Social Media Strategy

Here is a presentation i did for my social media strategy. Overall the strategy needs improvement but it is good for a start.


















Hull Comic Con

An eventful day, with frighteningly accurate cosplays of people dressing up as their favourite characters, pictures with Santa Claus himself, and a short seminar unravelling the next best marvel artists.

The Hull Comic Con began promptly at 11am on Saturday 2nd December at the Guildhall. Upon entering, visitors were welcomed by numerous volunteers that masked their fatigue and thorough boredom with fake smiles, and a slightly taller version of the Grinch screaming “23 days until our saviour Christ was born”.

A rather awkward start to the event, with strangers nervously talking to one another, like a dysfunctional family gathering for a christmas dinner. Soon after everyone became more relaxed. Within minutes it was obvious how much work most people put into their costumes. One particular girl dressing as a character from her favourite comic Tokyo Ghoul, an anime about scary creatures that feed on human flesh. Another man dressed up as batman, even doing impressions for children, leaving them to stare in awe and beg for a picture.

Sheer amazement was written all over peoples’ faces as they saw the merchandise and products available for sale. Handmade pillows with designs from famous Japanese comics such as Pokemon, Dragon Ball Z, and One Piece. A Star wars action figure that left most saddened due to its expensive price of £160. In one corner stood a Japanese man welcoming everyone with a warm smile and local Japanese delicacies. Console games from as far back as 2001 were also available for purchase.

In another room sat Santa Claus, with a long, well combed white beard, and a massive grin. To the dismay of some children, he was sat without the company of his eight reindeer. Nevertheless, they stood eagerly in line waiting to get a photo with father christmas, as their some parents happily waited in line with them, whilst others with faces as though they wished to tell their kids that he was not real.

Halfway through the day, Marvel comic book artist Russ Leach held a “how to draw” workshop to gauge the talent and see the next best artists in the room. Russ taught people the right way to hold a pencil, and how to sketch different marvel characters such as Iron man, spider-man, and the wolverine. Giving words of wisdom, he said:”Practice makes perfect. This job is hard, and you cannot do it without hours of practice.” To the delight of a few, he spotted some talented drawings.

Overall, the event was a success. According to the event planner Steve Bowman, the planning of the event began in 2015. The one day Comic Con saw over 2,500 people flocking together. “The purpose of this event was to bring these sort of events to Hull, we were sick of travelling (abroad to America) to attend them, so we decided to bring them here.”

The day did not end there. An after party was held, honouring the hard work of the volunteers, and anyone else that wished to attend with drinks and food, as well as quizzes.

Some left with the venue with merchandise whispering to themselves: “I have spent far too much money”, others learnt how to properly hold a pencil, but everyone left with something.



Does Britain Have A Free Press?

This essay will discuss whether or not Britain has a free press. It will look at why Britain has a free press: two journalists went in disguise and filmed Sam Allardyce as part of an undercover newspaper investigation while he was still in charge of Sunderland. It will also look at why Britain does not have a free press, as there are too many restrictions and regulations such as ofcom, as well as the fact that journalists are heavily restricted on what they are able to report on in a courtroom.

Before formulating an argument and answering the question, it is important to understand what is meant by a free press. Walter Lippmann, a former American journalist described free press as a need for the democracy, and not a benefit for a person: “A free press is not a benefit of a person, but an organic necessity in a great society. Without criticism and reliable and intelligent reporting, the government cannot govern. For there is no adequate way in which it can keep itself informed about what the people of the country are thinking and doing and wanting” (Feldman, J., 2007).

Britain has a free press, as journalists are able to conduct undercover investigations freely. For example, with the case of Sam Allardyce, English football manager, two journalists went in disguise as businessmen and filmed him as part of an undercover newspaper investigation while he was still in charge of Sunderland. He told the reporters of ways to bypass Football Association rules on player transfers (Telegraphcouk, 2017). As well as this, he told them that Enner Valencia was under a third-party ownership agreement. When asked whether third party agreement was a problem, he responded: “It’s not a problem, we got Valencia in. He was third party owned when we bought him from Mexico.”

