Facial Flaws

I have been indisposed this past week. On Monday morning, I wandered into a building just off Queen Street, and ended up wandering out again with four less teeth and packs of gauze in my mouth. By which I mean I had my wisdom teeth removed.

Admittedly, it wasn't the most pleasant experience, and the week since hasn't been the best in my life either. My face has swelled up to ridiculous proportions, so I'm constantly wearing ice packs strapped to my cheecks to keep the swelling down. I'm taking more tablets at once then I've ever had in my life and I can't eat most solid foods, so I'm stuck eating soup, noodles and ice cream all day. Oh, how horrible!

Anyway, just thought I'd share that, seeing as I don't have anything interesting to talk about today. So yeah, you can laugh at my pain instead. Bye bye now!

JOUR1111 Lecture 12: The Final Countdown!

So, here we are at the end of a semester that simultaneously feels like it's dragged on forever, and taken no time at all. Let us finish this particular story!

The last lecture was interesting, but it didn't really seem to have toooo much to do with the course itself, so I will admit to not paying as much attention as I probably should have. No offense intended to guest speaker Steve Molk.

It was definitely inspiring to hear from someone who had started out as just a casual blogger, but was now making his way into the big leagues. It gives me hope for my silly little blog! That said, my blog has almost 500 views now, which is kind of pathetic in a way, but also pretty good considering that I don't put as much effort as I'd like to into this thing, and that the views are spread out across ELEVEN COUNTRIES OH MY GOD WHAT?! I'm very curious to find out how all my international viewers found me! However it was, it's really cool that so many people seem interested!

This first semester of University has been awesome. I really liked this course, and especially the blogging side of things. I think it's a pretty clever way to make a course more immersive, and makes assessment almost fun!

I feel that JOUR1111 has given me a great beginner's insight into journalism as a whole, as well the various forms of media that exist, be it television, radio, online, or printed. I'm also a lot more knowledgeable about the differences between public and commercial media, and what those differences actually mean. Finally, there's agendas to be uncovered, investigations to be conducted, and ethics to observed.

Or not.

I'm really glad I decided to do Journalism. There's so much knowledge that I've picked up over the past five or so months through this course, and it's definitely helped me to understand the world we live in a little better. If only I paid attention all the time! But hey. Nobody is perfect, and I took in as much as I could regardless.

So, to wrap up the official, assessed part of this blog, JOUR1111 has been a great course, and I'm really looking forward to my next semester of Journalism. A big thank you to Bruce, my tutor Marie and the other tutors for all the effort they put in to teaching us over the semester. It's been great.

And with that, I bid thee farewell!


P.S. I'll definitely keep going with the blog. Only now I can say naughty words. Yay!  

JOUR1111 Lecture 11: Extended Experimental Investigation

I may have forgotten about my blog, hence why I haven't posted for a while. Silly me! Fortunately, it's not being assessed again until tomorrow, so I have time to smash out the last few posts required. Without further ado, let us discuss the penultimate lecture: Investigative Journalism.

In a simple summary, investigative journalism is about investigating things. While this might seem like a no-brainer, it's a lot more complicated than that. As Bruce said, the central idea of investigative journalism is to uncover the truth. There are a lot of things out there that people don't want us to know about. Investigative journalists attempt to bring that information too light.

I liked the idea of the "Five I's" of investigative journalism. All of them are very important for conducting an investigative piece. One needs to be informed about the subject, intelligent in the questions asked and research undertaken, intuitive about following leads, inside/intimate with sources, and invested in the story to ensure the end result is as comprehensive and effective as possible.

Investigative journalism is meant to be critical. I remember Bruce saying something about journalists questioning the established order, not merely taking ques from it. He also said that investigative journalists should be 'custodians of conscience', basically meaning that they should expose the nefarious doings of the Man, rather than let it all be swept under the rug.

According to a trusted source (Google Images), this is the Man.
He certainly looks dastardly. Just imagine the pile of our money that he's sitting on.  

I'm not really one for the whole "expose the truth at all costs" mentality. I personally believe that we should have some form of censorship, but I also recognise that it would be incredibly difficult for it to work in the way I imagine it. So I guess knowing everything is better than knowing nothing.

Personal beliefs aside, critical investigative journalism is the best kind of journalism. Give me the Fitzgerald Enquiry over A Current Affair chasing some dude down the street any day of the week.

I liked the part of the lecture about whistle blowers. Especially the warning that they're likely to go crazy. I understand that sometimes someone will be be revealing things that are confidential and what-not, but I imagine that the reaction is somewhat unwarranted at times as well.

"You're saying that I told you all of McDonalds' food has exactly 0.002 kilojoules more than what they advertise?!
NOOOO, they'll kill meeeeeeee!!!!!

  It's a shame that investigative journalism is as threatened as it is. Between online journalism sapping the money out of the profession and devious PR types trying every which way to duck and run, it's no doubt very difficult to do investigative journalism these days. But at least things like Four Corners on ABC and Hack on Triple J are keeping the spirit alive.

I'll finish up this one now, but I'll just leave a paraphrased version of one of the quotes Bruce put up during the lecture as a nice conclusion.

"It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas surrounding the message and the myths behind it."

The Secret Life of a Very Bored University Student: Part 2

Sometime in March, I wrote a post about some rather interesting people I happened across one Wednesday. Yeah, I did just include a hyperlink to my own work. Shame and modesty are both foreign concepts to me.

This semester, I have been cursed with a 4 hour break every Wednesday. I know some people might consider this a blessing, and others have longer breaks (some on multiple days), but this is about me, so we'll ignore them.

Usually I pass the time by eating something unhealthy, and then doing some work on an assignment/procrastinating.

This. Only with less books. Okay, with no books.

 However, I've finished all my assignments for the semester. My exams aren't until the end of June. I could have started studying, but I would have just ended up procrastinating. So really, I did myself a favour by going elsewhere.

I considered roaming the University, but 4 hours is a long time to roam. So instead, I hopped on a bus and went to the city. I was walking past the Treasury Casino when I noticed a strange man wandering through the throng of people heading to their various destinations. Suddenly, he began shouting quite loudly in what I believe was Greek. For a moment I entertained the thought that he was the emissary of Poseidon, come to demand tributes of oxen and silver to placate the Earth-Shaker, lest he raise the Brisbane River and drown us all in a flood of dirty water and tiger sharks.

