The Importance of Courage in Virtue.

Virtue ethics is a complicated theory. Due to its subjective nature, it is hard to pin down whether particular actions are worthy of being labelled virtuous. However, it is accepted that courage is a foundation of virtue. Unfortunately, at this junction the theory only becomes more obtuse because then one must decide what is considered courageous versus what is simply recklessness.

 

Aristotle had a theory dictating that “courage is a mean with regard to fear and confidence.” (Aristotle, 350 BC). Such a statement suggests that in order to be courageous, one must fear the action they are doing, but despite that do it anyway for the greater good. For instance, one may look to Martin Luther King or Gandhi who against great obstacles that ultimately became their demise, stuck to their morals and their beliefs in order to make change for the good of others.

 

In contrast, for someone to engage in a dangerous action but with no fear, courage is not present. The action must be trying for the individual; if it is a task they feel comfortable doing, then it is not considered courageous.

 

However, one must also consider the expectation for rewards. It can be considered courageous to ignore an order from a superior if it is of benefit to others. The individual would risk suffering by being defiant in order to satisfy their ideals. This can be observed through Oskar Schindler who risked his life in order to save 1,200 Jews during the Nazi regime. Aware of his limitations, he courageously took risks anyway with no desire for a reward; Schindler’s only reward was the knowledge he was saving others from a situation he deemed morally wrong. If Schindler were to expect gratification, the virtue would be null as the action would have been tainted with selfish desire.

 

One must not expect to benefit from the event for it to be virtuous, it must be selfless. Therefore, such an act is considered virtuous in the eyes of Aristotle.

 

In essence, not all of the courageous are heroic, but all heroes are courageous.

 
Sources:

 

Aristotle (350 BC) Nicomachean Ethics 3.6 translated by W.D. Ross. (1997)

 

With Great Power Comes Great Moral Responsibility

As a publisher or head editor at a news company, you are given a significant amount of power over what is put into the world. What you allow to be published can start a ripple effect and influence the public’s perception of politics, current affairs, social issues. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that the moral implications of publishing opportunities are considered before they are released to the public.

There are a few factors to consider; morality and business. If an issue arises that has an editor questioning whether it is upstanding to publish a certain piece of media due to its contents, they will have to consider if the financial gain is worth possibly going against their own integrity.

Such a dilemma was made into reality when Vladimir Nabokov’s unfinished novel, Laura, was published in 2009 against the renowned writers wishes upon his death. Nabokov had asked for the novel to be destroyed once he had died, but his son had it published 30 years later. As an editor, one must question if going against a dead man’s wishes is worth the financial gain. On the one hand, Nabokov’s son at your decline can easily go to another editor who will then achieve masses of attention for the famous writer’s last piece. However, on the other hand, there could be an underlying reason why Laura was not to be published and one could argue that is not the choice of an editor to make.

The ethics of media is even more complicated when we question censorship. Is it right or wrong to conceal some of what is really happening in the world in order to not offend the public, even if they see far worse things at the cinema or in their favourite books? David Horner (2013) suggests that morality can “reasonably be argued about and about which we can possess knowledge rather than simply feelings beliefs or opinions.” In terms of this opinion, editors must not worry themselves too much with the personal feelings of the public if it gets in the way of the real, objective facts.

To censor too much is not far from lying to the public, and as a news editor, one has a responsibility to be honest. How people perceive such truth can never be controlled.

 

Sources:

 

David Horner (2013) Understanding Media Ethics. London: Sage Publications. P6.

The Youth Must Vote

 

It is a generally accepted idea that around the world, young people are less likely to participate in politics than older generations. This is in spite of the fact that youth votes have a lot of power to swing referendums and the like, especially as political opinions are largely polarized between older and younger generations.

 

This can be seen with the outcome of the Brexit referendum where, though a bigger number than usual, only 64% of 18-24-year olds participated in the vote with 71% of them desiring the remain option. In contrast, a striking 90% of over 65-year olds made their voices heard with 64% of them choosing to leave. It would not be outlandish to theorise that had the percentage of participation rates been equal, the outcome would be vastly different to what it is now. The leave campaign had only won by just over one million votes (1,269,501) with an overall turnout rate of 72.2%. (BBC News, 2016)) The youth were the least present and though many of them made their opinions on the referendum clear on social media, sadly, too few did not enact their right to vote. Putting aside points of view on Brexit, this is an underrepresentation of the people of Britain’s choice. One has to question if “the people” have in fact “spoken”.

