No I have not been watching The Sound of Music recently..... but here we are. The end of a semester and the end of JOUR1111.
I never thought much of blogging until I started this. Apart from fashion blogs which I actually find useful and interesting, I thought blogging was for a bunch of old crazies spilling out their guts on the internet. But I've actually found that when I'm blogging, I finish with a sense of clarity on the topic I was writing about. The process really gets everything out and afterwards I feel slightly empowered, a bit fresher and I always find that while blogging I'm learning more about the topic, getting a better understanding of it, or if I'm just venting, I realise what the true source of my concern was and I feel like I can and know how to resolve it. Phew. Deep breath.
Although some posts may take a lot more time than others, I don't mind writing them at all. It's enjoyable. I thought it would be a tedious task to just blog away, but it's kind of like a breather to me and once I start I have to keep going until I'm done.
Anyway I just wanted to wrap up this semester and this subject with a nice little farewell blog. So thanks Bruce, Carmen and to anyone who's reading this. It has been a pleasure.
Here's 'So Long, Farewell' from The Sound of Music. Watch it. It's awesome and definitely in HD.
I would also like to point out how similar Kurt from Glee and Kurt from The Sound of Music look. And they both have alarmingly high singing voices. Molto strano...
I would like to introduce a brand that I have newly discovered and have absolutely fallen in love with! You may already know it but it's new to me so listen to what I have to say! The brand is called By Johnny and it is designed by the second runner-up of season three of Project Runway Australia, Johnny Schembri from New South Wales - not gonna lie, he was my favourite and totally should have won! Screw you Dylan. Screw. You.
Now, how did I come across this brand I hear you say? Well meine freunds, I was browsing on theiconic.com.au, as I frequently do these days in my endless procrastination periods, and I came upon an awesome dress that is, very unfortunately, way out of my budget. It comes in black and white (I must say I prefer it a lot more in black) and it retails for $499.95. WHYYYYY. Why do you people insist on doing this to me?! Ugh. What makes it worse is that my lovely boyfriend reminded me of a Scoopon deal for The Iconic that appeared in our inboxes early this year. A $200 voucher for $50. Why.
Johnny's whole 2012 winter collection is quite awesome really - this dress being the most awesome of all in my opinion. Unlike his collection for the finale of Project Runway Australia, which was made up of a lot of pastel hues and embellishments, this collection is a lot more experimental in terms of silhouette and texture. There are a lot of watercolour and digital prints along with body-con, peplum and cut-out styles. This collection is a very strong representation of femininity. It is bold and highlights his versatility as a designer. You can check out the collection here. Can't wait to see what he does next!
Anyway, to finish off I would also like to point out how similar the grinch and Michael C. Hall from the Showtime series Dexter look. Coincidence? It's in the mouth. And kind of the eyes. But mainly in the mouth...
So the Diamond Jubilee of the ever present Queen Elizabeth II has come and gone. The Diamond Jubilee marks the Queen's sixtieth year on the throne. And it is now that I would like to acknowledge how very sorry I feel for Prince Charles.
Poor, poor Prince Charles. Whenever the Queen is involved in conversation at home, it always turns to how bad we feel for him. How bad we feel that he is almost 64 and is still not the King. And then we go on to rant about how the Queen should just retire from being the Queen and just hand it over to Charles so he at least has a good few decade before he can pass it on to Prince William. Oh how it must suck. I mean come on old Lizzy, don't be greedy now. Not that I have anything against Queen Elizabeth. She seems like a lovely old lady. And man, can she deliver a speech! I mean, the lady is 86 and I would expect her voice to be all quivery and frail with lots of pauses but oh no. Perhaps it's one of the perks of being royal. I must say, her posh little accent is so cute. Here's a speech she gave this year at the State Opening of Parliament.
Anyway moving on. As per usual, Kate Middleton's fashion choices were followed greatly throughout the media. What did she wear? Who was she wearing? Gasp! Kate is known to mix high and low fashion and has become a great trendsetter with her use of colour and sense of style. And she always look so darn elegant! Sigh. Can't get enough of her.
During the Queen's Diamond Jubilee she stepped out in an Alexander McQueen dress and he seems to be one of her favourite designers - she also wore an Alexander McQueen wedding dress (okay it was Sarah Burton for Alexander McQueen but still). Since she is a great recycler of outfits (yay for those of us who are poor uni students!), it was nice to see her out and about in a new dress. Here is a picture of her looking lovely as always.
There was also a bit of 'scandal' as she stepped out in a dress that Kim Kardashian had worn previously. Most celebrities would turn their noses up at wearing an outfit that has already been seen on someone but Kate Middleton is not a typical celebrity. Again this dress was Alexander McQueen and she looked great. And it goes to prove, just because something is last season doesn't mean you can't wear it again. Here's a photo of the two girls in the dress. Kate has classed it up, adding in some sleeves and pairing it with nude heels (I'm a worshipper of nude heels), while Kim looks alright in it but I can't say much for those snakeskin heels. Shudder.
If someone introduced me as a blogger, I too would cringe, just like this week's guest lecturer, television and entertainment blogger, Steve 'Molks'.
Molks starts off by talking about how we brand ourselves. How we should start marketing ourselves now so future employers would want us. And this is exactly what he's done with his name 'Molks'. Instead of Molkington, he shortened it to Molks which suited his brand. We have to be invested and know how to write any kind of story any kind of way. But when he talks about branding I can't help but think of the Kardashians.
Don't judge me, but I love the Kardashian shows. I haven't been able to enjoy them as of late due to the fact that my dear mother cancelled Austar because I'm only home every now and then but still. Sigh. And although their whole 'famous for being famous' thing is kind of stupid, they are entertaining (to me at least) and are more than capable of branding and marketing themselves extremely well. If they really were so terrible then it is unlikely that they would be in the midst of filming their seventh season of Keeping Up With The Kardashians and have had three spin-off shows. It's also unlikely that Keeping Up With The Kardashians would be the highest rating television show (among men and women aged 18-34) on the E! network if they were unable to market and brand themselves successfully. Their DASH stores are also very successful as is the Kardashian Kollection - spelt with a K of course. You may not like them, but you know them. Anyway, I shall stop ranting about the Kardashians now.
