Au Revoir.

So this is it. My farewell blog post to my little spot of cyberspace that I started all the way back at the start of the semester. To be honest, starting a blog was a little bit daunting, because in my head only interesting people with interesting things to say have blogs, and suddenly I had to be one of them. From the first week in JOUR1111 I was told that I was the journalist, and so I tried to start writing a bit like one. And as I started writing, I learnt lots of little things about my writing style, and the kind of things I like writing about.

Throughout JOUR1111, I learnt about all different aspects of journalism, from radio to news values to investigation. Some of it I already knew, and some I didn’t. It opened my eyes up to what the world of journalism is about, and all the different facets of it. I’d like to think that I’m coming out of this semester a little bit more of a journalist, and a little bit more knowledgeable about it. I know I’ve still got a long way to go, but this semester, and this blog, has enabled me to dip my toes into the ocean of journalism.

I’ve kind of liked blogging, and I might keep at it somewhere else. But for now, it’s au revoir, and I’ll see you somewhere else in the media world. 

Just Around the Corner.

The world is so full of opportunity, and there’s a million and one ways in which you can do something. With a dash of creativity and a stroke of luck, anyone can make something new happen. This applies to the world of journalism. There are so many different kinds of journalists out there, and journalism can operate on so many different platforms. You don’t need a degree to be a journalist, even though that’s what I’m doing right now. Anyone can pick up a camera or start writing. All you need is an issue and some passion.

Our guest lecturer today, Steve Molks, was talking to us about his story as a journalist, and all the different kinds of journalism out there. There are so many different types of journalism, and a lot of it is interconnected, and it can get pretty overwhelming thinking about it all. But it got me thinking about exactly what kind of journalist I want to be, and the kinds of things I want to write. Now, I’m not naïve. I know that sometimes you just get given a story, and that sometimes there isn’t much choice in the matter. But every journalist should have their own style and their own voice. Every journalist should have something unique about them.  I want to have that dash of creativity and luck, and be a journalist that stands out a little and thinks outside the box.

If I’m completely honest, I have no idea exactly what kind of journalist I want to be yet, but I’m okay with that. I’m more than happy to dabble in a few different styles until I find my niche. Steve Molks was talking about what he does, I was thinking about what I want to do. But something important that I took away from it is that you don’t need to be writing for a newspaper or magazine to be a journalist. The online world is changing the face of journalism, and is making it much more accessible to the public. It’s easier than ever to get your thoughts out there, and find other people who think the way you do, and also people who don’t. Because the world can’t just be all one sided, can it?

The fact of the matter is I don’t have to wait until the end of my degree to be a journalist, and I can be any kind of journalist I want. Because the world really is full of opportunity, and there’s always room for something new. 

Why?

One of the most basic jobs of journalists is to ask questions, and to find answers. But some questions just don’t have answers to them. Questions like ‘why do good people suffer?’ and ‘how big is the universe?’ do my head in, and they get debated by scientists and academics alike. The truth is, there’s a whole world of questions that no-one knows the answers to, and probably never will. But sometimes these questions are the ones most worth asking, and the ones were the richest not-quite-answers can be found. Questions that force us to think, and step outside of our little boxes, have so much value. Asking questions, and big questions at that, is a fantastic habit to get into. Curiosity leads to great things, and there’s nothing more intriguing than a question without an answer. So dive in, and start asking ‘why?’ to the things that happen around you. 

Detective Work.

Everyone wants to be remembered, and some events will go down in history, never to be forgotten. A quote from our first lecture said that ‘journalism is the first rough draft of history’, and I think it’s true. Through the news, events are recorded and remembered. But in an increasingly fast-paced world, particularly with the birth of online news and the 24 hour news cycle, news seems to be just getting churned out, with little being remembered. Stories get lost in the ocean of news that is presented to us every day, and it seems like journalists just don’t have the time to delve deeper into their stories, because people want information now. But some of the best, most memorable pieces of journalism have been the result of months and years of work, with journalists devoting themselves to digging deeper and finding out the truth. That’s what investigative journalism is all about: getting to the bottom of a story, and finding out the truth.

One of the most important jobs of the media is to hold the powerful to account. Journalism has the ability to reveal massive scandals and wrongdoings, and that’s a big part of what investigative journalism is about. Journalists work as ‘custodians of conscience’, and investigative journalists in particular fall into this category. Investigative journalism is all about exposure, and bringing to light some of the things that are happening in society. The media brings certain issues to the public’s attention, and investigative journalism goes beyond the straight news, and looks for a deeper story. Its news that’s been well researched and well thought out, with journalists investing something of themselves into bringing the truth to light.

You could be forgiven for believing that this kind of journalism is dying, however. With increasing pressure on newsrooms to get the news out fast, journalists have less and less time to probe into the deeper issues that hide behind the surface of a story. And the simple fact that newsrooms are getting smaller and journalists have just got to do more doesn’t help either. Chances are that the six o’clock news won’t have much in the way of investigative journalism, and online news is all about getting the information out first, rather than getting in-depth into an issue. But investigative journalism still does exist. The Global Mail and Australian Story are just two examples of local investigative journalism. The truth is, people still have curiosity, and a desire to find out what’s really going on. And as long as this exists, investigative journalism will survive. And now more than ever investigative journalism stories stand out against the regular news stories churned out by the hundred in newsrooms every day. Investigative journalism has the potential to make history, and to be remembered. So maybe spending a little more time diving into a story is worth it after all.