 

Why is it that the youth have a disengagement from politics? A government minister a few years ago said that “until young people vote in the same numbers as older people, governments are unlikely to give the two groups parity of priority.” (Seyi Obakin, 2017) So, it seems that politicians are ignoring the youth vote and passing it off as irrelevant when compared to those of older generations as a result of their higher likelihood of turning up. Is there a paradox here in the fact that youth are not being represented in politics and therefore, care little to vote; and as a result of their lack of interest in voting, politicians pay them little mind?

 

Jacqui Briggs suggested that politicians putting youth into a binary box with no consideration for “gender-specific challenges” that young women face. Young people are more than just their age; they have opinions and thoughts and should not be taken for granted when policies, general elections, and referendums are taking place.

 

Though, there is hope for the millennials. Statistically, youth voter turnout has increased in recent years. It has been seen to be at its “highest in 25 years” as analysed by Ipsos MORI. (John Burn-Murdoch, 2017). 18-24-year olds are now in “line with the 25-34 and 35-44 age groups” which is a huge step.

 

 

Bibliography:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results [accessed 20th of April 2018]

 

http://www.democraticaudit.com/ [accessed 20th of April 2018]

 

https://www.ft.com/content/6734cdde-550b-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f [accessed 20th of April 2018]

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/seyi-obakin/young-voters_b_17098178.html [accessed 20th of April 2018]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What we aren’t being shown during elections

 

It may or may not surprise you to find out that what we are presented on the television, in the newspapers and online when it comes to politics, is mostly, highly controlled. When we, the public, see a press conference or a political candidate speaking to the people, it is likely being meticulously designed to present an image that that particular party wishes to convey.

 

Public relations work hard to make certain that what we see in the media when it involves a political candidate, especially during election time, is what they want us to see, not necessarily what is accurate. Political Editor for BBC Newsnight, Allegra Stratton, said “any screw up could make the difference of those few hundred votes,” and so those in charge of a politician’s image must make sure that a mistake is as close to impossible as they can.

 

Such endeavours are accomplished by having a good control of who is asking questions at press conferences and the like. A journalist from Vice News said how “Cameron picked out questions from journalists he knew by name” at a press conference during the 2015 election. This is somewhat telling as Cameron’s selectiveness allowed him to be prepared for any motives particular journalists may have when questioning him. It’s a clever way to avoid the tough talk. Thus, David Cameron’s image is intact.

 

Some politicians often avoid public interaction when media teams are present too. Senior to ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, Benjamin Wegg-Prosser explained this is because such meetings may lead to the possibility of a “situation where a senior politician is going to be confronted by a voter out of your control. Something might go wrong, and it ends up all over the TV news?” This careful exclusion of possible political disasters is a clear doctoring of what the public sees as the whole truth.

 

However, sometimes politicians do go out of their way to approach the public in front of the camera. Ex-Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg did so when sitting down with some young voters. After a short chat, one of the voters described the encounter as not feeling “very natural, it’s for show.” So, one has to question whether even when politicians do approach the public, if it’s genuine, or to simply create an image of a leader willing to listen.

 

Is it better for our politics to be controlled by strategic communication rather than us being able to see the more real conversations that happen behind the cameras? Or does the censoring of less than ideal encounters give the voters a better idea of who they should vote for?

 

Bibliography:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19W8uunIsw . [Accessed Thursday 12^th of April].

How New Media has Increased Youth Participation in Politics

The generally accepted stereotype is that the youth are disengaged or disinterested by the world of politics. If true, a whole section of society is risking not being represented politically and suffering as a result. However, in last year’s general election, these preconceptions were proven untrue.

