"Mickey-mouse degrees"

Today's moan is directed at the influx of arrogant journalists picking fun at those spending thousands of pounds and three years of their life on so-called "Mickey Mouse degrees".

Initially, I was annoyed that my degree (Music Journalism and Media) is most probably classified as such, but then I thought even all those graduates in Golf Management and Surf Studies have paid in excess of £18,000 and three years hard graft only to be down-trodden in the broadsheets by a plethora of ignoramuses.

It seems incredibly easy to just point and poke fun at these type of degrees without actually looking into the individual modules and how they can be applied to future work. My degree is deceptively broad in that it covered various journalistic styles, regulations, and ethics against a backdrop of the history and workings of the media. It is forgivable to assume that I am only trained to write music reviews. I can tell you now, I would not have wasted my time if that was the case.

I agree to an extent that there are some courses such as Equestrian Psychology that probably don't cut it as a degree subject. However, I'm not going to insult the efforts of wannabe Equestrian Psychologists by labelling their degree as a Mickey Mouse subject.

In my opinion, University today is not all about the specific degree subject. I've learned so much about living independently and about myself (bit cheesy.. yes) as well as attributes like prioritising workloads, organisational and teamwork skills which funnily enough always seem to crop up in the personal specifications section of job applications. That's the whole point of going to Uni isn't it? To get a job?

I'm going to end with a reference from The Times newspaper article: "'Mickey Mouse' degrees?" which states that with regards to the Golf Management degree, "Graduates finish with a degree and a Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) qualification. Even in these straitened times, over 90% find graduate-level work within six months". I bet the odds are a lot bleaker for the 'classic' degree subjects!

Kay Burley - the uninformed, tactless woman who is an embarrassment to journalism.

I've added Sky News broadcast journalist, Kay Burley, to the list of people I'd like to give a good kicking (others include Carol McGiffin and Amanda Holden) because of this interview:

Firstly, people didn't vote for a hung parliament you stupid woman! I don't remember wandering into the ballot booth and seeing a box on the paper with 'Hung Parliament' next to it!

Secondly, LET THE MAN ANSWER THE QUESTION! Why bother asking those inane questions if you're not going to let him answer it!

I didn't realise this was the same woman that also made Peter Andre cry, strangle a female photographer, make jokes about the ash on Joe Biden's forehead (on Ash Wednesdsay) and ask the wife of the Suffolk Strangler, "Do you think if you'd have had a better sex life, this wouldn't have happened?" How has this woman still got a job??? Argh!

Bloody journos!

Eeeh just look at this shameless hounding of an old woman by the press. My moan isn't at Gordon Brown as I think he has a right to have an opinion. However, in his line of work it's obviously incredibly important not to be so bleeding careless about broadcasting it before an election. The moan is directed at the reporters' over-the-top persistance at getting a reaction out of this woman and their incredible arrogance in thinking that their job objectives have priority over her privacy.

As a journo student, I recognise that it's important to be persistant but they overstep the mark. Is it just me or does it seem they are asking questions just for the sake of asking a question? What really got my goat was how they chuckled that Mrs Duffy had the sheer audacity to answer her phone while being on "sky news and many other channels". How fascinatingly patronising that Sky News man is as he interupts her phone conversation with his hand on her shoulder, presuming that the only reason she'd get a phone call at that moment in time is because she's on the telly.

What a pair of twats.

Bloody Politics!

I'm a bit fed up of the government in this country. I'm not just one of those people that are jumping on the bandwagon after the expenses scandal, I am genuinely annoyed that when I start work (and pay taxes)... I'm just handing over my wages to these pillocks and letting them do whatever the f*ck they want with it.

It seems a bit odd that in this so called democracy there are essentially 3 political parties to choose from. Correct me if I'm wrong but 2 of them seem incredibly similar and the one that makes most sense to me is constantly labelled as 'as a wasted vote'.

I'm not interested in point-scoring and blatent PR stunts like Gordon Brown on Piers Morgan or David Cameron on Titchmarsh. All I want are honest politicians that lay down their manifesto with big changes to so-called 'Broken Britain'. If I don't agree with that particular party's views then I'll choose a different party with different plans.

