Week 4

Week 4

• Paper 1: The Guardian

The story that I am looking at in the The Guardian this week is "Google Glass now with £1,000 price tag". It is written by Samuel Gibbs, the Technology Reporter. 

Gibbs started off the article with the sentence,"Google Glass smartglasses are finally available in the UK for £1,000, two years after they were extravagantly lauched by skydivers un the US." The glasses are now avilable for purchase by anyone over 18 years of age and with a UK credit card and address.

The article goes on to give a detailed description of the glasses themselves; "Google Glass consists of a pair of glasses with a small prism-based translucent screen mounted above the right eye. It can take pictures or video from a front-facing camera controlled by a voice command or a swipe on the right-hand armature. It is designed to display at-a-glance information on its screen, which is visible only to the user. It runs on a variant of Google's mobile software and relies on a smartphone for its connectivity."

Google have said that "it offers about a day's battery life or 45 minutes of continuous video recording." The Google co-founder Sergy Brin has called them a way to "free your eyes" and described smartphones as "emasculating", the smartglasses have since been praised as the evolution of wearable computing.

• Paper 2: Daily Mail 

The story that I am looking at in the Daily Mail this week is "The eyes have it! Google Glass is here for £1K". The author is unknown. 

The article has been started off with the sentence, "Google Glass, the controversial wearable computer, has finally been released in the UK, with a price tag of £1,000." 

Britons over the age of 18 can now buy a Glass prototype, previously only available in the US, as part of Google's Explorer Program, which gives users the chance to test the product while it is still being developed. 

The article explains how "the futursitic device is worn like a pair of spectacles and allows the wearer to make calls, read emails and text messages, take photographs and videos, and access the internet. All this is done on a transparent screen that appears on the right side of the user's line of vision." 

The Glass is voice-activated and is used by saying "Okay Glass" before dictating commands such as "take a picture". Head of Google Glass Ivy Ross, said, "Technology is at its best when it fits into our lives and lets us get on with whatever we're doing. Our goal for Glass is exactly that - to mak eit easier to bring people the technology they rely on without drawing them out of the moment."

Google are running events in London, where customers can go to be fitted and ask questions.

• In Conclusion...

Both papers explain the product well.

The Daily Mail however, gives a more detailed explanation of the Glass and a buyer would find this article more helpful. 

Week 3

Week 3

• Paper 1: The Guardian

The story that I am looking at in the The Guardian this week is "GPs told not to use aspirin in heart rhythm cases". 

This article is written by Haroon Siddique. As we know, aspirin has been used for 20 years, to prevent stroke in people with the heart rhythm disorder atrial fibrillation. The article starts off with the sentence, "Aspirin should no longer be used to try to prevent strokes in people with a common heart rhythm disorder as it is ineffective and has acted as a 'smokescreen', preventing people from getting the right treatment, government experts say." This topic has been deeply scientifically researched for some time now and I feel that this sentence is good for starting the article.

Siddique states that this news affects 100,000 people with atrial fibrillation. This causes the heart to beat irregularly and sometimes too fast. Before now, these people would have taken aspirin most days. He has backed up his statement with advice from "the National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence (Nice) to see their GP to discuss alternative medication."

Experts say that more than a million people in Britain, suffer from atrial fibrillation, about a quarter of them haven't been diagnosed. Siddique uses scientific evidence to write, "Nice said that strokes among people with atrial fibrillation were 'highly preventable' and 7,000 a year could be averted if treated with anticoagulants, as well as 2,000 premature deaths. Nice still recommend the drug for management of patients with a combination of heart failure and coronary heart disease and those who have suffered a transient ischemic attack, or mini-stroke." 

 Campbell Cowan, chair of the group that drew up the new health guidance, said, "Aspirin has been a little bit of a smokescreen to anticoagulants (medicines that prevent the blood from clotting as quickly or as effectively as normal) . We now know that aspirin is not safer and it is questionable whether it has any effect at all, as aspirin is no longer recommended for stroke prevention." According to the experts only half of those who should be on anticoagulants are getting them at present. Cowan went on to say, "Any stroke occurring in a patient with atrial fibrillation is a tragedy because it was preventable." The guidance group doesn't recommend anticoagulants for people at a low rick of stroke or high risk of bleeding. Cowan warned patients on aspirin not to simply stop taking it. "They can't assume they are taking aspirin for their atrial fibrillation so they should consult with the doctor."

• Paper 2: Daily Mail

The story that I am looking at in the Daily Mail this week is "Aspirin is 'wrong drug for 200,000 heart patients'".

Jenny Hope, Daily Mail's Medical Correspondent starts off the article with "More than 200,000 people being prescribed aspirin for a heart condition that can trigger a stroke should be swapped to more effective drugs as it doesn't work, say new NHS guidelines." I think that Hope's choice of starting sentence is more effective than Siddique's. Just by reading this sentence, can we achieve a higher, long lasting impact from this serious situation.

Hope has gone on to say that the NHS wants patients to use a new generation of anti-clotting agents or an estabolished drug called warfin, based on rat poison. Prescribing better drugs and treating more people at risk could save 7,000 strokes and 2,000 premature deaths. 

