The Dreyfus Affair

Following the defeat to Prussia in 1870, a proud French nation set out to discover the reason behind their defeat to a supposedly inadequate Prussian army. Some 24 years later saw Jewish army officer Alfred Dreyfus stripped of his medals in front of a Paris crowd. The French army accused him of spying for the Prussians, and in turn, causing the defeat of France. He was sent to Devil's Island, a penal colony of the coast of French Guiana. The evidence that was used to convict Dreyfus was a document detailing French army secrets, that was found by a cleaner. The root of this document was then traced back to Dreyfus. Some thought that Dreyfus was being framed by military top brass, merely an illustration of French Anti-Semitism. Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, another French army was the man who was accused by Georges Picquart, the new chief of army intelligence. However, Esterhazys trial which took place behind closed doors, was widely believed to have been a farce, and saw him walk free. This prompted anti semitic riots throughout Paris. This lead to Emile Zola's famous newspaper front page; "J'accuse!", in which he denounced the French President Felix Faure and the highest order of the French Army.

The Dreyfus affair was not the first time anti-semitism was seen in France. Just two years earlier, the French government lost nearly a billion francs, during the Panama Canal scandal. It emerged that French government officials took bribes to keep quiet about the financial failings of the company hired to build the Panama Canal. Two of the officials who were accused of taking the bribes were French Jews, Jacques Reinach and Cornelius Herz. Their involvement was seized upon by Eduard Drumont, whose anti-semitic newspaper La Libre Parole, took every chance it had to attack Jews. During the Dreyfus affair the headline read "The Traitor Convicted", "Down with Jews".

Consequences of the Dreyfus affair were huge. 19th century France had seen anti-semitism become prominent, perhaps the most illustrated account that had been seen. As we all know, anti-semitism was even more in the forefront of a nations thinking during Nazi Germany, with six million Jews losing their lives.

The birth of Zionism emerged from the whole Dreyfus scandal. Journalist Theosdore Herzl was assigned to wrie a report about the trial and the aftermath. His book Der Judenstaat, or The Jewish State, outlined how in order to avoid anti-semitism in Europe, an independent Jewish state should be formed.The World Zionist Organisation claimed that this independent state would be known as Israel and be located in what was known as Palestine. In 1948 their wish was granted and the state of Israel was declared. The creation of the Israeli state sparked the Palestinian war which still rumbles on today, with the Israelis on one side and the Arab occupation that was originally in place.

The Dreyfus affair may have happened over 100 years ago, but the effects it had are still relevent today.

The shape of things to come? Or a failed experiment?

Yesterday Fabio Capello's undefeated spell as England manager came to an end with defeat against Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk. But perhaps the biggest talking point surrounding the match, had nothing to do with events on the pitch. Since the demise of Setanta TV, which originally held the rights to show the game, no other TV channel were willing to pay the asking price in order to show the game. Step forward 'Perform', a digital media group, who eventually bought the rights.

The premise was simple, subscribers would pay a fee which would allow them to watch the game over the internet through a specially created website. The fee would begin at £4.99 and gradually increase the nearer to the matchday, eventually reaching £11.99. Now we were always going to discover something about how the media was shaping up, depending on how successful this was. Were we seeing the future of broadcasting? Or just an experiment failing badly?

I would suggest it was more toward the latter. Almost all the people I spoke to about the matter felt it would not work, and that England games should not be shown on pay per view internet streaming. Around 300,000 people paid the fee to watch the game, and I would make a completely uneducated guess that the same number of people watched the game via other, shall we say, less legal streams.

There were so many things that could have hindered the interest in this game. For a start, England had already qualified, so nothing was really at stake here. Secondly, surely the whole nations "traditional" way of watching England games was at the pub with a few mates, cheering on your country over a few beers. Despite some pubs showing the game, most went without.

Media convergence is undeniable, but was this a step too far, too quickly? Sites that stream live sports from around the world for free are always going to be most peoples preference when torn between that and paying £11.99 to watch one game. With these sites around this form of media will struggle to make much impact on the way in which football and sport is consumed by the public.