The reason this is baffling me now is reading about public spending cuts on our defence industry. I cannot fathom why this is even considered. Without a sufficiently funded defence, we'll end up with no country to govern anyway! In a similar article, I read that politicans outside the 60-minute radius of Parliament are allowed to claim for a second home but only to the value of a one-bedroom flat. Well woop-de-do. Oh hang on, what was that? £1, 450 a month?!! Why should anyone have to subsidise a one-bedroom flat for an MP to stay in at the value of that?? I've seen some of their houses, they can afford that kind of luxury themselves! I don't know what flat prices are like in London but I can bet your ass that a grand per month isn't your bog-standard bedsit!

I'm not going to pretend I'm a political expert but why don't they cap certain people's wages that are slightly ridiculous. e.g Directors and executives at the BBC (who are incidentally using tax-payers money) or high-flying bankers? The PM of this country should hands-down earn the highest salary.. no-one has a greater responsibililty than running the country. Those at the BBC who are using licence-payers money should definitely get their wages capped and the excess should be ploughed back into public spending.

It's absolutely ridiculous that nurses, the army and the like get paid the amount they do for what they do and that the government are talking about cutting down public spending! .. all the while BBC execs are driving home to their posh pads in their extravagant cars and dining out in the best restaurants with that £145.50 pp per year we're forking out.

I know who I'm voting for in the next election. I don't agree with the whole 'I'm not voting because I don't care about politics/I don't like anyone' bullshit. That's how idiots like the BNP get in. There are plenty of different parties, even if they aren't the publicity mongers like Labour or Conservative, so use your vote wisely. Politics is important, it determines how this country is run. So don't be a dickhead and decide.

Heavage & Shirt-lifters

Why have men suddenly decided it's sexy to wear plunging necklines to show off their pecs? JLS are by far the worst offenders. For every performance, at least one of em dons a flimsy low-cut t-shirt presumably to get some screams off the girls/inflate their ego?

The snap below is just a little snippet of their 'One Shot' video where it's man boobs galore. I don't mind looking at JLS's bodies.. they're quite fit... it's just the blatent vanity that's a bit cringey. Is this really necessary....??

Another vanity crime JLS are guilty of is the 'shirt'lifting' kind. (N.B I am using 'shirt-lifter' as its literal meaning, not the one you're thinking of on Urban Dictionary!) Presumably for the same reason they pull their collars down, they also give their girly fans some toned ab action.... as demonstrated by Aston below...






 

Blaaatently just to get some screams.. why even bother wearing a shirt Aston? At least JLS are decent looking fellas, it's the less attractive heavage-showing, shirt-lifters that are the real problem! Par example.... this guy:

Oh god. Although in fairness, Cowell isn't a renowned shirt-lifter.. just a serial hairy chest barer. As of today, I'm on pec-watch.. will this trend ascend? I'll update this accordingly.

I'm not a real woman?

My moan of today is to stick up for the gangly girls out there who society has decided to downtread in place of "real women" with curves in all the right places.

Remember the time when Nicole/Mischa/Posh/Lindsay and all that lot graced the pages of Heat with their tiny frames because it was fashionable to be a size 0 or just a skinny girl? ...while all over the globe women were retorting, "Well I'm a real woman" because they had boobs and hips and whatever else. Well yes, times have moved on and it's all about the meat now.. curvy women with hourglass shapes etc etc.

What about the girls who are naturally skinny and haven't got big boobs? Why does that make them less of a woman? I can completely appreciate that Nicole Richie most probably had a strict diet which means she was malnourished and that is damaging for young girls to look up to.. but not everyone who is skinny eats two celery sticks a day and runs 100 hours on a treadmill each week!

I am a skinny girl. I have a good bum, if I do say so myself, but there's not much up top. I eat like a horse, don't overly exercise (just walking to uni and back is really all I do) and I don't get any bigger. The odd month I might have too many burgers but it goes to my hips and nowhere else... so how is it fair that through no fault of my own, I'm made to feel less of a woman by the media? Never mind having difficulty to find dresses that fit over my hips but doesn't leave a space where some boobs should be!

Why is it curvy v skinny? Why can't it just be both?? There should be more effort put into girls making sure they feel good in themselves whatever their shape or size or even what they look like. Give it til they're 60 and looks won't matter to them anyway!

