Bit of a sentimental title for the end of the semester. Guess I got really attached to you, JOUR1111.
Quick lecture recap: We had Steve Molk in for the last lecture. I didn't take notes, I just sat there and listened to his experiences and his advice, which was essentially to take every opportunity you have to get yourself out there. It was a powerful last lecture and fitting for an awesome course. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop blogging on here - Steve's lecture only reinforced me wanting to keep writing!
I just want to share a little something with you. It's my source of inspiration when I feel I can't accomplish anything. In 2009 I did an internship with the International Herald Tribune. It was an amazing experience that I was so lucky to have. I worked with a foreign correspondent, Mark McDonald, on an article about Bruce Lee and helped compile background information. As a result, I got my first byline!
Here's the online edition:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/business/global/12iht-lee.html?pagewanted=all
Good luck to everyone continuing with Journalism! It was a great course and I met awesome people during it, as well as learning a lot.
Thursday, 14 June 2012
Investigative Journalism
I’m not going to
lie. When I got that email that our economy lecture was being changed to a
lecture about investigative journalism, I may or may not have fist-pumped in
the library.
Sorry Bruce, but I’d
take investigative journalism over any type of economic theory every time!
Great quote to
start the lecture off with:
©
“Isn’t all journalism meant to
involve questioning investigation of facts and opinions presented to us?” –
Ross Coulthart
Bruce explained
some of the IN’s of investigative journalism:
ð
Intelligent è Invest
ð
Informed è Inside
ð
Intuitive
Some straightforward
stuff but I’m including it anyway, because it was interesting.
*
Critical and thorough
investigations
- The journalist is an active participant. Active intervention. Thorough investigation.
- The journalist is an active participant. Active intervention. Thorough investigation.
*
Custodians of conscience
- Investigation takes society’s norms and holds breaches up to public scrutiny. Civic vice.
- Investigation takes society’s norms and holds breaches up to public scrutiny. Civic vice.
*
Social justice
- To give a voice to the voiceless, public interest is key.
- To give a voice to the voiceless, public interest is key.
*
4th Estate/Watchdog
-
Journalists
represent the interests of those without power, this balances out the power of
government.
-
They
insure that free flows of information necessary for the functioning of
democracy
-
Journalists
make accountable public personalities and institutions whose functions impact
social and political life.
Investigative
journalism can involve: interviews, observations, documents, leaks, briefings,
trespass and theft.
The 1826 example
threw me, I didn’t know investigative journalism first took place so long ago
(Australia was still a colony). The most obvious example of investigative
journalism in history is Watergate, Then Bruce pulled up something I expected
too, Wikileaks.
Is wikileaks
journalism? No. Firstly, it is a bunch of information. The diplomatic cables
that the New York Times sorted through and published – THAT is journalism. What
wikileaks produced is just data. Casual anecdote; last September I went to see
my sister in Sydney. While I was there I was lucky enough to attend Sydney’s “festival
of dangerous minds”, at the Opera House. I saw a live broadcast from Julian
Assange, and as a budding journalist student, I was excited. Emphasis on WAS.
He spent the entire hour justifying his actions, explaining we needed to
question government motives and defending his charges. I should have gone to
see Noam Chomsky instead, that was a waste of time. I really had hoped he would
talk about how wikileaks has changed the nature of investigative journalism,
and was left bitterly disappointed. Cheers, Julian.
Happy things/Agenda setting
Contrary to popular belief, I actually thoroughly enjoy learning heaps of theory, especially when it comes to Journalism. Although I'm a third-year and I should be over this stuff already, nothing gets me happier than colour co-ordinating lecture notes. I'm afraid I fell behind in Journalism, even though I wrote up a few bits of prose I want to publish on here. Before I go on to discuss the lecture, I just want to say that I'm going to keep this blog and will transform it a little. I'm doing three languages and I really want to showcase my ability to speak/write in them. So half of this blog will be in Spanish after the Journalism course is finished. It's something I'm really excited about, and I just wanted to share it. Here are a couple of things that are making me happy today:
My favourite book, my favourite director, and Leo:
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thegreatgatsby/
Cake, always amazing, even more amazing when it's RAINBOW CAKE
AGENDA SETTING
What is it? The idea that the individual conception of reality is socially constructed through a process of communication. We understand reality through social life The media plays a large role in constructing the social world.
