or

2) Help a company or someone within the industry which you want to work, research and write articles that may get you exposure and get you a real job.
Real salary: ~£0. Potential salary: >£0.

or

3) Successfully apply for and get a job that pays money in journalism.
Prerequisites: a lot of option 2)

(Please note: ideal lifetime role may not be available for first-job employees with no experience; compromise required)

In Google Image view, search for “David Cameron side view“. The results speak for themselves.

There’s a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt floating around on Twitter about what exactly proportional representation, or PR, means.

I’ve dusted off my notes from the excellent module on Parliamentary Reform which I took at Hull, under the tutoring of Lord Norton, the UK’s “greatest living expert on Parliament” according to the Political Studies Association (if you’re a political journalist reading this, get out there and get a quote from him!) They’re still very dusty after a quick rewrite, so please bear with me as I continue to update this post.

POINT #1: PR is a category of various forms of “Proportional Representation,” not a system in itself.

To say “I support PR” is to say “I support a system that elects a number of representatives that is closer to the popular vote.”

POINT #2: What are the possible systems of PR?

Alternative Vote (or AV) - vote 1, 2, 3 in single member constituencies. Not true PR. Maintains constituencies. Could be even less proportional than FPTP. Removes tactical voting, but doesn’t remove legitimacy issues. Party with least secondary support would be main loser (Conservatives).

Alternative Vote top-up (or AV+) - the Jenkins Commission recommended this. AV in most constituencies, plus 15-20% regional/top-up seats voting for a party list or party itself. This system would advantage party with biggest majority, so Labour would have actually increased the number of seats it gained in 2005!

Regional list- English regions, percentage wins same percentage of seats. Could put limit to stop small parties. Benefits Lib Dems. No-one really suggesting it.

Additional Member System (or AMS) - national and local preference. Local MPs elected FPTP, then additional national party list members are chosen. National vote divided by MPs won (plus one- d’Hondt method), gives national MPs.

Single Transferrable Vote (or STV) - ranking of candidates in multimember constituencies.

POINT #3: No system of PR is perfect.

PR undermines adversarial politics, and makes you choose between coalitions or a clear winner.

It could be more complicated. People know how FPTP works, and seem to be happy with it, even when it results in a minority Government like last week. I’ll update this bit if there are riots on the streets.

Polls say people want PR, but when faced with actual choices about systems, people aren’t so sure. People are concerned about smaller parties, which means you have to bring in threshold systems like in Germany, where every party needs to get more than a minimum percentage of votes to gain seats (stopping the BNP in Barking, for instance).

Most systems of PR increase the likelihood of coalition Governments that no-one is happy with. Everyone will be forced to ask the question of whether their first choice is preferable over their least objectionable choice.

The problem of poor voter turnout is not solved by PR (although it has been shown to increase turnout by around 5 per cent, which would mean an extra 3 million votes in the UK). Deprivation and age are much bigger factors in turnout.

POINT #4: PR does have some very notable advantages.

Non-PR systems are inherently unfair. A large number of electorate vote for parties and they get very little power.

In FPTP minorities can win local and national elections and result in a most popular minority election.

FPTP is unrepresentative.

Systems of PR increase public confidence - there are no “wasted votes.”

PR allows popular mandates.

Shifting votes under PR are not so dramatic: a 1 or 2% shift means only 1-2% shift in seats.

It increases the credibility of Government strategies. Industries and financial markets are able to plan ahead more effectively when they don’t have to factor for two wildly different electoral outcomes.

PR is arguably more constructive, more collaborative and more open. This can be shown by attitude to FOI Act in devolved territories which elect their representatives under PR. You could even look at the amnesty for illegal immigrants proposed by Boris Johnson during the 2008 Mayoral elections, which he might not have proposed if the Mayoral election system wasn’t PR-based.

There could be less focus on the executive, and more focus on Parliament under PR. Leaders would have to gain the support of other parties which don’t share their views. Did PR stop Germany from going to Iraq?

There are no safe seats under PR. There were 100 key seats where the election was fought in 2005. 70%, were safe. Parties would have to fight for all seats under PR.

There’s a more effective role for opposition under PR. Look at the “non-executive” powers in Scotland. Collaborative legislation, unlike in the Commons where legislation presented to House completed and passes through without tests. Labour have only lost a vote 3 times in Commons in 13 years! THINK DEBILL!

POINT #5: Now we’re getting philosophical

You may think it cynical, but PR is motivated by the electorate, just like all forms of previous electoral reform.

