The front-page story “‘Baby wards could close’” is the first of three articles this morning aimed at describing the possible fallout of a NHS budget in deficit.
The first thing that leapt from the page at me is the source of information. Having been exposed to the style of this newspaper for a number of years, inoculates me against their sensationalist front-page headlines. These headlines are designed for one purpose: to sell and in that respect, this is a successful piece of journalism.
As you get deeper into this particularly shallow story you begin to realise just how little evidence this publication requires whilst inflaming the public. The list of hospitals that are having their maternity wards threatened is second-hand. The Conservative Party handed the list to the newspaper after they received it from the East of England Health Authority. To not question this source is simply bad journalistic practice.
The quotes used are too easily sought on behalf of the central Conservative Party with not a single reply from central government sought in response. Instead the EADT uses quotes from spokesmen of the two local hospitals mentioned in the list and a local Unison executive. The article is also inaccurately used as a means to mention again the actions of Hazel Blears joining a picket line in front of a hospital in her constituency, threatened with closure by the local NHS trust, (not by central government!). In itself, this story is rehashed in a small article on Page 7.
This article is blatantly biased and represents the sensationally inaccurate reporting attached to articles that can be used as attacks on Labour within the pages of this regional tabloid. Its message is clear: ‘Tories good, Labour bad’.
Friday, December 29, 2006
J101-News Analysis-3/10: The Daily Telegraph; 13th Dec 2006
With all the turmoil and disruption in my hometown, I could not possibly ignore the stories being written about one of the most audacious serial murder cases in the UK.
The 13th December, the front page of the Telegraph: five pictures of five young women were regimentally placed under the banner headline: “Five bodies in just 10 days”. This was the morning after the discovery of what turned out to be the last two bodies on the outskirts of Ipswich. This is the spin placed on the story; the frenetic nature of which is hard to deny when the first quote used is that of Stewart Gull, the leader of the investigation announcing that “It is such a fast-moving inquiry, it is almost a crime in action”. Caroline Davies speculates about the identity of the two bodies found the day before and then gives an impression of this fast paced section of the enquiry.
In a case with so many people involved, this short beginning to the daily coverage of the Telegraph is garbled. It moves all over the place because of the order in which these announcements came. There seemingly was no call for an ordered structure. With so many young girls involved it is not clear who is who just from the text alone and therefore relies heavily on the five pictures above.
The Story, being several days old at this point, this short piece seems to be trying to do too much.
The 13th December, the front page of the Telegraph: five pictures of five young women were regimentally placed under the banner headline: “Five bodies in just 10 days”. This was the morning after the discovery of what turned out to be the last two bodies on the outskirts of Ipswich. This is the spin placed on the story; the frenetic nature of which is hard to deny when the first quote used is that of Stewart Gull, the leader of the investigation announcing that “It is such a fast-moving inquiry, it is almost a crime in action”. Caroline Davies speculates about the identity of the two bodies found the day before and then gives an impression of this fast paced section of the enquiry.
In a case with so many people involved, this short beginning to the daily coverage of the Telegraph is garbled. It moves all over the place because of the order in which these announcements came. There seemingly was no call for an ordered structure. With so many young girls involved it is not clear who is who just from the text alone and therefore relies heavily on the five pictures above.
The Story, being several days old at this point, this short piece seems to be trying to do too much.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
J103-Reading Analysis-4/10: Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture; 10th October 2006.
In this reading F.R. Leavis criticises that which has been said in the previous passage by Matthew Arnold. The main reason for this is the gulf of time between the two men. I believe that the two men (had they been put together) would have seen eye to eye about the importance of high culture and who has reign over it, but would spend their time together fighting over a means to get back to ‘the good old days’ and the factors required to do so!
It is clear to see why John Storey has placed these two thinkers together and at the beginning of his collection of essays. Leavis, being the later of the two has the benefit of seeing whether what Arnold foretold had come true.
It is clear that both Arnold and Leavis both believed that there are a select few within society that can fully appreciate and pass “unprompted, first-hand judgement” on different aspects of culture. The differences between the two men start here; in Arnold’s essay he becomes festooned within the complexities of this ability to obtain “Sweetness and Light”, Leavis is far more concerned with how society changed in the sixty years between the two essays and how complicated this issue had become.
