Reality? ... Or part of the agenda?

My last post was left questioning our news values – is there true importance in what we call the news, or has it been overrun with the commercialisation of media and social life?

Lecture 10 (in week 11) opened a new standpoint for analysis of this issue. It was proposed that while reality exists, it is mediated by our social life; our perceptions and values are socially constructed. The media play a large role in forming the social world that we know and understand. While we perceive it to be reality, the media filter and shape what is and isn’t presented to us. As there is so much news, filtering is vital. However, the commercialisation of media can become a problem, manipulating and shaping what we are presented as news. Media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than others.

Agenda setting is the process of presenting certain issues more frequently and prominently to make them appear more important than others.

There are four interrelating agendas within agenda setting:

·         Public agenda: topics which members of the public think are important

·         Policy agenda: issues that decision/policy makers think are salient

·         Corporate agenda: issues that big businesses/corporations think are important

·         Media agenda: issues discussed in the media

The mass media set the agenda by emphasising specific topics and this determines how the public agenda is formed. The stuff that the media puts out, the public deem as important. Do you think that this is okay? The controversial question of matter is whether the media agenda is controlled by the policy or corporate agenda.

During the lecture we discussed some ideas of Walter Lippmann, one of the ‘fathers of communication’. I could easily write for pages about his theories and examples but briefly, his most well known work was on his theories of the formation of public opinion. Lippmann described how the media create pictures in our minds. For example, images of 9/11 are embedded within our heads; it is unlikely that we would think of the event without picturing such an image as this:

“Propaganda is used as a tool to help shape images in the minds of human beings in support of an enterprise, idea or group”.

Mitt Romney

Mr. Redman’s example was of Mitt Romney, the nominee of the Republican Party for the President of the United States. Romney’s biggest setback in his campaign is that he is a Mormon. There is nothing wrong with following this religion, but the public have preconceived notions of what Mormonism is about. In response and in support of the group, a campaign of ads has targeted audiences (or voters) to reconstruct their views of what or who a Mormon is. You may have seen similar ads in Australia.

Lippmann argued that we rely on pre-constructed images in our mind to formulate judgements rather than by critically thinking. Instead “in truly effective thinking the prime necessity is to liquidate judgements, regain an innocent eye, disentangle feelings, be curious and open-hearted".

Dr. Redman loved that statement! A good journalist should be able to step that little bit back, observe and understand an event without being corrupted by it.

There are a number of different aspects to consider within agenda setting. These were called the ‘agenda setting family’.

·         Media gate keeping: What the media chooses to reveal to the public. How much exposure a topic gets.

·         Media advocacy: The purposive promotion of a message i.e. smoking is bad for your health.

·         Agenda cutting: Issues with little coverage in the media are cared about less. Most truths or realities that are going on in the world aren’t represented.

·         Agenda surfing/bandwagon effect: the media follows the crowd or trend (or sets it on) i.e. the Kony campaign.

·         The diffusion of news: the process through which an important event is communicated to the people. How, where and when news is released. For example the news was released a couple of days after Osama Bin Laden was killed that the event had occurred.

·         Portrayal of an issue: The way an issue is portrayed will influence how the public perceive it. However, when different media outlets portray an issue in different ways, the public are left to make up their own mind.

·         Media dependence: The more dependant people are on the media, the more susceptible they are to media agenda setting.

Like any good theory, the agenda setting theory has explanatory power, predictive power and can be proven false. Its weaknesses lie in the fact that news cannot create or conceal problems, for people who have already made up their mind the agenda setting effect is weakened, and new media changing agenda setting with more access to different platforms and 24 hour news.

Clearly there is a lot to be said about agenda setting, but is it always a bad thing? In some cases is it necessary? Agenda setting may not be about controlling what people think but telling them what they should think about.

What we call the news

Only a small percentage of events that take place globally make the news. So how do we determine what makes the cut?

Lecture number nine discussed news values and what we call the news. News values are the degree of prominence a media outlet gives to a story, and the attention that it is paid by the audience.

While news values vary across cultures and areas, there are some key aspects to consider when evaluating news worthiness.

Impact: How much will this affect the audience?

“News is anything that makes a reader say, `Gee Whiz'!”
Arthur MacEwen, American editor

However, with such an array of media platforms and ease of access to information across the globe, is it more difficult than ever to surprise and attain the interest of audiences?

