The answer is almost as depressing. Newspapers (or at least big ones such as Metro) subscribe to a few news agencies such as Associated Press, Press Association and Reuters. Journalist ‘hack’ types simply pick which news stories they think will suit their target audience and simply rewrite or tweak the story and place it in the newspaper. No wonder they’re paid so little.

I spent a week at Northcliffe Media, and as of July 2009, the media giant was responsible for 4 titles- Metro, The Daily Mail, London Lite and The Evening Standard. The Independent have recently moved their staff to the Northcliffe offices in Kensington and the company command a weekly circulation of almost 7 million from their High St Kensington offices.

I have only had one work experience placement and cannot argue with any great conviction that state of UK newspapers’ news gathering techniques is completely devoid of it's own ideas. But  what I did see at the UK’s 4th largest read newspaper was a drab, flat, monotonous and almost pointless exercise.

This wasn’t what I got into Journalism for.

Vietnam, one of the most scenically beautiful countries in the world and one of only a few places left where tourism has yet to ruin its culture. However, a new industry is booming in this suppressed country, that of war tourism, where occupants see no harm in exploiting their harsh history.

I can only describe Vietnam as being the only place in the world where I have felt ashamed to be white. Even when purchasing a bottle of water from a street seller you may be met with the hostile question, “Where are you from?” I can only assume that if you answer America, you will be treated with even more hostility. And yet although today's government line, “We're all friends” is the constant response to Vietnam’s attitude towards America, it is clear that bitterness is ever present.

The infamous conflict of the 20^th Century has boosted Vietnam’s tourism industry with locals thriving off of remnants from the war. Millions of Zippo lighters belonging to fallen US troops engraved with G.I mottos have been found buried under former battleground. These have become highly sought after by many westerners and can be bought from street vendors for less than $5. I use the dollar as a currency, because much to my amazement the dollar is more commonly used than the Vietnamese Dong. It appears that America left more than death and destruction behind them.

Another reminder of the war is the vast amount of ammunition and artillery left behind by the Americans. Unfortunately local residents soon realised that this is a potential tourist attraction. Whilst sauntering through the hectic streets of Ho Chi Minh (formally Saigon) being approached by men on mopeds offering to take you on trips through the countryside is not uncommon. This is almost always safe, and a great way of seeing life outside of the City. Sadly, these men have extraordinary preconceptions of why tourists wish to visit their country. For $15 you can shoot a chicken with an AK-47. For $50 you can shoot a pig with a M16. And for $200 you can fire a B40 rocket launcher at a cow.

A must-see tourist attraction is the Cu Chi Tunnels, one of the most famous battle grounds of the Vietnam War. It is an immense network of connecting underground tunnels covering some 75 miles, used as living quarters for the Vietnamese guerrilla fighters. Today, a quarter of a century since the end of the war, much of the tunnel system as it was has collapsed, but an area named the “heroic village” has been preserved and a section of the tunnel enlarged to accommodate the large frames of visiting Western tourists. As if this wasn’t enough to satisfy any tourist’s desire to experience life during the war, before leaving the site, you are given the opportunity to fire a gun. For a dollar a bullet, a steady stream of westerners looking for that “Nam experience” queue to fire an AK-47 or an ageing US-made M16.

Why anyone would wish to visit a blood stained country for a chance to shoot a gun, especially on such an inspiring site, ceases to amaze me. You can’t blame the locals, they are just using what happened to their advantage, and if they can make money from the war why shouldn’t they? What worries me is how keen Westerners are to fire a gun on such significant land, with no thought for how many people have fallen on the ground on which they now walk. Will we be seeing this new industry develop in the Middle East in 25 years time? I hope not.

And every year I spend time here in the country of my birth and notice the changes that only a gap of twelve months can deliver. For the first time in many years, the brain drain has slowed and the tight, tough markets in UK and the US have seen many returning home. A contributing factor is the changes in UK visa requirements - the legendary two year working holiday to the UK is no longer an option for young South Africans.

