So there's this thing that I've been doing for a while.
Some people think it's really, really ridiculously important. Some people don't. Some people hate it, some people love it. Some people are incredible at it, and some people are just plain awful.
I'm talking, of course, about university.
In some ways, university is great. You get to meet a lot of people, you're constantly learning, the atmosphere is usually pretty good, and honestly, you can have a pretty swell time if you're doing it right. I've met a lot of really great people who have really enriched my life, and I couldn't be happier about that.
In saying that, there are some pretty big problems that a lot of uni students experience. Here are at least a few:
Financial Concerns
I know more than a few people who have had serious financial worries while trying to study.
It's not even just paying for the degrees, because in Australia you can usually defer the payment to HECS and pay off your debt later on, it's just the actual cost of living. The ABC wrote an article about this year, stating that two thirds of university students are living under the poverty line, and I'm not even surprised. Many of the people that I have studied with have admitted to having to choose between fuel to get to uni, and food, because they have very little money left after they've finished paying their bills. I've known people who've dropped out of their degrees because they just couldn't afford to do it anymore.
Most university degrees are between three and four years long, with some being much longer. It's hard to stay in a state of poverty for that long when you know that it doesn't have to be that way. I've been lucky with my casual job because it pays pretty well and the hours are fairly flexible. But it also took me six months to find a job when I first moved across the country for university. Unfortunately, it's a story that I've heard far too many times with my colleagues. It is not uncommon to not be able to find a job. It's not necessarily that the work isn't there, but if you have an intensive course with lots of homework, classes, tutorials, practicals, and placements, you aren't going to have a lot of time leftover for a job. Employers know this. So even though they're interested in you because you're usually over the age of eighteen and have said that you will be studying for 3+ years, it can be difficult to find a job with suitable hours for your university schedule. Especially since that schedule will change every semester.
Motivation
Here's the situation: you have classes everyday from 9am until 4pm, as soon as you finish classes you rush to your (probably low paying) casual job that you were fortunate enough to get, where you work until 10pm. After work you go home where you can finally have a shower, wash your clothes, and have dinner. You have no time to relax though, now you have to get stuck into your coursework before another full day of classes tomorrow. You finish your work at 2am, flop into bed and are instantly asleep. You wake up to the sound of your alarm, feeling like mere minutes have passed, to begin the cycle again.
You hit the snooze button instead.
That's where it begins. That snooze button. Prioritising sleeping over classes. Soon you find that you don't want to go to your classes, you can't be bothered, it's too hard.
Don't worry though, you aren't lazy (well, you might be but that is a whole different story), you're probably experiencing burnout. Burnout is basically when you're working so hard that you're constantly tired and just straight up lose interest. You've been overworking your body and your body has hit the point of no return. A lot of people experience burnout in their full time jobs, but it can hit uni students just as hard (if not harder). Because of the intense and stressful nature of the university lifestyle, a lot of students can experience extreme burnout. It can happen early in the degree or later in the degree, but to some extent, it will probably affect all uni students. When it happens, the motivation is just gone, and it's hard to compel yourself to go to classes when all you want to do is sleep and recover.
I've seen it take more than a few people. Resulting in poor attendance, poor grades, or just dropping out. It happens a lot, and at this point in time, there really isn't that much that we can do about it. You can try relaxation techniques and the like, but if you're stressing out, that'll probably just feel like you're wasting time that you could be using for other activities. The best way to reduce burnout is to try and balance uni life, work life, and social life. It isn't easy, but it needs to be done.
Overactive Social Lives
I've noticed this a fair bit around campus. Especially in students in the 18-25 year old range that live on campus. If you have school leavers, and young people who have moved out for the first time, they tend to get drunk on freedom (also alcohol). University is a very freeing experience, and is designed for independence, but if you don't know how to handle the freedom, you're in for a bad time.
I've seen students come to class in their pyjamas. I've seen them in the same clothes they wore the day before. I've seen them hungover. I've seen them drunk. I have seen them in almost every possible capacity and it usually follows this basic formula:
Start university with the intention of doing well
+ Make new friends and go out more
+ Uni work gets pushed aside and left until the last minute
= Assignments are rushed, or not handed in at all
= Failure of subjects
It's a real shame to see it happen. I understand the appeal. You want to have a good time, you want to spend time with your friends, you want to make your own decisions regardless of the consequences. But you're hurting yourself. You will have to repeat any subjects that you failed and you'll still have to pay for it. You won't have as good an understanding of the subject matter as your classmates who regularly went to class and consistently worked on assignments.
It can be especially hard for students that live on campus in dorms and such, because there are usually activities going on, or your neighbours will be doing stuff, or it'll be loud, or whatever. But you need to buckle down and say no. It's not worth failing your degree.
I'm not saying that students shouldn't go out and have fun, that would cause burnout as I mentioned above, it's just about doing things in moderation.
I guess that we can all only do our best. Some of us aren't meant to do university, and that's fine. Some of us are perfectly suited for university, and that's fine too. University can be a great place to make friends, study, and even learn about who you are and who you want to be. You just have to walk through the minefield of problems associated with tertiary education and hope that your degree and your hard work will take you to where you want to go.
Note: I am not claiming to be an expert. This post is purely based on observation. Also, it should be stated for the record that this does not necessarily apply to all university students/students may experience these things in differing quantities.
Monday, 7 October 2013
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Pitching Stories
Story pitches are how we sell our stories, and ourselves, to employers. This means that pitches need to be strong and convincing. Before pitching a story, you need to know what you want to write about and have at least done the groundwork for the story including finding and talking to sources and finding information. It is vitally important to have a clear goal and a strong angle for your story, especially if it has been covered before.
Here are some of the things that need to be considered when creating a pitch:
Publication - who do you want to publish this story? Are they the most relevant publication? Do you think that the publication has the best medium to tell your story?
Length - How long is the story going to be?
News values - Why should the public care about the story?
Sources - Are your sources appropriate for your story? Will they give you the best information? Do they have any sort of agenda that could impact upon your story? Are they happy to be credited or do they want anonymity? If they do want anonymity, is there somebody else that you can talk to who will give you the information who is fine with being credit?
And most importantly:
The actual story that you will be writing - What is it about? Who is it about? When did it happen? Where did it happen? What is the angle? Are there similar stories in existence? If so, is your story different enough to matter? Why is it important for people to read this story?
Here are some of the things that need to be considered when creating a pitch:
Publication - who do you want to publish this story? Are they the most relevant publication? Do you think that the publication has the best medium to tell your story?
Length - How long is the story going to be?
News values - Why should the public care about the story?
Sources - Are your sources appropriate for your story? Will they give you the best information? Do they have any sort of agenda that could impact upon your story? Are they happy to be credited or do they want anonymity? If they do want anonymity, is there somebody else that you can talk to who will give you the information who is fine with being credit?
And most importantly:
The actual story that you will be writing - What is it about? Who is it about? When did it happen? Where did it happen? What is the angle? Are there similar stories in existence? If so, is your story different enough to matter? Why is it important for people to read this story?
Ethics
Let's talk ethics, folks.
We, as journalists, wield an extraordinary amount of power over other people and their opinions. Naturally, this places us in an awkward position because what we say and what we write can have huge implications. What is to stop the abuse of this power? Ethics. Well, ethics and legislation (but let's not get into that right now).
Ethics can be described in many ways but I like Edward Spence's definition "A set of prescriptive rules, principles, values and virtues of character that inform and guide interpersonal and intrapersonal conduct: that is the conduct of people toward each other and the conduct of people toward themselves."Essentially, ethics are the guiding principles that we all have inside of us. Ethics are a subjective sense of right and wrong and as such, can vary from person to person.
How does this relate to journalism?
Every time that we write a story, we need to evaluate who it will have an effect on and how profound that effect is. If something will cause somebody to lose their job but is in the greater public interest, should it be published? If something will result in the injury or death, is it still worth publishing? Is it wrong to report on somebody who has died? Is it wrong to photograph somebody attempting suicide instead of helping them? To what extent are we responsible for the actions of people affected by our stories? To what extent do we directly influence other people? Should we uphold confidentiality and anonymity even if doing so will result in justice being subverted? Why should we have this control? How can we ensure that it is not abused?
I want to say that morality is consistent and that good people are always good and that their decisions are always just... But I can't. Morality is tricky. Everybody feels it to a greater or lesser degree and it is guaranteed that people won't always agree with a decision. Yes, we all have to answer to an authority figure; the legal system, the MEAA, the APC, etc., and we have to answer to the public, but most importantly, we have to answer to ourselves. We have to ensure that, at the end of the day, we can live with the decisions that we make. That is, in my opinion, what ethics are all about. Being able to live with ourselves and the repercussions of our actions.