“No one says "Gee Whiz!" very much these days, of course, not even in America — both because that expression has long since been supplanted by others more colourful and less printable, and because our capacity for surprise has long since been dulled by a surfeit of sources.”
Shashi Tharoor, Indian writer and diplomat

Audience identification: Is the story interesting? Does it relate to what is happening in the world and in areas of the culture of interest to your specific audience? A valuable story to the audience is one with which they feel some ownership.

Pragmatics:

• ·      Ethics
• ·      Facticity
• ·      Practicality
• ·      Current affairs
• ·      Everyday 

Source influence: How powerful/trustworthy/reliable/accredited are your sources?

 

Among the most valuable of stories, without a doubt carry the “Ghee Whiz!” factor and, in considering audience identification, people are also attracted to relativity and stories of close proximity.

‘If it bleeds, it leads’
‘If it’s local, it leads’

Though highly sort after, these are not the only news values set to determine the news worthiness of a story.  Here’s a few more values brainstormed in the lecture and tutorials:

 

Complementarity and combinations of such news values will allow a story higher probability of successfully becoming news.  Very few of these factors ultimately will deem a story un-newsworthy.

With continued development of news values, tensions climb amongst journalistic approaches. There remain three main issues:

• ·      Journalism’s ideals vs journalism’s reality
• What a journalist is taught and sets out to do as against what they actually, or are perceived to do – a question of ethics
• ·      Journalism vs Public Relations
• The age-old battle, but are journalists now relying more than ever on PR – is this an issue?
• ·      Journalism vs commercialisation of media and social life
• Should we be questioning our news values?

Is there an issue with ♫ ‘what we call the news’ ♫ ?

Are our news values and the amount of importance we place on news stories completely distorted? Would this be a result of the values of the audience or the prominence media outlets put on particular stories? Being reliant on each other, they are likely both to blame for any possible misconstrued values. Do you think there is a problem at all with what we see in the news?

A question of ethics

Week eight’s lecture allowed us the pleasure of indulging in some of Dr John Harrison’s words of wisdom. Author of ‘Ethics for Australian Business’, it was only appropriate that he instructed our ethics lecture.

To be ethical is a question of correct conduct within society. As a result ethics are always contestable. With so many conflicting opinions, how can we determine the good from the bad, right from wrong, or ethical from unethical? Read a little bit more about ethics here: ethics in a nutshell.

Should Journalists establish ethical ideals based on the collective values of the dominant public, or will this allow more possibilities for breaches or challenges to ethical ideals? Otherwise, should they follow government policies and guidelines in regards to ethics, or might this enable capitalism (in a radical sense) or possibly confine information in some cases?

Boundaries of ethics are ever changing. Therefore a few theoretical paradigms come in handy:

Deontology is a rules based approach. It deals with duties and moral obligations whereby in following guidelines you will do the right thing. All ethics codes, policies or guidelines are deontological.

Consequentialism focuses on the outcome. It doesn’t matter how you get there, as long as the outcome was good, right or successful: the ends justifies the means. This approach also looks at sourcing the greatest good for the greatest number.

Virtue ethics is based on dispositions of character. Habits of character are the ‘golden means’ of behaviour. Therefore goodness comes from good habits which evolve with experience.

In one of our tutorials we interviewed fellow students as an exercise. In questioning them we were reminded that “You're not here as a compassionate human being, you’re here as a journalist”. So where do we draw the line?

Personally speaking virtue ethics seem like the way to go, wouldn’t you agree? Dr Harrison left us with some wise words to assist in this dilemma.

“What makes a good journalist is the sort of person you are”

To be ethical is a question of character and we must be able to recognise that boundaries are there.

We looked at some ethically questionable adverts during the lecture and rated them accordingly. I had a look for a further few, and there’s definitely plenty out there - what do you make of these ones?

Hear them Roar

There are no expectations here; no typecasts, no constraints, no requirements of the people. Businessmen, students, families: suddenly are no longer. It doesn’t matter who you are because now you are a fan, a supporter, part of the team. Their only commonality is their cause. Together as one, today they are all of the same colour, the same clan.

A seemingly usual Sunday morning in Brisbane’s Queen Street Mall, shoppers go about their errands unsuspecting of the afternoon soon to unfold. As the day progresses, an air of excitement and suspense transpires. Specs of orange (and purple) appear throughout the city, and like a bad rash the outbreak suddenly spreads. Buses, cars and trains allow an influx of people, all here to see the spectacle which is the Hyundai A-League Grand Final: Brisbane Roar VS Perth Glory.

