Ah, how refreshing!

I was reading The Global Mail today and in light of the recent post on agenda setting, I found this interesting. At the bottom of the screen, on every page, in simplistic font it says, "Our audience is our only agenda."


What a bizarre concept. "Our audience is our only agenda." It's quite refreshing to hear really. Everyone seems to have their own agenda and here is something that cares about my agenda, not their own. I truly enjoy The Global Mail and profusely hope it continues to stick around and refresh me every once in a while.


http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/rear-view-of-new-york/243/
Definitely take the time to read/watch this one. It's a view from behind, a very cool, new and Australian project.

ABC, the true hipsters of TV- Week 11

"The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its reader what to think about."- Bernard Cohen

Ok so there are four different types of agendas:

1.       Public Agenda- what you and I think are important issues

2.       Policy Agenda- what decision makers like Gillard & Co. think is important

3.     Corporate Agenda- what big businesses think is important

4.       Media Agenda- the issues we see on tv and hear on the radio ect.

All these things are interrelated. Here is a nifty diagram to show how:

I thought I was impressive in finding this diagram, only to realise that it was actually used in the PowerPoint.

 The mass media do not merely reflect and report reality, they filter and shape it. Media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.

That is a massive responsibility that has been placed in our hands. We have the power, as journalists, to completely sway the opinion of an entire culture. We’ve seen this happen over in the US. I’m in no way an expert on US government however I have seen the incredibly bias yet extremely good documentary by Michael Moore called “Outfoxed”. In short, Murdoch and George W Bush were good mates and, as most people know, Murdoch owns Fox News. During the election campaign Murdoch, in his plight to be “fair and balanced”, aired footage depicting Bush to be a fallen angel whilst showing his rival at the time, Al Gore, to be a bumbling idiot who didn’t know much about anything. With a cousin, or some long lost relative of Mr Bush working in conjunction with Fox News, prematurely announcing that Bush had won a crucial seat in one of the states, critics say that Fox News actually won Bush the election. Don’t quote me on that however it’s easy to see that the power of one man and his agenda quickly translating into the public agenda.

Where did all this power come from? I’m sure there are examples from earlier however I think the one that stands out was coined by Adolf Hitler and Leni Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl knew what she was doing when she made the propaganda films for Hitler during the Second World War. In hindsight it seems ridiculous that Hitler could convince and justify his actions to an entire country but the power of images should never be underestimated. When we look back in fifty years will there be something that we will feel ashamed about believing, a secret agenda that we were oblivious to?

I applaud the ABC and SBS sometimes. They appear somewhat immune to the ‘bandwagon’ effect you hear about when talking about the media’s agenda setting. When the head honchos’ of Channel Nine and Ten (I pick on TV because they are easy examples) walk into their meetings and ask “What are we going to talk about today lads?” I’m sure the response would be “Well, what do people want to hear about? Kony, Justin Bieber or oh wait, what about that YouTube clip of those babies yelling at each other, that made me lol! Heck, as long as we make some money on it, who cares?” It’s not about what we want to hear, it should be about what we need to hear. No one had even heard of Kony or the terrible things he was doing before that clip came out. Not going to lie, even I got swept up in the whole fan fair of it all and it wasn’t until the ABC gave some alternative viewpoints that I started read and see and listen to reports with a grain of salt. High five ABC for pulling some heads in. 

I wrote a few weeks ago that violence sells, ‘if it bleeds, it leads,’ which I still agree with but I’m now aware of why. Public, policy, corporate and media agendas and how they all interrelate as well as the influence they possess, blows my tiny first year mind. I really feel as though we have a massive responsibility as journalists to shape the way that the public think. We are the voice to the politicians, we shouldn’t be manipulated by spin because then the public will be too. We decide what’s important, Bieber and Kony are only important because we made them that way. If we hate the way media perceives issues, why don’t we just change it? 

This was an attempt not to rant about ethics. It was unsuccessful in this attempt. - Week 9

"Ethics is knowing the difference between what we have the right to do and what is right to do"- Potter Stewart

What’s the difference between unethical and just bad taste? I struggled to make that differentiation when Dr. Harrison flashed the class advertisements during our lecture this week. I personally don’t want to degrade my blog with images of poor examples, I’m sure you can let your imagination run ramped. I also don’t want to waste your time by writing “Oh golly, advertisement is just smut these days. It’s simply racist and sexist and every other -ist I can think of. Let’s burn all advertisers at the stake for the heinous crime of corrupting my innocence.” I tire of false condemnation.