Leavis’ analogy of the “currency based upon a very small proportion of gold” has several uses. He alludes to the ideas of cultural capital and the methods with which status is acquired and exchanged among the populace. What this small phrase also denotes is the delicacy of the balance between Culture and Anarchy that Arnold discusses in his essay. There is a chronology to his arguments that should be understood before you assess how effective this “pamphlet” is. Leavis uses two quotes from his contemporary and father of the new criticism movement: Ivor Armstrong Richards. A man born five years after Matthew Arnold’s death, he seems to be held in high regard by Leavis and is used by him to explain Arnold’s ideas of an elite class more fully.
The author uses the elite with care. He defends their existence and shows that they are the ones that “keep alive the subtlest and most perishable parts of tradition.” Like Arnold he holds the elite in high regard, but goes further to explain what they are defending against and how this is threatening our advancement. Far from being domineering in his vision of what the future must hold, he seems far more paternal. He is concerned about technology and machinery in particular and concludes that at present it is our true master and that maybe, with more of his kind of leadership, it will become the tool that it has always promised it would be.
He touches upon Americanisation. He clarifies this term and suggests that a wider view is required when touching upon this subject. He argues that people “who are most defiant of America do not propose to reverse the processes consequent on the machine.” What he is basically saying here is that ‘Americanisation’ has given us a great deal, but we should be wary of what it is doing to our behaviour through it’s ‘standardisation’ through broadcasting and mass media/production.
Leavis’ style and language, although somewhat convoluted, is simple enough to understand and I think achieves its aim of drumming up support to stem the tide of rapid technological development and all the pitfalls that it creates for our traditions and existing cultures.
It is clear to see why John Storey has placed these two thinkers together and at the beginning of his collection of essays. Leavis, being the later of the two has the benefit of seeing whether what Arnold foretold had come true.
It is clear that both Arnold and Leavis both believed that there are a select few within society that can fully appreciate and pass “unprompted, first-hand judgement” on different aspects of culture. The differences between the two men start here; in Arnold’s essay he becomes festooned within the complexities of this ability to obtain “Sweetness and Light”, Leavis is far more concerned with how society changed in the sixty years between the two essays and how complicated this issue had become.
Leavis’ analogy of the “currency based upon a very small proportion of gold” has several uses. He alludes to the ideas of cultural capital and the methods with which status is acquired and exchanged among the populace. What this small phrase also denotes is the delicacy of the balance between Culture and Anarchy that Arnold discusses in his essay. There is a chronology to his arguments that should be understood before you assess how effective this “pamphlet” is. Leavis uses two quotes from his contemporary and father of the new criticism movement: Ivor Armstrong Richards. A man born five years after Matthew Arnold’s death, he seems to be held in high regard by Leavis and is used by him to explain Arnold’s ideas of an elite class more fully.
The author uses the elite with care. He defends their existence and shows that they are the ones that “keep alive the subtlest and most perishable parts of tradition.” Like Arnold he holds the elite in high regard, but goes further to explain what they are defending against and how this is threatening our advancement. Far from being domineering in his vision of what the future must hold, he seems far more paternal. He is concerned about technology and machinery in particular and concludes that at present it is our true master and that maybe, with more of his kind of leadership, it will become the tool that it has always promised it would be.
He touches upon Americanisation. He clarifies this term and suggests that a wider view is required when touching upon this subject. He argues that people “who are most defiant of America do not propose to reverse the processes consequent on the machine.” What he is basically saying here is that ‘Americanisation’ has given us a great deal, but we should be wary of what it is doing to our behaviour through it’s ‘standardisation’ through broadcasting and mass media/production.
Leavis’ style and language, although somewhat convoluted, is simple enough to understand and I think achieves its aim of drumming up support to stem the tide of rapid technological development and all the pitfalls that it creates for our traditions and existing cultures.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
J103-Reading Analysis-3/10: Culture and Anarchy; 10th October 2006.
In this reading Matthew Arnold explains from the start that this essay will only concentrate on the ability of culture as a means of spreading “the best which has been thought and said in the world;” He discusses the disadvantages people put themselves under when they only experience the world through reading and the lack of questioning he sees when it comes to “stock notions and habits”. He argues that a man simply has culture if he “examines himself”. He clarifies this by saying that this examination is the “essence of culture”.
