Okay so that's a blatant lie.
I am definitely not done with semester one. In fact, I have only finished one of my courses after the shocking exam this morning. However, I am almost done - the finish line is in sight - and that makes me rather joyful.
I have had such an interesting first semester at Uni. Throughout this semester, I have been far too relaxed, far too lazy and, as of late, far too stressed. And yet, I have very much enjoyed my semester of JOUR1111... So much so that I'm going to stick with it next semester (which is of significance because I am switching out of my other degree). So it goes to show that I liked this class... a lot. I definitely think that I can get used to the way the things work in a Journalism and Communication degree. I've definitely had a lot more fun in this subject compared to my others (and no I'm not saying all of this to get a better grade).
I think we learnt a lot this semester and yet it was all manageable - probably helped by the fact that we had to review each lecture on here which helped me to remember the content. I thought it was a good introduction to the degree and it really got me thinking critically about the technical side to the news. A lot of it was things that I had noticed but couldn't really identify such as news values or news worthiness. Those are concepts that you understand but can't really explain unless you do a class such as JOUR1111. I liked that there were many things that I could easily see at work after each class. For example: the sound lecture - after I had listened to that and seen the proper technique for interviewing someone and heard their tips I could see how this would apply to my own interview for my story telling assignment. I did apply those techniques (successfully, in my opinion, ha ha). I also loved the way that the grades were spread over many small assignments so that it was easy to manage and to do well if you put the effort in - so thank you for that course coordinator :) I also thought that the assignments were interesting & fun to do which I can see from the amount of time I spent on this blog as opposed to long, boring essays that I had to complete for other classes. I feel like I have a new appreciation for social media following the media use diary and using my student twitter account. I now have my own twitter account and it would be an understatement to say that I'm hooked.
I have a long way to go (literally - I have years left of my degree), but I'm looking forward to it. I look forward to defining my 'brand' of Journalism and seeing where it takes me. I look forward to learning how to present the news in the plethora of ways that are available to Journalism students in 2012. Basically, I look forward to learning more.
In conclusion, after 27 blog posts I can safely say, I have thoroughly enjoyed this course and I look forward to extending my foray into the world of Journalism.
Thank you very much for reading.
Till next semester....
I bid you, dear reader, adieu!
Thursday, 14 June 2012
Week 13: What's In It For Me?
The Last Supper... Oh oops, I meant Lecture*
The last lecture was given by a very funny man by the name of Steve Molks.
He was incredibly interesting and amusing. His witty comments and personality is just like I would have imagined from reading all the stuff on his website (but luckily I didn't have to imagine because I got to see him present the lecture in the flesh which was a very enjoyable experience). I listened to him for that reason, and also the fact that with 4,588 twitter followers, I feel he knows what he's talking about.
He talked about our personal brands and how we can start developing them now and it really got me thinking about how that is exactly what I'm doing. Prior to this JOUR1111 I had my own tumblr account but I hadn't really thought about my 'brand' very much. I had looked at my blog often and tried to analyze whether it was flowing nicely and not looking like a bunch of random posts thrown together but I hadn't really recognized that, in doing that (analyzing it, etc) I had actually been formulating/maintaining a form of brand that I was trying to convey through my blog. Now, with every blog post I write on here and every tweet I've sent out on my class twitter account, I've always thought carefully about whether I'm sticking to the style I'm aiming for. I finish this class having made my own twitter account and so far I've been trying to give due thought to what 'brand' I am presenting through it. Particularly how I can make it work for me.
I liked what he said about having access to people on TV, journalists, politicians, etc. His point was exemplified by the fact that the other day when I wanted to ask Steve about the D'Arcy/Monk story (see last blog post) and so I tweeted to him and got a response back within a few hours. It's true that we have access to people like never before and it's up to us (the journalists of the future) to use this to our advantage.
