I have started to realise how selfish people are becoming.
Is it just me or are people happy talking about themselves and what they have been up to, without asking you about things in your own life? By nature, I am honestly interested in other peoples lives. I'm genuinely interested in how old they are, do they have kids, how is their job going, how did they get their job, do they enjoy their job, where do they live etc etc. But I am starting to notice those same questions are not being directed back.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't ask questions with the intent of having them asked back but to me it indicates a sense of interest and thoughtfulness from the other party. Something as simple as someone sending you an email or a text message is an indication they are thinking about you, which is a fantastic feeling.
Is it not also polite to engage in some sort of conversation?!
I don't know, I may be way off with this, but it's just been an observation of mine recently. I will definitely keep up my investigative work and perhaps next time I do engage in conversation with someone, be it a friend or someone I've not met before, I will take note of how long it takes for two-way communication to take place!
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
Chapter 4 - A 'know' for news and Kell's say
1. Australian news outlets gave proximity to the 2004 Tsunami because Indonesia is a popular Australian tourist destination, and with so many Australians visiting Indonesia it was a likely possibility that Australians were killed or injured in the Tsunami which is obviously going to gain audience attention.
For those reasons, while it was geographically quite distant from Australia, it was close the hearts of many of the Australian public.
2. The main news value I would focus on is conflict, between the police, immigration officials and human rights activists - especially if it was close to election time! The woman appears to have done nothing wrong, so to put her in an immigration detention centre appears too harsh and the human rights activists would be all over it!This would cause a huge uproar in the human rights circles, especially with current detainees being held without charge (Mohammed Haneef for example).
For that reason, the next news values I would focus on are timeliness and currency. With currency relating to controversy and trends, it would certainly flow on from the Conflict value. And terrorism is a very topical issue at the moment, so currency and timeliness would both suit this story.
3. I think it would depend on which publication I was writing for. For the purpose of this question, let's say I was writing for the Newcastle Herald.
It's no secret most Novocastrians love Newcastle.
Novocastrians are supportive of local sport representatives, or anyone else who has managed some sort of achievement. Over the last six months, crime has been a constant reported issue on the news and in the paper. There are calls to introduce curfews in clubs and pubs, and clubs and pubs have already stopped serving shots, all in the hope of reducing crime in Newcastle.
This all leads me to writing the story of the mayoral announcement about an urban renewal plan to resolve inner-city crime. It has a timeliness angle to it, as well as proximity. If written accurately and on behalf of Novocastrians, I think the people of Newcastle would appreciate it much more than an entertainment-type of article on a comment Prince Charles made. While I think this would still make some sort of story, it's not a story I would choose to write about.
4. 'News' is anything new we learn or hear today that we didn't yesterday.
5. I think it depends on the news article being written and who the article is being written for. If the article was about an actor who was tragically killed, obviously the who/how/where/when would be more important than why/what.
The Six Strong Serving Men theory is definitely an important concept when writing a story. Including the main point/s in the introduction, or even the headline, is what makes the story appeal to a reader. The main aim of a reporter/journalist is to have people read their articles and to do that, they need to write an interesting, impacting story with an equally impressive introduction.
KELL'S SAY
On page 79 of this chapter, I loved Turner Catledge's definition of news: "anything you can find out today that you didn't know before"
The reason I liked it so much is because it's straight to the point and I just really agreed with it.
Would readers read an article if they'd read it before? They might know something about the topic, but they might not have a full understanding of it.
People read the news so they can find out what is happening on a local, national and international level.
I thought I would try and search other definitions of "what is news" and found this internetLink
In particular, the line which says it is "the journalists' responsibility to determine what is news."
This also is very true. Journalists need to be able to determine news which is appealing to the majority of people.
Above all, journalists have a great influence over what the audience reads.
This highlights the point that "news" needs to be 'new' and interesting, something readers didn't know before.
So Catledge is definitely on the mark - 'anything you can find out today that you didn't know before' (I loved it!)
For those reasons, while it was geographically quite distant from Australia, it was close the hearts of many of the Australian public.