“Culture has one great passion, the passion for sweetness and light.” In this essay he mentions this several times. It is his theory that culture works towards a perfect utopian future that will be reached when the “masses of humanity are touched with sweetness and light.” In this utopia the class system will no longer exist and all people will have access to the best and brightest ideas of the moment.
This egalitarian approach to a way out of our current situation is the noblest thing that this essay alludes to. But there is little feeling behind the words of this essay. The sources of belief in these theories seem to be personal and with little physical or objective proof to make them any more than theories. His theories are cast like a net over all of the populace from the position of the middle classes. This position comes off as smugness when you start looking at his life and career. Rugby School followed by Balliol College and on to a fellowship elsewhere at Oxford just seems to reek of pomposity.
His time in history is one of relative peace but one of land grabbing. The European Imperialist forces are carving up Africa and the risks of expanding the empire are starting to come into light relief. These risks are stemmed by the opinion that ‘if you have no culture, you don’t deserve power’. This gives light to the fact that he speaks from a position of privilege and not one of poverty.
This theory although seen now as one of conservatism, was at the time seen as exceedingly radical. The traditional homes of power were in a state of flux as democracy spreads across nations where their structures were leaning towards more aristocratic methods of governance. Arnold welcomed this democratic shift as we see in his egalitarian ideals that he wanted to be shared across the world.
The scope for this argument made by Arnold is too narrow. All it did was show that essentially Arnold believed everyone should become middle class before the greater goal of ‘sweetness and light’ was strived for. It goes some way to explaining what a monumental struggle it must have been to start from almost nothing trying to implement or encourage the implementation of these theories. But as a theory worthy of implementation on its own, it does little to encourage faith to that end.
“Culture has one great passion, the passion for sweetness and light.” In this essay he mentions this several times. It is his theory that culture works towards a perfect utopian future that will be reached when the “masses of humanity are touched with sweetness and light.” In this utopia the class system will no longer exist and all people will have access to the best and brightest ideas of the moment.
This egalitarian approach to a way out of our current situation is the noblest thing that this essay alludes to. But there is little feeling behind the words of this essay. The sources of belief in these theories seem to be personal and with little physical or objective proof to make them any more than theories. His theories are cast like a net over all of the populace from the position of the middle classes. This position comes off as smugness when you start looking at his life and career. Rugby School followed by Balliol College and on to a fellowship elsewhere at Oxford just seems to reek of pomposity.
His time in history is one of relative peace but one of land grabbing. The European Imperialist forces are carving up Africa and the risks of expanding the empire are starting to come into light relief. These risks are stemmed by the opinion that ‘if you have no culture, you don’t deserve power’. This gives light to the fact that he speaks from a position of privilege and not one of poverty.
This theory although seen now as one of conservatism, was at the time seen as exceedingly radical. The traditional homes of power were in a state of flux as democracy spreads across nations where their structures were leaning towards more aristocratic methods of governance. Arnold welcomed this democratic shift as we see in his egalitarian ideals that he wanted to be shared across the world.
The scope for this argument made by Arnold is too narrow. All it did was show that essentially Arnold believed everyone should become middle class before the greater goal of ‘sweetness and light’ was strived for. It goes some way to explaining what a monumental struggle it must have been to start from almost nothing trying to implement or encourage the implementation of these theories. But as a theory worthy of implementation on its own, it does little to encourage faith to that end.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Everyone's Left Me!!!
And then there was one!! Lucy has just left me and now I'm sitting here poised to get all my work done before I leave on Wednesday morning! It's pouring with rain and the band is moving across the South of England and will reach East Anglia by tomorrow! I'm going to be following that cloud all the way home.
Right, well, first up is the essay that I started on Friday. I'm trying to shoehorn what I want the essay to be into the question that I have chosen. How much do I agree with the statement that we are seeing a 'dumbing down' in the media at large? A lot! That's how much I agree with it. I have begun my argument with a simple theory that 9/11 accelerated our need for 'sound bites' from our news sources. Obviously this dependancy is not entirely because of this, but it commodifyed news overnight. This would be fine if we were being lead by a morally sound power base, but unfortunately, George Bush is too busy filming his Christmas message from the White House with one of his dogs as the star!