In 1918, votes were given to more men and the women after war, in 1969 the boundaries commission’s changes were blocked by Labour to avoid disadvantaging its voters in inner cities and in 1968 the voting age was reduced to 20 (rather than 18) because the major parties were scared of nationalist movements in Wales Scotland.

Just like in the past, the two parties with the most power (Labour and Conservatives) want to keep the existing system because it advantages them, and the minority party wants to change the system because it disadvantages them. The system will only change because the electorate want it, and the flat Lib Dem vote doesn’t bode well for this prospect.

Enoch Powell (a leading voice in the anti-reform movement) believed the purpose of Parliament wasn’t to offer a reflection of society, and that it already offered adequate representation of interests, regions, and ideas. I don’t agree with this view, but some people do. A more representative Parliament will mean the million people who voted BNP will get more representation (to what extent depends on the system adopted), so this view does need to be considered.

FPTP forces MPs to be accountable to their local constituents, even if they didn’t get all their votes.

David Cameron just said at his speech that he expected to arrange a “Confidence and Supply Arrangement.” What the hell is that?

Wikileaks has released a video showing the needless killing of Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, his driver, Saeed Chmagh and up to a dozen others by an Apache helicopter in Baghdad, 2007.

Channel 4 News Senior Programme Editor Ed Fraser has called for a “William Peers-type inquiry” into the killing and cover-up, referring to the Peers Commission investigation into the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

The video footage directly contradicts what Major Brent Cummings, executive officer of the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, said to the media after the incident: “No innocent civilians were killed on our part deliberately. We took great pains to prevent that.”

The video was leaked to Wikileaks by US military whistleblowers after a Reuters Freedom of Information request failed gain access to the video.

Read the full transcript at the special website on the killing of Namir Noor-Edleen and Saeed Chmagh set up by Wikileaks.

The events shown in the video
In the first attack the Apache kills approximately eight individuals, including Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, who is clearly carrying a camera slung under his right arm.

Saeed Chmagh is injured by the first attack, and is seen limping away. The Apache gunner says over the radio that he is hoping Chmagh is carrying a weapon, so he can kill him.

A minibus, with several adults and two children inside appears on the scene. Several adults, clearly unarmed, leave the minibus and attempt to carry Chmagh away.

The Apache gunner then gains clearance to shoot, and hits the minibus repeatedly.

Later, a US military patrol arrives. A Humvee can been seen driving over the body of Namir Noor-Eldeen. Soldiers can be heard joking over the intercom about this.

The video also shows US soldiers on the ground carrying two wounded child from the destroyed minivan.

My version:

Labour announced the winner of its competition for the next Labour ad, and I just couldn’t help myself.

I’m helping to run a campaign to free Benjamin Geen, a former nurse who was wrongly convicted of killing and harming his patients. Please check out the campaign site, where we will be posting news and information about the case as it proceeds. Make sure you add your email address to the mailing list so we can keep you updated.

Also please read the Independent on Sunday’s report into Ben’s case, and have a look at the Innocence Network for more information on the London Innocence Project.

The biggest factor influencing the effectiveness of investigative journalism is the state and the laws within which it is being practiced. The effectiveness of journalism is often defined within the paradigm of “states”. Reporters Without Borders maintains the press freedom index, which ranks states according to their record of press freedom. Even in conversation the importance of the state in influencing journalism is repeated: we’ve all heard the stereotype that the British press (with its tabloid newspapers) scrutinises the behaviour and actions of politicians more effectively than the American press.

I believe that direct and indirect influence from the state system in which journalism is conducted is one of the biggest hindrances to the furthering of universal principles of investigative journalism, and that investigative journalism is most potent when it bypasses or overrides this influence. What should be desired is an international attitude to investigative journalism, based in the principles of international human rights law, and international cooperation. The international system of states is the biggest roadblock to this aim.

It’s useful to start with a country with one of the most powerful states in the modern world: China. Until relatively recently the Chinese state could have been said to have encouraged investigative journalism. Over the last 30 years, loosened party control of the media and new media outlets have firmly established investigative journalism practices within mainstream media. In the past party officials encouraged investigative journalists willing to spend time in digging out corruption. “These new journalistic developments were not in opposition to the party: on the contrary, the party leadership encouraged and supported many of them.”

This encouragement led to an institutionalization of investigative practices amongst some Chinese media organisations. Papers like Dahe Daily introduced investigative series like the “Public Opinion Monitoring Reports”, with the result of an increased revenue from 3.2 million RMB in 1997 to 300 million in 2003. Unfortunately, when the state decided it didn’t like specific publications of practices, it could easily fix the situation in its favour. Southern Weekend, once a publication looked up to by aspiring young journalists in China for its crusading investigations into corruption and against those who abused their power, is neutered today. In 2001 the Communist Party assigned a new editor-in-chief to the paper, who took the paper in the direction of “serving the middle class” and providing “constructive opinions,” journalism speak for not very interesting.

