Live....Love....Laugh

Merry Christmas Everyone!

.....and a healthy and prosperous New Year!

Keep Calm and Eat a Cupcake!

Mmmmmmmm......Cupcakes!!

Coldplay's 'Christmas Lights' is here!!!

Get Coldplay's new single, 'Christmas Lights' from iTunes for 99p! itunes.com/coldplay

 

I love it!! The boys have done their fans proud.

 

The Making of Coldplay's 'Christmas Lights' Video

It's great to see a British band releasing a festive Christmas song :-)

Coldplay are by far my favourite band! I can't wait to download this single on Wednesday.

Friends of Irony

This was sent to me by one of my good friends and made me laugh...

Live, Laugh, Love

The jury's still out on the Internet

In a lecture published on Friday 19th November, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, raised serious concerns about the use of the internet. Recent cases have discovered that jurors have used the internet to investigate the cases they are sitting on, or to discuss the case on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

Lord Judge has stated that the jury system may not survive if it continues to be undermined in this way. He goes on to say that the internet could 'kill the jury system.'

In particular, Lord Judge singles out Google and Twitter for particular attention, stating that they are threatening the fairness of our judicial system. His main concern is that of jurors using the internet to research cases on which they are attending. These investigations may reveal information that will then prejudice their verdict.

The jury system works by the fundamental tenet that the outcome of a trial is based solely on the evidence given within the court room. No other evidence is permissible. This ensures that all the jurors have equal access to exactly the same evidence as each other. If a juror reveals the defendants previous convictions for example, this will almost certainly prejudice their objectivity, and hence the fairness of the trial. By ensuring that the only permissible evidence is that which is revealed in the court, it also allows the defendant to challenge it under oath, and give their own version of events.

As an example of the sort of behaviour he was referring to, Lord Judge referred to a case earlier this year where a female juror was hauled before the judge for sending tweets about the case using her mobile phone. The exchange of tweets was picked up by someone else outside of the conversation, and who alerted Manchester Crown Court.

"We cannot stop people tweeting, but if jurors look at such material, the risks to the fairness of the trial will be very serious, and ultimately the openness of the trial process on which we all rely, would be damaged." BBC News

While I don't think anyone would disagree with the sentiments of what Lord Judge is saying, I don't think it is fair to place the blame on the internet. While the internet may make it easier to investigate a case, or to discuss a case to wider audience with the use of social networking sites, this is still down to the fact that people are at fault. A juror who is keen to investigate a case can do so without the use of the internet. A juror who wishes to discuss the case can do so without social networking sites.

There should be no differentiation between a juror abusing their responsibilities either in real life or online. The internet only serves to make it easier to do so.

With the growing use of technology and smart devices, the rules and responsibilities of a juror need to be updated to include them. The jury process or the judges themselves need to make it absolutely clear that the use of such technologies and devices is a very serious criminal offence that could in fact find the juror themselves in the dock.

What is needed is clearer guidance on the issue. It seems that technology has far outpaced the guidelines that are currently in use, and this needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Our Q&A session

We thought it would be an interesting idea to do a Q&A blog, where Vicky and I answer questions about ourselves. We thought of our own questions. If any of our readers out there want to submit their own question(s) then please do so. Feel free to submit your own questions using the comments at the bottom of this blog.

Right, here we go then............

If you could take one artist's albums to a desert island to keep you sane, who would it be?

Vicky: The artist is easy, but the album choice is tough. I would have to say Coldplay and Parachutes. Their music always chills me out and I saw them at Wembley last year and they were amazing! The best gig I have been to by miles!

Dom: I would suggest Joe's Garage by Frank Zappa. In its day, it pushed many boundaries, including musicianship, song writing and vulgarity! Frank Zappa was perhaps one of the most gifted musicians of his generation. His music was notoriously difficult to play, and anyone who made it into his band could pretty much play anywhere from that point onwards.

His music spans everything, from jazz, to reggae, to rock, to orchestral and so on.