2. The main news value I would focus on is conflict, between the police, immigration officials and human rights activists - especially if it was close to election time! The woman appears to have done nothing wrong, so to put her in an immigration detention centre appears too harsh and the human rights activists would be all over it!This would cause a huge uproar in the human rights circles, especially with current detainees being held without charge (Mohammed Haneef for example).
For that reason, the next news values I would focus on are timeliness and currency. With currency relating to controversy and trends, it would certainly flow on from the Conflict value. And terrorism is a very topical issue at the moment, so currency and timeliness would both suit this story.
3. I think it would depend on which publication I was writing for. For the purpose of this question, let's say I was writing for the Newcastle Herald.
It's no secret most Novocastrians love Newcastle.
Novocastrians are supportive of local sport representatives, or anyone else who has managed some sort of achievement. Over the last six months, crime has been a constant reported issue on the news and in the paper. There are calls to introduce curfews in clubs and pubs, and clubs and pubs have already stopped serving shots, all in the hope of reducing crime in Newcastle.
This all leads me to writing the story of the mayoral announcement about an urban renewal plan to resolve inner-city crime. It has a timeliness angle to it, as well as proximity. If written accurately and on behalf of Novocastrians, I think the people of Newcastle would appreciate it much more than an entertainment-type of article on a comment Prince Charles made. While I think this would still make some sort of story, it's not a story I would choose to write about.
4. 'News' is anything new we learn or hear today that we didn't yesterday.
5. I think it depends on the news article being written and who the article is being written for. If the article was about an actor who was tragically killed, obviously the who/how/where/when would be more important than why/what.
The Six Strong Serving Men theory is definitely an important concept when writing a story. Including the main point/s in the introduction, or even the headline, is what makes the story appeal to a reader. The main aim of a reporter/journalist is to have people read their articles and to do that, they need to write an interesting, impacting story with an equally impressive introduction.
KELL'S SAY
On page 79 of this chapter, I loved Turner Catledge's definition of news: "anything you can find out today that you didn't know before"
The reason I liked it so much is because it's straight to the point and I just really agreed with it.
Would readers read an article if they'd read it before? They might know something about the topic, but they might not have a full understanding of it.
People read the news so they can find out what is happening on a local, national and international level.
I thought I would try and search other definitions of "what is news" and found this internet
In particular, the line which says it is "the journalists' responsibility to determine what is news."
This also is very true. Journalists need to be able to determine news which is appealing to the majority of people.
Above all, journalists have a great influence over what the audience reads.
This highlights the point that "news" needs to be 'new' and interesting, something readers didn't know before.
So Catledge is definitely on the mark - 'anything you can find out today that you didn't know before' (I loved it!)
Chapter 3 - Discussion questions and Kell's say
1. I think there are two important points in considering this hypothetical dilemma.
Firstly, one quote from the chapter is "the media control the flow of information to the public, which decides who its politicians will be." With this in mind, if a new national daily newspaper was introduced which was funded by the Federal Government as well as having a government-appointed board, would it not be safe to assume readers could be entitled to question the content of the newspaper? Would the paper still hold a bias towards certain views?
I understand this is just a hypothetical situation, but I think it is reasonable to question the intention of the paper prior to deciding if it should be produced for circulation.
Secondly, given taxes will be increased if this newspaper is supported, does that not add to the possibility of bias stories? Federal government money (ultimately at taxpayer's expense), with a federal government appointed board - perhaps I'm a bit of a skeptic, but I think the stories published, or at least the angle of the stories published, would still favour a certain political party/view.
At the end of the day, it's all about business, and business means money. Personally, I just prefer to read a story based on fact and truth - i'm not interested in the politics of it all. Just write an unbiased story, how hard could that possibly be?! I wouldn't support the paper - petrol prices and taxes are high enough.
2. To me the apology appeared somewhat sarcastic, but I enjoyed it! It seems as though he is apologising for expressing an opinion, and why should he have to? When we are all out with friends, or sitting around the dinner table, we share our ideas and opinions. Rarely is it the case of all parties agreeing with each other, but it's a discussion about what each of us thinks. No one later apologises for having their say or voicing their opinion. So why should printers/journalists?
