Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts

1.6.12

Coming clean... always clean... lovely and clean...

I’ve recently noticed that I’m a bit of a minimalism junky. This isn’t new – for months now my room has been entirely white, grey, silver, and impeccably clean, with a place for everything and every electrical cord. The layout is thought out, I’ve informed myself on clean, modern colour schemes, and invested the time to make it swish.

Though out? Informed? Invested? This sounds like a case of investigative journalism! Although Ross Coulthart pondered, “Isn’t all journalism investigative?”, this week’s JOUR1111 lecture clarified exactly what it is.

While my room has been described as creepily stark but somehow welcoming, investigative journalism is described as a method of discovering the truth using any medium – finding out what somebody somewhere wants to suppress. In my case, dust.

I don’t know if I have a talent for linking random subjects together or if my life is weirdly based on this course, but the cleaning of my room is a lot like I.J – critical and thorough and of a substantial effort.

I can draw a line though. While I’m one of the most pessimistic people you will ever meet on my off days, to be a great investigative journo you have to be skeptical, NOT cynical. Bollocks.

I still have a fighting chance though, as we were told that investigate journalism understands the hidden agendas of messages and doesn’t just act as a channel for them. I doubt everything, including media! The press lives by disclosure, so investigative journalists should take nothing for granted.

This week we were asked: what do many investigations have in common? They changed the world, and it is this in-depth reporting that actually reveals important news. We came to the conclusion that Wikileaks is not itself an investigation, as it’s just data – just stuff, meaningless until categorized, like the objects in my room. It needs journalists to go through and analyse it.

Investigation thrives on interaction, through interviews, observations, documents, and hell, if it comes to it, trespass and theft.  Yet it is threatened, oddly, by the online phenomenon and, not oddly, by the growth in PR. Investigative journalism could be big, but citizen journos are too afraid to put themselves out there. Nowadays if you look at someone the wrong way they’ll sue you, let alone if you reveal their shocking secrets.

We were asked what kind of journalists we wanted to be, and the furthest I could really go was to say I favoured print. Now I’m skeptical though. How am I to put anything out there without it being either drivel, or make me jail meat? I figure if I keep my work like my room – clean, emotionless, and dimly lit – it might be total crap but at least I won’t have a law suit on my hands. I hate formal wear.

16.5.12

Suspicion is on my agenda.

In our JOUR1111 lecture this week the idea that we were being told exactly what we like and what's good to like in the media was simply reinforced. In a bleak turn of events, I found out about agenda settings in journalism.

Reality bites. But these bites are socially constructed and mediated through shared language. That is, we simply perceive these bites! Very deep.

There are a few agendas in journalism. There's public agenda - what we, the public, perceive as important (keeping in mind this is also dictated for us). Then there's policy agenda, which the decision makers reckon are important, and corporate agenda, and finally media agenda. In a tangle of perception versus reality, these four agendas are interrelated.

Media isn't just (badly) reporting reality, they're also shaping and filtering it. Cheeky bastards.

In 1922 Walter Lippman proposed a theory - that public opinion is formulated from the creation of images of events in our mind. Propaganda and the power of images substitute on social pattern for another and we end up relying on images as opposed to critical thinking. Remember that birthday party you thought was awesome, with memories of fun slides and cake? But no one reminds you of how the bee stung you! That's how the media injects direct influence to set the agenda.

Agendas can manifest themselves in various forms. Media gate-cutting describes how individuals themselves control the flow of messages through a communication channel to expose it, and even these issues are often (surprise surprise) chosen by the media.

Agenda cutting is quite crafty, and not the awesome kind involving pipe cleaners and Clag. Not even close. While the media can't just blatantly lie (we assume), most of the truth isn't represented. Less coverage means that an issue is less cared about, which is the Beibs' claim to fame.

Then there's agenda surfing - the bandwagon effect. Personally I don't like wagons, but apparently existing public opinions do influence others towards that opinion. I still don't like wagons.