This lecture summarised the very basis of this course for me. Molks let us know that journalism is not necessarily about about trying to claw your way up the career ladder, not caring about who you stomp on to get there. It's not a dying profession. It's just moving on and making way for the many new types of media. And nobody can deny that. Do we not compulsively check our iPhones every two minutes? Are we not addicted to Facebook, Twitter, and/or Instagram? And this relates back to branding, as Molks so rightly pointed out, "Brand management began the moment you signed up for Facebook or MySpace, so watch out!"
We've got to start building a readership now. We've got to be proactive and we've got to be passionate. Or else what's the point really? We've got to get out there and be a part of it all!
For example, old Snapey really threw himself into it all.
Altmeppen, K.D, Arnold, K & Kössler, T.
(2012). Are the media capable of fair reporting? Remarks on the
principle of fairness in professional journalism. Justice and
Conflicts,6(1), 329-343.
The authors of this book are currently all
professors at German universities working in the departments of journalism or
communication. Together they make a
knowledgeable and experienced team as they discuss the concept of fairness in
journalism. They analyse the role that fairness plays in media ethics and
journalistic professionalism because without fairness, an unbiased account of a
story is not guaranteed and this may also lead to other negative impacts. They
particularly address the notion that news reporting should always be about fact
not fiction – something that every reporter should keep in mind. Altmeppen,
Arnold and Kössler also argue that journalism cannot always be fair to both the
audience and the sources at the same time because it is unable to cope with all
the varying perspectives of a society so, ironically, in various circumstances
“journalism can only be fair when it is unfair” (Altmeppen, Arnold & Kössler,
2012). They reflect on how independent journalism should be able to reflect the
diverseness of the media whilst significantly using many citations throughout the
chapter which adds much credibility to the writing of the authors. The
ideologies that the authors bring to mind widely acknowledge and affectively
address the values and ethics a journalist has or should have.
Madonna King, the
author of this piece, brings a great deal of experience and expertise to this
story, being an award-winning journalist, commentator and author. Having a
career in newspapers spanning more than 20 years with a focus on crime and
politics, she gives this story an edge, painting the victim’s husband, Gerard
Baden-Clay, in a guilty light. She opens with two questions that any person
would immediately think of when questioning the actions of Gerard. These
questions are crucial in developing King’s opinion as they encourage the reader
to think the way she has when writing the story. She then goes on to describe
what the victim’s family and friends have done and effectively relates this
back to the lack of action and emotion of the husband. King clearly
acknowledges that he does not have to answer to her, making her appear fairer
and not as judgemental to the reader. But she strongly concludes that these
questions must be answered when asked by his children in the future. The way
she concludes the story makes the reader feel empathy for the children and,
perhaps, dislike for the husband – successfully reinforcing her view on the
topic.
Channel 9 reporters present a detailed
story about the murder and investigation of Allison Baden-Clay. It begins with
reporter, Amelia Adams, who introduces the story and then passes onto crime
reporter, Alyshia Gates. Gates, a journalist for 12 years, has spent most of
her career working with police and as a court reporter with a continued focus
on crime. She has covered several high profile stories, including the brutal
triple murder in Toowoomba in 2005 and it appears that she uses her knowledge
and experience in this area in covering this story. Gates begins the story by
stating that evidence has been seized for the investigation. She then brings to
attention the fact that a close female friend of the victim’s husband was
questioned. Although she puts an emphasis on the friend being female, she does
not linger on it therefore not fully insinuating that she was perhaps, a past
lover and/or a current suspect. Gates keeps the audience well informed on what
detectives and police have been doing while Adams asks relevant questions. Gates’
extensive experience in crime reporting ensured that she gave a solid update on
the investigation while giving the audience the most current and relevant
details without making obvious negative assumptions about the victim’s husband’s
female friend.
The author, Lisa Davies, brings a fair sided
approach to this story. Rather than painting the husband in a guilty light as many
other writers and television networks have done, she instead discusses this
murder of Allison Baden-Clay in an informing, non-judgemental manner. Currently
the crime editor for various newspapers at Fairfax
Media, and previously being the Chief Court
ReporteratThe Daily Telegraph,
it would be fair to say that she brings a significant amount of experience to
her job and to her writing. Davies uses her crime writing and court reporting
experience to write a fair, unbiased account of the murder and the events that ensued.
Beginning by setting the scene and describing the victim, her family and lifestyle,
Davies then integrates a quote from the victim’s husband that describes his
current situation. She then accurately summarises the night of the murder and
how and when the victim’s body was discovered and what detectives have been
doing and stating to the public. Although Davies writes that the victim’s
husband may be a suspect, she does so in a way that does not paint him guilty.
Davies concludes the story with quotes from the victim’s parents and best
friend and ends on an optimistic note, writing about the detectives’ efforts and
their progress in the case and leaves the reader with a fair and informative perspective on the murder case.
It has to be said. Deb from Masterchef is a complete and utter wench. And I don't mean it in a Game of Thrones type manner meaning a prostitute, I just like the word and in my opinion it encapsulates someone who is a shit of a person and sucks.
I cannot believe she just threw Mindy under the bus like that! In tonight's episode of Masterchef the contestants were faced with a yum-cha challenge in Sydney's Chinese Garden of Friendship. It was a team challenge and each team had to come up with and serve five different types of yum-cha.
Deb was the leader of the red team and since she lacked any skill necessary for this challenge she pretty much handed it all over to Mindy to choose the dishes and keep everything under control. Okay no, she didn't "pretty much" hand it over, she did. Like she actually said something along the lines of, "Mindy, you do what you need to do because I don't know anything because I suck." That end bit isn't entirely factual but whatever. I hate her guts.