Following the phone hacking scandal, it was decided that a new independent regulatory body was to be set. Lord justice Leveson published a report in November 2012, looking at the ethics of the British press. Speaking on Leveson and whether it will affect Britain’s free press, Charlotte Church, singer and phone hacking user said:

“Unfortunately, I think there’s all of this talk and I think it’s a diversion, a smoking mirrors tactic and a lot of the time you hear people like Neil talking about the freedom of the press is in grave danger. I truly don’t believe it is and it’s not state regulation, that’s not what it’s about. Of course, there should be an independent self-press regulator, that was decided before Leveson started the inquiry. So the crux of this argument is all about the statutory underpinning and my understanding of what statutory underpinning is that Leveson has said to the press, you take responsibility, you guardians, you take responsibility, you make your own rules, which is a very privileged position to be in, you make your own rules, and all that the statutory underpinning should be able to do is make sure that there is a body that those rules are enforced and I do not see any way in which that can affect the free press” (, 2017)

It can also be argued that Britain has a free press, as publications can freely express themselves. On the 16 October 2017, Hull had its annual fair which saw over 500,000 people participating, some of which were police rising dodgems. The Sun openly criticised police for riding dodgems instead of being on guard. In an article, they wrote: “COPS who claim their skint force is overstretched found time to ride dodgems on duty. Eighteen who were meant to be patrolling a funfair were filmed in bumper cars as three more looked on.More than 30 terrified fair-goers had been left dangling for 7½ hours the day before when the Power Tower ride broke down.” Hull Daily Mail responded to this on twitter saying: “Sorry Sun but we think Humberside Police earned a five minute break at Hull Fair”, also publishing an article stating “What The Sun fails to mention is the amazing job officers did throughout the week, making sure the half-a-million people who went were safe.” It is clear Britain has a free press, as news publications are allowed to give their opinion on certain topics.

However, despite all this freedom, Britain’s press is rather restricted. Regulations such as Ofcom which  regulates the content of television and radio programmes in the UK limit what journalists can and cannot do. For example, in section 1 of the ofcom rules and regulations, when broadcasting a television programme, broadcasters must take all reasonable steps to protect people under eighteen, and must observe the watershed They are not allowed to show material that might be unsuitable for children before 9pm. Under section 8, if the broadcast of a programme would infringe the privacy of a person or organisation, consent should be obtained before the relevant material is broadcast, unless the infringement of privacy is warranted. As well, People in a state of distress should not be put under pressure to take part in a programme or provide interviews, unless it is warranted. As there are eight different stating what journalists can and cannot do, one can say that Britain in fact does not have a free press.

When a person is taken to court, in some circumstances, journalists are limited in what they are allowed to report. When a person is a victim of a sexual offence e.g rape, sexual assault, they are automatically given life long anonymity by the court under the Sexual Offences Amendment Act 1992. The journalist cannot publish the name, the address, the school, their workplace and any still or moving pictures of the victim, or they risk being fined. In 2006, the Daily Express was fined £2,700 and ordered to pay £10,000 compensation for breaching the Amendments act after they published photos of a servicewoman who claimed she had been sexually assaulted. Clause 7 of the Editors Code of Practice also states the press must not, even if they’re legally free to, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.

The reason Britain does not have a free press is that the media is controlled by privately educated white men. According to a social mobility and child poverty commission study, out of the top 100 media professionals, 54% went to private schools.

“Only 25 per cent of the population earns more than £30,000 a year. Most media commentators (including me) do. For people like me, the country basically works. Politics doesn’t affect me. Politics, for me, is about how other people are treated. It’s easy inside my echo-chamber to believe that I am the norm, or the middle. Easy to forget that there are voices outside.

A study conducted by Lis Howell discovered that the ratio of male to female professionals in the media industry is 4:1 (National union of journalists, 2014). With this comes a divide of upper class (the privately educated men) and middle class (women and ethnic minorities)

The privileged, educated white men cannot truly represent the press, as it is unlikely that they have experienced racism and have all gone to prestigious institutions.