If we think hard enough, society would probably be without the hours of conversation and discussion if it weren't for reporters/journalists' articles. If we have a differing opinion to that of the article we have just read, would the journalist/reporter apologise to us for not writing our opinion? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether it be written or spoken, and I don't think anyone has the right to oppose the opinion of someone else. As Franklin said
"That if all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed."
The above quote epitomises my argument - we can all have our own say, but we won't all agree with it.
3. I believe journalists should be given independence to write their story without interference. If the journalist is reporting a factual article, written on investigative research, who has the right to interfere with the article? If you look at it from the other angle, would an editor/editorial department put their name to something which has been interfered with, and in doing so potentially discredit themselves?
4. I do not think the internet, web and online news will cause trouble for these countries. As is stated in the chapter "blocked sites include overseas Chinese-language news websites....and most news sites originating in Taiwan and Hong Kong." From this quote it appears much of the problematic websites are in fact originating in these countries anyway. The world is becoming such a technological place, people are more open to different perspectives and different views, and we also have more say and freedom in our life. If people from China, Vietnam and North Korea have a problem with the content of alternative media formats, then don't access that media format.
It is the way the content is interpreted and used which is the problem, not the media format. For example, the Melbourne teens who were in a suicide pact apparently found out from a website how to correctly tie the rope/what knots to use etc etc. Now I personally don't access those sites anyway, but I know they exist. So instead of looking at the actual media format, I think the most important point to consider is simply the content of the media.
KELL'S SAY
My say this week is an extension of my response in question 2 above; opinions. So while this is not directly related to the chapter's topic, the issue of opinions sparked my interested after reading Franklin's apology.
I understand most journalists have a specific area they report on - crime reporting, political reporting, sport reporting etc. If the journalists are simply reporting facts of a case or a sporting match, their opinion can't influence the story too much.
However, other journalists have an opinion column in the newspaper or a blog on the web.
Journalists such as Mike Gibson, Peter Fitzsimmons, Miranda Kerr etc. They all have their own opinion columns but not all audiences will agree with their point of view.
But is there really a problem with that? Why can't journalists simply express their opinion without being scruitinsed for doing so? One particular person, author Germaine Greer, certainly comes to mind in this respect.
While I don't agree with everything Greer says, she is still entitled to have her own opinion. The only difference is her opinion is published for the world to talk about. Our opinions are simply discussed around the dinner table, in the classroom or with a bunch of friends.
I enjoy reading journalists' opinion pieces because it gives me the chance to see an issue from another perspective.
And while I might not agree with their opinion, it generates thought and perhaps some indepth discussion - that's not a bad thing at all.
The article on the link below is a story written by Greer on the death of Steve Irwin. Greer believes the animal world finally took its revenge on Irwin, who distressed animals everytime they were put near the camera, according to Greer.
I don't agree with this article, but I can also understand how Greer might come to the conclusions she has.
But again, it's her opinion and she's entitled to it.
Murdoch should start a newspaper publishing only opinion columns - interesting!
Link
Firstly, one quote from the chapter is "the media control the flow of information to the public, which decides who its politicians will be." With this in mind, if a new national daily newspaper was introduced which was funded by the Federal Government as well as having a government-appointed board, would it not be safe to assume readers could be entitled to question the content of the newspaper? Would the paper still hold a bias towards certain views?
I understand this is just a hypothetical situation, but I think it is reasonable to question the intention of the paper prior to deciding if it should be produced for circulation.
Secondly, given taxes will be increased if this newspaper is supported, does that not add to the possibility of bias stories? Federal government money (ultimately at taxpayer's expense), with a federal government appointed board - perhaps I'm a bit of a skeptic, but I think the stories published, or at least the angle of the stories published, would still favour a certain political party/view.
