy and in our culture, we are beginning both to see the consequences of a global free information society. We might also – dare I say it – start to miss the sense of mission historically associated with the press. The problems the press creates when it works badly – errors of fact and interpretation, opacity, carelessness – are amplified by new technology and new capabilities.

We need the values of journalism in software as much as we need the software systems supporting journalism.

What are those values?

Making sure news is accurate, which seems pretty basic, being accountable for it if it is not accurate, being transparent about the source of stories and information, standing up to governments, pressure groups, commercial interests, the police, if they intimidate, threaten or censor you. Protecting your sources against arrest and disclosure. Knowing when you have a strong enough public interest defence to break the law and being prepared to go to jail to defend your story and sources. Knowing when it is unethical to publish something. Balancing individual rights to privacy with the broader right of the public interest.

I am not saying the traditional press has always covered itself in glory in carrying out these functions. In fact, all too often the opposite has been the case. But I think we can all agree that these principles are not high-minded unattainable objectives but basic requirements for anyone aiming to do good journalism.

These responsibilities are not however “shared” or even “liked” very much by social platforms.

Google and Facebook are magnitudes larger and richer than any other entities, and more influential in terms of reach than any press company in history. Until now though, the default position of participants in the sharing economy, with the exception perhaps of Twitter, has been to avoid the expensive responsibilities and darker more complex aspects of hosting the free press. This is understandable.

Engineers are not trained to think about moral consequences, they are educated to produce efficient systems, which they earnestly and often rightly believe will improve society. Similarly most journalists do not know nearly enough about technology to understand that how you design software, what you include in algorithms, are essentially editorial decisions.

Both sides of this equation has to change. We are taking it seriously as a mission at Columbia Journalism School where we teach data, computational journalism and as of this year digital security, at a higher level to more students than any other journalism school in the world. That is not so much a boast, but rather a sign that, like the profession journalism education is scrambling to get across these issues.

Our research program at the Tow Center is looking at the intersection of technology and journalism and how it is and will change our field. Our subjects include how new technologies, from drones and sensors, to virtual reality, to bots that read and write stories are going to affect journalism. Ethics and legality are central to these studies. How social platforms and journalism work together will be a major research project starting this year and so will algorithmic accountability, which is rapidly becoming one of the most important stories of our time. The veracity and transparency of our news and information is too important to be left to just commercial non-journalistic entities.

But Journalism Schools are the beginning of the pipeline, not the end. I am glad we are up with – even ahead of the industry – in identifying these areas and training journalists to be fluent in technology. But to have real impact the change must also happen in every part of the system.

I’ve argued before and I am going to argue again tonight, that the mission that motivated Cudlipp and other great editors, the reason why he worked so assiduously at building the largest possible audiences, is a mission, which must find its new digital expression. It has to be shared by all who profit from the world telling stories to itself.

Cudlipp was a master of form and format.  He knew he had to connect to audiences in language they understood, with all the methods technology gave him.

In creating journalism of impact today though, we have to go through exactly the same process as Hugh Cudlipp did then. We have to decide how to make an impact, without the benefit of owning or controlling the distribution chain.

In a report I co authored in 2012 with Clay Shirky and Chris Anderson, called Post Industrial Journalism: Adapting to the present, we talked about exactly this system of mass publishing empowerment, and that journalism, as it became distributed in new systems faced a dilemma. On the one hand it enables individuals so news is made and shared outside the newsroom.

On the other it weakens the institutions that have traditionally made journalism strong. Although all of us see vastly more benefit in the systems we have now, the problem of how to strengthen journalism in its broadest sense, under its new definitions is a hard one.

Let’s look at practical examples and what I am talking about.

Here are two people you might never have heard of: Jordi Maier and Ramsey Orta. You might not have heard of them but you have I guarantee seen their work on every news channel, in every paper, on every news website you visit in the last three months.

Jordi Mir lives in Paris. On Wednesday 7 January ago he happened to look out of his apartment window when he heard a disturbance in the street.  What he saw were two masked gunmen, and as a reflex he took out his phone to film them. With a remarkably steady hand he captured the horrifying footage of the two assailants murdering policeman Ahmed Merabet as he lay on the ground, part of the horrific attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices.

What he did next, Mir told Agence France Presse, was he put it on Facebook. He reflex to publish came from his frequent use of social media. ‘I take a picture of a cat, I put it on Facebook. It was the same stupid reflex’. Stupid or heroic?