Cue the song 'Whipeout'

Then I noticed the nearby markets, and figured that he was probably promoting them, not heralding our doom. This was confirmed when he switched to English and began to demand that passer-bys experience the bargains. He probably wasn't speaking Greek originally either. I'm not good with languages.

That experience out of the way, I drifted through Queen Street Mall, looking for a means of entertaining myself. Upon exiting the Mall-proper, I passed Hungry Jacks and encountered a man who I can only describe as "Hobo Van Helsing".



Replace the buzz-saw and crossbow with some Woolworths bags and add
a few feet of beard, and we have our man!

He strode across the street with purpose, his eyes blazing with the determination of the truly driven. I figure he had either spotted Dracula eating out of a bin, or he'd realised he was about to miss his bus. Vampire slaying on a budget - not always a victorious experience.

I figured I'd seen just about all Queen Street had to offer in the ways of weird people, so I returned to St Lucia in order to acquire some cheap, unhealthy food. While in the food court, I took it upon myself to once again inconvenience people with friends by sitting at a table for three by myself. Take that, socialites. I didn't see anyone interesting there, but I just thought I'd make mention of that particular habit of mine. It's not my fault my friends all have different timetables to me, buuuut I might as well make the most of it.

After eating, I passed through the Wednesday markets at the end of Campbell Place. Here I witnessed a fairly brutal argument between a pair of Marxists. They were arguing about whether or not Vladimir Putin can be considered a socialist, and it was getting pretty hectic. But really, all they were doing was 'Putin' on a scene.


HA!

And now, here I am in the Humanities library, whiling away the last half hour or so of my break by fiddling with my blog. Time well spent, I think.

Till next!

JOUR1111 Lecture 10: Today's Agenda

I haven't been blogging much lately, mostly due to a combination of assignments and laziness. Time to rectify that!

I didn't actually go to this lecture. But before the gods of academia strike me down for my transgression, I would like to say that the reason I didn't go was because I had been up all night starting finishing an assignment, and circumstances arose which made it prudent to vacate St. Lucia and return home, in order to catch up on lost sleep.

I did watch it online though. It took about three hours, seeing as I kept stopping the video to write stuff down/getting distracted by shiny things in my room.

Like this, except all about shiny things.

 Anyway. Inability to pay attention to my computer when not wasting time aside, I rather enjoyed this lecture! The video at the beginning certainly made me chuckle.

Something that stuck with me the entire time was that quote by Richard Nixon shown at the very start: "The American people don't believe anything until they see it on television." To me, this was a very interesting insight into the way policy-makers and the higher-ups view media mostly as a form of propaganda. I know that's not what he said, but that was the underlying message behind it for me.

I like the term 'social construction of reality'. The idea that our reality is basically just the collective sum of shared 'issues of importance' that are constructed and mediated by the media is a very interesting, albeit cynical way of thinking. Plus, it appeals to my inner conspiracy theorist.

Hehehehe.

But on the the real issue. What we watch on TV, read in the paper/online and listen to on the radio, all comes to us because someone wants it to. Someone, somewhere, has decided to bring this piece of information to our attentions. It all comes down to the agenda of the person/organisation that send it out in the first place.

Bruce talked about four different kinds of agendas: public, policy, corporate and media. It's fairly easy to distinguish between these. We want to hear about One Direction, Julia Gillard wants us to hear that Kevin Rudd isn't planning another leadership challenge, corporations want us to hear that everything is fabulous and people will never ever ever lose money on shares, and the media wants us to hear about all these things, for varying reasons across different news providers.

Bruce mentioned in the lecture that the more an issue is covered, the more important it is to people. I feel that this was one of the major points of the lecture, especially considering just how much truth is in it. A lot of us are familiar with the Craig Thomson scandal. How could we not be? It's everywhere. But what's going on in Paraguay today? I wouldn't have a clue. Maybe it's an uneventful day. Maybe tens of thousands of children were murdered in the street. I may be exaggerating my hypothetical situations here. The point, however, remains the same. We don't know, because the people who set the agenda don't want us to care.

The media has been setting the agenda for nearly a century. Take wartime propaganda. Support the troops! Down with Hitler! That was what they wanted us to see, hear and read, and therefore that's what we came to believe. It helped that Hitler wasn't a very nice man, but hey, it was still the agenda of the time.

Propaganda is definitely a major part of agenda setting. It's 'a tool to shape images in the minds of humans to support an enterprise, idea or group'. In other words, propaganda plays a major part in the images that form in our minds when we think about a particular topic. Bruce mentioned Mitt Romney being a Mormon as an example of this. Mormons tend to get a bad rap in modern society. Most people have personally experienced or heard a story about Mormon door-knockers who dress nicely and roam the neighbourhoods, going from house to house looking for people interested in joining their religion. You know, like this:

Comes to your house no matter where you live!

Now, I'd like to mention here that I'm not intolerant of other people's beliefs, I'm just using this as an example. If someone is offended though, please let me know and I'll get rid of the picture and change this part of the post. Anyway. I know not all Mormons are like this. Also, there are 'door-knockers' in a lot of religions. So why does this stereotype exist? Because someone (or several someones) at some point in time, for whatever reason, decided that this is what they want people to believe.

So why does the media set the agenda? I liked Bruce's self-quote: "Because they can!" Did anyone read 'The Australian' on the day the budget was announced? I get the feeling Rupert Murdoch might just have had a little involvement in this one:

The Australian is a fairly conservative newspaper (not surprising, given that Murdoch owns it), so it should be expected that they take this sort of view. This might have been a little overt though. Just a little. The Australian wanted its conservative audience to see the Government as a bunch of filthy lefties, so this is what they put out. How's that for an agenda?

However, agenda setting falls flat on its face when we decide that we don't want to believe what we're being told. If one does a little more research into an issue, they might find themselves formulating a different opinion to what a media outlet is telling them. Alternatively, someone might just not care about the issue, and will thus ignore the agenda. Take that, established order!