At the end of the day, it's all about business, and business means money. Personally, I just prefer to read a story based on fact and truth - i'm not interested in the politics of it all. Just write an unbiased story, how hard could that possibly be?! I wouldn't support the paper - petrol prices and taxes are high enough.
2. To me the apology appeared somewhat sarcastic, but I enjoyed it! It seems as though he is apologising for expressing an opinion, and why should he have to? When we are all out with friends, or sitting around the dinner table, we share our ideas and opinions. Rarely is it the case of all parties agreeing with each other, but it's a discussion about what each of us thinks. No one later apologises for having their say or voicing their opinion. So why should printers/journalists?
If we think hard enough, society would probably be without the hours of conversation and discussion if it weren't for reporters/journalists' articles. If we have a differing opinion to that of the article we have just read, would the journalist/reporter apologise to us for not writing our opinion? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether it be written or spoken, and I don't think anyone has the right to oppose the opinion of someone else. As Franklin said
"That if all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed."
The above quote epitomises my argument - we can all have our own say, but we won't all agree with it.
3. I believe journalists should be given independence to write their story without interference. If the journalist is reporting a factual article, written on investigative research, who has the right to interfere with the article? If you look at it from the other angle, would an editor/editorial department put their name to something which has been interfered with, and in doing so potentially discredit themselves?
4. I do not think the internet, web and online news will cause trouble for these countries. As is stated in the chapter "blocked sites include overseas Chinese-language news websites....and most news sites originating in Taiwan and Hong Kong." From this quote it appears much of the problematic websites are in fact originating in these countries anyway. The world is becoming such a technological place, people are more open to different perspectives and different views, and we also have more say and freedom in our life. If people from China, Vietnam and North Korea have a problem with the content of alternative media formats, then don't access that media format.
It is the way the content is interpreted and used which is the problem, not the media format. For example, the Melbourne teens who were in a suicide pact apparently found out from a website how to correctly tie the rope/what knots to use etc etc. Now I personally don't access those sites anyway, but I know they exist. So instead of looking at the actual media format, I think the most important point to consider is simply the content of the media.
KELL'S SAY
My say this week is an extension of my response in question 2 above; opinions. So while this is not directly related to the chapter's topic, the issue of opinions sparked my interested after reading Franklin's apology.
I understand most journalists have a specific area they report on - crime reporting, political reporting, sport reporting etc. If the journalists are simply reporting facts of a case or a sporting match, their opinion can't influence the story too much.
However, other journalists have an opinion column in the newspaper or a blog on the web.
Journalists such as Mike Gibson, Peter Fitzsimmons, Miranda Kerr etc. They all have their own opinion columns but not all audiences will agree with their point of view.
But is there really a problem with that? Why can't journalists simply express their opinion without being scruitinsed for doing so? One particular person, author Germaine Greer, certainly comes to mind in this respect.
While I don't agree with everything Greer says, she is still entitled to have her own opinion. The only difference is her opinion is published for the world to talk about. Our opinions are simply discussed around the dinner table, in the classroom or with a bunch of friends.
I enjoy reading journalists' opinion pieces because it gives me the chance to see an issue from another perspective.
And while I might not agree with their opinion, it generates thought and perhaps some indepth discussion - that's not a bad thing at all.
The article on the link below is a story written by Greer on the death of Steve Irwin. Greer believes the animal world finally took its revenge on Irwin, who distressed animals everytime they were put near the camera, according to Greer.
I don't agree with this article, but I can also understand how Greer might come to the conclusions she has.
But again, it's her opinion and she's entitled to it.
Murdoch should start a newspaper publishing only opinion columns - interesting!
Link
Friday, July 27, 2007
Chapter 2 - Discussion questions and Kell's say
1. Which media function do you think is most important and why?
I think the most important media function depends on the type of media and the purpose of that particular medium.
For example, readers of the Sydney Morning Herald broadsheet would probably rate Willey's functions of news, backgrounding and encyclopaedic, therefore educating, higher than entertainment.
On the other hand, readers of gossip magazines such as Cleo, Cosmo, Who Weekly etc value entertainment and advertising above the encyclopaedic function.