We, as journalists, wield an extraordinary amount of power over other people and their opinions. Naturally, this places us in an awkward position because what we say and what we write can have huge implications. What is to stop the abuse of this power? Ethics. Well, ethics and legislation (but let's not get into that right now).
Ethics can be described in many ways but I like Edward Spence's definition "A set of prescriptive rules, principles, values and virtues of character that inform and guide interpersonal and intrapersonal conduct: that is the conduct of people toward each other and the conduct of people toward themselves."Essentially, ethics are the guiding principles that we all have inside of us. Ethics are a subjective sense of right and wrong and as such, can vary from person to person.
How does this relate to journalism?
Every time that we write a story, we need to evaluate who it will have an effect on and how profound that effect is. If something will cause somebody to lose their job but is in the greater public interest, should it be published? If something will result in the injury or death, is it still worth publishing? Is it wrong to report on somebody who has died? Is it wrong to photograph somebody attempting suicide instead of helping them? To what extent are we responsible for the actions of people affected by our stories? To what extent do we directly influence other people? Should we uphold confidentiality and anonymity even if doing so will result in justice being subverted? Why should we have this control? How can we ensure that it is not abused?
I want to say that morality is consistent and that good people are always good and that their decisions are always just... But I can't. Morality is tricky. Everybody feels it to a greater or lesser degree and it is guaranteed that people won't always agree with a decision. Yes, we all have to answer to an authority figure; the legal system, the MEAA, the APC, etc., and we have to answer to the public, but most importantly, we have to answer to ourselves. We have to ensure that, at the end of the day, we can live with the decisions that we make. That is, in my opinion, what ethics are all about. Being able to live with ourselves and the repercussions of our actions.
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Dengue Fever Outbreak Prevents Blood Donation
Another outbreak of dengue fever in North Queensland has forced the Australian Red Cross Blood Service to turn away potential blood donors.
Due to the high risk of infection to recipients of blood transfusions, the Australian Red Cross Blood Service is currently unwilling to take the risk of accepting whole blood donations that could potentially carry the dengue virus.
However, plasma donations are still being accepted by viable candidates as the dengue virus does not affect plasma cells, and whole blood donations will hopefully be accepted again by late June.
Blood Service Queensland Manager Tony Bourke said "If you have been in a Dengue Fever affected area and would like to donate, we encourage you to come in and be assessed for a plasma only donation.
"Plasma is crucial to the health and wellbeing of many people and is widely used in products that treat a variety of life-threatening conditions."
Plasma is used to treat burn victims, patients with clotting problems, and can be manufactured into a variety of immunisations.
If you wish to donate please contact the Australian Red Cross Blood Service on 13 14 95 or via their website.
Due to the high risk of infection to recipients of blood transfusions, the Australian Red Cross Blood Service is currently unwilling to take the risk of accepting whole blood donations that could potentially carry the dengue virus.
However, plasma donations are still being accepted by viable candidates as the dengue virus does not affect plasma cells, and whole blood donations will hopefully be accepted again by late June.
Blood Service Queensland Manager Tony Bourke said "If you have been in a Dengue Fever affected area and would like to donate, we encourage you to come in and be assessed for a plasma only donation.
"Plasma is crucial to the health and wellbeing of many people and is widely used in products that treat a variety of life-threatening conditions."
Plasma is used to treat burn victims, patients with clotting problems, and can be manufactured into a variety of immunisations.
If you wish to donate please contact the Australian Red Cross Blood Service on 13 14 95 or via their website.
Saturday, 11 May 2013
Contempt
Let's take a quick look at contempt and the five types of contempt that journalists are most likely to encounter while working.
Contempt can be defined as disobeying or disrespecting the rules, orders and customs of a court or legislative body. Contempt can be sentenced in the middle of a hearing and does not necessarily require a separate hearing.
5. Sub-judice contempt
Sub-judice contempt consists of the publication of material that could create prejudice in an on-going trial. In the event of criminal case, journalists are restricted from publishing any information other than the "bare facts" of a case after an arrest has been made. In a civil case, this restriction is in place after the issue of a writ, statement of claim or summons.
4. Scandalising the court
Scandalising the court is the publication of allegations that can be seen to undermine the public's confidence in the justice system.
3. Revealing the deliberations of jurors
Fairly self explanatory, this is just revealing the deliberations of the jury.
2. Contempt in the face of court
Contempt in the face of court consists of misbehaving, or acting inappropriately, in a courtroom while it is in session.
1. Disobedience contempt
Disobedience contempt can be boiled down to refusing to comply with a court order. This includes refusing to answer questions, and refusing to deliver notes or other materials to a court or quasi-judicial body.
It is important to study contempt, what it means and the effect that it has on journalists so that we can avoid breaking the law while reporting.
Contempt can be defined as disobeying or disrespecting the rules, orders and customs of a court or legislative body. Contempt can be sentenced in the middle of a hearing and does not necessarily require a separate hearing.
5. Sub-judice contempt
Sub-judice contempt consists of the publication of material that could create prejudice in an on-going trial. In the event of criminal case, journalists are restricted from publishing any information other than the "bare facts" of a case after an arrest has been made. In a civil case, this restriction is in place after the issue of a writ, statement of claim or summons.
4. Scandalising the court
Scandalising the court is the publication of allegations that can be seen to undermine the public's confidence in the justice system.
3. Revealing the deliberations of jurors
Fairly self explanatory, this is just revealing the deliberations of the jury.
2. Contempt in the face of court
Contempt in the face of court consists of misbehaving, or acting inappropriately, in a courtroom while it is in session.
1. Disobedience contempt
Disobedience contempt can be boiled down to refusing to comply with a court order. This includes refusing to answer questions, and refusing to deliver notes or other materials to a court or quasi-judicial body.
It is important to study contempt, what it means and the effect that it has on journalists so that we can avoid breaking the law while reporting.
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
Iqon 2013 - Sydney International Dragway, Sydney.
Iqon 2013.
What a day.
A day full of music, drinking, dancing, fence jumpers, "pingers"*, police officers, rain, mud, sound problems and most of all extraordinary fun.
Iqon 2013 marks the launch of a brand new Australian event for Dutch dance organisation Q-dance. With wildly successful events such as Qlimax, Q-Base and Defqon.1 in both the Netherlands and Australia, and a fantastic lineup, expectations for Iqon 2013 were high and I, for one, was not disappointed.
It was a day typical of Sydney in late April; overcast, windy, and cold as hell. But nothing could dampen the spirits of the many festival goers arriving in throngs to the Sydney International Raceway though. Many people were dressed up (and dressed down) in spite of the rain and the cold and Q-dance also provided ponchos to the masses, free of charge, to combat the rainy weather.
.jpg)
The performances started with a strong set by Swedish producer, Stana, in his first Australian performance. Although the weather was against him, and he was not one of the bigger names on the list, the crowd were more than happy to party with the 23 year old newcomer.
Up next was Aussie hardstyle DJ, Code Black, who has been making waves in the scene since the release of his debut album "Visions". The crowd were basically in a frenzy as they danced to the music, including tracks such as "Brighter Day" and "Can't Hold Me Back" featuring NitrouZ. Code Black actually made two appearances in the day, stepping in later to perform with one of the other DJs.
Following Code Black was the sensational Australian duo, Toneshifterz. They absolutely nailed their set, much to the enjoyment of the crowd. The exuberance of the pair was clearly conveyed to the crowd who danced ecstatically to their favourite Toneshifterz tunes.
Dutch producer, DJ Coone, performed after Toneshifterz and his set went off. The crowd went wild while he performed and the atmosphere was palpable. It was during this set that Q-dance handed out a variety of signs to the crowd which is something that they regularly do at their events. Some of the slogans include "Never Go Home", "Lost For Words (Hence This Sign)" and the theme for this year's Defqon. 1 - "Scrap the System".
DJ Isaac and The Prophet were up consecutively after DJ Coone and rocked their sets, much to the enjoyment of the audience. It was during these performers that a group of young people attempted to sneak into the venue by jumping the fence. While it was a valiant attempt at cheating the system, the fence jumpers were chased through the crowd by police officers before being removed from the venue.
As the sun set, the big name European hardstyle producers came out in force and they were magnificent. Brennan Heart, Headhunterz, Zatox and Noisecontrollers. All four performers are major and regular players in the shows organised by Q-dance. I can say little more than that they were all fantastic performers. They knew exactly what the crowd wanted and they gave it to them. That being said, minor sound problems that had plagued the day became less minor during Headhunterz set. The sound dropped out at least five times, alternating between a few seconds and a couple of minutes at a time. As the sound kept playing up, some members of the crowd became restless but each time they started to grumble Headhunterz managed to get the sound back up and running. Eventually, the sound problems were sorted out and the show finished spectacularly.