Ultimately the red team lost and at the end when the judges were questioning the contestants on the challenge, Deb acknowledged that she was unfamiliar with the cuisine which is fair enough but then she goes on to completely stab poor Mindy in the back! So much for being a team. Deb stated, "It was quite challenging working with Mindy. To be honest I didn't feel supported." This is suuuucccchhhh a load of crap. Mindy, as always, was fair, exerted the right amount of control, was encouraging and guiding. If Mindy hadn't been on her team she would have been insanely screwed. While Deb was saying that, the camera cuts to Mindy and a few other team members and you can see the shock and surprise on their faces. They kept it in pretty well unlike me who was yelling abuse at the tv! But I thought that Mindy handled Deb's harsh words quite well. She went on to say that she did the best she could - I mean, what else are you meant to say when someone totally cuts you?
In my opinion I think that Mindy is going to go very far in this competition. She's a calm, cool and collected cook and she's a much better person than that wretched Deb!
To watch Deb screw over Mindy, click hereand select Full Episodes, Week 3, Episode 16, Part 9/9.
Investigative journalism. Apart from thinking about The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, I've always thought that most types of journalism are investigative because don't most types of journalism require questioning facts and opinions, researching and finding out more to the story? My suspicions were proved correct by the quote from investigative journalist, Ross Coulthart - what a genius, I must say.
And Bruce, I freaking love acrostics! God this made the lecture so much better. So the "in's" of investigative journalism are: Intelligent: you must have a plan and know what you're looking for and it has to be well thought out. Informed: we've got to know the facts! Intuitive: that gut feeling. Go with your instinct! Inside: you need to get on the inside the story - you need to gain the person's trust. Invest: invest your time, money, health, YOUR LIFE! Okay not so full on, but you get the idea. You've got to invest yourself. Going off track a little, whenever I hear the word invest, I immediately think of this scene from Moulin Rouge. One of the best movies ever! Oh my God it cracks me up.
But why do we need to be and know all these things?
Critical and thorough journalism: we ain't just messin' 'round 'ere. 'Tis serious stuff. Active intervention!
Custodians of conscience: testing people's ethics, morals and seeing what they think. Exposure!
Providing a voice to the voiceless: social justice - power to the people! Public interest, people.
Fourth estate/branch of government/watchdog: ensuring the free flow of information necessary for the functioning of a democracy and being able to hold public personalities and institutions accountable.
So what are types of investigative interaction?
Interviews, observations, documents, briefings, leaks, trespass and theft - but thank God for technology. Instead of stealing things now we can just take pictures of them instead. Don't want to be going to hell now do we! And methods of investigation (quite obvious) are interviewing, observing and analysing documents. And believe it or not, there are other places to research other than Google (though I am yet to figure that out properly myself).
So I have, in fact, learnt a lot from this lecture. I quite liked it. My view on investigative journalism has changed quite a bit. It's not all sneaking around in dangerous places around dangerous people trying to solve a murder, there's a bit more to it than that. But one thing is for sure: always check your facts and assume nothing!
Here's the trailer to TheGirl With the Dragon Tattoo if you haven't, for some insane reason, read it or seen it.
The Great Gatsby! Holy mother of God I cannot wait for this to come out. Baz Luhrmann is a fricken genius. And I'm not just saying this because he directed Moulin Rouge, one of my all-time favourite movies and Romeo + Juliet. Well kind of. But not really. It's just that he always puts a spin on things. His cinematography is just insane in the membrane. It's awesome. He always films and directs things with a little twist. His way of doing things is not the norm.
For instance, take Michael Bay. I've always seen him as just doing everything in a very "Hollywood" style. But not good ol' Baz. I feel as though he shows old things in a modern and exciting way. He makes things interesting. He just makes his films so... cool. And this is the reason I am so darn excited about seeing The Great Gatsby.
Of course it helps that Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire are in it. DiCaprio plays the wealthy Jay Gatsby while Maguire, aka Spiderman, plays Nick Carraway, Jay Gatsby's neighbour. Playing Tom Buchanan is Joel Edgerton (his name sounds familiar but when I stalked him on IMDB I couldn't place him) and playing Daisy Buchanan, his lovely wife and Gatsby's former lover, is Carey Mulligan. Also playing Myrtle Wilson is the hilarious and also Australian, Isla Fisher.
Carey Mulligan is quite the rising star I must say. I first saw her in Pride and Prejudice, another favourite movie of mine. And since then I've seen her popping up in all sorts of blockbusters such as An Education, Public Enemies, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps and Drive with the oh so good looking Ryan Gosling.
But yeah. SO pumped for this. It comes out in Australia on 10 January 2013. AAAAHHHH. So far away. But since my birthday is on January 23... early birthday present perhaps?
I don't really know what I think of when I hear the words "agenda setting". Honestly, I get flashbacks to grade four when my teacher would always say, "so what's on the agenda today?" But that's what week 11's lecture was on. And on a side note, I must say I absolutely loved this clip that Bruce showed at the start of the lecture. It's so true!
But back to agenda setting. What is it? Agenda setting is a theory, but like all good, solid theories, it's all a bit obvious really! As quoted by the highly influencial and well known Sir Bruce Redman. Nothing like a good sucking up to lecturers ;) And if you're in need of a more academic definition, here's one by Coleman, McCombs, Shaw and Weaver: "Agenda setting is the process of the mass media presenting certain issues frequently and prominently with the result that large segments of the public come to perceive those issues as more important than others. Simply put, the more coverage an issue receives, the more important it is to people." But anyway, so within agenda setting, there are four interrelated agendas:
Public Agenda: what the public perceive as important.
Policy Agenda: issues that decision makers deem as salient.
Corporate Agenda: issues that big businesses/corporations think are important.
Media Agenda: issues that are discussed in the media.
