Must The Show Go On?

Following a performance together at last years EMAs, Queen + Adam Lambert have announced they are to headline this summers Sonisphere music festival.

This marks a return to Knebworth for Queen after playing their last show with Freddie Mercury there in 1986. But with only two of the remaining band members performing (bassist John Deacon has long retired from the industry) is this really a good idea, or have Brian May and Roger Taylor gone slightly mad?!

I remember first being introduced to Queen's music back in 1997, when I was just nine years old. My dad had the first Greatest Hits album on repeat during a car journey to Manchester. I was instantly hooked, singing along about girls with fat bottoms, bicycle races, and another one biting the dust. Now standing at 23 years of age my love the band hasn't wavered. As a bass player myself, John Deacon has become an idol figure for me. Not a day goes by where I don't pick up my Danelectro and jam along to a Deaky line!

And herein lies the dilema. I really, really love Queen's music. I was just unfortunate to born in an era when the band's live appearances had stopped after the tragic demise of the greatest frontman in music history due to AIDS. So for Queen fans like myself the Sonisphere show is the only chance we will get to see half of the band play those great songs. I mean, what a thrill it would be to see Brian May perform heroics on his homemade guitar, and Roger Taylor pounding away in perfect rhythm on his drumkit!

But at the same time the absence of Deacon and Mercury would create a huge void that quite simply cannot be filled. With only half the band on stage, is it really Queen at all?

So why did May and Taylor agree to the headline slot? Well, it certainly isn't due to the need for a bit more cash! Is it to celebrate the memory of Mercury? An attempt to bring Queen's music to a new generation? Or maybe the two ageing rockers can't resist the opportunity to get back on stage in Queen mode, hopelessly addicted to the thrill of rock n' roll!

Lambert has an impossible role to play in the show. Despite being a hero in my eyes, Deacon's bass lines can be replicated. Freddie Mercury on the other hand simply cannot. Lambert has to try and give his own performance to the songs and not get drawn in to attempting the impossible impersonation of Freddie. Either way he will be criticised by Queen fans. I am not a fan of his at all, but what was he meant to do when Brian and Roger asked him? I'd imagine it would be near impossible to turn down the chance to perform those great songs alongside those great musicians.

So where do I stand on the matter? I think if I had the money I would go and check the show out. Although it won't be the Queen of old, I still feel the chance to see some of the band perform is a enticing one. Some fans have been upset by this collaboration, and it is certainly not an ideal one. Things could be worse though, it could be Dappy up there with them!

The problem we have when it comes to Queen is that we want it all, and we want it now. But without John and Freddie it is just not possible.

Feature Article written last year: With respect, it's not working!

So another season of football has come to end, and we have had no shortage in controversy and talking points. Managers fined for chastising and disrespecting referees, players fined for outbursts on the pitch and on online social media like Twitter. It seems not a game goes by without a storm of controversy. The game is always going to be highly charged and full of passion. But is the mark being overstepped too often? The level of criticism towards refereeing decisions and players and managers conduct in the professional game has been highlighted frequently this season. What does this mean for the Football Association’s Respect campaign? Is the lack of respect in football a far bigger problem than we realise? Has the campaign been a failure?

We are now into the fifth year of the F.A’s widely discussed Respect campaign. The Respect movement was introduced to address unacceptable behaviour on and off the pitch in football. In 2009 it was reported that around 7,000 qualified referees were quitting each season because of the abuse they received from players and from the sidelines. This posed a huge problem for the F.A to confront and deal with. The F.A claim that the Respect programme provides a series of tools leagues, clubs, coaches, referees, players and parents from grassroots to elite football to ensure a safe, positive environment in which to enjoy the game.

Looking at the statistics, the Respect campaign has enjoyed some significant success. On field discipline in the professional game has improved with cautions for dissent across the top four divisions down by nine per cent. Referee recruitment figures are up 7.4 per cent each year. Assaults on referees are down 13 per cent each year.

It is certain that the F.A introduced the Respect campaign with honourable intentions, and according to the stats the campaign is doing good work. However, not everyone has been pleased with its introduction. Former top Premier League referee Graham Poll has openly criticised the campaign saying it is doomed. According to Poll, no referees were asked for their opinions in the build up to the campaign’s launch.