Day to day interaction in shops, restaurants and over boardroom tables seems so very different to that of a few years ago. There is a new wave of educated young black people who are smart, savvy, well-spoken, friendly and outgoing. Johannesburg, for all its perceived dangers, leads the way and on the surface of things, appears to be far better integrated than Cape Town or other cities. And yet, the dark face of poverty is never far from you.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Every traffic junction delivers a collection of needy people – at the top of the hierarchy are those handing out marketing materials, then the salesmen offering handicrafts, fruit, clothes-hangers - followed by the windscreen cleaners who pounce on you armed with detergent, squeegee and attitude before you have a chance to object. The entertainers perform for a pittance, and at the bottom of the pile, the beggars. The most heartbreaking of all - mothers with babies, the blind, deaf, downtrodden, those with disabilities and a plethora of aimless people with red-rimmed eyes and slow movements who are clearly stoned. And yesterday, a new approach with an imp of a child-man patiently picking leaves off the bonnet of my car in the hope that he would be rewarded with a few rands. <!--[endif]-->

If the cars on the roads are any indication of where the new money is, then it is clearly in the black market. The majority of shiny new Porche, Jaguar, BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Range Rover drivers are black. Private schools are packed to the rafters with black students, as are the universities and business schools. Education is recognised as the way forward and it is easy to be deceived by this thin layer of affluence. The majority are still far from the hopes and promises of basic living conditions and post-apartheid economic opportunity.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->

And many young white South Africans feel disenfranchised. They believe that the only way to get on in business is to start their own or to leave the country. Many find working in large corporates deeply frustrating; with people appointed to roles they are not qualified or experienced to do because of their colour.  As a result, South Africans are incredibly resourceful and entrepreneurial.  Failure does not deliver a comforting hand-out from the state or medical care for all.  The reality of failure here is far more brutal.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Yet, for all its flaws and mixed messages, South Africa is definitely happening right now. New roads, highways, public transport and the fast march toward the World Cup - and I wonder what impact this leap will have? The world’s eyes will be firmly trained on this breathtakingly beautiful country with its extraordinary society in a few short months.  I do hope that it delivers all that it needs to… and more.

There are several reasons why the lampooning of political branding does not mean it has failed. Not all publicity is good publicity, but it almost is. If the Tories had released a poster with an accidental typo that meant it actually said, ‘David Cameron likes sexy kids’, then that would indeed be bad publicity. But a poster that spawns an internet viral? That has to be good. Yes, the majority of people who visit mydavidcameron.com do so to make fun of the poster, but every single person that clicks that link also sees the original poster; far more than would have seen it on billboards. Not all of them will be staunchly anti-Cameron. Likewise, those who are will hardly have been converted by somebody else’s spoof of the poster. As an aside I would also add that the complete absence of any genuinely funny parodies does their cause no favours. I doubt that, ‘I’ll show you my policies if you show me yours first’, will have many rolling in the aisles. I mean if you’re going to take the piss, do it properly.

Then there is the issue of airbrushing. Lefties jumped on the accusation, endorsed and possibly initiated by Clifford Singer, creator of mydavidcameron.com, that Cameron’s poster had been airbrushed. No doubt it was. If I was going to have my face pasted onto 15ft high billboards I would make damn sure it got the Photoshop once-over. But make fun of it by all means, no problem with that. What made the accusations look slightly silly was that Labour, once they adopted Singer’s campaign as their own (having repeatedly denounced negative campaigning over the last few months) took to airbrushing the poster themselves so badly as to make it incredibly obvious. You have to ask yourself, when presented with such an easy target, what does it say about your ability to do absolutely anything at all if you then go right ahead and cock it up?

Undeterred, Liberalconspiracy.org are delighting in the fact that even Daily Mail readers think Cameron’s poster has backfired. In response I would first point out that you are polling people who read Mail Online and therefore a) hate David Cameron’s brand of Toryism and are b) pond life. After that I would simply direct you to some of the other polls conducted by the Mail Online, which have included, ‘Should the NHS allow gypsies to jump the queue?’, and ‘Should celebrities look perfect all the time?’. So, I think that’s that dealt with.

