However, from the few times I have watched a program on the ABC and in conjunction with the chapter in the text, I feel the ABC should stay the way it is. Reports appear to have a less 'entertainment' value and more factual, informative approach.
Pages 268 and 269 explain how politically influenced the ABC is, but I think journalism in general is politically influenced. For example, News Limited would more likely be inclined to favour the Liberal Party and their policies opposed to the policies or opinions of the Labour Party.
I do not think any government funded program could be less 'political'. If one political party funded the ABC and the ABC in turn broadcast stories against that party, do you think the government would want to continue funding it?
I think not.
2. I agree with Dagan (2004) in that the key quality is passion.
I also agree that, because TV is a visual medium, beauty could be an important element.
If Sarah O'Hare, or Elle McPherson, were regular news reporters on one TV station, and Cornelia Francis or Rowena Wallace were reporters on a competing channel, which would you tune in to watch? Perhaps women are more inclined to watch the more informative, but I think men might have different reasons for watching a particular station!
Such a similar example was given on page 289, with 'National Nine News political correspondent Laurie Oakes, identified as a journalist whose talent and ability override aesthetics'.
In light of the above, I would hire the 38 year old, despite the high ratio of women to men.
It could be the case that a journalist is quite good looking but is not comfortable in front of the camera or does not have an authoritative voice. All these issues need to be considered when hiring broadcast journalists, not just their physical appearance.
3. Time constraints, space limitations and the need for strict time deadlines are elements which have all been mentioned as restrictions, as well as strengths, between TV, radio, web and print.
But I think the 'best' news medium is television and web because of their ability to include images to support stories. While print medium gives journalists more space in which to write their stories, and can therefore be more descriptive to an extent. often viewing images assists the audience to better understand a story.
As noted on page 277, while print has more room in which to print a story, 'newspapers can't match the warmth and intonations of human voice'.
From a personal perspective, I often need to read stories/articles multiple times before I fully understand them, so I find it easier to comprehend TV news broadcasts.
I was relieved to read on page 277 Conley and Lamble mention retention rates are improved when TV news is expertly presented.
Given broadcast and print journalists share the same news values, and all mediums report each value differently, it is important that journalists relay the story with maximum effort.
4. In my opinion, the last election was probably more issues based. Issues such as GST, Healthcare and petrol prices etc were covered in the media.
However I do feel it is important for the audience/voters to gain an understanding of the personalities of those running in the election. If voters know candidates on a more personal level, it might give voters an insight into the candidate's policies and influence the voters to vote, or perhaps even change their vote, for a particular candidate.
In parallel to this, it is important the media do not focus highly on personality. Just because you might like one candidate more than another does not mean you will like their policies. But if the media present the personality of candidates, it may also have a negative effect on the audience.
For example, images of Kevin Rudd rocking a baby may not appeal to all audiences.
The best way to report on political matters, in my opinion, is to do it fairly and combine both issues and personality when reporting in this area of journalism.
KELL'S SAY
I found the issue of chequebook journalism (pg.272) an interesting topic in this chapter.
To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about the issue of chequebook journalism.
It is certainly beneficial to the story-teller because they are making money, in some cases lots of it.
And by paying top dollar to a story-teller, the magazine/newspaper can claim to have the 'exclusive' news.
But the problem with chequebook journalism is that readers, and the interviewer, can't be sure the information isn't being enhanced. This could in turn stop the truth from being told.
Journalist Kerry Straight has written about the benefits, or otherwise, of chequebook journalism.
I really am not sure about the issue of chequebook journalism even after having read a couple of stories on the issue. On one hand it's a form of bribery - we'll pay you if you tell us your story'.
On the other hand, how do you know what you're reading is the truth? A company could pay a large sum of money for a story which is completely untrue!
Here is another opinion from Chris McLeod on the issue:
As for Kell's opinion, I think the jury is still out! (But if you pay me top dollar I'm sure I can make something up!)
No comments:
Post a Comment