My personal opinion is that, even with the sound problems, Q-dance should be proud of Iqon 2013 and the performers that were there. All in all, it was a wonderful event and a great launch of a new festival.
* A "pinger" is somebody who takes takes drugs, predominantly "uppers", particularly at concerts/festivals/raves.
Update - May 21st, 2013
Here is the Q-dance official after movie for Iqon 2013!
.jpg)
The performances started with a strong set by Swedish producer, Stana, in his first Australian performance. Although the weather was against him, and he was not one of the bigger names on the list, the crowd were more than happy to party with the 23 year old newcomer.
Up next was Aussie hardstyle DJ, Code Black, who has been making waves in the scene since the release of his debut album "Visions". The crowd were basically in a frenzy as they danced to the music, including tracks such as "Brighter Day" and "Can't Hold Me Back" featuring NitrouZ. Code Black actually made two appearances in the day, stepping in later to perform with one of the other DJs.
Following Code Black was the sensational Australian duo, Toneshifterz. They absolutely nailed their set, much to the enjoyment of the crowd. The exuberance of the pair was clearly conveyed to the crowd who danced ecstatically to their favourite Toneshifterz tunes.
Toneshifterz. Photographer: B. Austin
Dutch producer, DJ Coone, performed after Toneshifterz and his set went off. The crowd went wild while he performed and the atmosphere was palpable. It was during this set that Q-dance handed out a variety of signs to the crowd which is something that they regularly do at their events. Some of the slogans include "Never Go Home", "Lost For Words (Hence This Sign)" and the theme for this year's Defqon. 1 - "Scrap the System".
DJ Isaac and The Prophet were up consecutively after DJ Coone and rocked their sets, much to the enjoyment of the audience. It was during these performers that a group of young people attempted to sneak into the venue by jumping the fence. While it was a valiant attempt at cheating the system, the fence jumpers were chased through the crowd by police officers before being removed from the venue.
As the sun set, the big name European hardstyle producers came out in force and they were magnificent. Brennan Heart, Headhunterz, Zatox and Noisecontrollers. All four performers are major and regular players in the shows organised by Q-dance. I can say little more than that they were all fantastic performers. They knew exactly what the crowd wanted and they gave it to them. That being said, minor sound problems that had plagued the day became less minor during Headhunterz set. The sound dropped out at least five times, alternating between a few seconds and a couple of minutes at a time. As the sound kept playing up, some members of the crowd became restless but each time they started to grumble Headhunterz managed to get the sound back up and running. Eventually, the sound problems were sorted out and the show finished spectacularly.
Q-dance official endshow for Iqon 2013.
My personal opinion is that, even with the sound problems, Q-dance should be proud of Iqon 2013 and the performers that were there. All in all, it was a wonderful event and a great launch of a new festival.
* A "pinger" is somebody who takes takes drugs, predominantly "uppers", particularly at concerts/festivals/raves.
Update - May 21st, 2013
Here is the Q-dance official after movie for Iqon 2013!
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
Intellectual Property and Copyright
During the lecture for Media Law and Ethics we looked at the legislation and ethics regarding intellectual property and copyright in Australia.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) defines plagiarism as follows:
Plagiarism offends the values of honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others. It can occur in many ways, including (but not limited to): when secondary sources are relied on too heavily; when material from wire services is fused with the work of staff reporters; because of the ease with which words can be 'cut' and 'pasted' by computer; and when the words of a public relations copywriter are reproduced from a press release verbatim without attribution to the source.
- MEAA's Ethics Review Committee (1996)
It's important when discussing copyright and intellectual property to consider both the legal and ethical ramifications.
In Australia, legally, a person does not own an idea but the product of an idea. That is to say that even if you were to think of something, if you do not create anything from that idea then you cannot sue somebody else for stealing your idea. However, if you actually create something from an idea then it is automatically covered by copyright, even if you do not explicitly state that it is copyrighted, and remains copyrighted for 70 years after your death. In saying that, it is necessary to use moral judgement when creating content. I am not trying to justify stealing another person's ideas, creating something then going "Well, that's just too bad for you because I made something first so I am legally in the clear" because that is morally wrong. Just because you can do something and legally get away with it, that doesn't mean that you should. As stated by the MEAA, it is a matter of respect for the rights of others, if you steal other people's ideas then you are disrespecting them. Now, morality regarding intellectual property is complicated because sometimes the line is blurry about who had an idea first but that certainly does not justify removing the line altogether.
Technological advancements such as the internet have made plagiarism even more prevalent because of the overwhelming amount of content created daily and the ease with which it is possible to access that content. The thing is, because the internet is a public domain, there are problems with the concept of implied permission and express permission. Implied permission is fairly straightforward in concept, a person assumes that content is free to be used either because of how it is published or being "printer friendly" or free to "share". As a result, content is sometimes used without attribution and the argument that many people use to counter claims of plagiarism is "well, I thought that it was free to use because it didn't say that it wasn't." That does not make it okay. It is always safer to attribute credit for any work that is not your own rather than just claiming it as your own work or not crediting anybody. Express permission is when a person states that their content can be used as long as credit is attributed to them. There is no grey area as far as express permission is concerned.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) defines plagiarism as follows:
Plagiarism offends the values of honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others. It can occur in many ways, including (but not limited to): when secondary sources are relied on too heavily; when material from wire services is fused with the work of staff reporters; because of the ease with which words can be 'cut' and 'pasted' by computer; and when the words of a public relations copywriter are reproduced from a press release verbatim without attribution to the source.
- MEAA's Ethics Review Committee (1996)
It's important when discussing copyright and intellectual property to consider both the legal and ethical ramifications.
In Australia, legally, a person does not own an idea but the product of an idea. That is to say that even if you were to think of something, if you do not create anything from that idea then you cannot sue somebody else for stealing your idea. However, if you actually create something from an idea then it is automatically covered by copyright, even if you do not explicitly state that it is copyrighted, and remains copyrighted for 70 years after your death. In saying that, it is necessary to use moral judgement when creating content. I am not trying to justify stealing another person's ideas, creating something then going "Well, that's just too bad for you because I made something first so I am legally in the clear" because that is morally wrong. Just because you can do something and legally get away with it, that doesn't mean that you should. As stated by the MEAA, it is a matter of respect for the rights of others, if you steal other people's ideas then you are disrespecting them. Now, morality regarding intellectual property is complicated because sometimes the line is blurry about who had an idea first but that certainly does not justify removing the line altogether.
Technological advancements such as the internet have made plagiarism even more prevalent because of the overwhelming amount of content created daily and the ease with which it is possible to access that content. The thing is, because the internet is a public domain, there are problems with the concept of implied permission and express permission. Implied permission is fairly straightforward in concept, a person assumes that content is free to be used either because of how it is published or being "printer friendly" or free to "share". As a result, content is sometimes used without attribution and the argument that many people use to counter claims of plagiarism is "well, I thought that it was free to use because it didn't say that it wasn't." That does not make it okay. It is always safer to attribute credit for any work that is not your own rather than just claiming it as your own work or not crediting anybody. Express permission is when a person states that their content can be used as long as credit is attributed to them. There is no grey area as far as express permission is concerned.
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
Defamation
Defamation is one of the biggest risks to journalists working today.
Defamation is described as the wrongful harming or damaging of a person's reputation. Defamation suits allow for people to protect their "good name".
Three things are needed to prove an accusation of defamation:
1) Publication - make something known to another person or making it available to be known to another person.
2) Identification - people claiming to have been defamed need to prove that they can be identified in association with the defamatory statement. This does not just mean publishing a name. Defamatory identification can come from addresses, occupation, physical description, etc.
3) Defamatory material - defamatory material is anything that: holds a person to ridicule, could damage a reputation, could cause other people to think less of the subject of the defamatory material, or cause others to shun or avoid an individual as a result of defamatory material.
The Artemus Jones case is worth referring to when looking at defamation, as an example of unintentional defamation. Artemus Jones, a barrister, successfully sued a London newspaper after they published a fictitious article about a philandering, "party boy" lawyer by the name of "Artemus Jones". The article was not about the actual person Artemus Jones, but he was able to prove that other people believed the article to be about him and that had resulted in his name being defamed.