 

In the 2017 election, young voters arrived in greater numbers than they ever have in the past 25 years. “64 per cent of registered voters aged 18-24 are now thought to have cast a vote” (John Burn-Murdoch, 2017) which lines the age group up with the 25-34 and the 35-44-year-old age groups. As a result of this, the youth have allowed themselves a chance to have a say in how their country works more than ever. Looking at these statistics, one has to wonder why the sudden change?

 

Putting aside your views on Jeremy Corbyn, his campaign for the 2017 general election was cleverly done. The Labour party knew that young voters were a kind of gap in the voting market and the Conservative party would struggle to obtain them if they were to attempt to. Labour gained youth votes through making themselves present in the new media with things such as Snapchat filters on election day to say that you had voted Labour to all of your friends. Snapchat is one of the most popular apps amongst youth. Utilising this form of new media was very clever on the Labour campaign teams part. The Conservative party didn’t do this.

 

Corbyn also attended several mass rallies whereas, May did not even attend the final debate. This was present on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. The youth knew, and many voted accordingly. Corbyn has started his campaign with -23 personal rating points and faced “campaign vilification in the Tory papers” (Alan Travis, 2017) but ended the campaign with a staggering +39 personal rating points. May ended with +6. It was a fatal mistake to underestimate youth votes, especially after Brexit which invigorated a lot of youth to involve themselves politically.

 

Millennials asked why they wouldn’t vote, predominantly said “I don’t trust politicians” as a result of politicians famously not keeping their promises (Ben Fowler, 2015). Whereas, with Corbyn the youth commonly hold the notion that “he actually cares” and is commited to the NHS and the people, according to voters (Carmen Fishwick, 2017).

 

Conclusively, Jeremy Corbyn is an example of a politician who harnessed new media and allowed the youth of today to be more involved in the public sphere than they have in a long while. His policies were made more accessible to those who would be less inclined to pay too much attention to the political realm and as a result, his political audience was expanded. This led to his huge popularity and the possibility of calling number 10 his home in the future.

 

https://www.audiencenet.co.uk/engaging-young-people-in-politics/ [accessed 16th of March, 2017]

 

https://www.ft.com/content/6734cdde-550b-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f [accessed 16th of March, 2017]

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/01/why-young-voters-are-backing-jeremy-corbyn-labour [accessed 16th of March, 2017]

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/09/corbyn-may-young-voters-labour-surge [accessed 16th of March, 2017]

Sovereignty versus Globalisation

A hot topic in the past year has been the debate over Brexit; a referendum voted for as a result of a large portion of leave voters valuing their sense of sovereignty. It seems that as a result of freedom of movement in the European Union, some of the British public feel that their sovereignty has been diminishing.

 

To understand this, one first has to understand what exactly sovereignty is. It is understood as “the authority of a state to govern itself, and determine its own laws and policies” (The UK in a Changing Europe). When talking to a leave supporter or if you are yourself one, the argument that this power was compromised when being part of the European Union due to the fact many of our laws are governed by overseas powers is hard to avoid. It is true that laws are made in the EU and the UK has to abide by them, but the question is, is this such a terrible thing as it’s made out to be?

 

Remainers often say that only “13% of laws pass by Parliament implement the UK’s obligations under EU law” which is a very miniscule statistic. However, leave campaigners claim that 65% of UK law is influenced by the European Union. Although, much of these laws are menial and hardly life-changing, “such as those affecting oil production.” (James Landale, 2016). James O’Brien famously hosts call in sessions with leave voters and when asked what laws they have such a distaste for, they are left defeated. So, one has to ask, is sovereignty vital, or are we just too caught up in the debate over European Union and their laws?

 

The European Union offers a lot of benefits, one of which is the increased access to other countries and their business’. Globalisation is a phenomenon that has been around for a long while but has drastically changed over the past decades with the introduction of the internet and freedom of travel through European Union states. Globalisation introduces risks such as increased corporate “competition” and a “high degree of imitation.” Corporations now have to deal with “unpredictable demand” and products quickly become commodities, leaving the company generic and their products with less worth. (Panos Mourdoukoutas, 2011).

