But when a man bites a dog..

Now THAT'S news!

Following on from the oh-so-fabulous introduction to journalistic ethics last week, we were today provided a rather enigmatic view on news, newsworthiness, and the values that accompany them. Today's lecture had everything, from (bordering-on-racist) comments about our neighbours across the Tasman to a joke or two about an image of a poor English fellow, it's any wonder we got any work done at all. But Bruce is the consummate professional, and he didn't disappoint.

After the now accepted (and expected) reference to the 'Inverted Pyramid', we were thrust once more into the world of journalistic ideals, morals and concepts. Bruce posed the question, "are values the same across different media services, countries and cultures?" While the answer is an obvious one to most, the extent to which many in the room were willing to commit to a response meant we weren't entirely educated on the reasoning 'why'. This is where 'newsworthiness' became an important talking point.

"A sense of news values is the first quality of editors - they are the human sieves of the torrent of news, even more important even than an ability to write or a command of language." 

- Harold Evans, 2000

There were numerous given examples from 'expert' commentators on how to define a story's newsworthiness; lists upon lists compiled of garbled text that seemed largely hypocritical of itself. For one of the most common examples provided was 'simplicity of a story'; congratulations, you've managed to complicate a definition of simplicity! For this reason, I'm going to largely ignore these lists and focus on the (in my opinion) most useful.

Murray Masterson wrote of the 'Big 6' in regards to the newsworthiness of a story.

1. Significance; how relevant/important the story is in the 'scheme' of things.
   
2. Proximity; is the story a local/national/international event? Stories given precedence based on the viewing audience and the media outlet providing the content.
   
3. Conflict; large or minor scale (depending on the media outlet), from warring nations (News of the World) to feuding neighbours (ACA, Today Tonight etc).
   
4. Human Interest; not necessarily important information-wise. 'Feel good' stories, celeb-gossip. etc.
   
5. Novelty; something 'out of the ordinary' or not of normal occurrence (see: man bites dog).
   
6. Prominence; are stories such as this happening in other places? How frequent and to what degree?

Towards the end of the lecture, Bruce touched once again on hyper-commercialisation. "You don't control the eyeballs" was a comment made by Jay Rosen, directed at this hyper-commercialisation that sees mass media mergers trending towards controlling what we as a viewing audience are subjected to; 'subjected' painting a poignant picture of just how controlling they have become.

And the media knows it.

Should we be worried? Somewhat. But I believe with this hyper-commercialisation we must remember that media organisations can only function as a commercial enterprise as long as there is an audience willing to continue viewing. There can therefore never be a stage where we have no single choice as to what news we receive - because then there would be no media to provide it.

Unless commercial media has a death wish.

Factual Story; Alyssa Dick

Youtube Link: JOUR1111 Factual Story

Bad, wrong, or simply tacky?

Ethics. 

This isn't a word synonymous with interesting conversation, however in today's lecture we almost got there - almost. Bruce stepped aside today, making way for Dr John Harrison, a fellow colleague from UQ's school of journalism. Blessed (as we were assured) by his presence, Mr Harrison didn't leave many in the lecture theater today wondering how he has achieved so much in the industry. He is knowledgeable, witty and a great communicator. After a somewhat humourous exercise involving various advertisements and their ethical validity, we moved onto the 'nitty gritty'. 

As Mr Harrison stressed, there are three (and only three!) 'ethical theories'; Deontology, Consequentialism and Virtuism. 

• Deontology
• Rules, Principles and Duties; All ethics 'codes' are Deontological.
• "Do unto others as you would have done to you."

 The Journalist's code of ethics is therefore deontological, made up of specific rules and principles designed to keep a journalist ethically 'in-check'. 

• Consequentialism
• "The end justifies the means."

Consequentialism can be considered a majoritarian belief, in that what is ethically correct is derived from the judgement of a majority; but can this be truly the correct course of action? Mr Harrison reasonably argues no.

"What makes a good journalist is what sort of person you are, not what rules you follow"
- John Harrison

Which brings me to the last of the ethical theories,

• Virtuism
• Habits of character; courage, justice, temperance and prudence
• The 'golden mean' of behaviour. 

Virtuism proposes that these habits of character are what define a person's ethical properties. Each can be found in the middle of extreme habits which societal concepts deem unethical, hence the 'golden mean' of behaviour. 

As a Journalist, there are a plethora of ethical codes with which to adhere to, however by their very nature -being deontological- one can argue they lack substance. This is what separates 'good' and 'great' Journalists. Not by their ability, but through their virtues. 

I want to be a great Journalist.

Pyjamas for Sick Kids

I'm going to take a step away from the norm and share a (very rough mind you) draft of mine for a JOUR1112 assignment, due more to the content itself than anything else, as I hope to spread the word a little further. If you could take the time to read , I would be very appreciative. 