Large groups and organisations, to a point, cannot sue for defamation. They can, however, sue for things like negligent misstatement, injurious falsehood, breach of confidence, etc. Non-profit organisations, individuals associated with larger companies, and companies with fewer than ten employees can sue for defamation.
Tasmania is the only state in Australia that a deceased individual can sue or be sued for defamation. That being said, it is still possible to defame a living person by associating them with a deceased individual with the questionable behaviour of a deceased person.
Defamatory material can be produced in a number of ways including: written, spoken and broadcasted but also mime, street theatre, painting and cartooning.
The internet has also complicated defamation as it blurs the lines of jurisdictions and different jurisdictions have different defamation laws. Refer to the Gutnick case for more information.
A journalist has five major defences to accusations of defamation: truth, fair report, qualified privilege, political qualified privilege and honest opinion/fair comment.
Defamation is described as the wrongful harming or damaging of a person's reputation. Defamation suits allow for people to protect their "good name".
Three things are needed to prove an accusation of defamation:
1) Publication - make something known to another person or making it available to be known to another person.
2) Identification - people claiming to have been defamed need to prove that they can be identified in association with the defamatory statement. This does not just mean publishing a name. Defamatory identification can come from addresses, occupation, physical description, etc.
3) Defamatory material - defamatory material is anything that: holds a person to ridicule, could damage a reputation, could cause other people to think less of the subject of the defamatory material, or cause others to shun or avoid an individual as a result of defamatory material.
The Artemus Jones case is worth referring to when looking at defamation, as an example of unintentional defamation. Artemus Jones, a barrister, successfully sued a London newspaper after they published a fictitious article about a philandering, "party boy" lawyer by the name of "Artemus Jones". The article was not about the actual person Artemus Jones, but he was able to prove that other people believed the article to be about him and that had resulted in his name being defamed.
Large groups and organisations, to a point, cannot sue for defamation. They can, however, sue for things like negligent misstatement, injurious falsehood, breach of confidence, etc. Non-profit organisations, individuals associated with larger companies, and companies with fewer than ten employees can sue for defamation.
Tasmania is the only state in Australia that a deceased individual can sue or be sued for defamation. That being said, it is still possible to defame a living person by associating them with a deceased individual with the questionable behaviour of a deceased person.
Defamatory material can be produced in a number of ways including: written, spoken and broadcasted but also mime, street theatre, painting and cartooning.
The internet has also complicated defamation as it blurs the lines of jurisdictions and different jurisdictions have different defamation laws. Refer to the Gutnick case for more information.
A journalist has five major defences to accusations of defamation: truth, fair report, qualified privilege, political qualified privilege and honest opinion/fair comment.
Thursday, 11 April 2013
5 Post-Breakup Cliches That Don't Actually Help Anybody
Breaking up with somebody sucks - there's no two ways about it. Firstly, there's a lot of emotional fallout to deal with in the wake of the sudden loss of an important figure in your life. But that isn't all - one of the absolute worst things about a breakup is talking to your friends about it later on.
The problem is more than just admitting that the relationship is actually over and it's more than the feeling of being smacked in face by reality when you tell your friends - it's in how they react to the news and what they say in an attempt to comfort you.
Cue the post-breakup clichés.
Usually your friends will be genuinely concerned and try to make you feel better, but there are a lot of things that you don't want to hear immediately after you've broken up with somebody that you care about.
Obviously, I understand that everybody deals with breakups differently - some people may find these phrases very comforting and helpful - so the following list doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. But for me, telling me any of these woefully misguided sentiments is completely unhelpful, makes the breakup a lot harder to deal with and will lead to me being much less inclined to want to talk to you about what I'm going through.
So, as somebody that has just recently gone through a break up, I'm going to do you a favour and lay out some of the things that you're saying that aren't actually helping that friend of yours who just broke up with their significant other.
5. "Time heals all wounds"
... Are you kidding me with this? No? Okay.
The number of people that I've heard use this phrase, or some variation of it, is absolutely incredible. I understand what you're trying to say. You're trying to say "I know that this hurts right now but at some point down the line you're going to be okay because this isn't the end of the world." The thing is though, that isn't really how it's going to sound to your friend while they're upset. To them it's going to sound like this: "I don't care enough to talk to you about what you're going through. I am dismissing your pain. Let's move along."
Also, if you think that four words or less has adequately covered your role as a friend then shame on you.
4. "That's such a shame, you were so good together!"
If you don't see what the problem is with this then there's probably no helping you.
Telling your friend that they were "so good" with the person that they just broke up with is not helping them at all. Why on earth would you think that this would be helpful? They don't need to be reminded of how good things were before; they're probably doing enough of that on their own. And if they're the one who broke things off, for whatever reason, saying this will make them second guess their decision, even if it was the right thing for them to do.
3. "There are plenty of fish in the sea"
You know what? You're right, there are plenty of other fish in the sea. That isn't the problem. The problem is that the fish that your friend was just attached to is no longer there and they are still upset about that specific one. Chances are that your friend most likely isn't interested in "going fishing" at the moment.
2. "Just think of all the things that you can do now that you're single!"
If you've been in a relationship for a long time then that person ends up becoming a really significant part of your life, breaking up changes that. You need time to adjust to that change.
When your friend says that they feel like a piece of them is missing, it's only partly melodrama. The fact is, something that was previously there is now completely gone and it takes time to come to terms with that. Reminding somebody that they're single and can do a whole bunch of new things will also remind them of all the things that are different for them now and all the changes that they are going to have to make in their life to compensate for that.
1. "So, are you still friends? You should really stay friends."
Depending on how the relationship ended, they might still be friends or maybe they can get there again, but they're probably going to need a bit of time before that's even a possibility.
It's easy for mutual friends to forget that relationships are significantly more intense than friendship and, even with the tidiest of breakups, there will always be strong emotions to deal with for at least one party. The amount of time needed to deal with those emotions varies from person to person and they're going to need you to be patient while they adjust to being "just friends" with somebody that they used to date.
Don't be a jerk and try to pressure your friend into "moving on" or "getting over it" because it won't help them cope and it is incredibly unfair of you to ask that of your friend just because you want things to go back to the way you want them.
Bonus: "Everything happens for a reason."
No. Just stop, okay?
The problem is more than just admitting that the relationship is actually over and it's more than the feeling of being smacked in face by reality when you tell your friends - it's in how they react to the news and what they say in an attempt to comfort you.
Cue the post-breakup clichés.
Usually your friends will be genuinely concerned and try to make you feel better, but there are a lot of things that you don't want to hear immediately after you've broken up with somebody that you care about.
Obviously, I understand that everybody deals with breakups differently - some people may find these phrases very comforting and helpful - so the following list doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. But for me, telling me any of these woefully misguided sentiments is completely unhelpful, makes the breakup a lot harder to deal with and will lead to me being much less inclined to want to talk to you about what I'm going through.
So, as somebody that has just recently gone through a break up, I'm going to do you a favour and lay out some of the things that you're saying that aren't actually helping that friend of yours who just broke up with their significant other.
5. "Time heals all wounds"
... Are you kidding me with this? No? Okay.
The number of people that I've heard use this phrase, or some variation of it, is absolutely incredible. I understand what you're trying to say. You're trying to say "I know that this hurts right now but at some point down the line you're going to be okay because this isn't the end of the world." The thing is though, that isn't really how it's going to sound to your friend while they're upset. To them it's going to sound like this: "I don't care enough to talk to you about what you're going through. I am dismissing your pain. Let's move along."
Also, if you think that four words or less has adequately covered your role as a friend then shame on you.
4. "That's such a shame, you were so good together!"
If you don't see what the problem is with this then there's probably no helping you.
Telling your friend that they were "so good" with the person that they just broke up with is not helping them at all. Why on earth would you think that this would be helpful? They don't need to be reminded of how good things were before; they're probably doing enough of that on their own. And if they're the one who broke things off, for whatever reason, saying this will make them second guess their decision, even if it was the right thing for them to do.
3. "There are plenty of fish in the sea"
You know what? You're right, there are plenty of other fish in the sea. That isn't the problem. The problem is that the fish that your friend was just attached to is no longer there and they are still upset about that specific one. Chances are that your friend most likely isn't interested in "going fishing" at the moment.
2. "Just think of all the things that you can do now that you're single!"
If you've been in a relationship for a long time then that person ends up becoming a really significant part of your life, breaking up changes that. You need time to adjust to that change.
When your friend says that they feel like a piece of them is missing, it's only partly melodrama. The fact is, something that was previously there is now completely gone and it takes time to come to terms with that. Reminding somebody that they're single and can do a whole bunch of new things will also remind them of all the things that are different for them now and all the changes that they are going to have to make in their life to compensate for that.
