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.