2) Policy agenda (reflecting issues decision makers deem important)
3) Corporate agenda (issues important to big businesses and corporations)
4) Media agenda - the issues that are discussed in the media.
2 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS:
1) The mass media do not merely reflect and report reality, they filter and shape it.
2) Media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to believe they are more important than others.
Where did it come from?
Originated in 1968, Chapel Hill, NC: Maxwell Combs and Donald Shaw surveyed 100 undecided voters regarding the political campaign & measured it against media content.
- The mass media set the agenda by emphasizing specific topics. The mass media has an effect on public opinion.
Walter Lippman: The mass media creates images of events in our minds. This really rang true for me. Aside from obvious examples like photos from the Vietnam War and 9/11, one image I have never gotten out of my head is that of the Taj Hotel in Mumbai, with smoke rising from the top during the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008. I was waiting on CNN for more reports, as my brother was in Mumbai at the time and I didn't have any means of knowing what was going on, all I knew and remembered was that image.
Finally, six different areas of agenda setting:
1) Media gatekeeping: the exposure of an issue and what the media chooses to reveal
2) Media advocacy: promoting a message through the media
3) Agenda cutting: Backseating issues to put forward more popular ones, even though the former may be more important. The example that was used was AIDS being backseated for Justin Beiber's haircut - it's scary how many people know what style the Beibs is fronting nowadays. I didn't even realize he cut the curtains off. AIDS is a preferable topic. I still cannot fathom why people can have such an in-depth knowledge of other peoples lives and celebrity facts but can't use proper English. Sigh.
4) Agenda surfing: The media uses crowds and trends : KONY KONY KONY KONY KONY. Just saying.
5) Diffusion of news: process through which an important event is communicated to the public. The example was of Obama delivering the "Osama is dead" speech. Depressingly enough, even though I am a proud American and an aspiring Journalist...I found out about that through Facebook. So shameful!
6) Portrayal of an issue: different aspects, depends on what agenda. The way an issue is portrayed will influence how it is perceived.
7) Media dependence: The more media dependant a person is on the media for information, the more likely it is for them to accept media agenda setting.
My favourite book, my favourite director, and Leo:
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thegreatgatsby/
Cake, always amazing, even more amazing when it's RAINBOW CAKE
I can only presume my caffeine addiction will worsen during Swotvac...
One of my favourite movies. Let the world change you, and you can change the world.
AGENDA SETTING
What is it? The idea that the individual conception of reality is socially constructed through a process of communication. We understand reality through social life The media plays a large role in constructing the social world.
Simply put, the more coverage an issue receives, the more important it is to its people. - Coleman, McCombs, Shaw & Weaver.1) Public agenda (what the public thinks is important)
2) Policy agenda (reflecting issues decision makers deem important)
3) Corporate agenda (issues important to big businesses and corporations)
4) Media agenda - the issues that are discussed in the media.
2 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS:
1) The mass media do not merely reflect and report reality, they filter and shape it.
2) Media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to believe they are more important than others.
Where did it come from?
Originated in 1968, Chapel Hill, NC: Maxwell Combs and Donald Shaw surveyed 100 undecided voters regarding the political campaign & measured it against media content.
- The mass media set the agenda by emphasizing specific topics. The mass media has an effect on public opinion.
Walter Lippman: The mass media creates images of events in our minds. This really rang true for me. Aside from obvious examples like photos from the Vietnam War and 9/11, one image I have never gotten out of my head is that of the Taj Hotel in Mumbai, with smoke rising from the top during the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008. I was waiting on CNN for more reports, as my brother was in Mumbai at the time and I didn't have any means of knowing what was going on, all I knew and remembered was that image.