After ten minutes or so Mir, still in shock, reconsidered his decision to publish the film to his 2,500 Facebook friends and took it down. But by then it was too late. Someone had uploaded the video to YouTube. Within an hour, Mir was alarmed to see his own film on the television news.

The clip is an iconic, chilling, unforgettable and informative set of images from the Charlie Hebdo attacks. The film is undoubtedly in the public interest. If you had shot it as a journalist you WOULD have filed it.

But it is also an invasion of Mr. Merabet’s privacy, a shock to his grieving family who cannot unsee the footage, and potentially a risk to Mr. Mir himself. Jordi Mir didn’t have the luxury of an editor or even the possibility of changing his mind. He doesn’t now have the protection of an editor or the legal advice of leading counsel from any of the organisations who used his film.

Now let’s take the case of Ramsey Orta. Orta is a 22 year old Staten Island resident with let’s say a slightly sketchy record with the police, who on 17 July last year was standing on Bay Street with his friend Eric Garner, who had just broken up a fight on the pavement.

The police arrived once the scuffle was over, but instead of driving off the officers turned their attention to Garner, a father of six who was known to police for the petty tax crime of selling loose cigarettes. In questioning Garner about his own activities, the police moved in on him, he was put in an illegal choke hold and wrestled to the ground.

His friend Orta did what Mir did in Paris; he got out his phone and filmed the incident. ‘I can’t breathe’ said Garner as the policeman throttled him; the film shows an asthmatic Garner lying cuffed on the ground. He repeated the words ‘I can’t breathe’ eleven times. We know this because we have Orta’s film.

The chokehold and restraint made Garner lose consciousness, and as we now know he died of a heart attack on the way to hospital in an ambulance. Orta’s video found its way to the New York Daily News and its publication was a spur to the outrage and disbelief New York citizens felt when in August a Grand Jury decided not to indict any officers involved.

Hundreds of thousands of people stopped traffic in New York and around the country; the New York Police Department has been in open revolt against its mayor. Along with the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri it has blown open the most important social issue of racial inequality.

Someone involved in the case was arrested, though.

Orta, the man who shot the video, on separate gun possession charges, a day after the Grand Jury decision. Police point to a long record of minor offences, Orta says he was targeted and set up for shooting the film. As with Mir, Orta reflexively performed a spontaneous act of a witness, of journalism, which has had personal consequences for him that he might not have anticipated. He said he always pulls his phone out if he thinks the police might arrest him, as protection.

I use these sensational stories which had such tangible effects as an illustration of what impact a single person can have, but also to highlight how we now have publishing systems which can amplify every act, alert the world to important events, but which also don’t yet afford these new forms of journalism the same protections as the old. They don’t give Jordi Mir the protection of an editing process or Ramsey Orta the authority of an institution.

Journalism is moving faster than the speed of thought. It is spreading beyond the newsroom, beyond geographic and cultural boundaries that once limited audiences, carried there by platforms engineered for instantaneous global communication.

Mir and Orta are not  “journalists” but they were sources. They were not on the staff of any newspaper or agency; they were not paid a salary; they had had no training; they were not members of any union, they have no added protections that might be afforded to the press.

It is important for social platforms and news organisations to include the people with the mobile phones who fill our pages, because we need them, and we have a responsibility towards them in both a broad and specific sense. They might not be journalists but they are part of our ecosystem of news.

Last year we produced a report from the Tow Center, which evaluated how much amateur footage, was now used across a number of broadcast TV bulletins. Our researchers found that footage is used daily, but that newsrooms are very bad at crediting the individuals or even at training staff to use verification techniques. Companies like Storyful, which was recently bought by Rupert Murdoch, were ahead of the curve in understanding that aggregation and authentication of material is a central function now for a newsroom.

This morning I woke up to an even more powerful example of why we have a problem. Yesterday the Guardian broke the story that Google had handed over private emails between WikiLeaks staff to the FBI in the wake of the cable leaks. Google is legally obliged to do such a thing when presented with a warrant. However Google chose not to tell the staffers at WikiLeaks that they had handed over the material for nearly three years.

Google has been encouraging us to think of it as a platform that supports free speech, its several hundred thousand dollar contribution to Charlie Hebdo a case in point, this is a chilling reminder of either how little Google understands what supporting free speech means or it’s naked dishonesty.

