This week was about the public media, whose mission is to 'serve or engage a public'. One thing that struck me this week was the idea that public media may be for profit as long as its ultimate goal is to serve the public (so any profit they make usually gets put back into making more documentaries, quality news). My interaction with public media in my lifetime has honestly been rather minimal (except for watching ABC cartoons in the afternoon as a kid). However, throughout this course I have started to respect and even enjoy stations such as the ABC and SBS and their productions. My favourite radio station is now Triple J, especially their science questions section.
Anyway, public media should have public value. We were given the BBC definition in the lecture, which states that it "should embed a public service ethos, have value for licence fee money, weigh public value against market impact, and have public consultation", or in other words, serve the public and keep society involved in the production of media. In serving the public it needs to be accessible to everyone geographically, in terms of being appealing and providing for minorities (whether it be ethnic or religious needs), and it cannot be biased towards a certain idea (politically, religiously, racially etc). My favourite however though is the idea that public media should liberate rather than restrict broadcasters, because the only people they have to answer to is the public. I feel as if though the public media suffers because of this: they can't be biased politically, however they rely on government funding to survive, so no wonder they find money difficult to come about.
Bruce then talked about the functions of public media, which include 'nation building' (things such as Anzac Day broadcasting), talking about our national heritage, reflecting our national identity and keeping up with the 'national conversations' so things such as sport that the country is talking about etc. Because they are not their purely for entertainment or profit value, they do miss out on a lot of audiences, and I think if people were more aware of the difference between commercial and public media they would respect public media a bit more and get involved.
Bruce explained that channels such as the ABC are trying to get 'groovy' - they are trying to make themselves relevant in today's society by producing quality media, engaging with the democratic process and being independent of any outside influences. Again these goals are tricky when they are funded by the government, however they need to keep in mind that they aren't owned by the government, but rather by the people (society, us).
This was a good lecture that really made me think about the role of public media, and supporting them a bit more in producing media that is free from pressures put on them by a company that owns them.
Thursday, 19 April 2012
Another blog review
One of the blogs that I like to visit often is Fat Mum Slim who is an Australian blogger living in Sydney. She talks a bit about her daughter and other personal things in her life, but I really enjoy her tips on blogging and the practical advice she gives. Simple things such as the most effective blogs have light backgrounds, rather than dark. Or talking about the 'rule of thirds' when taking photos. I have often applied her advice to my own blogging to try and improve page views. It is definitely a blog I would advise checking out, especially if you are a blogger yourself!
Lecture 4 - pictures!
I really enjoyed this lecture! It was about telling stories with the use of pictures. It is definitely a kind of journalism that has become more predominant in our society thanks to digital imaging and the internet.
In the lecture, Bruce talked about the origins of pictures and the importance of picture stories in history. Things such as Aboriginal cave drawings, which have existed for thousands of years and contribute to building a clearer picture of our country's history. It makes me think - are people going to look back in hundreds of years time and look in awe at the pictures that we took? (Thinking about some people's Facebook profile pictures, probably not)
Another amazing this now is how instant photos are. A news story can be created within minutes and include pictures and video straight away thanks to digital media. However, with this idea of digital imaging come issues such as digital manipulation. Photo shopping photos not only creates an inaccurate depiction of events that have occurred, but is harmful to impressionable teenagers when they manipulate photos of female celebrities to make their beauty seem even more unattainable. I think digital manipulation to the extent of fundamentally changing the whole look of a photo is wrong and there should be laws in place to stop this happening.
Another thing that new technology has brought to the media is digital publishing - so being able to download magazines on your iPad for example. It is such an easy way of creating media, and means that simple things like newspapers and magazines are now interactive. As you are 'flipping' through your magazine ads can pop up, you can click on certain words you don't understand and find the definition for it, you can click on something in a magazine that you would like to buy and it will take you to a website where you can do this. It really is amazing and very visually aesthetic.