Personally, I prefer to read accurate and honest news stories. But like many women, I love a bit of entertainment and gossip in the 'trashy' mags.
Above all, the main aim of newspapers/magazines is to sell as many copies as possible and they will do whatever it takes to fulfil that purpose.
2. To what degree should journalists be concerned about their employer's profitability and readership/viewership figures? If it is considered the profitability of a journalist's employer in turn ensures the continued employment for the journalist, readership/viewership figures should be a top priority of the journalist.
However, I think it could be a catch 22 situation. If the journalist reports interesting, informative and accurate stories, which are of course appropriate for the publication's readers, readership figures and eventually profitability will result accordingly.
So I think if the journalist respects their position and produces quality work, profitability will result.
3. Is it reasonable for the owner of a media outlet to direct editorial policy and to make editorial decisions on political and other issuesTo a certain extent, I do think it is reasonable. However I do not think owners should completely dictate what is written.
Media owners have the right to provide a broad outline of their story requirements and trust the journalist to report accordingly.
Ultimately, it would be the responsibility of the media owner if information is mis-reported or inaccurate, which justifies why I believe the media owner has the right to make certain decisions.
4. Does investigative journalism really matter? Does it sell newspapers or increase ratings? In today's society, I think accurate and honest journalism is more credible than investigative journalism. A journalist could spend ample time investigating information for a story, but it would not be credible if it was communicated dishonestly or inaccurately to an audience.
Therefore, in my opinion I do not think investigative journalism would necessarily sell newspapers or increase ratings.
5. Dilemma: You are the editor of a newspaper that is losing money. The biggest advertiser has been convicted of drink-driving. Your newspaper has a policy of recording all such convictions. Even your own son's conviction has been published. The newspaper's general manager - your boss- tells you the advertiser will no longer advertise with the newspaper if you publish the report. The decision is yours alone, but you are told the loss of advertising could mean the paper's closure, or at least the retrenchment of several editorial and print-room staff. What do you do?
Policy is policy, no matter who is involved. Rules are rules and must be adhered to. Therefore, I'd publish the story.
Here's why:
I think there is more credibility in being honest. In doing so, I think it would only be a matter of time before a replacement advertiser is found, an advertiser who appreciates the honesty of the editor and the morals of the newspaper.
If something was leaked to the media further down the track about a cover-up, the newspaper in question would lose not only their credibility, but their business.
KELL'S ISSUE
I quite liked Fuller's quote, which explained how marketing has taken over journalism. Fuller said journalists of yesteryeard "did not feel inhibited by somebody's opinion survey telling them what people want to see in their newspaper. They did what they pleased, what they thought was right" (pg.43).
If only journalism was still the same and journalists did continue writing/printing what they liked as opposed to being influenced by other peoples' opinions.
Today, journalism is a business and politics. In saying that, I think this refers more to newspaper journalism, which is also now available on the web. I don't have a lot of knowledge of magazine journalism, but because magazines exist for entertainment, I don't think they are as politically influenced as newspapers.
The part of Fuller's quote I liked most was the last five words - "what they thought was right".
Slightly off track a little, but Veronica Guerin came to mind in this regard.
Despite people telling her to stop her crusade against Irish drug barons because of the danger she could bring to herself and her family, Veronica continued her campaign because it was what she thought was the right thing to do.
That decision ultimately cost her her life.
And I understand it's a little bit more involved than just publishing a story because you think it was "right" to publish it, but I think it draws a definite parallel.
I doubt many journalists, although i'm sure there are some, who would risk their life and the life of their family, to expose criminals.
The link below is from the BBC website explains how journalism has been changed in Ireland because of Guerin.
Today, Irish journalists are more protected in terms of crime reporting.
So perhaps reporting "what is right" might ultimately be beneficial, but in a dangerous situation it might ultimately cost a life..as in this case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/86191.stm
I think the most important media function depends on the type of media and the purpose of that particular medium.
For example, readers of the Sydney Morning Herald broadsheet would probably rate Willey's functions of news, backgrounding and encyclopaedic, therefore educating, higher than entertainment.