1. "So, are you still friends? You should really stay friends."
Depending on how the relationship ended, they might still be friends or maybe they can get there again, but they're probably going to need a bit of time before that's even a possibility.
It's easy for mutual friends to forget that relationships are significantly more intense than friendship and, even with the tidiest of breakups, there will always be strong emotions to deal with for at least one party. The amount of time needed to deal with those emotions varies from person to person and they're going to need you to be patient while they adjust to being "just friends" with somebody that they used to date.
Don't be a jerk and try to pressure your friend into "moving on" or "getting over it" because it won't help them cope and it is incredibly unfair of you to ask that of your friend just because you want things to go back to the way you want them.
Bonus: "Everything happens for a reason."
No. Just stop, okay?
Overall, I think the best piece of information that I can impart is this: if you have a friend who has recently broken up with somebody, the appropriate response is "I'm sorry to hear that. If you want to talk about it then I'm here for you" then actually listen to them. Don't throw a whole bunch of clichés at them in the hopes that one of them will stick. It's really not that hard to listen to your friend is saying, and should stop your friend from wanting to strangle you for being incredibly insensitive.
Friday, 5 April 2013
A Short Guide to Preventing Your Pizza Delivery Person From Hating You
You know what I love? Pizza. You know what I hate? Having to get dressed to go and get pizza. Fortunately for me (and for you too, if you're anything like me), most pizza places will deliver right to your front door and that is just fantastic.
Here's the fun thing: I also know what it's like to be on the other side of the looking glass delivering the pizzas! And here's the super fun thing: there are a number of things that you can do as a customer that will make your local delivery driver want to punch you in the neck. In a fun way! But you are in luck! I can tell you exactly what you're doing and how to avoid it so that the smile your delivery driver gives you is no longer forced.
3. Please don't make money matters more complicated than they need to be
We understand that you don't necessarily have the exact money on you all the time and that is fine. You know what isn't fine? When you pay an eighty dollar bill entirely in twenty cent pieces. Your delivery driver might smile at you and make some jokes but inside they are thinking of throwing all of those coins at you. Even worse is when the coins that you're paying with are completely unorganised. Do not empty a big pile of coins into your pizza person's hand and expect that they will then leave. That pizza person has to count all of that to make sure that it's all there because if their float is short at the end of the night, they have to pay for it. Also, if you decide that you want to split your bill then that is fine... Just don't take it out on your pizza person. Do not try to pay for a fifty dollar bill using a twenty dollar note and two fifty dollar notes and then expect to get separate change for it. Your delivery person probably only has about forty dollars worth of change on them and you're making things much, much more difficult than they need to be.
So:
- Do not pay your pizza person all in coins because they will hate you.
- Do not stare at them angrily or try to dismiss them while they're counting the huge pile of coins that you just dumped into their hand because they will hate you.
- Do not try to split your bill in an irritating and needlessly complicated way because they will hate you.
Bonus points: Do not ask if you can pay using your card when the delivery person very obviously does not have an Eftpos machine or any other means of accepting your card. Come on. Your delivery person is not an ATM.
2. Please pay attention to when your pizza is arriving
I cannot count the number of times that I have arrived at a customer's house and knocked on their door and not had them come to the door. Then tried again. Then called them. Repeat process.
Seriously, if you are the type of person who thinks "I've ordered a pizza so I guess that right now is the perfect time to go and do something on the far side of my house with my phone turned off" - your pizza person probably hates you. Your pizza person is not going to hang around your house waiting for you to notice them there. They will try to contact you as best as they can but then they will leave and go back to their shop. If that ends up happening, do not call the shop and abuse the people working there because your pizza is late. No. Your pizza was on time and the driver tried to contact you but they couldn't get through to you so they left.
1. Please don't keep talking for a really long time after your pizza has been delivered
A lot of the deliveries that I have done have been to people who are having a party and that is lovely, but I just don't have time to hold an extended conversation with you after I've dropped your pizza off. I love talking to customers, I really do, but I'm always busy and there is usually another delivery waiting for me back at the shop. So, if I've delivered your pizza and said "alright, you have a good night" then turned away to leave, please do not try to keep talking to me because I will have to awkwardly end the conversation and get back to work.
Side note: Do not invite your pizza person to your party because it makes them feel uncomfortable. It's a really nice gesture but we both know that it isn't a sincere offer and somehow it'd be even more awkward if it were. Just don't do it. Please. Don't make things weird for everyone.
Here's the fun thing: I also know what it's like to be on the other side of the looking glass delivering the pizzas! And here's the super fun thing: there are a number of things that you can do as a customer that will make your local delivery driver want to punch you in the neck. In a fun way! But you are in luck! I can tell you exactly what you're doing and how to avoid it so that the smile your delivery driver gives you is no longer forced.
3. Please don't make money matters more complicated than they need to be
We understand that you don't necessarily have the exact money on you all the time and that is fine. You know what isn't fine? When you pay an eighty dollar bill entirely in twenty cent pieces. Your delivery driver might smile at you and make some jokes but inside they are thinking of throwing all of those coins at you. Even worse is when the coins that you're paying with are completely unorganised. Do not empty a big pile of coins into your pizza person's hand and expect that they will then leave. That pizza person has to count all of that to make sure that it's all there because if their float is short at the end of the night, they have to pay for it. Also, if you decide that you want to split your bill then that is fine... Just don't take it out on your pizza person. Do not try to pay for a fifty dollar bill using a twenty dollar note and two fifty dollar notes and then expect to get separate change for it. Your delivery person probably only has about forty dollars worth of change on them and you're making things much, much more difficult than they need to be.
So:
- Do not pay your pizza person all in coins because they will hate you.
- Do not stare at them angrily or try to dismiss them while they're counting the huge pile of coins that you just dumped into their hand because they will hate you.
- Do not try to split your bill in an irritating and needlessly complicated way because they will hate you.
Bonus points: Do not ask if you can pay using your card when the delivery person very obviously does not have an Eftpos machine or any other means of accepting your card. Come on. Your delivery person is not an ATM.
2. Please pay attention to when your pizza is arriving
I cannot count the number of times that I have arrived at a customer's house and knocked on their door and not had them come to the door. Then tried again. Then called them. Repeat process.
Seriously, if you are the type of person who thinks "I've ordered a pizza so I guess that right now is the perfect time to go and do something on the far side of my house with my phone turned off" - your pizza person probably hates you. Your pizza person is not going to hang around your house waiting for you to notice them there. They will try to contact you as best as they can but then they will leave and go back to their shop. If that ends up happening, do not call the shop and abuse the people working there because your pizza is late. No. Your pizza was on time and the driver tried to contact you but they couldn't get through to you so they left.
1. Please don't keep talking for a really long time after your pizza has been delivered
A lot of the deliveries that I have done have been to people who are having a party and that is lovely, but I just don't have time to hold an extended conversation with you after I've dropped your pizza off. I love talking to customers, I really do, but I'm always busy and there is usually another delivery waiting for me back at the shop. So, if I've delivered your pizza and said "alright, you have a good night" then turned away to leave, please do not try to keep talking to me because I will have to awkwardly end the conversation and get back to work.
Side note: Do not invite your pizza person to your party because it makes them feel uncomfortable. It's a really nice gesture but we both know that it isn't a sincere offer and somehow it'd be even more awkward if it were. Just don't do it. Please. Don't make things weird for everyone.
Mental Health Australia
Are you worried about somebody in your life and you don't know how to help them? Is it you? There is help available, you just have to know where to look for it.
Many organisations exist within Australia to assist those struggling with mental illness. BeyondBlue and Headspace are a couple of those organisations. These organisations aim to remove the stigma of mental illness within the wider community and provide support to those affected by mental illness.
With around the clock support available and a wide range of resources and help centres across the country, these organisations are an integral part of keeping Australians happy and healthy.
If you, or someone you know, require emergency help at any time, day or night, please call one of the following numbers:
BeyondBlue Helpline - 1300 22 4636
Lifeline Crisis Helpline - 13 11 14
Kids Helpline - 1800 55 1800
Many organisations exist within Australia to assist those struggling with mental illness. BeyondBlue and Headspace are a couple of those organisations. These organisations aim to remove the stigma of mental illness within the wider community and provide support to those affected by mental illness.
With around the clock support available and a wide range of resources and help centres across the country, these organisations are an integral part of keeping Australians happy and healthy.
