Eurovision: Never Again

Congratulations! It is Monday and we made it. That means we survived another year of Eurovision, even if there might have been times when we both felt like maybe we hadn’t survived and that somehow we had slipped away into an oblivion of pretty dark haired European ladies in little to no clothing singing totally boring songs about love whilst dancing like hookers.  

I’m actually glad to admit that last night was my first ever viewing of Eurovision. After a week of hearing my friend blab on about it on Facebook, how could I resist? 

 

 So, I made myself comfortable on the couch, prepared to be amazed by the talent performed before me (and for the world). Unfortunately, I must say, I was disappointed with the whole program. Not only was it one continuous advertisement for the host country Azerbaijan (which I had never heard of until last night and will probably never hear about again) the quality of the performers was terrible. The whole time I was asking myself, what on Earth is a central Asian country like Azerbaijan doing in a contest called Eurovision? Nothing about contemporary Azerbaijan marks it out as distinctly European -- it's Islamic, undemocratic and many, many miles away from the continent.

 

 Sure, the smorgasbord of beautiful European women wearing little to no clothing was captivating but I thought that Eurovision was supposed to be a battle by the best for the ultimate prize. Boy was I wrong! The winner, Sweden’s Loreen, was probably one of the WORST performers of the evening wearing some weird creepy smoke monster costume reminiscent of Lady Gaga. Personally, I would have given the prize to the Russian grannies just out of spite (and cuteness).  

 

Alright, so you may be thinking, “Marissa, aren’t you being a little harsh?” Well, as a musician and faced with performers with real talent and training every day, I cannot help but put a superficial, pop-star show like Eurovision down. There was too much sex, too little clothing and not nearly enough talent to get a tick in my books. The only thing that I did enjoy was reading the Twitter comments that appeared at the bottom of the screen… They had me and my Dad in fits of laughter.

Suffice to say, last night will be my first and final Eurovision.

Annotated Bibliography

Online journalism is revolutionising the way news is reported and read. The rise of the Internet has irrevocably changed the way audiences interact with the news – stories are posted the moment they break and readers are becoming more accustomed to searching for and reading the news online. This Annotated Bibliography will explore this present issue regarding the future of ‘traditional’ journalism by examination of four texts presented using different mediums, expressing both similar and contrasting opinions.

Franklin, B. (2008). The future of newspapers. Journalism Studies, 9(5), 630-641.

            The author, Bob Franklin, is the Professor of Journalism Studies at the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, and is the founding Editor of the journal in which this article is published. In this journal article, Franklin offers important insights into key debates concerning the ways in which journalism and newspaper publications are evolving under the influence of technological, cultural, economic and political changes. Franklin addresses a number of questions seeking to increase understanding of the roles of newspapers in the contemporary media landscape, by offering a theoretical and subjective examination at how the availability of online newspaper editions, citizen journalists and tabloid journalism are reshaping culture and mass media. Franklin constructs an interesting argument in his article suggesting that “impact of the Internet, as a factor explaining the decline of the traditional newspaper market, has perhaps been overstated” and that online news is not simply to blame for the decline of print media (2008, p. 632). The significant use of cross-cultural examples and scholarly perspectives adds credibility to the opinions expressed by the author thereby offering a unique and substantial contribution to the understanding of online news. This article is appropriate for scholars, researchers and students studying journalism and mass communication and will be of interest to anyone examining how people use the web as a source for news.

Fagan, D. (2012, May 19). Readership shows how we’ve changed. The Courier Mail, p. 58.

            

In this article, David Fagan draws upon his experience as the editor-in-chief of The Courier Mail and The Sunday Mail and provides an experienced perspective on the future of newspapers and traditional journalistic practise increasingly confronted with social media and online news sites. This work was compiled following a speech he presented to the University of Queensland Business School and American Chamber of Commerce and it is highly persuasive and based upon personal, albeit practical, experience. Fagan begins by suggesting that social media is not a new phenomenon and that good media has always been a ‘social’ act. Citing diverse examples, he explains how the forms, practises and mediums of online news have emerged as a result of the traditional structure and practices of existing media coupled with newly available technical capabilities. This is a perspective that is similar to Franklin’s (2008) discussed above. The author devotes particular attention to his personal experience with the newspaper, proffering a graph demonstrating that while there has been a modest decline in print readership, digital subscribers (through the iPad app, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and direct viewings) have more than compensated. Fagan concludes his article by assessing the implications digital news has for the future of journalism and offers advice to journalists regarding the importance of providing a diverse range of news platforms for readers.