That's all I have to say for this evening. I was going to do the other lectures I haven't covered yet, but I got more into this one than I thought I would. Oh well. There's always tomorrow!

JOUR1111: Annotated Bibliography

Robinson, P. (2005). The CNN Effect Revisited.  Critical Studies in Media

Communication, 22 (4), pp. 344-349.

Piers Robinson, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Manchester, has gained international repute for his research into the ‘relationship between communications, media and world politics’ (University of Manchester 2011). Throughout the article, Robinson examines the evolution of the so-called ‘CNN Effect’ following the end of the Cold War, and identifies multiple factors that have driven this evolution. The author divides the CNN Effect into three categories: Cold War anti-communist consensus, 1990’s humanitarian intervention and post-9/11 deference to government.  Citing both the works of others and his own previous research, Robinson identifies the anomalies present in CNN Effect, making great note of the U.S. media’s return to governmental deference after 9/11. The author also notes the evidence linking the media to intervention in the 1990’s, as well as referencing controversy surrounding the validity of the CNN Effect. Robinson concludes the article by identifying the humanitarian intervention of the 1990’s as an isolated incident, referencing the U.S. media’s general willingness to conform to the agendas of the government. In comparison, a study conducted by Professor Eytan Gilboa during the same year cited below reached a similar conclusion, but conceded that the situation was still in flux and further research would be necessary.

Collins, S. (2012, May 4). An Ugly Mind. The Global Mail. Retrieved from: http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/an-ugly-mind/225/

 Sarah-Jane Collins, Environment, Science and Technology Writer for the not-for-profit ‘news and feature’ website The Global Mail, is a recognised Australian journalist who has received multiple commendations for her work. Throughout the feature article Collins discusses the controversy surrounding the actions of accused terrorist and mass-murder Anders Behring Breivik, with particular regard to the debate surrounding his sanity. Collins begins by stating that the real issue is whether or not Breivik is sane, as no-one can feasibly deny that his self-confessed actions were anything but criminal. The author recognises the difficulty most of her audience would have comprehending the fact that Breivik may be sane, identifying his rationale as something that most people cannot conceive. Collins makes excellent use of her sources in order to present the feature in as balanced a way as possible, including quotations from two recognised professionals – a psychologist and an anthropologist – in order to present multiple views on Breivik’s mental state, as well as his motives.  The author also uses hyperlinks attached to key words in order to provide further information beyond the feature. Collins concludes by returning to the issue of sanity, identifying that it is entirely possible that Breivik is not mad, simply prepared to use any means necessary to purport his ideology. 

Walters, G. (2011, July 27). Anders Breivik is not a madman. New Statesman. Retrieved from: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/guy-walters/2011/07/breivik-murder-future-commit

Guy Walters is a blogger for New Statesman, a leading political, cultural and current affairs magazine based in the United Kingdom. He is a renowned author, editor and journalist, and contributes to multiple British-based news publications. Similar to Collins’ article, Walters’ blog focuses on the debate surrounding Breivik’s sanity. However, the opinionative nature of blogging allows the author to present his personal belief that Breivik is sane, albeit twisted. Walters notes that not every mass murderer is insane, and draws connections between past atrocities and those committed by Breivik. The author pushes his belief that Breivik was taking what he believed to be the best course of action in order to achieve his goal. Walters uses the acts of the Nazi leadership as an example, and includes an excerpt of a speech given by Heinrich Himmler to emphasise his point. The author references the opinions of multiple commentators – some of whom consider Breivik insane and some who don’t – demonstrating that he has attempted to understand the reasoning behind both viewpoints. Like Collins, Walters makes use of hyperlinks attached to key words to provide additional information. The author concludes by stressing the importance of understanding the Breivik scenario in order to prevent it from happening again.

The Telegraph. (2011, August 15). Norway attacks: Anders Breivik returns to Utoya island. The Telegraph. Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8701595/Norway-attacks-Anders-Breivik-returns-to-Utoya-island.html

The Telegraph is a well-known British online news website, one of several mediums under the proprietary of Telegraph Media Group. The name of an author is not provided, making it difficult to determine the accuracy of its contents. The article consists of a video accompanied by a brief description. The video includes the caption ‘Courtesy: VGTV’, identifying the footage as belonging to journalists for the Norwegian news group VG. The video contains two segments: a press conference conducted by a police prosecutor and an interview with Breivik’s lawyer. The segments are intercut with footage of Breivik explaining the events that took place during a re-enactment on Utoya Island. The video attempts to present the story without bias, as shown by including footage of both the prosecuting and defending sides. Unlike Collins’ feature article and Walters’ blog, the focus of the video is not  Breivik’s mental state, but his return to the scene of the massacre. However, the issue is briefly hinted at, as the video ends with Breivik’s lawyer conceding that ‘it is difficult…to understand [Breivik’s] explanations’. While The Telegraph is a well respected website, the article looses credibility when compared to those of Collins and Walters, due to the lack of noticeable citation present.          

Reference List

Robinson, P. (2005). The CNN Effect Revisited.  Critical Studies in Media

Communication, 22 (4), pp. 344-349. London: Routledge.

The University of Manchester. (2011). Dr Piers Robinson, research profile – personal details. The University of Manchester. Retrieved from: http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/piers.robinson/

 Gilboa, E. (2005). The CNN Effect: The Search for a Communication Theory of International Relations. Political Communication, 22 (1), pp. 27-44. London: Routledge.

Collins, S. (2012, May 4). An Ugly Mind. The Global Mail. Retrieved from: http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/an-ugly-mind/225/

Walters, G. (2011, July 27). Anders Breivik is not a madman. New Statesman. Retrieved from: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/guy-walters/2011/07/breivik-murder-future-commit

The Telegraph. (2011, August 15). Norway attacks: Anders Breivik returns to Utoya island. The Telegraph. Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8701595/Norway-attacks-Anders-Breivik-returns-to-Utoya-island.html

Romantically Apocalyptic

While procrastinating assignments last night, I stumbled across the strangest, funniest, most warped comic strip ever.

Welcome to the disturbing, hilarious world of Romantically Apocalyptic.