I look forward with immense excitement at Labour’s campaign strategy. They have no money so I doubt whether there will be posters (or even a strategy), but if there are I suspect there will be a national outcry, possibly a military coup, if Gordon Brown’s face is not airbrushed. But whichever way the campaign goes, the silent majority are forgotten at the pundits’ peril. They are in favour of every political campaign. That is why they remain silent. We pro-actively express dissent and silently express our agreement; casting a vote makes no sound at all.

The bill can be conceived of as a response to the palpable tensions in Uganda that surround the issue. These sentiments surged in the late 1990s when gay rights groups began to emerge in Africa. Placing these proposals in a global context serves to highlight the draconian nature of the bill. Worldwide acceptance of homosexuality is steadily increasing; Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and parts of the United States of America, recognise homosexual marriage. A further twenty countries acknowledge—and perform—civil partnerships. Yet, on the African continent, South Africa is the only country that allows gay marriage. However, it should be acknowledged that the legalisation of gay marriage does not warrant the inference that gay men and women can live peacefully. Some South African groups have rejected homosexuality as "un-African" and one of the ways that this attitude is taken up is by gangs carrying out so-called "corrective" rapes on lesbians.

Whilst the bill arouses a provocative moral debate in which one can become easily entrenched, it is vital to step back from the controversy in order to focus clearly on what the consequences might well be for Ugandan citizens if such legislation is implemented.

Seen from a global health perspective, the consequences on the escalation of the HIV/AIDS pandemic could be dire. The bill forbids the “promotion of homosexuality”, which has the effect of banning Non-Governmental Organisations and sexual health providers who work with the shadowed LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) community in HIV and AIDS prevention. Doctors fear they will be prosecuted for “aiding and abetting” homosexuality by employing established prevention strategies (for example sex education, use of condoms and distribution of sexually transmitted infection self-treatment kits) and this could reverse the country's previous successes, which have been positive and significant. Furthermore, legislation which imposes the death penalty on “active homosexuals” who have HIV will only consign those individuals into paralysing predicaments: the options are either execution for those who are found to be HIV positive, or abject suffering for those who are undiagnosed and unable to access the antiretroviral drugs that are desperately needed.

Among the many international public bodies that form a chorus of opposition, Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, has denounced the bill as breaching international human rights standards: "to criminalise people on the basis of colour or gender is now unthinkable in most countries. The same should apply to an individual's sexual orientation".  Other observers have said that Uganda has failed to acknowledge the diplomatic and economic repercussions of this legislation, in light of the US and Sweden’s threats to cut off aid should the bill become law. In response to these widespread criticisms, Okello Oryem, Ugandan Foreign Affairs Minister, has curtly stated that Uganda will not bow to external pressure, nor will they respond to the threats of withdrawing aid.

The bill is currently in the stages of being debated by Parliament and could undergo amendments before a vote, for which a date has not yet been set. Angelo Izama, an analyst with the Kampala-based think-tank Fanaka Kwa Wote, said a watered-down version of the bill may be adopted as sources seem to suggest that the Cabinet is divided on the death penalty clause. As it stands, a committee chaired by a local government minister has been formed, which will deliberate on this highly contested piece of legislation before reaching a final position.

image courtesy of http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/showthread.php?t=8175

"Ed Pilkington, the Guardian correspondent in Port-au-Prince, 35 miles from the epicentre, said this morning's quake was strong enough to be felt in the Haitian capital. Pilkington tweeted: "just been woken by my bed shaking in #Haiti. another after shock." The Associated Press said "wails of terror" could be heard from people as they fled buildings already left in ruins by last week's quake. It was not immediately possible to assess what additional damage the new quake may have caused. Last week's huge quake killed an estimated 200,000 people in Haiti, left 250,000 injured and made 1.5 million people homeless. A massive international aid effort has been launched, but is struggling with overwhelming logistical problems"

On this occasion, however, I choose to make an exception. This is not about political correctness gone mad or personal offence caused; this is about glamorising the exploitation and trafficking of women. Within moments of entering the house, Fleiss boasted in relation to her escort service: “I sent them all over the world”.