Even in the UK and Europe, the state is one of the biggest factors affecting investigative journalism. Libel laws in the UK mean that journalistic organisations are only free to publish information to the extent to which they can afford expensive libel lawyers. One notable example is the pressure imposed on Chambers and Partners due to libel challenges [UPDATE: this original mentioned the "demise of Chambers and Partners", when in fact that publication is alive and well. Apologies.]. Large newspaper groups also tend to apologise and settle rather than fight expensive court battles, and will only fight on cases based on important principles, or when they know they can win. This situation can be largely blamed on the lack of political will to change these libel laws. Although Jack Straw has announced a review (primarily aimed at libel tourism, rather than the cost of defending actions), he has also chosen to include the views of Carter Ruck in the review, a firm which uses the laws to the highest effect.

The policies of the individual countries of the European Union can also be seen in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In December 2009 the court ruled in favour of The Financial Times, the Independent, the Guardian, the Times and Reuters in their appeal against a judgment asking them to hand over documents relating to Belgian brewing firm, Interbrew, upholding the principle of protection of anonymous sources. A month before that, the Court ruled that “indefinite liability” for internet publications did not breach Article 10 of the Convention.

Although the ECHR may uphold tested principles like the anonymity of sources, this latter case shows that it may still have some way to go in battling the U.K.’s strict libel laws. The political will to copy the US “single publication rule” and overrule the precedent established by cases like Godfrey vs Demon Internet 1999 is not present within the EU.

The tax situation is one area of the law that indirectly shapes the strength and form of investigative journalism in a country. In the United States, individuals donating money to organisations classed as 503(c)(3) under the tax code can deduct donation payments from their tax return. That has created an extremely strong and vibrant set of foundations and charities supporting investigative journalism. In the United Kingdom, donations to charity are tax free, but donors cannot claim the deductible amount: the extra 22 per cent deduction is added onto the donation. The UK does not have a tradition of foundations supporting investigative journalism.

Gavin MacFadyean of the Centre for Investigative Journalism, speaking at an NUJ event, said that this is one reason why 75 per cent of investigative journalism in the United States is conducted by bodies other than the “mainstream media”. Foundations like the Knight Foundation, the Sandler Foundation and the Fund for Investigative Journalism in the U.S. are not matched by their equivalents in the U.K. Further exacerbating the problem, bodies like the Investigations Fund, run via the Centre for Investigative Journalism, are only able to take on a production/funding role, rather than a more efficient publishing role, due to a combination of the U.K.’s libel laws and their less secure funding.

As we have seen through these examples of state control, the practice of investigative journalism is massively shaped by the state in which it takes place. One possible solution to this problem is to remove investigative journalism from the constraints of the state system, a prospect raised by the actions of Wikileaks.org. As part of a drive to raise awareness and find funding, the organisers of the site have embarked on an initiative to try and create an “offshore publication centre” akin to a “Switzerland of bits” in Iceland. Wikileaks hopes to establish a safe haven for investigative journalism that takes “the source protection laws from Sweden […] the First Amendment from the United States, [and the] Belgium protection laws for journalists.”

Sources
P.337 Tong and Sparks, Investigative Journalism in China Today.
P.344 Tong and Sparks.
http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2009/10/britains-libel-laws-are-killing-investigative-journalism.html
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/media_law_prof_blog/2009/12/european-court-of-human-rights-says-media-can-protect-anonymous-sources.html
http://www.out-law.com/page-9858
http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2010/01/18/nujs-making-journalism-pay-online-five-points/
WikiLeaks’ spokesman Daniel Schmitt at the Chaos Communication Congress (26C3) in Berlin. December, 2009

Part one of the discussion.

Part two of the discussion (note: I missed the last 15ish minutes as my laptop battery couldn’t quite hack it).

Full blog post coming tomorrow at Catch21.

Present at the event:
Guido Fawkes: http://order-order.com/
Jonathan Isaby of Conservative Home: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/
Sunny Hundal of Liberal Conspiracy: http://liberalconspiracy.org/
Mick Fealty of Slugger O’Toole: http://www.sluggerotoole.com/
Nick Cohen: http://nickcohen.net/

Video of Nick Cohen talking about the trappings of technology as saviour.

Video of Nick Cohen “responding” to an audience comment.

And Paul Staines revealing information and advice about his commenters.