Collins, S.J. (2012, March 29). Socialised media. The Global Mail. Retrieved from             

           http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/socialised-media/156/#

Sarah-Jane Collins, the author of this article, constructs an interesting argument in the matter of online news having worked as a journalist for The Age as an environment, science and technology writer. In this work, Collins addresses a number of questions seeking to increase readers’ understanding of the role held by online media and social networking in the contemporary news landscape. Her approach yields analytical insights into the current relationship between more traditional forms of reporting and the current mediums for online news, devoting particular attention to the factors that have influenced online media development. Beginning with an examination of the changing news cycle, Collins, using a quote from The Age editor-in-chief Paul Ramadge suggests that online journalism is revolutionising the way news is reported and read - stories are posted the moment they break, audiences are increasingly influencing the stories they receive and thus readers routinely expect a collaborative approach to news. Collins continues by highlighting the belief that social media, in particular Facebook, is what drives the news cycle and cites the KONY2012 campaign video as an example of the power and scope through the integration of news, advertising and social media. The author concludes with her predictions for traditional journalism and news reporting, suggesting that the future is an online one; a perspective shared by Fagan and Franklin above. Collins’ article makes a substantial contribution to the understandings of online journalism and social media, covering both the development as well as the impact of Internet-based news.

Slaven, K. (Producer), & Aedy, R. (Presenter). (2012, May 18). Journalism 2.0: The         

            future of journalism [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from      

            http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/mediareport/journalism-203a- 

            the-future-of-journalism/4023422

            This podcast, presented by Richard Aedy and produced by Kyla Slaven, emanated from the Sydney Writers’ Festival and was subsequently broadcast on Radio National’s program Media Report. Aedy, having been a radio journalist and broadcaster for more than two decades, lends credibility to his discussion of how the digital age is changing both journalism and journalists and whether easier access to information will lead to greater government and corporate accountability. Unlike the other two articles discussed, Aedy’s approach, aided by the discussion with two guest speakers, takes a much more sceptical approach regarding the growth of online news believing that producing Internet news content is not a complete nor constructive form of journalism. Heather Brooke, a guest speaker, expresses her concern that online newspapers are indeed detrimental because advertisers are no longer interested in broadsheet and classified advertising. As the discussion continues, Aedy provides an insightful account of how popular digital communication has changed the relations of production and consumption, in addition to the effect that it has on political and cultural participation citing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as an example. What is most effective about this discussion is that Aedy consistently focuses on the shifting boundaries between popular and professional journalism as a result of the redistribution of news functions. 

WEEK 12 - "Investigative Journalism"

In an effort to spice things up a little, Dr BR changed our lecture topic from the Political Economy of Communication to Investigative Journalism. I must admit, I was glad about this change as I think investigative reporting is an interesting topic and very important in the field of journalism and mass communication.

When I think about investigative journalism, I imagine a young male reporter putting their life on the line in a dangerous war zone, wearing khaki colour clothing. Boy was I far from the truth and Ross Coulthart was the person who set me straight. He said, “Isn’t all journalism meant to involve questioning investigation of facts and opinions presented to us?”  Amen to that! 


Here are the "in's" of investiagtive journslism: 

• Intelligent
• Informed
• Intuitive
• Inside
• Invest

And here are the deeper definitions and purpose of investigative journalism:

1. Critical and thorough journalism (Dutch-Flemish Association for Investigative Journalism): critical = the journalist is an active participant; thorough = the journalist makes a substantial effort
2. Custodians of conscience (Ettema and Glasser): Exposure is the key idea
3. To provide a voice for those without one and to hold the powerful to account (Centre for Investigation Journalism, City University London): Social justice and public interest are the two key ideas
4. Fourth Estate / Fourth Branch of Govt / “Watchdog”: All about journalists representing the interests of those without power to balance the power of government and making accountable public personalities and institutions whose functions impact social and political life.

In any profession, there are always those people who take an extra step forward, so to speak, and change the future forever. Dr BR referred to the investigative journalists who have done this as ‘trailblazers’. Here are some well-known trailblazing cases of investigative journalism.

• 1826: “The Sydney Monitor” and Edward Smith Hall – this trailblazer was jailed for revealing the truth about convict treatment in Australia at the time
• 1885:The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon”, W.T. Stead and the Salvos (William Booth) – the reporting of extensive child prostitution in London caused the age of consent to be raised from 12 to 16
• 1972-74: “Watergate”, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein – Exposed the US political scandal where the Nixon administration attempted to cover up sabotage of the Democratic National Party, which ultimately lead to his resignation
• 1987: “The Moonlight State”, Chris Masters, Phil Dickie and Shaun Hoyt – These trailblazers divulged the widespread corruption and bribery in Queensland’s police force
• 2010: “WikiLeaks” and Julian Assange – Released confidential information and videos affiliated with questionable activity worldwide and has contributed to the ever present war on information

My favourite quote of the lecture: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” This really hits the nail on the head when it comes to investigative journalism. That is, always check your facts, assume nothing and expect whistleblowers to be or go crazy.

