Lecture 9 - News Values

Who decides the news?

Big question, and I've discussed it before, but I think more importantly is who should decide the news.


This weeks lecture was on, you guessed it, news values.


Galtung and Ruge (1965) somewhat answered this question. in saying "the more an event satisfied particular conditions the more likely it would be selected as news". However, I see is as a sort of compromise between what the public want to see, and what the media has a responsibility to release. It goes both ways - people wont watch what they don't want to, but journalists are actually creating and deciding content. This democratic process allows for our Australian media scene, where many different views and stories are covered. 

There are, however, some general rules determining what makes something newsworthy. The aspects of 'news worthy' story are "eight  general factors of frequency,  threshold including absolute intensity and  intensity increase, unambiguity, meaningfulness including cultural proximity and  relevance,  consonance involving both predictability and demand, unexpectedness including  unpredictability and scarcity, continuity and composition". However, there will always be those cases that 'captures a nation', such as Shapelle Corby or climate change issues.

No matter the public's interest in Justin Beiber's new haircut, journalists still produce the news the public consumes, and according to John Sergeant, journalists "rely on instinct rather than logic." 

Annotated Bibliography

The Sydney Muslim riot of September 15 was an incredibly polarizing event within the Australian media. Muslim people have been subjected to increasing racism and discrimination since 9/11 and this event has served to further promote the attitude of 'us vs them' within the media. These four sources are Australian and cover Muslim issues. Three of which are news pieces covering the riot, the remaining an academic paper on the representation of the Muslim community within Australian media. Through analysing the bias and credibility of production and sources, I have presented the validity of each source. 

Brown, A. (2012, Sept 17). Violent Riot. Channel 10 News. Accessed at: http://video.heraldsun.com.au/2279954830

This short, live coverage of the aftermath of the Sydney Muslim riots aired September 17, two days after the event. Despite the adequate amount of time to produce a balanced and extensive piece, the coverage was incomplete, light and far from credible. Although the reporter, Ashlea Brown, is referred to as a crime reporter, Channel 10 is not known primarily for balanced and in-depth coverage of complex issues. At only 2.2 minutes long, the segment is rushed and lacks detail. The program has taken a sensationalist approach to the story, using phrases such as ‘get a grilling’ and ‘ratted out’. As the coverage was live, this source is far more likely to have inconsistencies than a longer-form post event source such as the abc radio piece. Additionally, because of the rushed nature of the coverage, the channel’s sources were weak. Two individuals were shown talking about the event, including a Muslim woman, however no names or information was shown, lessoning the credibility of both the sources and program. The segment did not cover the actual riot, instead relying on a single photo (inserted below) of a boy holding a poster bearing the phrase ‘behead all those who insult the prophet’. This lack of substance provides a limited and sensationalist source for analysing the Sydney Muslim riots.

Box, D., Edwards, H. (2012 Sept 17). Extremists seen among Muslim rioters at Sydney protest. The Australian. Accessed at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/extremists-seen-among-muslim-rioters-at-sydney-protest/story-fn59niix-1226475406735

The Australian newspaper is generally considered a reliable source, and the authors of this in-depth article, Dan Box and Harry Edwards, have both written extensively within Australia. Both Box and Edwards provide an all encompassing and detailed article on extremists present at the Sydney Muslim riots, covering multiple angles. The article included first-hand accounts of the riot and those involved, as well as background information and subsequent arrests and released police information.  Although this article and Channel 10’s news segment were both released on September 17, the Australian’s treatment of the event is a far more extensive and credible source in relation to the rioters involved. Credibility is established by Box and Edwards through the use of witness and reporter Jarred Owens, and numerous identified and reliable sources such as Samier Dandan (president of the Lebanese Muslin Association), NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipone, and Keysar Trad (founder of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia).  Together, the authors and sources provide a thorough account of the event through detailed imagery. The article covered the riots, the six men arrested, the reaction from police, future ramifications of the protest and the voice of the Muslim community, resulting in a fair and balanced article and a credible source.

Foster, N., Cook, K., Barter-Godfrey, S., Furneaux, S. (2011). Fractured multiculturalism: Conflicting representations of Arab and Muslin Australians in Australian print media. Media, Culture & Society, 33(4), 619-629.

This academic paper covers prejudice against Australia’s Muslim population and their representation with Australian media. Given that the other three articles cover a Muslim issue, the Sydney Muslim riots, the subject matter of this article is key in interpreting and understanding the media reports surrounding the issue. The authors, Nena Foster, Kay Cook, Sarah Barter-Godfrey and Samantha Furneaux are all academics from Deakin University, Mebourne. The article combines an original study with reliable information and statistics from other sources such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. With thirty-four eternal sources and correct referencing, this paper is well researched and credible.  The article examined daily and weekend editions of Australia’s national broadsheet and tabloid newspapers from all capital cities, concluding that the most common attitude within the Australian media towards the Muslim community was “Arabs and Muslims are different [from us]”. This conclusion, and article, is reliable as it has been reached through extensive data analysis using text analysis software. Therefore, through applying this article’s findings to the three other news sources, the bias of such sources can be fully interpreted and understood.