He was also a great satirist, and would often attack politicians, political correctness and anything else he thought deserved his attention.

I saw him perform his last ever UK tour (he died of prostate cancer in December 1993 aged 52), and have to rank it amongst one of the best gigs I have ever been to. Utterly fantastic!

If you were stuck on a desert island, which 3 famous people would you want to be with you, and why?

Vicky:

1. Jamie Oliver - As he is an amazing chef and I always use and adapt his recipes.

2. Chris Martin - He would keep me entertained by singing around the camp fire.

3. Russel Howard - My favourite comedian, who is also a fellow marathon runner, so we could train together (as I hate training on my own!)

Dom:

1. Stephen Fry - You'd never be short of an intelligent conversation with him around.

2. Ray Mears - He could build all the shelters and catch and cook all the food (his TV show is excellent).

3. Lee Evans - He'd make me laugh and make the time pass that bit faster.

What 3 things would you grab from your house if it caught fire?

Vicky:

1. My handbag which always contains my car keys (as I love my car and it would provide a temporary sleeping space!) My purse, painkillers, house keys, fruit tea bags, lip gloss, mirror, chewing gum, a pen, body spray.

2. My laptop - This has copies of all of my photos, music and letters from my Gran.

If the fire was at night...

3. My glasses so I can see where I'm going (in daytime I wear contact lenses).

If the fire was in the daytime...

3. My Blackberry- only because I am rubbish at remembering phone numbers and would want to call my Mum - and she lives in Kent so it would take 3 hours to get there! But this is at the bottom of my list. If the fire was at night I would do without it as I would prefer to see! So I would sleep in the car and drive to my mums the next day.

Dom:

1. My bikes - They give me so much joy that I would be lost without them. To me, they are more than bikes, and are personal items. Cycling is a big part of my life, and hence the importance of my bikes to me.

2. Pictures of my daughters. I have some framed school pictures on the walls and around the house that cannot be replaced. I would be gutted if these were ever destroyed.

3. My youngest daughter's teddy bear called Princess. This means the world to her, she takes her everywhere. So while it may not be an item that belongs to me, I know how much it means to her. She would be utterly distraught if anything happened to her bear.

3 moments in your life that have made you proud

Vicky:

1. Achieving my BA Journalism (Hons) degree - as I got a 2:1 which I worked very hard for.

2. When my little sister got straight A* grades in her GCSEs and was in the local paper.

3. When my little brother first got picked to play for the Great Britain Korfball team (I think this was aged 10 - then every year after that).

Dom:

1. Getting my BSc (Hons) degree in Computer Studies. I worked my balls off for that and feel very proud of my efforts.

2. Being a Dad. My daughters make me proud every day, and with (almost) everything they do. I love being a Dad!!

3. Completing my first 200km bike ride. I had ridden many 100km events prior to this, but 200km is the standard distance in long distance cycling, and is the first step towards riding the longer events (I've now ridden 300km and 400km events).

We hope you've enjoyed these questions and answers. They hopefully give you a little bit of an insight into us. We'll do more of these in the future.

Does child protection legislation really work?‏

Child protection is a hot issue, with many news stories related to the subject emerging from the media on an almost daily basis. Most recently it has hit the headlines with the resignation of Jim Gamble – former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP).

A lower profile story that has recently emerged is that which relates to the jailing of a teenager for 16 weeks for refusing to disclose his encryption password to police who were investigating indecent images on his computer.

This particular story highlights one of the key problems with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Using this particular piece of legislation police can demand that an individual hand over any encryption keys as part of an investigation. Refusal to comply with such a demand can result in a jail sentence being handed down. In theory, this jail sentence could become indefinite if the individual in question refuses to hand over their encryption keys. So a stalemate could quickly ensue, whereby the police can continue to demand the individual hand over their encryption keys, while the individual continues to refuse to hand them over.