However, with all the fantastic things that come with digital imaging and publishing, there seems to be a lack of good quality photos in the news. I'm glad that Bruce talked about what makes a good photo in our lecture. This including things such as: framing, focus, the angle and point of view, exposure (light), timing (shutter speed), and being able to "capture the moment". The last one is the 'rule of thirds', which I had actually heard about previously here (and which she then discussed on her blog yesterday). I hadn't really considered the other aspects though, and have since been trying to incorporate them into my photo taking to improve the quality of them. Similar principles apply to moving pictures, which is something I want to experiment a bit more with. So all in all, I found this lecture to be really engaging and had so many practical principles that I am going to make use of!
In the lecture, Bruce talked about the origins of pictures and the importance of picture stories in history. Things such as Aboriginal cave drawings, which have existed for thousands of years and contribute to building a clearer picture of our country's history. It makes me think - are people going to look back in hundreds of years time and look in awe at the pictures that we took? (Thinking about some people's Facebook profile pictures, probably not)
Another amazing this now is how instant photos are. A news story can be created within minutes and include pictures and video straight away thanks to digital media. However, with this idea of digital imaging come issues such as digital manipulation. Photo shopping photos not only creates an inaccurate depiction of events that have occurred, but is harmful to impressionable teenagers when they manipulate photos of female celebrities to make their beauty seem even more unattainable. I think digital manipulation to the extent of fundamentally changing the whole look of a photo is wrong and there should be laws in place to stop this happening.
Another thing that new technology has brought to the media is digital publishing - so being able to download magazines on your iPad for example. It is such an easy way of creating media, and means that simple things like newspapers and magazines are now interactive. As you are 'flipping' through your magazine ads can pop up, you can click on certain words you don't understand and find the definition for it, you can click on something in a magazine that you would like to buy and it will take you to a website where you can do this. It really is amazing and very visually aesthetic.
However, with all the fantastic things that come with digital imaging and publishing, there seems to be a lack of good quality photos in the news. I'm glad that Bruce talked about what makes a good photo in our lecture. This including things such as: framing, focus, the angle and point of view, exposure (light), timing (shutter speed), and being able to "capture the moment". The last one is the 'rule of thirds', which I had actually heard about previously here (and which she then discussed on her blog yesterday). I hadn't really considered the other aspects though, and have since been trying to incorporate them into my photo taking to improve the quality of them. Similar principles apply to moving pictures, which is something I want to experiment a bit more with. So all in all, I found this lecture to be really engaging and had so many practical principles that I am going to make use of!
week 6 lecture - Commercial Media
This week was about commercial media which includes TV channels such as 7,9,10, Go, Gem, 7Two, 7Mate... you get the picture. Commercial media is media that is run for profit, and either survives or fails depending on business success. Basically, without an audience to take in the information and be exposed to the advertising, it would fail. It comes in three main forms: subscription, sponsored or subsidised. How I understand it: Foxtel, advertising or government funding. Because it is heavily sponsored, it's main functions include propaganda (think Fox news) and delivering news and information to the mass quickly. I mean, let's be honest, people are far more likely to watch channel 9 news than the ABC, purely for it's entertainment value.
Bruce then talked about social responsibility of the media in a democracy, which calls for media to be:
- truthful, comprehensive and an accurate depiction of the day's news
- a forum for the exchange of debate
- an accurate representation of society
- to give the public full access to 'the day's intelligence', so keeping politicians honest
I feel as if in commercial media a lot of this social responsibility is lost or neglected, despite the fact that there are legal implications for ignoring their responsibility. One example that Bruce gave where legal principles were applied was the issue with Kyle Sandilands, who is now bound by ACMA to say nothing that may be deemed offensive to women or girls.
This idea that I discussed was then gone on to be described by Bruce, who explained that with commercial media focussing on advertising and sales, and social media being an editorial forum, what occurs is an 'Ethical Wall' between the two (like the separation of church and state in a political sense).