While media dependence can often mean an individual is more easily influenced, I'm stubborn enough that even my hours on Facebook and Twitter mean I'm always scoffing at what the news has to say.

So while my agenda involves cleaning my room, shopping for party supplies and redecorating my wall, media's agenda involves sneakily nudging you toward a certain opinion, quietly enough that you think it's your own.

So if you think my humour's tacky, you're being fooled. The world just WANTS you to think it's poor when really I'm a literary genius. Good day.

15.5.12

My thrifty grandma would be shocked at such bad value.

My JOUR1111 lecture this week was of great value. Great news values, that is!

News values are the degree of prominence given to a story and the resulting attention given by the audience, and are often dictated and elected by media organisations. You don't really think sports and celebrities are interesting! It's all brainwashing! Unless that's what they want us to think....

Anyway, there are more news values and ways of organising them than you can poke an aerial at. Everything comes down to newsworthiness.

These values are even different across different services, countries and cultures. While the phrase, "if it bleeds, it leads" is true for some media outlets, with lead stories tending to be tragedies, TV channels like Ten and 9 take on the "if it's local, it leads" approach.

Harold Evans, editor of the Sunday Times from 1967 to 1981, stated in 2000 that editors are the 'human sieves' of torrent news. They ultimately determine the news values and what is newsworthy.

Drama, visual attractiveness, entertainment, brevity and other values are examples of such factors valued by different media. In 1996, Masterson came up with his own little dandy list:

1. Significance
2. Proximity
3. Conflict
4. Human interest
5. Novelty
6. Prominence

Seems fair enough? Duh-duh. In 2002 Macgregor reckoned he could top that and concocted another:

1. Visualness
2. Conflict
3. Emotion
4. Celebrification of the journalist

So which is right? THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. How unfair is that? It's really got me worried for the Journalism Quiz.

And yet with all these values in place, newsworthiness is under threat more than ever. Journalism and the commercialization of media and social life, journalism and PR and the difference between ideals and reality of news reporting all jeopardise quality journalism. PR influence causes tabloidisation and lazy incompetent journalism. Then as the media apocalypse reaches its worst, hyper-commercialization sets in and as I've previously prophesised, we all get crap news.

So what actually drives the decisions made in media organisations about what is newsworthy? The audience is not just the audience any more. We're the distributors too and there's a new balance of power.

So let us join hands the cease this decline of journalism! If people from all over the world stand on a giant globe, join hands and sing, maybe things will miraculously get better. That's what we've been told before so it must be true and important.

16.4.12

The ABCs of public media.

‘To serve or engage a public’ – it sounds a bit like an entertaining policeman’s mantra, but it’s the purpose of public media as I learnt in my JOUR1111 lecture today. Thanks to public media, I used to be able to watch Move It Or Lose It on a weekday morning on Briz 31, now 31 Digital, all without being bombarded with ads for the latest amazing and expensive technological gadget for toddlers.

Comprising the ABC, SBS and their respective radios, public media in Australia is mostly taxpayer supported, although we all remember the scandal and we all wept deeply when SBS brought in ads (interrupted MythBusters, the beginning of the media apocalypse).

Back in the olden days when the world was sepia, public television required license fees from viewers, and so the public service ethos and value for the public is still embedded today.

The ABC was established as a ‘nation building project’, seen to reach far and deep into Australian minds; a bit creepy, but with good intentions.



 
I’m relevant!


SBS was the shiny multicultural channel, although all I really observe when flicking past it is its trademark sex between soccer. Yay for weird late night sexy hotline ads with terrible actors and equally terrible graphics!


 
 The kind of people you usually see on these ads.



Personally, I see the ABC as the place to go for sassy British comedies, Grand Designs to keep mother dearest happy, and Tony Jones, host of Q&A, the legendary guy that always looks incredibly smug as if he’s just told the most hilarious joke in existence.
           


“And then I said, whattsamatta you?!” *hold for applause*

A key mechanism that has lead to public media’s success is news. It’s cheap, people always want to watch it, and it’s generally not something commercial media goes out of their way for (doesn’t lure in the advertisers nearly as well as Jersey Shore, aw yeahhh).