  1. Telling a story – an anecdote that pulls the reader in
  2. Make a statement – but a bold or even astonishing one
  3. Setting the scene – describe a person or a place or time
  4. In media res/in the middle of thing. In the middle of things: a literary technique employed by the likes of Homer, Milton, Virgil
  5. Asking a question
  6. Starting with a quote – some editors like them, many don’t. Only guaranteed to work if the person is dead famous or your feature is a case study
  7. Teasing lead (the delayed drop): delays identification of the story until later on
  8. Personal lead: draws on the reader’s own experience;
  9. Shock lead – pulls the reader up short with use of a striking word/fact/figure
  10. Hard news intro for hard news feature/investigative feature


George Orwell – Politics and the English Language

Most people agree that the English language is collapsing. Any attempt to save the old-fashioned language is for sentimental reasons. It’s believed that language naturally grows and we don’t shape it overtime.

The decline of a language is due to economic and political reasons, not just from an individual writer. English becomes ugly and wrong because of our foolish thoughts, but the ugliness of the language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts. Modern written English has many bad habits that can change if effort is put in, which will lead to clear thinking.

A dying metaphor is one that is overused and has lost its meaning. For example: toe the line, hotbed, achilles’ heel. Most of these are used without an understanding of their meaning, with a mix of incompatible metaphors. Some have been taken out of context without the writer realising. For example, toe of the line can be written tow of the line.

Verbal false limbs inflate the word making it longer than it should be. For example, serve the purpose of, take effect. Instead of being a single word, a verb becomes a phrase. The passive voice is used more than the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining). Simple conjunctions are replaced with phrases like “in view of”, “the fact that” and the ends of sentences are saved by anticlimax by big commonplaces like “deserving of serious consideration”.

Pretentious diction – words like element, virtual, basic are used to give objectivity to biased judgements. Adjectives like historic, unforgettable, are used to glorify the dishonourable process of international politics. words like cul de sac are used to portray elegance. It is easier to fabricate words like impermissible and extramarital than to think the English words that will cover ones meaning. This causes more vagueness.

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

Modern writing consists in combining long strips of words, already done by another, and presenting the words inaccurately. Using ready-made phrases, the phrases sound pleasant.

A metaphor is meant to bring a visual image. When these images clash, like “the fascist octopus has swung is swan song” the writer is not really thinking.

Currently, it is true that political writing is bad writing. When watching a tired hack repeat the same phrases – “bestial, atrocities” it feels like watching a dummy speak. Speaking like this favours political conformity.

Right now, it is impossible to ‘keep out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics is hatred and lies. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.

If thought corrupts language, language can corrupt thought. A bad use can spread by imitation even to those who should know better.

The fall of our language can be stopped. Silly words and expressions like ” explore every avenue” were discarded by the jeers of a few journalists. If people tried, we could reduce the amount of latin and greek in a sentence, and take our foreign phrases. The defence of the English language implies more than this, and it is best to say what it does not imply.

It has nothing to do with archaism, nor with making English too simple, but rather to let the meaning choose the word. Do not surrender to words. Thinking of a concrete object and describing, you tend to look for the best words to fit it. It is better to get one’s meaning as clear as possible through pictures and sensations.





The Leveson Inquiry = A public, judge-led inquiry to look at the culture, practice and ethics of the press following the News international phone hacking scandal

In 2007, Clive Goodman, royal editor of News of The World (NOTW) and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were convicted of illegal interceptions of phone messages.

According to NOTW, this was an isolated incident, but The Guardian claimed it extended beyond Goodman and Mulcaire.

In 2011, after a civil settlement with Sienna Miller, the police set up a new investigation called “Operation Weeting.” In July 2011, it was revealed that NOTW reporters hacked the voicemail of murder victim Milly Dowler.

Prime Minister David Cameron announced that a public inquiry would be chaired by Lord Justice Leveson on 13 July 2011.

