OBAMA RETURNED

Barack Obama’s victory last night came as a huge relief to me; after seeing Romney creep up in the polls following Obama’s woeful performance in the first presidential debate, I was filled with a sense of unease for the future of the United States.  Were Americans really so short sighted that they really believed Obama could turn around their ailing economy in ONE term?  They gave the clearly inept George W. Bush two whole terms to destroy their economy, involve them in two unnecessary wars in the middle east, and rack up the nation’s debt to over $11 trillion dollars. So when the man who inherits this mess of a country cannot fix it all in a ridiculously short amount of time, the only solution that is fathomable is to return governance to the very party that got them in this mess in the first place? The fact that Romney and Obama were so closely tied in the popularity polls absolutely dumbfounded me.  I’m sure Romney wasn't a terrible guy, he seemed fairly moderate by Republican standards, but the prospect of those Tea Party crazies in control was a terrifying thought to me. I am glad that, in the end, the American public did the right thing and gave Obama another four years to prove his worth.

WEEK 12

Dr Bruce Redman concluded this semester’s lectures by talking about investigative journalism.  As I thought this would be one of the more interesting lectures of the semester, I was surprised to find that my mind tended to wander a bit during this presentation. The five in-words (intuitive, inside) slide felt a little contrived, and most of the lecture felt like a retread of previously talked about ideas (journalists being the fourth estate/watchdog, reports being  in public interest, and the importance of the ABC to be balanced and methodical in its journalistic conduct).  It featured a couple of ace quotes such as the one from Lord Foothill, and it was nice to see activist John Pilger get a substantial mention for his illuminating documentary on the Afghanistan/Iraq wars which I caught on television a couple of years ago. 

Perhaps it was because I found the two previous lectures of such a high quality and interest, but today ended the subject on a bit of a whimper for me.  Much of the information was material I was quite knowledgable about and I heard the joke about using research methods other than Google and Wikipedia all throughout high school...except they were deadly serious.   I don’t want to detract from the general high quality of the lectures throughout this semester, but this was quite disappointing and did not add to my knowledge of  ‘investigative journalism’  in the slightest.

MISOGYNY MUDSLING

The way that Gillard's 'misogyny speech' has been received in the media has cause me some disbelief.  I'm not an Abbott supporter by any means but Gillard's 15 minute attack on him (views currently in the millions on youtube) was, in my eyes, opportunistic and unjustified. I am no fan of the opposition leader: his world view is cringe-inducingly old fashioned, he is verbally inarticulate, and his whole career has been built on responding negatively to every policy the Labor government has introduced. But there is nothing out there that suggests the man is a misogynist (aka, someone with hatred towards women).  The fact that Gillard's attack has received overwhelming accolades from commentators all over the world is somewhat baffling to me: sure, to the eyes of overseas viewers with little to no knowledge of  Abbott and Gillard dynamic, this may seem like a courageous win for oppressed women finally putting chauvinistic men in their place. But the fact is that Abbott has really not done anything wrong. Sure he's arrogant, sure he's disrepectful, and sure he will probably become the worst leader Australia has ever lived under when he inevitably takes office in 2013. The whole situation makes me sick to the stomach: are politicians willing to throw any mud that sticks in order to score a cheap political point these days? The recent polls are suggesting this has worked in the Labor party's favour, with Gillard at her highest approval rating in months. Looks like superficial spectacle once again pays off.

WEEK 11

Today’s lecture on ‘Agenda setting’ was perhaps my favourite so far for the whole semester. Picking up where we left off last week with ‘News Values’, ‘Agenda setting’ is the theory (not fact) that media corporations take certain positions on issues in order to further their own political agendas; for example, Fox News in the US (a right wing slanted news channel) will selectively choose facts from the recent Romney-Obama debates to paint Romney in a positive light so he can win the election; in constrast NBC being more left wing and moderate will do the same thing for Obama. Redman made the point that agenda setting generally only works effectively when trying to say the fence sitters; people who have their minds made up on a certain issue will usually stick to that opinion. He also emphasised that images play an important role in shaping the minds of the public, such as unforgettable image of the plane penetrating the WTC during September 11 attacks.   At one point Redman took a trip back to the 1930s when Leni Reifenstahl and Adolf Hitler exploited the limits of propaganda to influence the masses.

