IDEATING (MODULE 1)

 

WEEK 2

The first tutorial came as a bit of a shock for Adam and I as we didn’t have an idea what a DA (digital artefact) was or what was expected of us to make one. As the tutorial went on, I began brainstorming and thought of making an Instagram account and uploading videos to it but struggled to find a theme to work with and came to the conclusion that it’d also be a lot of time and effort spent making them every week. Adam and I then began thinking of a collaborative project we could make.

WEEK 3

During the tutorial, Adam and I came up with the idea of making a podcast as from talking to other members of the class it seemed like a lesser used idea compared to Instagram posts or YouTube videos. We started thinking of doing a podcast after we had to start doing a 2 minute ‘emotional history’ audio piece for our journalism class (JRNL102) and realised we both enjoyed working with audio. The only problem was we couldn’t quite find a direction with it but had an idea to have it with our friends as guests debating.

WEEK 4

DEBATABLE

We settled on the direction and name for our podcast – DEBATABLE. Our plan is to set up debates with our friends to see the way that people from different backgrounds can have different viewpoints on issues such as politics, religion, and other controversial and/or current issues from around the world, leaving nothing off limits and allowing a lot of freedom for both us as hosts and the guests.

 

We plan on releasing it fortnightly so we have enough time to edit it and upload it and everything. There’s no real plan for how long the podcasts will go for but they will run for under 30 minutes so it can run smoothly.

 

The idea behind the podcast is to just get a general idea of the different kinds of people who study or are connected to UOW. Living at Campus East it makes it easy to find a variety of different people to feature on it such as exchange students and people from all around Australia.

 

Fast – the making of podcasts isn’t overly hard.

Inexpensive – as we already have the required equipment (microphone, audio interface, DAW) the project won’t require any spending.

Simple – the concept of a podcast isn’t overly challenging, with the biggest worry being editing, which we are both capable of doing without any trouble.

Tiny – a >30-minute podcast is easy to make over 2 weeks.

Confidentiality

What’s confidentiality in journalism?

 

In journalism, there’s always an option to decline information from a source unless they agree to be identified. As soon as you’ve agreed not to reveal them, you’re can’t break your word, as doing so will lose the trust of those you interview and your credibility in the journalism field. This raises the concept of confidentiality, one of the most crucial areas of journalism ethics.

 

Accepting non-attributable information is the most common example of confidentiality. There must be trust but also integrity when dealing with confidentiality, as you’ve promised to keep them anonymous and you have to trust the source is credible.

 

 

 

Breaking confidentiality

 

Is it ok to give up your source?

In some cases, yes. “Courts have the right to demand journalists reveal their sources if ‘disclosure is necessary to the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime”. (Pearson, M, 2014)

 

Failing to comply with this demand may lead to fines and/or imprisonment for contempt. In some cases, journalists refuse to name sources and take their jail time.

 

 

What about in other circumstances?

Many journalists see confidentiality as unbreakable, no matter the situation. But ultimately, in some cases, journalists may feel a moral need to break confidentiality in order to do the ‘right thing’.

For example, in Northern Ireland in 1999, a journalist named Nick Martin-Clark had an interview with the imprisoned Clifford George McKeown. During the interview, McKeown told Martin-Clark about a separate crime he had committed – the murder of an innocent taxi driver 5 years earlier. This forced Clark to either go back on his word of confidentiality and help the family come to justice or let McKeown get away with the crime. He chose the former, which lost him his trustworthiness as a journalist and forced him into witness protection. But he argued it was “morally correct and in public interest to bring it to the police, no matter the consequence“.

 

The biggest problem with confidential sources is having to try to ensure you don’t name them to anyone, no matter what is said or to lose your trustworthiness as a journalist.

 

You can read more about Martin-Clarkes decision here.

 

How important is confidentiality?

In the MEAA (Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance) Journalists Code of Ethics, the 3^rd listed ethic reads “Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.” (meaa.org, 2018).

‘One of the few accepted absolutes in journalism is that confidential sources must be protected’ – John Wilson, former editorial policy controller of the BBC.

 

Confidential sources often enable journalists to get information relating to stories of public interest, making confidentially an essential tool for journalists.