Public media’s news is serious. It’s broadsheet. It’s important. It’s considered. And it sounds like a movie tagline.

Some might argue, however, that it’s boring, elitist, poorly presented and out of touch. Out of touch? That Pendulum remix of the ABC News theme was a hit with all the hip club kids!



 We're a trendy drum and bass band, and this, is the 7 o’clock news.


According to Rupert Murdoch (never a good start to a sentence), public media is just doing TOO well. Nothing more legitimate than Murdoch logic! Public media does have more… decent challenges to face, such as a demand to provide quality, be relevant, engage with the democratic process and be informative and independent. That’s a much stricter to-do list than my usual ‘paint nails, write blog post, feed guinea pig’.

It gets complex. For instance, the ABC – which is being funded by the government – is also responsible for being the watchdog of the government. Don’t sweat it though, this is a good thing! The ABC should be disliked by the government and sit above them so they can’t be ‘held for ransom’. I found it intriguing that the government was is against the ABC, and yet can’t do much about it because it’s held in ‘common’ by the people. Up with people!

ABC journalists are briefed to avoid political bias, and it’s important to remember not everything you’re told is true; Jeremy Paxman of the UK took it one step further, asking, “Why is this lying bastard lying to me?”

And as I struggle to wittily conclude this blog post, I pose a question for you: would you rather watch the ‘Gay-BC’, or countless ads for steam mops?

29.3.12

Media Use Diary and Analysis.


Old media VS new media
You can’t teach an old dog new tricks… but you can tweet about it

Old media has a few aliases. Legacy media, traditional media, and heritage media – all of them refer to the mass communication techniques that have existed since the first newspaper, which was published in 59 B.C. in Rome (the first printed newspaper was published in 1605, but B.C. sounds more impressive so let’s go with that). This industry comprises television, radio, film and music (studio), newspapers, magazines and books.

Then we move onto a sort of transitional phase, of Web 1.0 – the Information Web. Basically, Web 1.0 is old media but just on the computer, as media in the form of ‘brochure-ware’ is repurposed for the web. The focus for the Information Web is on companies, as it is very advertising friendly.

New media is most frequently used today. Web 2.0 is the Social Web and is brimming with new media. Facebook, Skype, Twitter are all part of a group of digital technologies that are easily manipulated, networkable, and interactive. Digital interactivity is the key here and the focus is shifted to social groups and ‘prod-users’ (Alex Bruns, 2005). Web 3.0 is, in a sense, the ‘new new’ media, but I will be examining basic old media and new media for the purpose of my analysis.


The link below leads to my personal Media Use Diary over a 10-day period, divided into old and new media, and then various specific outlets within those. Some basic assumptions when reading the entries are as follows:

  • The term use defines an instance in where I am actively involved in a media form, as opposed to exposure. During the course of each day it can be assumed I was exposed to various different media forms (e.g. radio, television, text, etc. through background music, advertising etc.) and these have not been accounted for.
  • Each 'day' refers to the period between when I wake up and when I go to sleep, and is not based on a 24-hour period. For example, one 'day' may span between 10a.m. in the morning and 1.00 a.m. that night depending on when I am active.
  • I have often accessed multiple forms of media simultaneously, for example listening to music or watching television whilst using the internet. In these cases, the time spent has been used for each individual category. That is, if I spent one hour on Facebook while listening to music, one hour would be allocated to both the 'Facebook' and 'iPod' column.
  • I have not distinguished between time spent using media for leisure or for academic use except when mentioned in annotations. It can be assumed, however, that use of newspapers, Blogger and specific websites listed are for studying purposes.
  • Annotations in TV entries depict the genre of program watched for analytical reasons, as do locations in iPod and radio entries.
  •  A greyed-out entry signifies no use for that day.

My media use diary can be found by clicking HERE.