Finally, six different areas of agenda setting:
1) Media gatekeeping: the exposure of an issue and what the media chooses to reveal
2) Media advocacy: promoting a message through the media
3) Agenda cutting: Backseating issues to put forward more popular ones, even though the former may be more important. The example that was used was AIDS being backseated for Justin Beiber's haircut - it's scary how many people know what style the Beibs is fronting nowadays. I didn't even realize he cut the curtains off. AIDS is a preferable topic. I still cannot fathom why people can have such an in-depth knowledge of other peoples lives and celebrity facts but can't use proper English. Sigh.
4) Agenda surfing: The media uses crowds and trends : KONY KONY KONY KONY KONY. Just saying.
5) Diffusion of news: process through which an important event is communicated to the public. The example was of Obama delivering the "Osama is dead" speech. Depressingly enough, even though I am a proud American and an aspiring Journalist...I found out about that through Facebook. So shameful!
6) Portrayal of an issue: different aspects, depends on what agenda. The way an issue is portrayed will influence how it is perceived.
7) Media dependence: The more media dependant a person is on the media for information, the more likely it is for them to accept media agenda setting.
News Values
In this lecture
Bruce explained News Values, pretty straightforward stuff but interesting
nonetheless and with lovely quotes I intend to prettify on here.
‘The degree of prominence a
media outlet gives to a story’ – Stuart Hall.
News values have:
News values have:
*
Impact
*
Audience
identification
*
Pragmatics
*
Source
influence
Newsworthiness: a set of generally agreed
upon values.
ð
What makes something
newsworthy?
Bruce mentions a LOT of theories. The one I agree with the most is Murray Masterson’s ‘Big Six’ – Significance, proximity, conflict, human interest, novelty and prominence. BUT, I agree with Judy MacGregor in that visual attractiveness does play a large part of making something newsworthy. Not that it wasn’t ‘newsworthy’ in the beginning, but the image of the Twin Towers with black smoke plummeting out of the top is unforgettable.
Bruce mentions a LOT of theories. The one I agree with the most is Murray Masterson’s ‘Big Six’ – Significance, proximity, conflict, human interest, novelty and prominence. BUT, I agree with Judy MacGregor in that visual attractiveness does play a large part of making something newsworthy. Not that it wasn’t ‘newsworthy’ in the beginning, but the image of the Twin Towers with black smoke plummeting out of the top is unforgettable.
ð
Are they the same across
cultures/countries?
Obviously there will be some bits of news that will crossover, but for the majority, no. Different cultures and countries have different priorities. As mentioned above, part of what makes something ’newsworthy’ is RELEVANCE. How relevant is the fact that CY Leung decided to put an end to the large influx of Mainland Chinese women coming into Hong Kong to birth their babies in Australia? Not very.
Obviously there will be some bits of news that will crossover, but for the majority, no. Different cultures and countries have different priorities. As mentioned above, part of what makes something ’newsworthy’ is RELEVANCE. How relevant is the fact that CY Leung decided to put an end to the large influx of Mainland Chinese women coming into Hong Kong to birth their babies in Australia? Not very.
Some
threats to newsworthiness:
*
Journalism
/Commercialization of Media/Social Life
*
Journalism/Public
Relations
*
Journalism
ideas vs. Journalism realities
Something I found
interesting - Jay Rosen’s quote that the people formerly known as the audience.
I loved the phrase ‘the writing readers’ because that’s exactly what I am. In
Hong Kong I flick to the culture/travel section of Hong Kong Magazine and
question things, try to rewrite things I don’t agree with. Rosen’s quote was
interesting because it really applies to bloggers and tweeters, and the use of
social media in producing and passing on news. I really like the idea of a new
balance of power and challenging the information we are presented with.
Ethics
I did a course on ethics and so I have a pretty decent knowledge of all the ethical theories. I thought the lecture would spend about thirty minutes going into the definition of ethics with examples, and the other half hour examining examples of ethics being tested in Journalism.
Instead, we got a brief definition of ethics - what is right, and what is wrong, and that it is black and white. Then we went through examples of advertising and had to mark on a sheet what we thought was ethical/unethical and what was in good/bad taste. While I understood the purpose, I found this activity to be repetitive and would have much rather been shoved full with information, or at least been given an example of ethics and how ethics has been tested in Journalism.