“The FA said they'd researched the opinions of 11,000 people before embarking on the 'Respect' campaign, but they didn't ask one of the top referees for their views before they brought it in. Referees are the spearhead of it, and yet they didn't even get consulted."

The fact that top referees were not asked their opinions on the campaign before it was brought in does seem to undermine the campaign’s intentions. The programme was launched with referees very much in mind, but it seems they were still being ignored.

While one top referee has been critical of the campaign, another first class referee, Howard Webb, has praised the campaign. Webb feels the initiation of the Respect movement has had a positive effect on the game.

“I think that the Respect programme was fully justified and brought in at the right time," he said. "It was needed because we were in the position whereby something like 7,000 referees were walking away from the game each year and that means that something had to be wrong.

“We haven’t seen the surrounding of match officials in the same way that we have before and the common open dissent doesn’t seem to be there. Of course there are some cases and people will be able to point the finger at certain individuals who still behave in that way, but on the whole the interaction with the players I have had has been good and they seem to be aware of the importance of looking after the image of the game."

Webb also praised the campaign for its work at grass-foots level. "The County FAs are all rolling out the Respect campaign to everybody locally and the referees at grass-roots levels are aware of the programme and I think it's really important.”

The Hampshire Premier Football League is one grass-roots league that signed up to the Respect campaign. James Hardy is a footballer who plays in this league for Gosport side Fleetlands. He doesn’t really see any substantial change in behaviour despite the Respect movement.

“The only real difference I feel the Respect campaign has had on our matches in the league I play in is that we have to shake hands with the opposition players before each match. Most players see this as a laugh and a joke rather than an initial show of respect.

“Players, managers and fans still moan at the ref in the Premier League and that still happens in non-league football. I have heard referees verbally abused in nearly every game. It is just part and parcel of the game I’m afraid. I think the Respect campaign is founded on good, solid principles, but I don’t think it is having a real significant impact at non-league level.”

Despite the positive statistics, it could be argued that the Respect campaign is not having a real significant impact in the professional game too. The 2010-2011 season has seen many instances of disrespect towards match officials. Sir Alex Ferguson has been particularly outspoken about referees and their decision-making. In March he was hit with a five-match touchline ban and a £30,000 fine for criticising referee Martin Atkinson after a game at Chelsea.

Ferguson said: “You want a fair referee, or a strong referee anyway, and we didn't get that. I must say, when I saw who the referee was I feared the worst.”

The case of Sir Alex highlights the fact that the Respect campaign is not being considered with the seriousness it should be. We are still seeing the sight of players surrounding and intimidating the referee, questioning his authority with alarming regularity.

Professional Footballers' Association chairman Clarke Carlisle says that players support the guidelines of the Respect campaign, and that incidents involving players intimidating referees are not on the increase and they are being given too much attention.

“The number of incidents where referees are accosted are becoming fewer and fewer. It is just that where incidents are highlighted they now receive massive, global attention.”

The Respect campaign is having some success in changing behaviour in football, but there is a long way to go to stamp it out.

Radio Profile: Adam Chatfield

For the second part of a university module I am taking entitled Photo and Documentary Journalism, I had to create a 3 minute radio feature profiling someone. The person I chose to profile was Adam Chatfield. Adam is a professional motocross rider and races around the world. Have a listen to the radio documentary below to find out more about life as a professional motocross rider.

'A Day in the Life' Photojournalism Assignment

Exam Topics

So another semester has flown by with alarming haste and the exam awaits...

The format for the exam is the same as the previous semesters, with five questions relating to topics previously discussed in lectures. The first question asks 'was Neitzsche a Nazi?'

In short, the answer this is no. Fredrich Neitzsche has often been referred to as a nazi because of similarity of themes expressed in his works, such as Thus Spake Zarathustra. Nietzsche is most famous for his expression that 'God is dead'. He asserts that there is no individual God figure in the Judeo-Christian religion. He hated this religion, stating it was something not to be tolerated and must be eradicated in order for people to become free. He said it was the religion of slaves. These religions hated his views and tar him with the brush of causing Nazi ideas. His anti-semetism is often mistaken as a racial idea, as with the Nazis, but racism cannot be attributed to Nietzsche. Unlike the Nazis, it is the collectivism of the religion he despises, not the individuals.

The two ideas that are associated with Nietasche and the Nazi regime are:

• The concept of the will to power.
• The 'overman'.
  