Green, J. (2012 Sept 16). Mariam Veiszadeh on Muslim riots in Sydney. RadioNational, ABC. Accessed at: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/opinionista/4116954

While radio interviews often have the potential to be incredibly one-sided, the guest of this long-form radio piece, Mariam Veiszadeh, provides a unique, insightful an useful perspective. As a Muslim woman, as well as a lawyer, human rights activist and opinion writer, Veiszadeh is well placed to comment on the Sydney Muslim riot and presents as a reliable and credible source. The interview covered the outrage of the Muslim community in response to the riots, an angle not fully explored by other media outlets (as the study above would suggest).Veiszadeh also addressed the issue of the picture of the young boy, however treated the issue with much more clarity and less sensationalism. Despite being released on September 16, a full day before the other two sources, this radio interview, while not detailing the full extent of the aftermath, explores the event further, examining the broader issue of Muslim discrimination and the probability of that being a contributing factor in the riot. Veiszadeh also discusses the actual cause of the initial protest, the production of anti-prophet film ‘Innocence of Muslims’. Although this interview, at ten minutes long, has only one source, it remains credible and composed and is therefore a valuable source. 

Photo of young boy at Sydney Muslim riot

So much for fair and balanced journalism.

Somehow I've ended up watching terrible news programs on a Sunday morning.. 

Introducing, The Bolt Report:

 

I'll admit, I cannot watch more than two minutes of Today Tonight before screaming with rage and throwing whatever's in reach square at the T.V. However, I never expected to feel the same fury while viewing programs of a Saturday morning. Sunday T.V mornings are sacred! They are cocoa-pops and cartoons, early mornings and sleepy eyes. At least they used to be. I'm sure these types of biased, ignorant propaganda based programs existed long before my idealogical childhood, however it still is infuriating witnessing such disgraceful 'journalism'.

This week's informative episode tackled the issue of marriage equality. Marriage equality and LGBT rights will be, I believe, one of the defining issues of our generation. It compares so analogously to inter-racial marriage and discrimination towards women and other minorities. Safe to say, it is a massive and complex issue that deserves its own post.

However this quick post is about this programs use of sensationalist ideas to influence its' viewers. The guests on the panel this week dismissed equality, rights and respect for homosexual people on the basis that it would lead to bestiality. Seriously! Apparently, if a man is allowed to marry another man, or a woman another woman, then there is nothing stopping an individual from marrying and having intercourse with an animal. Seem legit. EXCEPT... there are laws stopping people marrying and having intercourse with animals aren't there?

Oh yeah, there actually are laws that prevent that.. whoops. What these people fail to realise is that there is a huge difference between a person having intercourse with another person of the same sex, and a person having intercourse with an animal. It is called sex positivity. Basically, if both people are coooooooool with it, anything goes, and because an animal cannot be coooooooooool with it (or at least it cannot verbally express consent) intercourse can never be considered sex positive. Therefore, if the government allowed legal and ceremonial recognition of a sex positive relationship, regardless of the sex of the couple, in no way would that need to lead to the creation/ abolition of laws allowing non-sex positive acts. Makes sense, right?

Good, end of story!

A photo series

My grandmother is quite the star! She's featured in two of my assignments this term, including this photo series for visual communication.

She is such an incredible woman, and is insanely strong in her own way. She suffers from dementia, and I wanted to portray a sense of inner chaos through her mind-numbing use of routine.

Ordered Chaos.

Lecture 8 - Ethics

This week was a lovely surprise! I have a terrible habit of not checking emails, opting to let them build up and clog my internet (I believe that's how it works?!) until I'm forced to sort through hundreds of, now irrelevant, emails - most of them spam.. Which is why I had no idea this weeks lecture was presented by guest lecturer Donna Meiklejohn. Brilliant! Donna discussed ethics, specifically the ethics of journalism. She has spent many years in the print industry, and had plenty of relevant stories to share.

So what is ethics? Most people know right from wrong. Most people have a conscience, a little voice that guides them. And, one would hope, that the majority of people side with good rather than evil. However in a profession where one's job is to report news that is in the public interest, ethics can get.. a little grey.

How far do you go to cover a story? How important does said story have to be? Who may be harmed in the process? Who might benefit from the story? What are your personal boundaries? How close should you get to a story? How should you present found knowledge? Where is that line - the one that should never be crossed?