Privacy campaigners highlighted this potential stalemate, and criticised the Act accordingly. If an individual wants to protect their privacy, and therefore protect their personal data, they will refuse to disclose their keys for that reason alone. This is obviously quite a principled position to take. On the other hand, it is also equally possible that the individual is not acting out of principle, but genuinely has something to hide. If the offence relates to indecent images of children, then this is much more serious. Being jailed for 16 weeks could quite rightly be considered ‘getting off lightly’.

In most cases, law abiding individuals would more than likely choose to hand over their encryption keys to the police, rather than choose jail. The implication however, is that an individual who opts for jail will likely have something to hide. It is a classic case of legislating that old adage “nothing to hide, nothing to fear”. If refusal to disclose is taken as an admission of guilt, then individuals who find themselves wrongly accused are obliged to disclose their personal information simply to clear their names!

Blogger anonymity

In the well documented case of Vogue cover girl Liskula Cohen, the court ruling forced Google to reveal the identity of the person behind the comments that were deemed to be defamatory. Liskula Cohen, a 37-year-old model, was called a “psychotic, lying, whoring...skank” by the blogger. Cohen needed to know the true identity of the blogger in order to sue them for defamation.

Although Google initially refused to reveal the blogger's identity, they were eventually forced to by the court ruling of Judge Joan Madden to hand over the blogger's IP (Internet Protocol) address (an address that uniquely identifies every computer that is connected to a network, including the Internet). This led to the blogger's identity being revealed where it turned out to be an acquaintance of the model.

After the court ruling, Cohen's lawyers remarked:

"The rules for defamation on the web — for actual reality as well as virtual reality — are the same. The Internet is not a free-for-all."

In the case of Liskula Cohen, it would be difficult to condemn the court ruling. The blogger in question launched a vitriolic attack on the model under the cloak of anonymity. You couldn't write such words in a newspaper or anywhere else, so the same rules of legislation need to be enforced online too.

After receiving death threats through her website, technology blogger Kathy Sierra called for the web community to stand up against "trolling" and other forms of abusive comments. She then started a debate as to the necessity of a blogger's code of conduct to regulate the behaviour of posters and commentators online.

These two cases are pretty straight forward. Defamation and death threats should never be tolerated. The problem comes when the same anonymity that hides those who choose to defame and mete out death threats, is also used by people who may be genuinely trying to expose life inside a brutal regime for example. So the real issue is not so much with blogs that are defamatory or threatening, but with those that are simply controversial.

As an example of where the anonymity of bloggers is crucial, take the Iranian elections. Blogs and social media sites gave the public unsanitised accounts of what was really happening inside that country. Accounts that even tough nosed reporters and journalists would have had difficulty in exposing. Revealing a blogger’s true identity at the request of a government that may have something to hide would be a bitter blow to healthy protest or dissent.

In cases of defamation and death threats, any subsequent rulings to reveal the author's identity should be condoned, as they simply highlight the fact that rules that apply in the real world apply equally in the online world too.

The vast majority of bloggers should have nothing to fear from such court rulings, no matter how controversial their topic may be. The bloggers who should fear such rulings are the trolls. Hopefully though, now that it is clear that legislation that applies in the real world also applies to the online world, they may now think twice before they publish their next post.

Gok Wan vs Gordon Ramsay

Most of us will be familiar with Gok Wan and Gordon Ramsay. Gok Wan is a fashion consultant and the presenter of 'How to Look Good Naked' and 'Gok's Fashion Fix' while Gordon Ramsay is a chef and very well known for his programmes 'The F Word' and 'Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares'.

What should be immediately obvious is how differently they approach issues of 'change' on their programmes. Gok Wan focuses on positivity and inspiring people to feel confident about their appearance just by changing how they see themselves. Gordon Ramsay uses intimidation, confrontation and bullying to get people to change how they run their restaurants.

Although what they are each trying to achieve on their programmes is completely different, they are both ultimately trying to get other people to meet specific objectives or goals. What is less important is what those goals are. What is important, and is the focus of this blog, are the behaviours they each employ to try to persuade these people to meet their objectives.