What’s the job of an investigative journalist?

1. Interviewing: Numerous interviews with on-the-record sources as well as, in some instances, interviews with anonymous sources e.g. whistleblowers
2. Observing: Investigation of technical issues, scrutiny of government and business practices and their effects. Research into social and legal issues
3. Analysing documents: including law suits, legal docs, tax records, corporate financials, FOI (Freedom of Information) material

And of course, there’s the ever present threat to journalism confronted by the Internet and social media. Keep an eye out for my Annotated Bibliography which will appear here in a couple of days as I will be addressing this very issue.

WEEK 11 - "Agenda Setting"

I found this to be an interesting lecture because, although it seems relatively self explanatory, ‘agenda setting’ was not a term that I could have defined before today. Below are some main points that I’ve compiled to summarise what I found important.

First, what does agenda setting actually mean? Well, as Dr BR pointed out, agenda setting isn’t actually too difficult a concept to grasp. Agenda setting is the process of the mass media presenting certain issues frequently and prominently, resulting in public belief that those issues are more important than others. So what this really means is that the media constructs the publics’ perceptions of reality and opinions in order for them to suit the agenda they wish to put forth. Understand this, and you’re good to go!

Here’s a nice diagram which sums this up:

Secondly, it’s important for us to understand where the concept of agenda setting came from. This is best explained through the Hypodermic Needle Model (Lasswell 1920s) which argues that the mass media ‘injects’ direct influence into the audience creating a one way, non-thinking method of communication. Lippmann (1922), another cool dude, argued that people rely on the images in their minds in formulating judgments rather than by critically thinking. A good example of this is the images and propaganda that Adolf Hitler and Leni Riefenstahl circulated prior to and during WWII.

So what is it that agenda setting actually does? Well it:

• Transfers issue salience from the news media to the public
• Transfers issue salience for both issues and other objects such as political figures
• Allows elite media to set the agenda for issues in other media

But, “Agenda setting is not always the diabolical plan by journalists to control the minds of the public but ‘an inadvertent by-product of the necessity to focus’ the news” (McCombs 2004). I’ve listed below the agenda setting ‘family’ (it’s quite a big one) which focuses on the particular roles of the media when deciding what should be news.

1. Media Gatekeeping – the exposure of an issues; what the media chooses to reveal to the public
2. Media Advocacy – the purposive promotion of a message through the media
3. Agenda Cutting – most of the truth or reality that is going on in the world isn’t represented
4. Agenda Surfing – the media follows the crowd and trends; the media ‘surfs’ on the wave of topics originally mentioned in the opinion-leading media
5. The diffusion of News – the process through which an important vent is communicated to the public
6. Portrayal of an Issue – the way an issue is portrayed will often influence how it is perceived by the public
7. Media Dependence – the more dependent a person is on the media for information, the more susceptible that person is to media agenda setting; e.g. Facebook/Twitter

The 24-hour news cycle has an important relationship with agenda setting. The 24-hour news cycle arrived with the advent of cable channels, and brought about a much faster pace of news production with increased demand for stories that can be presented as news, as opposed to the day-by-day pace of the news cycle of printed daily newspapers. A high premium on faster reporting would see a further increase with the advent of online news.

So the real take home message today: The media has the power to influence and construct narratives around what we see and do not see, are told and not told. So engage with the news with a critical mind and never take news at face value... 

A State of Confusion

Often considered the pinnacle of Australian rugby league, State Of Origin is one of Australia’s premier sporting events, often played in front of sold-out stadiums. It’s the first State of Origin match tonight and so my Facebook wall has been bombarded with pledges and support for Queensland and a lot of ‘booing’ for anyone who supports NSW. Tonight also marks my first Origin party and although I’m not too proud to admit this, it will be the first time that I’ve ever watched a game!!

So in an effort not to embarrass myself in front of my friends, I have been studying up on the rules and game play today. Here are a few pointers for those of you who may be in the same boat as me...

