I went to interview a Reiki 'master' today for an article I'm planning to write about the health and relaxation benefits of the treatment.
Elaine, an OAP who has been practising Reiki for 12 years, has a full list of clients and pupils and does an immense amount of charity work. She even teaches Reiki to people all over the world - she is going to Bosnia for the third time in January to spread the Reiki message.
However, I cannot help feeling dubious as I arrive in her cluttered, homely living room, stuffed with shelves of books and lacking in a TV. I settle myself on the sofa.
I spend almost an hour listening to her incredible stories of miraculous healing - and I mean that in the 'that's impossible' sense.
First, Elaine tells me about how she sent long distance healing to a woman in hospital with peritonitis whose organs had shut down. Three days later she was home and fully recovered - Elaine swears it was down to the Reiki "what else could it have been?" she says.
Another boy she gave long distance healing to had an 9lb cancerous tumor removed from his chest and after the operation needed no pain relief at all due to the Reiki. Elaine says : "he just knew it was the Reiki we were sending him that cured him."
Elaine has also healed a man who had a hip replacement and was able to walk again after 6 weeks instead of 3 months thanks to Reiki, and practices it on a 73 yr old man with prostate cancer who apparently cannot cope without it. The man is in agony and his wife drives him the hour long distance for the sessions each week.
Elaine tells me she also performs Reiki on a breast cancer patients chemotherapy before it is injected into her.
Now, I'm not a believer in things like this, in spiritual healing, ghosts, acupuncture or even God.
I have an aunt receiving chemotherapy and herceptin treatment for breast cancer at the moment, she is ill with side effects and is having daily immune boosting injections to keep her out of hospital over Christmas. She was told by another cancer patient that Reiki was useful in dealing with the symptoms.
When she told me this it made me angry to think that people are making money out of others desperation and hope in the face of serious illnesses.
Elaine herself claims to have been told that she needed a kidney transplant in 1976. She still has not had the operation and has taken herself off of all the medication thanks to Reiki.
I ask Elaine about the scientific criticisms of Reiki and suggest that any benefits are down to a placebo effect. "Does it matter?," she replies "I don't think it is a placebo effect anyway, but does it matter? if it works don't knock it"
Well actually, yes, it does matter. I voice my concerns to Elaine that people may turn to Reiki in favour of proper medical treatment, and isn't this dangerous?
"I have never told anyone to stop medical treatment," Elaine tells me.
Hmmm, I am even more dubious now and maybe Elaine can tell as she then offers me a trial. Curious, I agree and hoist myself up onto her healing couch. "Now, you may not feel anything, but it doesn't mean it hasn't worked," she tells me before we begin.
I lie there staring at her patterned ceiling for nearly an hour, listening to the soothing music she has put on and smelling the incense she has lit. I wait for something to happen.
My eyes go funny from staring at the ceiling for so long whilst she hovers her hands above my head. Half way through she moves to my feet and grabs hold of my ankles. I bite my tongue to stop myself from laughing.
She then stands up and frantically moves her hovering hands up and down in the air above where I'm lying, shaking what ever it is she imagines is on them, onto the floor. Then, dusting off her hands she tells me we are finished.
I don't quite know what to say. "I can see why people might use it as a relaxation technique" I tell her. Because actually it was quite relaxing lying down for a while and the couch was really comfy.
That's about the only way I'd recommend Reiki, as a relaxation technique. I certainly don't believe, despite Elaine's stories, that people can be miraculously healed of serious illnesses. I think it is immoral and dangerous to pedal these beliefs to seriously sick people looking for cures - and have them pay an arm and a leg to lie on a comfy couch for an hour.
But as Elaine says, 'maybe I just didn't feel it working', or perhaps you really need to believe it's working to fool your mind into believing you've been healed.
Tuesday 18 December 2007
Wednesday 5 December 2007
What does the judge have to say about rape convictions?
I went to court today with my MA group to do some more court reporting. We were also able to have a Q&A with one of the judges.
As Iv'e been writing about rape conviction I decided to ask the judge whether he also thought that something needs to be done to improve the rape conviction rates. He replied with "I think it's been blown out of proportion..."
