It’s some 600 years since Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg was born in the historic German city of Mainz. After moving to Strasbourg, dabbling in a few trades and getting caught up in a marital legal case we don’t know much about, the son of a merchant took out a loan for a contraption that would revolutionise communications and, in truth, change the world. By 1450 Gutenberg’s printing press was up and running, and five years later his most famous output, the 42-line Gutenberg Bible, was published.

The modern-day outcome of the invention credited to Gutenberg couldn’t be much further from the 180 or so Latin prints that appeared in the mid-15th century. They say the morning papers have replaced morning prayers, and today’s media — save for the brief Thought for the Day the BBC puts out to silence the traditionalists — suffers the odd indictment or two, or seven, for being an amoral and godless defamer. The British press are as fierce as they come. Tony Blair’s send-off to the media was a calculated stab in a speech to Reuters journalists, singling out the The Independent as an “impact” paper and branding the industry a “feral beast” — the title of this series of posts from the home of mass printing. He may well be right.

The aim of this blog is to study how the modern press fares in its own spiritual stomping ground, and how all the stereotypes we had of the Germans are completely and entirely accurate. Germany has its tabloids to match The Sun, but its broadsheets are dull in appearance, so I’ll report back to you on whether they’re actually any fun to read, how they portray things and where they stand on political spectra. I’ll share with you the best (and worst) of the German media, giving you links for the benefit of the German speakers reading this. For those of you who don’t speak German — not a problem now, but there’ll be a test at the end. And of course I’ll translate anything important for the sake of the Little Englanders. Expect brief updates every couple of days and more substantial weekly contributions once a week. Please post your comments too — I want to know your views on the blog and the subject of it.

Just a few miles to the east of Gutenberg’s birthplace is the financial hub of Frankfurt am Main, where I’m blogging from on my year away from Oxford. Frankfurt is to Mainz what today’s fierce press is to Gutenberg’s Bible — the fast-paced outcome of a capitalist 21st century. I like to see Frankfurt and Mainz as symbols of this change. One has a high-speed present, the other an engaging past which spawned the forefather of the information superhighway. Next time Blair wants to set the record straight, he knows where to lay the blame.

 Cherwell 24 is not responsible for the content of external links. 

Familiar to many as “Holly” from the BBC sitcom Red Dwarf, Norman Lovett will be coming to St Hilda’s Jacqueline du Pré Building on 19^th September by way of the Fringe. Ten-plus years of significant commercial success at the Edinburgh Festival have solidified his status as a successful comic whose stand-up trademark has always been witty observational comedy; by the standards of both precedent and the box office, Norman Lovett is funny.

The basis of his current show is a series of slides which provide Lovett with opportunities to make the dry comments which are his specialty. The concept has potential in theory; however, the execution quickly runs into difficulties. Lovett, instead of using the format as a springboard, constrains himself to brief comments which aren’t funny about photos which also aren’t funny. On the all-too-rare occasions where he does start to entertain, he cuts himself short and pushes onto the next slide.

Lovett also makes a couple of comments about the disabled. If you are going to do this, they have got be both very well judged and very funny. His were neither. It was uncomfortable listening. One man did leave and I wasn’t far off doing the same.

In a younger man, you might say that that the show at least had potential. For Lovett, it merely showed glimpses of what once was. I desperately wanted to like this show; instead, I ended up wishing I hadn’t gone.

A senior businessman who sits on the highest executive body in the University has stepped down after a group of dons launched an offensive to block his re-election.Sir Victor Blank, who is also Chairman of Lloyds TSB and a friend of the Prime Minister, announced on Tuesday (September 11) that he would not be pursuing a third term on the University Council.Council is the senior executive body in the University. It is composed of 26 members , four of whom are appointed from outside the University. These ‘external’ members have been at the heart of controversy surrounding Vice Chancellor John Hood’s reform package that was sunk by Congregation in December.
Council approved Sir Victor’s re-election by 15 – 2 but almost 250 members of Congregation signed a motion to force a debate and vote in the body described as the University’s ‘Parliament’. Sir Victor announced that he would stand down ahead of the vote scheduled for 26 September.The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that Sir Victor was keen to face Congregation but was persuaded not to by the Vice Chancellor to protect the reputation of the University.Despite standing down from Council, sources close to the body say that Sir Victor will continue to sit on the committee responsible for deciding whether John Hood will be nominated for re-election as Vice Chancellor when his current term expires in September 2009. Sir Victor chaired the committee that initially nominated Hood in 2004.Sir Victor was a key ally of Hood and used his business skills to promote a modernising agenda at the highest levels of University government.Bernard Taylor, another external member of Council, is also due for re-election. Dons in Congregation have not opposed him continuing in his post, focussing instead on Sir Victor.Council issued a statement praising Sir Victor’s “invaluable wisdom, insight, and expertise on many important issues facing the University during his time as a member”.
Cherwell24 is not responsible for the content of external links.