Now that is a LOT of questions, but as said, journalists are faced with ethical dilemmas daily. It pays, therefore, to not only consider these types of questions, but to understand the reasoning behind the three ethical codes:

• Deontology: following the pertaining rules or codes to a tee. 
• Consequentialism: if the ends justify the means
• Virtue: does this align with my personal beliefs? 

Ethical codes? That does sound a little convenient, surely not every situation has a rule and code. True, but these codes help decide, justify and explain actions. There is a very fine line between behaving ethically, and staying employed. Donna described a situation she was put in as a young journalist that would make most people incredibly uncomfortable - doing a 'death-knock'. A young couple's three boys were killed in a tragic accident when they rafted too far down a river and were electrocuted by overhanging wires. This is clearly a horrific thing to happen to the parents, however being an unexpected accident, the story could potentially save others being injured by the same thing. Donna was asked to get in interview from the grieving parents - for the sake of the public.

This sort of situation is a prime example of the codes of ethics - there are several outcomes you could reach according to the different codes. Deontology dictates that it is legal, and moral as it is in the public interest. Consequentialism argues much the same, in that the means (upsetting the parents) are justified by the end results (informing the public). However, virtue ethics is more difficult. It is you gut, that little voice in your head which always knows what you believe is right and wrong. Donna ended up choosing deontology - it was her job, and she needed to do it.

While these codes are interesting, as Donna said, in the heat of an ethical dilemma  you do not have time to consider all these rational reasonings. In that case, you really have to listen to that little guy in your head and hope he knows what he's talking about!

Scaredy Cat

I don't get scared easily. I like to think of myself as a strong person. I hate horror movies, but that's another story. But walking home alone at night scares the bajeebas out of me. Any noise, rustle or movement and I jump. Which I hate! I can't figure out if I am just a giant scaredy cat or if I am legitimately worried about being a victim of an all too often crime.

 I have read quite a few articles lately about this very thing - women's safety late at night - and feel as though women do have reason to feel uncomfortable walking alone in the dark. Women are more at risk when it comes to violent crimes. However, this attitude and violence towards women doesn't have to exist. Education really can solve so many problems, but it has to be the right kind. A discourse needs to be created and discussed within the education framework. A place of no judgement, assumptions or blame.

Until issues of inequality and differences are addressed in the open, inequality will continue unnecessarily.



Oh, and I looked up horror movie posters to put into this post and, OH MY GOODNESS. Not sleeping tonight.

Lecture 7 - Public Media

This week it was public media's turn in the limelight. After last week's sobering statistics about the concentrated state of Australia's media, I was looking forward to learning about the other side of news - the one which is not susceptible to bias, commercialism and, quite frankly, rubbish sensationalist stories.

ABC NEWS to the rescue!

I must admit that I don't consume much public media. On the rare occurrence when I do turn on the T.V, the flashy lights and sweet sounds of commercial stations suck me in all too quickly. However, despite not consuming it directly, I strongly support the idea of a media 'owned by the people, for the people'. I think this is important to note, that the government does not directly hold any power or control over these public channels, that they are held in common with the people. I was always curious as to the extent of input of any current government. As Bruce succinctly mentioned, public media is at it's best and most balanced when the government is unhappy with the content. While it does not solve the debate surrounding what is in the public interest, it certainty eliminates many external influences on the news we receive from commercial partners of media outlets.

However, while having a station held in common with the people is incredibly worthwhile, is this simply an ideal - how much can the government control our news stations? Through funding and legislation, one could argue that the government has too great of an ability to influence our media. Despite this, in reality, public media in Australia is far from propaganda.

Public media functions to promote national identity, heritage and nation building and serves as a platform for national conversations. As commercial media becomes more and more sensationalist, long-form investigative journalism is kept alive nearly solely through public media. Investigative journalism is so incredibly important to a functional society that the many cases solved by journalists are by now jumping around your head!

The news style of public media is often what repels people who, instead, flock to other commercial channels for their news and entertainment. Public media is, generally:

• 'serious’
• ‘broadsheet’ style
• importance over interest
• considered, not quick and unchecked.

Which is often interpreted by the public as being:

• ‘boring’ 
• élitist
• of limited interest 
• poorly presented 
• out of touch.

With these less-than-flattering opinions, what's on the horrizon for Australia's public media? There are challenges facing both public and commercial media, with increasing pressure to stay relevant, informative and of a high quality, however, being publicly funded, perhaps expectations to stay independent and non-bias are higher for public media - it is scrutinised far more than it's commercial sibling. The future of public media will, in some part, be decided by funding. Not only the limited amount given by tight-arse politician, but whether the ABC will follow the BBC and SBS funding scheme, making the broadcaster a 'hybrid' between public and commercial funding.

Either way, I desperately hope the public media stands the test of time, and continues to uphold its strong ethics for the future. It will be interesting to follow!