This weekend has been tough in respect to avoiding throwing things at the TV! This country is already gripped with election fever and everyone involved seems to have taken stupid pills. Mass reforms within all aspects of society are required and all the politicians can do is attack each other over who is the most trust worthy or able to deliver these massive reforms. The New Labour project has failed because its policy of spending without reform is not viable and was never going to be viable in the long term. The mistake that the Media and through them, the public are going to make is believe that another party can do better. The Conservatives may well be promising that tax cuts are not the answer, but this age old policy will return soon after they would take office. The very definition of their name is not legitimate for the future of this country or the global community at large: to conserve what we have now is not something that I desire, neither should it be desirable for the majority of Britain. People are being born, living and then dying below the poverty line all over the world, increasingly in the 'Developed' World. This is an issue that links everyone, across all nations. People have been lead to believe ever since the beginning of the Imperial movement that poverty pays heed to national boundaries and can be tackled by the same individual nations. This lie has survived for over 2,000 years and must be stopped if global prosperity is to be shared among all people on this small planet.
Today the government has announced that "deadbeat dads" could face having their names published on the internet in a 'name and shame' campaign aimed at reducing the backlog of £3bn in unpaid child support. The Child Support Agency is being advised at the same time that £2bn of that backlog is impossible to collect. With this in mind, why on earth are they being told that tough tactics and a re-branding of the Agency are required? This is one of the main reasons for my despair towards old New Labour: their policy of 'if it's broke, re-brand it'.
With the announcement this week that NASA will have colonised The Moon by 2020, surely must come the realisation that the project of evolution that is the Human Race, must consolidate itself within the next 20 years, if harmonious progress is to be made. My argument is that the old systems in all walks of life need not only to be updated, but scrapped and born anew if any substantial progress is to be made.
As Kofi Annan leaves the UN, replaced by Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, I find myself getting quite excited over the prospect of the inevitable re-shuffle of posts that is to follow Mr. Ki-moon being sworn into office in the New Year. It is an opportunity to hand out a slap on the wrist to the less responsible members. I know my wish of seeing the US' role in the organisation being downgraded is unrealistic, but you never know! Its constant neglect of paying its dues cannot go unpunnished if the UN is to be useful in the monumental shifts needed on the world stage.
'Hell' and 'Handbasket' are words that spring to mind...
Right, well, first up is the essay that I started on Friday. I'm trying to shoehorn what I want the essay to be into the question that I have chosen. How much do I agree with the statement that we are seeing a 'dumbing down' in the media at large? A lot! That's how much I agree with it. I have begun my argument with a simple theory that 9/11 accelerated our need for 'sound bites' from our news sources. Obviously this dependancy is not entirely because of this, but it commodifyed news overnight. This would be fine if we were being lead by a morally sound power base, but unfortunately, George Bush is too busy filming his Christmas message from the White House with one of his dogs as the star!
This weekend has been tough in respect to avoiding throwing things at the TV! This country is already gripped with election fever and everyone involved seems to have taken stupid pills. Mass reforms within all aspects of society are required and all the politicians can do is attack each other over who is the most trust worthy or able to deliver these massive reforms. The New Labour project has failed because its policy of spending without reform is not viable and was never going to be viable in the long term. The mistake that the Media and through them, the public are going to make is believe that another party can do better. The Conservatives may well be promising that tax cuts are not the answer, but this age old policy will return soon after they would take office. The very definition of their name is not legitimate for the future of this country or the global community at large: to conserve what we have now is not something that I desire, neither should it be desirable for the majority of Britain. People are being born, living and then dying below the poverty line all over the world, increasingly in the 'Developed' World. This is an issue that links everyone, across all nations. People have been lead to believe ever since the beginning of the Imperial movement that poverty pays heed to national boundaries and can be tackled by the same individual nations. This lie has survived for over 2,000 years and must be stopped if global prosperity is to be shared among all people on this small planet.
Today the government has announced that "deadbeat dads" could face having their names published on the internet in a 'name and shame' campaign aimed at reducing the backlog of £3bn in unpaid child support. The Child Support Agency is being advised at the same time that £2bn of that backlog is impossible to collect. With this in mind, why on earth are they being told that tough tactics and a re-branding of the Agency are required? This is one of the main reasons for my despair towards old New Labour: their policy of 'if it's broke, re-brand it'.
With the announcement this week that NASA will have colonised The Moon by 2020, surely must come the realisation that the project of evolution that is the Human Race, must consolidate itself within the next 20 years, if harmonious progress is to be made. My argument is that the old systems in all walks of life need not only to be updated, but scrapped and born anew if any substantial progress is to be made.