I still believe the media is very much to blame for girls not being happy in their own skin, especially magazines who have the photoshopping tool to make their models/celebrities look immaculate. If girls think they should look like the digitally-altered faces in the magazines they read, there is definitely a problem.

To illustrate this, here's a video from Dove's 'Campaign For Real Beauty' with the conclusion "No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted"...... shocking.

Pissed, legless, rat-arsed, shit-faced, wankered, drunk... no.

Sometimes I just don't feel like a proper student. I just can't be arsed to get drunk anymore. I love the inebriated feeling of dancing with your arms in the air like you just don't care it's just the morning after that spoils it.

It annoys me that as a student, it is a requirement that you must love getting leathered at any opportunity. It may aswell be in UCAS agreement that you must piss half your money away to pay for an earth-shattering headache and to throw up curry/chips/vodka until 3pm the next day. I have the added expectation that being from Newcastle, this is just part of the daily routine.

Now at the ripe old age of 21 years and 8 months, I feel like enough's enough. Is it so bad to prefer going to Alton Towers with your mates or the zoo?? I'm putting all this down the fact I have had about 5/6 years experience of getting so hammered my mates/randomers had to give me piggy backs home, throwing up in bushes/roads/outside taxi windows, going to the toilet in nettle bushes and generally making an arse out myself only to wake up the next day and recoil in embarrassment at what I've done. For some people, coming to uni is the key to a world of corkys, vodka and The Codfather which has previously been hidden under the parental plantpot so I don't blame the kids for indulging a bit!

I just want to make it clear, I'm not so past it to refuse a few vodka and cokes after exams, deadlines, birthdays and other occasions.. I'd just rather stay in with a cup of tea watching shite TV with a takeaway than gracing Huddersfield nightlife every Monday and Wednesday. Let's face it.. there's only really Camel and Tokyo to choose from. Nuff said.

Let's see if my opinion stays the same with some pennies in my pocket back up in the toon....

Music industry? It is not the end.

The downfall of the music industry is at the forefront of anyone's mind who enjoys music or would like a career in the biz. Formats are changing, physical sales are speedily declining, music download thieves are rife and online streaming programmes means there's less money circulating around the industry. That precise observation is something that industry bigwigs are going to have to come to terms with if they don't want to cock up what's left of the music culture.

I'm not writing this as a music fan, who is very happy that I can stream tunes from Spotify and easily download illegal songs, transfer them on to my mp3 player and shun any guilt that may befall me when I hear that great band's album before it's released.. because... despite that being the case now, this behaviour will make it impossible to sustain the music industry for much longer. Which is why I don't understand why music execs seem to be sitting on their arses and not cracking down (no pun intended) on this behaviour that resonates throughout the globe.

Firstly, why bother with three strikes when it comes to catching illegal downloaders? The judge in a local magistrates wouldn't apply this rule to someone who just mugged an old woman, so why use it for something that's equally illegal? Also, if anybody can let me know why Limewire hasn't been shut down yet, I'd love to know. Why doesn't Sony get the work experience guy to spend a day searching for such applications and forwarding the results to the person who can pull their plugs?

The mathematics is this: illegal downloads + less sales = less money for the artists. Pop fans (myself included) harp up and say, "Well this is fine, the money's in live music". Well I had a long think about this in the shower, I concluded that this is true for major pop stars, some of them could probably take a cut of money out their wages, it'll be a long time before they're seen down at the Jobcentre. For obscure or new bands, their journey to making enough money to sustain a career of music will be more troublesome but I completely disagree with the opinion it's all over for them. I think it might even be a good thing.

The perceived problem for smaller bands, new bands, obscure bands is that if people are illegally downloading their material, they're making no money out of sales, so they can't afford to tour and make more music and will eventually disband. Well the internet is a wonderful thing, it should be made easier for bands to set up their own "music shop" on their websites or a collective music shop for similar sounding artists.

I realise that these smaller bands will not have much by way of promotion, but even now, fans of this music don't just stumble across music on Smash Hits or Radio 1, they go looking for it. There are still plenty of platforms to promote music on the internet.. YouTube, MySpace, Facebook etc. If there were multiple genre music shops dotted about the internet, there could be a download chart on there too.