The inquiry looked at 2 parts:

Part 1: the culture, practice and and ethics of press and politicians and the press and police; it is to consider the extent to which the current regulatory regime has failed and whether there has been a failure to act upon any previous warnings about media misconduct.”

Part 2: the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News international, other media organisations or other organisations. It will also consider the extent to which any relevant police force investigated allegations relating to News international, and whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct.

The Inquiry

The inquiry published the Leveson Report in November 2012, which reviewed the general culture and ethics of the British media, and made recommendations for a new independent body to replace the existing Press Complaints Commission, which would have to be recognised by the state through new laws.

Prime Minister David Cameron, under whose direction the inquiry had been established, said that he welcomed many of the findings, but declined to enact the requisite legislation.

Leveson’s Recommendations

Leveson found the existing press complaints commission is not sufficient and recommends a new independent body which would have a range of sanctions available to it including fines and direction of the prominence

Membership of the body would be voluntary,, but incentivised by schemes like kitemark and inquisitorial arbitration service for handling tort claims like libel and breach of privacy, and by allowing exemplary damages to be awarded in cases brought against non-participants in the scheme, something not usually part of the English law.

Leveson rejected the characterisation of his proposal as “statutory regulation of the press”


Fallout Continues to this day

A new body was set called the Press Recognition Panel. It is an independent body set up to judge whether press regulators meet the Royal Charter Criteria.

Newspapers refused this body and formed an IPSO (Independent Press Standard Organisation). Set up in 2014, the IPSO claims to be the independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine industry.

Are MP’s right to be concerned that IPSO has never fined a newspaper? Has the behaviour of the press improved since the phone hacking scandal?

IMPRESS is the only one of these formally backed by Press Recognition Panel .

The application by IMPRESS to become the UK’s first state approved press regulator was approved and it was granted a Royal Charter in October 2016




How To Do An Interview


Make sure you do your research before the interview or you’ll just make yourself look stupid.


  You need to decide how you’re going to record the interview. If the interview is a really short one, or you’re just interviewing one person, you can do it with a pen and paper. But if the interview is long, or you’re interviewing more than one person, a dictaphone, a digital recorder or phone will work fine.


Have a list of questions to ask the interviewee/subject. Have about 6-12 questions prepared. But, when interviewing, listen to what the interviewee is saying and don’t just ask the prepared questions like a script. For example, he may have made a good point, and you can use that chance to ask him to expand on that point, instead of asking them your next pre-prepared questions. An interview is like a conversation: let the convo flow and ask your pre-prepared questions when the interview is becoming repetitive or boring.


Even if the interviewee is saying things that you really disagree with, don’t start argument to prove them wrong. Your job is to ask questions.


“In your own words, can you tell me a little about your background?”

This is a very good warm up question because:

  • it gets the interviewee to open up and relax a little since they’re talking abou themselves
  • It’s a  chance to check and see if the audio is good on your recording device
  • It’s an open ended question – the interviewee could talk about their childhood, their tim in uni, their career etc.


You can get a bigger, longer better answer by asking an open ended question rather than a closed one.


You might stop them in their tracks when they’re about to say something really useful.


If they keep talking and you want them to stop, just tell them you have one final question. This lets them know the interview is almost done.


Even if you’ve already asked your final question, end the interview with “have you anything further that you’d like to add?” More often than not they’ll say np, but they might say something smart that hasn’t been covered in your questions.


In case you didn’t cover everything in your interview, you could always get in touch with the person you interviewed, thank them for the previous interview, and tell them how there’s one or two things you missed or there’s something you’d like to go over again. The interviewee may be happy to see that you want to make that effort to ensure everything is as it should be



Metaphors, Similies, idioms & Clichés: A Definitive Guide

  1. METAPHOR = a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn’t literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison e.g Time is a thief – Time isn’t really stealing anything, this metaphor just indicates that time passes quickly and our lives pass us by.Metaphors can be deployed in journalism to great effect

2. SIMILE = a figure of speech that makes a comparison, showing similarities between two things, using words “like” “as” or “than” to do so e.g He is as cunning as a fox.