Television, films, magazines, music – all these cultural elements have combined over the latter years of the twentieth century to desensitise the public to previously distasteful aspects of society: drugs, violence, sex. This is not necessarily a bad thing – women now have far more control over their own lives and bodies. However, the culture of celebrity these elements have given rise to continues to perpetuate the idea that there are some for whom the rules are different; not just in terms of the law but of social acceptance.

There is an ongoing and extremely complex social debate within the UK about the legalising prostitution. Legalisation is not the same as legitimisation, though undeniably it goes some way in that direction. The argument goes that just because they won’t be chucked in jail doesn’t mean that prostitutes will put it on their passports under profession: it will not be a socially legitimate occupation to admit to. See Holland. In this respect, popular culture has a far greater role to play in legitimising an activity than the law does.

Take the drug culture as an example: weed is now widely perceived as pretty harmless. Politicians admit to having done it at university and, far from ending their career, it makes them a bit more human. Cocaine has a dangerous glamour about it; it has become the drug of choice for the young and the rich. At the far end of the spectrum is heroin: not only are its addictive qualities terrifying, but it is associated with crime, violence and poverty - with a few notable rock and roll exceptions.

The same twisted logic seems to apply to the sex industry: strip clubs are ‘just a bit of fun’ for your average punter. If you’re rich enough high-class prostitution can be dangerous (especially if you get caught) but pretty cool if you can afford it. Meanwhile, the vast majority of prostitutes are caught up in an incredibly dangerous and damaging world that few would choose to delve into.

At great risk of sounding like a broken record, it is high time that the realities of the sex industry were laid bare (forgive me). The exploitation of men or women in such a way should be as unacceptable to society as it is the law. Whoever you are, whatever your income – it’s not OK to pay for sex: a position that is much denigrated by parading Charlie Sheen’s supplier in the guise of a glamorous rebel, on national television.

Perhaps stating the obvious, but hanging out on New Year’s Eve is best done with those you know, love and trust. There are definitely good times and places to discuss your future plans with new connections, but NYE is not it. If you are like me, and always share two or three sincere new years resolutions, swearing you will not waver, only to find you replaced these with alternative, even more brilliant, ideas a month later, only your dearest and nearest will understand. Mind you, bonding with a stranger over a couple of glasses and lots of party nibbles may not be ideal networking as such, but you never know, you may have made a new friend for live! Happy partying and a very happy start to 2010!

Top Uruguayan model Luisel Ramos swanned down the catwalk in August of 2006 to applause and approval from the fashion elite who sat staring from the rows below her. Yet, minutes after stepping from the catwalk, she complained of feeling unwell and, suddenly and instantaneously died from heart failure.

Ramos had been told by her modeling agency that she could make it big if she lost an undisclosed amount of weight to reach the scarily-tiny size 0. The impressionable 22-year old took this as read and for three months prior to Fashion Week survived on a pitiful calorie intake consisting solely of salads, greens and Diet Coke. It failed to keep her alive. Later the same year two other models, Ana Carolina Reston and Hila Elmalich, also died from complications relating to the eating disorder, anorexia nervosa.

The noughties have been the focus of endless fashion discussions: skinny jeans, big shoulders, boho-chic yet the most significant issue raised has been it’s relationship with body image and the shrinking size of models everywhere.

After these three tragic deaths in 2006, the Health Authorities of the Region of Madrid and the Annual Cibeles Fashion Show banned thin models from participating in this year’s event. Models with a Body Mass Index (BMI) below 18kg/m2 (30% of the participants) were refused a position on the catwalk but instead offered medical help. (The average BMI for a healthy woman is between 19 to 25kg/m2 and to be diagnosed with anorexia nervosa a BMI of less than 17.5 is needed.) London took notice too, after Janet Treasure Head of the Eating Disorder Unit at King’s College London wrote to the British Fashion Council stating her concerns. Treasure wrote that fashion’s exaggerated and idealized image of beauty was unhealthily influencing women everywhere and a contributing factor in many a patient’s demise to anorexia. There seemed real action taken when 2007 the British Fashion Council set up the Model Health Inquiry to debate Treasure’s concerns and also consider the issue of retouching and airbrushing in shoots which “perpetuate an unachievable aesthetic”.