Even if it cost a bit of money, this would filter out all the amateurish, musical crap from people who just fancied being in a band for a day and whack up a track or two on Myspace. It'd leave the dedicated musicians to have a real shot at being successful. Yes it would be a longer process of raising the money to properly record songs, promote them, sell them and then go on tour and hope for the best, but it's still possible.

I also think that the concept of a weekly music magazine is old-fashioned. Why would you pay to view pages about music when you can the multi-media experience of the internet for free? Advertising revenues would increase and more money would be accumulated if professional blogs and music websites charged for their content (I'm speaking from a music biz viewpoint here, not a music fan). Then maybe a monthly magazine with a round up and physical gifts/cd/whatever would flourish alongside it. If this happened, I would have no qualms in paying a subscription for Popjustice.

We've got it good with Spotify too, all that free music for a couple of adverts every 20mins? Bargain! Warner have come out claiming it's had a damaging effect on sales and of course it would. It's an incredible discovery for music fans but record companies have been forced to sign up to it because it's a last ditch attempt at making money out of music. If I wanted to bleed every penny I could out of the music buying public, I'd allow the singles from bands/artists to be available on Spotify but then charge to listen/download the album.. like back in the old days when a single, on one level, was a promotional tool for the album.

We are living in the golden age of media freebies.. free films, free music, free tv programmes... it can't last much longer if top bosses want to maximise profit for their companies. Music industry chiefs need to accept that music is not the focal point of youth culture anymore, it is inevitable that there just cannot be as much money lining their pockets. Once this is firmly etched into their brains, they can begin to think of way to drain money out of a new era in music consumption. It is not the end.

Playing with N-Dubz & Mr H.

Slight more light hearted moaning today.. just had to comment on the latest music video offering from N-Dubz and Kanye's mate, Mr Hudson. If you haven't seen it already.. here it is...






A few things to note about this video:

• How uncomfortable Mr Hudson looks. It must be difficult working with worldwide stars such as Kanye West and Jay-Z, only to be dragged back to the heart of London to work with number one charva pop band N-Dubz. (Just to note.. I actually quite like N-Dubz music and I know that Dappy's a twat).
• Who goes to bed with black, glittery, leathery looking pants on?! Get down to Primark and buy some pj bottoms love.
• What the f**k is Dappy wearing on his head??? The usual elongated bobble hat has doubled into a cross between a pilot and a jester's hat.
• How much Mr Hudson sings out the side of his mouth.

It's a pretty good song, standard N-Dubz hit.

Smear Tests

Today's moan is at the government. Prepare yourselves for a lot of these as I have become quite interested in politics and how tragic our future is going to be if there isn't some kind of change. i.e lying, pompous dickheads out... honest folk with common sense, in.

First on my agenda is the issue of smear tests. I recently joined a facebook group called 'Rosie's Cancer Story'.. it was set up by a girl from South Shields who has a type of cervical cancer and wants to update her friends/family at once about what's happening to her. She also hopes it'll raise awareness about the disease.

(If anyone wants to show their support or follow her journey -> http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=ts#/group.php?gid=247631468067)

She's such a brave girl and I think it's very selfless to publish what's happening to her at such a difficult time. If anything else, it'll also help people who have recently been diagnosed to see what may happen. I can't even begin to imagine what would go through your brain if you were diagnosed with cancer but at least some questions about what to expect will be answered through her diary.

The main focus of today's moan is that the government are refusing to lower the age that woman can have a smear test. Currently, you have to be 25 to qualify for this test yet I read somewhere (can't find the exact reference now) that cervical cancer is one of the biggest killers of women from the ages of 20 to 29. If that's the case then why on god's earth are women from the ages of 20 to 24 not even allowed to be tested???

Furthermore, the HPV vaccine is currently in a "catch-up stage" whereby girls aged between 16 and 18 from autumn 2009, and girls aged between 15 and 17 from autumn 2010 will be vaccinated... what about the rest of us who don't quality for a smear test and are too old to be vaccinated because "it would not be cost effective in preventing cervical cancer"????

Of course the health minister hit back with a plethora of reasons why the age limit should remain at 25 but surely it's worth the risks to get yourself checked out rather than dying of a completely preventable disease? Or if the risks are simply too high, how about researching into a new procedure that's relatively safe?

