Richard Bolton

A considerable proponent of the student body here in Manchester hail from the Eurozone. In the absence of an integrated, single system, we may see a significant reduction in the Mainland Europe student intake into Manchester universities. 

The Union, with Europe, under which free trade and student visa arrangements between participating member states encapsulates the current ease of visa processing, in what is an otherwise strictly controlled immigration state lying outside of the Schengen Zone. Short term consequences of a British 'NO to Europe' vote in the June referendum may mark a swift drop off in the number of university applications from Europe for fears of insecurity, opaqueness and potential loss of funding.

The steady flow of immigrant students, most of whom are young and keen to work, fuels economic growth and helps pay for public services. These higher fees and wider attendance enable the gentrification of city centres with university complexes.
Grants from respective governments are often a lifeline to students on bursaries or funding in order for them to study in the world's sixth most expensive currency economy. The Scandinavian countries, with widely integrated welfare systems, tend to offer their prospective students planning to study abroad figures in the region of £750-1000 a month on top of £14,000 tuition fees prepaid and £6000 accommodation covered. For any given international student this may not seem as though it contributes significantly to our economy. However, add up the 100,000s who study within the UK from abroad and the financial figure soon builds.

London and Partners estimate the net contribution of foreign students to our economy at around £3 Billion and 37,000 jobs while PwC £2.3Bn.

Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
The UK is one of 10 member states who pay more into the EU budget than they get out – only France and Germany contribute more. In 2014/15, Poland was the largest beneficiary, followed by Hungary and Greece.

The UK also gets an annual rebate that was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, in the form of regional development grants and payments to farmers, which added up to £4.6bn in 2014/15. Britain’s part in international projects is protected regardless of the single market relationship. However, €6.8bn in funding from the EU’s Horizon 2020 is at risk should we leave.

Much of this funding is poured into projects in the north of England. The decline of the northern powerhouse development funding may depend on a number of tough decisions in the UK and Europe. This includes whether the EU itself will embrace reform and whether UK politicians and voters are willing to usher Britain into the deregulated, free trading economy it would need to become outside the EU.

According to the latest Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - nearly double what it was in 2009/10. To put that in context, it is about £24m a day or about 1.4% of total public annual spending - slightly less than the energy and climate change department's annual budget.

However, the student body from the EU comes to the rescue in style. The National Audit Office, using a different formula which takes into account EU money paid directly to private sector companies and universities to fund research, and measured over the EU's financial year, shows the UK's net contribution for 2014 was £5.7bn.

The demographic stance
Younger people are expected to vote to remain in the EU, while older voters tend to favour out. But as a general rule, older people are more likely to vote in elections than younger people

When shall we expect the campaigns?
Ultimately, the economic impact of Brexit is not as clear cut as to the direction it shall take on. However the official campaign period is from 15 April to 23 June, providing the critical window for both sides to air their proposals and views.

Who is in control of the ship?
Currently, Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, stands as the intermediary banking middle man for delegation and dispersion of monetary contributions. He delegates funds into regeneration and development projects within the EU with reserves breaching €526 Billion at his disposal.

A considerable stake of member contributions floods toward Eastern European infrastructure and capital investment programs. While the UK receives trickling measures into the northern regions to pursue similar policies. However, were the UK to leave, this short term financing for investment expenditure may well dry up for cities such as Manchester.

Westminster may well be forced to cut back further to contain the budget and currency account deficits expanding. In pursuing said policy, the likely consequence would be to reign in public finances to councils and constituencies up and down the country.
This course of action would lead to Manchester being stifled of vital funding to secure its future as a cosmopolitan, services based, financial and trading hub to rival that of London for contributions to overall GDP.

The potential in going solo
Britain will only prosper outside the EU if it is prepared to use its new found freedom to undertake active steps towards trade liberalisation and deregulation. The EU is not inherently free trade and mutual cooperation, it simply provides a framework for these desirables. This is a framework that can be replicated with many countries and regional blocs.