There are also two basic assumptions of media agenda setting. The first of which is that the mass media does not merely reflect and report reality, they filter and shape it. And let's be honest, this is true. There is a lot of news out there. So many events happen everyday throughout the world and the media filters through heaps and heaps of stories and events in order to narrow it down to the most important and interesting ones. The mass media also shapes the way we see news. Different media outlets will always have different perspectives on different events. The second assumption is that media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important that other issues.
So where did agenda setting come from, I hear you ask? Well for now I'm going to focus on Walter Lippman. Good old Walter. So in the early 20's Lippman was a newspaper columnist and in his book "Public Opinion" he stated that "the mass media creates images of events in our minds." And I find this to be pretty accurate. For example, the 9/11 attacks. When we think of this story, pretty much all of us will associate it with a photograph similar to this:
Even as I googled "September 11 attacks", almost all the pictures I saw were like that. And I know you're all thinking, "Well obviously. There couldn't be any other photos we associate with 9/11 because that picture is of what happened." But you sir, are wrong! These images were provided to us by the media. We could have associated the attacks with a photo of terrified people running down the street. Or of firefighters rushing to the scene. But we don't. We immediately think of the two buildings alight with fire. We rely on these images in order to formulate judgments instead of thinking critically about the matter.
Old Walter boy also brings to attention the use of propaganda. And I can't help but have another flashback to year nine humanities and learning about how Hitler used propaganda. But let's not get into that. As Lippman stated, "Propaganda is used as a tool to help shape images in the minds of human beings in support of an enterprise, idea or group."
So basically, agenda setting is not necessarily about telling readers what to think but rather, telling readers what to think about. And like many of us, agenda setting also has a cute little family:
Media Gatekeeping: how individuals control the flow of messages through a communication channel. Basically how much exposure an issue gets and what the media chooses to reveal to the public.
Media Advocacy: the purposeful promotion of a message through the media - all the good messages like anti-smoking. Don't want our toes falling off now do we? DON'T SMOKE!
Agenda Cutting: stories that are reported over others. But seriously gaiz, who wouldn't want 2 no about da Beebz' nu haircut?! Belieber 4 lyf. But really, the stories that are covered less are basically cared about less.
Agenda Surfing: the 'bandwagon' effect. How the media follows trends. For example KONY. See my first post. I was successfully sucked in.
The diffusion of news: the process of how an important event is communicated to the public. (ie. how, where and when will it be released?)
Portrayal of an issue: the way an issue is portrayed by the media influences how the public perceives it.
Media Dependence: the more dependent you are on the media for information, the more susceptible you are to agenda setting. Suckers!
Media dependence is kind of worrying though. With information being so accessible these days that we can get what we want with the touch of a button, (or an iPhone screen), will we all just fall victims to the mighty and ever-powerful media? Let's hope not. I do like everything being accessible though ;)
So what are news values? According to this week's lecture they are "the degree of prominence a media outlet gives to a story, and the attention that is paid by an audience". The quote by Stuart Hall that Bruce brings to mind gets me thinking. We don't often think carefully about who picks the stories because we assume that the most important stories will "select themselves" - they are the ones that will make headlines. But only a fraction of stories are seen as potential news stories and of this fraction, only a tiny portion are produced as daily news. And we choose these stories by the amount of news value they have.
What are the news values, I hear you say? Well my pretties, here they are: Impact:news that contains the x-factor babeh. Audience Identification:news that interests and connects with the audience. Pragmatics:ethics, practicality and facticity. Source Influence:public relations ;) Let's face it. We need them and they do a good job.
As one would suspect, news values differ across different countries, cultures, news services and the list goes on. Everyone will always have different news values. It may be subjective, depending on the topic, but essentially we all have our own values. And this is where the inverted pyramid comes into play again. The most important and sought after details go at the beginning of the story, then come the more important details and then background and general information finish the story off. The information at the top is considered the most newsworthy and the information at the end is the least newsworthy so if we're over our word count we can just chop that end bit off! We can see this coming into social media as well. As Bruce so rightly mentioned, with Twitter, you are only allowed 140 characters so you've got to make sure that what you tweet counts!
"If it bleeds, it leads". Crude, but true. This is the way many television news programs value stories. No wonder we see so many stories about murder, violence and war. "If it's local, it leads". This statement is also true. There is something about the proximity of a story happening that draws an audience in. Obviously if something is happening locally people want to be aware of it. Perhaps this is why the Allison Baden-Clay case has gotten so much publicity - because it combines both of these values.
And what of newsworthiness? Certain factors define how newsworthy something is: Negativity:I think you can figure this one out for yourself - bad news. Proximity:this is going back to the whole "if it's local it leads" notion. People relate to things that are physically close to them. Recency: The whole concept of breaking news! Media outlets are very competitive with being able to produce stories as they happen but sometimes stories take a while to gather all the facts so be aware because the first story hot off the press may not be the most accurate. Currency:Sort of the opposite to recency. These stories are more about ongoing cases. People love follow up stories and want to be kept up to date with what is happening with the story and want to know the eventual outcome. Continuity:These are the stories that have a continuing impact on society Uniqueness:Who hasn't seen the video of the bear falling out of the tree?
And if you hadn't seen it before, well now you have and now you can see that it is, indeed, unique. Simplicity:I, for one, am so in with this factor. There is no way in hell that I would read something about some complicated conflict that requires me to put to use more than ten brain cells over a nice, simple story. And apparently, the majority of society agrees with me. And if you don't? Haters gon' hate. Personality:People also love stories about... well, people. Particularly if that person is well-known.Celebrity gossip anyone? Predictability:Will what we think will happen, happen? DUN DUN DUNNNNN. Pretty straightforward. Elite nations/people:We also like stories about powerful people and powerful nations. All hail Obama! And all definitely do not hail Julia Gillard... the wench. Exclusivity:We always see or hear the phrase "a ___ news exclusive!" And why? Because if that media outlet has an exclusive then it means higher ratings and more moneyyyyy! Plus, as a viewer or reader, we feel exclusive after reading something exclusive. Am I right or am I right? Size:And lastly size. Apparently it does matter ;) hehehe. But seriously, the bigger impact a story has, the bigger an audience it generates, the more money it involves and the higher value it then has. AKA, threshold.