Burn the ebooks!

This might make me a strange young person, but sometimes I don’t like technology. Don’t get me wrong, technology has done some great things, and I wouldn’t want to live without it. But some things are just better in their original, non-computer chipped form. And my pet hate for things that technology just shouldn’t touch is books.

There’s so much power in the written word, and there’s nothing quite like a well-read book. Dog eared pages and a well-worn spine only add to a book’s personality, and you always know a book’s been loved if it’s looking a little bit rough around the edges. Buying a new book is like buying a ticket into a new world, and bookstores were always cosy little places stacked to the ceiling with imagination. Sure, books have always been a bit nerdy. But there’s no better way to escape the world for a little while then to curl up with a book.

Then came along the ebook. Suddenly everyone was reading off matte screens and turning a page meant pressing a button that made a little ‘woosh’ noise as it went to the next screen. Technology was turning books into charmless, robotic little things. There’s nothing comforting about a screen, and nothing loveable about a well-worn button or a small crack. These things, on ebooks, are just annoying. There’s nothing special about curling up with your ebook. Ebooks take away so much of the magic of books, and reading.

Then all of a sudden Borders shut, and book stores seemed to becoming a thing of the past. My nerdy friends and I shed a tear or two, but the rest of the world seemed quite happy with their ebooks, Ipads and phones to entertain them on the bus. Books felt like a dying breed, sacrificed on the altar of technological advancement.

But despite all this, I don’t think all hope is lost for books. I’ve still  got a bookcase full of the gorgeous little things, and bookstores still do exist, you’ve just got to hunt them down a little more. And in every bookstore you walk into there’s like-minded book freaks who just can’t quite adjust to the idea of reading off a screen. So I’m going to keep touting my books with pride, and giving technology the cold shoulder. Because there’s some things that you just can’t improve on, like books. 

The Reality of Reality.

Everyone has a different way of seeing the world. The way we look at reality is shaped by our experiences, our culture, our friends, our family and even our personality. But our perception of reality is also shaped by another thing: the media. The media don’t just report on the world around us; they filter and shape it, making certain issues more or less important. This, in turn, changes the way we look at things, because it changes our focus. This is one of the media’s favourite things: agenda setting.

Agenda setting is all about how the importance the media puts on an issue will impact on the importance society places on it. The simple fact of the matter is that if an issue isn’t in the news, chances are we won’t care about it that much. Agenda setting has two levels. The first is that the media suggests what the public should focus on through coverage. The second is that the media suggests how people should think about an issue. Both can be a little disturbing, when you think about it. The media has the power to tell us what to think about, and sometimes even how to think about it. So are we all just on the way to becoming little media drones, seeing the world exactly the way they want us to see it?

The short answer is no. Agenda setting isn’t all about turning us into Rupert Murdoch robots. Agenda setting feeds off news values, and it needs to exist to some extent, or we’d be being bombarded with endless amounts of news 24/7. People do need to think about the news they hear, however.  You can’t believe everything you see and hear in the media, and people should always stop and ask questions about what they’re being told.

The truth is that to some extent, the media is always going to affect how we see the world. If an issue is big in the news, chances are we’ll be thinking and talking about it. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing: news can open up our eyes to issues we didn’t know were happening before. But the flip side to this is that there’s a hell of a lot of important issues that aren’t given prominence in the media that deserve to be thought and talked about too. As for the other part of agenda setting, the part about changing the way we think about an issue, that’s where we need to be really careful. Because if we just accept everything we hear, we’re facing becoming little media drones. But thinking is the antidote to letting agenda setting shape our realities without our consent. So start thinking about the way you see the world, and what’s shaping it. And make sure you’re seeing your world the way you want to, not how someone else told you to. 

Annotated Bibliography

Rocamora, A. (2012). Hypertextuality and Remediation in the Fashion Media. Journalism Practice, (6)1 92-106. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2011.622914. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2011.622914

The author, Agnès Rocamora, is a senior researcher and lecturer at the University of the Arts in London. She is the author of several publications and papers, including Fashioning the City: Paris, Fashion and the Media, and brings several years of knowledge and experience in the area of fashion writing to this article. In this article Rocamora explores fashion blogs, a new media form of fashion writing, and its hypertextuality and remediation. Rocamora starts off with a discussion of the history of the study of fashion media, citing several works in her explanation. She discusses the trends that fashion media has followed, and also the rise of the fashion blog. The article then analyses fashion blogs in terms of their hypertextuality, rhizome, decentredness and remediation, and the changing face of fashion reporting with the rise of blogging. Racomora also analyses the effect of fashion blogs on traditional forms of fashion writing, such as magazines. The article argues that new media cannot completely replace old media: rather, the two forms afford themselves to different styles of writing, and are often consumed by readers simultaneously. She continuously cites both other articles and blogs throughout her work, further strengthening the validity of the article.