 

However, to assume globalisation is an inherently bad thing would be unfair. Open markets allow for efficiency and opportunity that would not logically be available were it not offered. Business communication is expanded, suppliers are able to deliver products with greater haste (such as with Amazon’s next day delivery). (Panos Mourdoukoutas, 2011). To order something form Spain and have it delivered to your home within weeks is really, quite a fantastic thing.

 

Sadly, business leaders stress that with Brexit approaching and the inevitable loss of many of their European employees, next day delivery is likely to be a thing of the past. Our country has benefited greatly from the European Union as many of the jobs natives have no interest in are happily taken by foreign workers. (Panorama, 2018). The country will just have to wait and see if their loss will be worth the country’s love of sovereignty.

 

Bibliography:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09vfywt/panorama-immigration-who-should-we-let-in [2018]

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36247456 [2016]

 

Panos Mourdoukoutas, 2011. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2011/09/10/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-side-of-globalization/#736cd371483f

 

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/what-is-sovereignty/ [2018]

Stereotyping in the Media

 

Representation in many forms is vital in order for members of minority groups to feel less marginalised in their own society; whether this be through representation in the workplace, politics or a favourite TV show.

 

Stuart Hall talked about the “West and the rest.” He believed that the West has a certain narcissistic view of itself as better than other cultures. Through this, diversity is rarely explored in the media. Often it is Western media interpreting foreign cultures, often not giving it the credit it deserves. This can be seen in many examples of movies and television; such as whenever a character is Russian, they are more likely than not to be a villain. This even led to threats of “Russians boycotting Hollywood movies” (BBC, 2014).

 

Stereotyping of different groups of people is not only limited to nationality, however. The phenomenon extends to race as black representation often boils down to the “black best friend”, “thugs” or “brash women” (Thoughtco., 2017). Roles like these rarely are award-grabbing parts which and many black members of Hollywood lost out as a result of this, leading to #OscarsSoWhite in 2017. It is clear that the black community feels disenfranchised by Hollywood and are not getting equal representation to their white co-workers.

 

Furthermore, representation for the LGBT+ community seems to be inadequate as well, despite growing statistics of the percentage of LGBT+ characters being included in television and film. It has been noted that “25 queer female characters have died on scripted television shows in 2016 alone,” and considering their appearance in the media is rare already, that’s a troubling statistic (The Guardian, 2016). “Bisexual characters are virtually unknown” (TV Tropes, 2016) in the media and gay men are far too often shown as “Mr. Nice Gay” with impeccable fashion and wit (The Guardian, 2016). Perhaps, unfortunately for some gay men, they don’t fit that cliché.

 

Some accomplishments have been made, however. It is not all doom and gloom for representation. In the past few months Black Panther was released with an overwhelming number of black stars that do not conform to Hollywood’s typical stereotypes; Wonder Woman took over theatres last year with a powerful female lead; shows like Orange is the New Black and RuPaul’s Drag Race have made huge success over the years with several LGBT+ characters of all shapes and sizes being represented. Times are slowly changing and minorities are starting to have a voice. One must remember how important representation really is for marginalised groups; “There’s this body of research and a term known as ‘symbolic annihilation,’ which is the idea that if you don’t see people like you in the media you consume, you must somehow be unimportant.” (Nicole Martins of Indiana University).

 

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20141106-why-are-russians-always-bad-guys  [Accessed 3^rd of March, 2018]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/feb/09/no-more-mr-nice-gay-how-tv-representation-changed-from-will-grace-to-empire  [Accessed 3^rd of March, 2018]

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/nov/03/lgbt-characters-tv-largest-percent-glaad-study   [Accessed 3^rd of March, 2018]

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/common-black-stereotypes-in-tv-film-2834653  [Accessed 3^rd of March, 2018]

 

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/QueerAsTropes?from=Main.StereotypeGay . [Accessed 3^rd of March, 2018]

 

Nicole Martins. (2012) ‘Racial and Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Children’s Television Use and Self-Esteem’. Sage Journals 39 (3)

Newspaper agendas and how they influence the public sphere

The journalistic world is a wide and diverse one, encompassing several different types of media forms in which the public consume. From television to newspapers to news apps, there are all sorts of ways we access our news these days. Something most people are aware of, at least vaguely, is that most papers have a particular agenda.