On the contrary, EU directives are often considered a hindrance to real negotiation with the emerging powers. China, Malaysia and Indonesia have all voiced confidence they would arrange new mutually beneficial deals with the UK. Exclusion from the EU directives would not necessarily impinge on Britain's expansionary progress for the existence of outside trading partners. The historical lineage of the UK as head of the Commonwealth and the long standing special relationship with America render not being able to establish trade links outside the EU as improbable. More plausibly the fear mongering has got the better of us.

Opening up the UK economy to trade with the rest of the world – including the USA, India, China and Indonesia – is essential to economic growth post-Brexit. However, this would mean exposing UK firms and workers to whole new levels of competition from low-cost countries, and would therefore be politically very sensitive.
One such conjecture to premeditated departure is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - TTIP for short - currently under negotiation between the EU and United States. The precedent would set the most expansive trading bloc the world has ever witnessed generating alleged benefits to the tune of £10 Billion a year for Britain. Would we lose out on this arrangement should we leave as result of our diminished collective bargaining power? Unlikely is perhaps the suitable response.

Jeremy Corbyn voiced his concerns to Parliament over a world outside the EU. He notes a further shift in power away from National government toward corrupt, warped, mutant multinational corporation capitalism would create a precedent for further proliferation.

In addition to business turmoil, Brexit may undermine public services, deteriorate food standards with American permitted chemicals used in food production toxic to humans. For instance, many American food exports currently violate EU health and safety standards for pesticide and fungicide pollutants, antibiotic resistant bacteria and rbST (recombinant bovine growth hormone).

Corbyn voiced the potential harm to basic rights of a stable job environment and protection from poorly regulated markets outside the EU. For instance, the poisonous Corona beer scam and fake faulty chainsaws from China injuring users from chain recoil and snapping.

Critics acknowledge the process is already underway and insuppressible regardless of Britain's outcomes. That to avoid the opportunity based on some forgone moral principles we once held was to linger in the past occluded from the economic benefits accessible to our country.

A Liberal policy for labour migration?
Amongst those voters who want to leave the EU, a majority rank limiting free movement and immigration as their main motivation, meaning the UK may move in the opposite direction to opening up on leaving Union.
"Red tape" within the EU may well amount to no more than euphemism for employment rights and environmental protection. Working Time Directives and the temporary agency workers directive restrict working hours and the capacity for firms to hire and fire with ease.

Leaving the EU may improve job market efficiencies, in particular labour productivity. Alternatively, it may lead to further discrimination of certain worker demographics, such as disabled or black minorities, by the fraternity style business environment.

Excusing ourselves from the table
Article 50 is the only established legal way to leave the EU, yet it is a major liability. Once triggered, there is no turning back. Article 50 excludes the UK from key decisions as well as the final vote for a minimum period of 2 years. The EU sits at the helm of the timetable during the negotiations phase. Following this spell, the UK could be presented with a ‘take it or leave it’ deal. Speculation and trends have shown that leaving arrangements without a preferential trading agreement would dent British GDP significantly.

Given the difficulty in leaving the EU and the extent of the political and economic challenges the UK would need to overcome to make Brexit work in its long-term interests, it would be foolhardy to leave without first testing the limits of EU reform. Limiting the areas of EU interference and further market liberalisation would be the most beneficial option for both the UK and the EU, though critiques have argued that were Britain to expend the same energies into reforming the EU as it is to Brexit potential, both would be far better off.
In the meantime, we sit a second fiddle at the table pledging £24 million net a day to inefficient glacial bureaucracy. In the context of an increasingly globalised world, bloc trade arrangements have become necessary to stifle this progression toward further integration and openness. The USA and Europe, if TTIP goes ahead, may merely reflect another step forward in the process of wider amalgamation that prevents us from going any further.

The lack of distinct clarity from our government's competence and aptitude at the negotiation table pushes my disposition to side more with the 'YES' to Union. The negative repercussions in leaving on poor terms with EU jurisdiction for a further two years would incur considerable short term pain and significant job losses.