Cowan, J. (Writer). (2012, May 10). Obama Reveals Support for Gay Marriage. [Television broadcast]. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-10/obama-reveals-support-for-gay-marriage/4002288

The author, Jane Cowan, is a correspondent for the ABC in Washington, and has years of experience in the field of journalism, winning several awards. The newscast gives a comprehensive look at president Barrack Obama’s announcement of his support of gay marriage, with Cowan citing quotes from Obama’s speech when explaining the event. The newscast then suggests the possible effects this speech will have, both within the party and its effect on voters. Cowan provides insight to the possible political ramifications of Obama’s speech, citing several state’s laws for or against gay marriage and national opinion polls in support of her analysis of how the announcement will affect voting.  Cowan argues that the announcement will energize voters, but that it could either swing for or against Obama’s favour. In addition to this, Vice-president Joe Biden’s comment that he is comfortable with gay marriage is also referenced to, as well as several other political events, in explaining Obama’s decision behind the announcement. This newscast provides a broad overview of the story, and some brief analysis of its ramifications. It does not, however, provide detailed analysis, as is seen in the coverage of the story by some other media forms.

Norington, B. (2012, May 17). Barack Obama's same-sex nod splits black vote. The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/barack-obamas-same-sex-nod-splits-black-vote/story-e6frg6so-1226358103894

Norington is a foreign correspondent for the Courier Mail in Washington, and is also the author of several books. Norington provides an analysis on the effect Obama’s announcement will have on African-American voters. He cites national opinion polls showing that African Americans tend to support traditional ideas of marriage more, and also references the statements of numerous African-American preachers. The article argues that Obama’s announcement could have a detrimental effect on voting numbers for him, as he relied heavily on the votes of African-Americans last election, with Norington citing statistics from last year’s voting polls in making his judgement. The article, instead of providing an overview of the announcement and a brief political analysis, as was seen on the ABC’s television broadcast provides analysis that is much more in depth, and is focused on one specific group, rather than a broad category. This newspaper article, therefore, provides much more in depth analysis of the story than was seen in the television broadcast, making it ideal for going deeper into the issue and gaining a better understanding.

Horn, E. (producer), & Gladstone, B. (presenter). (2011, May 11). Reaction to Obama’s support of Gay Marriage [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/may/11/reaction-obamas-support-gay-marriage/transcript/

The presenter, Brooke Gladstone, is a journalist and media analyst, and is considered to be an expert on press trends. Rather than focusing solely on analysing the event, Brooke choses to analyse the event in light of the media’s reaction to it. She provides insight to differing angles of media coverage that was given by several news networks. She cites articles written by Fox News, MSNNC’s Morning Joe and Newsbusters. She uses her expertise in the area of press trends to analyse the different angles these news outlets took on the event, from Fox News’ decidedly conservative stance to Morning Joe’s more liberal one. She also cites a number of other journalists and analysts when giving her analysis. Overall, Gladstone gives both coverage of the event and the reaction to it as seen through the media. This podcast, unlike coverage of this event in other media forms, chooses to look at it from a different angle, namely press trends, rather than providing the straight news facts. This media form gives itself to this kind of reporting, as it is likely that at the time of publishing, other media forms had already covered the happenings of the event. To provide relevant news, therefore, this news form must take its analysis further. 

Love is All You Need.

Love is a beautiful thing. It's the topic of poets, novels and songs. It's what makes the world go round. Everyone wants to be loved, and falling in love is amazing. Love is at the crux of all good things, and it's in our DNA to want to love and be loved by others.

So why, then, is being gay a bad thing? Why does love change from good to evil when instead of being between a boy and girl, it's between two boys or two girls? Love is love, no matter who it's from or who it's directed to. So I've never understood all the hate towards gay and lesbian couples. They're in love, and that's a beautiful thing. They just fell love someone who happens to be the same gender as them, and I don't see what's so bad about that.

So when I heard that Barack Obama supports gay marriage, I got excited. No, he mightn't be approving gay marriage across America; he's left that for states to decide. That really would be an amazing thing. But the fact that a politician as influential as the US president has said that he thinks gay marriage is okay is something to be excited about. Because love is love, and everyone should have the right to be with and marry who they choose. 

What's Your Value?

Values are funny things. When you ask someone what their values are, there tends to be a lot of umming and ahhing while they try to put it into words. Everyone has values, but we rarely stop and think about what they actually are. Values tend to be those intrinsic things that seem to be buried deep down inside of us, things that we just have. But values are relative, cultural things, and we weren’t born with them. Everyone has different values, and this rule doesn’t stop at news outlets. They have values too.

News values, however, vary slightly from the values held by people. Whereas a person’s values tend to be based upon what we see as important in life, news values are all about what makes news newsworthy. Exactly what factors make stories newsworthy is a topic of debate, with people of all different ages and from all different places trying to come up with ‘the list’ of news values. A perfect list, however, is impossible, because news values vary across countries, states, and even news outlets. The news values of ABC and Channel 9 are likely to be different, just as the news values in Australia are likely to be different to the news values in China. So how do we know what makes good news?