I pressed him on the standard of proof issue, that having to be sure the defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', made it almost impossible for juries to convict rapists.
I said that since rape cases often boil down to the mans word against the womans, how can Juries be expected to convict when there is no way of proving 100% that a woman was raped, even if the Jury believe that they were?
He didn't agree that the standard of proof should be amended in rape cases, saying that then we would then have to change the standard of proof for armed robbery,and so on.
He said he thought that Juries got it right 'most of the time' ('so stop complaining' -he seemed to suggest).
This means that, in the Judges' opinion, nearly 95% of women stand up in court and lie about being raped. Does that sound likely to you?
In the end he atleast agreed that perhaps the jury could be briefed more on the nature of rape cases and victim behaviour, to help deliberate on the verdict.
When are people going to start acknowledging that English law as it stands is inadequate when it comes to rape cases?
As Iv'e been writing about rape conviction I decided to ask the judge whether he also thought that something needs to be done to improve the rape conviction rates. He replied with "I think it's been blown out of proportion..."
I pressed him on the standard of proof issue, that having to be sure the defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', made it almost impossible for juries to convict rapists.
I said that since rape cases often boil down to the mans word against the womans, how can Juries be expected to convict when there is no way of proving 100% that a woman was raped, even if the Jury believe that they were?
He didn't agree that the standard of proof should be amended in rape cases, saying that then we would then have to change the standard of proof for armed robbery,and so on.
He said he thought that Juries got it right 'most of the time' ('so stop complaining' -he seemed to suggest).
This means that, in the Judges' opinion, nearly 95% of women stand up in court and lie about being raped. Does that sound likely to you?
In the end he atleast agreed that perhaps the jury could be briefed more on the nature of rape cases and victim behaviour, to help deliberate on the verdict.
When are people going to start acknowledging that English law as it stands is inadequate when it comes to rape cases?
Tuesday 4 December 2007
Think rape victims are protected in the UK? Think again
Following on from the stories of rape victims elsewhere in the world, I was pleased to see David Cameron point out very publicly several weeks ago that England and Wales have the lowest rape conviction rate in Europe,standing at only 5.7%.
Although I acknowledge that there are many reasons for this, I belive the main reason is public opinion. Whilst researching an article on domestic violence in Knowle West, Bristol, which happens to be the area with the highest domestic abuse rate in the south west - I interveiwed a domestic abuse response worker, Karen. She told me just how hard it is to convince a jury to belive that you have been raped.
Karen also worked with rape victims as well as domestic abuse victims. She told me how she would take the women through the degrading process of internal examiniations, extensive police questioning and sometimes ID parades.
After going through all that trauma, the woman has to then stand up in court and be cross examined, often being accused of provoking the attack by wearing provocative clothing, being drunk, or even just knowing the perpetrator. These are all things that women have to apolgise for and are made to feel guilty for. They are also things that some members of the public see as evidence that the woman was asking to be attacked.
One survey shows that 33% of the public thought that if a woman wore a short skirt or was drunk then she deserved to be raped. It is no wonder so many women do not report being raped. Would you?
The problem is not all the misguided and stereotypical opinions that preside in culture, rape cases often boil down to the womans word against the mans. The standard of proof a jury must judge the case by is if it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the woman was raped. How can jurys working within this framework be expected to convict rapists? how can you be 100% sure, beyond all reasonable doubt that a man intended to rape a woman when they can plead it was consensual?
The odds are certainly stacked against you, unless you have been attacked by a stranger, were not intoxicated or wearing provoctive clothing and were beaten and bruised - only then does the rapist seem to be convicted. As in the case of Alice Sebold, who writes about her ordeal and the justice system regarding rape in her book Lucky.
Anyone who watched the Channel 4 programme aired last year, Consent, will have seen a powerful example of this 'justice' system at work. I was traumatised myself after seeing the programme, in which a fictional woman was raped by a work collegue. The programme used actors and the fictional trial was played out in a real court with real judges, barristors and jury.