A sea of orange accumulates before flooding the streets in a march to Suncorp Stadium: the place of combat. With growing numbers, chants and sirens, this pack is a force to be reckoned with. As the march continues, underlying characteristics begin to stir beneath the surface of participants. They seem to slowly feed off of each other’s determination, driving the fanatic within. As the stadium nears, the anticipation heightens. Caxton Street proves to add fuel to the fire of contesting rivalry with the addition of further orange Brisbane supporters, Perth fans and of course alcohol. While Perth Glory provides a worthy opponent, they stand little chance against the united Roar of Brisbane.

Once inside suspense coagulates. The two oppositions take definitive sides, Perth heavily outweighed by Brisbane fans on their home grounds. With the final kick off of the season, the passion is unleashed. More than 50,000 attendants transform into soccer experts. Opinionated, loud, often foul mouthed but always enthusiastic, the energy of the stadium is inspiring and infectious.

With the majority of possession, the Roar seems capable of easily outplaying Glory, but that just wouldn’t be as exciting as a competitive match. So as usual the Roar appears to have an entirely different plan for spectators than an easy win, leading many fans on an emotional rollercoaster. The first half of the game produced a few injuries, namely to Glory’s Shane Smeltz, but no goals. This however was not a concern to Roar fans after the similar experience in last year’s grand final. The break saw the opportunity to refuel in preparation for a desperately competitive second half.

Returning to the game and to the disbelief of many, the first goal of the night was scored by the Brisbane Roar in the 53^rd minute. The problem? It’s at the wrong end; an own goal. A stadium gasps and hearts shatter as hand gestures replace the words of speechless many. So late in the game, will they recover?

Devastated by this setback to victory, doubts clearly wounded the crowd but they remain noble and determined through battle, even in the eyes of defeat. Diminishing time saw desperation as enthusiastic chants turned to insensitive individual orders and criticisms. Not the kind you would give to achieve success in the real world but clearly, this is far from the real world. The pressure from a full stadium of goal hungry eyes was suspended over the players, and they prevailed. With a mighty roar of the crowd in the 6^th last minute of the game, dampened spirits are rejuvenated with an equalising goal, bringing the stadium to its feet. Chests are beared, tears shed and hugs exchanged as people succumb to their overwhelming emotions. The pack was wild with relief and excitement.

These people would never usually act this way. A wedding, a graduation or a job promotion is surely equally exciting, but no one rips their shirts off or screams excessively for those. So why, in this case, is it accepted? Is sport and sport spectatorship some form of unique emotional outlet? It’s a different reality that’s for sure.
Zealous fans are relentless as the game progresses into four minutes of injury overtime. A fluttering sense of hope sees 50,000 hearts pounding. Continuous chants join the stadium. The unity in this alternate reality is clearly unlike any other. Such bonding and support amongst unfamiliar persons, all in the defence of one cause.
Copious exchanges in possession and thrilling attempts at goal leaves even grown men giddy with excitement. The suspense is distressing as no additional goals see the likelihood of a penalty shoot out, where success could go either way. In the dying seconds of the game Besart Berisha makes for an amazing run into the box before falling to the ground. In the speed and heat of the moment, the referee makes one of the most controversial calls in A-League history. Upstanding, the crowd watches a penalty kick directly in front of the goal. Time slows as this crucial moment will define the game. Then suddenly the crowd erupts as the Brisbane Roar becomes the first back to back consecutive grand final winners. Black suits come pouring out of seemingly nowhere onto the field as piles of hugs are created to the sound of a roaring stadium.

Though not a win in the most ideal of circumstances, it was a victory either team would have claimed and that’s certainly what the Brisbane Roar did. A numbers game, the Roar played the better team, but that’s another story.

As awards are presented we see a dramatic ending to a season which held many ups and downs for the Roar. With the continued ovation even at the games end, it is clear that the undying support of Brisbane is what saw them prevail. 

As the stadium is slowly cleared we know that while the joy will remain, we will all return to our usual selves tomorrow ... until next season...

Beloved Besart Berisha

Our media

Recently I have found myself becoming an avid supporter of public rather than commercial media. Constant advertising and bias arguments are becoming more obvious and increasingly frustrating. You know what they say, once you give commercials the hack, you never go back (well, they should say that).