Despite all these differences, some news values are pretty universal. The idea of ‘if it bleeds it leads’ and ‘if it’s local it leads’ is seen across the world, with news of disasters, death and tragedy taking priority in the news. Proximity is also a big one. People want to hear about things that are close to home and that affect them, and so stories that are close geographically tend to get more news space too. There are lots of other factors, including currency, uniqueness, simplicity, exclusivity and size, plus a whole host of others that all change depending on where you are and what outlet you work for.

News values, however, aren’t hard and fast rules. Just like the values held by people, journalists often just have a sense for what makes news worthy, and for what their news values are. They don’t often think about it, and I dare say that if you asked a journalist exactly what their news values are there’d be a bit of umming and ahhing as well. But news values are important to understand, even if they are a bit illusive, and nobody can make ‘the list’. Everyone has news values, just like everyone has values.  And maybe it’d be worth doing some umming and ahhing and figuring out exactly what they are. 

Factual Storytelling Exercise: Fairy Tales

Life rarely ever follows fairy tales. People read nice stories all the time, but the inevitable thought of ‘that’ll never happen to me’ always creeps in. From a young age we lose the ability to believe in dreams, and we are told to focus on reality instead. But sometimes putting a little faith in the improbable, and doing something to give your dreams a little bit of a kick start, turns out alright. Sometimes it does people good to follow the advice of a story.

It all started with a book she read. It was about a women who’d had met her husband at the supermarket, they’d started talking, she’d got his number and they’d been happy together ever since. Ann-Marie, however, was newly divorced and shy, and didn’t think that anything like that would ever happen to her. She thought those inevitable thoughts of ‘that’ll never happen to me’ and carried on with her life. Something about that story must have stuck with her though, because a couple of weeks later it sparked her to do something that she never would have thought she’d do.

She was wandering through the aisles of Aldi one day, just doing her shopping, when she saw a man she’d been friends with years ago. Years later, now both divorced, they saw each other there, had a quick chat, and parted ways, just like you would with any other old acquaintance. For some reason, however, Ann-Marie couldn’t get that story out of her head.  She went home thinking about it, about Ed her old friend, and about her. A few days passed, but the thought was still there. So taking a big dose of courage and the advice of a story, she decided to get his number.

Now, the chances of her running into him again at Aldi were pretty slim. So Ann-Marie decided to do something a bit more cunning: she looked up his name in the electoral role. There were only two E. Cavanough’s in there, but she wasn’t brave enough to dial the numbers just yet. So she hopped in her car and drove past the two houses, trying to decide which one was his. By the time she got back home she had a pretty good idea of which one belonged to Ed, but she still wasn’t sure. It seemed so silly, and so improbable, that anything would come out of it. That night she talked to her daughter about it, sounding like a giggling schoolgirl when she asked “Do you remember Ed?” She told her daughter about what had happened, and what she’d done. Her daughter, while shocked that her sweet, shy little mother would do anything like that, told her to go for it. “What’s the worst that could happen, mum?” she asked. Ann-Marie chose not to answer that question with the rising amount of fear and doubts filling her head, and instead decided to sleep on it and do something in the morning.

The next day she somehow found herself sitting in front of the phone, dialling the number of a certain E. Cavanough. “If this isn’t him”, she told herself, “I’ll give up and forget about the whole thing.” Heart beating fast, she pressed dial and waited. Eventually a somewhat familiar voice answered with a “hello?” and everything froze. She asked if this was Ed, and did he remember her. They’d met in Aldi the other day, yes? How was he? They talked for a little while, and then Ann-Marie did something she never would’ve thought she’d do: she asked him on a date.

Shocked by everything she’d had the courage to do, Ann-Marie met Ed the met the next day for coffee. They talked some more, and it turned out that even after all the years between seeing each other they still had a lot in common,  and liked being around each other. Ann-Marie told Ed about the story she’d read, and how it had inspired her to track him down. They decided to meet up again, and after a few weeks they were going out.

A year later they got married, and pretty much lived happily ever after. All of this was because she had decided to believe in something slightly ridiculous, and put some faith in what was a little bit of a fairy tale. Instead of sticking to the belief that ‘nothing like that will ever happen to me’, Ann-Maire made something improbable happen, and it paid off. So maybe there is some truth in fairy tales, and good things don’t just happen in books. Sometimes spicing up reality with a little sprinkling hope in the improbable turns out for good. 

A Thousand Shades of Grey.

We don’t live in a world of black and white. We live in a world made up of a thousand different colours and shades. We live in a world where lines blur, and the difference between right and wrong isn’t always as clear cut as it should be. Sometimes knowing what’s right isn’t as straightforward as picking between two options. The reality is that sometimes there are a million different shades of right and wrong to choose between, and the line isn’t always that easy to see.

Ethics play a big part in our lives, and they’re also crucial to the world of journalism. Journalism’s a profession that, thanks at least in part to a certain Mr Murdoch, often receives a lot of flak for being unethical, and for going about things and getting information in the wrong way. In our lecture this week, however, we learnt that journalists can actually be an ethical bunch, and that’s definitely the kind of journalist I want to be.