Not suprisingly, the jury did not find the defendant guilty - an example of the outcome of rape cases every day in this country. What sickened me about this programme particularly was watching the jury deliberate over the verdict. Seeing a woman, roughly my age, flippantly suggest that the victim should have been able to fight off the man and was therefore lying about the rape because she was jelous of her colleges promotion at work, was disturbing to say the least.
To think that jurys every day have to make the decision that a woman has lied about being raped - largely because of the framework of the English Law system - makes me realise that we are not much better off than the women locked up in the Middle East.
Although I acknowledge that there are many reasons for this, I belive the main reason is public opinion. Whilst researching an article on domestic violence in Knowle West, Bristol, which happens to be the area with the highest domestic abuse rate in the south west - I interveiwed a domestic abuse response worker, Karen. She told me just how hard it is to convince a jury to belive that you have been raped.
Karen also worked with rape victims as well as domestic abuse victims. She told me how she would take the women through the degrading process of internal examiniations, extensive police questioning and sometimes ID parades.
After going through all that trauma, the woman has to then stand up in court and be cross examined, often being accused of provoking the attack by wearing provocative clothing, being drunk, or even just knowing the perpetrator. These are all things that women have to apolgise for and are made to feel guilty for. They are also things that some members of the public see as evidence that the woman was asking to be attacked.
One survey shows that 33% of the public thought that if a woman wore a short skirt or was drunk then she deserved to be raped. It is no wonder so many women do not report being raped. Would you?
The problem is not all the misguided and stereotypical opinions that preside in culture, rape cases often boil down to the womans word against the mans. The standard of proof a jury must judge the case by is if it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the woman was raped. How can jurys working within this framework be expected to convict rapists? how can you be 100% sure, beyond all reasonable doubt that a man intended to rape a woman when they can plead it was consensual?
The odds are certainly stacked against you, unless you have been attacked by a stranger, were not intoxicated or wearing provoctive clothing and were beaten and bruised - only then does the rapist seem to be convicted. As in the case of Alice Sebold, who writes about her ordeal and the justice system regarding rape in her book Lucky.
Anyone who watched the Channel 4 programme aired last year, Consent, will have seen a powerful example of this 'justice' system at work. I was traumatised myself after seeing the programme, in which a fictional woman was raped by a work collegue. The programme used actors and the fictional trial was played out in a real court with real judges, barristors and jury.
Not suprisingly, the jury did not find the defendant guilty - an example of the outcome of rape cases every day in this country. What sickened me about this programme particularly was watching the jury deliberate over the verdict. Seeing a woman, roughly my age, flippantly suggest that the victim should have been able to fight off the man and was therefore lying about the rape because she was jelous of her colleges promotion at work, was disturbing to say the least.
To think that jurys every day have to make the decision that a woman has lied about being raped - largely because of the framework of the English Law system - makes me realise that we are not much better off than the women locked up in the Middle East.
My first court report
I went to court today to do some reporting as part of my journalism MA. It was actually a lot more interesting and easier to follow than I thought it would be. Unfortunately my shorthand is not quite up to scratch yet so my notes were abit sketchy! Here's my first court news report:
Two men were jailed for four years today for beating a man to the brink of death with a metal bar.
Tony Chapman, 38, from Andover was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Scott Atkinson, 40, also from Andover, was sentenced to 4 years for conspiracy to rob at Bournemouth Crown Court.
The judge Nigel Lickley said of the two men: “You are both responsible for the terror caused that night which resulted in a man suffering very serious injuries – which he may never recover from.”
Atkinson was found guilty in August of conspiring to rob Lawrence Nolan by breaking into his house in search of drugs. Chapman was found guilty of grievous bodily harm after beating Nolan with a metal weight lifting bar causing him serious brain damage.
The incident happened in February this year. The judge described how both men had been drinking extensively that day and decided to go to Nolan’s flat to steal some drugs, taking with them the metal bar.
Nolan was in bed with his girlfriend that evening when the two men arrived, forcing their way in through the bedroom window.
Chapman then took Nolan into a separate room and savagely beat him whilst Atkinson held Mr Nolan’s girlfriend hostage in the bedroom, seizing her mobile phone.