 

Stephen Cushion suggested that in his study of this theory “a range of structural constraints and professional routines encouraged broadcasters to feed off stories that were more likely to be supplied by right-leaning newspapers.” This suggests journalists are being reduced to only producing content that lines up with what those in charge allow. This, theoretically, could inhibit rational argument as a reader is left in an echo chamber of a single view if they were to only consume one brand of newspaper. If this were to happen, then progress is halted as the public’s perception of political events is significantly shrunken and given little opportunity to expand.

 

An example of such a case would be the rather famous release of Rupert Murdock’s Sun newspaper which boldly claimed, “IT’S THE SUN WOT WON IT” after Kinnock was defeated in the general election of 1992 by John Major. The headline said this because just before voters had a chance to vote the Sun released a headline warning “if Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights.” The Sun held firm in their support of the Conservative party as they historically do, but why did they do this? The theory goes that it was all to do with Murdock’s ownership of the Sun and his interest in the Conservatives succeeding. Were Kinnock to get into power with the Labour party, the wealthy would be taxed far worse than they would with Conservative rule. It was in Murdock’s politically economic interest to do everything in his power to make sure Major won, despite Kinnock’s predicted win. Murdock and Golding “regard privately owned media as instruments of class domination.” The fact Kinnock was leading before Murdock’s influence shows just how much the agenda of a single power can affect how the public react and interpret politics. Had that first headline never have been released, the Sun is suggesting Kinnock would have been in power.

 

Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent theory from 1988 dictated mass communication through the media “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion.” Society hopes for a non-biased press, but it would be naïve to believe this was always the case.

 

 

 

 

Murdock and Golding/ (2005) How can a political economy framework illuminate the practices and contradictions of Google? London. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/research/publications/madiss/ccps_a4_ma_gmc_cg_1.pdf

 

 

Stephen Cushion. (2016) ‘Newspapers, Impartiality and Television News’. Journalism Studies Volume 19. 162-181.

 

Herman, Edward S.; Chomsky, Noam. (1988) Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books. p. 306.

 

Is Social Media a Hindrance to the Public Sphere?

The public sphere is an ancient phenomenon, though it has only recently been coined as such by Jürgen Habermas in the 1960s. Habermas stressed that the public sphere allows for “critical public debate (Habermas 1991, 52) that is “open to all”. The public sphere shows signs of its existence all the way back into ancient Greece where citizens would vote for decisions after public debate, which many see as “early democracy” (Benkredda,). However, these debates were limited to men. Centuries later in 1760s France women led debates that allowed for many fresh ideas to be considered and set “the seeds of the French revolution to spread” (Benkredda,). Although, this public sphere was limited to the elite in society. Fast-forward to the 19^th Century in London, Hyde Park began holding many debates which welcomed even the working class for the first time in history.

Belabbes Benkredda, a writer who specializes in public diplomacy said that a public sphere needs a rational argument, citizen participation, and competition. These three factors make for a fair debate and a safe democracy. This is exemplified in Parliament and council meetings where our politicians rationally debate topics the public have an interest in and develop a solution, whether it be for the better or not. It is clear how the public sphere has developed over the centuries for the better but where has it led to now?

The introduction of social media into our society has shifted everything from how we can connect across the globe to how we access our news. The public sphere has also felt the effects of social media platforms. It has allowed for anyone from any walk of life to give their view on any topic of their choice and in turn, broaden other people’s knowledge and lead to more rationale when debating. As a result, one would expect more successful outcomes from such an array of viewpoints. “The easy possibility of communicating effectively into the public sphere allows individuals to reorient themselves from passive readers and listeners to potential speakers and participants in a conversation“ (Benkler 2006, 213). A good example is the Youtube platform that was argued to be a “cultural public sphere” as it enabled people with cultural differences to share varied “belief systems and identities” (Burgess and Green 2009, 77).