The idea of the will to power has been associated with Hitler. A person with a great intent of will power, with the power to move history. In his book Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche presents his great belief in the idea of the 'ubermensch' (the overman'). The Nazi's claimed this idea as their own and presented Hitler in this way, conveying him as superior with the will to power. Neitasche doesn't treat this theory in racial terms. For example, he would view a disabled person overcoming their difficulties to win a paralympic gold medal as an 'overman'. The Nazis however hated those with disabilities and labled them 'undermen'. Nietzsche was an extreme individualist which does not coincide with Nazi philosophy. Therefore Neitzsche has been unfairly dubbed a Nazi when he most certainly was not one.

The second question asks whether Meursault was a bad man?

Meursault is the hero of Albert Camus existentialist novel The Stranger or The Outsider. The novel deals with existential concerns with choice. In the book Meursault is experiencing an existential void and through boredom simply murders an Algerian man without motive. Meursault is put on trial but simply does not care. It becomes clear that the predominately white justice system are keen to let him off as long as he says he was sorry and didnt mean and was upset about his mothers death. But Meursault does not care. He refuses to conform with the justice system. He is a bad man because he is convicted of a crime. He is also a bad man in the conventional sense as far as the jury are concerned. Meursault is bad in the sense that he is unconventional and refuses to go along with the social norms. As a result he is sentenced to death.

However, Meursault is an existential hero becauses he refuses to adapt his momentary consciouness to social convention. He lives by the existentialist slogan that existence precedes essance, where the act of living is to constantly confront moral decisions as they occur. You can't rely on moral frameworks. Camus explores this notion through the question of collaboration. So in the eyes of existentialists Meursault is not a bad man, he is a hero.

The third questions looks at the New Journalism. It asks, 'To what extent does the New Journalism (Tom Wolfe) reflect cultural and intellectual friends such as psychoanalysis and the politics of the 'me generation'?

Tom Wolfe created the concept of 'new journalism', which is journalism in the style of 19th century realist non-fiction novel. Wolfe writes in the conventions of 19th century realists writers like Charles Dickens and Emile Zola. New Journalism sees the move from digetic to mimetic storytelling, from telling to seeing. Everything detail is strange and appealing in new journalism. The strangest things are the things that are officially normal. Throughout this movement existentialism becomes the normal style in society and writing. The fact we don't tell in the New Journalism conveys the cultural trend of psychoanalysis, where the concept is seeing and listening. The task is to find the real in the apparent insignificant detail. New Journalism finds out the 'real' not just the story.

The New Journalism reflects the 'me generation'. This movement is all about individualism. Everyone should be happy and its all about self fulfillment, sexual liberty and pleasure. If it feels good then just do it, be it drugs or sexual deviance. Wilhelm Reich stated that you will become ill if you do not have sexual liberation. This 'me generation' resulted in the new agenda of personal issues.

The fourth question concerned itself with the Vienna Circle and asked the question, 'Why might journalists find the logical positivist school of philosophy to be useful and appealing. What faults have been identified in the approach of the logical positivists?

The Logical Positivists rejected all philosophy and metaphysics. The only thing they believe is science, which they view as everything. The key concept of this school of thought is the verification principle. This is the theory that knowledge is based on verification. The only thing that counts is whether a statement can be independently verified. If something cannot be verified then they simply ignore it as there will never be a scientific answer. For example, Nietzsche famously said that God is dead. The logical positivists would assert that this statement cannot be verified. The case is the same for Freud's theories, they are all metaphysics that cannot be verified as true or false. This is useful for journalists as it reflects the common practice of journalism highlighting comment and fact. In journalism any facts need to verifiable in order for them to be published.

Karl Popper found a fault in logical positivists verification principle. He discredited the theory with his falsification principle. This stated that the verification principle itself cannot be verified. With this theory he destroyed the logical positivists.

I found the fifth and final question the most difficult out of all of them. 'Keynes has been hailed as both the saviour and the destroyer of the capitalist system. Why?'

In his book 'General Theory' Keynes rejects all economic theory of his time, which was the idea of the free market. In the free market the government gives the unemployed benefits which results in them not bothering going back to work, but living off these state benefits. Keynes said that the more you cut wages and government spending you will eradicate unemployment. He urges the government to pay the unemployed to work, even if its just digging holes and filling them up again. They will earn a wage and then spend it. This is the multiplier affect, which creates a circle of economy flowing. The government should spend money, even if they don't have it. According to some people this principle saved capitalism.