 

Shield laws

One way that journalists can help to keep their sources confidential is through shield laws. Shield laws have been introduced into 6 of Australia’s 9 jurisdictions – at a federal level and in the ACT, NSW, WA, Tasmania, and Victoria. The law prevents journalists from having to reveal or testify against their sources in court, especially when it may endanger or put the source at risk.

 

Sources

 

Bradely, S, 2013. Australia’s shield laws, state by state. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/australia-journalist-protection-shield-laws. [Accessed 10 May 2018]

 

Keeble, R, 2008. Ethics for Journalists, 2^nd Edition, pp. 95 [Accessed 7 May 2018]

 

Martin-Clarke, N, 2003. Why I betrayed a source. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-i-betrayed-a-source-wck5rbtpxfx. [Accessed 5 May 2018]

 

Pearson, M & Polden M, 2014. The Journalists Guide to Media Law, 5^th Edition, pp. 99, 100, 302 [Accessed 7 May 2018]

 

Smith, S, 2010. Media Ethics Case Study: Nick Martin-Clark Broke Source Confidentiality Agreement. [Case Study] Available at: https://www.imediaethics.org/media-ethics-case-study-nick-martin-clark-broke-source-confidentiality-agreement/. [Accessed 3 May 2018]

 

 

Public spheres

A public sphere’s best described as a place an assembly of individuals can talk and collate on ideologies and perspectives on social, cultural and political matters in an open forum. In a world which has become more technologically connected and involved, public spheres are becoming common online, especially over social media, as they allow people with similar ideas to connect from any part of the country or world.

 

Public spheres were once exclusively a physical meeting between those concerned with the same ideas but, as with everything, they have evolved with the evolution of technology. Many public spheres revolve around the internet but TV shows revolving around current affairs, such as Q and A, are also examples of public spheres.

 

The internet gives access to countless special interest sites and online forums on any topic you can think of but the most obvious and maybe most accessible online public sphere would have to be social media. In my opinion, my most used, and obvious, public sphere where issues are constantly discussed would be Facebook. Facebook groups, pages, and messages allow instant connections to people from all around the globe and make it effortless to find others with similar interests and ideas to you.

 

Personally, my most used ‘sphere’ would be Facebook groups, primarily revolving around music, although almost every group I’m involved in has constant discussions on current affairs and the way different countries are solving their different issues. Many political and social issues and opinions are shared and discussed. I believe the ability of anyone to be able to have their say, no matter their age, race, sexual preference or even location. One of the best parts of online forums is the feeling of not being judged or having to worry about how your ideals may affect a close friend’s perception of you.

 

One of the most relevant Australian issues that was a large discussion in many groups was the same-sex marriage ‘debate’, where many people shared their support for the cause and a lot of different opinions are shared. Other large issues that are often brought up involve gun laws in the US and the conflicts happening between Palestine and Israel. As in all discussions, there’s often disagreement and dispute from people with different ideas, but this is the beauty of public spheres, they allow everyone to give their own opinions and everyone else to discuss it.

 

The media does play a big role in the way public spheres work, its influence is untold a lot of what many people assume to be true or the opinions they uphold. Many arguments are proved or invalidated by the use of news articles, and although it’s not always easy to be able to know if it’s accurate, being connected over the internet makes researching topics easy.

 

Where do you think your public spheres lie? Do you think connecting over the internet is better or worse? Let me know 🙂

Can we trust the media?

It feels you can barely scroll through your Facebook feed without running into a politically charged article or status. But in the age of the internet, where information is seemingly infinite, does it matter who owns the media? Maybe for Generations X, Y and Z, it doesn’t matter so much because more often than not they have a clear understanding of how to find reliable information, but many still rely on newspapers, radio, and TV for their news.

 

Australia has an ‘oligarchical’ media ownership, meaning a small group of people controlling a large part of something, in this case, news. Strains between good intentions and personal agendas have become prevalent in media as a larger percentage of the media we consume is becoming owned by a smaller group. As our news outlets rely on this small group of billionaires and their private investment, the profitability comes the main focus and can come at the expense of professionalism and equality in reporting.