While the editors here at 24 have been updating our archives, I have been somewhat off-duty in my coverage of the Internet and student life. Instead. I’ve been busy pondering similar Web 2.0 issues for older folk at BusinessWeek magazine.

There the conversation has been all about how the Internet forces people to “nichify.” Which means it’s really hard to be mainstream and reach EVERYBODY when people are decentralized all over the web. You can spend all your time on a website devoted exclusively to people who have been fans of X band for over 10 years. Or a website just for people who work in public relations in Stockholm.

A fellow reporter tells me formerly mainstream brands like WetSeal (in the UK, think of TopShop) are having a hard time, because no one wants to be generic anymore. It used to be cool to fit in with the trends; now it’s cool to shop at thrift stores.

Students are getting fed up with Facebook because it’s not niche enough anymore since it’s not just students. A handful of smart entrepreneurial students are starting rival networks just for the university world .

All this has me scratching my head—whatever happened to all the buzz that the Internet would connect everybody to everybody, “flatten” our world , so that the mainstream would swallow up the little enclaves into one interconnected mass?

The Facebook News Feed is a good example of this conundrum. I find out that “John is sad because of the election result in [insert country I’ve never heard of]” and that “Elise is happy that [insert fashion brand I don’t buy] has a new fall line.”

One the one hand, this is niche information for niches I’m not part of. On the other hand, it’s spreading to a mainstream audience (me). But it spreads without losing any of that niche specificity, because it’s a News Feed from users, not a news broadcast from an editor who might cull the information down to something everyone could understand.

What do you think? Will we use the web to connect to more diverse groups of people? Or will we use it to more easily track down people with shared niche eccentricities?

Is my world getting bigger, because I can now read newspapers from Malaysia and Mexico at the same time? Or smaller, because I can spend all my time on websites for fans of sports teams from Melbourne?

Cherwell 24 is not responsible for the content of external links. 

Staff at Oxford University will soon be able to use a free ‘pick up and pedal’ cycling scheme, inspired by those set up in London and several European cities.
The pilot will see cycle stations set up in Headington and the city centre, and is aimed at reducing congestion and carbon emissions.
Only a limited number of bicycles will be available at first, but if successful the service may be rolled out to include students and eventually the whole city.
The scheme uses technological advances to avoid previous problems such as theft.  Users are required to register their debit card details as a security precaution.

Ed Wigzell, Sustainable Travel Officer for the University, said: “Advances in technology have enabled more recent schemes, such as those in Paris, London, Lyon and Brussels to be very successful. The University is very excited to be involved in introducing a similar scheme in Oxford.”It is thought that the national company OYbike will provide the bicycles and a system that uses text messages for hiring and returning. The scheme starts this winter.