The reason that this has aggravated me so suddenly is because of a petition that I've been sent to sign. It's from a lady whose 23 year-old daughter passed away from the disease who was due to have her first smear test the year after. This is the message she has written on the petition:

my daughter sadly passed away on 17th august 2009 to cervical cancer aged just 23 years, leaving 2 little girls aged 5 and 18 months. if the age limit hadn't been changed from 20 to 25 in 2004, my daughter would have had her first smear in 2005 and would still be here today. too many young girls under the age of 25 are dying unnecessarily the age limit now needs to be lowered back to 20, please show your support by signing this petition

Imagine if that was your mother, sister, daughter, cousin etc..?

Here's the link to her petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/smear20/

This is a slightly more serious moan than I orginally intended this blog to contain but there you are. It's an important issue that wound me up. I abhorrently disagree that a certain regime can dictate my life... deciding at what point I am able to test for cancer, raising tuition fees, cutting back on public spending etc. How about abolishing expenses and paying for your mortgage/commute/duck shelters/porn with your salary like everybody else? I have absolutely no faith in our political parties whatsoever which is a terrifying thought as one of them has to run this country.

Anyway ciao for now, thanks for reading :)
p.s remember to sign the petition!!

McElderry vs RATM/Simon Cowell vs The People

It's probably a bit late to voice my opinion on the whole Christmas number one fiasco of 2009. If anyone was too busy living in a cave at the end of the year, metal band Rage Against the Machine grabbed the number one spot leaving poor Joe McEldreee of X Factor fame dwindling at number two with a horrendously bland cover of Miley Cyrus' The Climb.

As you may have gathered from my last post, I'm an X factor fanatic. However, this does not mean that I would prefer a regurgitated, predictably monotonous single to clinch the overly coveted Christmas 2009 number one slot. I like Joe McElderry, he's a sweet boy and he's got a good voice. I feel a bit sorry for Joe in that he now has the stigma of being 'the only X-factor winner not to have a Christmas number one'. But.... it shouldn't be like that in the first place.

What I got out of AAAALLLL the coverage/hooplah about this 'chart battle' is... the X factor winner should not automatically get a number one. It shouldn't be expected. Which is why I was very pleased that RATM fans (or anti-X factor peeps.. there are a lot of them!) bought the single and pushed it to the top of the charts. I also don't give a monkeys whose bank account the money cher-chinged in to or how the two record labels were somehow intertwined. What I found fascinating about it was how a social network site (Facebook) was the platform on which thousands of people joined together to fight the X factor and what it represents. Moreover, RATM pipped Joe to the post on downloads alone. Even with the added advantage of physical CD sales and discounted online single sales, Geordie Joe came up the rear (no alternative meaning intended).

It's a shame that the chart system is going down the pan, nobody seems to care anymore. A number one single isn't as cherished as it once was. RATM vs Joe McElderry made it interesting again, I wonder if that's the last time? Maybe this event also shows that the X Factor isn't such as huge media giant sucking up and shitting out all that's good in music. It just shows that if enough people care then something can be done. It's just a sad fact that music isn't the number one priority anymore. Xboxes and all that are getting in the way.

Just to clarify.. I do love X Factor, as an entertainment programme, not necessarily a music one. I enjoy watching bad auditions and then following the genuinely talented people because I enjoy watching good singers. As for John and Edward, they weren't the best singers but I was so happy they stayed in the competition as long as they did. They were the most entertaining out of the rest of them and didn't deserve half of the flack that people gave them (and still are). They were just two dillusional lads from Ireland who want to fulfil their aspirations of singing like the Backstreet Boys so they auditioned for this programme. It was the four judges who allowed them to progress through bootcamp, Louis Walsh put them through to the final twelve and the public kept them in until whichever week they were booted out. None of it was their fault and there was genuine hate circulating around the press, the internet, the streets! Poor lads.

Anyway, enough ranting about John and Edward. I think I've vented some steam on the X factor subject. Everything worked out in the end: Rage Against the Machine got Christmas number one, Joe managed to get a number one the next week and Jedward are releasing a single (with Vanilla Ice.... oh dear).