In 'How to Look Good Naked', Gok Wan has the task of trying to persuade someone to walk on a catwalk as a fashion model to overcome a body image problem, and to reveal their naked body to the audience. He starts by getting the man or woman to stand in front of mirrors in their underwear and tell him why they hate their body. Using this, Gok can give them mountains of self-confidence and get them to love their bodies by using a number of methods including new clothes, correct underwear and asking the general public to point out positive things about the person's body.

Gordon Ramsay in his programme 'Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares' has the task of helping failing restaurants turn themselves around and become popular by cooking great food and pulling in customers. However, in order to do this, Ramsay quite often tears the business to shreds and a lot of restaurant owners do not react well to hearing that they do not know how to run a business!

How do these differences of approach affect those people in the programmes who are trying to meet their respective challenges? It should come as no surprise that people respond more readily to a positive approach. If you tell someone they can do something, and make them believe this, then this is a powerful and very persuasive mechanism in allowing them to meet their chosen challenge.

People respond far less positively to bullying and intimidation. Being shouted and sworn at does not lead anyone to believe they are capable of fulfilling the challenge they have been presented with. They respond out of fear, not necessarily because they think they can meet the challenge. It also leads to loss of self confidence and self esteem. It can actually lead to the person believing that they are incapable of meeting the challenge, which is surely the complete opposite of what is intended.

The abundance of self help gurus and life coaches should tell us enough to know that positivity and inspiring someone to believe in themselves is perhaps the most powerful means of getting someone to meet a challenge. Self belief is a powerful mechanism.

An obvious question then must be why do we see so many programmes where the presenter uses intimidation, confrontation and bullying, when they are so ineffective? Why are Gordon Ramsay, Marco Pierre White, Jean Christophe Novelli (why are so many TV chefs also bullies?) and their ilk afforded so much time on our televisions?

One answer is that they make for entertaining viewing. The aim of these programmes is not to instil confidence in anyone, or to raise their self esteem. It is to simply attract the maximum number of viewers, to raise their ratings! It is a typical tactic used by the more sensationalist corners of the media.

It is the same reason why programs such as Big Brother, Wife Swap and other reality TV programmes are so popular. People enjoy confrontation and polemic.

So while the Gok Wan approach may be far more effective, the Gordon Ramsay approach would appear to be far more popular!

Does the portrayal of such behaviour on television send out the wrong message to younger, more impressionable audiences? There's probably no conclusive evidence to support this hypothesis, but it cannot be an unreasonable assumption to make to link an increasingly higher level of bullying on television with increasingly higher incidences of bullying in schools. It cannot provide any kind of positive example to see celebrities shouting and swearing to get their own way, often to the point of making another person break down in tears.

It would be far more beneficial and provide a far more positive example to people if more programmes used presenters like Gok Wan. If people watched these programmes, and copied the behaviour of the presenters and employed positive traits in their own dealings with people, wouldn't that be a better place to be?

To quote Gok - 'It's all about the confidence!'

Is access to the Internet a fundamental human right?

"Today, there is a big push by the United Nations to make Internet access a human right. This push was made when it called for universal access to basic communication and information services at the UN Administrative Committee on Coordination. In 2003, during the World Summit on the Information Society, another claim for this was made. In some countries such as Estonia, France, Finland, and Greece, Internet access has already been made a human right." - Wikipedia

There has been much talk recently around the question of whether the Internet is a fundamental human right. It has sparked widespread debate; especially since countries including Estonia, France, Greece and Finland have passed legislation that ensure the Internet is a fundamental human right. We're probably used to the concept of human rights in terms of having a standard of living that meets our basic needs including education, clean running water, freedom of speech and so on. So the question is whether access to the Internet should be on the same playing field as these other basic requirements.

Before proceeding with the discussion any further, let's be clear exactly what we mean when we refer to a human right.