Union represents on another level the opportunity of a support platform given we are not the same power we once were in the days of Imperial rule and collective Commonwealth identity. This is aptly summarised by Lord Alfred Tennyson in Ulysses: "We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven...made weak by time and fate."

On a final note, in an environment without bounding constraint nor regulation from a higher supranational body we expose ourselves to the mercy of our own government. In a developed and liberal economy as Britain one should have no immediate cause for concern you say.

For those who remain indecisive and ambivalent, remain under no disillusionment that big money is at play in the decision making process.  Take Rupert Murdoch, the last Tycoon Media Mogul owner of The Times, BSkyB and The Sun, on his Brexit position: "When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice." TMM

Ryan Khurana

Manchester has a major homelessness problem. Before I moved to Manchester, I had a preconceived notion about homelessness, that it was the result of addiction and that mental illness prevented integration. These notions, however, oversimplified the issues into a single problem. Having been involved in an extreme poverty charity during my entire stay in Manchester, I have met many individuals, each with distinct issues and needs, who have challenged my perceptions on homelessness. In this article, I will share a few stories of the people I have met, omitting names for their sake, to help provide a picture of the issues faced by the people on the streets.
 
The Man With A Dog
One of the first people I met, even before I really began volunteering with dedication, was a middle-aged gentleman with a dog. He himself had little to possess, while he had a lot of food and supplies to take care of his dog. I sat down next to him to have a conversation about his issues, and he told me that most people are very generous to his dog, and that he uses the little money he gets to feed his dog first.
 
Several years before his wife had died, and he spiraled into alcohol addiction. He stopped caring about work, stopped paying his bills, and was simply unable to cope with the depression of losing the most important person in his life. He ended up on the streets with his dog, and only then did he begin to realise he had a problem. He sobered himself up on the streets.
 
He told me about one time that he was in his sleeping bag at night, and a group of teenagers decided to set him on fire as a joke. He did not believe that he would see help from others, and had to make the best of what he had.
 
The few times he was offered a way out, he was told that he could not let his dog live with him. Having lost the most important person in his life once, to do it again would be too high a price to pay. He was not able to do it.

The Man Who Was Abused
Not too long after, I met another man, who was bruised across his body and quite frail as a result. He was quite scared of me at first, but he had a friend with him, who had previously been homeless, who was now supporting him in getting better. I asked him about his story, and he told me he wanted the world to know.
 
He was in touch with the council and the hospital, who were supporting him as a result of his fragile condition, but they were unable to offer him immediate aid. He was divorced, and had four kids who he had not seen in years, their names all tattooed across his arms. He could not bear to see them without a roof over his head, the shame would be too great.
 
He had to move from place to place, never sleeping in the same place twice as he had a stalker who came and attacked with a crowbar. It all began when he was given a cell phone by a charity, who wanted to help him keep track of his appointments with a housing association. When he was spotted by a street gang with the phone he was brutally attacked and mugged.
 
His friend who had gotten off the street through that same charity was keeping him in touch and providing him with support. When I asked why he could not stay at his friend’s, I was informed of rules in place at the flat against visitors, which meant they would both be on the streets as a result. The constant muggings had made him deeply distrustful of others, and it took him quite a while to become comfortable with me.
 
I have run into the man several time since, keeping track of his progress, and seeing him develop greater hope each time, knowing that he will one day be able to see his kids again. The last time I met him, he told me he was one week away from being admitted into a home for rehabilitation, and that his worries will finally be over.

The Young Father
A young man I met had a great deal of hope despite his situation. He told me that his girlfriend, with whom he had a baby girl, had kicked him out after a fight they had, and turned his family against him. He was on the streets for only a little bit, but was unable to receive support from the council due to a criminal record, having gotten into a bar fight when he was 18.
 