It is though that a million Britons have atrial fibrillation (AF) which causes around one in seven strokes. That means that aproximately 14% of strokes are caused by AF. In AF, the upper chambers of the heart are out of rhythm and beat much faster than normal, which allows blood to pool and generate tiny blood clots which can trigger a stroke. Around half of patients who could benefit from anticoagulant drugs are not getting them, while others are prescribed aspirin.

New guidelines from the National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence (NICE) state that aspirin should no longer be prescribed to prevent AF-related strokes in people at low or moderate risk - a reversal from its 2006 guidance. These updated guidelines show that aspirin is not as effective as anticoagulants - and not as safe because it may be more likely to cause bleeding in both the brain and the stomach than other anti-clotting drugs.

Dr Campbell Cowan, chairman of NICE's guideline development group, said,  "Aspirin has been a little bit of a smokescreen to anticoagulants. We now know that aspirin is not safer and it is questionable whether it has any effect at all, as aspirin is no longer recommended for stroke prevention. Any stroke occurring in a patient with atrial fibrillation is a tragedy because it was preventable." He said patients did not need to stop taking aspirin immediately - it might be prescribed for other medical reasons - but they should make a GP appointment to discuss their options. 

In addition, those whose condition is poorly controlled with warfarin should be considered for newer drugs that do not need constant monitoring. The drugs dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban have been approved as cost-efefctive for the NHS even though they can cost £64 a month compared with £1 for warfarin, plus regular clinic visits.

GPs feel under pressure not to prescribe them because of the expense. Many patients report tasking to be swapped because their warfarin treatment it not working, but are 'stonewalled'.

Hope has gone on to report from another expert's point of view, Dr Khalid Khan, who works at Wrexham Maelor Hospital, north Wales. Dr Khan is a consultant cardiologist, and said that the guidelines were 'defining a moment'. He said, "Currently there are many thousands of people with AF who unfortunately remain unprotected from the risk of stroke; whether they are on no treatment, on an ineffective treatment for AF such as aspirin, or on warfarin that is not being adequately controlled. 'Today's announcement gives doctors considerably more choice and clear guidance in this area'."

• In Conclusion...

Both papers give a lot of scientific evidence to back their articles. With the Daily Mail providing a better roundup of perspectives.

Dr Campbell Cowan was quoted in both articles and provided a vital insight to the situation in question.

Week 2

Week 2

• Paper 1: The Guardian

The story that I am looking at in the The Guardian this week is "Dyke hits out over Blatter attack and calls on Fifa president to go". It is on the front page of the Sports Section and is written by Owen Gibson, the São Paulo reporter.

Gibson started off the article with the sentence, "The Football Association chairman, Greg Dyke, has warned Sepp Blatter that an attack on the "racist" British media over Qatar 2022 corruption allegations was "totally unacceptable" and backed calls for Fifa's president to stand down.
This basically quoted Dyke stating that Blatter must stand down as President of FIFA (the Fédération Internationale de Football Association). Fifa is the international governing body of association football, futsal and beach soccer.

Sepp Blatter toured the Asian and African confederations (football bodies) on Monday 9^th June and launched an attack on those he said were trying to "destroy" Fifa. Dyke warned Blatter that his attack on the Britsh media was outrageous. "The allegations you made yesterday about the British media when you described them as racist were unacceptable," he told Blatter. Dyke said that the decision on whether to oppose Blatter's bid to stand again would be taken by the FA board but added that the Swiss should "probably stick to" his original promise to stand down in 2015.

However, on arrival at a tense Uefa (Union of European Football Associations) gathering on Tuesday 10^th, Sepp Blatter told delegates that he plans to stand for another four years rather than resigning.  David Gill (who is also mentioned in Daily Mail) is reported to comment "The very fact that in 2011 he was clear it was four years, that should have been the situation. To change his mind is disappointing." Gill is obviously very disappointed that Blatter isn't resigning after four years and is instead going back on his word. Later on Gill is quoted on his thoughts of Fifa's recently acquired, bad reputation, "If you look at the reputation of Fifa over the last seven or eight years, people link Fifa to bribery and corruption, to a kind of old boy's reputation." Other Uefa members also spoke out against Blatter and urged change in order to restore Fifa's battered reputation. Towards the end of August, the Uefa will start discussions about finding an alternative candidate to oppose Blatter in April 2015.

• Paper 2: Daily Mail

The story that I am looking at in the Daily Mail this week is "Blatter under siege over his racism claim". The article is by Matt Lawton, the Chief Sports Reporter from São Paulo.

Lawton has started off the article with the sentence, "Greg Dyke took a public stand against Sepp Blatter yesterday, joining the chorus of calls for the FIFA president to resign and describing his accusation that the British media is racist as 'offensive'". This is a good sentence for opening the article as it acts as a summary of this topical issue.  