 

This something that can’t be ignored, as it is rational to assume this ownership has negative effects on Australia’s views. This can be seen through News Corp’s success at pedalling a negative opinion of the Rudd/Gillard Labour Government before the 2013 election. A lack of diversity in media, as seen in this case, is dangerous.  Another large problem with the media being in this position is the illusion that many believe they have a choice when it comes to the media, when in fact, radio stations, television networks, newspapers are often linked together.

 

 

The fact that Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp and Fairfax Media were reportedly responsible for 86% of newspaper sales in Australia in 2013, shows just how easily the influence of a few can spread to many. Who ‘owns’ and ‘controls’ media in Australia and to what extent is primarily an issue which should concern society.

 

 

Having to question the media’s reliability is a worrying idea to entertain, but being oblivious to the threat is even worse. Consumers of media aren’t so much dependant on their news sources, yet media ownership and the ideologies they bring, and the ‘control’ that owners have on opinions, is definitely a reason for concern and debate.

 

I think the important thing is that there be plenty of newspapers with plenty of different people controlling them, so that there’s a variety of viewpoints, so there’s a choice for the public. This is the freedom of the press that is needed. Freedom of the press mustn’t be one-sided just for a publisher to speak as he pleases, to try and bully the community.
— ABC, Five Australians: Rupert Murdoch, 25th July, 1967

 

References 

Australian Government, (2018). Media Interests Snapshot. [image] Available at: http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/media-interests-snapshot [Accessed 22 Mar. 2018].

The Conversation. (2018). FactCheck: does Murdoch own 70% of newspapers in Australia?. [online] Available at: https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-murdoch-own-70-of-newspapers-in-australia-16812 [Accessed 21 Mar. 2018]

Broadsheet (2014). Meanwhile, Down Under. [image] Available at: http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/17/meanwhile-down-under-2/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2018].

 

What do you think is there?

The study of semiotics was developed by Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Pierce in relation to the connection between ‘what’s there’ on a literal level (denotation) and the personal factors which the viewer of the image uses to interpret ‘what is there’ (connotation). Semiotics can be seen in many places – advertising, art, and entertainment are all examples, as it’s only the producer of the ‘sign/s’ own spin but also gives the consumer who’s experiencing it to be able to connect their own meaning to it.

 

The connotation of an image can greatly change when its context is revealed. This image is a strong example of this as it can be easily looked at in two separate ways. Firstly, just by its denotation, it resembles a largely magnified version of a photograph printed in a newspaper or a regular black and white painting, of a woman, painted slightly unevenly and erratically. Personally, I found this image quite interesting, her facial expression almost slightly smug yet still holds a peculiar look to it.

 

 

Learning the context behind it quickly turns this imagine sinister. The picture of the woman is the mug shot of a convicted child murder (Myra Hindley), was painted by a mold made from the hand of an infant, explaining why the painting technique looks so patchy. This adds a twisted and grotesque connotation to the painting.

 

The image was obviously met with backlash and many saw it as insensitive and sickening, but the ghastly context to the image also adds a lot of character to it and allows the viewer to add a lot of their own interpretation. It’s shocking of course, but the shock value of it adds so much to the power and meaning as Hindley’s face is constructed from the handprints of the children similar to her victims, echoing an impression she’s marked by her crimes and will never erase the traces of the victims.

 

By appropriating and enhancing the mug shot, the artist relays an already striking image into Hindley’s manic, representing an “Innocence absorbed in all that pain” according to Harvey.

 

What do you think of the painting? Is it ‘sick’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘insensitive’? Or do you think there’s more to it?

 

References

Walker, J. (1998). Marcus Harvey’s ‘Sick, disgusting’ painting of Myra Hindley: A Semiotic Analysis. Tate Magazine, (14), pp.56-57. [Accessed 15th March]

1995 depiction of Myra Hindley by the British Young Artist Marcus Harvey. [image] Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myra_(painting)#/media/File:Marcus-Harvey-Myra.jpg [Accessed 15th March]

 

Intro

I’m Hamish, and this is my blog I’ll be using while I complete a Bachelor of Communications and Media, and I learn more about the media around us and the way in which it affects us. There’s probably not a lot more that’s relevant to this post but I hope you enjoy the blog.