'Got any spare change, Stevie?' yells a Scot from the back of the sell-out crowd. 'I do now, brother,' replies Steve. 'An' it's mostly yours', he drawls as an afterthought. This is all that has changed as a result of Steve’s increasing popularity following his performance on Jools Holland’s ‘Hootenanny’, and more recently at Glastonbury. In all other respects he stays true to his roots as a hobo who spent years on the streets of Mississippi after leaving a broken home at the tender age of 13. Dressed in denim dungarees, an old cap and sporting a grizzly grey beard, Steve roars through his intensely personal brand of blues with a crazy tramp’s gusto. His songs are underpinned by his own grim experiences, which he tells with razor-sharp wit and honesty.
One of the most striking aspects of the performance is the modest equipment Steve uses. He plays a one-stringed ‘Diddley Bo’, a Mississippi Drum Machine (a wooden box that he stamps in place of percussion) and most impressively, a battered three-stringed guitar. Most bands would refuse to step on stage with such sub-standard gear, but for Steve it is part of the magic of his set: from these instruments he draws a thumping, knee-slapping blues rhythm that resonates throughout the hall. Like his equipment, Steve’s voice belies his gnarled exterior. There is little of the gruffness his appearance would suggest, as he sings with richness and composure, whilst the atmosphere remains visceral.
Throughout the set there are moments of tenderness in his tribute to his dead dog, which manages to avoid mawkishness due to its obvious sincerity, and ‘Fly By Night’, Steve’s “song for the ladies”. It is ‘The Dead Song’, though, that is most poignant. Again it is based on his memory of the past – this time, of his own near-death from a heart attack. The crowd sings the haunting refrain ‘There ain’t nobody coming back from the dead’ back to Steve, who conducts his choir, eyes twinkling with delight.
This is the pinnacle of Steve’s union with his audience, but the Edinburgh crowd, amongst which there are many old fans, has stayed captivated throughout. No one can resist stamping to the driven blues beat, joining in with the memorable choruses, or eagerly anticipating his next story from the streets, but at the heart of it is the fact that Steve is genuine. He seems constantly thrilled to be on stage, yet he also seems bemused by this new-found fame. ‘Girls used to cross the road to avoid me, but now I’m on stage with a guitar they all want to talk’, he says coyly. There are no inflated rock egos and no pretensions of stardom and this is clearly refreshing for the crowd. Despite the obvious incongruity of a hobo from the Deep South in a room full of Scots, fundamentally it is only the stage that separates Steve from the audience.
The set culminates in the fans’ favourite ‘Dog House Boogie’, which receives rapturous applause. An autobiography set to a droning blues riff that moves to a wailing chorus, it encapsulates the spirit of Seasick as energy, wit, candour and emotion combine to leave the audience howling for more. It is difficult to see how Steve can continue to generate fresh material without becoming predictable, whilst sticking as he must to his winning formula. For now though, Steve’s live act is a truly memorable performance that looks set to delight wider audiences as his reputation justly expands.
Seasick Steve will play The Carling Academy Oxford on Friday 19th October