Being ethical, however, isn’t as easy as it sounds. Ethics is often about choosing between a bad and a very bad outcome, and different people see different outcomes as more or less ethical. Ethics isn’t black and white, and there are many different approaches. Some believe in deontology, which says that you do the right thing by following the rules. But what about when the rules are wrong? It used to be a rule that black people couldn’t even drink from the same water fountains as white people, let alone go to the same school or earn the same wages. That rule isn’t ethical at all. Following the book doesn’t necessarily make you ethical, as some rules need to be broken.

Others believe in consequentialism, where the ends justify the means. This can be a very dangerous guideline though, as some horrific things have been done throughout history in order to achieve some end. Sometimes the price really does outweigh the reward you get, and often that reward only benefits a certain group of people. And there isn’t anything ethical about making others suffer for the sake of the betterment of a single group.

The last form of ethics theory is virtue. This bases itself on intrinsic values, and the belief that we all have the potential to have good character traits inside of us, and that these will guide us through life. This is a wonderful thing to believe in, but the truth is that some people just don’t listen to that little voice inside their heads. So we can’t really rely on people’s good character to make ethical decisions all the time either.

How do you make an ethical choice then, when no one way of going about it is always correct? Companies make ethics guides, philosophers and thinkers debate about it, but no one has the answer. So perhaps all we can do is trust our instincts, and pick the choice that lies behind one of those thousands of shades of options. No, you won’t always pick the prefect shade. People mess up all the time. But by thinking about other people, and about how our actions will have an impact on them, we might just get a little closer to that golden ethical colour. 

Curiosity and Cats.

Curiosity is a marvellous thing. People find out about the most interesting things and places just by being a little curious. Being a little inquisitive makes life interesting, and people love finding out new things. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back. If people weren’t a little curious, the world would never get anywhere.

In the world of journalism, public media is kind of like that. The ABC is famous for its news analysis and current affairs programs, and public media stations are often seen as the place to go for some good, in-depth analysis. In contrast to commercial media’s tendency to be about shocks and thrills, public media tends to be a bit more serious and factual. Public media is kind of like the textbook of the news world, whereas commercial media is the magazine.  The news is a bit more about facts, and a bit less about fun.

The problem comes, however, when this just isn’t the kind of thing people want to watch. Because the truth is, very few people would read a textbook over a magazine. Public media might be deeper, but commercial media looks like more fun. Sometimes people just want light and fluffy, easy to digest things.

So why does public media stick around? Who but old, boring people watch it? In today’s fast paced world, people don’t seem to have time to sit down and really dive into issues. But public media offers something that commercial media, generally, doesn’t. Investigative journalism, the kind that dives right in and makes people think, is everywhere on the ABC. Robert Richter said that public media is the “last bastion of long-form investigative journalism”, and I think it’s true. Public media doesn’t have to think about its shareholders, or making a profit. It has to think about following people's curiosity, and making really good news.

This, I think, is a big part of why public media sticks around. Because people are curious, and they want to go deeper into the bigger issues. Sure, public media isn’t prefect. It’s got a lot of problems to face, and keeping up with the popularity of commercial media is no small challenge. But public media offers something that no one else does, and in order for the world to keep working properly, its needs to stay.

Money Money Money.

Money makes the world go round. Underneath so many things lies the world’s most sort-after substance: money. Media is no exception to this rule. Commercial media rules the media production world, with public media taking up only a very small portion. I say media, you say Rupert Murdoch. The news isn’t just about facts; it’s about profit too.

Commercial media makes its money off just that: commercials. It sells ‘eyes and ears’ to advertisers, and the more popular the show, the more expensive the ad spaces will be. This all sounds just dandy in theory, but in practice, it’s not quite as nice. In order for shows to be popular and to get more viewers, commercial media can be tempted to sensationalise news, and make it more about entertainment and less about facts. Because the fact of the matter is that shocking things sell, and at the end of the day, commercial media is just another business. If it stops making money, it disappears.

But what does this mean for news? Is the news going to have to get dumber and dumber, just so that it can keep going and make a profit? With the rise of web 3.0 advertisers are able to reach much more specific demographics, and companies are beginning to invest in other things than television commercials. Commercial media is having to work harder than ever to make a living. And when the desire to please overtakes the responsibilities of the media in a democracy, things start getting scary. 

So what’s poor old commercial media going to do? As we were asked in our lecture today, can it really deliver on both commercial and social functions? Or does one get sacrificed at the expense of another? And what are we journalists meant to do? Should we continue to write good news and face the possibility of one day living on the streets, or do we sell our souls, and pens, to the mighty dollar? Is the internet the saviour of journalism? Nobody knows all the answers, and it’s a scary world out there, but it’s also exciting. Media is changing, and it’s at a pivotal point in its history. Money may make the world go round, but it’s journalists that tell us about it, which makes me think that they’re here to stay. 

Captain of My Planet.