Mr Lickley told how Chapman believed that Nolan had attacked his nephew in a previous incident - as he was being beaten Nolan was heard to shout: “you’ve got the wrong man.”
Chapman later admitted that he did make a mistake and that Nolan had attempted to protect his nephew from being attacked.
Nolan suffered serious brain damage and blood loss as a result of the attack. He can only communicate through eye movement and remains in hospital as he is unable to even feed himself.
The judge said when sentencing the men: “Mr Nolan will never forget his injuries and is devoid of having any meaningful life…You are both a danger to the public.”
Two men were jailed for four years today for beating a man to the brink of death with a metal bar.
Tony Chapman, 38, from Andover was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Scott Atkinson, 40, also from Andover, was sentenced to 4 years for conspiracy to rob at Bournemouth Crown Court.
The judge Nigel Lickley said of the two men: “You are both responsible for the terror caused that night which resulted in a man suffering very serious injuries – which he may never recover from.”
Atkinson was found guilty in August of conspiring to rob Lawrence Nolan by breaking into his house in search of drugs. Chapman was found guilty of grievous bodily harm after beating Nolan with a metal weight lifting bar causing him serious brain damage.
The incident happened in February this year. The judge described how both men had been drinking extensively that day and decided to go to Nolan’s flat to steal some drugs, taking with them the metal bar.
Nolan was in bed with his girlfriend that evening when the two men arrived, forcing their way in through the bedroom window.
Chapman then took Nolan into a separate room and savagely beat him whilst Atkinson held Mr Nolan’s girlfriend hostage in the bedroom, seizing her mobile phone.
Mr Lickley told how Chapman believed that Nolan had attacked his nephew in a previous incident - as he was being beaten Nolan was heard to shout: “you’ve got the wrong man.”
Chapman later admitted that he did make a mistake and that Nolan had attempted to protect his nephew from being attacked.
Nolan suffered serious brain damage and blood loss as a result of the attack. He can only communicate through eye movement and remains in hospital as he is unable to even feed himself.
The judge said when sentencing the men: “Mr Nolan will never forget his injuries and is devoid of having any meaningful life…You are both a danger to the public.”
Monday 3 December 2007
The law that persecutes women
We have all been shocked and appauled by the 'teddy bear' incident this week, the British woman Gillian Gibbons, who was locked up in Sudan for allowing her pupils to name the class teddy bear Mohammed.
This story, although it ran every day in the news for over the past week, was no where near as severe as several stories of 'crime' and punishment in the Middle East which I also came accross in the news this week regarding women and ridiculous punishments.
I was reading about the case of an Iranian woman,Leila, now 22, who was regularly sold for sex by her parents from the age of nine to provide an income for her family. Later, when Leila married, her husband also sold her for money to up to 15 men a night.As horrific as that may sound, this is apparantly a not uncommon occurance in Iran, using women as commodities and sources of income, something which to us, in the western world is unimaginable.
What really shocked me was that Leila was sentenced to be hung for incest after her brothers confessed to raping her. What price did the brothers pay? they got a flogging. The husband who allowed his wife to be raped each night for money? he was sentenced to five years in jail.
Fortunately Leila was freed with the help of human rights activists, but we can only guess at the amount of women under the Iranian justice system who recieve the same treatment and are not helped in time.
Being punished for being raped? what kind of justice system is that?
Another case in Saudi Arabia in the news last week involved a woman who was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison after being gang raped. The reason being that she was travelling alone in a car with a man to whom she was not related.Due to Saudi Arabia's strict gender laws, once again a woman is punished for being raped.
Friday 9 November 2007
Why do women earn less than men?
According to a Guardian article on Wednesday, women graduates earn on average £1,000 less than male graduates and go into lower paid and skilled positions than men generally in the work place.
Don't we already know this? the survey may be based on new figures but it's a reaction against yet another cultural myth prevailing in society, that women and men have equal access to the work sphere.
