‘Responding to extremisms: media roles and responsibilities’

‘Responding to extremisms: media roles and responsibilities’, Bournemouth University, 15 July 2011

The oxygen of publicity or the right to a platform? How are different forms of extremism covered in our national media, and does this serve to marginalise or legitimise extremist groups? What are the media strategies of these groups, and what potential do social media have to change their prospects? What are or should be the relations between media professionals and police and security services, community organisations and other stakeholders? How will the media influence the success or otherwise of the soon to be revised PREVENT strategy?

On Friday 15th July, Bournemouth University hosted a one-day conference at Bournemouth University’s Executive Business Centre. The conference focused on extremism and in particular the media roles and responses to extremism. It was organised by Bournemouth University’s Media School and was run by CERB, the Containing Extremism Research Briefing (http://www.cerb.ws).

CERB is a growing database of summaries of research articles related to various forms of contemporary extremism, with focus on its psychosocial dimensions and the role of the media. The CERB conference brought together various academics, journalists and speakers involved in responding to political or violent extremism, discussing such topics as:

–  How should media report the EDL?

– Freedom of Information vs National Security: Why Wikileaks adds a new dimension to an old dilemma

– What do the public think? Attitudes to extremism, violence and freedom of speech

– Counter-terrorism and the media

– Responding to the BNP: the media and the Far Right in contemporary Britain

The conference was be covered live all day, so those who were unable to make it in person could follow the debate live. Check out CERB_WS on Twitter for the tweets or go to the CERB archive for the tweets in chronological order.

For full coverage of the conference, including blogs, videos and podcasts, go to cerb.ws/conference/blog.

The photos, tweets, blogs, videos and podcasts were put together by a team of students from Bournemouth University’s Media School (including myself)

The conference is linked to the development of a web-based resource for people working in this area, the Containing Extremism Research Briefing.

Advertisements

The Police: The Arm of the State?

The police have come under fire lately for their handling of the recent student protests – the tactics that they have used and the level of force utilised. There are at least two sides to every story, we are told, and two differing sides have clearly been portrayed in the protests of late.

On the one side we have the view that the student protests have been mainly violent affairs, with the majority creating havoc and destruction and damaging their own cause. Supporters of this view praise the police for their actions and for showing “restraint” against the rampant “mobs”. On the other side, we have the view that the police have over-reacted and they have been the ones who instigated the violence, with supporters of this view claiming that it is the police who have been acting violently and over-extending their powers, detaining or “kettling” protestors for many hours on end with no access to food, water, toilers or shelter – effectively removing their civil liberties. What doesn’t help either side is the biased media shows that are played out, with many only showing the most sensationalist aspects of the protest, whilst ignoring the peaceful majority.

It is times like these when the people must ask the question: “who do the police really work for?” Are they there to facilitate peaceful protest and work for the people? Or are they there to support the government, with the people coming second? At the Whitehall protest, I asked one officer who was refusing to let us leave: “Do you work for the government, or the people?” He replied: “Well, the government pays me”. In that case, who pays the government? Continue reading

The Marketisation of Education: The Untold Story

Photo taken by Louis Sidwell, Nov. 2010

As the government plans to cut higher education funding whilst pushing up the cost of tuition fees, many are left reeling in the wake of the Liberal Democrats’ complete U-Turn on their own manifesto and the worries for the future of higher education itself.

The coalition proposes to cut teaching grants by 80%  and to raise tuition fees by nearly triple the current asking price as a “replacement” for the massive cut in education funding. This will leave Universities with around a 40% drop in their guaranteed incomes. But what will be the real repercussions of these proposals?