Not only that but we have a range of mediums at our finger tips. WE CAN BE JOURNALISTS... NOW! For example, if I want to start writing, I don't need to be hired to reach an audience. I can write a blog, I can tweet about it. I may not reach a large audience in this way but it's a start, and who knows? If I'm any good at it, it might lead to something. But the point is that I can reach people with my thoughts and my content. And that's exciting!
I also appreciated that he said that he'd improved - that's what I'm aiming for and it's nice to hear from someone, who has been successful with their work already, that they're trying to improve as well & that they've gotten better over time.
In conclusion: good times.
The last lecture was given by a very funny man by the name of Steve Molks.
He was incredibly interesting and amusing. His witty comments and personality is just like I would have imagined from reading all the stuff on his website (but luckily I didn't have to imagine because I got to see him present the lecture in the flesh which was a very enjoyable experience). I listened to him for that reason, and also the fact that with 4,588 twitter followers, I feel he knows what he's talking about.
He talked about our personal brands and how we can start developing them now and it really got me thinking about how that is exactly what I'm doing. Prior to this JOUR1111 I had my own tumblr account but I hadn't really thought about my 'brand' very much. I had looked at my blog often and tried to analyze whether it was flowing nicely and not looking like a bunch of random posts thrown together but I hadn't really recognized that, in doing that (analyzing it, etc) I had actually been formulating/maintaining a form of brand that I was trying to convey through my blog. Now, with every blog post I write on here and every tweet I've sent out on my class twitter account, I've always thought carefully about whether I'm sticking to the style I'm aiming for. I finish this class having made my own twitter account and so far I've been trying to give due thought to what 'brand' I am presenting through it. Particularly how I can make it work for me.
I liked what he said about having access to people on TV, journalists, politicians, etc. His point was exemplified by the fact that the other day when I wanted to ask Steve about the D'Arcy/Monk story (see last blog post) and so I tweeted to him and got a response back within a few hours. It's true that we have access to people like never before and it's up to us (the journalists of the future) to use this to our advantage.
Not only that but we have a range of mediums at our finger tips. WE CAN BE JOURNALISTS... NOW! For example, if I want to start writing, I don't need to be hired to reach an audience. I can write a blog, I can tweet about it. I may not reach a large audience in this way but it's a start, and who knows? If I'm any good at it, it might lead to something. But the point is that I can reach people with my thoughts and my content. And that's exciting!
I also appreciated that he said that he'd improved - that's what I'm aiming for and it's nice to hear from someone, who has been successful with their work already, that they're trying to improve as well & that they've gotten better over time.
In conclusion: good times.
Wednesday, 13 June 2012
My two cents worth...
Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk are in the firing range (pardon the pun, I couldn't help myself) of the national media after posting photos of themselves with guns on their facebook pages.
I have two problems with this...
1) Why they would be stupid enough to do that and to allow people access to the photos (come on, privacy settings anyone?)
and
2) Why does everyone care?
I know that my views on this will be very controversial to some and people will probably disagree with me wholeheartedly. However, as a journalism student, I feel that it is necessary to address what is being talked about in the media and weigh in on the subject.
Firstly, the boys obviously did a stupid thing by posting photos of themselves with guns on their facebook pages. Whether or not they should be treated as role models because they are on the national swim team is another argument altogether (and one that is talked about a lot in the media, especially when our rugby boys get into mischief - which is far too often), they are in the public eye and thus this was probably not the best idea they've ever had. I personally disagree that posting that photo caused much harm, except perhaps on their reputations, but being a member of the younger generation myself, I don't see this photo and immediately think that posing with guns is 'cool' or something to aspire to do simply because these two are on the national swim team. Sometimes, I feel that small offenses are taken far too seriously when Australian sporting icons are involved. Yet, other offenses (particularly D'Arcy's last run in with the law) do warrant serious action. It can easily be argued that the media is definitely responsible for much of the hype regarding sports stars messing up, because such stories get a lot of priority in the news. Whether this is how it should be or not, they are considered news worthy by the media and I don't see this changing any time soon.