UCAS’ move to scrap traditional paper applications in favour of the online system has caused problems in the efficiency of this year’s Oxford admissions process. A spokesperson from Oxford University said, “We haven’t received everything in the format they expected.” A spokesperson for UCAS stated, “There have been issues with the paper copy forms that many universities and colleges still require.” Problems have arisen as Oxbridge deadlines are earlier than those for other universities, and any technical difficulties place pressure upon Oxford’s admissions department in order to prepare candidates for the interview procedure.Currently, the separate form for Oxford University can only be completed by paper and sent directly to the University.ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a Hollywood studio in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a Victorian novel to turn into a movie. From Vanity Fair (2004) to A Good Woman (2005), and now with Roman Polanski’s new Oliver Twist and another version of Pride and Prejudice to add to the roster, our Victorian ancestors have never been so fashionable since, well, two centuries ago. Wilde, Thackeray and Austen – they’re all ripe for the picking. Petticoats, cravats and cads – throw ‘em all in. The more the merrier.What is less universally acknowledged is that this bizarre regression into period drama is rather at odds with another trend in modern cinema: that of the exciting forward movement of directors such as Tarantino, Rodriguez or Gondry. In many ways, it is more enjoyable to watch Keira Knightley in a tight-fitting corset in Joe Wright’s Pride and Prejudice than it is to watch a flatulent yellow rapist in Rodriguez and Frank Miller’s Sin City (2005). However in the latter film there is a driving desire to challenge cinematic boundaries, all the while keeping the audience on their toes. In the former there is, well, Kiera Knightley in a tight-fitting corset. I know which one I’ll remember in a few years’ time.Yet this reliance on rehashing the past seems set to continue in the future. And it is seeping through to the small screen as well. The BBC will soon be launching a new sixteen-part series of another Dickens novel, Bleak House, starring Gillian Anderson. Dickens wrote Bleak House as a serial novel, to come out in short installations. Following on from this idea, the BBC is televising it in twice-weekly, half hour episodes (“returning the novel to its natural state,” as they call it). A bit like they do with Eastenders. Victorian opus to some, convenient doorstop to others, Bleak House has now become that paragon of easy-watching entertainment: a soap opera.So why is there this plethora of Victorian adaptation on our screens these days? Is it out of an overwhelming respect for our stern predecessors? I think not. Perhaps it is down to Hollywood’s crusade to turn every famous book into a film, to save you the bother of reading anything. After all, the curse of Hollywood is the fear of everything fresh, anything potentially risky. With a point of reference for a movie-going crowd like a sequel or a well-known novel, there is a guaranteed audience and guaranteed money. Or maybe it is all just an excuse to watch Reese Witherspoon walking around daintily in a petticoat, smiling coyly.This is not to say that these Victorian adaptations are bad. Mike Barker’s A Good Woman, a version of Oscar Wilde’s play Lady Windermere’s Fan, was as funny and warm as it was Witherspoon-free. And the rich visuals of Polanski’s Oliver Twist are a truly impressive evocation of Victorian London. These films are all a pleasure to watch, and that, after all, is the first thing we ask of a movie.Here’s the catch. Provided that all these films are doing is compressing eight hundred pages of Victorian prose into ninety minutes of screen time, they will never be more than a distracting hour-and-a-half in the cinema. For a Victorian adaptation to be truly memorable, it must be much more free with the material it’s moving from the page to the screen. In Bridget Jones’ Diary (2001), Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice love triangle was updated into a story that appeals to this age far more than three toffs prancing around on horses. The result is a movie that remains funny and vivid long after the credits roll. In Wright’s offering of the same story, the alterations are much less conspicuous. The result is great entertainment, but nothing to set 2005’s film version apart from those which have preceded it.Any movie industry should be looking to the future and not to the past. There is nothing wrong with adapting the Victorians; there is always something wrong, though, with a lack of imagination. There surely must come a time when audiences cotton on to Hollywood’s recycling act. In the end, it is the importance of being revisionist that is more crucial than the importance of being earnest.ARCHIVE: 1st week MT 2005

A follow up to January’s Green Paper on university governance has been published outlining a strategy for improving the University’s financial status. In a bid to revolutionise Oxford’s finances, the plan may allow for significant cuts in the number of undergraduates.
Oxford has reported annual shortfalls of up to £200 million, instigating a radical strategy for modernisation. In its opening, the corporate plan deems the objectives of the University unachievable “without a significant improvement in the finances”.
In August, the Oxford Centre of Higher Education Policy warned that even with the introduction of top up fees in 2006, Oxford stands to face a £14 million gap in its budget by 2012.
This comes after the University published the Green Paper in January of this year outlining a series of reforms to rescue the university’s finances.
Oxford’s financial prowess falls far behind that of its major international rivals. In the academic year 2002-3, Oxford only received £58 million in endowments compared to the £262 million received by Harvard and the £250 received by Stanford.
Part four of the corporate plan compels the university to “consider the full economic costs … when setting policy on student numbers.” In a further statement, a spokesperson for the university said it was likely over time that there would be a “gradual change in our student profile.” Despite calculations that there would be 600 fewer places for undergraduates by 2009, the statement insists that “at this stage there are no targets.”
The corporate plan also states that “more needs to be done both in gathering intelligence about the international student market and in developing carefully targeted campaigns to attract students of the very highest calibre.”
A concern that a greater drive to recruit international students will restrict the places open to home students has led to outrage on the part of prominent educationalists and public figures.
In an article for the BBC Professor Michael Driscoll, head of the Coalition of Modern Universities, ridicules Oxford’s “restricting access to home undergraduates on the spurious grounds that the university is somehow poverty-stricken.”
Alan Strickland, Chair of Academic Affairs for OUSU, is worried that the university is taking its reforms too far. “It’s sad that the underfunding of higher education is leading to such measures being taken, but it’s clear that the University should not seek to balance its books by denying access to home undergraduates.”
Meanwhile, Vice-chancellor John Hood continues to assert that finance is the university’s “overwhelming priority.”ARCHIVE: 0th week MT 2005