There are also three hypotheses on newsworthiness:
The additivity hypothesis: the more factors an event includes, the higher chance it has of becoming news.
The complementarity hypothesis: factors tend to exclude each other. The exclusion hypothesis: events that
satisfy none or few factors will most likely not become news.
Now these factors and hypotheses were created in 1965 by Galtung and Ruge, but in 1979 Golding and Elliott came along and created another set of factors that depicted newsworthiness. And as the times changed, so did the factors of what was newsworthy: drama, visual attractiveness, entertainment, importance, size, proximity, negativity, brevity, recency, elites, personalities.
I'm sure another set of factors that define newsworthiness will crop up sooner or later. And I'm pretty sure social media will be in there somewhere. Perhaps. I mean, it is everywhere now so I wouldn't be surprised.
If you looked at
her, she would look just like any other girl. Happy, laughing and freaking out
over university assessment. Her hair is a golden brown, she has big brown eyes
and a huge smile - one of those smiles that you can’t help but smile at. Her
name is Anna and she is a nineteen year old university student studying law and
international relations. But less than two short years ago she experienced
something that nothing could have prepared her for.
It was 2010 and November was coming to a close. Anna had
graduated from high school and had just attended her valedictory dinner. The
night ended with much excitement and a sense of freedom was spreading fast through
her body. Excitement for schoolies to start the next day, excitement for the
future, excitement because she had just completed a major part of her life. But
early the next morning she would wake up to what would be the most terrible day
of her life.
Anna woke up at her usual early hour and went downstairs to make
herself breakfast and her mum, Linda, came and joined her. They were chatting
about the previous night when Anna’s mum turned to look out the window at
their view of the Gold Coast skyline, like she did every morning. But this morning she was faced with a heart-wrenching
view – her husband, Jim, lying face down on the grass. Her face drained of
colour, Linda let out a scream and sprinted outside with Anna close behind, her
heart pumping at what she had just seen. Once at Jim’s side, they turned him
over. His face was purple. His breath, non-existent. Linda immediately attempted
CPR, frantically trying to get Jim to breathe, while Anna fled to the phone and
called the ambulance. The operator on the phone started asking her questions
about her dad’s lifestyle and health – all of which were more than fine because
he exercised daily and ate healthily. The operator then taught the two of them
how to appropriately perform CPR. Anna was still quite calm, despite the shock
of seeing her dad like this, because she thought he would eventually be fine.
She had hope.
By this stage, Anna’s older brother, James, and their family
friend staying with them, Rosanna, had heard Anna and her mum screams and had
rushed outside. Rosanna, a nurse, attempted to perform CPR on Jim but was too
weak, so James took over doing compression after compression. After what felt
like an eternity, the ambulance finally arrived. The paramedics hooked Jim up
to machines and tubes and started using defibrillators on him. The paramedics then
started joking about something, probably trying to ease the atmosphere of the
situation but this only infuriated Anna. They should have been putting all
their efforts into trying to save her dad’s life, not joking about something
stupid. Jim’s body jerked up and down
from the shocks. Again and again the paramedics tried, but Jim remained
lifeless and his heart remained silent. They had to give up. They had to let
him go. Anna’s dad was pronounced dead early that morning from cardiac arrest.
What should have been the happiest and freest moment in her life suddenly
turned into the most painful and heartbreaking moment.
For ages, Anna and her family sat together in shock, not
saying a word. Unable to take it anymore, Anna ran to her room and locked herself in and the first
person she called was someone she was friends with, but not particularly close
to. Sometimes talking to someone you don’t know well is easier than talking to
a close friend. After she hung up the phone, she just sat in her room for a
very long time, still unbelieving of what had just happened. How could her dad
be dead? He was healthy, fit and the best person she knew. He had done nothing
to deserve this. How could this have happened to him? To her? Over the day, people
started to arrive at her house to expressing their sorrow and surprise at Jim’s
passing. Saying how ironic it was that a heart attack claimed his life because
he had been so fit and so healthy. And for a long time this consumed Anna’s
thoughts, angering her even more at why it was her dad who died. Emotionally
drained, she took a long walk with Rosanna that evening, trying to clear her
head because the fact that her dad was gone was still not a reality.
So many emotions were still coursing through her. Guilt for
thinking it might have been better if her mum had died instead of her dad
because her dad was a much stronger person and would have been able to cope
better without Linda. But she felt so terrible for even thinking this in the
first place. Her mum is still always so sad. She detested how many people
suddenly cared so much - people who had never made an effort to talk to her or
even say hello to her before. She hated how carefully everyone started to treat
her, as though she would break down at any second and couldn’t just have a
normal conversation. She just wanted people to treat her normally. But what she
loathed the most were the friends that didn’t do anything, who practically
ignored the whole thing - the friends who just didn’t say a word. Perhaps they
didn’t know what to say, but something is always better than nothing and they
should have known that. But at Jim’s funeral, quite a number showed up and Anna
appreciated this more than she could express. The feeling that people were
there for her was especially comforting.
After trying to block it out for more than a year, Anna
finds it harder to keep doing so, perhaps because she pushed it out of her mind
for so long. Her dad’s death is now a reality and she has been dealing with it.
She still talks about him to her close friends, even just casually in passing
and though she doesn’t show it, they know it still pains her. Nowadays she prefers
not to tell people about her dad’s death because she finds that they treat her
differently afterwards and pity her. But from her dad’s death, the thing she found that
she appreciated the most were how some people she really didn’t know at all,
reached out to her and shared their own losses with her. The fact that other
people knew exactly what she was going through, not just imagining how it would
feel, was reassuring. Because nobody could imagine what she had gone through
unless they had been through it themselves. You don’t know how to let go until
you have to.