Yet, here we are in 2009, and no statements have been made and no solid guidelines, in the way of Madrid or Milan’s, have been set. The fashion industry seems to have a tendency to brush over these remarks sticking by their adage that skinny girls make the clothes look better and women are more likely to buy a magazines with a size 2 girl on the cover than a curvaceous size 12. It seemed that those of us outside the fashion industry were the only ones genuinely worried about what these skeletal images of pretty girls frolicking down the catwalks would be doing to the fragile minds of today’s youth.

Most designers have kept their mouths zipped on the subject, worried not to upset customers, buyers and advertisers alike. The formidable designer at Chanel, Karl Lagerfeld, know for his right-wing fashion views provocatively stated those complaining about fashion being too thin was, “fat mummies sitting with their bags of crisps in front of the television”. Other fashion royality such as Editor-in-Chief of French Vogue Carine Roitfeld continues to by-pass this issue without comment but is nearing size 0 herself and frequently photographed in leather leggings proudly showing the world her pencil-like legs.

A Vogue editor who has seemingly broken the mold is British Vogue’s Alexandra Schulman, who in June this year sent an unprecedented letter to a host of designers accusing them of supplying magazines with “minuscule” sample-size garments for their shoots. Schulman described how she had been forced to hire models with “jutting bones and no breasts or hips” in order to fit into the clothes and was frequently “retouching” photographs to make models look larger; the latter sounding highly disconcerting to those of us who think the majority of shoots feature all too-thin girls already. What worried her was that “the established star models,” were suddenly unable to fit into the designer pieces, meaning they were getting obviously smaller. One would believe a letter written with such conviction and by such a prestigious name would coax numerous responses , but yet again, we heard nothing.

A more public yearning for more curvaceous and realistically shaped women was found in Glamour magazine’s September issue in which little known ‘plus-size model’ Lizzie Miller was captured in the nude. More shocking than anything was the fact this beautiful girl was plus-size at all. A curvy size ten with little more than a small roll of fat round her stomach, Miller reaches 5ft 11 and weighs 12.5 stone- hardly plus size. Within minutes of this un-touched and un-airbrushed image being published, Glamour’s Editor Cindi Leive was inundated with emails from readers excited by the picture of a woman who was more like them than any of the other hundred bony ladies donned in Lanvin throughout the entire magazine. The photograph gained international press and Miller herself stated it was clear “how keen the world [was] to see all different body types”.

On the wave of this publicity, Mark Fast, a young designer who has won prestige from the harshest of fashion’s critics used three plus-size models in his S/S 2010 catwalk show, unheard of within such high realms of fashion. The flurry was exaggerated when renowned stylist Erika Kurihara pulled out of the show at last minute claiming the three plus-sizes, “didn’t have the walk down as well as the more experienced slimmer girls”. Fast, on the other hand, attempting to play the situation down, stated, “I wasn’t trying to make a huge statement… I just thought it was time: I see so many beautiful women out there, I just want to put them on the catwalk.” But how long will it really be before we see these realistic sizes on catwalks all over? Not in Karl Lagerfeld’s lifetime, that’s for sure.

Slowly but surely, small groups of people within the fashion industry are coming together and fighting for a change. Andreas Lebert, editor-in-chief of German’s most popular women’s magazine’s Brigette, declared she was “fed up” of having to retouch pictures of underweight models. Lebert believes these girls had no resemblance to her readers and is now adamant in using ‘real’ women throughout the publication. In October the Institute of Contemporary Arts held The Real People’s Catwalk Show, an attempt to break stereotypes with a catwalk made up of different shapes, sizes, ages and ethnicity. Created by Designer Sales UK (DSUK) it saw students, artists, and stylists come together to embrace diversity. The event gained a little attention but was soon enough forgotten about amongst the hubbub of Spring Summer buying on the fashion calendar.

Above all, it is crucial to understand the power of the fashion industry and the extensive imagery that we are bombarded with. The picture perfect never-ending magazine editorials and advertisements that give us unrealistic ideas of what is obtainable. The late noughties has magnified the fact we are no longer a text based culture, but an image-based one and the ability to read and understand images is essential to our well being. As Janet Treasure, the Head of the Eating Disorders Service stated herself, “people may say that clothes look better on skinny models but do not forget there was a time when smoking looked good too.”