3. IDIOM = a figure of speech that has a certain meaning that is different from the meanings of each word on its own e.g it’s raining cats and dogs. Of course it isn’t literally raining cats and dogs, this just means it’s raining heavily. 

4. CLICHE = a figure of speech that has been so overused that it has become boring and unoriginal. Clichés are also dangerous to a writer because they tend to stereotype people and situations.


Section Eight: Privacy


To ensure that broadcasters avoid any unwarranted infringement of privacy in programmes and in connection with obtaining material included in programmes.


8.1 Any infringement of privacy in programmes, or in connection with obtaining material included in programmes, must be warranted.

Meaning of “warranted”: In this section “warranted” has a particular meaning. It means that where broadcasters wish to justify an infringement of privacy as warranted, they should be able to demonstrate why in the particular circumstances of the case, it is warranted. If the reason is that it is in the public interest, then the broadcaster should be able to demonstrate that the public interest outweighs the right to privacy. Examples of public interest would include revealing or detecting crime, protecting public health or safety, exposing misleading claims made by individuals or organisations or disclosing incompetence that affects the public.

Practices to be followed (8.2 to 8.22)

Private lives, public places and legitimate expectation of privacy

Meaning of “legitimate expectation of privacy”: Legitimate expectations of privacy will vary according to the place and nature of the information, activity or condition in question, the extent to which it is in the public domain (if at all) and whether the individual concerned is already in the public eye. There may be circumstances where people can reasonably expect privacy even in a public place. Some activities and conditions may be of such a private nature that filming or recording, even in a public place, could involve an infringement of privacy. People under investigation or in the public eye, and their immediate family and friends, retain the right to a private life, although private behaviour can raise issues of legitimate public interest.

8.2 Information which discloses the location of a person’s home or family should not be revealed without permission, unless it is warranted.

8.3 When people are caught up in events which are covered by the news they still have a right to privacy in both the making and the broadcast of a programme, unless it is warranted to infringe it. This applies both to the time when these events are taking place and to any later programmes that revisit those events.

8.4 Broadcasters should ensure that words, images or actions filmed or recorded in, or broadcast from, a public place, are not so private that prior consent is required before broadcast from the individual or organisation concerned, unless broadcasting without their consent is warranted. Consent

8.5 Any infringement of privacy in the making of a programme should be with the person’s and/or organisation’s consent or be otherwise warranted.

8.6 If the broadcast of a programme would infringe the privacy of a person or organisation, consent should be obtained before the relevant material is broadcast, unless the infringement of privacy is warranted. (Callers to phone-in shows are deemed to have given consent to the broadcast of their contribution.)

8.7 If an individual or organisation’s privacy is being infringed, and they ask that the filming, recording or live broadcast be stopped, the broadcaster should do so, unless it is warranted to continue.

8.8 When filming or recording in institutions, organisations or other agencies, permission should be obtained from the relevant authority or management, unless it is warranted to film or record without permission. Individual consent of employees or others whose appearance is incidental or where they are essentially anonymous members of the general public will not normally be required.


However, in potentially sensitive places such as ambulances, hospitals, schools, prisons or police stations, separate consent should normally be obtained before filming or recording and for broadcast from those in sensitive situations (unless not obtaining consent is warranted). If the individual will not be identifiable in the programme then separate consent for broadcast will not be required. Gathering information, sound or images and the re-use of material

8.9 The means of obtaining material must be proportionate in all the circumstances and in particular to the subject matter of the programme.

8.10 Broadcasters should ensure that the re-use of material, i.e. use of material originally filmed or recorded for one purpose and then used in a programme for another purpose or used in a later or different programme, does not create an unwarranted infringement of privacy. This applies both to material obtained from others and the broadcaster’s own material.

8.11 Doorstepping for factual programmes should not take place unless a request for an interview has been refused or it has not been possible to request an interview, or there is good reason to believe that an investigation will be frustrated if the subject is approached openly, and it is warranted to doorstep. However, normally broadcasters may, without prior warning interview, film or record people in the news when in public places. (See “practice to be followed” 8.15.)