I directed him to other agencies, such as Barnabas and the Booth Centre, which can help advocate on his behalf, for which he was quite grateful. He took a photo out of his backpack of his daughter, a gorgeous, angelic looking little baby. He told me he knew it was all going to be ok because he will do whatever it takes to see here again.
 
While I have not seen him again, I can only assume a young man such as himself had the support of friends to get back on his feet.

Other Stories
Some may see it harder to sympathise with the young and homeless, but to be in that situation at such an age does require something vital to go very wrong. The young and struggling usually fail to take advantage of the plethora of services available to them, simply because they have never been informed of them, or nobody takes their case seriously. This itself presents a huge barrier to care for those most desperately in need.
 
The numerous cases of those being evicted by shady landlords, either who stole their money or who put them in unlivable conditions, all have a more direct, albeit inefficient, route back into accommodation. A man who I have met almost daily for the last few months, is waiting on the council’s support, though the backlog of housing claims prevents quick aid. Those who do not have friends or relatives to support them while they wait have nowhere else to turn but the streets.
 
Some cases get more complicated, especially when people leave their homes before reporting the issues to the council. Especially among younger people on the streets, who were either abused by their landlord, or asked to live in houses with faulty electrical wiring, the support is minimal. To them, living on the streets was preferable to where they were before; to the council, they willingly made themselves homeless.

Some stories, especially those of the long-term homeless, or of the single women on the streets, are too disturbing to share in such an article. The pain faced by some of the people living on the streets is so gut-wrenching, it does not become hard to see why rehabilitation from the PTSD they are likely to develop seems impossible. It also helps to shed light on the high rate of drug addiction and alcoholism on the streets, even among those who did not have these problems prior to their current situation. There is no more painful experience than the look of absolute despair in someone’s eyes when they say that they can longer cope, that they would rather end their life. There is also no greater relief than seeing them regain their hope when you have offered them support.
 
Final Thoughts
It is my opinion that the issue of homelessness will never be solved. This is because it is not a problem unto itself, it is the consequence of various unique and complex problems, each more difficult than the last to address. If the government does something to solve someone’s problems, it creates a crack through which others will fall.
 
It is a fallacy among many commentators to say that the rate of homelessness in the modern, developed world is uniquely high, since the issue of poverty has existed throughout human history. As modernity has come upon us, we have traded the classical causes of poverty, such as famine, for more complex issues, such as drug addiction. The greater complexity of issues makes a blanket solution to homelessness not even a remote possibility; though that does not mean that nothing can be done.
 
One of the things I share with all volunteers who join the charity I work at, is that we are not there to solve homelessness, but to give dignity. To search for a solution to homelessness will be in vain, to search for the solution to a homeless man’s problems will bear much fruit. To care for each individual’s condition, and their unique reasons for their situation, is the only way to target their issues head on, and provide the long term aid needed. TMM
 
For more information on our writer Ryan’s charity work, including how to join, contact him at svp.muscc@outlook.com or join his charity’s Facebook group SVP MUSCC

Jake Hampson

Is the Democratic Party nomination not quite the one horse race it was three months ago?
Let us think back to late November 2015 when Hillary Clinton had a considerable lead over her opponent Bernie Sanders. A 28-point margin lead (a lead she hasn't matched since), according to a CNN/ORC poll. Suddenly we wake to the news a few days ago that Clinton has been defeated in New Hampshire by the first ever Jewish-American to win a primary in American history and the only Socialist Senator in Congress.

The question being proposed at the moment is what caused this decline in Clinton support? And, surely, where has this support for the 74 year old Senator from Vermont come from? Mobilising young, disenchanted, voters has been an essential piece to the puzzle of political success around the world, from Syriza to Podemos. Senator Sanders knows this and when promising free University education and greater social services he wins the minds and hearts of young people. While Clinton’s support seems to have fallen, Sanders has rocketed in opinion polls and has gone from averaging in the mid 20 per cent area to pushing almost 40 per cent approval in most opinion polls, such as in the Ipsos/Reuters one, where Sanders stands at 39 per cent approval. He has now earned victory in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points and his campaign has unquestionable evidence of ability to succeed on state level. It would be foolish to exaggerate Sanders victory in the grand scheme of the nomination process and at the same time, to talk doom and gloom about Clinton’s campaign is ill-timed.