Something has happened!
Taking a peek at what we’ve actually been doing all this time

To effectively decipher what my media use and that of my peers indicates, I will explain what the graphs show, why these results have occurred, and any personal patterns that are evident.


NEW MEDIA

What?
The shiny blue gradient says it all – I spent over three quarters of my time accessing media on new media (online and electronic). This amount is actually less than I predicted it would be, as my use of newspapers, books, radio and television is more of an occasional practice than a strict pattern like my internet use. I use Facebook and Tumblr virtually every day, as can be seen in my media diary. My use of magazines and newspapers especially, however, is scattered in the table, although the ‘Dazed & Confused’ column shows a slight pattern – the length of time between my purchase of the publication, and completion of reading. New media is ongoing and infinite, as I can hop onto Facebook every single night and be guaranteed of hilarious(ish) updates from friends, news from pages I’ve ‘liked’ and even just communication.

Why?
Personally, I don’t possess much interest in news or current affairs, and so my reasons for picking up a newspaper are limited unless I happen to feel like seeing what’s happening. If I desire news, I am more likely to obtain it from Facebook or a quick Google search, or simply asking my family and friends.

Additionally, I’ve have a solid habit of accessing Facebook and Tumblr, and other new media forms on a frequent basis. As well as taking up time that could be used on old media, I favour new media for both informative and entertainment purposes. All these reasons result in a nice chunk of blue wedge that makes me very hip, trendy, and up-to-the-minute, if not slightly uneducated.

Patterns:
In my media use diary, it’s pretty clear how I favour new media. My use of old media is scattered and unpredictable, and usually just depends on what I feel like at the time. Conversely, my use of new media is daily and often constant, and I spend, on average, over six hours per day indulging in it.




What?
Finally, my excessive online use reveals itself. While most of my peers spend 2-4 hours online per day, I am part of less than 5% of us who sit on the blagoblag for five to six hours (as indicated by the red text), at an average of 5.1 hours per day. If only I resisted the urge to check my newsfeed, I could have dropped down to the lovely purple wedge and been a little less ashamed. Considering over 77% of my media use is new media and of that mostly online, it’s a little comforting… maybe everyone else is simply drooling over the ham radio for 5 hours a day.

Why?
The reason everyone is accessing the internet for at least one a day is as simple as the Web 2.0 phenomenon. If we don’t log on for at least a short amount of time, we feel disconnected and cut off from our social groups and in essence the world. While some people don’t even have Facebook and are using the internet solely for studying, it’s still a vital part of our everyday lives and a mere 3.2% of JOUR1111 students go without at least an hour per day. 3.6% require (or desire) over six hours, and the observation that more people are extreme internet users than limited internet uses reinforces my notion that we all love to connect online.

Patterns:
While the only pattern we can assume from the survey results is that most of the students connect for a few hours, my media diary reveals more detailed patterns of my own. It can be noted that nearly every day I access Facebook, Tumblr and some mode of personal finance. In the course of a note, you can deduct that I check my Facebook, do a bit of tumbling and check and work on my money. About every second day I use Blogger for uni, and this simply comes down to the fact that I don’t have something valuable to blog about every day.



What?
Of all those who completed the survey, it’s as obvious as a fish slapping your face that Facebook’s a hit. General surfing and browsing, emailing and study also ranked up, and I’m a bit taken aback that only 10% of JOUR1111 students are avid tweeters.

Why?
While previously I assumed that some people must be studying for hours a day to result in such high levels of internet use survey-wide, I am corrected. Nearly 92% of JOUR1111 students spend most of their time on Facebook, which is handy because we can all have a chat online about how we should be studying. General surfing and browsing is a popular pastime of prod-users, and the significant emailing figure can again be attributed to Web 2.0’s introduction of frequent online communication. As a lot of study is only possible, and sometimes just easier, online, this explains why almost half of those surveyed recurrently use the internet for studying purposes.

Patterns:
Although the sites I access vary slightly from day to day, I roughly use the same sites every day and for around the same lengths of time. This comes down to my habitual relationship with journalism and communication media, which will be fully explained later.