For lecture 8 the voice of Dr John Harrison greeted me through lectopia. As journalists, we all must make sure that what we produce is ethical or let's face it, there could be some preeetty bad consequences!
But what makes something ethical? Is it just part of our conscience telling us what is right or wrong? Do we follow what the hegemonic group in society thinks? Or is it simply the nature vs nurture debate that guides our way of thinking? Because everyone is going to have a different view on what is ethical and what is unethical depending on where they were brought up, how they were brought up, what they have experienced and what they believe in. Some (ahem, I) might even say that in some cases, a sense of humour is all that is needed to tip the scales in what you think of as ethical and unethical. And seriously, if you think of everything in media advertising as unethical, then get a life. For example, this delightful ad that Dr Harrison presented in the lecture got me a thinkin':
I, for one, think that this ad is hilarious. I mean, it's ethical in the fact that it is against smoking but it does so in a way that makes it easier to read and accept instead of the usual dark and confronting advertisements. Some may say it's tacky, but I think it's effective in that it's eye catching and that it also speaks to the younger generations because we are all just sooo obsessed with sex(ual things).
Anyway, moving onto ethical theories. Who knew there was a set of proper ethical theories? Not I, kind sir, not I. The three ethical rules are as follows:
Deontology: I won't lie, when I first typed deontology I typed "dentology" and immediately thought it had to do with dentistry. But alas, I was wrong. Deontology is all about rules, duty and moral obligation.
Consequentialism: As you would suspect, consequentialism is about the right or good outcome (or more obviously, consequence) no matter how you came to that outcome.
Virtue: Oh virtue. Sigh. Virtue is about one's inner character. I know that sounds all spiritual and hippy, but it is what it is!
As I mentioned before, journalists must produce ethical work. And much like the magician's code (apologies, I just watched the finale of How I Met Your Mother), journalists must adhere to their own ethical code of conduct. The code was designed to assist people working in advertising in order to help them do the right thing whether it be in their day to day lives or when they were faced with some sort of conflict. The code isn't a straight set of rules as such, but more a set of guidelines that include principles and specific issues and it sets the standard for people in the advertising workplace.
Here I am, on my day off, still telling myself that it will be a productive day when it is about 5pm and alas, I have not done much but watch the new Gossip Girl, New Girl and Cougar Town. Sigh. I have also been compulsively refreshing the new arrivals on ASOS because I think that I just might be addicted.
So, just to let the rest of you ASOS addicts out there know, they are offering 10% off for uni students! Woooooo! Finally! I have always been envious of the UK students with their 25% off and although our 10% may seem a bit stingy, who cares! It's better than nothing!
Also, have you seen the March edition of ASOS magazine featuring the lovely Elizabeth Olsen? (And yes indeed! She is the younger sister of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen!) She is lookin' fiiiiiiine! Somebody steal me those clothes stat.
Discounts are pretty much what I live for and as I am a poor, lowly university student, why should I have to pay full price for anything? Get on it! And with all this atheist vs christianity vs whatever else stuff going on, as far as I'm concerned, ASOS can be my God! (But I actually am a Christian. Awkward).
First off, let me just say that this is the first lecture I have actually been able to go to! Hurrah! Because fortunately, the lecture I usually go to at this time was cancelled. And I must say, this lecture was a pleasant experience in comparison. I've never had a lecture in the John Hay building and I liked the room. It's quite intimate so it was easier to keep my focus.
So anyway, this week's lecture was on public media. One might also refer to it as commercial media's sworn enemy. But whatever floats your boat. Public media does have a more genuine feel about it because they're not so much about the money as commercial media is. Whatever monetary value they bring in, is only put back into the system to bring the public more news in more ways. Public media is not for profit. It is there to serve and engage an audience all with the pure purpose of giving the public news as best they can. Public media has to have a universal appeal and cater for all kinds of tastes - now that would be tricky! - it must also have geographical universality and it must be distanced from all vested interests. Public media should liberate a broadcaster, not restrict them.
Although I admire public media's purpose - purely to serve and inform the public - I consume about zilch of it. When I consume media it will be commercial media about 99.9% of the time. Why? Because it's a lot more entertaining. I would say that commercial media places a greater importance on entertaining and selling rather than informing, whereas public media would be the opposite.
If you were to go onto ninemsn.com.au (a website that is currently my homepage), it would be very probable that there would be at least a few stories on celebrities, television shows and whatnot. But if you were to go onto http://www.sbs.com.au/, you would only come across "real" news stories that contain substantial and quality material. Just compare their homepages, you can already clearly see the difference.
I suppose whether you like public media or commercial media would have something to do with age groups and what your interests are. But I would definitely prefer Ninemsn to SBS. I'm not gonna lie, putting the SBS link there was the first time I've ever been on that site.
"What is commercial media?" I hear you say? Well, oh young one, I have just typed it into Google and the first thing that has come up is the definition of advertising. Commercial media is a profit-driven media production. Notice the word "commercial"? Commercials! Advertisers! I never really thought about it before until now. Advertisers would have to be the main customers of commercial media. I just wish that the choice of advertising wasn't so ANNOYING! I can't tell you how many times I have punched a poor, unsuspecting cushion on my couch because of how annoying ads can be.
Exhibit A: Karicare Happy Toddlers. Sure the product might make toddlers happy, but the ads don't make ME happy. Honestly. Those laughs make me want to kill something. Plus they are on pretty much every two minutes which means if I'm watching a show, all I will hear for half of it will be some stupid toddlers and their stupid, annoying laughs. ARGGHHHH. Plus, all those stupid 'dings'. Whyyyyyyyyy.......