Secondly, I'm quite frankly shocked that such serious measures have been taken by the AOC and Swimming Australia. Swimming Australia The AOC (Australian Olympic Committee) have excluded D'Arcy and Monk from attending the closing ceremony and ordered them to avoid using social media at all during the games. Monk mentioned that it was not the act itself of going to the rifle range but the act of posting the photos on Facebook that the organizations had objected to. As we all know, D'Arcy is no angel and boys will be boys but is it the role of the AOC and Swimming Australia to act as the boys' parents and ban them from using social media? Does the offense of posting a questionable photo on Facebook really warrant being banned from the closing ceremony?
Evidently, both Monk and D'Arcy have displayed poor judgement but what they did was perfectly legal... Referring back to the discussion we had in class about advertisements being unethical vs. in poor taste, we see here a perfect example of something being ethical (considering the fact that they didn't break any laws) yet in bad taste (since some would consider them role models/ambassadors for Australian sport). Additionally, Swimming Australia organized for the team to visit a firing range for a 'team bonding exercise' in 2007... and are now saying that posting photos of the two doing it again is 'inappropriate'? That in itself is very questionable.
I know that people may disagree with me but this my merely my thoughts on the subject so take from it what you will.
NOTE: I have recently opened my own twitter account and added Steve Molks after the last lecture because I loved his lecture and I love hearing his thoughts. I 'tweeted' to him asking about his view on the subject and he agreed with me that it's a massive media-led over reaction! I think I'm finally seeing how awesome twitter can be and how interesting it is to be in contact with people in the field. Hopefully, I can have more of these types of interactions as I continue with my journalism studies.
NOTE: I have recently opened my own twitter account and added Steve Molks after the last lecture because I loved his lecture and I love hearing his thoughts. I 'tweeted' to him asking about his view on the subject and he agreed with me that it's a massive media-led over reaction! I think I'm finally seeing how awesome twitter can be and how interesting it is to be in contact with people in the field. Hopefully, I can have more of these types of interactions as I continue with my journalism studies.
Sunday, 10 June 2012
Big Fat Gypsy Weddings
Lately, with the burden of upcoming exams resting heavily on my shoulders, I have been watching "Big Fat Gypsy Weddings" on youtube for a bit of light-hearted relief. This (not too serious) documentary focuses on the lives of gypsies in Great Britain.
Of course a lot of the time it is about weddings and the incredible dresses/cakes/festivities that the gypsies enjoy on their big day but it is also about the culture, relationships, gender roles and society's increasing influence and pressure on day to day gypsy life.
No doubt their lives are very different to my own, which is why it is interesting in the first place. I always strive to watch documentaries and read books about cultures different from my own and that I struggle to comprehend. I love reading about ways of life that are polar opposite to my own. For example, I like to read and gain knowledge about Amish communities and African tribes. It isn't knowledge that I use on a daily basis but it does give me insights into how other people live and operate which is always of interest to me (which I guess is why I'm studying sociology in some regard).
The gypsies (also known as travelers) live a very unique style of life. Their clothing is very unique and they have very strict expectations about the roles of males and females in their community. Even their style of courtship is very dissimilar to ours. I don't necessarily agree with the constraints that are placed on women in their community but it is something that is a part of their culture so that's not for me to judge.
After that lengthy introduction, the main reason why I'm blogging about this show is that I really like the way it has been approached. The most important feature I appreciate is the link between our world and theirs. Obviously, there is a large level of conflict and confusion between gypsies and non-gypsies, and I believe a lot of this stems from the fact that gypsies have a bad reputation in the UK and also that they are very secretive so it's hard to really understand their lives. I really like how the producers of this documentary have made the link between the two worlds a bridal dressmaker. The dressmaker, who is not a gypsy, makes many dresses for gypsy life-cycle functions. She has, therefore, spent a lot of time with gypsies and has attended many traveler festivities. She often gives gems of wisdom about the differences between their cultures and ours and how it is important not to judge them merely for being different. Her insight into the community is unheard of for a non-traveler so it is the perfect perspective for the producers to take advantage of.