Pyjamas for Sick Kids

Pyjamas are a precious commodity in Australian hospitals, according to Brisbane Mater Children’s Hospital’s Volunteer Coordinator Rosy Bratt. So much so that the Hospital’s volunteer organisation is in the final stages of planning its first ever ‘Pyjama Drive’. Similar events have met with varied success in a number of hospitals across Australia, however Miss Bratt maintains there is a more personal reason behind this particular Pyjama Drive.

“Need. Need of the kids coming in and not having the pyjamas, and staff saying 'ok, how can we do this?' Staff have an idea but they don’t have the time to do it, so as volunteer services we say to them 'where are the gaps in your team, where can we put volunteers in to help with that?' The Director of Nursing contacted me to see if there was anything we could do, and this was an idea that we decided upon. It’s for the kids that, as I say, have come from low socio-economic backgrounds or from interstate.”

Passionate as ever in her work, Miss Bratt welcomes any prospective volunteers.
“If people are interested, we currently have over 100 vacancies. If there are students who are looking to do volunteering, our shifts run 8am to 12pm and 12pm to 4pm, Monday to Friday. We ask that you come for an information session, where you get a lot of information about volunteer services, our core values, what you can expect as a volunteer and what you can expect from us.”

When asked to provide a figure, Miss Bratt was straightforward.
“As many as we can get”.

If you are interested in donating or becoming a volunteer, you can contact Miss Bratt via email at Rosy.Bratt@mater.org.au or visit their stall at the UQ Health Fair on May 16^th for more information. 

"Why is this lying bastard lying to me?"

“Public media is important because it is the last bastion of long-form investigative Journalism. It is such a special vehicle for voices to be heard... visions and view-points that are ignored by commercial media.” Robert Richter 

So.. yesterday's lecture was another that I couldn't attend, but this time for legitimate reasons. A scheduled 1pm appointment at the Mater Children's Hospital commenced.. almost on-time. It was 2:10pm when we got underway; by 3pm I was having a needle shoved into my arm. Oh the joys of Journalism! Alas, I knew when I got back to college I would need to view our latest lecture, struggling against an aching back and pounding headache. Sleep is for the weak, as they say.

Ignoring the above drivel, yesterday's lecture was a continuation from our previous lecture on Commercial Media, this time focusing on the alternative - Public Media. The first impression that I gained of Public Media when Bruce alluded to it in the previous lecture, was that the primary difference was the lack of commercial funding. That is, networks like the ABC and SBS received no monetary support outside of public and government funding. This was true, up until recently. As quoted by Bruce, "public media is less associated with taxpayer supported media. It may be for profit so long as its ultimate purpose is to serve the public and not turn a profit." (WGBH Educational Foundation Conference, September 2006) 

The ABC and SBS are Australia's two 'main' forms of Public Media Broadcasting

This raised my eyebrow. No longer is the divide between Commercial and Public Media clearly defined by revenue raising, but by the morally ambiguous 'biased versus unbiased' claim. At this point, I was somewhat skeptical of there really being a 'true' form of Public Media still in existence. It was about this time then, that Bruce brought up a very interesting point. The Government HATES the ABC. No matter the party in control, there has been a long-running history of discontent between the Government and the ABC. Which begs the question, why? The ABC is majority-funded by the Government, so surely they would have government interests in consideration, right? 

Nope.

This my friends, is the true difference between Commercial and Public Media. Whereas Commercial Broadcasters will literally bend over backwards to ensure continued revenue raising, 'true' Public Broadcasters do not. To use an old adage, they must 'bite the hand that feeds them' in order to remain under the banner of 'Public Media'. 

While not entirely my cup of tea, this discussion has raised a number of very interesting questions. When we look at networks like NZTV (who became completely privatised through commercial funding) , do we see an example of the inevitable? As Bruce so eloquently put it, we are safe as long as the Government hates the ABC - for the ABC is owned by the PEOPLE; where its primary interests should henceforth lie.

Media Madness

A confession must be made, for I was absent for this, our most recent lecture. The sandman had mischievously snuck into my room and worked his magic, with a still-weary me waking 4 hours after the fact - nice work Callum! Perhaps this was a blessing in disguise however. Undoubtedly any thought of concentration would have been quickly subdued, while interests that happened to be piqued throughout my review of the recording were easily accessible with a click of the mouse. Oh reasoning, how I love you.

Moving right along... I found myself in the midst of one of the most-discussed topics in contemporary media, the controversial Commercial versus Public media debate that has only intensified with the recent inclusion of 'specialty' channels to free-to-air.

