Just write

Recently, I have been concerned to make sure that my inaugural post on this blog was up to standard, but then I thought I'd take my own advice...

The other morning I found myself extraordinarily tired, for some reason or other. My brain just wouldn't do as it was told. Nothing that I was reading was going in, and nothing seemed to help wake me up.

I picked up my pencil.

"I'm too tired today," I wrote. "I just can't get my head into a place where it would be able to get, out of Sara Hunter Graham's book, the angles and arguments that will be relevant for my study of the AERA."

"The first point is clear," I went on. "Graham's work studies the NAWSA as a political pressure group - she sees it as a model for pressure-group activity. This is of relevance to the AERA. However, her concentration on questions surrounding the winning of suffrage and what that meant to organised feminism (questions addressed by O'Neill, among others) is not so relevant to the Reconstruction women's movement."

A little while later, I had written several thousands of words. I had covered many topics, from the structure of my literature review, to the general potential structure of my APG report, and further avenues of analysis I would have to explore.

And so I turned a potentially wasted day into a time of real intellectual exploration.

If you ever find yourself in some kind of intellectual rut, just pick up a pencil and see what comes out. Start by writing down what you're trying to do and why you think it's not coming together. Ask yourself questions - write them down as headings. And if you don't know the answer to any of those questions, ask yourself a new one: "why don't I know?"

You might be surprised at what comes out. Anyway, it beats wasting the day pointlessly surfing the net.

Unfinished London (by Jay Foreman, not me)

I can't take any credit what so ever for the following videos, I'm merely spreading the awesomeness.

I stumbled across this two-part (so far) documentary series one evening and was absolutely astounded by how interesting and entertaining Mr Foreman had managed to make modern London history, and the history of town planning! (there's not even a mention of Smigielski's non-monorail :O)





Is it just me that finds unfinished plans for the London tube fascinating? Or the reason why the M25 wiggles about so much entertaining? Perhaps it is, but this guy portrays the 'boring' facts using a clown and Patrick Abercrombie killing himself with slapstick. What's not to love?

It's clear that these 10 minute documentaries weren't made cheaply (I don't know how much you have to pay a cameraman to shin up a lamppost in the middle of the motorway, but it has to be a fair amount), but there're no funding logos, no endorsements, nothing saying 'funded by us!!' It looks like Jay Foreman has done it by himself, because he wanted to. Rock on.

Someone give this man a BBC History contract!!

More on Intangible History, Briefly

On Monday night I attended a lecture at the Royal Academy of Arts led by members of the OMA architecture firm, who discussed Cronocaos, their 2010 submission to the Venice Biennale. In essence, Cronocaos has taken a look at the 21^st century obsession with preservation and destruction and the intersection with time and history.

There was a bunch more to the lecture and whole discussion was right up my alley, but I was reminded of the Attic Lab of several weeks ago, when, in their discussion, the two members of OMA, brought up that UNESCO is safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. Interestingly, their list does not include anything from the UK or the US - surely, some of the things we sourced for the lab would fit into this category. (I, for one, am completely behind the nomination for preserving the French Gastronomic meal, delicious!)

Additionally, Christopher Woodward, director of the Garden Museum, spoke briefly about a three hour long recording of Nelson Mandela during his 1964 trial, which had recently been found and restored. Perhaps if we wanted to expand our look, we could have Colin discuss the oral history of Leicester, like this video on the Leicester market.

While I did thoroughly enjoy the Leicester Pageant materials, I still think my vote would be for the monorail.

Women and the TV news; Understanding THEN and NOW

If you read the histories which discuss what happens when a woman reads the television news, you’ll find the discussion based on issues of ‘authority’, ‘objectivity’ and ‘balance’. The story will continue to state that we have a lack of female news presenters because these have, historically, been character traits stereotyped as masculine. This is largely because most research into television history uses the BBC written archive and is therefore loaded towards its ‘Reith-ian’ values, which have had a major bearing on the development of the BBC.

But, not all production companies shared these values, and there have been moments where female news presenters have flourished.

THEN

Pat Cox, was a key presenter for Midlands News (ITV’s regional television news programme produced by ATV for the Midlands from 1956-82) in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In its early years, the production team experimented with its reportage and presentation style, and Cox was a central figure in building a regular audience for the programme. She interviewed housewives when their husbands were on strike, debated with the residents of Nuneaton who felt they deserved more attention from the TV cameras, as well as being integral to the cultivation of ATV’s image as a glamorous and ‘modern’ company, which featured Cox judging beauty contests and attending parties aboard that most glamorous of fifties machines -the commercial aeroplane.

The 1960s was not so kind to women on the regional television news, as the station developed a more ‘political’ edge it favoured presenters such as Reg Harcourt. Cox disappears from the archive collection in 1963, but her career serves as a reminder that the story of continuity and change is never a one way street.

NOW…

Although we’re only three months into 2011 it’s already been a turbulent year for women working in the media. The Andy Gray sexism scandal at Sky Sports was a clear reminder that we most definitely do not live in a post-feminist age. The Miriam O’Reilly case at the BBC also brought to attention the persistent double standard which puts pressure on women broadcasters to reach for the Botox less their wrinkles become ‘offensive’.

My personal bugbear was the lack of high-profile commentary coming from women throughout these episodes. There still seems to be a lack of opportunity for women to be the dominant voice on these issues. For example, when discussing the Andy Gray sacking Andrew Neil’s BBC show ‘This Week’ could only muster female pop star Imelda May to comment. May’s credentials for the discussion seemed to be that she was ‘a woman’, rather than having experience of the issues being aired.

Why did such a high profile show fail to find a female (sports) journalist to comment? Can this be attributed to a reticence among women working in the media to wade into such thorny debates; do they just want to keep their heads down and get on with their jobs? The likelihood of taking a pasting from opposing factions of the feminist debate makes it hard to blame them. OR was it a lack of energy on the side of Neil’s production team to take the issue seriously enough to spend the time preparing the interview and selecting an appropriate guest?

Clearly we need some insider knowledge here, which is why I’m looking forward to Julie Etchingham’s visit to NHL on Friday. Etchingham’s career provides a (much needed) positive and inspiring counterpoint to the narratives of endemic sexism and ageism facing women working in the media. As respected journalist she’s gained access to world leaders and reported on major world events, and has also been the first woman ever to be awarded the ‘Presenter of the Year’ award. I hope she can help us understand the complexities of being a woman at work in the media.

Gileadean Studies.

As all those who have read the book or seen the film will remember -Margaret Attwood's classic The Handmaid's Tale takes place in a theocratic, totalitarian state of the future, known as Gilead. The handmaid referred to in the title is OfFred-so called because she is the sexual slave of Fred. In Gilead women have been stripped of all rights and the book is about oppression-most specifically women's oppression although nobody has a good time in Gilead

What you may have forgotten (at least I had) is that there is an epilogue to the story which describes a history conference on Gileadean Studies. This takes place in the even further future after the state of Gilead has long collapsed and Gileadean studies has become part of the University curriculum. The general impression we get of the conference is that the historians haven't a clue what Gilead was like -they get bogged down in detail create their own version of the past and are generally more interested in lunch. Hmm