To some extent, we all live in our own little worlds. Granted, some of us are more off-with-the-fairies than others, and I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t always have both feet on the ground. But our little worlds, the way we see things, shape our worldview, and the way we see others. All too often though we get comfortable there, because things are nice and familiar and normal and right. We hold on tight to our little slice of reality, and bite back fiercely at anyone who dares to question or try and change it. Slowly though, and I think a little scarily, we can become close-minded. Our little worlds stop growing, and our worldviews stay set.

In my lecture this week, which took place in the comfort of my own bed, I listened to Richard Fidler and Steve Austin talk about radio. Each of them talked about their experiences as radio hosts, and about the kinds of things you need to do on radio. But something that struck me was the idea that radio, through conversation, allows us to see into other people’s lives, and into their little worlds. Listening to other people’s stories tells us so much about the world around us, and can open our eyes to different ways of seeing things. But sometimes we close our ears to other people, because we don’t like what they’re saying, or we don’t agree with them.

Radio is one of the oldest media forms, and you’d think it might be on a decline by now. And granted, people don’t tend to huddle around the radio any more to get their nightly news. But people still listen to the radio, whether they’re in the car on the way to work, doing something at home or most recently, through podcasts. Steve Austen said that sometimes you just have to “talk less, and listen more” and  radio allows us to do that. We get to sit back and listen to what others have to say, get a little slice of their world, and compare it with our own.

Richard Fidler said something very interesting. He said to “be open-minded. Expose yourself... to thoughts and ideas you don’t agree with…try and expand your worldview as much as possible.” I think this is a challenge worth trying. Listen to the radio, dive into a book, and ask questions. Try and see inside other people’s little worlds, and expand yours. Because when it comes to worldviews, the bigger the better. Don’t get me wrong: you don’t have to agree with everyone. Just try and see the world from a different point of view. I think that’s what really good story telling and journalism does: it allows people to see the world in a way they hadn’t before.  When this happens, our little worlds keep growing, and we can stop ourselves from becoming close-minded and stubborn. So take a step inside the world of someone different to you, and have a look around. You might like what you see. 

Media Use Diary

Journalism and communication has started to see a shift from the use of old media, namely newspapers, magazines, radio and television, to new media, which revolves around the internet. As such, media platforms have had to change from traditional forms to online ones. The rise of new media usage is the topic of this dossier.

I logged my media usage for ten days (figure 1.0), and then compared it to the results of the survey.

Figure 1.0

The majority of media used was online, with online news and Facebook having the highest total time. Blogging, magazines and television were also used a lot, though their time was nearly half of that seen for Facebook.

This preference for new media was not seen in the survey results however. In the survey, more old media was used than new media (figure 2.0). This conflicts in comparison to my media usage (figure 3.0), where it can be seen that new media was used more.

Figure 2.0

Figure 3.0

While these results indicate that I use a much higher amount of new media than average, the time I spent online each day was significantly less than that seen in the survey. I spent approximately 45 minutes online each day, whereas the average was 1-3 hours. Also, television was the main way people got their news, whereas my main form of news was online newspapers.

These differences could be attributed to the fact that online platforms are easier for me to access than other media forms. Online news made up the biggest percentage of my media use, followed by Facebook, another easily accessed form. These results do have some similarities with the survey results however, as the second biggest source of news was online newspapers, and 91.1% of the time people spent online was on Facebook. My media usage, therefore, does have some similarities with the survey.

Figure 4.0

Usage versus producage was created with web 2.0. Produsage can be defined as:

“…the collaborative, iterative, and user-led production of content by participants in a hybrid user-producer, or produser role.” (Bruns, 2005).

Approximately 22% of my interaction with media was producage, as can be seen in figure 4.0. This included Facebook posts, tweets, and blogging. In regards to the survey results, while it is hard to determine exactly when people use and produce media, the fact that 97.2% of individuals have one or more Facebook accounts, 32.3% use Twitter and 41.4% have blogs indicates produsage. These statistics show that produsage is becoming a big part of media, and therefore journalism, with individuals being able to participate in media production.

These trends indicate that the way people use media is changing, with new media forms and produsers affecting media consumption and production. In regards to my media usage, it can be seen that my relationship with journalism is mostly in new media, and that I not only use but also produse. This indicates that generally, media is starting to encompass new forms, and that people are engaging with them in new ways. 

References

Bruns, A. (2005). Towards Produsage: Futures for User-Led Content Production. [available online] http://snurb.info/files/12132812018_towards_produsage_0.pdf last accessed: 29/03/12

Just Butter, Thanks.

I saw this ace little video while I was procrastinating about writing my media diary dossier, and thought I might blog about it. See, procrastination does have its benefits!

I really liked this video, because it shows the power of boring words, the kinds of words you and I use all the time. Some of the most powerful, memorable statements were just a simple, neat collection of bread and butter words.

The fact of the matter is that people need to be able to connect with what’s being said and written. “No coordinates exist like one’s domicile” really doesn’t hit home for me. It took me a minute to figure out what the hell that phrase even meant. The truth is, people hold word snobs in much too high esteem. Knowing the meaning of the word ‘tellurian’ doesn’t make you a literary god. Writing a good, powerful, simple sentence does. I must confess that I’m guilty of dropping an oversized word in now and then, and I may have possibly subscribed to dictionary.com’s ‘Word of the Day’ for just that purpose. Big words to have a place and a purpose, don't get me wrong. But this lovely little video has given me the epiphany that big words aren’t always better. So from now on, I might just start appreciating the bread and butter of the language world, without always adding the jam. 