Human rights are "rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Proponents of the concept usually assert that everyone is endowed with certain entitlements merely by reason of being human. - Wikipedia

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." - Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998. It came into force on 2 October 2000 with its key principle being to give further strength to the already existing rights contained within the European Convention on Human Rights.

According to the Office for National Statistics 70% of UK households had Internet access in 2009, totalling 18.3 million households, an increase of 2 million (or 11%) from the year before. That figure includes narrow band and broad band access together as an aggregate figure. Clearly Internet access is regarded as important with such a large percentage of the UK population having it.

In a recent poll conducted by the BBC World Service, the findings concluded that 80% of the respondents indicated that they agreed with the statement that access to the Internet is a fundamental human right. The poll took into account the views of over 27,000 people from 26 countries.

From the BBC World Service poll:

• "The BBC survey found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the 'fundamental right' of all people".
• More than 70% of non-users felt that they should have access to the net.
• Overall, almost 79% of those questioned said they either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a fundamental right - "whether they currently had access or not."

International bodies such as the United Nations are pushing for universal Internet access. Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News "The right to communicate cannot be ignored, the internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created."

The highest court in France - the Constitutional Council - has recently ruled that the Internet is a "fundamental human right". France is following a tradition that has already been set by Estonia, Greece and Finland in terms of granting Internet access as a fundamental human right.

The flip side to this debate is whether you are being denied a basic human right if you lack access to the Internet. While it's tempting to view the Internet as a luxury, there can be no denying the fact that it can bring about a higher quality of life. It gives people access to information and services and the opportunities that these can bring.

Legal theory specialist Corey Doctorow wrote the following prediction in an article about homeless people and the Internet recently:

• "Here's a prediction: in five years, a UN convention will enshrine network access as a human right (preemptive strike against naysayers: "Human rights" aren't only water, food and shelter, they include such "nonessentials" as free speech, education, and privacy). In ten years, we won't understand how anyone thought it wasn't a human right."

While it's easy to see how the Internet forms an integral part of the lives of those with greater socio-economic status, such as those in the affluent West, what does it mean to those in less developed countries? Surely they have more pressing issues in their lives such as disease and abject poverty? Many countries don't have the technological infrastructure to provide Internet access. In these countries access to the Internet may be seen as either of lesser importance when viewed against the other daily challenges they may face, or not possible due to the lack of technological infrastructure.

Should access to the Internet still be viewed as a fundamental human right in these circumstances? If you face life threatening daily challenges, or live in a country where it's not even available, should it still be considered a fundamental human right? Or to look at the question the other way around, does something stop being a fundamental human right where other human rights may have a greater impact on your life and liberty? Does it stop being a fundamental human right because it's not available?

Does freedom of speech stop being a human right in non democratic countries?

Also a valid point to make; if the Internet is implemented as a fundamental human right, how will it be managed? Can it be managed? If the Government grants access to the Internet for all then the question must be asked – how will it be implemented, paid for and sustained? Will the costs fall back on the tax payer, and if a family does not own a computer does this mean that the Government will also provide the means to use the Internet as well? Would it not be simpler to set up free to use Internet cafes for everyone to have access to? Again, this presents its own problems. The potential logistics of implementing such an idea in the UK seems very problematic.

The answer to the question of whether access to the Internet should be considered a fundamental human right is not a simple one. Instead, it is one that contains many nuances and considerations. It needs to set against the backdrop of global technological progress and political harmony. There needs to be a level playing field whereby access to the Internet across such problematic boundaries is realistic and achievable. So the question is not just should it be considered a fundamental human right, but can it be?

Toy Story 3

The rootinest tootinest film of 2010!

Both Vicky and myself went to see this film on its opening in the UK on Monday 19th July. I went with my youngest daughter in Kettering, while Vicky went to watch it in Lincoln. As we are both Toy Story fans, we thought it would be a great idea if we wrote a blog about the film, giving our contrasting views of it. So here it is....

