JOUR1111-Lecture 6

The topic of this week's lecture was commercial media. This was one of the more interesting lectures for me personally because of the large role that commercial media plays in my overall opinion of media today. Commercial media is the primary discourse of media that I associate with. Aside from sources of social media, commercial media is the most widely used and viewed form of media. Due to this I think that evaluating its uses, purposes and effects is of paramount importance to any aspiring journalist wishing to understand the world of modern media. 

The main purpose of commercial media is to generate audiences. In doing this they make themselves viable options for advertising companies to invest in. They charge premium prices for the privilege of advertising on their media sources and as such turn a large profit. 

Commercial Media:

Not government funded.

Profit driven.

Its main agenda is creating an audience.

Profits from selling access to this audience to advertisers. 

The main players in commercial media. 

The realm of social media is dominated by several large corporations. These are the people that choose how media is presented to us and therefore have a large role is shaping society.

These are just a few of the main players in current commercial media.\

 7 West Media

Nine Entertainment Co.

Fairfax Media

News Limited

  This is one of the issues I take with commercial media. Commercial media places profit as a higher priority than social responsibility. It is for this reason that I cannot condone commercial media. It is within their power to control media and as such should be their responsibility to place to good of society at a higher priority in their business mission. 

This was an interesting lecture that has lead me more than ever to believe that commercial media is detrimental to society through prioritising profit over audience awareness.

Family

I've always lived rather far away from my family. I'm British, so is my entire family. I've never lived in England, or Europe, no I was born in Hong Kong. I've been in Australia since the age of seven. I still don't quite understand the full story of how my Sri Lanka born, yet somehow still of British nationality, mother and English father managed to meet in Hong Kong but go figure. I've never missed the fact that my entire extended family lives dotted around the world. It hasn't ever been an issue, or even a talking point. That was until we had a family reunion of sorts. We all brought ourselves together for Christmas. Flew from wherever the rest of the family happened to be around the world and met at my aunt's for Christmas, in Dubai. Yes, Christmas in an Islamic country, yet again, go figure.

The saying of " you don't know what your missing until you've tried it" comes to mind when I think of family now. Never have I found myself among such like-minded people. The whole nature vs nurture argument comes to mind when I try to describe it. Perhaps its genetic, perhaps we were all just raised similarly, regardless it was the most enjoyable Christmas I've ever had ( which is big call because my family loves christmas more than Mr Cringle himself). I found myself talking to cousins who I haven't seen in 13 years like it was only yesterday that we'd last spoken. A strange and joyous experience.

Now we are back in Australia. My small sector of the Hilton family is back being segregated from the rest. I'm starting to see now why Mum feels so detached. Family is important, regardless of how well you can function without them, regardless of how you get on with them they are always there for you, hopefully at least. I don't necessarily think home is where family is. Home is where I am happy. If that happens to be where family is then so be it.

The point of this post is that although I was completely fine and happy without family around. It was that much more special finally getting to know them, and now that life is back the way it was, life is completely different.

Worth a read

Shantaram

It's a book that took me several years to truly get through. No, not because it is overly profound or so " heavy" that I couldn't handle its content. Simply because it is a gargantuan read and I lost the first two copies of it that I attempted to read while travelling, a mind numbingly frustrating experience when your really engaged in a book.

Now that I have read the book however I can say it is a phenomenal read. I've read more than my fair share of books and for some reason this one has stuck with me. Thats why it warrants a blog post and the others don't. The story is based upon fact and then heavily, wondrously embellished. I think this is great because the truth is always less exciting then what we imagine it could be.

It details a period of the life of its author, Gregory David Roberts. A convicted felon who illegally immigrated to India and led an extremely colorful life from there on. I won't go on to explain the story as it would be an absolute essay to give the specifics of the thousand page behemoth of a story. Rest assured however that it is an extremely accessible read and although can be philosophical, stays grounded enough to be a good story.

I thoroughly recommend this to anyone who has far more spare time than anyone these days should, such as an arts student like myself.

Election Times

The UQ Union election has finally ended. Well at least the tumultuous and interesting parts have. Right now its down to the voting booths where we can all feel like either spectators or Fresh supporters and not much else. Unless your one of the protesters of course, but so far that seems neither effective nor fun.

Before I start to paint my picture of the situation I need to make it clear that politically I'm a step below a fence sitter. I'm one of those guys who just wants things to continue how they are. Following an election for me isn't picking a side, its spectating as two teams who I really care nothing for go at it and attempt to break each other. Its riveting.

How I see it:
I'm not going to name anybody here, partly because I can't quite recall who exactly did what and partly because there is far to much tension and dissent around for me to go pointing fingers. I personally have no problem with the current state of play in the election. That is Fresh has dominated the election through some careful manoeuvring of by-laws and some rather impressive politics from their president. All of which I can merely speculate upon and have no real expertise in.

From where I stand, and what I've heard, from my extremely biased friends, Fresh hasn't actually broken any laws or the student constitution. From what I personally see, I cannot imagine the current president of Fresh making such an audacious move as to prohibit the other candidates from running for UQ Union without completely covering himself. From the various tribunals and third party investigations and their lack of  incriminating evidence, it appears that in this observation I am correct.

Ethically, I think it is wrong. Simple as that. In the sense of fair play all the possible candidates should have had a fair run. Without smear campaigns and on friendly terms. If only the world were so perfect. That was never going to happen. Ethics and politics are two very different things. I cannot endorse the actions of Fresh but I can commend them for being extremely good at what counts in this situation, winning. Another, often overlooked point is that the opposing candidates are just as cut throat as Fresh has been. There was always going to be ethical foul play, it just so happens that Fresh managed to get there first.