As Kofi Annan leaves the UN, replaced by Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, I find myself getting quite excited over the prospect of the inevitable re-shuffle of posts that is to follow Mr. Ki-moon being sworn into office in the New Year. It is an opportunity to hand out a slap on the wrist to the less responsible members. I know my wish of seeing the US' role in the organisation being downgraded is unrealistic, but you never know! Its constant neglect of paying its dues cannot go unpunnished if the UN is to be useful in the monumental shifts needed on the world stage.
'Hell' and 'Handbasket' are words that spring to mind...
Friday, December 01, 2006
J103-Reading Analysis-2/10: Distinction & The Aristocracy of Culture; 28th November 2006.
In this reading Pierre Bourdieu discusses the different elements of his ideas of distinction and its actions and reactions within the realms of culture. He isn’t theorising; this is the finished product, with only minor tweaks as time progresses. I agree almost whole-heartedly with these Ideas and their large influence on our daily lives as social and cultured beings. Incidentally, I find it interesting that this was written in the Orwellian year of 1984. Art sees the first awarding of the Turner Prize to Malcolm Morley; an explicit example of what Bourdieu discusses in this piece.
Morley is a photo-realist painter, his receiving of the first Turner Prize was particularly controversial (if only because he hadn’t lived in Britain since 1958), but this was not as controversial as the prize itself. Although I can’t find a comment from Bourdieu (maybe because the prize is, by design, a British institution) I believe he would cite the encouragement of artists to ‘compete’ as a clear example of his theories at work. Also, Morley being the winner might bring condemnation of his pandering to “what Erwin Panofsky calls the ‘sensible properties’”, (his painting of photographs that are particularly pleasing to the eye). Bourdieu quotes this in the text to highlight the two-tier appreciation of cultural artefacts; this is a major component of his reasoning behind ‘Distinctions’.
In places the text is complicated and long-winded, but he adds enough accessible examples into the text to keep you from getting lost within his complicated style. One example of this simplification is that of eating habits working as an illustration of different tastes, (helpfully underlined on my copy). In this passage he describes “The antithesis between quantity and quality”. He explains that the function of food is defined by ‘necessity’. Essentially he says that at times food serves only as a way of filling you up and at others it acts as a form ‘luxury’. When it performs this function he says that it “tends to use stylised forms to deny function”. In this case he is eluding to the fact that nouvelle cuisine disguises food as a means of filling you up and into an art; changing it into an act of appreciation. Bourdieu takes this relatively simple explanation and complicates it with his explanation in the following paragraphs.
This act of ‘complication’ is the main theme of this piece and of his entire body of work. He is a Post-Marxist, Post-Structuralist: he doesn’t try to explain the human consciousness in an ‘over-simplified’ structure as Marx did with economics. Instead he puts emphasis on the simple fact that one human being is an extremely complicated element within an infinitely complicated system.
In using modern art as his basis for exemplifying the proliferation of these “two ‘antagonistic castes’” he himself does himself a disservice because as he himself concludes “The new art is not for everyone”. He himself is producing an essay that is inaccessible to a large proportion of the population.
In conclusion, this inaccessibility is the reading’s major downfall. In trying to explain the exclusion of the ‘mass’ from “the ‘reading’ of a work of art” he himself excludes this same faction, but without the pomposity evident within the majority of critiques “of ‘secondary meanings’”. He attempts (and in my view, fails) to make the mass aware of what is going on when they feel excluded from certain ‘higher’ echelons of culture. Instead, he produces something that within its own right is inaccessible and simply adds to frustrations felt by the large proportion of society. It all depends on what your standing within this ‘dynamic’ framework (distinction from structure) is. If you are studying Bourdieu then it gives a detailed (sometimes too detailed) account of what his theories are. If you approached this piece from a “functional” standpoint then it serves no greater purpose than one of confusion and perhaps over complication of your life experiences.
Morley is a photo-realist painter, his receiving of the first Turner Prize was particularly controversial (if only because he hadn’t lived in Britain since 1958), but this was not as controversial as the prize itself. Although I can’t find a comment from Bourdieu (maybe because the prize is, by design, a British institution) I believe he would cite the encouragement of artists to ‘compete’ as a clear example of his theories at work. Also, Morley being the winner might bring condemnation of his pandering to “what Erwin Panofsky calls the ‘sensible properties’”, (his painting of photographs that are particularly pleasing to the eye). Bourdieu quotes this in the text to highlight the two-tier appreciation of cultural artefacts; this is a major component of his reasoning behind ‘Distinctions’.