This is an apt summary of the pure insanity present in this comic. It's great!

So follow the hyperlink above, and descend into the madness that is the post-apocalyptic world of Captain, Snippy and Pilot.

You know you want to.

JOUR1111 Lecture 9: Monetary Value

Apologies for the title of this instalment. It sucks, I know, but I'm not feeling terribly creative at the moment. Ah well. Forward, unto relevent things!

Today, I'm actually blogging about a lecture the day it happened!

This rambling rundown touches on the concept of 'News Values'. As Bruce mentioned, news values are determined by how prominent a media outlet makes a particular story, and how much attention the story receives from the public. Through this, we can determine what people want to hear, read and watch.

It should be readily apparent that every media outlet has a different set of values they apply to news, as do different cultures and nations. Fox News can hardly be compared to Al Jazeera, which in turn is completely different to our own ABC News. But how do these different bodies shape their separate values?

As was shwon in the lecture, there is an incredible amount of concepts drawn together to make up differnet ideas of news values. These include negativity, uniqueness, simplicity, exclusivity, significance, human interest and conflict, just to name a few! The lists are endless.

Unfortunately, the ideals of news worthiness are being corrupted by an array of factors, such as the incluence of PR on journalism, the horror that is the tabloids, hyper-commercialisation, and just plain lazy journalism.

The tabloids do know how to grab your attention, I'll admit.

  News values today are further being corrupted by the nature of media in itself. Mergers of various corporations and bodies create massive media cartels, which stagnate the diversity of perspectives presented by the news, as these cartels are often driving at their own values and agendas. Unfortunatley, this can prevent the real stories from getting out.

But never mind all that. It's time to look to the future! What are the news values of tomorrow? What decisions will be made in the coming years to decide what is newsworthy? To me, it's a pretty easy question to answer. We are the journalists of tomorrow. The news values of tomorrow are OUR values.

Power to the youth!

JOUR1111 Lecture 8: Naughty and Nice

Ethics. Political correctness. Good practice. We've all heard at least one of these terms before. They provide a moral ground of sorts, which we can use to work out what is acceptable and what is not. To me, ethics is one of the most important aspects of journalism, given how necessary it can be in 'mainstream' society to conform to commonly accepted values of right and wrong.

But what is unethical, and what is not? What is politically incorrect, and what is correct?

Seems legit.

Thankfully, guest lecturer Dr John Harrison was there to set us on the right path! With a series of photos and videos, we were shown a sample of questionable ads.

My mainstream journalist job prospects have shrunk rapidly, because I found a fair few of those images and videos to be absolutely hilarious!

I can't help it. Being politically incorrect goes hand in hand with my sarcasm, moderate cynicism and irreverence. I also read Cracked every day. Yes, you may judge me.

Anyway. I was very interested to discover that ethics isn't just based on public perception of right and wrong. While the theory of Consequentialism revolves around majority rule and 'the end justifies the means', the theories of Deontology and Virtue are vastly different.

Deontology (if I remember correctly) actually lists the rules and requirements of being ethical. However, the problem with this system is that the list of rules might not be your own personal values. What you consider to be wrong, the writers might think right, and vice-versa.

Virtue ethics seem to be the most 'realistic' set, as they are based around universal good habits or dispositions of character. These dispositions include courage, justice, temperance, prudence, and other nice-sounding words.

To me, it seems that consequentialism is the least effective set of ethics, as it is based on the opinions and values of the majority of people, rather than an established, unchangable system. In other words, something that really isn't ethical might be considered normal. You know, like this:

Put your back into it!

Food for thought, boys and girls!



 

JOUR1111: Factual Storytelling Exercise

What would you do if you were told you had just two years to live? This is the question facing my dad, Brenton, who was recently hit with the news that his life expectancy had suddenly been cut to 2-4 years.

Brenton was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004 at the age of 45. Prostate cancer is usually an ‘older man’s’ disease, with an average age of 70 years at diagnosis. Since then he has undergone surgery, biopsies, radiotherapy and been prescribed multiple drugs in a bid to keep the disease at bay. Whilst some of this treatment initially proved promising, the disease has now spread to his bones and become metastatic. Brenton is now entering the palliative phase of his treatment.

Palliative treatment is a term despised by sufferers of any disease. It means that doctors have given up on an actual cure, and are now focussed on buying time, making the patient as comfortable as possible and treating symptoms, rather than treating the disease. This is the point a patient is normally given their ‘life sentence’.

Since Brenton was ‘sentenced’, he has found it difficult to control his thoughts, which he has placed in three basic categories: the logistics of dying; past memories; and what he is going to miss.

The logistics should be the easiest of the three; it’s a cold and emotionless thing to start investigating how to change all bank accounts into his wife’s’ name, but that list is never ending. It includes the house, insurance, mobile phones, internet accounts, water, electricity, car leasing and so on. He needs to dig out his superannuation and life insurance details and make a few calls. This should be easy, but he hasn’t started. When he begins thinking about it, his mind wanders to where he would like his ashes spread.

 Brenton is finding it difficult to direct his thoughts away from his memories and what he believes he will miss out on. He believes his life had been divided into two distinct periods. Not ‘pre-cancer’ and ‘post-cancer’ as might be assumed, but the period prior to meeting Allison, his wife-to-be, and the period since then. Whilst pre-Allison memories sometimes bubble to the top, it is the memories since meeting her which dominate his mind.

The greatest day of his life was not his wedding day, or the birth of his children, but of his first date with Allison. Despite a poor choice of movie, it ended with their first kiss, and he clearly recalls whooping and hollering the whole way home.

The most defining moment of his life was their second date. It didn’t start well, with the relationship one doorbell ring away from ending before it began. Fortunately Brenton managed to drag himself and his hangover out of bed to answer the door. What followed was his total honesty about everything – something never before shared with anyone.  He realised right then that Allison was ‘the one’.

Pouring over old photo albums has become a favourite past-time. Holiday photos, wedding photos, honey-moon snaps and photos of his two sons from birth until the present are now firmly etched in his brain, but he knows he will drag them out again and again over the next few years.