As a journalism student, it is important for me to recognize and appreciate what may seem like small aspects like this. This documentary has shown me how you can find unlikely candidates that perfectly fill a very necessary role... it just takes some searching around. I honestly cannot think of a better character, than the non-gypsy, dressmaker who mostly makes gypsy wedding dresses, to be the voice of understanding and tolerance between the two worlds.
Another aspect of this documentary that I like is the balance between the somber moments where they discuss the challenges that the gypsies face in preserving their way of life and the times that their houses have been knocked down by the government and the more light, bright and happy moments when they are getting married or celebrating religious occasions.
Whatever your view on the gypsies and their lifestyle, this documentary is worth watching. I have enjoyed it immensely and it's become a lot more to me than just a study break. I have gained a new perspective on the gypsy people and their culture and I've also learnt some things about making and producing documentaries.
Of course a lot of the time it is about weddings and the incredible dresses/cakes/festivities that the gypsies enjoy on their big day but it is also about the culture, relationships, gender roles and society's increasing influence and pressure on day to day gypsy life.
No doubt their lives are very different to my own, which is why it is interesting in the first place. I always strive to watch documentaries and read books about cultures different from my own and that I struggle to comprehend. I love reading about ways of life that are polar opposite to my own. For example, I like to read and gain knowledge about Amish communities and African tribes. It isn't knowledge that I use on a daily basis but it does give me insights into how other people live and operate which is always of interest to me (which I guess is why I'm studying sociology in some regard).
The gypsies (also known as travelers) live a very unique style of life. Their clothing is very unique and they have very strict expectations about the roles of males and females in their community. Even their style of courtship is very dissimilar to ours. I don't necessarily agree with the constraints that are placed on women in their community but it is something that is a part of their culture so that's not for me to judge.
After that lengthy introduction, the main reason why I'm blogging about this show is that I really like the way it has been approached. The most important feature I appreciate is the link between our world and theirs. Obviously, there is a large level of conflict and confusion between gypsies and non-gypsies, and I believe a lot of this stems from the fact that gypsies have a bad reputation in the UK and also that they are very secretive so it's hard to really understand their lives. I really like how the producers of this documentary have made the link between the two worlds a bridal dressmaker. The dressmaker, who is not a gypsy, makes many dresses for gypsy life-cycle functions. She has, therefore, spent a lot of time with gypsies and has attended many traveler festivities. She often gives gems of wisdom about the differences between their cultures and ours and how it is important not to judge them merely for being different. Her insight into the community is unheard of for a non-traveler so it is the perfect perspective for the producers to take advantage of.
As a journalism student, it is important for me to recognize and appreciate what may seem like small aspects like this. This documentary has shown me how you can find unlikely candidates that perfectly fill a very necessary role... it just takes some searching around. I honestly cannot think of a better character, than the non-gypsy, dressmaker who mostly makes gypsy wedding dresses, to be the voice of understanding and tolerance between the two worlds.
Another aspect of this documentary that I like is the balance between the somber moments where they discuss the challenges that the gypsies face in preserving their way of life and the times that their houses have been knocked down by the government and the more light, bright and happy moments when they are getting married or celebrating religious occasions.
Whatever your view on the gypsies and their lifestyle, this documentary is worth watching. I have enjoyed it immensely and it's become a lot more to me than just a study break. I have gained a new perspective on the gypsy people and their culture and I've also learnt some things about making and producing documentaries.
Monday, 4 June 2012
"Our Audience Is Our Only Agenda"
The Global Mail is a philanthropically funded, not-for-profit news and features website. Our mission is to deliver original, fearless, independent journalism.
