A taste of the pointless things in life

Looking back to week two and our introductory lecture to media including old and new media platforms, I decided to gain a deeper understanding into the various forms of mass communication (seeing as we're studying it 'n' all). I'm more than familiar with traditional or heritage media like newspapers, magazines, radio and even TV (especially TV), but - and I'm embarrassed to say - knew next to nothing of the three different concepts of the web.
Luckily university is all about learning experiences (surprise!), so here's the most brief summary of my learning experience that I could conceptualise.

• Web 1.0 = read only content with a focus on companies and advertising.
• Web 2.0 = the social web, user generator, shared content allowing for consuming and contributing/reading and writing.
• Web 3.0 = the semantic web - personalised, intelligent searches, behavioural advertising, focus on the individual and user behaviour.

Whilst rediscovering the web and recording my own ten days of media use for our assignment i began to think of the kinds of things the internet can expose us to (the good and the... not so good). One thing led to another and I ended up in the dark, weird part of youtube again. Don't judge me, we've all been there!

If my assignment taught me one thing it's that I can sit and watch almost anything for hours on end, and for what cause? Take for instance vampires, amateur cooks, obese Australians and the everyday lives of five people living in New York, all concepts behind popular films and TV series and all significantly useless to my wellbeing. I managed to watch 24 hours worth of this in 10 days and I feel no smarter or even enlightened, but still somewhat satisfied. I probably absorbed as much 'nutrition for the mind' as I would watching 5 hours of He Man and friends singing 'What's going on'? 

(yes it does exist - but here's the short version)

You've got to love youtube. One of my favourite shows is Tosh.0, and it's purely based upon the hilarious crap videos people post. Speaking of windows into the lives of others, here's some more reasonably unhealthy food for thought:

Media Use Diary

Since the birth of the newspaper, the rapidly evolving media has changed the way communicate, perceive matters of the world and view societal norms. Media now connects people of the world like never before. It affects the news we see (or hear) and from whose perspective. Media can easily be said to be the primary factor moulding the modern world.

As a result the mediums available to journalists in our society are vast and continuously expanding. Today anyone can be a journalist through so many windows into the world of media, although not always a useful one. As a JOUR1111 student, we were required to complete a survey questioning our media use and then compare that to our media use over a ten day period.

I found this task allowed me to see not only the variety of media we have access to, but how it influences our every day life. The chart below shows how much time I spent over a 10 days on a few selected mediums.

Why yes, I did watch 17 hours of TV (not including the online shows I downloaded), and yes, I do feel like I could have done something better with my time. To my shame I spent the majority of the 10 days on Facebook, clearly my preferred media having spent approximately 19 hours using it.
Other than social purposes I found I used media for entertainment, news and research. The majority of my mediums where online, so other than the fact that I need to invest in a good book and stand in the sun for a while, it shows how technology controls the way we live (or how we let it).

Being a 17 year old female, the average gender and age of students JOUR1111, the results found in the survey where similar to that of my own. The following graph displays the mediums students used while online.

The survey also found that the majority of the cohort believed to have spent 2-3 hours using the internet each day. The next highest was 3-4 hours. Admittedly on the survey I believed to have spent 3-4 hours, but in completing my 10 day recording period I found that I spent an average of 5.6 hours on the internet (OMG I need a hobby). 

During my time spent using the internet I was always alone including when I was using apps on my phone to access Facebook and Twitter. 78% of the cohort have smart phones where Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Tumblr are the most popular apps used. Evidently Facebook is the most popular medium used online. 97% of students have a Facebook account and with such a young cohort, social media is clearly the way of the future. 

The survey proved that television was also very influential in the lives of the students. Below is a chart showing the estimated hours students assumed that they watched TV each day.

As shown the majority said to have watched 1-2 hours of daily TV, which I found fairly accurate in accordance with my own average daily rate of 2.4 hours.

So is it a concern that future journalists spend most of their time on Facebook or watching TV? Where do the reporters and producers of tomorrow get there news? The following chart displays the mediums JOUR1111 students used to source their news, which I found again consistant with my own.