Snap!

Everyone knows that a picture says a thousand words. So it makes sense that in the world of news journalism, a place of short, punchy sentences and word limits, that we'd let pictures do the talking that we don't have the space to do. Sometimes, in fact, pictures have a deeper story than words could ever tell.

Photo albums are a great example of this. Families keep photo albums, or these days, USB’s, full of memories. And these memories are mostly in picture form, with maybe a few words scribbled on the back. People know that pictures tell a story, so when they have a moment they want to remember they take a few happy snaps. You don’t see too many families whipping out their notebooks to take down what’s happening at a family dinner. Instead, Aunty Marg just huddles everyone around for a photo. I, for one, am guilty of sneaking out my Polaroid when a particularly memorable moment arises. So it only makes sense that journalists would start snapping away at the scene of an interesting event.  And since you’d think that journalists would only write about interesting things, there’s a place for a photo in every story.

More and more, photos are starting to tell the story in journalism. Online news websites are littered with photo galleries, and just about every news story published on the web is accompanied by a photo. While some news photos are particularly dull and posed, others stay with you, and convey a much greater meaning than words ever could. Take, for example, this photo taken of the Black Saturday fires. In one picture, so much is said without uttering a single word.

Newspapers, online news and magazines are starting to become the photo albums of the world around us. Sure, words still play a major part. Pictures don’t truly come to life until you hear the story behind them. But it’s important to think about the photos that get put with a story. Just like no one wants to see half of Uncle Albert cut off in a photo, readers don’t want to see some cookie cutter picture that has no life or story behind it. Journalists are getting creative with their photography, and through it are creating some of the best photo albums of history that the world’s ever seen. So snap away, my journalistically minded friends. Because a picture can bring your writing to life, and maybe even give you those magical extra thousand words. 

A Bit of Backblogging.

I found out recently through the wonders of Blackboard that I need to post about our first lecture. Something, I soon realised, that I'd failed to do.

I have the memory of a goldfish, so looking back on things is always and interesting challenge for me. But if there's one thing I remember about my first lecture, apart from the inevitable nerves and map-reading as I tried to find the room, it was the quotes. Granted, I didn't actually remember them. No, the slides helped with that. But I remembered sitting there, thinking about how true these quotes where, and how exciting they made the world of journalism seem.

Quite possibly my favourite was one written by a fellow called Phillip Graham, who was a publisher at the Washington Post. He said that "Journalism is the first rough draft of history." It's really exciting to think that something written for a newspaper or the 6 o'clock news could one day be the basis of what's written in a history textbook. Every day, history is getting written and recorded, and we're all a part of it. Everyone wants to make history, and to be remembered. Really, who wants to die without a mention of their name? But I'm studying to be one of the history-writers, one of the people that determines what is remembered. What journalists write decides on what will be remembered about an event in 50 or 100 years time. That's a lot of responsibility, but it's also very exciting. And I can't wait to start writing history.

Chicken vs. Chickpeas.

Let’s talk about flesh.

I’m a pea-loving, broccoli eating vegetarian. I trade chicken for chickpeas, and beef for beetroot. And when I turned veg, I made an effort to avoid being a food snob. Because once upon a time I ate meat too, and I know it’s a personal choice. Yes, I don’t eat meat because I think it’s cruel and a bit ick. But no need to get religious about it and preach the wonders of carrots to the nations. I have plenty of carnivorously inclined friends, and I’m the only vegetarian in my family. So please forgive me if this is crossing over into food snobbery, but there’s one thing that ticks me off: people not understanding what they’re eating.

I came across this article today, and I wasn’t sure whether to be severely grossed out or slightly impressed. Melbourne bistro La Luna specialises in dead animals, and using every bit of them. And I mean every bit of them. The whole shebang, from offal to brains to ears, is cooked and served up to guests. Naturally, the thought of this made me feel pretty queasy. The idea of any kind of animal being killed doesn’t really do it for me, and the article goes into some pretty graphic detail. Honestly, I think it’d be enough to turn most meat-eaters off. But one of the chefs there was talking about some of the morals behind cooking like they do, and they said something I thought was interesting:

“It also bothered [La Luna] that consumers detach themselves from the idea of meat as being part of a dead animal.”

And that

“Visually, supermarkets make meat so easy to look at,” Katherine says, “so people don’t associate it with animals. But it deserves that respect.”

What I’m saying is people should think about what they’re eating. A lot of people simply don’t make the connection between the animal and that delicious chicken burger in your hand. Picking up a piece of steak in the supermarket is the same as cutting it off the carcass yourself. By all means, eat meat. Just know where it’s coming from, and what had to happen for you to have it. No, you don’t have to go out and eat offal. I don’t eat the grapes left in the bottom of the bag, and I guess that’s the vegetarian equivalent. Just be informed about the food on your plate, and how it ended up there.