Even though I believe that commercial media can neglect it's social responsibility, I understand it has other functions that serve society well. One we learnt about was that commercial media aims to reduce the temptations of a monopoly within the media, where all the news and information that a country gets does not just come from the one source. However, this isn't really happening in Australia, as a large percentage of news is owned by Murdoch, and the supply of news should not be tainted by money or power. This is possibly why the style of commercial media was described in the lecture as corrupt, lacking quality and lacking social responsibility, which in turn results in this "dumbing down" theory or "Mickey Mouse news": the more entertaining (and perhaps less factual) the news is, the bigger audience they are likely to attract, which means money for the news companies.
Some challenges of commercial media talked about in the lecture were ideas that I had not thought about prior to starting this course. The fact that there is a "fragmentation of the audience", and different channels are becoming more and more specific to smaller groups of people makes it difficult to attract large audiences and the kind of profit that the larger companies want. This also attributes to this "dumbing down" theory, as there is less money for quality production which results in cheap, nasty reality TV shows for example.
I quite enjoyed this lecture. It made me think about a lot of the issues that exist in commercial media that need to be either stopped or fixed. For example the monopolisation of Australian news. Hopefully over the next few years other commercial media companies will have the opportunity to create more of the media that we consume as society, to create better quality media and a more equal view of the whole of Australia.
Bruce then talked about social responsibility of the media in a democracy, which calls for media to be:
- truthful, comprehensive and an accurate depiction of the day's news
- a forum for the exchange of debate
- an accurate representation of society
- to give the public full access to 'the day's intelligence', so keeping politicians honest
I feel as if in commercial media a lot of this social responsibility is lost or neglected, despite the fact that there are legal implications for ignoring their responsibility. One example that Bruce gave where legal principles were applied was the issue with Kyle Sandilands, who is now bound by ACMA to say nothing that may be deemed offensive to women or girls.
This idea that I discussed was then gone on to be described by Bruce, who explained that with commercial media focussing on advertising and sales, and social media being an editorial forum, what occurs is an 'Ethical Wall' between the two (like the separation of church and state in a political sense).
Even though I believe that commercial media can neglect it's social responsibility, I understand it has other functions that serve society well. One we learnt about was that commercial media aims to reduce the temptations of a monopoly within the media, where all the news and information that a country gets does not just come from the one source. However, this isn't really happening in Australia, as a large percentage of news is owned by Murdoch, and the supply of news should not be tainted by money or power. This is possibly why the style of commercial media was described in the lecture as corrupt, lacking quality and lacking social responsibility, which in turn results in this "dumbing down" theory or "Mickey Mouse news": the more entertaining (and perhaps less factual) the news is, the bigger audience they are likely to attract, which means money for the news companies.
Some challenges of commercial media talked about in the lecture were ideas that I had not thought about prior to starting this course. The fact that there is a "fragmentation of the audience", and different channels are becoming more and more specific to smaller groups of people makes it difficult to attract large audiences and the kind of profit that the larger companies want. This also attributes to this "dumbing down" theory, as there is less money for quality production which results in cheap, nasty reality TV shows for example.
I quite enjoyed this lecture. It made me think about a lot of the issues that exist in commercial media that need to be either stopped or fixed. For example the monopolisation of Australian news. Hopefully over the next few years other commercial media companies will have the opportunity to create more of the media that we consume as society, to create better quality media and a more equal view of the whole of Australia.
Thursday, 29 March 2012
My media use diary
Journalism has recently turned to
'instant' news and the idea that anyone can produce media, and this
was reflective in my recent media use log through my use of twitter,
Facebook and blogging. I chose to record my media use in fifteen
minute blocks, and sorted into ten different categories.
The first main category was internet
use, which was categorised into four sections: Facebook, twitter,
blogging and other. On average I used the internet about one and a
half hours a day (lower than anticipated, see graph two).
