Warning - This blog has no point

Earlier today, I read this article by Charlie Brooker. It is slightly encouraging in that Brooker explains that despite a bungled educational background, he has managed to succeed in life. At the same time, it is rather discouraging for me personally, because I am the same age as him, but, despite having similarly bungled my education, I am still in the dead-end job.

Stories of people who have become successful despite not doing well at school are not particularly rare. What struck me about Brooker's article is the similarity with my own situation. Like him, I scraped through my A-levels; easily distracted, I got marks that were better than I deserved, but not quite what I needed to get a place at my first choice institution. Like Brooker, I was offered a place anyway; and like Brooker, I started a course at a polytechnic, that became a university while I was studying there. Also like Charlie Brooker - and this is the bit that really impresses me - I failed after three years.

For the uninitiated, the last is something of an achievement: some students drop out part way through; this is nothing to be ashamed of if you've made a bad decision, or simply find it difficult for other reasons. Very few students, however, stay for three years, but leave without a degree. In my cohort, I was the only one; by way of contrast, two students were awarded Firsts.

Like Charlie Brooker, I also spent my 20s with poor qualifications and no real idea about what I wanted to do. This is where the similarities between us end. He has since become quite successful, despite not having a degree; I went back to university as a mature student, and obtained a First - but, I'm still stuck in a poorly-paid, unchallenging job that I don't like very much.

There is still no real point to this blog. I'm not trying to suggest that Charlie Brooker is wrong, or I am unfortunate, or even that going back to university was a bad idea (it wasn't). I'm simply sharing a bit of personal history and trying to bask in the reflected glory of a mildly successful journalist.

A hacking great scandal?

As you might be aware, there has been a bit of a hoo-ha about phone hacking over the last few weeks. It is a story that significant enough in its own right and one that will, I suspect, rumble on for some time before we begin to see the full extent of the wrongdoing. The story is also significant, I think, because it is part of a longer-running power struggle between three large British institutions.

For a while (perhaps a long while) the press, Parliament and the judiciary have been at war (to use a tabloidism) over who holds the other to account. In the past two years, we have seen the press unveil details of MPs' expenses with varying degrees of relish. All this is justified (not unreasonably, I think) by the claim that part of the job of the press is to hold our MPs to account. The judiciary have joined in with the fun, sending disgraced politicians to prison.

The press and the judiciary, meanwhile, have been at war over privacy laws. The recent case of a celebrity footballer (no links, as you probably all know anyway) who attempted to prevent reporting of his sexual indiscretions illustrates the point well. The judiciary attempted to curb the press, granting an injunction preventing reporting of the issue (not to mention the very existence of the injunction). The press, of course, found various ways round this, aided by a certain social networking site. Ultimately, Parliament had its final say, with an MP using Parliamentary Privilege to name the player in question.

There are countless other examples of judges making decisions that press and Parliament (with an eye on their popularity ratings) find ludicrous; or, alternatively, judges mitigating Parliament's attempts to introduce outrageous or ill-thought out changes.

Ultimately, all three see themselves as the final arbiter. The press do not want to be over-regulated (or regulated at all) - who does? Most media commentators argue that a free press is vital in a democracy. This is perfectly correct and I think it could well be the case that we have to put up with a press we don't like as the price for this. It is also right to say that the press should not be above the law - written by Parliament and interpreted by the judiciary.

This seems to leave us chasing our own tails, but perhaps this is as it should be. Democracy is not perfect, but I don't think humanity has yet invented a less imperfect system. We have to accept compromises and inconsistencies. This doesn't mean, however, that we shouldn't work to improve the system, or at least our application of it.

We have heard a lot during the last few weeks about 'regulation' of the press; personally, I think 'accountability' is a more useful concept. I am wary of any attempt to stop someone publishing or saying what they like (it's a complicated debate best saved for another time). Accountability means that journalists, and proprietors, who break the law will be punished in the same way as everyone else - perhaps even more severely. The press enjoy a privileged position within a democracy and with that privilege comes responsibility. We should be able to expect the highest standards from our journalists, just as we should be able to expect them from our MPs and our judges.