However, the printing of money that the government does not have to spend creates huge inflation which can be seen to destroy the moral of society and thus Keynes can also been seen as the destroyer of capitalism.

The New Journalism

"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone. But they've always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson.

New Journalism, or 'Gonzo' Journalism is a style of writing and journalism founded in the 1960s/70s. During this period there is a generational change in popular culture in the USA. This change is realised in journalism with the shift to the literary movement of The New Journalism. The main point of this new form is the shift in form of narrtation from digetic to mimetic. 'Seeing' became the new 'telling' and objectivity is neglected in favour of subject experience. The movement was shaped by the two key figures of Hunter S. Thompson and Tom Wolfe, both of whom were influenced by the culture of drug taking at the time. For instance, Thompson's most well-known work Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas details an LSD fuelled trip to Las Vegas.

Gonzo Journalism has made the jump from paper to television with a large degree of success. This is mainly due to the fact it is ultimately 'performance journalism', where entertaining is of more importance than informing. Documentaries such as Super Size Me have appeared baring the forms and conventions of gonzo journalism, placing more focus on the journalist and his/her experiences rather than objective reporting.

Wilhelm Reich

In short, Wilhelm Reich believed that orgasms = happiness. Who am I to argue against this theory!?

Reich was a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst working in the 20th century. He was a contemporary of Freud and like the Freud discussed the issue of primitive urges within humans. Where Freud believed primitive sexual and aggressive forces were present in the human sub-conscious and would lead to chaos if they weren't suppressed and controlled. Reich proposed revolutionary ideas of Freud. He believed the complete opposite of Freud's theory, stating that the unconscious forces inside the mind were a good thing and it was societies suppression that destroyed them and made them dangerous. Reich detailed that the underlying energy was sexuality and if this was released then humankind would flourish.

Reich argued that Freud had completely ignored the human body, focusing simply on the mind which as a result ignored some important issues. Where Freud viewed sexual impulses as dangerous Reich claimed that sexual desire and pleasures were the essential key to happiness. Sexual repression was the real danger that led to damaging consequences. Reich's theory paid close attention to the act of orgasm.

I can imagine the majority of people willing to side with Mr Reich on this particular issue!

Reich believed there were three layers to the human mind, a similar idea to Freud's concept of the ego, superego and id. These layers were as followed:

• The surface level, which is our everyday social form conveying politeness, compassion, and responsibility.
  
• The second layer is a cruel, sadistic, rapacious one. In Freudian terms it is the 'unconscious' or 'what is being repressed'.
• The third deepest layer is the biological core, conveying honesty, love, and rational hatred.

Reich paid particular attention to second layer in his book The Mass Psychology of Facism where he set out to explain why so many people supported the Nazis in Germany. He focused on the lower middle classes and stated their support for the Nazis was due to the strong paternal authority figure of their father which led to a love of authority and rebellion. He also suggested that any child who experienced sexual repression and an authoritarian social order would become submissive and thus more likely to submit to supporting the Nazis. The lower middle class were ultimately targeted because of their vulnerability.

Reich's ideas are still relevant in today's society. He stressed that one shouldn't wait to marry to have sex, that you should exercise sexual freedom. This notion is clearly present today, where the majority do not wait til marriage to engage in sexual intercourse. A quick look at the Sunday tabloids portrays a society that is sexual obsessed not repressed. Here are a few of Sunday 2 May's headlines:

Boxing Hero Amir Khan Sends Naked Snaps and Twisted Sex texts

Rihanna And the Sex Toy

Abbey's centre back and silky smooth forward shows why she took Peter's Clancy

The above stories are all sex obsessed, conveying society's sexual freedom and want for sexual content. Reich would be pleased with this notion.

Reich's key idea was to simply 'let it out!' I experienced this notion recently at my dog's puppy class. The dog trainer said we were to obtain a rag toy attached to a lengthy piece of rope and give it to the dog. She said the idea behind this was for the dog to let its aggression and anger out on the toy. This conveys Reich's idea that it is better out than in.

So people remember; be free! Sexual liberty is the ultimate freedom!