First, just to briefly outline the theories mentioned in the lecture.
1) Deontology, a rules and principles based approach to ethics which implies you do the right thing by following the rules. Rules include laws, and basic principals. All ethical codes are deontological.
2) Consequentialism - acquiring the right outcome, even if the ends have to justify the means. The greatest good for the greatest number.
3) Virtue Ethics are values that inform the way we live, based on Aristotle's teachings and underline that an ethical person is one with a good character.
How do you know what is good or bad?
I know what is good or bad based on the principles I grew up with. I learnt it is good to treat others the way you would treat yourself. I also learnt that it is bad to punch your little brother and lie about it. In all seriousness though, while my upbringing helped, it was also my experience that changes my view about what is good or bad.
What makes something wrong? In my opinion, if it feels wrong, it probably is.
Okay, onto my little case study. Now you know I'm procrastinating when I start doing this and getting excited about it. Either that or I'm just a little nerd.
As a political science student, I've come across controversial images and articles, and have plenty of examples. One of the examples I am going to use is the production of several cartoon images of the Islam prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005.
NB: If I offend anyone, I offer my sincerest apologies. I do not intend to harm anyone's beliefs, I am merely expressing my opinions.
The cartoons can be seen here:http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/img/IslamicMilitancy10.jpeg
I put a link to them and didn't publish them on my blog as I understand that they may very well offend someone.
I obviously was much younger and so cannot report what happened at the time. When I got older, and learnt of it, it annoyed me slightly. What annoyed me was that in the wake of post-9/11 anti-Islam sentiment and racist stereotypes forming all around the world likening Muslims to terrorists, something like this was published. That those stereotypes could then be consolidated, based on that it was published in a newspaper.
What annoyed me even more, was the response letter from the Culture Editor at Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose. Rose states in an article published in the Washington Post, that "I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies..."
As a culture editor, you need to be aware of culture. You need to be aware of customs and controversy and whose toes you are stepping on when you do it. When the New York Times decided they wanted to publish the diplomatic cables from Wikileaks, they were aware of the consequences. Was Jyllands-Posten? Were they aware it would bring about a) controversy and b) violence? Clearly not. I would like to say this is irresponsible journalism, because I honestly do not believe they considered that there would be consequences. Rose also states that their "goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter." I understand, that they wanted to make a point on exercising freedom of expression and doing that with a highly controversial issue would only emphasize their point more. However, they did this at the risk of offending, upsetting and angering those in the Muslim community.
Why? Why would it cause so much controversy, compared to seeing burnt Bibles? Maybe it is just obvious to me, but depictions of Mohammed as a) a God, and b) a terrorist, are just a big no-NO. Why? There is still a lot of discourse on depicting Mohammed in images, and thereby drawing an Idol of Mohammed. That is an issue that remains hot on debate in Islamic culture. I think the issue were the cartoons that showed Mohammed with a bomb or with a weapon, thereby perpetuating the violence in Islam culture stereotype. Rose also mentions that publishing the cartoons meant that they "were integrating you [Muslims] into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers".
Using what we did in the lecture, were the cartoons ethical or just in bad taste?
I think they were in awfully bad taste. I think they were published recklessly, and were insensitive considering the political climate. But were they unethical? It honestly depends. There are ethical codes, and according to Rose, these cartoons did. Their intentions were to create rhetoric about freedom of expression and religion. They achieved that, mentions Rose, but at a cost of offending not only a group of people but also an entire religion. In this sense, I believe they were an unethical publication. There was already-growing controversy regarding Islamists and the Muslim religion, and I think this just added fuel to the flame.
Instead, we got a brief definition of ethics - what is right, and what is wrong, and that it is black and white. Then we went through examples of advertising and had to mark on a sheet what we thought was ethical/unethical and what was in good/bad taste. While I understood the purpose, I found this activity to be repetitive and would have much rather been shoved full with information, or at least been given an example of ethics and how ethics has been tested in Journalism.