It essentially means that the funding of university teaching will shift from the taxpayer to the student, thus creating a free market in Uni courses. Continue reading

NUS Leader Responds to Clegg’s Letter

Description unavailable

Image by The CBI via Flickr

NUS president Aaron Porter responds to Nick Clegg. You can read the full letter here: NUS response to Nick Clegg PDF. Some extracts from the letter are noted below:

“I am pleased that you have clarified that your recall proposals were to apply to serious wrongdoing. But you should know that we would regard the breaking of signed, individual pledges to vote against higher fees as both serious and wrong. This is not as simple as coalition parties having to compromise.” [pg.1]

“You herald bringing part-time students into the scheme as a success – we agreed on the day Browne was published – but only those studying at 33% or more will benefit from a loan.” [pg.1]

“You trumpet the change in the post-graduation repayment threshold – convenientlyignoring that the £21k level won’t be introduced until 2016, or increased until 2021. If inflation is higher than 2.2%, the £21,000 earnings repayment threshold will not offer any real advantages to graduates by 2015/16.” [pg.1]

“You argue progressivity through the example of a nurse Continue reading

“Progressive” tuition fees hike progressing the wrong way

Portrait of Nick Clegg.

Image via Wikipedia

Despite claims that the proposed cuts in University funding and the hike in tuition fees are “progressive”, a recent analysis of the proposals, published today, argues that the “reform” of funding will limit social mobility and leave around two-thirds of all graduates paying far more for a degree.

The government’s proposals will see tuition fees as high as £9,000 a year, whilst introducing real interest rates for the loans as well as a longer period before the debt it “written off”. Million+, a university lobby group, states that these changes will hit middle-income earners the hardest, running contrary to the numerous claims by the coalition that “we are in this together”, and the statements that those with the broadest shoulders will carry the brunt.

The report also argues that pupils from poorer backgrounds will be deterred from applying to Uni, which is interesting as Nick Clegg is arguing that it is the DEBATE about reform that will put off poorer students. Clegg wrote to the NUS leader, Aaron Porter, urging students not to “distort” the debate over fees, saying that many wrongly believe they will have to pay the fees immediately. I think Clegg is missing the point here.

The report also warns that many women will be ending up in debt for the most part of their working lives, whilst mature students will also be deterred. With state funding for University teaching being cut by a monumental 80% by 2014-15, the government will have to borrow more to fund the higher loans and pick up a bigger bill for those debts “written off” after 30 years. The report argues this will leave taxpayers worse off.

“It is difficult to see how the proposals provide a long-term, sustainable framework for the funding of higher education and universities in England,” the report says. It also accuses the government of using simplistic measures to define social mobility, such as the number of students on free school meals who go to Oxford, rather than assessing whether a having degree helps those from deprived backgrounds get better jobs, the Guardian states.

Some have also claimed that the coalition is trying to push through the legislation before MP’s have had a chance to properly review and debate the proposals. It appears as if the opinions held by Clegg that the proposals are “fair” and “progressive” may be empty rhetoric. Meanwhile, protests are continuing up and down the country on an almost weekly basis, with students clashing with police and occupations of buildings taking place even as you read this. Stay tuned.

Broken Promises, Broken Buildings

A peaceful protest turns violent as protesters storm Conservative Party HQ, smashing windows and lighting fires

[This is a video montage that I created using footage of the student protest in London, November 10th. It includes video clips from several sources, and I have included footage of Nick Clegg filmed prior to the General Election. I in no way advocate the violence or the damage to property that occurred during the demonstration, however the aim of this video is to convey the emotions and feelings of the activists engaged in the protest in contrast to the promises made by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg prior to the election. This video is not-for-profit and I do not own the rights to the footage used. I will be happy to remove any or all footage if asked to by the owners.]

Over 50,00 students turned up in London on Wednesday to protest the government’s proposal to raise University tuition fees by more than 200%, which could leave many students paying back the debt for the rest of their working lives.

The student protest began peacefully despite the unanticipated scale of the demonstration and the underwhelming police presence. The demonstration marched from Horse Guards Parade, central London, and past Westminster, however when the march reached the rally point at Millbank, the protest took a turn for the worse.

At around 1.37pm it is reported that over a hundred protestors broke off from the crowd and stormed Millbank Tower, the Conservative party’s headquarters, occupying the lobbies and waving flags from the rooftops, shouting “Tory Scum!” and “Nick Clegg, we know you, you’re a fucking Tory too”, according to the Guardian’s Matther Taylor, who was present.

Workers were evactuated from the building shortly after as the protestors smashed windows, threw missiles, lit emergency flares, spray-painted anarchist logos and anti-Tory messages on the walls, Continue reading