Looking even forward, things are not great for the former First Lady by any means. Late on Tuesday night, according to early exit polls reported by CNN, Sanders led among women voters by about 10 percentage points. Clinton is really pushing the ‘being the first female President’ card (and why not) but surely she needs woman to support her campaign for this dream to become a reality. Women are clearly ‘feeling the bern’ and Clinton and her campaign team have a serious issue on their hands.

Is Donald Trump now unstoppable?
Donald Trump left New Hampshire after what could be the first step in achieving something deemed impossible and for which he was indeed laughed at not too long ago. This was not a close race by any means and the polls were not deceptive to us this time round. Trump won big time (as he emphatically stressed). He received 10 delegates with a 35 per cent vote share while Senator Ted Cruz received only two delegates with just under 12 per cent of the vote. This gives Trump a seven delegate lead over Cruz, his nearest rival for nomination.

Who, then, is to be Trump’s closest competitor if not Cruz? We can rest assured that Trump will attempt to dismiss and dismantle Ted Cruz’s campaign following his poor showing at New Hampshire much like he did with Jeb Bush’s campaign at the beginning of the race. Moreover, Ted Cruz’s campaign seems to have faltered much like Marco Rubio’s, and this could allow, finally, Jeb Bush to rise through the opinion polls after a better than expected showing in New Hampshire. Lastly, an unlikely charge from John Kasich could be on the cards as he appeals to the party’s moderate wings and could therefore appeal to Democrat inclined voters in the Presidential election – something Trump certainly lacks.

So what about John Kasich – does he stand a chance?
15.8 per cent of the popular vote and 4 delegates later and John Kasich announced himself on the 2016 Republican presidential nominee stage. John Kasich, Governor of Ohio since 2010 and Congressmen from 1981 to 2001, has presented shows on Fox News and is seen as a moderate Republican in comparison to Trump, Cruz and Rubio. He benefited from Jeb Bush’s inability to take make the case for moderate conservatism. Kasich’s positive campaign has evidently struck a cord with voters in the New Hampshire town halls, a state where he has been focusing most of his election effort. This, twinned with his super PAC flooding the local television channels with ads, lead to wide reaching name recognition across the state.
 
Kasich is anti-abortion, which seems to be essential to gain nomination in a republican presidential race, however he does have centre-left features in his position such as an acceptance that climate change exists and a belief in basic social redistribution to help the poorest in society. His ability to make a difference in this race depends on two main factors: The first being finance – if he fails to raise money to maintain the momentum and ‘bounce’ that comes from such a result then his campaign shall simply fizzle out and fold. This might be his biggest challenge. Kasich will be struggling to finance his campaign going forward, especially competing with financial giants currently in the race such as Trump, Cruz and Bush.
 
This brings us to the second worry about Kasich, which is Jeb Bush. Jeb and John both come across as the moderate conservatives of the 2016 GOP field. The trouble for Kasich is that he does not have the financial power that Jeb has in his back pocket. Jeb is by no means out of the race and this could be, as his campaign team have stated, the springboard he needed. This is a worry to team Kasich as Kasich and Bush are both vying for the same demography of voters, but only one can viably take their campaign in to the further depths of this nomination process. This magazine’s guess is that Kasich’s stock shall slowly simmer down to a point where he comes to an agreement with Jeb to cease his campaign whilst part of the agreement entails Kasich gaining a prominent role in Jeb Bush’s executive team in 2017 should he win.