In actual fact, despite an equal pay act, women do earn less than men on average, and in equivalent jobs. The well used argument that women gendered jobs are just generally lower paid (childcare, nursing) may well have truth to it, but does not account for the fact that women with equal qualifications and working in equal job roles still get paid less than men.
To blame is partly the fact that employees are not aware of this cultural bias, but the people in charge of the pay roles most definitely are so when are we going to do something about it?
As a culture we are fooled by a few mainstream representations of the cold hearted man hating, post feminist woman, who climbs easily up the career chain using both her brains and beauty to beat men into positions that 50 years ago would be unimaginable. This myth is solely based on the high profiles of a few really successful career women and fueled by the post feminist representation of characters such those in Sex and the City. But in reality it is much harder than that.
Women have to work twice as hard as men to get to equivalent positions, there success is subject to all kinds of pitfalls and conditions, women have to look good, be 'feminine' yet still display 'man like' qualities such as rationality and ruthlessness in the work place and they have to put up with the constant assumption that at any minute they are going to get pregnant and therefore take maternity leave and 'naturally' want to stay at home and raise the baby.
Until we as a society realise what is going on and women force the issue out into the open we are going to continue to suffer this ridiculous inequality.It's not only gender either, all sorts of prejudices still exist in the work place and society in general depending on your age, race and sexual orientation but because of the smoke screen that is post feminism, it is now considered ridiculous to claim that women don't have the same basic rights as men. The woman who claims this is considered a fool and laughed at.
What staggers me is that women are not a minority, we are the majority, so why do we not put more pressure on bosses to pay us what we deserve? The same pay as men based on skills, knowledge and experience, not gender
Don't we already know this? the survey may be based on new figures but it's a reaction against yet another cultural myth prevailing in society, that women and men have equal access to the work sphere.
In actual fact, despite an equal pay act, women do earn less than men on average, and in equivalent jobs. The well used argument that women gendered jobs are just generally lower paid (childcare, nursing) may well have truth to it, but does not account for the fact that women with equal qualifications and working in equal job roles still get paid less than men.
To blame is partly the fact that employees are not aware of this cultural bias, but the people in charge of the pay roles most definitely are so when are we going to do something about it?
As a culture we are fooled by a few mainstream representations of the cold hearted man hating, post feminist woman, who climbs easily up the career chain using both her brains and beauty to beat men into positions that 50 years ago would be unimaginable. This myth is solely based on the high profiles of a few really successful career women and fueled by the post feminist representation of characters such those in Sex and the City. But in reality it is much harder than that.
Women have to work twice as hard as men to get to equivalent positions, there success is subject to all kinds of pitfalls and conditions, women have to look good, be 'feminine' yet still display 'man like' qualities such as rationality and ruthlessness in the work place and they have to put up with the constant assumption that at any minute they are going to get pregnant and therefore take maternity leave and 'naturally' want to stay at home and raise the baby.
Until we as a society realise what is going on and women force the issue out into the open we are going to continue to suffer this ridiculous inequality.It's not only gender either, all sorts of prejudices still exist in the work place and society in general depending on your age, race and sexual orientation but because of the smoke screen that is post feminism, it is now considered ridiculous to claim that women don't have the same basic rights as men. The woman who claims this is considered a fool and laughed at.
What staggers me is that women are not a minority, we are the majority, so why do we not put more pressure on bosses to pay us what we deserve? The same pay as men based on skills, knowledge and experience, not gender
Wednesday 7 November 2007
Will YouTube be slammed over school shooting?
Like many people, I have become obsessed with YouTube. I think everyone agrees how amazing it is that we now have a platform which enables anyone and everyone who wishes to publish their own videos and film online for everyone else to see.
But what happens when people use this platform for their own sinister motives? I have just got home and turning on the tv seen the horrific news about yet another school shooting in Finland. The facts themselves are disturbing enough, and the images emerging of children running from the school and jumping out of windows to escape are particulalry chilling - although also depressingly familiar following news footage of the attacks on Virginia Tech earlier this year and of course the infamous Columbine cctv footage, among others.