In places the text is complicated and long-winded, but he adds enough accessible examples into the text to keep you from getting lost within his complicated style. One example of this simplification is that of eating habits working as an illustration of different tastes, (helpfully underlined on my copy). In this passage he describes “The antithesis between quantity and quality”. He explains that the function of food is defined by ‘necessity’. Essentially he says that at times food serves only as a way of filling you up and at others it acts as a form ‘luxury’. When it performs this function he says that it “tends to use stylised forms to deny function”. In this case he is eluding to the fact that nouvelle cuisine disguises food as a means of filling you up and into an art; changing it into an act of appreciation. Bourdieu takes this relatively simple explanation and complicates it with his explanation in the following paragraphs.
This act of ‘complication’ is the main theme of this piece and of his entire body of work. He is a Post-Marxist, Post-Structuralist: he doesn’t try to explain the human consciousness in an ‘over-simplified’ structure as Marx did with economics. Instead he puts emphasis on the simple fact that one human being is an extremely complicated element within an infinitely complicated system.
In using modern art as his basis for exemplifying the proliferation of these “two ‘antagonistic castes’” he himself does himself a disservice because as he himself concludes “The new art is not for everyone”. He himself is producing an essay that is inaccessible to a large proportion of the population.
In conclusion, this inaccessibility is the reading’s major downfall. In trying to explain the exclusion of the ‘mass’ from “the ‘reading’ of a work of art” he himself excludes this same faction, but without the pomposity evident within the majority of critiques “of ‘secondary meanings’”. He attempts (and in my view, fails) to make the mass aware of what is going on when they feel excluded from certain ‘higher’ echelons of culture. Instead, he produces something that within its own right is inaccessible and simply adds to frustrations felt by the large proportion of society. It all depends on what your standing within this ‘dynamic’ framework (distinction from structure) is. If you are studying Bourdieu then it gives a detailed (sometimes too detailed) account of what his theories are. If you approached this piece from a “functional” standpoint then it serves no greater purpose than one of confusion and perhaps over complication of your life experiences.
Woah! Been A While!
Ok this is a statement of intent!!
I've just had a massive day today!! GrrrGrrr, the music magazine I've been working on every waking moment is almost finished! This is one of the major reasons why the neglect to my blog! No excuses, just stating what's been going on!
Anyway, suffice to say that I don't think that money is going to be a problem for this little project of mine!! The magazine myspace is: www.myspace.com/grrrgrrr check it out and leave a comment! If you want to contribute, drop us an email and we will get back to you tout suite!
Anyway, back to that ellusive intent! At this very moment I am working on the magazine, (about to stop) and this blog, (my first in almost three weeks! The statement is this: Interview is next; I will complete it before the end of the day and then I can fully enjoy the Snow Ball tonight! Then tomorrow its onto Blogger to do at least Four blog entries for Popular Culture and Introduction to Journalism (two each, mind! Don't want to get carried away!) That leaves me with a fair few to do... but still!
The slightly longer term is that I get my Blog's and my essay for Popular Culture finished before the 13th (when I go home).
This is my Intent, at 1430 on the first of December 2006!!!
I've just had a massive day today!! GrrrGrrr, the music magazine I've been working on every waking moment is almost finished! This is one of the major reasons why the neglect to my blog! No excuses, just stating what's been going on!
Anyway, suffice to say that I don't think that money is going to be a problem for this little project of mine!! The magazine myspace is: www.myspace.com/grrrgrrr check it out and leave a comment! If you want to contribute, drop us an email and we will get back to you tout suite!
Anyway, back to that ellusive intent! At this very moment I am working on the magazine, (about to stop) and this blog, (my first in almost three weeks! The statement is this: Interview is next; I will complete it before the end of the day and then I can fully enjoy the Snow Ball tonight! Then tomorrow its onto Blogger to do at least Four blog entries for Popular Culture and Introduction to Journalism (two each, mind! Don't want to get carried away!) That leaves me with a fair few to do... but still!
The slightly longer term is that I get my Blog's and my essay for Popular Culture finished before the 13th (when I go home).
This is my Intent, at 1430 on the first of December 2006!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