First, just to briefly outline the theories mentioned in the lecture.
1) Deontology, a rules and principles based approach to ethics which implies you do the right thing by following the rules. Rules include laws, and basic principals. All ethical codes are deontological.
2) Consequentialism - acquiring the right outcome, even if the ends have to justify the means. The greatest good for the greatest number.
3) Virtue Ethics are values that inform the way we live, based on Aristotle's teachings and underline that an ethical person is one with a good character.
How do you know what is good or bad?
I know what is good or bad based on the principles I grew up with. I learnt it is good to treat others the way you would treat yourself. I also learnt that it is bad to punch your little brother and lie about it. In all seriousness though, while my upbringing helped, it was also my experience that changes my view about what is good or bad.
What makes something wrong? In my opinion, if it feels wrong, it probably is.
Okay, onto my little case study. Now you know I'm procrastinating when I start doing this and getting excited about it. Either that or I'm just a little nerd.
As a political science student, I've come across controversial images and articles, and have plenty of examples. One of the examples I am going to use is the production of several cartoon images of the Islam prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005.
NB: If I offend anyone, I offer my sincerest apologies. I do not intend to harm anyone's beliefs, I am merely expressing my opinions.
The cartoons can be seen here:http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/img/IslamicMilitancy10.jpeg
I put a link to them and didn't publish them on my blog as I understand that they may very well offend someone.
I obviously was much younger and so cannot report what happened at the time. When I got older, and learnt of it, it annoyed me slightly. What annoyed me was that in the wake of post-9/11 anti-Islam sentiment and racist stereotypes forming all around the world likening Muslims to terrorists, something like this was published. That those stereotypes could then be consolidated, based on that it was published in a newspaper.
What annoyed me even more, was the response letter from the Culture Editor at Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose. Rose states in an article published in the Washington Post, that "I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies..."
As a culture editor, you need to be aware of culture. You need to be aware of customs and controversy and whose toes you are stepping on when you do it. When the New York Times decided they wanted to publish the diplomatic cables from Wikileaks, they were aware of the consequences. Was Jyllands-Posten? Were they aware it would bring about a) controversy and b) violence? Clearly not. I would like to say this is irresponsible journalism, because I honestly do not believe they considered that there would be consequences. Rose also states that their "goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter." I understand, that they wanted to make a point on exercising freedom of expression and doing that with a highly controversial issue would only emphasize their point more. However, they did this at the risk of offending, upsetting and angering those in the Muslim community.
Why? Why would it cause so much controversy, compared to seeing burnt Bibles? Maybe it is just obvious to me, but depictions of Mohammed as a) a God, and b) a terrorist, are just a big no-NO. Why? There is still a lot of discourse on depicting Mohammed in images, and thereby drawing an Idol of Mohammed. That is an issue that remains hot on debate in Islamic culture. I think the issue were the cartoons that showed Mohammed with a bomb or with a weapon, thereby perpetuating the violence in Islam culture stereotype. Rose also mentions that publishing the cartoons meant that they "were integrating you [Muslims] into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers".
Using what we did in the lecture, were the cartoons ethical or just in bad taste?
I think they were in awfully bad taste. I think they were published recklessly, and were insensitive considering the political climate. But were they unethical? It honestly depends. There are ethical codes, and according to Rose, these cartoons did. Their intentions were to create rhetoric about freedom of expression and religion. They achieved that, mentions Rose, but at a cost of offending not only a group of people but also an entire religion. In this sense, I believe they were an unethical publication. There was already-growing controversy regarding Islamists and the Muslim religion, and I think this just added fuel to the flame.
RIP Laptop
After two years it's time to say bye to my laptop. My trusty white Macbook has died, leaving me laptop-less and taking ALL my assessment and all my photos and memories. And of course, I didn't back it up. Sorry to anyone who found my blog remotely interesting, and has been wondering where I've been. I didn't die - my laptop did. And ate up all my neatly typed lecture notes, and passwords. Thankfully I've finished lectopia-ing the last three lectures I had before my laptop starting sparking and making weird noises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)