You Catch My Eye.

I like pretty things. That fact is pretty universal. People rely so much on their eyes to judge whether or not they’ll like something, or someone. We pick our clothes, our homes, our things, and sometimes even our friends by what things look like. So why wouldn’t we do the same thing when we’re reading news stories? Don’t stories get to be pretty too?

I learnt today in my lecture, taught by guest speaker Skye Doherty, that yes, they do. There’s much more to a story than just the body. The headline, images, captions and quotes are all just as important as the actual story you’re trying to tell. These are what catches the reader’s eye, and sparks their interest. In traditional newspapers, the main story would be on the upper left, often accompanied by a picture or graph, like this:

Slide Five

This is because our eyes scan from left to write. Nifty, hey? But with the development of online media, the way news stories are presented has had to change. No longer do five stories have to be crammed onto a page; the limitless expanses of the web have enabled writers to spread things out a little, and has given them the opportunity to add more than just words and pictures. Hyperlinks, videos and shortcuts to other stories can all now be included. Pretty-ifying has starting to happen to news stories. This expansion, however, has meant that the layout of stories has had to change. Now, more often than not, the look of a story changes depending on where you see it. It’s kind of like an online chameleon. The same story can have different headlines and pictures, depending on where it is on the website. This is all done to catch the reader’s eye, and to make the story more visually appealing.

This is pretty exciting for me.  While online layouts still have some kind of structure, there’s much more freedom as to how your story can look, and exactly what you can put on the page. Not being a tech genius myself, putting said things on a page might be a slight road bump, but having the possibilities there is exciting. Like I said, I like pretty things, and making things pretty is something I love to do.

My De-Muggleification

I belong to the Harry Potter generation. My teachers read the first book to my grade one class, my friends rushed to see every movie that came out, and everyone’s read the books. Except for me. For the last 12 years, I’ve lived under a wizard-free rock, and I was always that person who just laughed awkwardly whenever someone made a HP reference.  I didn’t know the difference between Dumbledore and Hagrid, and the extent of my knowledge of quidditch was that it involved broomsticks. I was probably the only 11 year old that didn’t wait for their acceptance letter into Hogwarts. I was the ultimate muggle.

This, however, is all about to change. As of last week, I’m reading the first Harry Potter novel. I’m taking my dive into the world of magic and wands and all those lovely things 12 years after it become cool, and after every single movie has come out. That, my friends, is what you call procrastination. But I’m excited. I’m excited to read what has become a piece of modern day literature, and I’m equally excited to make some HP references myself. Who knows? They might make a wizard out of me yet. 

The Start of Something New.

I’m going to start with a confession: I’ve never written a blog post before. Until last week, when I started JOUR1111, I’d always assumed that blogs were for interesting people with something interesting to say. And then I suddenly found myself starting a blog and, dare I say it, getting a twitter account, and now it seems that I have to have something interesting to say too.

After wandering around campus trying to find the mythical John Hay building that was conveniently not on the map, I started my second JOUR1111 lecture. Pens and jelly beans in hand, I learnt about the different forms of media, and more specifically, web iterations.

Until only a few years ago, journalism was confined to traditional media forms: radio, newspapers, television and the like. But these media forms are starting to die out, and so are the journalists that cling to them. So in the wake of this media crisis, journalists have started using a new tool: the internet. Their foray into the internet world started at web 1.0, which, as I learnt, was basically just repurposing old media forms for the web. This all stated to change, however, with the advent of social media, and the rise of ‘prod-users’, creating web 2.0. People no longer had to wait on the media to get their news, and citizen journalists started to pop up everywhere. Journalists were taken off their previously untouched platform as the gods of news, and replaced by the people using Facebook and Twitter. But it didn’t stop there. We are now on the verge of a new kind of iteration: web 3.0.

Web 3.0, or the semantic web, is all about making sense of information, and tailoring it for the individual. Want to see a movie, find a cheap dinner and then get home? Web 3.0 will tell you how. Web 3.0 creates hyperlocalisation, meaning that it’ll give you very specific content delivery. But what does this mean for journalism?  It looks like journalism, and the media, are going to have to adapt. Having ‘news my way’, meaning that you only getting news that is relevant and interesting to the individual and targeted advertising are some of the ways in which journalism can find its place in the semantic web. No longer are newspapers and television the way to go. People want news at their fingertips, and they want news that relates directly to them. But this upsurge in internet news has created another problem for journalists: if no one is buying newspapers anymore and web news is the future, how are we going to make a living? Is the internet the death of journalism?

Our friend Rupert would like to think not, so he’s worked very hard to come up with ways to still make a living out of internet journalism. One means of doing this is by subscriptions. The Times is currently trying this out, with ‘Times+’ giving subscribers extra benefits, in addition to their ordinary news. Also, paywalls have started to come into play, allowing readers to only view a few lines of the story, and if they want to see the rest, they have to sign up. Only time will tell what will become of journalism, but it’s definitely taking some very new and interesting turns. You know it’s an exciting time to get into journalism when the news makers are starting to become the news.