Today's news is highly user generated. The web especially web 3.0 continues to be on the rise. We conduct online searches for the news we want to know about and search engines make that even easier with suggestions and narrowed results based on previous searches. If you don't want to see or hear about a topic you change the channel, so producers marginalise news to that specific to the popular interests of society. However, whatever we want to know is still readily at our fingertips. News from around the world is simply the click of a button away, but is it all trustworthy information?

Being so easily uploaded with constant attempts 'to be first on the scene', information may be mostly opinionated with little background research. Misleading information could be disastrous in the hands of eager re-bloggers. Populations could develop opinions based on information that probably wasn't newsworthy to begin with. It is vital for journalists to be well accustomed to a topic before reporting on it to ensure quality stories. Evidently journalists must thus focus on gaining a broad or specific knowledge of the world, its people, its problems or other topics of interest. Social media is also becoming a more effective way of spreading news. In order to keep up with technology, journalism should use such mediums to its advantage. While it is now easier to be a journalist, its increasingly difficult to be a good one, we must remain in touch with society and use all available resources, whilst trying to remain in the real world.

Not-So-Newsworthy Banter

[Intro music]

You’re JOUR1111 course presents:

“Reflection of the first JOUR1111 lecture:

An Introduction”

From the ‘Lecture Reflections’ Blog series

Hi I’m Troy McClure Ashlee Langdale. You may remember me from such places as; your lectures, tutorials, or maybe, around the campus.

So we need to reflect on all of the lectures, including the first (whoops).

Well it all started when classes usually start, in week 1 when I awkwardly sat next to someone I didn’t know - and still don’t know – for the very first time. The lecture included discussion on the course profile, blackboard and important dates such as public holidays and mid-semester breaks. We were told that we were to start a blog and twitter account for assessment. Because there was no one to talk to, I recall saying ‘yay’ to myself sarcastically.

Additionally we were enlightened with the knowledge that ‘we are the journalist’. This then proceeded to be chanted rhythmically and increasingly louder by all occupants of the theatre as we joined arms, made fists and walked strongly out of the room to conquer the world of media (not really).

So I did enjoy the lecture, after all I decided to return in the following weeks. It was a good start to an interesting course and what’s more interesting will be seeing how it continues – and how I continue.

Meanwhile, here's an awkward moment ...

I hope you enjoed this short info-banter, continue following for additional nonsensical updates.

Baby Got Back

'Baby, I got yo back'

Not so long ago, a once wise and respected rapper Sir Mix-A-Lot braved the fierce face of social norms to reveal to woman across the world that thin is not always becoming.

In this week’s JOUR1111 lecture (week 4) Dr. Bruce Redman discussed photo-journalism and picture stories. We explored the history of photo-journalism and importantly, what makes a good photo; framing, focus, angle, exposure, POV, and capturing ‘the moment’. I learnt that POV means point of view - a little obvious I know, but with the overuse of ancronyms these days, how can you be sure? ... lol

A fragment of the lecture discussed digital manipulation. Dove’s viral campaign for Real Beauty, aptly named ‘Evolution’, was a great way to display the process behind modern advertising, calling to question the ethics of media today. If you missed the lecture and haven’t seen the video yet, it’s definitely worth watching.

Some other great dove films fighting to expand our definition of beauty include;

Onslaught, Girl's self-esteem and True colours.

I decided to have a look around at some digitally manipulated ‘photographs’ and came across a number of magazine covers which completely distorted the true appearance of the depicted female.

The lecture included a quote by winning photojournalist Eddie Adams;

"If it makes you laugh, if it makes you cry, if it rips out your heart, that's a good picture".

These photographs were all dubbed ‘good pictures’ when they were chosen for the covers of magazines. I’m sure a lot of people laugh at the overwhelming disproportions and manipulation present in these images which simultaneously destroy the self-image of others. So even in fitting with such descriptions as that given by Adams, are they really good pictures?

“So Cosmo thinks you’re fat? Well I aint down with that”

At least Sir Mix-A-Lot knows where he stands.

Do the media control our ideals for beauty and our decisions on how we look? Or do they just manipulate our pre-developed, culturally specific ideals for gender roles and what people should look like? This topic seems to stir more questions than answers.

Either way, let it be known that healthy is always sexy, and no one has interpreted that better than the legend himself.

“Shake that healthy butt”.

Thank you Sir Mix-A-Lot, the women of the world salute you.