And what happened to Marco Rubio - wasn't he the one to challenge Trump?
If there was an award for ‘ruin your Presidential campaign in 5 minutes’ then Marco Rubio would have won it again and again and again. This is of course reference to the fact Rubio’s meltdown in the 8th Republican Debate in New Hampshire suffering from a Milibandesque episode of self-repetition. Christie expertly tore the young Senator’s campaign in to shreds and depicted Rubio as a Washington puppet and Rubio seemed happy to oblige to the stereotype by once again repeating his 25 second soundbite in response to Christie’s angered criticism which drew rapturous applause. Marco Rubio, who was 4 per cent off Ted Cruz in the Iowa caucus finds himself 25 per cent away from the winner of New Hampshire, Donald Trump.
 
It must be said that it seems unlikely now that Rubio can recover from such a poor showing at New Hampshire. His campaign has taken a fatal hit.
 
What about the future?
So what are our overall conclusions from New Hampshire? Sanders is more popular that we could have ever imagined, but Clinton is still the big favourite to win the nomination. Polls have regained their credibility for now. Trump’s campaign is a well ran ship. Rubio’s campaign is over. Bush shall rise. Kasich is a nice guy. Does anyone really like Ted Cruz?

Tyler Bryce

On November 13, 2015 Paris police asked reporters not to film the operation to rescue hostages from inside the Bataclan concert hall. The following week, on November 22, all Belgian media ceased to broadcast information or images of security operations ongoing in the country, after the police asked the media to cooperate with the secrecy of the task to find terrorists linked to the Paris attacks. At the time, all this reminded us of a particular dilemma in journalism: what to show to the audience, and in what circumstances to show it.

This is a debate which is as relevant now as it was in November, as it was early last year – when media outlets at the University of Manchester Students’ Union made the call not to show a cover of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo which depicted the prophet Mohammad –, as it was many decades ago. Throughout history, there have been images that have motivated change in society, policy and public perception. A large number of these images, which can appear in the form of photography or video, can be found to be disturbing, insensitive or horrendous by some. When they are used in the mainstream media, we can say “shock journalism” is being used. 

There is an obvious ease of accessibility to these types of images online even though traditional media outlets such as the BBC or ITV may not broadcast them. So should the media show us these images despite the accessibility on other media outlets such as LiveLeak (whose tagline is appropriately “Redefining the media”) or YouTube?

You hear the newsreader say before a news report that “this report may contain some images you might find disturbing” and then you could have seen a video of houses that have been bombed, or a mother crying in the street over a lost child in a famine-ridden area. The question is then whether the media should be showing us a mother crying over a lost child or, for example, the child’s body itself.

“If these extraordinarily powerful images of a dead Syrian child washed up on a beach don't change Europe's attitude to refugees, what will?”, read a headline of The Independent on September 22 last year. It was referencing a series of photos of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi, a young boy who washed up on a Turkish beach near Bodrum on September 2, 2015. The “powerful images” were seen as a critical point in the European response to the Syrian refugee crisis and the public outcry for the British Government to do more. Two days later, Mr Cameron announced that “We will do more, providing resettlement for thousands more Syrian refugees”.

But what if the picture had never been shown to us? What if newspapers and news programmes had censored the image and instead described it to the audience verbally? Would it have had the same impact on us, as if we had seen the photo of the child’s lifeless body? Displaying graphic images designed to shock can make people more aware of the situation they are being told about – for example, the picture of Aylan made the refugee crisis ‘sink in’ for a lot of people and it really brought home the extent to which families were willing to escape from their homeland.

If this was the case with the refugee crisis, then it appears that if the public were shown more graphic or explicit images of war-torn areas, migration crises, famines, or school shootings, then they would be more likely to do something about it.

A different argument concerns broadcasting disturbing imagery when the creator of the content had that in mind already. In October 2014, The Independent, which had printed the image of Aylan Kurdi, opted not to show images of the killing of Alan Henning, a humanitarian aid worker, by ISIL. The newspaper’s front page after the images emerged read: “He was killed, on camera, for the sole purpose of propaganda. Here is the news, not the propaganda.”