The statement above is essentially the reason why I love The Global Mail. While my cynical self struggles to comprehend that any media source would be completely agenda-less, as they claim to be, I still love the ethos and mentality behind The Global Mail. I respect the methods (for example; the fact that they have an 'Editorial Advisory Committee' to make sure they produce content that fits with their standards) that they have undertaken in order to stay true to the aim of their mission statement. Not only this, but their content isn't the same 'hot' stories that are on every single news site you click onto. The content is quirky, interesting, fresh and different.
So, if you haven't visited their website yet, I really do recommend that you check it out: http://www.theglobalmail.org/
The statement above is essentially the reason why I love The Global Mail. While my cynical self struggles to comprehend that any media source would be completely agenda-less, as they claim to be, I still love the ethos and mentality behind The Global Mail. I respect the methods (for example; the fact that they have an 'Editorial Advisory Committee' to make sure they produce content that fits with their standards) that they have undertaken in order to stay true to the aim of their mission statement. Not only this, but their content isn't the same 'hot' stories that are on every single news site you click onto. The content is quirky, interesting, fresh and different.
So, if you haven't visited their website yet, I really do recommend that you check it out: http://www.theglobalmail.org/
Friday, 1 June 2012
40 Of The Most Powerful Photographs Ever Taken
STOP, just STOP whatever else you're doing and check this out:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-powerful-photographs-ever-taken
Absolutely amazing.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-powerful-photographs-ever-taken
Absolutely amazing.
Week 12: Investigative Journalism
Another week,
another great lecture.
This week we
discussed investigative journalism. I particularly liked the quote by Lord
Northcliffe:
"News is what
somebody somewhere wants to suppress, all the rest is advertising."
Firstly,
we talked about the ‘in’s of investigative journalism:
-
intelligent
-
informed
-
intuitive
-
inside
-
invest
I agreed
with all of these except with ‘inside’ which Dr. Redman pointed out could
almost be considered synonymous with ‘intimate’. This implies that the subject
or the source needs to trust you. However, I thought it would be somewhat
questionable to get someone to trust you and then potentially destroy that
trust depending on the spin the article has. I particularly agreed with
‘invest’ since investigative journalism seems to be something that one would
have to put a lot of time and effort into as well as resources. My belief was
confirmed in the next slide when we were told that a deeper definition of
investigative journalism included “critical and thorough journalism”, with
thorough meaning that the journalism makes a substantial effort regarding the
time spent, sources consulted and thorough approach needed.
Another
point that I found intriguing was the one of the key purposes of investigative
journalism is: ‘to provide a voice for those without one and to hold the
powerful to account’ by the Centre for Investigation Journalism (City
University London). However, I
felt that this lacked an essential aspect ‘to hold the powerful accountable for the
voice that they have’. I think that investigative journalism must ensure
that the powerful are held accountable for all the luxuries that they enjoy
including an influential voice that can impact greatly on people who do not
share the same privileges.
One
point that definitely made me think was that Dr. Redman put ‘sceptical not
cynical’ on the slide about the key aspects of investigative journalism. I
think this is a good point because there is a fine line between the two and I
believe it would be easy to succumb to being overly cynical after spending too
much time working with investigative journalism.
I
also thoroughly enjoyed learning about the ‘trailblazers’ because it gave me a
fresh wave of inspiration to stick to journalism because of how important it
was, is and can be J
On
a side note: We watched a documentary in the tutorial this week and whilst we
agreed that Wikileaks is not really journalism since it is more of an
information dump, which provides the information for journalists to ‘pick through’
according to Dr. Redman, in the documentary Julian Assange claimed that he does
associate himself with the term ‘journalist’ but more so with the term
‘activist’. So that really gave me something to think about, and although I am
naturally partial to Dr. Redman’s argument since he is my lecturer, I think he
is right.
Week 11: Agenda Setting
Agenda Setting
The four agendas (all interrelated):
1) Public agenda - the set of topics that members of the public perceive as important.
2) Policy agenda - issues that decision makers think are salient.
3) Corporate agenda - issues that big businesses & corporations think are important.