Later on in the lecture Redman mentioned Lindsey Tanner’s argument that media was being dumbed down; he went on to say that he would take Tanner more seriously if he spoke candidly about the Rudd coup; I completely agreed with Redman that Tanner should spill all as this mysterious event had never properly been set straight in the eyes of the Australian public. What was more interesting was that Redman said that he knew the real story because one of his former students was a intern with Rudd government during this chaotic time.  I was keen to hear more tidbits but they didn’t come. Redman wrapped up by talking about evolution of opinion on climate change and how Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was a complete game changer in influencing the opinions of Australian politicians; I enjoyed the subtle digs at climate change skeptic/right wing hack Andrew Bolt. An amazing lecture today, looking forward to next week’s!

WEEK 9

Today was a return to normality with Dr Bruce Redman once again taking the reins as lecturer. The focus of this lecture was ‘News Values’; Redman used the ‘newlessness’ of this weekend to outline his slightly existentialist point of what be the headlining stories if no real newsworthy stories were happening in the world. If there had been no protests in Sydney and Kate Middleton nude photos hadn’t leaked what would be the front page story?  This segued in Redman’s point that millions of events are happening throughout the world on any given day, but that newspapers often select stories to suit their own preferences: the emphasis on celebrity in the case of Kate Middleton, selection of stories that pack an impact, if the story is of interest to the news broadcaster’s identified audience, as well as local news being given preference.  Redman’s examination of certain story ‘angles’ was interesting, demonstrating that news programs tend to gravitate towards stories with predictability and simplicity, rather than complex topics such as conflicts in Palestine. 

The final part of Redman’s presentation briefly looked at the tabloidisation of newspapers, with the hiring of lazy, incompetent journalists; Redman made brief mention of the News of the World scandal and what was likely to happen to Newscorp once Murdoch died.  An interesting idea Redman had was that Google may eventually become a major provider for news...I’m not sure exactly how I feel about that.  The lecture concluded on a slightly depressing note with Redman analysing the future of the news and how trashy programs like Today Tonight are very popular in the community but do not sufficiently report what is happening in the world. However programs such as these get big audience numbers, which in turn influence the decisions of news executives to produce more junk rather than substantial news stories.

WEEK 8

Donna Meiklejohn was the guest speaker this week and did an amazing job addressing the broad topic of ethics in the media.  Meiklejohn condensed a lot of points into her hour long presentation, and began by showing some examples of advertisements that treaded the line of what was considered acceptable and unacceptable in public broadcasting.  While I found none of the examples downright offensive (in fact some were quite clever), I found the stereotyping and sexist nature of the Jim Beam ad particularly cringe inducing.  After this amusing beginning Meiklejohn got down to business. Detailing an early experience in her journalistic career where she was pressured by her editor into doing a death knock on a bereaved mother, Meiklejohn found the whole situation pushed the boundaries of her personal moral compass: Was it ethical for Meiklejohn to pressure a woman who had tragically lost her three young children into doing an interview just so she could save her own job?  

Meiklejohn also outlined terms such as ‘deontology’ (following the rules), ‘consequentialism’ (the end justifying the means) and ‘virtue ethics’ (your actions as a journalist aligning with your own personal morals) in relation to journalism, which were all interesting concepts. Other interesting topics touched upon were the Fitzgerald inquiry of the 1980s and the Finklestein Inquiry of the present day, as well as an in depth analysis of various media codes and the issue of ‘the public interest’. This was a fascinating and informative presentation and I found Donna Meiklejohn a very  entertaining lecturer.