Michael Jermey has undoubtedly had continued success in both his careers at ITN and more recently at ITV, culminating in his recent victory in being selected as one of the three broadcasters to transmit the televised election debates. A former student of Brasenose and editor of, you guessed it, Cherwell during the 80s, he has had the career that every young journalist aspires to. Today, with so many of us leaving Oxford and going straight into great money in finance and law, I thought I’d find out a little more about an industry that isn’t shouted about on the Milk Round, and of course delve into Jermey’s recent success with the TV debates, and his own experiences at Oxford.

Jermey may have left university around 25 years ago but I wanted to find out how he started his career back in the 80s; has that much really changed, or do the core values still apply when striving for a job in journalism? ‘I wanted to go into journalism before I went to Oxford and all the time I was in Oxford, and I was absolutely committed to a career in journalism. It was difficult then, as it is now; I wrote hundreds of letters to every media outlet I could think of. I got hundreds of rejections. I was eventually very lucky to be taken on as the most junior current affairs researcher at central television. I started at current affairs; I was then fortunate to get a place as a trainee on the ITN trainee scheme. That was, at that time, a great grounding in television journalism- ITN gave me enormous opportunities over the years to follow.

‘The advice I would give to people wanting to go into journalism now is follow their dream. Volunteer to work wherever you can, get whatever grounding you can. I think there are a number of very good post-graduate courses now, and if it’s what you want to do and you’re persistent enough about it, and you have some ability, you will succeed. Those first steps in are tough, but you need persistence and dedication to it.’

Yet things have certainly changed; we have moved from daily news updates being an innovation to constant interactivity through the internet and social networking- the place for TV news journalism is surely diminishing. When I asked Jermey if there would always be a place for TV news, he quickly qualified, ‘Always is a long word’. But did current times show that the market for TV news was falling and would indeed continue to fall?

‘I think one of the interesting things is that during the era of massive growth in digital and social media there is still an awful lot of television. Television viewing is not dropping. In fact people are spending more time interacting with different screens through the day. And the fact that you can now get television on the move actually fills in more timing. If you look at a number of the surveys, a number of them actually suggest that television viewing has gone up.

‘I think that people over the years ahead will continue to consume media in developing forms and varying forms. Television itself will change. But I think video as a medium for news will continue forever, whether you call that television news or whether you call that something else. Perhaps that matters rather less, the power of pictures and the ability to communicate information through the combination of words and pictures, which was one of the most powerful developments of the 20th century, I’m sure will continue in varying forms in the 21st.’

Indeed, the TV election debates in which Jermey was heavily involved were followed by people not only on television, but through social networking sites and the internet as well. With about 10 million tuning into ITV’s first election debate, it was an undisputable success, with an audience that could compete with the viewing figures for an England football International:

‘I think they were a great thing for British journalism. People had wanted to have election debates between the leaders at elections right back to the 1960s when the Kennedy/ Nixon debate happened in the States, and somebody at each election had normally resisted- normally the incumbent, normally the prime minister hadn’t seen an advantage in coming down to the same level as their opponents and I think the broadcasters this time persuaded the parties to sign up to an agreement that made the three debates actually happen, which everybody was very pleased about. It was a proud moment for all three broadcasters that there were debates, and that they had such a positive impact on the election. I think people watched them in large numbers and they thought the public debate was really engaging, they thought on television and on other forms of media.’

But Michael Jermey wasn’t always at the forefront of broadcasting innovation; he did his time at Cherwell, editing the paper during 1984, and it would seem some things certainly haven’t changed: ‘ Yeah, during the time I was editor of Cherwell we were threatened with being sued several times. Nobody successfully pursued that, whether that was because ultimately a student newspaper couldn’t damage a reputation or whether it was because they didn’t have a case, I don’t know.’

So it would seem scandal isn’t anything new at Cherwell, although it would appear computers are a relatively new addition, ‘Working on Cherwell was then, as I suspect it is now, a great deal of fun, and the chance to take a first step in journalism, working with other people who had enormous enthusiasm for what we did. And in the era pre mobile phones, pre texting, there was a lot of walking around Oxford to find your sources, to find your interviews, and you put scripts together on typewriters and old-fashioned type-setting rather than on computers. There wasn’t a computer in the Cherwell office in 1984, there probably was within a year or so. You know, it was an exciting time and a time I remember with great fondness, even to this day, and I’ve got friends that I met at either Brasenose or who I met through Cherwell, and I would encourage anybody who’s interested in journalism to work on one the student media outlets at Oxford.’
Michael has come a long way from his days at Oxford and has seen his career soar into success, in a field that is simply the opposite of ‘as easy as ABC’ to break into. However, memories of his time at Oxford are still hard to shake, and we end our conversation with his reflections: ‘The best memories are actually of friends and conversation and the arguing over ideas, and three years when you’re mixing with people who are interested in exploring ideas and different approaches to the world – you might not get that again with that intensity. It is a time I look back on with great fondness and happy memories, and you do make friends who you do know for life.’ I haven’t even left yet and I’m getting nostalgic.

I think everyone has been in one of those conversations with one of those couples who almost make you feel obliged to ask how they first met. Or maybe lack of conversation has led you to the same easy question. But in the history of this classic Q&A has anyone actually ever been given the reply: “Oh we met on an internet dating website”? I certainly haven’t.