Lesson 1 – Queensland has won the last six series and are going for their seventh in 2012
Lesson 2 – The players play ‘rugby league’ not ‘football’
Lesson 3 – This first match this year will be held in Victoria (but no one really knows why...)
Lesson 4 – The Queensland team has the unbecoming mascot of the cane toad
Lesson 5 – Unless you want to be made a laughing stock, supporting QLD is the only way to go
Lesson 6 – Kick off time is at 8.00pm and this is one of the most crucial events of the match
Lesson 7 – The largest ever recorded crowd was in the 2004 final with 204,309 spectators

So wish Queensland (and me) good luck for the match tonight and I’m sure I’ll cheer out of place more than a few times...

You're too dumb for social media...

I think Texas mother ReShonda Tate Billingsley who forced her daughter to pose with a sign after she posted a photo of herself with an unopened bottle of vodka on Instagram deserves a mother of the year award. 

Ms Billingsley, like so many of our parents, had told her daughter to be careful what she posted on the internet. I wish my parents had done this to me a few years ago as there are some pretty embarrassing photos that I wish had never gone up. And like they say, "once it's on the Internet, it's up there FOREVER!" Eeeekkkkkk

If this girl is ever allowed back on social media, she'll definitely think twice about anything she posts...

WEEK 9 - "News Values"

WOW, it was a jam-packed lecture this week full of lots of interesting information. At first, I thought news values referred to moral or social values that journalists abide to when composing stories. It was interesting to find out that in fact news values can be defined as “the degree of prominence a media outlet gives to a story, and the attention that is paid by an audience.” In abiding by these values, journalists tend to rely on instinct rather than logic when it comes to defining a sense of news values. Additionally, these vary according to the platforms, channels, services and cultures within which the news is being told.

But as Dr BR pointed out, the golden rule of news values is the saying “if it BLEEDS it LEADS!” and “if it’s LOCAL it LEADS!” Could this be because we are just a bunch of blood-thirsty, self-concerned citizens? It sure points this way...  We were also re-introduced to the infamous inverted pyramid as an example of news values in their purest form.

So, there are four news values:

1. Impact! ‘News is anything that makes a reader say, “Gee Whiz!”’ - Arthur MacEwen, US Editor
2. Audience identification: ‘news is anything that's interesting, that relates to what's happening in the world, what's happening in areas of the culture that would be of interest to your audience.’ Kurt Loder, US Journalist
3. Pragmatics: ethics, practice/practical, current affairs, 24/7 news cycle
4. Source influence: ‘Journalism loves to hate PR … whether for spinning, controlling access, approving copy, or protecting clients at the expense of the truth. Yet journalism has never needed public relations more, and PR has never done a better job for the media.’ Julia Hobsbawm, UK PR executive

When considering news values, it’s also important to consider ‘newsworthiness’. In 1965 Galtung & Ruge analysed international news to discover common factors and news agendas.  I have cited an article based on their work at the bottom for any curious cats out there.

There are 12+ factors that they identified that decide what can be considered newsworthy. Further research has been conducted since there study and although there have been several permutations of their work, I think theirs is quite a nice (and relevant) summary.

• Negativity
• Proximity
• Recency
• Currency
• Continuity
• Uniqueness
• Simplicity
• Personality
• Expectedness
• Elite Nations or People (I found this one particularly interesting)
• Exclusivity
• Size

The most drastic change to Galtung & Ruge’s work is that carried out by Judy McGregor (2002). She reduced the original 12 values down to just four: visualness; conflict; emotion; celebrification of the journalist.

Galtung & Ruge also identified three hypotheses they believed contributed to something being considered newsworthy:

1. The additivity hypothesis that the more factors an event satisfies, the higher the probability that it becomes news.
2. The complementarity hypothesis that the factors will tend to exclude each other.
3. The exclusion hypothesis that events that satisfy none or very few factors will usually not become news.

There are always threats to be considered, so here are some in relation to newsworthiness...

• Journalism / Commercialization of media and social life
• Journalism / Public Relations 
• Journalism’s ideals / Journalism’s reality

Herein lies the big question: “Has the audience moved on?” I am thinking about exploring this topic further for my annotated bibliography assessment due in a couple of weeks. With the increase in citizen journalists and the ability to create content on innumerable social platforms, are viewers still interested in what is traditionally know as ‘the news’?

Jay Rosen (2005) put it this way – “You don’t own the eyeballs. You don’t own the press, which is now divided into pro and amateur zones. You don’t control production on the new platform, which isn’t one-way. There’s a new balance of power between you and us. The people formerly known as the audience are simply the public made realer, less fictional, more able, less predictable. You should welcome that, media people. But whether you do or not we want you to know we’re here.”

Some further readings that I found helpful for understanding all of this stuff:

Brighton, P., & Foy, D. (2007). News values. London, Sage Publications.

Harcup, T., & O’Neill, D. (2010). What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism Studies, 2(2),                261-280.