The FIFA president, Sepp Blatter spoke to the UFEA (Union of European Football Associations) congress on Tuesday 10^th June in São Paulo, Brazil. Only the day before, Monday 9^th, had Blatter sparked controversy when he said that allegations of corruption around Qatar's selection to hold the 2022 World Cup were being driven by the "racism and discrimination" of the "British media".

The chairman of the Football Association, Greg Dyke said he didn't agree and that Blatter was insulting our media. Dyke stood up to the FIFA president in an auditorium at the city's Renaissance Hotel saying, "Could I say that I regard the comments you made yesterday about the allegations in the British media in which you described them as racist as totally unacceptable." He continued to say that the allegations made by Blatter were nothing to do with racism, they were about corruption within FIFA, they need to be properly investigated and properly answered. After, he said, "The only reason I did it was because of Mr Blatter said yesterday, which I found, as I'm sure many of you found, offensive."

David Gill, a member of the UFEA, calls for Blatter to stand down as President. When the interviewer asked whether he thought Blatter should go, Gill replied, "Personally, yes. I think we should move on. But that's just my opinion. There are 209 countries voting for the new president. That statement made by Mr Blatter was, from our perspective, totally unacceptable and factually incorrect." As David Gill states, next year a new FIFA president may be chosen. 

That new president may well be Van Praag, who might yet emerge as the UEFA's choice to stand against Blatter next year. It is understood that he too spoke to Blatter at the UEFA congress about FIFA's increasingly "ugly reputation". He went on to say to Blatter that "FIFA has an executive person and whether you like it or not, you have a responsibility."  

• In Conclusion...

Both papers are of the opinion that Mr Sepp Blatter should stand down as President of FIFA.
In the Daily Mail's article, David Gill said, "we need to move on" but he mentioned Blatter as "a stain on the football world" in The Guardian.

Week 1

Week 1

• Paper 1: The Guardian

The story that I am looking at in The Guardian this week is "State school pupils outperform private peers at university". 

The reporter Richard Adams has started off the article with the sentence, "Comprehensive school pupils should be allowed into universities on the back of lower GCSE and A-level grades than students from grammars and fee-paying private schools". This is  a very controversial statement, as there are various contrasting views on this subject. However, it does backup a study commissioned by the Department for Education, which concludes that students from comprehensives with equivalent GCSE and A-level grades outperform their more expensively educated peers at university.

Results showed that an independent school student was 10% less likely to to get a first or a 2:1 degree than a student educated at a comprehensive when they had the same A-level results and were studying the same subjects at similar universities. The article has a diagram showing how given the same GCSE results, students from different types of schools compare with those from comprehensive schools. 

Russell Group universities are committed to the highest levels of academic excellence in both teaching and research. As the article states, traditionally, these universities, such as Cambridge, Queens University Belfast and Manchester, have insisted that A-level grade offers should remain the same for all applicants, regardless of school background.

Dr Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group believes that admission should be based on merit, and any decisions about admissions must also maintain high academic standards. Admissions tutors are skilled at assessing applicants and places must go to those who are prepared to work.

The article has many quotes from Claire Crawford of Warwick University and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Claire was the author of the report carried out by the Department for Education. By reading Claire's opinions on the matter, I can tell that she is very much emphasizing that students from state schools or less effective schools will go on to do better given the grades that they are entering with. Claire said that universities should make their own decisions about who they accept.

• Paper 2: Daily Mail

The story that I am looking at in the Daily Mail this week is "Universities told to discriminate against middle class pupils". 

The reporter Laura Clark has started off the article with the sentence, "Universities should discriminate against applicants from private schools, grammars and high-performing comprehensives, Government funded research has suggested". As before, this is a very controversial statement, as there are various contrasting views regarding this matter.

The article then goes on to explain a study carried out by the Department for Education. The DfE believes that universities should lower their entry requirements because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that comprehensive students show more potential and are more likely to graduate with a first or 2:1 in their degree.

Researchers lead by Warwick University's Dr Claire Crawford (as mentioned in The Guardian's article) believe that entry grades should be lowered "to equalize the the potential of all students being admitted to university". The study also said that pupils from state grammar schools should be "excluded from receiving these lower offers". The researchers believe that many cost initiatives aimed at encouraging less privileged youngsters to apply to university may have been wasted because they came too late in their school career. Efforts should instead be focused on encouraging pupils to choose appropriate GCSE subjects at age 14, and boosting their achievement in them at 16. 

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary has warned that attempts to skew university admissions policies give weak schools an excuse to avoid improvement. 

In contrast, David Willets and Bruce Cable from the Department for Business have urged universities to go further in introducing "contextual admissions", which will inform tutors of the student's background. 

Dr Wendy Piatt (appearing again, as she did before in The Guardian's Article) represents 24 elite universities as the director general of the Russell Group. She says that, "Russell Group universities take a range of factors into account when deciding which students are offered a place. The bottom line is we want to give places to the pupils with the qualifications, potential and determination to succeed."

• In Conclusion...

At present, the future plans for this situation look very undecided with Clare Crawford being quoted in two different ways to suit each article.
The Daily Mail seems to come out on the side of contextual admission, whilst The Guardian doesn't mention it at any point.