Internet dating is the Voldemort of the dating world; no one speaks of it because of the sheer fear it inspires, in this case the fear of being marked with the scar of complete desperation. For me it conjures up images of balding old men pretending to be the Calvin Klein model they’ve googled and set as their profile picture in order to lure in the younger woman; it should come with the tagline ‘if you can’t date in the real world, try the internet.’

However, nowadays, internet dating gives you everything upfront: your interests and what, or should I say, who, you’re looking for are laid out for all to see. You don’t have to go on several dates to realise you actually have nothing in common and that your respective interests of wrestling and knitting can’t be reconciled.

At the top of the pile there’s match.com, with reportedly over 20 million members and websites in 25 countries covering 8 different languages. But if mainstream isn’t your thing there’s sure to be something to suit your niche. All in the name of good research, I decided to take a look at a few and join some myself. Not for genuine reasons- this was purely experimental (we hope). In my search for the best and most bizarre sites I came across some absolute gems: tallmingle.com described itself as “The best and largest site in the world for meeting tall friends, tall singles, and tall admirers”… “Tall admirers”, since when was that a thing? The idea of an affinity of height meaning an affinity of heart is surely a pretty alien one, but I suppose common ground could be found, complaining about low level ceilings and the price of getting your trousers lengthened and so forth. And admittedly things were about to get more peculiar when I stumbled across womenbehindbars.com – advertising itself as such, “These female prisoners are looking for love, marriage, pen-pals, and a good solid relationship with men and women in the free world. We have had several marriages and countless relationships.”

So you’ve done the crime and now have to pay the time… with a bit of internet dating on the side; surely this wasn’t advertised in court? But this site boasts results, showing the scope of internet dating even in the most adverse situations (plus the lack of a need to actually date people face-to-face does make it ideal for those in jail or under house arrest).

So it was that I found myself signing up to two internet dating sites, having squabbled with my fellow lifestyle editor about who was going to actually do this- when my profiles get found in 10 years time and my (non-existent) career in the public eye is severely damaged, she will be sorry. Or not. I decided to go for the notorious beautifulpeople.com and the less well-known, but equally ridiculous bluesmatch.com, exclusive to those who have been to Oxbridge. One incredibly vain, one incredibly pretentious, what’s not to like?

beautifulpeople.com

As the name suggests, shallow is this website’s middle name. The idea is that you start your profileand go on a trial period when people vote on your photo and decide whether to let you become a full member or not. Thus, in the face of such poor values I decided to make myself incredibly weird (see profile below)…My interests included the sitar and the line “I hope one day to become a professional musician so the world can hear the rhythm of my soul”. And the photo was equally bizarre; I won’t lie I staged it for this occasion, I don’t usually hang out in the sort of garb on exhibit here: a cricketing hat, 80s gilet, size 11 Timberland boots and a leather glove, not to mention the sitar. I didn’t know what this world of ‘beautiful’ people would make of me, I was almost excited about the onslaught. But within minutes of joining I was getting messages on my wall asking me about my sitar, and sharing with me their various musical interests- this was going better than I hoped. Perhaps beautifulpeople.com was a place for people to talk about interests and passions, rather than boast of their good looks and seek to somehow find someone anywhere near equal to their beauty. However, the illusion of this being anything more than a seedy dating site was quickly shattered by an email from a man older than my parents, yes older, with the charming line: “You look sweet in your photo, bet you ain’t just sweet ;)”… Cheeky wink? I’m a third of your age! My mind had been made up: shallow and shady, this was not a place to hang out. And a piece of advice if you’re thinking of joining, do not add your Uni account as your email address… Alongside emails from various tutors I get messages telling me that ‘Eduardo’ has hugged me. I can safely promise you that Eduardo and I have never met, let alone hugged.

bluesmatch.com

So maybe I would have more success with bluesmatch.com. Plus this was the closest chance I’d have to ever having ‘Blue’ anywhere near my name (my sporting talent has shockingly been largely unrecognised at Oxford). The idea at the outset sounds incredibly pretentious: a place for only Oxbridge people to hang out, no riff-raff allowed. And so yet again I created another ridiculous alter-ego (see profile above). This time a Jack Wills (yes , the photo is staged), Kukui V.I.P- maaaate -loving socialite. However, once you joined the website you could sort of see the point, as many people had naturally similar interests and experiences to share. Of course the element of sleaze was still a problem; as a website for people who have been to Oxbridge, not for those who are currently still at it, the clientele was more than a little older than me. Divorced, retired, (almost) OAP, yet still emailing a 20 year old…concerning.

Bluesmatch.com does offer something else though: the chance for the website doing the hard work for you. They offer you matches based on your profile, and have even given me a few 100% compatible options. The first 100% match they gave me was fair enough: a young guy who described himself as ‘sporty but nice’, a good fit for someone who had stated in their profile, ‘I love rugby guys- if you’re not a blue, I’m not interested. LOL.’ Nevertheless, the reliability of bluesmatch’s matching service was about to plummet with the next 100% match putting me, a self-confessed 20 year old party girl in my profile, with a 60 (at best) year old, ‘walker, bridge player, opera buff, gourmet and self-employed legal consultant’. Wow, they’d gone off-piste with that suggestion.
Ultimately, internet dating is more successful for the older
generation, the divorced or retired who don’t get so many opportunities to meet new people, who are interested in the same things or who have shared the same experiences. But here, while you’re at Uni, you’re exposed to new people of your age every day, and quite frankly you’re as likely to find your soul-mate at Fuzzy Ducks as on any of the websites I tried.