What?
For once, I’m part of the in-crowd, as I too consider Facebook as my second home like the other 91.9% of my peers. I’m not a huge downloader at all, as reflected in the empty columns for streaming and downloading activities. Only 5.6% of those surveyed played LAN games, so again I’m in the majority with those that don’t (I prefer my gaming handheld and 90s’esque, hello Simpsons Road Rage on GBA). I bank a little, shop a little, and study a little, and these activities aren’t hugely frequent among my peers either. Although I’m only online for study purposes 5.5% of the time, I’m only studying part-time too, so don’t you judge me.

Why?
Firstly, my nonexistent downloading and streaming results can be attributed to my personal preference. I simply prefer to watch DVDs that I own or listen to music already on my iPod (I’m lazy and also have an incredibly shoddy internet connection at home).

I don’t really feel inclined to create a Skype, as, not surprisingly, I just turn to Facebook or sometimes phone calls to connect with friends near and far. My peers use email about half as much as they’re on Facebook, while I use it significantly less as clearly evident on the above graph. This is because I can frequently check all of my accounts on my phone or while I’m at home, and I do, because of my craving to be constantly connected to everything and everyone. Similarly, I don’t ever have a general browse of the internet, because I know exactly what I want to do when I log in – obviously Facebook, perusing blogs, and just maybe a bit of study.

Patterns:
The above graph illustrates the typical online use for me on any given day. Although taken from averages, by referring to my media use diary you can see that I always spend a great deal of time on Facebook, quite a bit on Tumblr, a bit on Blogger for study, and Twitter in short bursts.




 What?
The results from the peer media survey showed that the great majority of students didn't have a single Twitter when answering the survey. I lay in the 1.8% minority (as indicated by the red text) that had 2 Twitter accounts, although this isn't to say I spent more time than them using the outlet. By viewing my personal media use diary, it can be seen that I only accessed Twitter twice over the 10-day period, and the most time I spent in one day tweeting was 15 minutes, which is a very insignificant amount of my time spent online.

Why?
I have a personal Twitter as well as my university Twitter. As there is a notable chunk for the 1 account sector, it may be assumed that respondents were referring to a single personal Twitter and excluding their new uni Twitter (for personal reasons or because they hadn’t yet created it). In opposition, they may have only had their uni Twitter and recorded this as owning 1; or (again, if they were yet to create it), they would have selected the 0 option.

Patterns:
To examine Twitter patterns, I will be referring to my own use of Twitter. I only logged on to the site twice in the 10-day period, for 15 minutes and again for 8. I rarely use Twitter, and when I do I don’t find it necessary to spend more than a few minutes on it. This reflects both in the graph of my personal online use and also in that of my peers, suggesting we are all a bit hesitant or easily bored by the platform, or simply don’t need to use it heaps.




What?
Again, I lay in a minority. How individual of me. Most people didn’t have any blogs, 28.9% had one, and I was part of the 9.7% that had two. From my personal media use diary, it can be observed that on average I spend 98.3 minutes online per day on my blogs, and 82.7% of this is my personal Tumblr and only 17.3% on my JOUR1111 blog.

Why?
The same question can be posed as with the Twitter scenario; when answering the survey, did people take into consideration both personal and university blogs, and had they even created the latter? As a substantial 58.6% stated they had no blogs, it can be assumed they were yet to create their JOUR1111 blog. This raises questions about the 1 wedge, though –were the people who said they owned one blog referring to a personal or academic blog? From this chart alone, it is impossible to tell.

Patterns:
I frequently used both of my blogs in a very obvious pattern. I use my Tumblr every single day for 81.3 minutes on average, and my JOUR1111 Blogger for around 17, although I have days off from this blog.





What?
As expected, 89.1% of respondents choose to listen to music through an iPod or similar ‘smart’ device, as do I. A close 74.1% use their computer, and just 42.8% actually use the radio. 27.5% still use CDs which surprises me, and interestingly 6.3% use some other brand of mp3 player.