It may have been harsh, it may have caused an uproar, but it worked. As far as I'm concerned, well played by them.

Blogging and Me

 So I'm extremely new to blogging. I have good reason for that, I'll be honest I have a bad opinion of blogging in general. In the past the blogs that I have read consist of a collection of seemingly useless and random musings from random people. Theres a reason that I procrastinated so heavily with even creating this blog; I didn't want to be a part of the blogger group.

Hindsight is a powerful thing. I realise that what I write is just as random, disconnected, and seemingly unimportant as any other blog one could find on the internet but somehow I still find myself enjoying doing it. Its a good way to vent, a way to put my thoughts out on the internet with a total disregard for who reads it and who cares what I have to say.

Blogging seems to be an introspective activity. Its an interesting way for me to consolidate and work out my actual opinions on matters. So far, its been a bit of an experience.

On another ,slightly less introverted, note blogging is surprisingly difficult. Simply writing thoughts and opinions doesn't actually make such an interesting read. I think I need more to keep my hopefully existent readers entertained.

Anyhow, there are improvements to be made, but so far I think I could get used to writing a blog. It is a strange and enjoyable experience to have near free rein on what and how I can write. Exactly why this post came about.

JOUR1111- Lecture 5

Stained Glass window depicting baptism

The phrase " a picture tells a thousand words" is more than just a phrase to a photojournalist. It is an embodiment of their profession and a testament to the effectiveness of images in journalism.

Within this lecture, although its entirety was relevant, there were a few points that seemed particularly pertinent to me.

The lecture chose to further iterate the idea that all pictures are stories. While I was already well aware that a picture could tell a story, I now realise I was often failing to see the underlying messages in many images. By taking the approach that all pictures tell a story I can approach images with a much more analytic and open mind. An interesting fact from the lecture was regarding stained glass windows inside churches. I was previously under the impression that these were simply decorative however I now know that they were to help illiterate people understand the stories of the bible. A real world example of pictures telling stories that are often overlooked.

Pictures are an integral part of telling a story in my opinion. In the words of war reporter Robert Capa, " If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough." These words show how a picture tells a story for what it actually is, or at least until it is altered, which brings me to the second part of the lecture. 

I previously thought all the whining about body image in media and unrealistic goals of appearance being set were simply puffery.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U 

This video proves me to be completely mistaken. It may be ethically incorrect to think this but I'm a guy, this is my blog and my place to say what I think. So here it is. Honestly this disappoints me. Not because of the high standards of appearance set by todays media. No, quite to the contrary. I couldn't care less if magazines make people feel unattractive in comparison to popular models. Models are meant to be good looking after all. Don't feel down that they put the rest of us to shame.  Digital modification of photos upsets me because of its implications. It means that perhaps there isn't quite as many flawlessly good looking people in the world today. I feel deceived and cheated. I really think its a bit of a deflating revelation to find out the extent of what a photoshop wizard can do these days. 

This lecture was an enlightening insight into an aspect of journalism that I am rather unfamiliar with. At this rate I feel I will come away from this course with a broad, if not completely in depth, knowledge of the varied elements and types of journalism. 

JOUR1111- Lecture 4

This weeks lecture was the sound lecture, taking the form of a series of radio interviews it successfully showed me not only the strengths of sound only journalism but the drawbacks that plague it as well.

As far as JOUR1111 lectures go, this has to be my least interesting so far. That isn't to say the quality of the lecture was anything but excellent. On the contrary the content of the lecture was engaging and the rapport of  good radio conversation can be very engaging. The issue I found was that I am a visual learner. At the very least I would like to see who I am being spoken to by. If I can't identify with the voice I'm hearing  all of the assumptions I make about the speaker and their motivations is lost and as such much of my attentiveness goes with it.

Regardless, those are simply my issues with the format of the lecture, the content was another story and here are the points I took from it:

Radio and television are completely different mediums: Radio is not television without the visual element and vice versa. The style of speech is completely different and the way that information is communicated must be changed. Compared to television, radio must constantly be introducing new topics of conversation so as to not bore the listener.

The listener is dominant: Radio presenting diminishes the power of the speaker over the listener. It is so easy to become disengaged from communication, a problem I often suffer from. The onus lies with the speaker to maintain the attention of the listener through the way they speak. I think it is the rare presenter who can truly manage to do this with someone as inattentive and easily distracted as myself.

Be sincere: When your on radio people can tell far more easily when your being " fake". Be sincere and genuine and the listeners will respond to this. I think this ties in with what Richard Fidler said about relaxing during the interview. When you have won the favour of the listener, when you know they are willing to not only listen but to allow themselves to imagine the story you depict for them. That is when you can relax and when sincerity rewards the speaker.  Even when the listener instils this trust in the speaker there is no point in which the speaker can admit to having won their attention. The second the speaker seems to be attempting to curry favour the listener is alienated irrecoverably.

For me personally I don't have much care for radio. As a listener I find myself disengaged and often sceptical of who I am listening to and why I should listen to them. I need to see the speaker to connect with them and their story. As a speaker I am someone who relies on body language, facial expressions and other para lingual methods of communication. Without these things I doubt my ability to sound anything other than stilted and disconnected.

Regardless of my negative disposition regarding radio, the lecture expanded my knowledge regarding sound as a primary means of communication. I am thankful for that but look forward to another face to face lecture next week !