What is even more disturbing is the fact that the shooter himself published his intentions on YouTube and used the site to pedal his warped ideologies on 'social darwinism'. Judging by the massive public discussuion after the video of the Virginia Tech shooter was released, I'm sure the issue will now be revisited in the media again, and I'm guessing YouTube will have some questions to answer.
But what happens when people use this platform for their own sinister motives? I have just got home and turning on the tv seen the horrific news about yet another school shooting in Finland. The facts themselves are disturbing enough, and the images emerging of children running from the school and jumping out of windows to escape are particulalry chilling - although also depressingly familiar following news footage of the attacks on Virginia Tech earlier this year and of course the infamous Columbine cctv footage, among others.
What is even more disturbing is the fact that the shooter himself published his intentions on YouTube and used the site to pedal his warped ideologies on 'social darwinism'. Judging by the massive public discussuion after the video of the Virginia Tech shooter was released, I'm sure the issue will now be revisited in the media again, and I'm guessing YouTube will have some questions to answer.
Tuesday 6 November 2007
Abortion shock tactics
I was shocked to see the Dispatches programme about abortion 'What we need to know'. Having been of the opinion that abortion is every woman's right and having little opposing feelings about the process I watched in horror the footage of an aborted fetus being broken up and pulled from the womb. Naively perhaps, I had no idea that this was what the process entailed.
Seeing the broken up tiny feet and rib cage of a 22 week aborted fetus, truly was disturbing, and I'm sure any one would have a hard time condoning abortion after having seen those images. The gory footage didn't stop there either, seeing the younger fetus literally sucked out of the womb with a vacuum type instrument and hearing the doctor describe the process it suddenly occurred to me that this must be an awful job to have.
The programme certainly lived up to the cultural myth that abortion is inherently traumatising for the woman, which it may well be for many, but which I believe is mostly another cultural tool to restrain women and keep them within the private sphere of the home.
The whole reason women campaigned so hard for abortion rights and for contraceptives was to allow all women to take control of their bodies, to give them a choice to enter the public sphere of the work place and not be constrained to the home. I felt the woman's voice was not heard enough in the film.
What the programme also didn't cover was any discussion of what abortions were like before they were legalised, and although they touched on the subject, the more important issue of the programme I felt was the NHS abortion waiting lists. If they weren't so long then people who really needed them would be able to have abortions earlier and avoid the more disturbing invasive abortion procedure of later pregnancies.
Much was made of the fact that legally babies are aborted at 22-24 weeks when technology now allows doctors to 'save' premature babies also born at this age. Not enough was made however, of the moral and medical debates surrounding keeping babies alive this young. '50% of babies born prematurely at this age survive' we are told, and how many of those have serious health problems? how many live a 'normal' life?
Although I'm sure the programme makers are aware of these debates, and I understand that documentaries can't cover all angles of a story, I think that the woman's voice needs to be heard. This is above all else an issue for and about women and women's bodies, hearing male doctors opinions, well informed as they may be, doesn't represent the issue justly. I think the audience want to hear what women have to say, they want to hear women tell their own stories and voice their own opinions about abortion.
Did the programme change my opinion? After a couple of days reflecting on the disturbing images, I realised that no, horrible as it might be, the images were what they were designed to be, shock tactics. I still believe that abortion is every woman's right and I don't like being made to feel guilty about believing in abortion. No doubt many women watching the programme who had had abortions themselves were made to feel this way and not made to feel that they had taken control of their bodies, exercised their legal rights and made the decision that they felt was right for them.
Seeing the broken up tiny feet and rib cage of a 22 week aborted fetus, truly was disturbing, and I'm sure any one would have a hard time condoning abortion after having seen those images. The gory footage didn't stop there either, seeing the younger fetus literally sucked out of the womb with a vacuum type instrument and hearing the doctor describe the process it suddenly occurred to me that this must be an awful job to have.
The programme certainly lived up to the cultural myth that abortion is inherently traumatising for the woman, which it may well be for many, but which I believe is mostly another cultural tool to restrain women and keep them within the private sphere of the home.
The whole reason women campaigned so hard for abortion rights and for contraceptives was to allow all women to take control of their bodies, to give them a choice to enter the public sphere of the work place and not be constrained to the home. I felt the woman's voice was not heard enough in the film.