The thought of dying is not what scares Brenton the most. While it is often a dark cloud hanging over his mind, he is more terrified of the months immediately leading up to his death, and the years that will follow.

Brenton will likely be quite incapacitated in the months preceding his death. He will find moving about very difficult and painful, and may be confined to a wheelchair. He’ll likely be nauseous from chemotherapy and other treatments. He’ll probably become incontinent and lose full control of his bowels. He knows this, not just from the words of medical professionals, but from firsthand experience. Brenton witnessed the very same things in the last months of his own father’s life, as he too endured the final stages of prostate cancer.

This experience had a profound effect on Brenton, and he believes he has never really got over the guilt of wishing his own father would die – to put both of them out of their pain and misery. It was years before those painful last memories of his father could be replaced by the thousands of fond memories of him from happier times. Despite this, significant guilt remains. He is terrified of putting his family through the same thing.

Like many people undergoing a similar experience, Brenton has an unwritten bucket list. However, his doesn’t include tandem parachute jumps, bungy-jumping, swimming with sharks or visiting exotic locations throughout the world. Brenton’s bucket list revolves around some of the things he might live to see, but many that will be beyond him. Most of all, it is exclusively family related.

He’d like to see his youngest son graduate from high school, and discover what career pathway he decides to pursue. He’d like to see me graduate from University and get my first full-time job. He wants to see more of his sons’ friends. He wants to see milestone birthdays. He knows it is highly unlikely that he’ll see his sons get married, but he’d like to be around when we have our first ‘serious’ girlfriends, just so he can see what we look for in potential partners. He’d like bury his mother; only so she doesn’t have to go through the pain of burying a son. Most of all, he’d dearly love the opportunity to grow old and cantankerous with Allison at his side.

That doesn’t seem like too much to ask. Sadly, it’s not something I can give.

JOUR1111 Lecture 7: Public Decency

This week's lecture was a belated follow up to the previous, with the minor interruption of mid-semester break in the middle. As such, I had completely forgotten what the last lecture was about, and had to do some quick note flipping to jog my memory.

Last time, we discussed commercial media. This week its counterpart, public media, stepped up to be judged. And boy did we JUDGE it. A summarised analysis is judgement, right?

I like public media. It just seems to have so much more to it than commercial media. As mentioned last week, commercial media is dependent on the whims of advertisers, and other such evil beings. Public media relies on the whims of the public. And that's how it should be. "Public media should have 'public value'."

Furthermore, ABC and SBS, the two major public media TV stations, seem to have a much higher quality of content than their commercial counterparts. I will take  Summer Heights High, Psychoville and anything by the The Chaser over The Voice, MasterChef and The Bold and the Beautiful any day of the week! 

A major problem I have with commercial media (that I don't think I mentioned in the relevant blog post, whoops) is the junk that commercial programs and newspapers etc consider to be 'news'. Take today's Courier Mail, for example. It started promisingly, with a portion of the front page dedicated to a story about a 'suburban arms race'. Yay! But then they ruined it, by slapping an enormous picture of one of the dudes from One Direction holding a koala. Cutting edge stuff!

Public media news just has that serious quality to it, as Bruce mentioned. I don't know about anyone else, but heavy-hitting stories keep me interested longer than tripe about boy-bands and marsupials. Unless One Direction kidnapped a koala. Or the koala attacked them. That would be funny! 

All this aside, my favourite part of public media is Triple J. Why? Because they actually play (good)music; they don't talk your ear off for hours on end. Shocking! Not really, because that's what I, and many others, actually want to hear. Not only that, but the various hosts actually use listener feedback when selecting the next song. Unlike 97.3FM. Dear lord, I HATE 97.3FM and their 'Greatest Hits of the 80's, 90's and Now'. I'm going to blog about my dislike for it one day. Until then, hearing Kelly Clarkson's 'Mister Know-it-all' three times a day over the radio at work will fuel my hatred. I'm coming for you, Robin, Terry and Bob in the mornings!

Anyway, back to the lecture. Public media is also the last real bastion of proper investigative journalism. Not the chasing people down the streets rubbish on A Current Affair. More like the Fitzgerald Enquiry, is what I'm getting at. It's not often enough that we hear, see or read that kind of reporting anymore. But as Bruce said, "The ABC and SBS are not 'owned' by the government. They are held in 'common' by the people." We have a say (of sorts) in what goes on public media. Maybe, instead of joining the sheeple watching Australian Idol and The Biggest Loser, we should flick to the ABC or SBS more often. More interest, more money from the government. More money, more of what WE want to see. Good idea? I think so!

JOUR1111 Lecture 6: "And now a message from our sponsors!"

Ahh, Commercial Media. The sometimes bane of my television-watching existence. We've all experienced that moment where we're watching our favourite tv show and something major occurs. We're on the edge of our seats, waiting for the dilemma to be resolved, when instead the picture changes, and we're informed that Super Cheap Auto is having a massive sale! "Oh, thank heavens," we exclaim. "Of all the things that could have interrupted my tv program, I'm glad it was Super Cheap. I'll be down there to buy new seat covers and some fluffy dice for my rear view mirror right away!" If you don't actually do this, don't worry. No one does.

But you still remember about Super Cheap Auto and their massive sale. Maybe next time you go past a Super Cheap Auto, you will go inside and have a look. And therein lies the value of commercial media.

As Bruce said during the lecture, commercial media exists to provide 'eyeballs and ears' for advertisers. They aren't particularly concerned with the programs being aired. They just want people watching their advertisements and buying their products.

Seeing as commercial media depends on business success to survive (no government funding for the media moguls, it seems!), it isn't surprising that the main focus is advertisements. Without ads, the advertisers can't show off their products, so they can't sell them. If they can't sell their wares, they can't make money. If the advertisers don't make money, there's no one to fund commercial media. No commercial media, no ads. It's a vicious cycle.

When Bruce started listing off all the various commercial media groups and what they run, I tried to write them all down, but gave up fairly quickly. The list was staggering. A fair portion of everything we read, hear and watch is commercially funded.