Vicky's Toy Story 3

As a huge fan of the previous two Toy Story films, I had very high expectations for the third one – and it definitely didn’t disappoint!

I was Buzzing with excitement as the trailers rolled wondering what adventure Andy’s toys would embark on 15 years after the original film was released and just as Andy is all set to leave home for college.

As Andy is packing his boxes for college, his Mum says whatever he doesn’t take with him or puts in the attic goes out with the trash. As Andy opens his old toy chest, the audience is glued to the screen wondering....Woody or wouldn’t he?

As with any Toy Story plot, the plan never works out as intended and this is where the adventure really begins (don’t worry – I won’t ruin it if you’ve not yet seen it).

As Dom outlined in his section, there are some very Slinky themes intertwined throughout the film; separation, friendship and loss. These are very well received by adults and children alike as there is always some concern, especially with kid’s movies, that the makers try to Hamm up the storylines too much which results in a loss of interest or a very drawn out plot.

After the drama, twists, turns and turmoil at Sunnyside Daycare, the pals are finally back in Andy’s room just in the nick of time (as always). As he leaves his Mum and sister to embark on his college journey, Andy has a few heart wrenching decisions to make.... And he (Andy, gettit?) makes all the right ones in a very emotional final scene. Does the film’s ending set it up for a Toy Story 4? Absolutely! In my opinion this is one of the greatest films of the year and it is surely destined to win many awards.

Dominic's Toy Story

As anyone who knows me will testify, I am a huge Toy Story fan. They are amongst the best films made, and I’m not just talking about kid’s films. I have a collection of Toy Story figures next to me at work. It was with much anticipation that I went with my youngest daughter to see the latest (and last) in the Toy Story trilogy. We went for the option of watching the film in 3D.

This is not a blow by blow account of the film. If you want a review of Toy Story 3, then you’ve come to the wrong place. I want to concentrate on the themes the film raises. It may seem odd to write an article about these themes, seeing as the film is a kid’s film. However, that is where the deception starts. Toy Story 3 is not just a kid’s film. It is obvious the film was written as much with the older audience and parents in mind, as for the younger audience.

I had heard reviews of the film stating that it hits many emotionally sensitive issues including friendship, love, loss and separation. It was even reported that grown men were finding themselves having a cry to the film. In all honesty, I didn’t find this in the least bit surprising, seeing as this was a Pixar film. As anyone who has watched their films, you cannot have failed to notice the sentimentality that they frequently put into their films. In the film Wall-E, the little truck based robot falls in love with the sophisticated modern robot. They hold hands and fly through space in wanton abandon. Parental loyalty and letting your child grow up and make their own decisions is tackled in Finding Nemo. Many of their films tackle themes that a younger audience would either not detect, or ignore. These are deliberately interwoven into the film for the older audience.

This is one of the reasons why Pixar make such good films. They work so effortlessly on multiple levels. The younger audience see the cute characters, while the older audience sees the deeper themes that are at work.

So as this was the last Toy Story film, I was fully expecting to see themes of separation and friendship being brought into the film. The boy in the film Andy, who was 10 years old in the previous films is now 17 and getting ready to leave home for college. While clearing out his room, he comes across all his old toys (or the ones that still remain as many are no longer in the film as they’ve been sold at garage sales, given to charity etc). Woody, Buzz Lightyear, Rex, Hamm et al still remain, but are all now kept in a chest as they are no longer played with on a regular basis. Even at this early point in the film, we are headlong into the theme of loss, as Woody discusses with the other toys that he’s sad that he’s had to say goodbye to many of his friends, including Bo Peep (his one true love).

There is a very touching scene in the film, where the toys are in a recycling plant, and end up on a conveyor belt that has tipped them into a furnace. As they slide down the side towards almost certain death, we see them resign themselves to their fate, and all reach out to hold each other’s hands. This was a truly touching moment. That even in death, they had each other.