If you, or someone you know, require emergency help at any time, day or night, please call one of the following numbers:
BeyondBlue Helpline - 1300 22 4636
Lifeline Crisis Helpline - 13 11 14
Kids Helpline - 1800 55 1800
Writing Outside of the Inverted Pyramid Structure
Your standard, run-of-the-mill, journalistic article is usually written in the inverted pyramid style (as I've addressed before). This is usually for newspapers and the like and it makes it easier for editors and sub-editors to fit articles into specific spaces and cut unnecessary sentences. By having the least important information at the bottom, the editing team can simply cut that sentence to fit into the allotted space.
However, some articles are not written in the inverted pyramid style and this makes it much trickier for the editing team. Articles written in the inverted pyramid style have a tendency to just state facts then just sort of stop. Completely. Articles that aren't written in the inverted pyramid style are, more often than not, feature articles and that means that the editing team has to read the whole article to see what they are able to cut down. The great thing about feature articles is that they tend to be very descriptive and in-depth and have a clear beginning, middle and end. Unfortunately for the editors, this means that the ending is usually very closely linked to the beginning of the article and cutting it usually isn't an option.
I rather enjoy writing feature articles and for an example of a story that I have written outside of the inverted pyramid style, please refer to the Soundwave review that I wrote last month.
However, some articles are not written in the inverted pyramid style and this makes it much trickier for the editing team. Articles written in the inverted pyramid style have a tendency to just state facts then just sort of stop. Completely. Articles that aren't written in the inverted pyramid style are, more often than not, feature articles and that means that the editing team has to read the whole article to see what they are able to cut down. The great thing about feature articles is that they tend to be very descriptive and in-depth and have a clear beginning, middle and end. Unfortunately for the editors, this means that the ending is usually very closely linked to the beginning of the article and cutting it usually isn't an option.
I rather enjoy writing feature articles and for an example of a story that I have written outside of the inverted pyramid style, please refer to the Soundwave review that I wrote last month.
Saturday, 30 March 2013
Agenda Setting
Agenda.
There are so many connotations behind the word agenda as far as the media is concerned.
I'm going to focus on media agenda setting for the purposes of this blog post.
To some people, agenda is an insidious manipulation. They immediately think that an agenda is a bad thing and will result in them looking like a fool. The truth is: agenda setting doesn't have to be a bad thing but it can be abused, like anything else.
What we've looked at in class shows that there are four different kinds of agenda:
1. The public agenda: what the public thinks is important
2. Policy agenda: what the "decision makers" think is important
3. Corporate agenda: what businesses and corporations think is important
4. Media agenda: what the media thinks is important
As the ones providing news to the people, the media plays a huge role in how the public receives, experiences and feels about the news.
The media agenda works on two levels:
1. What news is released to the public. This is basically where news bodies decide what is important for the public to know (usually using news values) and then they publish their stories based on that.
2. How the public should feel about the news. This is the part that worries people. As the people who convey the news, media organisations can decide how they want a story to be received by the public.
I think that it's incredibly important for journalists to understand agenda setting and the power that we have as a result of it. Our position as the people who give the news to the people makes it very easy for agenda to be abused and have "public interest" as a defence.
There are so many connotations behind the word agenda as far as the media is concerned.
I'm going to focus on media agenda setting for the purposes of this blog post.
To some people, agenda is an insidious manipulation. They immediately think that an agenda is a bad thing and will result in them looking like a fool. The truth is: agenda setting doesn't have to be a bad thing but it can be abused, like anything else.
What we've looked at in class shows that there are four different kinds of agenda:
1. The public agenda: what the public thinks is important
2. Policy agenda: what the "decision makers" think is important
3. Corporate agenda: what businesses and corporations think is important
4. Media agenda: what the media thinks is important
As the ones providing news to the people, the media plays a huge role in how the public receives, experiences and feels about the news.
The media agenda works on two levels:
1. What news is released to the public. This is basically where news bodies decide what is important for the public to know (usually using news values) and then they publish their stories based on that.
2. How the public should feel about the news. This is the part that worries people. As the people who convey the news, media organisations can decide how they want a story to be received by the public.
I think that it's incredibly important for journalists to understand agenda setting and the power that we have as a result of it. Our position as the people who give the news to the people makes it very easy for agenda to be abused and have "public interest" as a defence.
Monday, 25 March 2013
Iqon 2013
Iqon is only a few weeks away now, folks!
Iqon is the new hardstyle event organised by Q-dance in Sydney, Australia on the 20th of April, 2013. Featuring huge international artists such as Noisecontrollers, Headhunterz, Zatox as well as prominent Australian artists Code Black and Toneshifterz, Iqon 2013 is looking like it will be an incredible, high energy show that hopefully draws the same dedicated fans as Defqon 1 Australia.
Iqon was teased as a new, mysterious Q-dance event at Defqon 1 Australia last year in September and the hardstyle enthusiasts ate it up. The release of the Iqon trailer and lineup caused quite a stir with fans and the first release of both general and VIP tickets are already sold out and only VIP tickets remain in the second release at this point. For more information about the event, visit the website here.
Hardstyle is gaining major traction in Australia and the organisation of a second hardstyle event in Australia is indicative of a changing movement in music.
Watch this space for a review of Iqon at the end of April!
Iqon is the new hardstyle event organised by Q-dance in Sydney, Australia on the 20th of April, 2013. Featuring huge international artists such as Noisecontrollers, Headhunterz, Zatox as well as prominent Australian artists Code Black and Toneshifterz, Iqon 2013 is looking like it will be an incredible, high energy show that hopefully draws the same dedicated fans as Defqon 1 Australia.
Iqon was teased as a new, mysterious Q-dance event at Defqon 1 Australia last year in September and the hardstyle enthusiasts ate it up. The release of the Iqon trailer and lineup caused quite a stir with fans and the first release of both general and VIP tickets are already sold out and only VIP tickets remain in the second release at this point. For more information about the event, visit the website here.
Hardstyle is gaining major traction in Australia and the organisation of a second hardstyle event in Australia is indicative of a changing movement in music.
Watch this space for a review of Iqon at the end of April!
Australian Red Cross Blood Service Needs More Donors
Hey you! Yes, you! You are a human, correct? And you have blood? That is fantastic because the Australian Red Cross Blood Service could use your help!
Easter is closing in again and the call is going out once again for blood donors. The Australian Red Cross Blood Service has released a statement urgently expressing the need for at least another 8,000 blood donors during this busy and often hazardous period. It is estimated that at any given time, 1 in 3 Australians require blood but only 1 in 30 donate blood. It is especially important that people donate blood during holiday periods as many regular donors are unable to donate during this time.
Here's where you can help!
If you are between the ages of 16 and 70, weigh more than 45kgs, are healthy and not suffering from any illness* then you can donate!
Blood donation does not take very long, is relatively painless and allows you to help a person in need. Modern technology allows for whole blood donations to be separated out into three parts, potentially saving three people.
Remember, the life that you save could be your own.
*Other exclusion criteria may apply, visit the Australian Red Cross Blood Service website for more details.
Easter is closing in again and the call is going out once again for blood donors. The Australian Red Cross Blood Service has released a statement urgently expressing the need for at least another 8,000 blood donors during this busy and often hazardous period. It is estimated that at any given time, 1 in 3 Australians require blood but only 1 in 30 donate blood. It is especially important that people donate blood during holiday periods as many regular donors are unable to donate during this time.
Here's where you can help!
If you are between the ages of 16 and 70, weigh more than 45kgs, are healthy and not suffering from any illness* then you can donate!
Blood donation does not take very long, is relatively painless and allows you to help a person in need. Modern technology allows for whole blood donations to be separated out into three parts, potentially saving three people.
Remember, the life that you save could be your own.
*Other exclusion criteria may apply, visit the Australian Red Cross Blood Service website for more details.
News Values
News values are important. Why else would they be called news values? Many people have come up with lists of news values including Galtung & Ruge, Golding & Elliot and O'Neill & Harcup.
Personally, the list of news values that I adhere to are "The Big 6", suggested by Murray Masterson in 1995.
According to Masterson, the six most prominent news values are:
1. Significance/Impact
2. Proximity - location as well as emotional, historical, cultural and social significance
3. Conflict
4. Human Interest
5.The unusual/Novelty
6. Prominence - news relating to high profile people
News values are important to consider as a journalist because if you want to sell your story (and you do), it is necessary to understand what people are willing to buy and what they're interested in. There will always be a niche market where these news values don't strictly apply, but overall, the public wants to hear about things that are going to have an effect on them, they want to hear about conflict and confrontations, they want to hear about famous people, they want to hear stories that make them feel (human interest).