2009 will surely go down in the history books as the year our understanding of personal branding finally hit home.  The philosophies, values and actions of individuals have not only affected the rise and fall of personal fortunes, but have contributed to expensive wars and bringing down our financial institutions.  And as we have seen with Tigergate, brands built on illusions are deeply vulnerable and a lesson to us all.  No amount of smart labelling and advertising will hide the truth – well not in the long run anyway.  Certainly not where there is something to be gained through ‘kiss and tell’.  Interesting to compare Woods’ brand with that of Sir Richard Branson, who very cleverly has never set himself up for such a fall.   

Simple stuff really – its all about cause and effect and thankfully, most of us are not open to the relentless scrutiny of the media.  We are, however, open to the scrutiny of our business partners, investors, clients and colleagues and in times like these, the realisation that we have little control over anything other than ourselves has hit home hard.

So a little something to ponder over the festive season and to get you ready for 2010:

Top personal branding tips for the coming year:

The relentless rise of social and digital media means that we are all found online.  Your digital footprint is being created as we speak and its up to you to ensure that it works for you.  But personal branding is not only about managing how you are perceived online, it’s also about what you do and the impact you create in person and offline.

Potential business partners and employers will google you - ensure what they find online is a true reflection of who you are in a business context.  Un-tag yourself from those silly, party pictures on Facebook and ask your friends not to post any photos or videos of you.  There are far better, less potentially damaging ways of sharing fun times.

Analyse your markets or audience and ask yourself what each person or group is looking for in someone like you.  So if you are an entrepreneur, your markets/audience might be your customers, your investors, your employees, your business partners, the media, industry related bodies and your suppliers.  Put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself if there is anything you could be doing better?

Go to market and find out how you are perceived.  The only way to do this is to ask.  Pick three or four people from each of your markets/audience and ask them how they perceive you in a business context.  What you learn will be invaluable.

Find out what it is about you that makes you compelling to others - most successful people get it right most of the time, but they are not always sure why.  This little nugget will give you the self-knowledge to keep delivering the essence of what makes you successful, which in turn delivers a sense of control over your career.  Its all about understanding cause and effect - you are the cause and you can measure the effects.

Specialise - we can't be all things to all people so pick an area of expertise that you have, make sure that its desirable to your markets/audience and then make it well known.  You can do this online (write a blog, comment on others articles in online publications), offline (write a letter to the editor, write an article for your trade press), and in person (host a meeting, invite an expert to talk - you will raise your profile by association).

Consistency is key - consistency builds trust so keep delivering what others find compelling about you consistently.  Think about your career as you might think about Heinz baked beans - no amount of smart labelling or advertising will compensate for the consistency of the product.  When you open the can, it needs to be the same.  Every single time.

Get smart and get online.  Write a blog, record video (its bigger than blogging or social networking), tweet and get your profile updated on Linkedin.  You control the content, you control the message, you control your brand.  There is a proviso here - we really don't want or need to know what you had for lunch unless you are a food critic.  It’s all about adding value.

Take the time and put energy into developing your talents and your self-knowledge.  Oh, and take regular breaks too.  At the risk of sounding clichéd, you need to invest in yourself and that includes having some down time, some 'me' time.  You will come back refreshed and it will add a fresh perspective to your work.

And on that note, I am taking my own advice and am heading off for a dose of sun.  I hope you have a fabulous festive break and look forward to seeing you in 2010.

I can't think of anywhere else in the world where the price of a glass of champagne is so ridiculously high.  Oh, apart from the Billionaire Club in Sardinia where I was knocked off my choos by the price of a cocktail at €50.  Admittedly, it was an incredibly delicious, sublimely good berry Caipirinha...

And as with all things, its hard to shake a bad first impression.  We vote with our feet and my 39's won't be back.  Not unless they invite me in as Style Director and give me an open cheque book.  It could be super cool, sexy, sassy... but sadly misses the mark in too many ways to count.  Apart from counting to 28 that is.