To what extent do the best selling UK newspapers cover stories related to serious issues? To what extent would you think that it is their role to do so? In your opinion does the tabloid media and 'low budget entertainment' (reality shows, soaps) have too much power and influence in this country?

With only one broadsheet news paper in the top 6 selling newspapers, things aren't looking very hopeful for getting important issues over to the public. The top tabloids don't exactly put across the most pressing issues to do with the environment or sustainability. The main issues that those papers cover are to do with reality TV shows such as X-factor and Strictly Come Dancing. These do not exactly inform the public of the pressing issues which may have severe consequences on the world.

As these are the main headlines the public are seeing every day, it should be their duty to involve the more pressing issues into the papers, and even then some people who read them will be more informed. The tabloids are the papers that are aimed to the majority of the public, if there was a section inside these papers for economical and sustainable issues, and then at least some of the readers will see them. Not a lot of young people read the broad sheets as they are too much reading, so if some of the headlines from these articles were posted in the tabloids which are aimed at the younger generation, then these people may then be getting informed about the global situations.

In my opinion, the low budget entertainment such as the reality shows and soaps have too much influence on this country. Most reality shows are only running to rejuvenate has been celebrities' appearances. These TV shows which are viewed by the majority of the public;

· I'm a celebrity get me out of here

· Strictly come dancing

· X-factor

· Coronation street

· EastEnders

· Emmerdale

· Hollyoaks

These shows have nothing to do with the pressing issues on global economics at all, though this is what the majority of the UK public watch every night. There is nothing in the context of these shows relating to global matters of a sustainable nature. The reality shows are actually inputting even more into the unsustainability of the UK as these cost a huge amount of money to air. The producers of these shows obviously know how many people watch them, if they were forced to include something in the show to do with the issues then a lot of people across the country will get to hear it. Also rather than adverts during the breaks of these shows, if news bulletins were read out, the people who are watching the shows will then also hear the news, this would mean that the majority of people who were originally watching the show will also see the news headlines, therefore becoming informed (unless they left the room to make a cuppa).

To what extent do you think that it is your duty as a citizen to be 'informed'? Are you informed? How do you get to be informed about serious issues?

As a citizen I believe I have a right to be informed about the important issues that are going on; locally, regionally and Nationwide. I also believe I should know about the pressing global issues. This is the only way that the world can be equal, for everyone to be informed about important issues.

I don’t think that I am as informed as I should be, I believe that it is the governments duty to be informed and to pass on that information to the rest of the country. The government are forever covering up ad hiding news on global issues which in fact do have a great impact on many peoples lives. Take the war in Iraq, the government haven't actually stated why the country joined this war, it didn’t actually involve us, it seems to most people that the UK only joined this war because the USA told us to, and to keep them happy. What we here on the news from the government cant even really be trusted, either because nobody knows when they are telling the truth, and also not even the government are informed enough.

However this could be a good thing that the government are keeping things from the public. If they told us everything which was happening, it may cause a national, or even global panic which would definitely not help the situation. Take the ‘credit crunch’ this was perhaps not as bad as first seemed, however once it all came out in the media there was a big panic in the public where people started not spending and taking savings out of banks, if the media did not blurt out all the information they did, much of which may have been exaggerated, the situation may not be as bad as it now is, because if people didn’t know what was happening, they would have just carried on as usual.

At home, I believe I was quite well informed about what was happening in the world. I read news papers and watch regional, national and global news channels. This I think is how most issues are passed on from the government to the public, through the media. However, now I a m living in halls, it is much harder to keep up with the news that is occurring. As I have no TV signal is my room, I do not watch the news anymore and because I only read the news paper at home because they were there, I no longer read them as I really cant be bothered to get them religiously. I do however have an application on my laptop which shows the important news bulletins as the come out, so I am still getting informed about what is going on a little.

Complicated decisions, I believe should not be left to one, or a small group of people( the government), as people in the past fought long and hard for the right to have a vote and to show their say in matters. Working people pay for the country to be run, in taxes, so they should have a right to put in their own say about decisions.

Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Al Gore (and the IPCC) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 largely for the production of the film 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The committee cited "their efforts to build up and disseminate (spread) knowledge about man-made climate change". To what extent do you think this was deserved? Having watched this film in class did you feel that your opinion (or perhaps the opinion of others) to the issue of climate change could be positively influenced? What did you think of this film? Was it effective?

After watching the film, I feel that many peoples look on climate change will have changed, those who do not see it a big problem may have changed their focus after seeing the facts and figures. Also those who do see it as a problem will now know just how big a problem it is. At first when Al Gore states the rates of polar ice cap melting, it just seems to unreal. Then once he shows the before and after pictures of the melting glaciers, the colossal damage can be seen, many of the pictures do not even look like the same area. I believe that most of the watchers will try to live their life more sustainably, even though each individual person actions on their own will not change much, but if just half of the watchers did something about it, then it soon adds up.

This film did deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize, as I feel that most of the viewers after watching, have done something about living more sustainable (recycling, turning out lights…), its states on Wikipedia that three in four viewers tried to change their lifestyle to be more sustainable after watching the documentary. However, it was not just the work of Al Gore, many scientists have worked for decades trying to find technologies which will help the world to reduce global warming, these people maybe should have been mentioned too, I believe Al Gore won it, not just because of the documentary, but also because of his high profile figure.

I have watched this film a few times, and every time I watch it, it does get me gripped. Although it is informative, it isn’t boring and I think that is because of the way Al Gore presents it, with the odd little joke every now and then. The film was effective, though I do believe most of the facts and figure ha presents are the ‘worst case’, he presents them as that to scare the viewers even more, which I believe would have made more of the viewers change their lifestyles.

What actions could you (in theory) undertake that would improve the 'sustainability' of your lifestyle? What might be preventing you from doing these?

Sustainable devpelopment… A pattern of resouce consumption that aims to meet the needs of human wihlst also protecting the environment, so that these needs can not only be used now, but in generations to come.

Being diabetic, I know how important it is for me to have a sustainable lifesytle, the main thing that I could do to achieve this is eat healthy! Swapping fast food lunches for salads or cooked food is harder than it sounds:
1. Fast food is really tasty!
2. I am to lazy to cook for myself every dinner.
3. I don’t like rabbit food.

One thing that we can all do to make our lifestyle more sustainable is recycle. Most people already do this with great success. In my halls there are three bins; one for cards boards and paper, one for plastics and metal and the other for general waste. These are all well and good being there, its whether ‘we’ are using them to the full potential. This is basically down to laziness, I know I have thrown something into the waste bin which should probly have been recycled. When recycling is done well, it can protect the environment greatly. Less used products are being dumped in land fill, and less new products are having to be made from scratch.

Another thing that can affect how sustainable a lifestyle can be is energy efficiency. The less electricity we use, the less needs to be created, this then means less greenhouse gasses are being let off into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. It is simple things that can be done to be more energy efficient, like turning off lights when you leave a room, and rather than leaving things on stand by, turn them off by the plug.