4) Media agenda - issues discussed in the media.
Two very important points were raised in this lecture:
a) the mass media do not merely reflect and report reality, they filter and shape it.
b) media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.
I think this is very important for myself and my peers in JOUR1111 to keep in mind because evidently we cannot allow ourselves to be spoon fed by the media and manipulated into conforming with their views of what is important (because they have their own agendas that they are trying to push). And also, it promotes the idea that we should try to get our news from a variety of different sources because we don't want to know about just one view on a particular story. This is also related to Media Dependence - since we are all so media dependent, it would suggest that we would be more susceptible to media agenda setting (according to the lecture) so we must be aware of it.
To look at this point I looked at 4 news sources online and focused on one story: George Zimmerman's (man who killed Trayvon Martin) bail being revoked.
The Australian - in the breaking news section, 6 sentences, no photo (just bare minimum facts)
The Courier Mail - exactly the same as 'The Australian' story (must have shared the story)
Aljazeera - headliner article, big photo, much longer story (around 20 sentences) with a lot more information
CNN - under the 'more news' section, video of the court scene as well as extensive information
From looking at this, I saw that the different news sites (for whatever reasons, perhaps proximity, or other perceived values contributing to news worthiness) had given the story different levels of prominence on their site and had written to different lengths on the story. Therefore, I could see how agenda setting affected the presentation of the story by different sites.
I definitely think things are definitely on the agenda at the moment such as climate change, etc. It will be interesting now to watch the news because, now that I am aware of agenda setting, I will be on the watch to see what current issues the media are prioritizing and trying to push into the spotlight. Personally, this lecture was not exactly about learning something new but rather becoming aware of something that is and has been going on for as long as the media has been around. Everyone has an agenda but as budding journalists, it is of the upmost importance for us to recognize what agendas people are following and be more informed as a result and know not to take everything that we are told as truth and reality.
The four agendas (all interrelated):
1) Public agenda - the set of topics that members of the public perceive as important.
2) Policy agenda - issues that decision makers think are salient.
3) Corporate agenda - issues that big businesses & corporations think are important.
4) Media agenda - issues discussed in the media.
Two very important points were raised in this lecture:
a) the mass media do not merely reflect and report reality, they filter and shape it.
b) media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.
I think this is very important for myself and my peers in JOUR1111 to keep in mind because evidently we cannot allow ourselves to be spoon fed by the media and manipulated into conforming with their views of what is important (because they have their own agendas that they are trying to push). And also, it promotes the idea that we should try to get our news from a variety of different sources because we don't want to know about just one view on a particular story. This is also related to Media Dependence - since we are all so media dependent, it would suggest that we would be more susceptible to media agenda setting (according to the lecture) so we must be aware of it.
To look at this point I looked at 4 news sources online and focused on one story: George Zimmerman's (man who killed Trayvon Martin) bail being revoked.
The Australian - in the breaking news section, 6 sentences, no photo (just bare minimum facts)
The Courier Mail - exactly the same as 'The Australian' story (must have shared the story)
Aljazeera - headliner article, big photo, much longer story (around 20 sentences) with a lot more information
CNN - under the 'more news' section, video of the court scene as well as extensive information
From looking at this, I saw that the different news sites (for whatever reasons, perhaps proximity, or other perceived values contributing to news worthiness) had given the story different levels of prominence on their site and had written to different lengths on the story. Therefore, I could see how agenda setting affected the presentation of the story by different sites.
I definitely think things are definitely on the agenda at the moment such as climate change, etc. It will be interesting now to watch the news because, now that I am aware of agenda setting, I will be on the watch to see what current issues the media are prioritizing and trying to push into the spotlight. Personally, this lecture was not exactly about learning something new but rather becoming aware of something that is and has been going on for as long as the media has been around. Everyone has an agenda but as budding journalists, it is of the upmost importance for us to recognize what agendas people are following and be more informed as a result and know not to take everything that we are told as truth and reality.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)