Bruce made the point that commercial media thrives on consumerism, that without demand there is certainly no profit. "Survives or fails on business success", as the slide put it. Through this, it was maintained that advertising was a key factor in revenue-raising for these commercial media companies, making the following graphic both compelling and accurate:

Because they are! We have established that the premise of these companies staying in-business is by controlling their revenue flow. Advertising provides for an overwhelming majority of this income, so much so that commercial companies are literally bending over backwards to accommodate them. 

According to fabc.org, "to ensure advertisers get maximum exposure to potential customers, broadcast programs are selected to attract as large a target audience as possible, for as little expenditure as possible, at any single time." 

This in itself raises a number of issues. The main point of concern raised in the lecture was the ability (or lack thereof) of commercial media towards the delivery of both commercial (profit) and social ('public trust') functions; being able to produce profit whilst retaining the viewer's sense of 'trust' in what they are being shown. This 'trust' is broken as soon as a media company chooses to promote or silence something so as not to harm revenue uptake. Such cases of this occurring include:

"The ‘dumbing down’ of programming to the lowest common denominator to secure large audiences, which includes a trend away from quality in-depth information, and toward lightweight, ‘infotainment-style’ programming; and a preference for US over Australian local programming. US programming - having already covered its costs and made its profit in the far larger... US market - is sold to Australia at rates far lower than the cost of Australian production." (fabc.org)

To add to this, pressure from 'higher powers' have notably influenced how media companies handle themselves; Rupert Murdoch's recent phone tapping scandal case-in-point. A media company's content is influenced by their need to promote and avoid offending those with whom they serve to do business with. Where being 'unbiased' is considered one of the foremost qualities of a good Journalist, Commercial Media has committed itself to being anything but. 

.. however I still love my Home & Away.

"Radio is the Theater of the Mind"

I was a little skeptical at first, when Bruce mentioned our next lecture would be a sound recording on Blackboard rather than the usual physical interaction of the previous lectures. I assumed it would be simple dictation by Bruce himself regarding our next topic, so needless to say I was surprised when I found myself more of an 'invisible' third-party to two very interesting radio interviews.

Having spent two weeks at ABC Tropical North radio station in Mackay, I was somewhat aware of the goings-on behind the scenes of radio shows. I helped interview people, sourced stories, edited recordings and wrote introductions. This experience I believe was advantageous when interpreting this 'sound' lecture. I was able to grasp a greater understanding and appreciation of what was being discussed.

The first interview seemed centred around how to interview a guest - interesting as the guest in this sense was quite obviously very used to being in the other chair! It was easy to tell from an early stage that Richard Fidler is very passionate about what he does, and his insight was invaluable. "The voice doesn't seem to 'come at you' (like television), but come from inside your head" he said. This certainly seemed the case, perhaps in part due to the headphones protruding from either ear at the time..

Richard stressed the importance of avoiding 'closed conversations' with your guest, that it is paramount as a presenter to be able to keep the audience feeling part of the conversation. He also mentions that while conventional wisdom dictates 7 minutes for a radio interview, 'conversations' may go for as long as an hour. In such circumstances, finding and maintaining interest in the subject matter is arguably the hardest and most beneficial ability in producing an interesting show.

Among other things, Richard also alluded to the importance of humour, and the ability to keep a guest feeling at-ease within the situation, citing simple gestures like moving away from the microphone and pausing to promote responses as vital in getting the most out of your guest. 

"We want to be useful and give them something... 

there is a kind of sense of public service, and this is what 

keeps you energetic and happy in the job" 

(Richard Fidler)

Far from the wrestling ring of his namesake, Steve Austin was the second guest interviewed as part of our 'sound' lecture, tapping into his well of knowledge and past experiences to provide further insight into the life of a radio presenter. After a brief introduction, Steve proceeded to reference a plethora of very useful points, which I believe can be more-easily explained through direct-quote.

"In radio, your annunciation matters, you can't speak like you would at University or in the street... be yourself, but you need to communicate."

"Bring down the barriers between you and the listener."

"If you're fake on radio, people can smell it a mile off."

"Try to empathise (with the guest) vocally... don't do anything on radio you wouldn't do in real life."

"Be human. Explore the full gamut of human experience. Don't believe those that say human beings are rational, thinking creatures. We can be, but we react emotionally and subconsciously." 

"For night-time radio, you must talk less and listen more... to show respect, listen to them... if you don't understand someone, listen to them, don't berate them."

"Ideas in London matter... everything spreads from that point."

And Steve Austin's final piece of advice,

"If like me you're not naturally talented, don't give up. If you really, seriously are hungry for it, go after it. There are plenty of big-name people today who were told they would never get into radio or television... you may become a more interesting person after a few knock-backs."

Radio,

the Theater 

of the Mind