Meaning of “doorstepping”: Doorstepping is the filming or recording of an interview or attempted interview with someone, or announcing that a call is being filmed or recorded for broadcast purposes, without any prior warning. It does not, however, include vox-pops (sampling the views of random members of the public).


8.12 Broadcasters can record telephone calls between the broadcaster and the other party if they have, from the outset of the call, identified themselves, explained the purpose of the call and that the call is being recorded for possible broadcast (if that is the case) unless it is warranted not to do one or more of these practices. If at a later stage it becomes clear that a call that has been recorded will be broadcast (but this was not explained to the other party at the time of the call) then the broadcaster must obtain consent before broadcast from the other party, unless it is warranted not to do so. (See “practices to be followed” 7.14 and 8.13 to 8.15.)

8.13 Surreptitious filming or recording should only be used where it is warranted. Normally, it will only be warranted if: • there is prima facie evidence of a story in the public interest; and • there are reasonable grounds to suspect that further material evidence could be obtained; and • it is necessary to the credibility and authenticity of the programme. (See “practices to be followed” 7.14, 8.12, 8.14 and 8.15.)

Meaning of “surreptitious filming or recording”: Surreptitious filming or recording includes the use of long lenses or recording devices, as well as leaving an unattended camera or recording device on private property without the full and informed consent of the occupiers or their agent. It may also include recording telephone conversations without the knowledge of the other party, or deliberately continuing a recording when the other party thinks that it has come to an end. 8.14 Material gained by surreptitious filming and recording should only be broadcast when it is warranted.

8.15 Surreptitious filming or recording, doorstepping or recorded ‘wind-up’ calls to obtain material for entertainment purposes may be warranted if it is intrinsic to the entertainment and does not amount to a significant infringement of privacy such as to cause significant annoyance, distress or embarrassment. The resulting material should not be broadcast without the consent of those involved. However if the individual and/or organisation is not identifiable in the programme then consent for broadcast will not be required. (See “practices to be followed” 7.14 and 8.11 to 8.14.)

Suffering and distress

8.16 Broadcasters should not take or broadcast footage or audio of people caught up in emergencies, victims of accidents or those suffering a personal tragedy, even in a public place, where that results in an infringement of privacy, unless it is warranted or the people concerned have given consent.

8.17 People in a state of distress should not be put under pressure to take part in a programme or provide interviews, unless it is warranted.

8.18 Broadcasters should take care not to reveal the identity of a person who has died or of victims of accidents or violent crimes, unless and until it is clear that the next of kin have been informed of the event or unless it is warranted.

8.19 Broadcasters should try to reduce the potential distress to victims and/or relatives when making or broadcasting programmes intended to examine past events that involve trauma to individuals (including crime) unless it is warranted to do otherwise. This applies to dramatic reconstructions and factual dramas, as well as factual programmes. • In particular, so far as is reasonably practicable, surviving victims and/or the immediate families of those whose experience is to feature in a programme, should be informed of the plans for the programme and its intended broadcast, even if the events or material to be broadcast have been in the public domain in the past.

People under sixteen and vulnerable people

8.20 Broadcasters should pay particular attention to the privacy of people under sixteen. They do not lose their rights to privacy because, for example, of the fame or notoriety of their parents or because of events in their schools.

8.21 Where a programme features an individual under sixteen or a vulnerable person in a way that infringes privacy, consent must be obtained from:

• a parent, guardian or other person of eighteen or over in loco parentis; and

• wherever possible, the individual concerned;

• unless the subject matter is trivial or uncontroversial and the participation minor, or it is warranted to proceed without consent.

\8.22 Persons under sixteen and vulnerable people should not be questioned about private matters without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person of eighteen or over in loco parentis (in the case of persons under sixteen), or a person with primary responsibility for their care (in the case of a vulnerable person), unless it is warranted to proceed without consent.

Meaning of “vulnerable people”: This varies, but may include those with learning difficulties, those with mental health problems, the bereaved, people with brain damage or forms of dementia, people who have been traumatised or who are sick or terminally ill.