However, one has to question if social media is totally ideal when looking for a successful public sphere. Some see social media as an echo chamber and a bubble. By this, I mean that one who holds a particular view gravitates towards those who share similar opinions and thus never learn or consider any new ideas which lead to little change. One can simply go online and search for Remainers during the Brexit voting process and feel validation and the sense that they are right as it seems everyone agrees with them, only to later get a nasty shock at the Brexit result. Amrou Al-Kadhi put it best when saying that during the EU referendum, voters were in a “bubble”, especially concerning Facebook which was a “joyous place to canvas – it seemed every person you talked to shared your point of view.”

With this being the case these days, concerns are surely raised, especially in times of important voting decisions for our country. One has to question, if Remainers and Brexiteers were more willing to converse and debate civilly with rational arguments, would the outcome of the referendum be different? Would there be less animosity between the two polarised groups? Of course, this phenomenon extends further to all kinds of modern debates. So, to conclude, does social media create further space for the public sphere, or does it merely make it more difficult for the public sphere to function?

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Belabbes Benkredda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWwNbRguN6E [accessed 14^th February 2018]

Benkler, Yochai. 2006. The Wealth of Networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

Burgess and Green, 2009. Youtube: Online Video and Participatory Culture (DMS – Digital Media and Scoiety). London. Polity Press, 1 edition.

Hollywood’s Badly Kept Secret and What It Says About Society.

It’s hard to miss the abundance of news these days relating to those in power exploiting their stature to gain sexual gratification. In Hollywood it is exceptionally prevalent; from Harvey Weinstein to Kevin Spacey. What continuously seems to shock the public however, is the length of time people have gotten away with crimes which can include sexual harassment, assault and rape. With more time getting away with it, the numbers of victims increase; yet the allegations are only coming to light now. One has to ask if anybody knew and if so, why hide it for so long? 

Sadly, people did know about Spacey and Weinstein alike and made a conscious decision to conceal the information from the authorities and public. Why? The conclusion is it looks extremely bad for the leading star of House of Cards to be a sexual abuser, especially of minors, and it looks no better for the head of Miramax Films to be an abuser too. In harsh terms, it’s economically inconvenient for many of those who knew about the abuse. 

A crew member of the critically acclaimed House of Cards said the heads of the show “had production meetings about Spacey’s flirtatious behaviour toward crew and cast, and it never made it any further than that. It was like a joke” (Telegraph, 2017). Another crew member said “they all knew what was going on” where Spacey created a “toxic” work environment (CNN, 2017), despite Beau Willimon, the creator of House of Cards denying this (Telegraph, 2017). 

Furthermore, Scott Rosenberg a screenwriter, apologised to the victims of Weinstein for not speaking up earlier as he claims everyone knew about the producer’s crimes (Daily Mail, 2017). 

It is clear that victims are feeling somewhat more confident to speak out now as an influx of anti-sexual abuse sentiment has engulfed Hollywood due to the abundance of abusers. Though, it is unrealistic to assume people such as Willimon would have come forward with information regarding Spacey’s activities without prompt. This is simply because it costs money to have a blemish like sexual harassment on a company’s reputation. Ridley Scott’s latest movie has had to fire Spacey and House of Cards has been cancelled as a result of his misconduct. 

The clarity in the fact that those in power, especially in Hollywood, get away with criminal behaviour is reminiscent of Herman and Chomsky’s (1988) Manufacturing Consent theory: “the demand for serious evidence in support of claims…is suspended, and charlatans can thrive as evidential sources.”

In the cases of Spacey and Weinstein and many others in Hollywood, they got away with what they did for a long time and it’s simply because of their power and influence. Companies like Miramax Films concealed witness statements and potential evidence for fear of losing money. It really all revolves around economics. However, people know now; we can only hope that the justice system has the desired result and these criminals don’t get off celebrity style. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 

CNN. (2017). Available from: http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/02/media/house-of-cards-kevin-spacey-harassment/index.html [Accessed 11 November 2017] 

Daily Mail. (2017). Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4987402/Scott-Rosenberg-says-knew-Harvey-Weinstein.html [Accessed 11 November 2017]   

Steven M. Buechler, (2008) Critical Sociology. London: Rouledge

The Telegraph. (2017). Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/on-demand/2017/11/07/house-cards-employees-insist-everyone-knew-kevin-spaceys-behaviour/ [Accessed 11 November 2017]