The point and purpose of commercial media in a democratic society (apart from making money) is to provide a truthful and intelligent account of important, interesting and relevant information/news to the masses, as well as provide a forum for comment and criticism about anything and everything, including those we elect to govern us. However, you can often see when The Man has started to apply pressure to get his way, particularly with the often ridiculous smear-campaign ads that are aired every election time. I guess the government pays as well as anyone else.

I also don't always agree with the 'truthful and intelligent' accounts being presented. Commercial media has a reputation for bending the truth in order to make a story seem more exciting. For example, in my last tutorial we discussed a story about a man and a young girl from a remote indigenous community getting lost in the desert, with the girl tragically dying of malnutrition a few days later. Once commercial news got their hands on the story, they broke or bent half the rules in the book, reporting conjecture or outright falsehood as fact. In the end, many reported versions of the story revolved around 'paedophilia' and 'abduction'. Classy.

To round off the lecture, it was mentioned that advertising revenue for commercial media is down, meaning reduced quality and more 'bought-in' content. Yay, repeats! However, I think that fixing this situation would require an increase in quality, in order to keep people watching. Showing endless repeats of 'Two-and-a-Half Men' and 'The Big Bang Theory' or whatever it is they repeat is not going to attract new audiences, or bring the old ones back. Take a gamble and go for some variety!  

 

JOUR1111 Lecture 5: LOUD NOISES

I will confess to being very lazy since I handed in a brutal round of assignments last week and the week before. Due to this laziness, I have only just gotten round to listening to Week 5's sound lecture. To be honest, it didn't exactly stimulate my higher brain functions. Which is to say that I found it really, REALLY boring.

Now don't get me wrong, I looooove radio. I did work experience at ABC Radio during the Queensland Floods at the start of last year and had an amazing time. Also, as anyone who's had a look at my Media Use and Production Diary would know, I listen to a lot of radio throughout the week. Nevertheless, I just had an excruciatingly dull half an hour listening to this lecture. It's a good thing I took notes, because I barely remember a thing that was said. I don't even remember what the names of the interviewer and guests were. Sadly, I was that bored. It could just be early Alzheimer's settling in, I suppose. Which is worse?

For the purpose of distinguishing who was who, I'm going to give the three speakers slightly exciting-sounding monikers. The female host shall henceforth be known as 'Threshold'. The first guest will be 'Gunslinger'. Last but not least, the second guest will be 'American'. Incidentally, these code names have been taken straight from the titles of various books littered about my room. A mystery prize shall be awarded if you feel like guessing which ones (and get them right)!

Anyway. I felt Gunslinger made a lie of his words while talking about sustaining radio stories and keeping conversations open. To me, it seemed like his own story was not being sustained very well, as he was like to wander off on random tangents about his life and various experiences he'd had. While this is all well and good, it didn't exactly help me process and understand the tenants of radio journalism. Come to think of it, I don't think these were covered at all, really. Furthermore, Threshold seemed content to let him waffle, even though she mentioned that this was being heard by University students who were 'just starting out'. I'm perplexed as to why she didn't make many attempts to steer the conversation towards more helpful insights, as opposed to the quick comments at the end of the interview.

The only interesting thing that I picked up while doing my best to listen was the comment made about radio being a 'voice inside your head', and how this helped to keep the audience engaged and listening. An interesting concept, to be sure, and definitely food for thought. It's almost as if radio is a kind of extra conscience that echoes things that you either believe or don't believe, depending on what you listen to.

American was slightly better than Gunslinger in that he stayed on more on topic, but fell down majorly in the vocal department. I felt he could have made use of a lot more inflection and emphasis on his words; it was a bit monotone to listen to, and had a nullifying effect on what he had to say. Nevertheless, American did have a few very good pointers. The ones I found most useful were to ask blunt, simple questions in order to get listeners to phone in with feedback or opinions, and to watch/listen to the mannerisms of guests in order to gauge which way an interview is heading.

Once again though, I thought Threshold could have done a better job directing the interview; she let American plot his own path, much like she did for Gunslinger.

But hey, these are just the grievances of a first-year University student, and really, what do I know? I'm sure others really enjoyed this lecture, but it wasn't my bag, baby. As they say, you can't please everyone!

     

JOUR1111: Media Use and Production Diary

There are two sides to media: the use of content created by others, and the production of one’s own material. I have logged ten days of my own media use and production, the results of which are displayed in two separate components below, beginning with media use:

Rather than display ten separate days of media usage, I have decided to only show the total results of each category. My varying daily schedule makes it difficult to form a trend across the week; it is therefore easier to simply show the end result.

As shown, the forms of media I use most are radio and social networking. It is also apparent that these two categories far outstrip the other forms of media I make use of. This is easier to identify in the following pie chart:



While it appears that these two categories make up almost 70% of my media usage, this chart does not account for passive and active use.

Much of the time I’m listening to radio whilst driving and working. As such, it is passively ‘running in the background’. The time I spend actively listening to the radio is far less than the total amount shown above. Similarly, whenever I’m using the internet, I am usually signed in to my Twitter and Facebook profiles; these are normally passive in another webpage while I use the internet for news sites and course readings on Blackboard.

I am actively using radio and social networking only around a quarter of the total time spent. With this in mind, the pie chart changes:

This refined chart shows that my media usage is roughly equal throughout all categories. Little distinction is made between ‘new’ and ‘old’ media. This is due to the fact that I have easy access to all mediums, as well as the time to make use of them.

In comparison to my widespread media use, my production takes place on a smaller scale:

I prefer to blog/post/tweet only when I have something interesting or important to say. As it’s difficult to keep pumping original content out continuously, my ability to produce material is somewhat limited, as evidenced above. Furthermore, an interesting relationship can be seen between media and journalism. My media production all took place online through social networking. It can therefore be construed that it is easier to produce media online, likely due to the ability to quickly utilise other material. This reflects on the shift to online media that the field of journalism is experiencing today.   

In regards to the media use and production of the JOUR1111 cohort shown by the Survey Monkey survey, my own use and production mostly follows the pattern of the group:

As shown, a fair portion of the cohort makes use of the majority of the mediums I have listed above. It is possible to deduce from this that the majority of the cohort are in the same position as me, in that they have easy access to multiple forms of media, for both use and production.