Along the way during the film, we encounter a lovely little girl called Bonnie who takes really good care of her toys, and spends all her free time playing with them. When it finally comes time for Andy to clear out his room and leave for college, Woody leaves a note on the cardboard box where they’re all being kept, that he should give his old toys to Bonnie. Andy drives over to Bonnie’s house to give her the last of his toys. He takes them out of the cardboard box one by one and describes them to her, and why he loved playing with them. In another lovely scene, we see Andy and Bonnie playing with all of his toys outside in the garden. Even Andy, who is 17, gets caught up in the moment of playing with all his old toys. For Andy however, this will be his last time he does so.

As the film closes, we see Andy driving away to college while his old toys look on after him. It’s a scene reminiscent of disappearing over the horizon, and deliberately so, for it is intended to reflect the sadness of losing someone you’ve been close to. For Woody and the other toys, they’ve grown up with Andy, and now have to see him drive away as he grows up and leaves them behind. For Andy, he has to come to terms with the fact that’s now a young man and needs to mature into an adult, and all that entails.

For the record, yes I did have a cry at the film, and have absolutely no issue with admitting it. It’s a wonderfully sentimental and emotional film, not to mention hilarious too. I absolutely loved it!

Is blogging a form of Journalism?

This blog is on a topic close to our hearts, as Dom is an experienced blogger and I have a background in Journalism. A blog is described as being a type or part of a website that is written and maintained by an individual with regular posts which can be discussion on a particular topic, current news event or simply a series of journal entries. Another form is microblogging, which involves much shorter posts or updates, like Twitter. Blogging is a collection of one or several authors own thoughts, opinions, musings or personal day-to-day experiences. Bloggers may choose to support the opinions by linking to relevant research articles, other blogs or current news stories.

A journalist collects factual information on current events, trends, people and pressing issues and is expected to report on them in an unbiased and objective way for the mass media; newspapers, radio, broadcast and magazines.

One of the key differences between the two is the level of accountability. A journalist works to codes of conduct and best practices, and can face sanctions such as libel or defamation if they get it wrong. A blogger is expressing an opinion, and so works to a lesser degree of formality and accountability.

The different levels of accountability can work in accord or against the content. A blogger can raise issues or thoughts that may be controversial, and so can get away with bringing these to the public's attention without necessarily worrying about legal implications of their work. A journalist, while having to substantiate their claims, is more constrained in the topics they are able to raise.

A blogger is much freer to openly criticise a story. I think this is one of the key differences between blogging and journalism; the freedom to openly criticise without fear of being held accountable.

There is much disagreement within the industry about whether blogging can constitute a form of journalism. Dr. Ben Goldacre is a British doctor, journalist, and author of The Guardian’s weekly ‘Bad Science’ column. An article on Jounalism.co.uk shows a video he made about ‘Bad Science’, he expressed his thoughts on media reliability: “..blogs are potentially more reliable than mainstream media ever was - mainly because you can check for each individual blog author, how credible they are, because bloggers link to primary resources…” Goldacre feels that bloggers are more reliable than mainstream media, because bloggers will express their honest opinion on an issue and then link to someone else’s article to back it up. He feels that journalists can sometimes “go out of their way” to disguise where their facts have come from.

Scott Karp wrote a post on his blog ‘Publishing 2.0’ arguing that a blog is merely a content management system (CMS) and is revolutionary because it is [mainly] free and available for anyone to publish content on. Karp states that if a blog is used by a journalist, for example if a Journalist for The Times has their own featured blog, then yes – blogging is a form of journalism. Karp also coined the phrase ‘Link Journalism’ in 2008. This is a form of collaborative journalism in which the author of a news story provides external links within the story’s text to other articles or sources on the Internet. These links are meant to complement, enhance or add context to the original reporting – something which many bloggers do to back up their own opinions, thoughts and arguments.