Exhibit B: Webuyanycar.com.au. Most annoying song ever. It is effective though. But in the worst way possible. I would buy every car in the world to get this ad to stop playing. And it just seems to go on forever...
Sadly though, it is commercials like these, that keep commercial media up and running. It's kind of a depressing thought to think that television shows, news programs, etc, only exist just to support advertisers (that's a harsh way of looking at it), but I suppose it's the end goal for most things these days - to make money. Commercial media does have other purposes though. In order to make their money, they must generate an audience and by observing their audience's patterns and behaviours they can predict what sort of things to advertise in order to maximise the effectiveness of this advertising. It's just like all the tailored ads we see on the internet, though not AS tailored as that. That stuff is kind of creepy.
Advertisers not only advertise through commercials, they also advertise effectively through sponsoring programs. And they match a certain brand to a television show. For example, we've all heard of the "Ahh Bra", as Bruce mentioned in the lecture, and another product has come up called "Eyesential" which is a wrinkle defying serum. I often see these particular ads on Sunrise or The Morning Show on channel 7 where they have a special advertising segment where people from the company come in to talk about their product and offers. This is effective because it fits the type of audience who would typically watch that show - middle aged women/people. But money making sure is at the top of their list. Another type of effective advertising on television is product placement. I notice this mostly in shows like Masterchef. What with the Campbell's Real Stock and fresh produce from Coles.
Titanic. God I love the movie. I know I'm a girl, BUT SERIOUSLY! Best movie ever. Apart from the awkward, "I'll never let go", and then she totally does. Even though she's talking about a promise. But it's still kinda funny. And yes, I'll admit, I still cry during that bit. And many other various parts in the film which I shan't disclose because that would be harmful to my already diminished reputation.
I know it was one hundred years ago yesterday that the RMS Titanic sank but here is my little contribution for it, even though it is a day late.
Almost up to date on my lecture blogs! I really wasn't as productive as I'd hoped I would be for our mid-sem break. Fml. Oh well, moving on!
So week five's lecture is on sound and the power of radio! I never really listen to much radio apart from Triple J's Hottest 100 (I am totez a hipstaaahhh) and the odd listen now and then. And if I am, for some ridiculous reason, sick of listening to my iPod, I shall listen to it. But I'm warning you, this occasion comes about once in a blue moon because let's be serious here - I have great taste in music. Anyway, getting back on track. I've always thought about how hard it would be to host a radio show. As Bruce mentioned, it is a very intimate form of media and it needs to be so much more engaging than television. If you tried to put television material onto radio and radio material on television it would just be terrible. With radio you really have to entertain and pull your listeners in - something that I imagine would be insanely hard to do, especially if you were hosting the show on your own.
Radio is not just a simple conversation. So much thought goes into the content and the audience. For a radio show to be interesting and engaging, the interviewer really needs to know their audience - particularly what interests them and what they want to know. With good radio hosts (the ones that I like, anyway), I've noticed that they will always try to inform the audience to the best of their ability and in the most entertaining way possible. But in order to do this, a great amount of research is undertaken on the topic they are speaking about or the person they are interviewing. Another skill radio hosts have is making the conversation comfortable. An interviewer should always make the person being interviewed feel comfortable enough to be able to answer questions promptly and with the right amount of detail. And I think most radio hosts do this by just having a good sense of humour and having the ability to laugh at themselves. Being a radio presenter would take some serious skillz man!
I do think that radio is a great form of media - it hasn't begun to die out like other forms of media (I'm talking to you, newspapers). Podcasts have definitely helped with this though, so now certain radio stations can broadcast their shows at any place and at any time. I think that it's just something people like to have playing because it makes them feel involved and up to date with society and trends. It's also very convenient because it's not something that you have to take time out to do - you can always multitask while listening to the radio and even though you may be doing something else, it is still very engaging because you will find that you are always listening out for what the radio presenter will say next.
So the other day I went to the pre-screening of the new movie Battleship. I thought it would be interesting to see Rihanna acting and, to my pleasant surprise, she wasn't too bad. There was one pretty cheesy monologue from her when her and her team were looking at the first alien they'd caught, but apart from that I would give her a thumbs up. I must say, she makes a darn good badass. But I think we all knew that anyway, what with her 'tough girl' persona.
The movie itself was alright. If you've seen the trailer, I don't think it would be fair to say that it didn't meet your expectations. The movie was a typical Hollywood blockbuster. It had the occasional cheesy line, the big explosions and the romance. Though I noticed that they didn't include the line, "you sunk my battleship...". Probably a good choice.
I thought that Taylor Kitsch (I first saw him on the television series Friday Night Lights) was a good choice for the lead role of Alex Hopper. He combined being a slight douche with trying o save the world quite well. Or so I thought. Hopefully others thought the same too! His reviews for the recent Disney movie, John Carter, weren't too great. Of course Liam Neeson was great. I can just never get over how gigantic he is! And what of his low, gravelly voice? So intimidating.
And if you love Eric from the HBO series, True Blood, I'm sure you won't mind seeing him in Battleship in a nice marine uniform. He plays Alex Hopper's brother, Stone. What a totally hipster name.
Everyone has heard the phrase "a picture says a thousand words" and for the most part, this is what week 4's lecture is on.
We've all seen those iconic photographs such as the "Tank Man" who stopped four advancing tanks in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. This shot was taken by Jeff Widener of the Associated Press.
I think it's safe to say that this expresses so much more than one could possibly put into words. It just goes to show the true power of a good photograph and how well it can tell a story.
A picture must have some meaning to it if it is going to tell a good story. In order for it to be a great picture it has to make you feel something! That is great photography.
Another point Bruce brings up is the editing process in photo journalism. The part that particularly stands out for me is a commercial from Dove that I first saw a couple of years ago. It shows just how much somebody can be changed and enhanced with the right lighting, styling and editing. It's quite remarkable. But sometimes (especially in the US) it goes over the line and the person hardly even resembles themself anymore - whether it be their chest, hands, face or body that is edited in order to fit the definition of what beauty is seen as in today's society. Watch the video here, it's very intriguing. And check out thisgalleryon ninemsn.com.au - it's full of before and afters!