So what is public media? Supposedly it’s a service to the nation. By definition it is government funded, supportive of the democratic process and non-commercial (non-bias). Its audience and focus (the public) are what drive its existence; therefore public media must succumb to the expectations of general public. These evidently include being widely accessible, informative, entertaining, independent, relevant, educational and having a universality of appeal. Public media must participate in society and engage communities in their own, and surrounding, arts and culture. Unlike commercial media, which faces such challenges as profit and pay walls, public media is concerned with funding, being politically independent, and allegations of bias and agenda. There is however a commercial side to public media. ABC shops and The World Game Shop (SBS) are outlets of public media organisations and generate a form of profit which just like commercial organisations must be returned to investors. However, in the case of public media, the investors are us, the public, so the profit generated is invested back into the media outlet and therefore continues to serve and engage the public.

Public media is our media.

In lecture 7, Dr Bruce Redman explained that the style of public media is typically characterised as serious, broadsheet (associated with ‘real’ journalism), focused on importance over interest and proofed and factual rather than quick and unconsidered.
However a social stigma concerning public media deems it incongruous within ‘popular’ society. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is one example of un-popularised public media which, having been dubbed ‘Aunty ABC’, can be seen as boring, elitist, poorly presented, out of touch and thus of limited interest. Personally speaking I completely disagree.

Public media is my main outlet for trustworthy updates on the democratic process. Finding difficulty in gaining interest in politics, shows like Q&A (ABC) and Insight (SBS) are effective ways of drawing my attention and concerns to significant incidents in Australian politics and society. While I still enjoy programs on commercial television and sometimes radio, I am a devoted Triple J (ABC) listener and enjoy a number of entertainment programs on ABC television. In fact Wednesday nights are now my favourite ‘TV nights’ with Adam Hills in Gordon St Tonight and Agony Uncles showing consecutively. The power and rise of public media is evident through Adam Hills’ recent Logie award, overcoming, without advertising, a vast number of nominees in a commercial field.

We need public media as our defence against complete dictation by private enterprises. It provides society with a non-bias forum where people can express their opinions without fear of losing the advertising dollar. Public media is our way of keeping ‘the bastards honest’.

5 things we can learn from the Twilight Saga (even though we won't admit it)

Currently it would be social suicide openly admitting to finding any enjoyment in the Twilight Saga, and why? Well for one I presume the majority of us have outgrown (or were lucky enough to miss) that adolescent stage which for many went hand in hand with a twilight obsession. Maybe it’s our desire to distance ourselves from that awkward tween phase, so hating everything we loved seems right. It could be that in order to fit into society we have to develop an outspoken, ‘individual’ opinion, which comparatively is the same as everyone else’s (indie is the new mainstream). However, it is probably because the entire story seems to have a few holes – you know, those moments that just leave you saying ‘whuuuutt?’ 

But every story has a moral, and Twilight is no exception. Yes, I believe that we can learn something from this timely tale ... well, five things actually:

1. Just because someone sparkles on the outside, does not mean that they aren't blood sucking demons within.
Whether they have multiple personalities, are deliberately two-faced and hypocritical, or even just have an excellent skin routine, people aren't always what they seem. Don't judge a book by its cover - learn to know the person within (even if they happen to be extremely good looking).

2. Sexy = Stupid.
Let the lesson be learnt.
Bella Swan, though incapable of completing whole sentences or making independent decisions, has every guy she encounters professing their undying, eternal love for her. Edward who reads minds can't find a thought in her head, but he loves her and he's pretty hot right? So she must have something sorted.
Hey boys, want to impress a girl? Take a page out of Edward's book and... talk... like a... zombie...You'll have entire tween populations drooling over you.

3. Know when he's a keeper.
When a guy is in pain after getting a wiff of you, watches you while you sleep at night, and tells you to stay away from him or he'll kill you, what he really means is 'I love you' (but you might need to take a shower).


4. Don't toy with people's emotions (especially if they're secretly a werewolf).
So much unnecessary pain and deceit, why so selfish Bella? It has always been clear that creepy love triangles are doomed before they even begin, so you can't complain when the third wheel attaches himself to your newborn child (even if it is a little weird).

5. Love has no boundaries.
If there is one predominant theme throughout the saga, it would be that it is okay to lie, kill and even give your soul, as long as it's in the name of love.



In saying all this, and at risk of ruining my reputation, I for one will be going to see the next venture in the Twilight series because after all, I do enjoy a good, distorted romance.

And they all lived happily ever after.