A similar scenario came up in August 2015, when journalists Alison Parker and Adam Ward were shot dead live on American television by an ex-colleague who filmed the incident on his phone. The killer then proceeded to upload the video to Facebook and Tweeted about the crime which he had just committed. 

The point of whether the clip should be shown was debated on BBC’s Newsnight and in other channels worldwide. Not only was this discussed because of its graphic nature, but also because it was argued that Mr Flanagan’s intention by filming it was for the video to be broadcast and scare – therefore showing the clip on the news was appeasing him and enabling the fear he created to spread. British media split between showing a portion of the video which did not include the actual murder, showing just screenshots of the video or not showing anything at all. On the other hand, the full video was available through social media and other smaller news websites almost instantly.

A problem when certain shocking images are found on online news outlets that are not part of the mainstream media – sometimes smaller independent online publications, like THE MANCHESTER MAGAZINE – is that when reporting a story, given the fact that their reputation may not be well-known, the entities are more susceptible to criticism for sensationalism. It is assumed that quality media outlets generally try and be as least sensational as possible; they want news broadcasting to be sensible, delicate, unbiased and restrained as part of their professional persona. But that is clearly not always the case. Sensationalism is, to a large extent, subjective. And being biased is not necessarily complementary to being sensationalist.

There is a strong case to say the public should be shown most images, even if rather shocking, but also that these should be shown after the so-called ‘watershed’ time in order to protect young children. Decency is a factor in this debate. Imagine sitting down for your evening meal with the television on at home and suddenly seeing images of dead bodies, or a clip of a news reporter being shot on live TV. Showing those images is neither decent nor fair, especially if there are also younger watchers present.

Shock journalism should be encouraged only to appropriate audiences, such as ten o’clock news or Newsnight. Though this is already done to a small extent, it would be good to see all news outlets doing so consistently. Regarding print journalism, this could be done by censoring front pages and putting the actual uncensored shocking content inside. A similar approach could be taken by quality online papers, by not using shocking imagery as a leading image – the image that is shown when a particular article is shared on social media – but instead showing it only further down the page.

Journalism is the collection, selection, analysis and distribution of information which is relevant to an audience. It has the profound capability of informing and influencing the public debate on a range of pressing issues and journalists are trained professionals who are able to discern what is relevant from what is not. Therefore, if an image or video is relevant to the public, then we have the right to see it and know precisely what is happening. It is not because the images might be shocking that mainstream media outlets should refrain from presenting them to the public. TMM

Jeanmiguel Uva
Deputy Editor-in-Chief

We all know that starting a career in the art world can be particularly hard. You may be one of those self-taught artists that love wandering around the Northern Quarter and Whitworth Gallery while painting or taking pictures in your spare time. You might be talented, but as we know, that is not enough. Talent is not enough. Funding and exposure are important to show the world what you are worth.

Inspired by this struggle that many young artists go through, Manchester graduate Katy Kann decided to change that. Last year she started the KannAwards, an international competition where young artists can compete in painting, drawing, photography and short film categories. This year the competition comes back after its success last year promising better prizes and more renowned judges.

Speaking to THE MANCHESTER MAGAZINE, Katy Kann said: “I believe there’s a lot of potential among University of Manchester students, and I think the KannAwards is an excellent opportunity for anyone who wants to start giving exposure to their art. If you are young, ambitious and have faith in what you produce, you should participate.”

The prize for the winners consists in 250 pound in cash and an internship in their area of work in the United Kingdom or international locations like the United States, Germany or Spain. Winners and remarkable pieces will also gain exposure in ArtMonthly, a magazine, and the opportunity to work and network with known artists in their respective area.

This year renowned figures like Hollywood director Steven Finestone, Cambridge University photography lecturer Kertish Hacker and Oran O’Reilly from the University of Manchester will be among the judges of the contest. The deadline to submit pieces is March 14. TMM

More information available at kannawards.com