To conclude, I feel that the main reason my media usage is approximately even across the board is that I am able to access many different forms of media with little difficulty. I believe that this gives me an advantage in the field of journalism; by not favouring one form over the rest, I am able to widen my knowledge base, thus increasing my chances of successful and enjoyable employment in the future. Furthermore, my online production is following the same trend that journalism is experiencing today, further increasing my abilities relevant to the field. As I’ve heard more than once in the last few weeks, there’s never been a more exciting time to be a journalist!

JOUR1111 Lecture 4: Pretty Pictures!

Everybody loves pictures, both still and moving. Be it in a children's picture book or flashing across the silver screen, few things captivate people more.

This week's lecture was on 'Telling Factual Stories with Pictures', which includes both photo and video journalism. We started off with a quick history on the development of the visual side of journalism, which was both interesting and entertaining. I particularly liked the caption that accompanied the first ever colour photograph published in a newspaper, which stated "First News Photograph In Nature's Hues Ever Published". Why they used that particular phrasing is beyond me. It was a different time, I suppose.

  

The hues!! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!!

It was also interesting to see just how far we've come, not just since cave paintings, but since nature's hues were first revealed to us. I now understand why they used that term. It's AWESOME.

In all seriousness though, the stuff they can do with cameras in the present day is amazing. So many things need to be considered to take a good photo/video, including focus, POV, sound (for video) and the apparently all-important Rule of Thirds.

However, modern technology, while extremely useful in the field of visual journalism, can be used for more dubious purposes as well. I believe the term is known as 'faux-tography', or digital manipulation. It is used to digitally alter a photo or video after it has been taken/shot, often resulting in something completely different from the original. The most common use of faux-tography is to make photo models look that little bit 'prettier', often dramatically (and ridiculously) shrinking their waistlines, changing their facial structure and increasing the size of their breasts (yeah, I said breasts on the public domain, sue me) as well as other such 'attractive enhancements'. What's wrong with natural beauty, I ask you?

Digital manipulation can also apparently be used to subject Taylor Swift to demonic possession.

"I will consume your soul."

That said, I think that visual journalism is a super interesting and exciting field. There is such a large scope for individuality and creativity, ending only at the constraints of your own (image)ination. The popular saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words". I disagree. I feel that a picture is worth exactly as many words as you can cram into it, be it a thousand or a hundred million. Every picture is a doorway into a world of infinite possibilities and meanings; it's all in the eye of the beholder.

The Secret Life of a Very Bored University Student

Long breaks during the middle of day suck. Especially when you have nobody to talk to, and you forgot your lunch. Again. It's a downward spiral of loneliness and hunger, ending only when I fork out a small sum of money to satisfy the rumblings of my stomach. It's also highly upsetting to watch five dollars go down the drain every day I'm at University due to my abject stupidity.

 Armed with a totally healthy meal (hot chips) I found a nice tree in the Great Court against which I could prop myself and watch the world go by.


There's a large number of very interesting people who frequent the Great Court, and I saw none of them, because it rained as soon as I sat down. That was mildly irritating.



It went something like this.

However, I quickly relocated to a drier location, and settled in to cram handfuls of chips into my mouth, an act I achieved with gusto. It was here though, that I encountered my first interesting people of the day. A young couple, no doubt in the throes of true love, were spoon-feeding each other from what appeared to be a large vat of yoghurt. This raised two major questions for me. Firstly, why aren't they using the spoons to feed themselves? And secondly, why do they have so much yoghurt?! Thankfully, the rain let up before too long, and I was able to escape the dairy duo.

With three hours left until my next lecture, I decided to wander along a path I had yet to travel, partly to increase my knowledge of the campus, and partly because I was really, REALLY bored. This trip took me to the UQ Lakes, where I stumbled across what can only be described as an odd sight.

Not quite this odd. But still.

Down by the large lake with the large fountain, there was a man in business attire down on hands and knees, attempting to feed a particularly insane-looking goose. He was also trying to stroke the goose's head and neck. I was going to stop and take a photo to include in this growing gallery, but both man and goose seemed to be the "I will eat your phone as soon as it enters my field of vision" kind of crazy, so I decided to let the opportunity pass. Sad, I know.

I did encounter other interesting people, but the yoghurt lovers and gooseman pretty much topped the list. The other weird people I saw simply didn't make the grade. That said, I did see/meet a lot of nice, friendly people as well! It's just more fun to talk about the strange ones.

In that regard, if anyone encountered 'interesting people' during their time at University or work or wherever and feels like sharing the experience, feel free to leave a comment or drop me an email. I enjoy laughing!

With that, it's time to end this particular chapter. But the story goes on!

Have a faaaaaaaaantastic week!

JOUR1111 Lecture 3: Featuring Act

This week's lecture saw Bruce take a backseat as guest speaker Skye Doherty offered her expertise on text-based storytelling. A sneaky stalking of other blogs on Monday night informed me that we knew about this beforehand. Clearly I need to spend more time stalking Blackboard. But hey, everyone likes a good surprise!

And this certainly was a good surprise. To me, Skye's lecture really showed the power of text. Almost every piece of media uses text in some form, be it through a simple description or a long analytical essay. It seems that most of what makes a story worth reading is born through text. Clearly, words are a powerful tool when used properly.

As it so happens, text-based journalism is one of the aspects of the profession that appeals to me the most, so this was a particularly significant lecture for me.

The standout moment, however, was when someone asked a question about the use of gaming in journalism, which resulted in a discussion about news based games; in particular, a morbidly amusing little game called Cutthroat Capitalism. To 'cut' a long story short, it's based on the business model of Somali pirates. I spent half an hour playing it at home, and quickly realised it was more than just an excuse to beat and threaten some British hostages. The game actually made me think about how this was probably happening right at that moment in the real world. If that isn't a good way to engage your audience through mostly text, I don't know what is!

With playtime over, I left the building in an enthusiastic state, mind bubbling at the possibilities of text. I lie - my mind was bubbling, but mostly with thoughts of food. Apparently, remembering my lunch is difficult.