Why?
Everyone loves Apple. That’s it. The convenience and accessibility of an iPod, iPhone or similar smart phone is quicker, easier and often more fun for users of music media. Both the iPod and Radio wedges may be part of the in-car music access as depicted later on. Online streaming and the ever-popular iTunes can be credited for three quarters of us using our computer to listen to music, and as part of the CD-to-iTunes journey, this sector can be linked with the grey CD sector.

Patterns:
It’s not tricky to tell how and why I like my music by taking a squiz at my media use diary. I listen to my iPod most days and for a decent amount of time, most often whilst commuting. Like the car radio, I use my iPod as a time-filler to entertain myself while travelling, rather than just as a leisure pursuit in my spare time.




OLD MEDIA



What?
Take that excessive media use, I’m finally in a majority that isn’t up the top of the scale. 29.9% of JOUR1111 students are like me, watching around 1-2 hours of TV per day, and generally I favour comedy programming over others, sometimes tuning in to reality shows. 26.9% follow closely behind, watching less than one hour per day.

Why?
It’s interesting to note that most people either watch no TV at all, or at least an hour. It is likely that once they start watching, they watch an entire episode or two that they have specifically planned to watch, rather than just sit down and channel surfing for the night. This is true in my case, as a few patterns are evident in my diary. I watch the same comedy programs for a few nights on GEM, and the same reality program for the next few nights on Channel Ten. Mostly I go to 7 for news, which is my primary news source for when I rarely want it.

Pattern:
There is not a broad pattern to my television viewing, but some patterns occur over time spans of a few days. On Sunday the 18th, I balanced some documentary viewing with the same length of comedy, while I watched GEM for two consecutive days later in the week and TEN for two days also. Another pattern of my television use is that I generally prefer to watch comedies, and occasionally news; the atypical 40 minute figure for Saturday the 24th was the QLD election coverage.




What?
Like 82.9% of respondents, I listen to radio primarily in the car and this can be seen in my media use diary. Interestingly, while the majority of students only access this form of broadcast journalism while travelling, the other means of listening are in roughly the same proportions.  8.3% use their phone, 12.5% stream online from home and 12% favour a digital radio, while 10.2% use god knows what (do they sit inside the radio’s studio? Like seriously, how else do you listen to radio besides a car, phone or an actual radio?! Who has non-digital radios anymore anyway… cavemen).

Why?
Radio, although sustainable, is not a hugely popular form of media. This explains why most of us tend to just turn on the ol’ radio waves while we’re sitting bored in the car, as opposed to curling up at home tuning in for the nightly serials.

Pattern:
I admit it; I’m your common car-listener. It takes me about 25 minutes to be driven to work, and twice I opted for Nova 106.9. Another day on a short 5-minute drive up to the shops, I listened to B105. I don’t have radio favourites, it simply depends on which one’s playing good music and isn’t broadcasting Frank Walker from National Tiiiiiles.






Cue: ‘The Bold and the Beautiful’ theme song
Our terribly dramatic relationships with JAC

It’s all about me:
My relationship with media is a strong and consistent one. There is not a single day that I’m not dependent on some form of media for at least a few hours, whether it’s bludging at home on Facey until 2 a.m. or quickly updating my JOUR1111 blog before getting the scoop on the election. While I am definitely dependent on journalism and communication outlets, they are just as dependent on me; a symbiotic relationship is shaped due to both my consumption and creation of media.

Watching television, listening to radio and reading the newspaper – all old media forms – are limited to being consumers, in most cases (excluding talkback radio and editorials, etc.). But I only access old media 22.5% of the time; the rest of my media use is spent adding comments on Facebook, updating my Twitter with hilarious anecdotes, reblogging all of my favourite images on Tumblr and writing content for this blog that’s not quite side-splitting.

It is difficult to determine the exact ratio between my media consumption and creation, unless I was to log everything I read versus everything I created which is a tad too obsessive, even for me. On the whole, I believe that although I consume a great deal of new media and some old media, I generate enough journalism and communication matter to replenish what I’ve devoured.