On the other hand, readers of gossip magazines such as Cleo, Cosmo, Who Weekly etc value entertainment and advertising above the encyclopaedic function.
Personally, I prefer to read accurate and honest news stories. But like many women, I love a bit of entertainment and gossip in the 'trashy' mags.
Above all, the main aim of newspapers/magazines is to sell as many copies as possible and they will do whatever it takes to fulfil that purpose.
2. To what degree should journalists be concerned about their employer's profitability and readership/viewership figures? If it is considered the profitability of a journalist's employer in turn ensures the continued employment for the journalist, readership/viewership figures should be a top priority of the journalist.
However, I think it could be a catch 22 situation. If the journalist reports interesting, informative and accurate stories, which are of course appropriate for the publication's readers, readership figures and eventually profitability will result accordingly.
So I think if the journalist respects their position and produces quality work, profitability will result.
3. Is it reasonable for the owner of a media outlet to direct editorial policy and to make editorial decisions on political and other issuesTo a certain extent, I do think it is reasonable. However I do not think owners should completely dictate what is written.
Media owners have the right to provide a broad outline of their story requirements and trust the journalist to report accordingly.
Ultimately, it would be the responsibility of the media owner if information is mis-reported or inaccurate, which justifies why I believe the media owner has the right to make certain decisions.
4. Does investigative journalism really matter? Does it sell newspapers or increase ratings? In today's society, I think accurate and honest journalism is more credible than investigative journalism. A journalist could spend ample time investigating information for a story, but it would not be credible if it was communicated dishonestly or inaccurately to an audience.
Therefore, in my opinion I do not think investigative journalism would necessarily sell newspapers or increase ratings.
5. Dilemma: You are the editor of a newspaper that is losing money. The biggest advertiser has been convicted of drink-driving. Your newspaper has a policy of recording all such convictions. Even your own son's conviction has been published. The newspaper's general manager - your boss- tells you the advertiser will no longer advertise with the newspaper if you publish the report. The decision is yours alone, but you are told the loss of advertising could mean the paper's closure, or at least the retrenchment of several editorial and print-room staff. What do you do?
Policy is policy, no matter who is involved. Rules are rules and must be adhered to. Therefore, I'd publish the story.
Here's why:
I think there is more credibility in being honest. In doing so, I think it would only be a matter of time before a replacement advertiser is found, an advertiser who appreciates the honesty of the editor and the morals of the newspaper.
If something was leaked to the media further down the track about a cover-up, the newspaper in question would lose not only their credibility, but their business.
KELL'S ISSUE
I quite liked Fuller's quote, which explained how marketing has taken over journalism. Fuller said journalists of yesteryeard "did not feel inhibited by somebody's opinion survey telling them what people want to see in their newspaper. They did what they pleased, what they thought was right" (pg.43).
If only journalism was still the same and journalists did continue writing/printing what they liked as opposed to being influenced by other peoples' opinions.
Today, journalism is a business and politics. In saying that, I think this refers more to newspaper journalism, which is also now available on the web. I don't have a lot of knowledge of magazine journalism, but because magazines exist for entertainment, I don't think they are as politically influenced as newspapers.
The part of Fuller's quote I liked most was the last five words - "what they thought was right".
Slightly off track a little, but Veronica Guerin came to mind in this regard.
Despite people telling her to stop her crusade against Irish drug barons because of the danger she could bring to herself and her family, Veronica continued her campaign because it was what she thought was the right thing to do.
That decision ultimately cost her her life.
And I understand it's a little bit more involved than just publishing a story because you think it was "right" to publish it, but I think it draws a definite parallel.
I doubt many journalists, although i'm sure there are some, who would risk their life and the life of their family, to expose criminals.
The link below is from the BBC website explains how journalism has been changed in Ireland because of Guerin.
Today, Irish journalists are more protected in terms of crime reporting.
So perhaps reporting "what is right" might ultimately be beneficial, but in a dangerous situation it might ultimately cost a life..as in this case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/86191.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)