It is inconceivable that a serious news organisation would do such a thing to a source and not be put out of business. It calls into question Google’s trustworthiness as a platform. It also highlights how poorly the press has behaved in respect of Wikileaks. As Trevor Timm, head of the Freedom of the Press Foundation wrote for the Guardian today: ‘The outrageous legal attack on WikiLeaks and its staffers…is an attack on Freedom of the Press itself and it’s shocking more people aren’t raising their voices (and pens and keyboards) in protest’.

Healthy journalism relies of a system, which supports all parts of a free press, and at the moment we don’t have that.

As speed and scale dominate the world of information, how these platforms sort and present stories back to the world, and what they do with the data associated with them, is a matter of commercial sensitivity deep secrecy. If they have our instant messages, emails and private contacts, but don’t protect sources, then as a society we are in deep trouble.

Never before in the history of journalism has the power and reach of a small number of players had such a decisive effect on a market, and never before have we known so little about its operation.

Delving into the past of the Northcliffe dynasty, I was reminded that wealth that supported this great newspaper empire which created the Mirror, the Mail, the Sun and saved The Times and the Observer, came from a foundation on what its founder Alfred Harmsworth, described as ‘useless information’.

His first extremely popular publication was called Answers to Correspondents, and was the viral content of its day. I am sure that given the opportunity, Northcliffe would, had he been able to, made full use of digital formats – 17 horses that look like Sarah Bernhardt, 25 below stairs servants having a worse day than you, The Duchess of Kent got a new hairstyle and you’ll never guess what happened next…

The success of Northcliffe in his initial enterprise meant that much of the British press was built on this entrepreneurial understanding of how to exploit new literacy levels among working and middle class people. It combined industrial publishing technologies and emergent mass transportation systems. What Hugh Cudlipp brought to this strategy was vision, empathy and – most importantly – mission.

In the internet age we are still in our ‘Answers’ phase of development. And we sorely need the mission.

I don’t think this at all a hopeless observation, as we are seeing signs of serious success now for mainstream and even mass market digital journalism. Right now we are seeing the rise of the first generation of large-scale digitally native news organisations, and the vigorous adoption of digital only strategies by existing legacy businesses.

The most successful new ‘digitally native’ journalism companies are those who have fully integrated themselves into the fabric of these new dominant platforms. And the most successful legacy news organisations in terms of reaching large audiences on the web are those like the Daily Mail and the Guardian that have experimented with or shifted the format or substance of their journalism to do the same.

For the Guardian, it has meant relentlessly pursuing what we originally set out as long ago as 2001 to be ‘of the web and not just on the web’. For us at the time this meant web production and editorial working on an equal footing with our technologists and developers. It also meant paying very close attention to what was happening on the web outside the field of journalism.

For the Mirror, as mentioned before, it has meant new projects so far from traditional print stories they bend the definition of journalism in exactly the right way.

For ten years at the Guardian I had the great joy of working with a team that energetically went about experimenting with how we could translate the character and values of our journalism into our software development, our data policies, our digital reporting and formats.

We negotiated a route towards what Alan Rusbridger defined as open journalism. It came from a desire to build our technology and new forms of journalism with the same values that CP Scott had laid out over 150 years previously. It set the Guardian on a path where it could publish the brilliant and important stories like WikiLeaks and the NSA disclosures, internationally and securely to far wider audiences than would have been possible in just print. When I started working online at the Guardian in 2000 we had 1 million monthly users. When I left 10 years later we had sixty times that. Now it’s over 100 million.

The most startling publishing success story in America in the past five years has been Jonah Peretti’s transformation of Buzzfeed, which he started as a social traffic side project to the innovative Huffington Post, but which has grown into America’s most copied news company. I visit many newsrooms around the world and the B word is everywhere.

As Peretti himself says, there are great journalism institutions out there and there are excellent technology companies, but few places that pay as much attention to working on both as Buzzfeed. And this is the key. Peretti himself is a creative technologist with editorial flair.

Buzzfeed works on the principle of understanding the social web and building on top of it. It also works because it understands the math of the social web. For Buzzfeed to grow its 400 strong staff the advertising rates of the Internet dictate it must have massive audiences.

It is widely studied for being the sophistication of thought it gives to how technology and journalism work together. Even the New York Times paid it significant attention in its own internal ‘Innovation’ report:

‘BuzzFeed, Huffington Post and USA Today are not succeeding simply because of lists, quizzes, celebrity photos and sports coverage. They are succeeding because of their sophisticated social, search and community-building tools and strategies, and often in spite of their content’, says the report.