And the other 99%?
Although the rest of my peers possess a similar relation to JACS as I do, all of the graphs above, although initially shameful for me, illustrate that there is a slight trend to consume more than create. Most of the students surveyed didn’t have a blog, or a Twitter, so their only new media production outlet was Facebook which acts both as a media provider and accepter.

The general pattern is growing though – that old media, while informative, is tedious and not as interactive as people want. People are more inclined to use new media, even if just for journalism consumption, as there is the option to network and contribute should they fancy to. To receive the quality and speed of media that they want, my peers and society in general yearn to have their say and let the wide world know.

Maybe I’m just ahead of the times (being incredibly hip and jiggy with it as usual). I almost have a daily conversation with media – I add my input to the online conversation that is journalism, and it responds by providing me with output to work with and enjoy. The more others join in, the more there is to share, and the online empire grows as Web 3.0 sneaks in and the focus slowly transfers to individuals.

19.3.12

Shitty coffee, shitty metaphor.

Week 2 – a second dose of UQ, a second attempt at making awkward conversation with strangers, a second chance to mock people buying half-strength skinny cappuccinos (it’s freaking warm skim milk).

In my JOUR1111 lecture this week, we got stuck into web iterations and the effect and challenges of online progression on the news. Mass communication or “old media”, like newspapers, radio and TV, was no match for the bodacious “brochure-ware” of the advertising friendly, company-focused Web 1.0. The Information Web won that round, but when we moved on to the New Media of Web 2.0, my boxing metaphor only continued. Known as the “social web”, platforms like Facebook, Skype and Twitter allow the focus to be shifted to social groups. “Prod-users”, a term coined in 2005 by QUT’s Alex Bruns, were the new content-creaters and reigning champions.

Just when we all thought it couldn’t get any more brutal or complex, out came the notion of Web 3.0 – the “semantic web”. Meta tagging and geotagging packed a punch, resulting in a severe case of hyperlocalisation and specific content delivery for the modern web user.




(Hint: meta tags work heaps  better when zoomed in on at a slight tilt.)


Observing journalists were now concerned about the death of journalism itself, as people felt entitled to news. My lecturer made the call that paywalls are hitting the newspapers, much to the reluctance of new consumers.

I left that lecture feeling a bit battered myself, wondering if there was any point continuing to study a dying trade, and wondering why I can’t just write a normal recount like everyone else.


In my quest for further investigation into paywalls, I found an article by Russell Adams of The Wall Street Journal highlighting the struggle. See 'Newspapers Put Faith in Paywalls' for more.

When news is dodgier than The Courier Mail...

During one of my crazy loosey-goosey hardcore days, I was watching ABC3 and a program called BTN came on. In a nutshell, this show presents shortened stories of recent news, tidbits that aren't that important or well-known so as to appear on prime time news presentations or in newspapers.

One story talked about how when the news gets it wrong and puts forward false claims that jeopardise your reputation, you can appeal to the Australian Communications and Media Authority or ACMA for regulation.

Sure, the example they used was a kid wrongly accused of picking his nose, but they got the point across... and I guess the example would be suitable for the audience of ages 8 to 13 that they were expecting.

Basically, I didn't even know that besides the weather, the news could actually get it WRONG. Let alone there was a service that victims of poor reporting could access. I put on my Holmes cap and decided to have a bit of a sleuth once Backyard Science came on.

It's the ACMA's duty to regulate online, broadcast and mobile content as well as enforcing the anti-spam law... which frankly has backfired in the case of my suspended Twitter. I guess it's the thought that counts, and overall there'd be people in a pickle if the ACMA wasn't there to crackdown on dodgy news.

The News of the World incident is a major example of the success of this service, but unlike Uncle Rupert I'm going to tread very lightly when I start reporting. I freak out when people look through my phone so I'm definitely not planning on hacking theirs... plus, I don't know any super-computer-techy people.

For more, see http://www.acma.gov.au.