JOUR1111 Lecture 2: Attack of the New Media

Our second lecture came with the intriguing sub-heading of 'New News.' What is this 'New News', you might ask? As many of us suspected, and all of us shortly discovered, this lecture was focussed on the ascension of media to the Web, and its evolution since.

We started with a brief overview of 'Old Media', which includes newspaper, television and radio platforms. It was interesting to learn how quickly these forms of media have been labelled as 'old' with the appearance of the internet. However, it's not entirely surprising; 'New Media' on the web allows you to experience all of the old, and then some on top.

Even so, 'New Media' has gone through several iterations itself. Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 all show major differences, and some very clever innovations that I'd say very few of us expected. Ten years ago, if you told me it wouldn't be long before I'd be part of an online social craze along with millions of other people, I would have laughed in your face, called you dumb, and gone back to watching Dragon Ball Z. Because I would have been almost eight, and that's the kind of thing I did at that age. Nowadays, the vast majority of my friends and acquaintances are connected to Facebook along with countless other forms of social media, and I watch Dragon Ball Z online.

Before this lecture, I didn't understand just how much media on the web has changed over its short life. In my eyes, the internet's change from a storage space for advertising friendly information repurposed from old media into a living, thinking mechanised behemoth capable of keeping you connected with friends across the globe and informed about the best local restaurants is nothing short of amazing.

New Media has advanced by leaps and bounds, and it seems to only be going further. Another point Bruce raised that I found extremely interesting was the prospect of 'hyperlocalisation' of news. What does this mean for our media intake? Will we be able to choose what news we wish to receive, based on our own interests? Or will Skynet decide for itself what knowledge should be imparted on our feeble, organic minds? Only time will tell!

Lastly, there was the jelly bean scenario. Now, I love jelly beans. I crave them. So yes, you can imagine my displeasure when I was told to hand them back after only consuming one of the delicious treats. I was quite upset, to say the least. In other words, I walked right in to the glass door that is the concept of entitlement. While I found the idea of paywalls to be interesting, the vast majority of people will be as outraged as I was with my jellybeans. Having experienced the news online for free for so long, we'll no doubt find it difficult to adjust to the concept of paying to receive content.

It is indeed a very exciting time to be a journalist! With the above thoughts racing through my mind I exited the lecture theatre, jelly beans clutched tightly in hand, demanding to be eaten. I wasted no time in fulfilling their wishes.


I'm not sure if I'm meant to include reflections on tutorials in here, so I'll do it quickly to be on the safe side.

I may have made a mistake picking an 8.00am timeslot. Getting there that early SUCKS. Oddly enough, as my bus pulled to a halt. I noticed people already lining up to catch a bus elsewhere. At 7.30am. Dear god, why?!

Funnily enough, my fellow tutorial members did not seem overly enthused to be there either. It took us a while to get going, but we finally managed to get engaged when it came to creating and designing our Twitter accounts and blogs. Well, I did, anyway. I was too engaged to see what anyone else was doing. I could already tell that the social media aspects of the course would be of major importance, not to mention fun! After a quick debate on the definition of journalism, during which we learnt there wasn't one, it was already time to finish. It'll be interesting to see how our 'group dynamic' evolves over the semester, especially seeing as we only meet once a fortnight!

JOUR1111 Lecture 1: And on the first day...

I made a promise on Sunday night, and I broke it. I really should consider politics. I bet they'd love me - I'm not scandalous enough to make the front page...YET. 24 hours later than intended, this evening marks the start of some totally serious business. This post is a recap of the first week of JOUR1111.

Week 1

Like all of my lectures in the first week, this was mostly a general introduction to the course. Upon acquiring an invaluable copy of the course guide I took my seat, eager to learn about the exciting nature of Journalism! Something like that, at any rate. Three weeks is a long time to remember the exact details, so I'm using poetic license with my own memories.

However, something I distinctly remember having actually happened was Bruce's assertion that '[I] am the Journalist'. This was a defining moment for me, as up to that point I had merely considered myself a student, that being a journalist would happen when I graduated and got a job in the industry, assuming that I plan to in the future. This was the first time I had actually entertained the idea of being a journalist NOW.

I also recall tantalising hints being dropped regarding future lectures, namely a brief mention of the 'current challenges' facing journalism as it exists today, including (but not limited to) public perception and advances in technology.

Finally, I recall being asked, 'Why study Journalism?' The only answer I could think of at the time was, 'Well, why not?' Three weeks down the track, I can't think of a better answer. To be honest, I'm not sure I need to. There's a whole heap of stories out there; why shouldn't I be in a position to share them with the world?

With that, the lecture was over and I set off for home, eager to procrastinate on my various readings for that week.

Blogging is hard. Or is it?

Tonight I have nothing constructive to talk about. I promised myself I would start using this blog for its intended purpose as of tomorrow, and starting early would make me a liar. Which is totally not cool.

This is the first image that popped up when I searched 'intended purpose' in Google Images.
Further results were even more confusing.

Instead, I'm going to talk about how hard it is to blog. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure some of you are really good at this. You probably know how to add links and gadgets and so on without the whole thing exploding in your face. I respect, envy, and live in fear of your technical prowess.
All those things I just mentioned are probably really easy. I'm just really lazy, suspicious of new things, and technologically impaired. Don't laugh, it's a serious condition! But seriously (ha), I'm just not good at blogging. Readers of my previous post may be aware that I promised a follow up post the day after. That was on Wednesday. According to my calander, I have fallen slightly behind. Hey, breaking promises, I should be a politician!

I don't have a good reason for not writing another post. I think it was a mix of writer's block, a short attention span, and a slightly unreasonable fear of messing up so hard that I actually ruin my blog.

Now though, I've managed to write a few paragraphs AND find a random picture in the space of ten minutes! I may have been wrong in my opinion of the difficulites posed by blogging. Writing this was easy!

However, this is a random rant about nothing in particular. I now present my improved viewpoint: It's easy to blog, but it's harder to blog well. In that respect, practice makes perfect. By putting off my blogging, I make it harder to actually learn how to do it properly.

Anyway. Done rambling for now. To all you successful bloggers, I wish you further success! To those who are in the same boat as me, we can do it!

All my love,

Mitch