 Yes, some advertisements are “bad taste”, “unethical" even. No, I don’t believe that the act of racism or sexism or whatever else should be condoned. I do, however, think that we shouldn’t just attack advertisers, stand over them and tell them to say sorry to society for trying to get our attention. Let’s look at this from their perspective. I want to make you buy my product. Yelling, “SALE! HOLY HEN’S TEETH THERE’S A SALE!” doesn’t cut it anymore. Advertisers are resorting to risqué techniques that often aren’t too popular among the owners of high horses. It is more of a consequentialism approach, the “I’ve had to step on a few toes but my advertisement is now open for discussion on prime time television and the sales have never been better” approach. The point is advertisers have a job to do. Sure there are other clever ways of getting the viewers attention, Frank from National Tiiiiiles springs to mind, but not everyone is that original or virtuous.

At the end of the day, I get angry at a sexist slur as much as, if not more so, then the next person. This doesn’t mean I’m going to be a ranting lunatic on my dodgy blog, that isn’t going change a thing.  I believe that there are two sides to every story and if I kick and scream and demand action over something I have no idea about then I think that’s just ignorant. Dr. Harrison even said, “Justice is the mean between the injustice of overzealous and excessive law and the injustice of lawlessness.” I am in no way fighting for lawlessness or being flippant over degrading and immoral advertising. I am, however, saying we all need to step back and stop finding scapegoats in advertisers for society’s spiralling moral standard. 

Does it really matter?- Week 10

"When a dog bites a man that is not news, but when a man bites a dog that is news." - Charles Anderson Dana

Unfortunately today’s blog will consist of a lot of lists. I enjoy making lists in order to give the illusion that I’m organised.  I will also re-write things in terms that I understand, be it wrong or right.

Alright so, what are news values?

Impact- Things that make you go “Gee Whiz” or if you’re not from the 50’s, a simple “wow” will suffice.

Audience identification- “If it’s local it leads”

Pragmatics- Practical stuff, how to lose 50kg on the lentil diet, why your house is a death trap, Today Tonight and other such garbage. Yeah?

Source influence- The dreaded PR and its increasing influence on journalism

News values are commonly known as newsworthiness.

Different institutions and individual journalists play roles in shaping their own news values. They are also shaped by social and cultural contexts. For example, ‘The Sun’ over in the UK is known to be a tabloid style newspaper. Is this because ‘The Sun’ has a specific set of values they want to perpetuate or is it because the journalists enjoy writing about this sort of thing or is it the fact that society enjoys reading about the next Lady Gaga v Madonna scandal?

I think Judy McGregor sums it up when she says, “Journalists do not adhere to formal codes of newsworthiness that can be identified or promulgated... instead, the informal code of what constitutes a good story is part of newsroom initiation and socialisation.”

There have been over half a dozen attempts to define what is newsworthy, however I think O’Neill and Harcup sum up what is newsworthy in 2012 quite nicely.

It’s all about:

1.       The power elite

2.       Celebrity

3.       Entertainment

4.       Surprise

5.       Bad news

6.       Good news

7.       Magnitude

8.       Relevance

9.       Follow-up

10.    Newspaper agenda

I am particularly against the fact that the power elite and celebrities get a shoe in when it comes to the news. In “Famous” magazine and “Women’s Weekly” sure, write ‘til your heart’s content but the six o’clock bulletin, just no. I don’t care that Justin Bieber is in Australia, I appreciate that people do care, hence it is polluting my commercial news, however I think it reflects poorly on the culture we’re becoming. It also saddens me that we, myself included, get some sort of perverted thrill out of bad news. When I hear about a tragic tsunami overseas, I expect to hear extravagant death tolls and feel somewhat disappointed when I hear there are only ten. You may think that is wrong but I’m sure some do it too, it’s as if it’s not worth talking about unless it’s catastrophic.

So what are the threats to these news values?

Lazy, incompetent journalism. Ouch. Yes, that stings a little considering most of us want to become these lazy, incompetent people however I don’t think it’s too far off. Like Downie and Kaiser said, “too much of what has been offered as news in recent years has been untrustworthy, irresponsible, misleading or incomplete.” PR influence and Tabloidisation is also threatening our beloved news values. As summed up by Davies in the PowerPoint “... media falsehood and distortion; PR tactics and propaganda; and the use of illegal news-gathering techniques.”  *Cough* Phone hacking scandal *Cough*.  In reality though, I never realised how much PR had infiltrated the news. Churnalism.com is a website where you can paste in a news article and it will tell you how much of it was taken from press releases and media statements ect. It is a very entertaining and eye-opening site, perfect for exam block procrastination.

In a nutshell every culture, city, station and journalist has their own set of news values. Some good, some not so good. I feel that it is a rather subjective sort of thing; it’s what makes people pick up a trash magazine or watch SBS instead.  There are a few threats to these values that people need to be more aware of and PR is definitely one of them. Take everything you read with a grain of salt, because, like what will be discussed next week, everyone has their own agenda.