To me, it's about understanding what people want and what they need because while some might be content to just read celebrity gossip and whatnot, it is vital that they know what else is going on around them. The important things. It is our role as journalists to provide that. We need to filter out all of the unimportant happenings to provide the public with information that they need. In order to do that we need news values to sort through everything that happens all over the world every day.
Personally, the list of news values that I adhere to are "The Big 6", suggested by Murray Masterson in 1995.
According to Masterson, the six most prominent news values are:
1. Significance/Impact
2. Proximity - location as well as emotional, historical, cultural and social significance
3. Conflict
4. Human Interest
5.The unusual/Novelty
6. Prominence - news relating to high profile people
News values are important to consider as a journalist because if you want to sell your story (and you do), it is necessary to understand what people are willing to buy and what they're interested in. There will always be a niche market where these news values don't strictly apply, but overall, the public wants to hear about things that are going to have an effect on them, they want to hear about conflict and confrontations, they want to hear about famous people, they want to hear stories that make them feel (human interest).
To me, it's about understanding what people want and what they need because while some might be content to just read celebrity gossip and whatnot, it is vital that they know what else is going on around them. The important things. It is our role as journalists to provide that. We need to filter out all of the unimportant happenings to provide the public with information that they need. In order to do that we need news values to sort through everything that happens all over the world every day.
Friday, 22 March 2013
Web Iterations
Last week we looked at media convergence and how that has an effect on modern journalism and how it will influence future journalism.
Specifically, I am going to discuss web iterations:
- Web 1.0
-Web 2.0
- Web 3.0
As far as my understanding goes, Web 1.0 was the first incarnation of the internet. It was full of content and advertisers would buy up the space surrounding the content in an attempt to boost sales and whatnot. This quote from Greg Smith sums up Web 1.0 neatly:
We then moved on to Web 2.0, which is how we currently interact online. Web 2.0 can be described as the "social web" and largely refers to the interactivity that users experience with each other, with marketers, with businesses and so on. Web 2.0 has also coined the term "prod-users". Prod-users are, essentially, normal internet users that also create content. Web 2.0 has made it possible for anybody and everybody to be a producer of content and so everyone is capitalising on the opportunity. The number of blogs, Youtube channels, Facebook businesses, Etsy businesses etc., is absolutely staggering.
Web 3.0 is kind of the direction that people expect the internet to go. It will design your internet experience based on your interests and other things that you have searched before. Advertisers are already taking advantage of this technology, showing ads for products that match up with internet searches that you have made before in an attempt to attract your attention and potential business. The problem that I have with applying this concept to the entire internet is that it basically creates tunnel vision. There is an entire world of content to pursue and by only being shown information that you are probably already interested in, you miss out on experiencing so much more.
Note: I thought that I posted this last week but I did not so I had to make some minor adjustments.
Specifically, I am going to discuss web iterations:
- Web 1.0
-Web 2.0
- Web 3.0
As far as my understanding goes, Web 1.0 was the first incarnation of the internet. It was full of content and advertisers would buy up the space surrounding the content in an attempt to boost sales and whatnot. This quote from Greg Smith sums up Web 1.0 neatly:
Web 1.0 (the information web), the one we all know and love, is straightforward. It’s full of content that we can surround with ads, mainly in the form of banners. Many marketers look at this as an extension of offline media – print and television. Sadly, they tend to use it the same way (Greg Smith, 2009).
We then moved on to Web 2.0, which is how we currently interact online. Web 2.0 can be described as the "social web" and largely refers to the interactivity that users experience with each other, with marketers, with businesses and so on. Web 2.0 has also coined the term "prod-users". Prod-users are, essentially, normal internet users that also create content. Web 2.0 has made it possible for anybody and everybody to be a producer of content and so everyone is capitalising on the opportunity. The number of blogs, Youtube channels, Facebook businesses, Etsy businesses etc., is absolutely staggering.
Web 3.0 is kind of the direction that people expect the internet to go. It will design your internet experience based on your interests and other things that you have searched before. Advertisers are already taking advantage of this technology, showing ads for products that match up with internet searches that you have made before in an attempt to attract your attention and potential business. The problem that I have with applying this concept to the entire internet is that it basically creates tunnel vision. There is an entire world of content to pursue and by only being shown information that you are probably already interested in, you miss out on experiencing so much more.
Note: I thought that I posted this last week but I did not so I had to make some minor adjustments.
Friday, 15 March 2013
Schoolboy Kills Tyrant
Lord Voldemort has been killed by a seventeen year old boy at the Battle of Hogwarts late last night.
Harry Potter, 17, has killed Lord Voldemort during the battle at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry that lasted most of last night.
Lord Voldemort is a known mass murderer and tyrant and has a long history with Mr Potter after failing to kill him seventeen years ago.
Mr Potter could not be contacted for comment but is not expected to face any criminal charges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was a really interesting tutorial task that involved taking a well known story (Harry Potter, in this case) and adapting it into a news story using the inverted pyramid style.
The inverted pyramid style works as shown below:
Harry Potter, 17, has killed Lord Voldemort during the battle at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry that lasted most of last night.
Lord Voldemort is a known mass murderer and tyrant and has a long history with Mr Potter after failing to kill him seventeen years ago.
Mr Potter could not be contacted for comment but is not expected to face any criminal charges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was a really interesting tutorial task that involved taking a well known story (Harry Potter, in this case) and adapting it into a news story using the inverted pyramid style.
The inverted pyramid style works as shown below:
Usually I would try to make the story a little bit longer and include a quote from a party involved in the incident but obviously that is harder to do when the story is from a book and you are unable to interview anyone.
I think that it was very important for us to do this task as it is instrumental in teaching us how to write in the inverted pyramid style, which is a crucial component of journalistic writing.
I think that it was very important for us to do this task as it is instrumental in teaching us how to write in the inverted pyramid style, which is a crucial component of journalistic writing.
Sunday, 10 March 2013
Public Media vs. Commercial Media
Let's just talk about public media versus commercial media for a second here.
Now, based on the lecture for Week 2, public media is government funded and is usually non-profit (or at the very least, profit isn't the main goal) whereas commercial media is usually trying to make a profit.
As a result of this, most commercial media is full of ads and, let's call them "human interest," stories designed to get people reading/viewing/listening while public media can do more in-depth stories because their goal isn't to sell what they're providing, the goal is just to provide it... Supposedly.
The thing is though, reality is rarely as black and white as that. Yes, commercial media exists to turn a profit and that does result in stories that can be thrown together quickly that the majority of people will consume but it doesn't prevent them from writing about important issues such as politics. By a similar token, just because public media has the capacity to publish detailed, hyper-researched work, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will because they still have deadlines to meet and an audience to appeal to and they wouldn't be able to continue to function if they were to only cater to a niche market. That means that, to an extent, public media has to pander to the wants of the audience almost as much as commercial media does.
In a way, both commercial and public media don't have a great deal of say in what gets published. Commercial media has to adhere to advertiser's whims while public media has to be careful about what content they create because their funding depends on governmental criteria.
When you think about it, they're basically the same. The actual content might be different but somebody else is still in charge dictating what can and can't be published and the person pulling the strings is usually the one with the money.
Now, based on the lecture for Week 2, public media is government funded and is usually non-profit (or at the very least, profit isn't the main goal) whereas commercial media is usually trying to make a profit.
As a result of this, most commercial media is full of ads and, let's call them "human interest," stories designed to get people reading/viewing/listening while public media can do more in-depth stories because their goal isn't to sell what they're providing, the goal is just to provide it... Supposedly.
The thing is though, reality is rarely as black and white as that. Yes, commercial media exists to turn a profit and that does result in stories that can be thrown together quickly that the majority of people will consume but it doesn't prevent them from writing about important issues such as politics. By a similar token, just because public media has the capacity to publish detailed, hyper-researched work, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will because they still have deadlines to meet and an audience to appeal to and they wouldn't be able to continue to function if they were to only cater to a niche market. That means that, to an extent, public media has to pander to the wants of the audience almost as much as commercial media does.
In a way, both commercial and public media don't have a great deal of say in what gets published. Commercial media has to adhere to advertiser's whims while public media has to be careful about what content they create because their funding depends on governmental criteria.
When you think about it, they're basically the same. The actual content might be different but somebody else is still in charge dictating what can and can't be published and the person pulling the strings is usually the one with the money.
Thursday, 7 March 2013
Soundwave 2013 - Bonython Park, Adelaide.
You wake up bright and early. You know what today is. You hurry to get ready, the anticipation is mounting. It's going to be a good day. You double check that you have everything: phone, money, ID, ticket. Don't forget the ticket, that's the most important part...
You leave where you're staying to meet up with some friends for breakfast and all conversation is focused on what is to come. You eat your food in a hurry, anxious to get there, ready for it all to begin.