What the programme also didn't cover was any discussion of what abortions were like before they were legalised, and although they touched on the subject, the more important issue of the programme I felt was the NHS abortion waiting lists. If they weren't so long then people who really needed them would be able to have abortions earlier and avoid the more disturbing invasive abortion procedure of later pregnancies.
Much was made of the fact that legally babies are aborted at 22-24 weeks when technology now allows doctors to 'save' premature babies also born at this age. Not enough was made however, of the moral and medical debates surrounding keeping babies alive this young. '50% of babies born prematurely at this age survive' we are told, and how many of those have serious health problems? how many live a 'normal' life?
Although I'm sure the programme makers are aware of these debates, and I understand that documentaries can't cover all angles of a story, I think that the woman's voice needs to be heard. This is above all else an issue for and about women and women's bodies, hearing male doctors opinions, well informed as they may be, doesn't represent the issue justly. I think the audience want to hear what women have to say, they want to hear women tell their own stories and voice their own opinions about abortion.
Did the programme change my opinion? After a couple of days reflecting on the disturbing images, I realised that no, horrible as it might be, the images were what they were designed to be, shock tactics. I still believe that abortion is every woman's right and I don't like being made to feel guilty about believing in abortion. No doubt many women watching the programme who had had abortions themselves were made to feel this way and not made to feel that they had taken control of their bodies, exercised their legal rights and made the decision that they felt was right for them.
Thursday 18 October 2007
What makes a good journalist?
Heather Campbell, Editorial Assistant of Marie Claire magazine tells us what makes a good journalist.
"There's a lot of pressure involved in working for such a big magazine," says Heather, 24. "The feature writers are always telling me about difficult interveiws they've had to do and you always have to come up with new ideas for articles."
So what makes a good reporter? "Someone with excellent research skills and good contacts," says Heather. "You need to be able to work to deadlines and always make sure you get your facts straight. A good journalist always has a good ear for a story too."
After completing an English Literature degree at the Uiversity of Kent, Heather started a beauty internship at Marie Claire in 2006.
"I always wanted to work for Marie Claire," she says. "It's aways a good read and there's a good mix of fun stuff in the magazine as well as serious features like the abortion article in the last issue."
After six months Heather became Editorial Assistant of Marie Claire. This involves overseeing and editing articles written in all areas of the magazine, and although she loves the job, she admits that it can be hard work.
"The day to day running of the magazine is very busy," says Heather "especially towards the middle of the month before the issue goes to print."
Heather is quick to point out how tough journalism can be. She earns less than £30,000 annually and says that: "the industry is very hard to get into nad move up the ladder to start earning more money. It's very competitive."
In the future Heather would like to go back to working on the beauty section. "Doing the beauty features and styling is really fun," she says "and you get loads of freebies as well!"
"There's a lot of pressure involved in working for such a big magazine," says Heather, 24. "The feature writers are always telling me about difficult interveiws they've had to do and you always have to come up with new ideas for articles."
So what makes a good reporter? "Someone with excellent research skills and good contacts," says Heather. "You need to be able to work to deadlines and always make sure you get your facts straight. A good journalist always has a good ear for a story too."
After completing an English Literature degree at the Uiversity of Kent, Heather started a beauty internship at Marie Claire in 2006.
"I always wanted to work for Marie Claire," she says. "It's aways a good read and there's a good mix of fun stuff in the magazine as well as serious features like the abortion article in the last issue."
After six months Heather became Editorial Assistant of Marie Claire. This involves overseeing and editing articles written in all areas of the magazine, and although she loves the job, she admits that it can be hard work.
"The day to day running of the magazine is very busy," says Heather "especially towards the middle of the month before the issue goes to print."
Heather is quick to point out how tough journalism can be. She earns less than £30,000 annually and says that: "the industry is very hard to get into nad move up the ladder to start earning more money. It's very competitive."
In the future Heather would like to go back to working on the beauty section. "Doing the beauty features and styling is really fun," she says "and you get loads of freebies as well!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)