Just today, I was on the train sitting near a mother with her two young daughters. The older daughter who was turning seven soon demanded that she wanted lots of makeup for her birthday. And the younger daughter, who is turning six this year, said that she wanted perfume for her birthday because her perfume now was "tinny" (tiny). I mean don't get me wrong, there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to smell nice or anything but the fact that these girls were so young made it just a tad disturbing.
The ideals we have in today's society are being drilled into us at such a young age, especially the perception of beauty. Take the show Toddlers and Tiaras, for example.I don't know if you've ever watched the show but it is scary stuff. It seriously freaks me out. Shudder. They're like little dolls who have come alive and are taking over the world. But more to the point, we shouldn't be drilling these ideas into children's heads from the moment they are born. I don't think it's healthy. Because if they don't see anything but these Photoshopped and highly edited perfect people in photos, then the standard is set so high for them and they are likely not to acecpt themselves or others as being beautiful because from what they have been taught, that sort of beauty is not real - though they just don't know it yet.
Week 3's lecture is on text (if it isn't already obvious enough) and guest lecturer, Skye Doherty, made an appearance to share her expertise in this area.
Text is something we can create and mold to our liking. It is flexible and we can chop and change it to our heart's content. We can control and fine-tune it to the last degree. This is perhaps part of the reason of why it is so powerful. One simple sentence can draw an entire audience in. And if the rest is worded with as much care, it may even get the audience to read the entire story.
One of the first points Skye brings up is the 'inverted pyramid'. I first heard of this last year in my reporting course and I have to say, it is pretty straight forward. If you want to bring readers in, you've got to have the most important elements of the story at the top - 5 W's and the H. You've got to captivate the reader when they first lay eyes on it so that they feel compelled to continue reading on. The same goes for online newspapers. Though online, readers also have access to related stories, videos, photo galleries and many more options that aren't as readily available with physical newspapers.
But the main thing that I'm taking away from this lecture is not just the power of text itself, but the way it gets powerful in the first place. Text, as well as photos and hypertext, must be placed in the correct position in a newspaper for it to be published. It has to contain certain appeal and it must also be the truth. Without these elements, reading a newspaper would be unappealing (though it already is to some), it could be unjust and untrue and if you're really unlucky, legal action could be on the horizon. But let's hope not!
By sticking to what Skye outlined in this lecture, we should be all good! And now that I am far more educated on the world of text, let's see if my writing changes for the better.
Over a period of ten days, I recorded my media usage and used
the data I collected to compare it to a survey taken by approximately 432 other
journalism students.
Looking at my log, it is clear that most of my time is spent
from online - this is more than likely due to its accessibility. With the push
of a button I can be connected to friends, family and the latest news and
entertainment happening locally and around the world.
On
average, I read online newspapers (mostly ninemsn.com) daily for around 15 minutes, I am on Facebook
from two to three hours per day and I am tweeting my life away on Twitter for
about 20 minutes per day. In comparison to the survey, these look to be mostly
with the majority of the people who took the survey. 43.1% of students who took
the survey get their news online and 29.6% of them spend two to three hours a day on the internet, with 91.9% of these people spending the majority of their
time on Facebook - exactly like me. With blogging, I read or write blogs anywhere from from 10 minutes to 30 minutes a day - this coincides with 6% of the students who took the survey. This is a very small amount but one of the main reasons I have taken to reading and writing blogs is for this course. Before this course, I had never written on a blog before but I would sometimes read them because it is interesting to see what people's take on certain topics are.
I would think that
this is largely due to the fact that 78.2% of students own an internet-enabled
smart phone. Owning a smart phone makes accessing online news and social
networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, so much easier and it allows us to
easily stay connected to what is happening around us.
In terms of television
and radio usage, the majority of students watch television for one to two hours
a day and they listen to the less than one hour of radio daily. It seems that
again, I am with the majority. As seen above in my log, I watch television for
entertainment and news for an average of 30 minutes to one hour per day with my
radio usage only coming up every several days and always being under half an
hour. I tend to only listen to the radio if I am in the car – like 89.9% of
students - and am in the mood; otherwise
I just plug in my iPhone and listen to music that I want to listen to. This
brings us to the next topic of music. I generally listen to music through my
iPhone, on my laptop or if I am seeing a band live. This coincides, again, with
the majority, with 89.1% listening to music on their iPhone, iPod or smart
phone, 74.1% listening to music on their computers and 25.9% listening to music
live – the best way, I might add!
I tend to prefer getting news from television and online sources
because then I am easily able to share it with others as well. For instance, if
I watch something on television, then I am able to look it up on YouTube and
share it on Facebook or Twitter – a classic example of how social media can be
a powerful tool in communicating ideas, opinions and news. With radio, I listen
to it more for the music or for traffic updates, but it is not high on my
agenda as a way of getting my daily news as it would be for others, who
perhaps, travel long distances to get to university or people who just rely on
it.
My behaviour of relying on the internet in order to get my
news is most probably due to my generation. This should not be a surprise as my
generation, generation Y, is known to be the technology generation. We take the
internet for granted. It is something that has always been there so we rely
heavily on it to provide us with what we need – entertainment and news.
As you can tell, I gather most of my news from new media,
rather than from old media. Technology plays a great part in how I receive news
and I prefer it this way as it is much more accessible and easy to gather more
information on rather than buying a newspaper. With newspapers, your
information is limited to what is written on the page, but online you can
simply Google a topic and you will be provided with more information that you
could possibly imagine.
This study was quite an interesting one as it gave me a lot more
clarity as to how people use media for news and entertainment. It also made me
realise how much I use and rely on the internet. I mean, I’m not gonna lie, if I could marry the internet, I would.
