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.