I fall into the 94.7% of the cohort
with one Facebook account, and spent on average just over half hour a
day. Over the ten days, I only updated my status once, which shows
that I don't use Facebook as much for producing media but rather to
pass time while in public waiting for a bus or to meet a friend.
Although I didn't use Facebook as a platform for producing media, I
do have a blog that I spend on average half an hour a day researching
for and updating. It wasn't surprising that half of the cohort did
not have a blog as the idea of creating your own content is
relatively new. Almost all of my blogging was done at home. Another
media platform that I used 'on the run' was Twitter, and over the ten
days I tweeted seven times. Four of these were through my new
Journalism twitter account, and the other three on my pre-existing
twitter account. I was surprised that before starting this course 67%
of the cohort did not have a twitter account.
Like about twenty percent of my cohort,
I own a smart phone which enabled me to check Facebook and twitter on
the run. I also use it all throughout the day to send and receive on
average 50 text messages, most of which were for general socialising.
However I did find that I used texting every couple of days to spread
interesting news articles to my contacts. The fact that we used so
much electronic media, reflected by a fifth of the cohort who own a
smart phone, shows how journalism has had to adapt to provide 'news
in your pocket', making it relevant, fast and accessible everywhere.
Like a third of my cohort I spend 1-2
hours a day on average watching television. This was all done at home
and includes general entertainment and news (see graph 3). When it
came to radio I spend on average half an hour listening to it a day,
which was mostly done driving. In this way my news intake was similar
no matter what platform I was receiving it from; television news in
the morning getting ready for work, radio news in the car and online
news in my work breaks or on the bus. I didn't pick up a newspaper at
all in the ten days, and almost all of my traditional media use was
for study, with perhaps ten percent of it being reading a magazine.
This point concludes the idea that journalism needs to continue to
adapt to provide news quickly and concisely, as a large amount of the
younger generation are turning to instant media.
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Week 5 lecture - radio
I personally found it difficult to feel
engaged in this week's lecture, probably because I am mainly a visual
learner. However I do appreciate the fact that they used the podcast
as the relevant medium for this week's lecture.
The speaker described radio as a more
intimate medium than television, which you watch and control from a
distance. He went on to explain that with radio you are often
multitasking while listening to it, so the radio seems to come from
inside your head, as if it is your own thoughts. That is why it is
important for radio speakers to make the listener feel included in
the conversation.
Other points that were told were
important in radio presented were to give the guest space to talk and
explain themselves, and not to bombard them with questions.
One of my favourite radio stations to
listen to is Triple J, especially when they have their ask science
questions segment. You get to hear and learn about a whole lot random
science facts in a whole lot of fields and it is really interesting.
However there are a whole lot of people who would find that extremely
boring to listen to, which I think is why digital radio is such a
huge thing. With so many different channels radio is becoming
personalised. Tailored to the individual. Like a lot of media.
Radio is a lot about keeping connected
to the outside world. It is a type of media that we are (legally)
able to take part in while driving. Other points I found interesting was when the speaker said that as a journalist you have a sense of public service; you feel like you have to share information with the public to make them aware of issues that will affect them. He also stressed that on radio, your annunciation does matter, and you need a wide vocabulary to describe things that are happening to become a successful radio journalist. This kind of makes me think I need to read a bit more to expand my vocabulary and practice speaking clearly.
One thing I have always disliked about radio is that often the content wasn't exactly what I wanted to hear, and I have often thought to myself, if I had a radio station I would talk about ... However, in this lecture I learnt that it is not about me, but about what the audience wants to hear. Just because I don't like listening to it doesn't mean that the population shares my opinions. Another interesting point that I hadn't really thought about is the idea that on radio you don't have pictures or videos or any visual distractions, so you really have to be careful what you say because the listener will take it all in.
So to sum up, although I didn't like how this week's lecture was presented, there was A LOT of interesting and practical content.