Internet entrepreneur Chris Pirillo makes a very clear differentiation between journalism and blogging on his personal blog. He believes that blogging is not a form of journalism, but that it is a “newer type of writing style.” His main train of thought for this is that the only difference between them is content. He believes that bloggers and journalists are both there to produce content, but that “bloggers write because they want to. Journalists write to get paid, because it is their job.” He also makes a very valid point that bloggers write about what they know, feel and think about a topic, but journalists will [usually] get told what to right about and are supposed to support this with relevant and accurate facts.

A fundamental point to keep in mind is that anyone can go online and set up a blog using platforms such as Blogger or WordPress without having any previous experience of blogging or indeed writing. Journalists, however, will have some form of training behind them, whether this is a degree, NUJ (National Union of Journalists)training or having worked as a junior reporter after leaving school. So in my opinion and drawing on my own personal experience, I would have to agree with Chris Pirillo; I think that blogging is not a form of journalism, although it can be used by journalists in a similar way to a column, blogging is its own definitive type of writing style. Being trained in journalism and working in PR, I have found it difficult to make the changeover from journalist to blogger. Then again, it depends on people’s own definitions of journalists and bloggers.

Our first Green Eyes blog

Introduction

This is our first blog together. The idea for creating this joint blog came about when we both partnered together on Dominic's Little Blog. The process of working together, the ideas we generated, and the fun we both had has resulted in this blog. A joint venture which we hope you will enjoy reading as much as we enjoy writing it.

Our first post is really an introduction - to tell you who we are, and what you can expect from our blog.......

Dominic 'The Original Geek' Burford

I'm a software developer who is passionate about technology. I've worked in the field of software development for over a decade, working on a huge range of different technologies, tools and applications, and in a large variety of industries including health, manufacturing, accountancy and payroll.

I enjoy listening to a huge range of music including Coldplay, Radiohead, Snow Patrol, Moby, Frank Zappa, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Rush, Editors, Muse, Weather Report, Miles Davis....you get the idea! I have broad and eclectic tastes in music which includes Cocteau Twins, This Mortal Coil, Bauhaus and God Speed You Black Emperor to name just a few.

I love cycling, and regularly ride long distance cycling events, and have ridden distances going up to 400km (250 miles). I have ridden at least one 200km event every month for the last 30 months.

I'm a vegetarian and have been so since I was 18 years old. I regularly campaign for the rights of animals, and am a member of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

I'm an atheist, sceptic and logical thinker. I am passionate, caring and fun!

Vicky 'Girly Geek' Perry

I am a Service Delivery Executive for an online news distribution company. I have worked in PR for 2 years and love it! I graduated from the University of Lincoln with a BA (Hons) degree in Journalism. I am interested in Social Media, Journalism, blogging and in-depth research projects.

I am passionate about football and follow the mighty Gillingham, who were my local club when growing up in Kent. I also enjoy singing along (poorly) to a variety of music including Coldplay, Dizzee Rascal, Muse, Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Russell Watson.

My selfless support of charities is part of my generous personality, which has led me to undertake many challenges including a 5km row on the Thames, a 5km run dressed as Santa, abseiling down the Humber Bridge, the Silverstone half Marathon and the London Marathon. If it's something crazy.....I will do it! The main two charities I do a lot of fund-raising for are the Teenage Cancer Trust and Action for M.E. - both of whom have helped and supported people close to my heart.

I am fun-loving, crazy, outgoing, selfless and caring....I am Vicky!

About our blog

The name for our blog was inspired by our shared love of the band Coldplay, in particular the song Green Eyes (we both have green eyes, and like this song in particular as it's one of their lesser known tracks but contains some wonderful lyrics that we both appreciate).

We want to use our blog to express our opinions and thoughts on a range of subjects which we find interesting and are passionate about, and which we hope you will too. We'll be writing about all manner of subjects including social media, music, current affairs and politics to name a few.

We hope you stop by and take the time to read and enjoy our blog. You are most welcome to follow our blog, or leave a comment on one of our posts.