As you get closer to the venue you see them all. All those people congregating for the same reason as you, the reason you're all there: Soundwave Festival 2013.
With a lineup boasting more than 70 bands including acts such as Metallica, Blink-182, The Offspring, Linkin Park, A Perfect Circle and much more, Soundwave 2013 was destined for a huge turnout and I happened to be amongst the crowd amassed at Bonython Park on March 2nd.
I had been eagerly awaiting Soundwave for months, I had taken two flights and travelled more than 2,500kms and I was not let down in the least.
The first band that I watched was American punk-rock group, Mindless Self Indulgence whose on-stage antics were something that I had previously only heard about. The band played spectacularly and lead singer Jimmy Urine's outlandish interaction, (drawing on his clothes and face, peculiar dance moves, bad Australian accents and edgy jokes) left the crowd wanting more.
From there I was off to the other side of Bonython Park for American indie-rock group Motion City Soundtrack who were lovely to watch. Located at Stage 3, under the marquee, the band's set felt more intimate and the boys were a delight, full of exuberance for the music that they have made into a career for themselves. Motion City Soundtrack finished on a high note by playing their well known song Everything is Alright which the crowd happily sang along with to complete the set.
A Perfect Circle were up next on the main stage so I rushed off to watch them with enough time to see Slayer finish their set with Raining Blood, much to the enjoyment of the gathered metal fans. A Perfect Circle were wonderful to watch, playing a wide range of songs including The Outsider, Passive, The Noose and their cover of John Lennon's Imagine. Maynard James Keenan, dressed in a suit in the Adelaide heat, sang passionately and powerfully. Keenan also had commitments earlier in the day with his other band, Puscifer.
Up next on the main stage were highly anticipated punk-rockers Blink-182 who hadn't toured in Australia for almost a decade. Unfortunately, Travis Barker (the band's drummer), was not touring with the band due to his extreme fear of flying. However, replacement drummer Brooks Wackerman of Bad Religion, was more than up to the job of filling in for Barker. Wackerman performed admirably alongside Mark Hoppus and Tom DeLonge. If anyone was expecting Hoppus and DeLonge to be any different to the Blink-182 of the past, they were sorely mistaken, the boys still constantly cracked jokes and made sexual innuendoes and just generally enjoyed themselves onstage.
Linkin Park followed Blink-182 to huge applause, starting with Mike Shinoda casually playing guitar and strolling out from the side of the stage before leading into the song Faint which made fans cheer and jump around. With a fantastic set of songs, both old and new, and a customised visual accompaniment to the show, Linkin Park delivered both an emotionally powerful and entertaining set.
At long last, with the sun finally setting, the major draw for the festival was ready for the main stage: Metallica. The heavy metal superstars may be older than when they first started out thirty years ago but have not diminished at all in that time. The men of Metallica met eagerly awaiting fans opening strongly with Hit The Lights, immediately followed up with Master of Puppets. I stood transfixed for the first hour of Metallica's two hour set, by their performance and the obvious glee that could be seen on their faces before tearing myself away to find The Offspring.
Over on Stage 2, I found myself arriving at the end of Paramore's set, in time to see frontwoman Hayley Williams bring two girls up from the crowd to sing Misery Business with her. One of the girls was overcome with emotion and started crying, so Williams had an arm around her as they sang. It was a touching moment to witness at the festival.
Then The Offspring began. Playing a set mostly consisting of their older music, The Offspring were interesting to watch live but more interesting was the crowd. During tracks from their latest album, Days Gone By, the crowd seemed to be less interested and less inclined to sing and dance than during songs like Come Out and Play. As much as I enjoyed The Offspring, I found myself drawn back to Metallica who had set off fireworks and other pyrotechnics in my absence.
So shortly after The Offspring played big time hits Want You Bad, Hit That and Gone Away, I determinedly pushed my way back to the main stage to watch Metallica's finale and encore. I was entranced once again by the fervour and spirit exuded by James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich, Robert Trujillo and Kirk Hammett. The boys absolutely nailed their performance, ending on a high with Seek and Destroy.
Overall, the performances at Soundwave were magnificent and it is wonderful to see people who are so passionate about music performing and still being visibly happy and appreciative to be there.
As you get closer to the venue you see them all. All those people congregating for the same reason as you, the reason you're all there: Soundwave Festival 2013.
With a lineup boasting more than 70 bands including acts such as Metallica, Blink-182, The Offspring, Linkin Park, A Perfect Circle and much more, Soundwave 2013 was destined for a huge turnout and I happened to be amongst the crowd amassed at Bonython Park on March 2nd.
I had been eagerly awaiting Soundwave for months, I had taken two flights and travelled more than 2,500kms and I was not let down in the least.
The first band that I watched was American punk-rock group, Mindless Self Indulgence whose on-stage antics were something that I had previously only heard about. The band played spectacularly and lead singer Jimmy Urine's outlandish interaction, (drawing on his clothes and face, peculiar dance moves, bad Australian accents and edgy jokes) left the crowd wanting more.
A Perfect Circle were up next on the main stage so I rushed off to watch them with enough time to see Slayer finish their set with Raining Blood, much to the enjoyment of the gathered metal fans. A Perfect Circle were wonderful to watch, playing a wide range of songs including The Outsider, Passive, The Noose and their cover of John Lennon's Imagine. Maynard James Keenan, dressed in a suit in the Adelaide heat, sang passionately and powerfully. Keenan also had commitments earlier in the day with his other band, Puscifer.
Up next on the main stage were highly anticipated punk-rockers Blink-182 who hadn't toured in Australia for almost a decade. Unfortunately, Travis Barker (the band's drummer), was not touring with the band due to his extreme fear of flying. However, replacement drummer Brooks Wackerman of Bad Religion, was more than up to the job of filling in for Barker. Wackerman performed admirably alongside Mark Hoppus and Tom DeLonge. If anyone was expecting Hoppus and DeLonge to be any different to the Blink-182 of the past, they were sorely mistaken, the boys still constantly cracked jokes and made sexual innuendoes and just generally enjoyed themselves onstage.
Linkin Park followed Blink-182 to huge applause, starting with Mike Shinoda casually playing guitar and strolling out from the side of the stage before leading into the song Faint which made fans cheer and jump around. With a fantastic set of songs, both old and new, and a customised visual accompaniment to the show, Linkin Park delivered both an emotionally powerful and entertaining set.
At long last, with the sun finally setting, the major draw for the festival was ready for the main stage: Metallica. The heavy metal superstars may be older than when they first started out thirty years ago but have not diminished at all in that time. The men of Metallica met eagerly awaiting fans opening strongly with Hit The Lights, immediately followed up with Master of Puppets. I stood transfixed for the first hour of Metallica's two hour set, by their performance and the obvious glee that could be seen on their faces before tearing myself away to find The Offspring.
Over on Stage 2, I found myself arriving at the end of Paramore's set, in time to see frontwoman Hayley Williams bring two girls up from the crowd to sing Misery Business with her. One of the girls was overcome with emotion and started crying, so Williams had an arm around her as they sang. It was a touching moment to witness at the festival.
Then The Offspring began. Playing a set mostly consisting of their older music, The Offspring were interesting to watch live but more interesting was the crowd. During tracks from their latest album, Days Gone By, the crowd seemed to be less interested and less inclined to sing and dance than during songs like Come Out and Play. As much as I enjoyed The Offspring, I found myself drawn back to Metallica who had set off fireworks and other pyrotechnics in my absence.
So shortly after The Offspring played big time hits Want You Bad, Hit That and Gone Away, I determinedly pushed my way back to the main stage to watch Metallica's finale and encore. I was entranced once again by the fervour and spirit exuded by James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich, Robert Trujillo and Kirk Hammett. The boys absolutely nailed their performance, ending on a high with Seek and Destroy.
Overall, the performances at Soundwave were magnificent and it is wonderful to see people who are so passionate about music performing and still being visibly happy and appreciative to be there.
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
The First Ever Blog (By Me, That Is)
Well hello there, you!
It appears that you have located my blog and as such, you deserve a proper welcome! So...
Welcome to Britters' Breakdown!
Now, here's the breakdown on The Breakdown: I am Britters and I will write all of the lovely posts that are yet to come (trust me, they are on their way) and they will cover a range of topics.
I will talk about many, many, many things including news and current events, articles that I find interesting or noteworthy in some way, things that I have learnt or am learning at university and music... So much music. I will discuss and create whatever I feel like, essentially, and I hope that you enjoy what you find here.
I think that is all for now, so again, welcome!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)