Saturday, 17 March 2012
Week 2 lecture
Thinking back about
'web iterations' from lecture two; traditional media is said to be
"essentially instruments of mass communication targeting large
aggregated audiences" (Harrison 2009:9) Despite the fact that
media is slowly using more and more technology, I think that
traditional media is still essential in our society. While media
platforms such as twitter, Facebook, and online news bulletins aim to
feed news to the masses as quickly as possible, traditional media
don't have this luxury. However, As my 1112 lecturer said, newspapers
have the opportunity to delve deeper into news stories, and are therefore still a huge part of today's society.
The lecturer then went on to describe the different levels of internet: Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. Web 1.0 is also known as the information web. The focus for the very first internet platform was on companies and very basic advertising. It was a place to go to find out all about different companies and their products, and largely produced by the manufacturers as a new way of reaching their consumers. A large portion of it was still images, including advertising. David Bradley described Web 1.0 as "the static flat web of hyperlinks and no interaction."
Web 2.0 is also known as the 'social web', and includes the start of social media sites such as Myspace, MSN Chat and Facebook. Gone are the days of that familiar dial-up tone. This growth from Web 1.0 can mainly be attributed to the fact that content began to be a mixture of advertisers and consumers productions. All of a sudden we can ask other consumers questions about products and find out real information about something we may be interesting in buying (also known as Produsers). This is largely what we have all been experiencing the last few years.
Last but not least is Web 3.0. This type of internet, also known as the 'semantic web' is what we are slowly moving into. Driven by meaning attached to information and 'Meta tags', this is the internet that will basically see artificial intelligence become a very graspable concept. Web 3.0 in large is focused on the individual and their wants and needs. It wants to know your questions and answer them in lightning speed.
This week's lecture finished up by talking again about traditional media, and where newspapers have a part in today's society. This is a topic that is also being covered in my Journalism 1112 course, and in one of our lectures we talked about how newspapers still offer a unique service to the public. While internet, tv and radio all have to speed to have stories out before the next person, newspapers have absolutely no way of keeping up. However, they do have the time and resources needed to research stories in detail and offer perspective columns on topics.
All in all, I think the internet is currently an exciting place for the media. Everyone has an opportunity to have their say, and news websites can use this content to publish exciting stories that let the mass hear about it. It is definitely becoming more and more personalized to the individual.
The lecturer then went on to describe the different levels of internet: Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. Web 1.0 is also known as the information web. The focus for the very first internet platform was on companies and very basic advertising. It was a place to go to find out all about different companies and their products, and largely produced by the manufacturers as a new way of reaching their consumers. A large portion of it was still images, including advertising. David Bradley described Web 1.0 as "the static flat web of hyperlinks and no interaction."
Web 2.0 is also known as the 'social web', and includes the start of social media sites such as Myspace, MSN Chat and Facebook. Gone are the days of that familiar dial-up tone. This growth from Web 1.0 can mainly be attributed to the fact that content began to be a mixture of advertisers and consumers productions. All of a sudden we can ask other consumers questions about products and find out real information about something we may be interesting in buying (also known as Produsers). This is largely what we have all been experiencing the last few years.
Last but not least is Web 3.0. This type of internet, also known as the 'semantic web' is what we are slowly moving into. Driven by meaning attached to information and 'Meta tags', this is the internet that will basically see artificial intelligence become a very graspable concept. Web 3.0 in large is focused on the individual and their wants and needs. It wants to know your questions and answer them in lightning speed.
This week's lecture finished up by talking again about traditional media, and where newspapers have a part in today's society. This is a topic that is also being covered in my Journalism 1112 course, and in one of our lectures we talked about how newspapers still offer a unique service to the public. While internet, tv and radio all have to speed to have stories out before the next person, newspapers have absolutely no way of keeping up. However, they do have the time and resources needed to research stories in detail and offer perspective columns on topics.
All in all, I think the internet is currently an exciting place for the media. Everyone has an opportunity to have their say, and news websites can use this content to publish exciting stories that let the mass hear about it. It is definitely becoming more and more personalized to the individual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)