Peretti is like Lord Northcliffe on steroids. The ‘Answers’ phase of his strategy lasted two years not twenty, and now he is adding foreign correspondents, feature writers and an investigations unit. I am hopeful even optimistic that this understanding of how to create and harness scale in mass-market journalism, can support serious mission and a new set of standards for journalism too.

There are also some signs that the social media companies are giving way on the point that they are not ‘just platforms’. We have seen just over the past year how Twitter decided it would intervene directly in the circulation of beheading videos. Google now will have to formulate a better answer for its WikiLeaks decision than ‘we were just following the rules’.

When we are building the new newsrooms of the future and working out how to make our journalism powerful on the social web, we need to build in some of the mission driven values and processes alongside the rocket fuel for our cat gifs.

We have cracked the problem of how to deliver popular journalism on the internet, with our mixture of cute animals and data science. We can crack the problem of how to make popular journalism important and robust in the digital world too. But that isn’t a solo competitive enterprise, and it isn’t quick or easy.

We will need more than investment in social sharing strategies to do so.  We will need an open and collaborative dialogue both with each other, and with the new masters of the information universe who have the resources and the audiences to help.

We need to edit for new types of journalism and journalists, we need to recognise that the free press is more than professional journalists and more than platform technologies.

The digital tabloid sounds like an oxymoron and maybe it is. Popular journalism which reaches a mass market with reliable timely information that they want to read is as real and important as ever.

And publishing is powerful. Enormously, dangerously so. Hugh Cudlipp’s book bore the battle cry title for journalists: Publish And Be Damned! But that came from a time when we knew who the publishers were and what damnation meant.

This too is altered by the Internet. When terror organisations, psychopaths, corrupt corporations are the publishers damnation looks rather different to an angry phone call from Number 10.

Publish and be damned sounds daring, appealing almost.  Publish and be murdered at your desk, publish and be overwhelmed with foul mouthed threatening messages, publish and be imprisoned without due process, publish and be beheaded for a publicity stunt, publish and be blown up in a basement in Homs,  publish and have your office smashed up and your family intimidated, publish and put a stranger’s life in danger. These sound less swashbuckling, much more threatening, and yet that is what is happening, not just in Paris, but in Egypt, in Mexico, in Iran, in Syria, in Saudi Arabia, in Britain, in America, everywhere in fact.

I think for a while journalism thought it couldn’t afford the difficult bits, the investigations, the new technology skills, the legal teams, the time for the more complicated problems. We could only secure our survival with automatically generated dancing hamsters and robot-written press releases.

Now when we look at the mighty new networks of our age, I hope we all realise, Us and Them, that these are the very things we can’t afford not to do.

What would Hugh Cudlipp do today? I like to think he would learn to code.

Thank you.

Visit LCC’s Hugh Cudlipp page

The post Emily Bell’s 2015 Hugh Cudlipp Lecture in full appeared first on London College of Communication Blog.

TFRC and CSM Research sponsors: Studio Houndstooth launch of The Houndstooth Project

Studio Houndstooth

Studio Houndstooth launches The Houndstooth Project – a serious play, ludic, egalitarian project, which uses the well-recognised, houndstooth textile motif as the starting point for a public engagement making project for everyone and anyone as either individuals or as collaborators, using any media or approach, actual or virtual.

The launch will be a workshop to make freely with a range of materials and also provide the opportunity for participants to make links and to seek future collaboration and co-design relationships.

Date: 29  January 2015
Venue: The Crossing, CSM, Kings Cross
Time: Drop in anytime between 10.30am -5.30pm
Materials: All materials provided

www.thehoundstoothproject.com

Sponsors: CSM Research and Textile Futures Research Centre

Professor Charlotte Hodes, LCF is featured in the forthcoming documentary

   charlotte 2

Mirrors to Windows: The Artist as Woman

To be screened on 8 March 12:00, The Royal Academy

Charlotte Hodes, Professor in Fine Art, LCF, is featured in the forthcoming documentary ‘Mirrors to Windows: The Artist as Woman’ which will be screened on International Women’s Day at the Royal Academy on Sunday 8 March at noon. This is part of a programme of events to celebrate IWD at the RA that explore inter-generational perspectives on women in the arts.

Tickets and a ‘taster’ of the film

For more information:

charlotte 1