Thursday, September 29, 2005

Nothing New...

Queensland needs another broadsheet newspaper!

I know, I know, it's not the most revolutionary idea, but it's a pertinent one, and one that gets bandied about without much constructive discussion.

With the Courier Mail being tabloidised without remorse, Queenslanders are left with only one other major newspaper to choose from, The Australian. The Australian, while being an excellent source of national and global information, is not wholly satisfactory of Queenslanders' needs for local information.

The Courier Mail provides a daily shaving of information, and The Sunday Mail has been reduced to something similar to ACA on paper. Queensland requires a newspaper to fill the void, and I call on the Fairfax empire to do so--because they're the only organisation Murdoch will allow in.

The initiative to bring another newspaper to Queensland is especially important as we see this week the issue of very liberal cross-media laws and media ownership policy by the Howard government. The awesome foursome (Howard, Coonan, Packer and Murdoch) seem to be sharing great intercourse with each other.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

DIARIES ARE NOT A TEXT!



OK -- I know I'm on holidays this week, but I just have to comment on the incessant referencing to the Latham Diaries as though it's some kind of political or journalistic text book.

The press have had a whale of a time publishing article after article based centrally on something written in the Latham Diaries.

He's even affecting Labor's opinion polls.

I've had enough!

It's narcoleptic muck-raking at its finest. Latham is no more than a burnt out, middle-aged ex-politician who has published a spate of stone-throwing comments while licking his wounds after a dismal political career.

When will news media realise that quoting Latham's comments as a basis for newswriting is not justifiable as NEWS?

Just let the man revel in his publishing royalties and wallow in his personal sorrow... let bygones be bygones and has-beens be has-beens.

Forget about him already!

Friday, September 23, 2005

Express Post


Just a quick comment on Australia's anti-siphoning laws:

They currently allow free-to-air television broadcasters priority over pay TV operators to bid for key sporting events. With the upcoming "refreshment" of Australia's media policy, these laws are very vulnerable.

Foxtel, who are expected to turn a first-time profit this year -- and owned by Packer's PBL, Murdoch's News Limited and Telstra, are absolutely pining for these laws to be changed -- I assume so they can buy the NRL outright and force Australia's massive rugby league supporting population to subscribe to Foxtel. They'll probably further NFL-ise the game as well, and before we know it we'll be seeing Phil G(h)ould more than we can humanly consume and I will probably vomit or something.

It shouldn't be a game where he who has the most money wins. The domination of a company like Foxtel in an Australian market would further damage Australian TV and local content to the point where local soverignty (in sport, anyway) would go out the window and over to the US.

Pay-tv companies hold a much more liberal local content quota than free-to-air broadcasters, and with an enterprise like Foxtel influencing media policy and dominating the Australian market, local content will diminish to a voiceless speck.

The best "pay" television channels in Australia are the ABC and SBS. You and I pay for them, so we might as well watch them. Why should we pay tax for these broadcasters and then be expected to voluntarily pay more for lower quality television?

I know a guy who pays about $100 a month for Foxtel Digital. The doors of his house are falling off and he complains endlessly about not having any money, but oh no, he's just gotta have his pay tv. Complete sucker, I say.

Anyway, this wasn't as short or precise as I wanted it to be, but it's the future of Australian broadcasting gurgling down the toilet.

Don't give your money away!

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

They should call him the Parkin Inspector-General


[I know, I know--it's a corny headline, but it was too ironic to pass up]

The deportation of peace activist Scott Parkin this week has reached such heights of controversy, that today the government called for an inquiry into the affair.

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS), Ian Carnell, will be heading the inquiry--although, I understand the IGIS is actually bound to conduct all investigations in private, meaning that poor old you and me probably won't hear squat. I can't even find out who this Carnell guy is, or who he'll be reporting to.

I wonder why the government would deport somebody, then call one of their agencies to investigate??? What aren't we being told? Even Kim Beazley didn't kick up a stink... why not? How was our security threatened? It seems the only thing being threatened here is the political integrity of the government and the Labor party.

Anyway, a situation like this woulnd't be the same without a bit of emotional, non-violent geurilla protesting. And here they are (inserted picture).

Last night, in a planned protest, the group (one of which is Scott Parkin's mate) bombarded Phillip Ruddock at a book launch, fashioning Mahatma Gandhi masks, handcuffs, and toting signs that said Would you deport Gandhi, Mr Ruddoch?.

Think what you want, I guess... I'm waiting (possibly in vain) for more information on the situation before I jump to any brash conclusions.

Monday, September 19, 2005

he's gotta be renowned for something... diary-ah?


I know this guy--he was a bit of a boof-head at school, played rugby and stuff. He decided to try his hand at politics; failed just about every political aspect--one day he punched a cabbie. Then his health failed and he had to retire.

Now he's on $100k a year for doing bugger-all, not to mention all the money he gets from selling a few hundred pages of conceited diary entries some bozo decided to slap together as a book (today they had to double publishings to meet demand).

Here's some of the magic...

Saw the enemy today in the Trust Box at the SCG for Australia versus India, Steve Waugh's last test. Howard looked constipated as usual – he always has that worried look on his face.
(WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN MAGAZINE, Sep 17-18, 2005)

People want to read this dribble?

Oh, and once he ran for PM...

Why are we all so obsessed with the guy? Never has another person made such a successfully futile career.

Retire, Mark--it's over. Take up cross-stitch or something.

Big Brother--cut


Finally, the gratuitous content shown on Big Brother has been brought to some resposible justice. The ACMA, shown in this press release, has found Ten Network licensees in breach of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice for broadcasting three episodes of Big Brother Uncut.

The ACMA has initiated an investigation into the episodes following 'considerable public comment' (incessant complaints) on 'gratuitous and demeaning portrayal of nudity': Marty's unzipped massage trick--and 'very coarse language: when the blokes decided to compose a song about their sexual fetishes.

The MA rating (strongest permitted on free-to-air TV) basically says that any sex, nudity, language, adult themes or drug use must be justified to by the storyline or relevant to the program context. The kind of smut they show on some Big Brother episodes is far too wanton for a mere MA rating.

It's good to see the ACMA doing more than just taking complaints.It's good to see them properly holding their role as regulator of Australian broadcast content.

Failure of ten to comply with any measures after the investigation will result in their licence being restricted. Hopefully this will mean less Big Brother!

We live in hope...

Friday, September 16, 2005

Libs laughing after Latham's Labor lashing


Well, won't the government be rubbing their hands together with all the publicity of the Latham Diaries in the media? His interview with Andrew Denton was hastily pushed forward to last night, with fears that it would already be old news by next Monday.

Latham's not shy of a snaky word about the flailing Labor Party, and it couldn't have come at a better time for the Howard government.

Here’s a few of Latham’s quotes from the front page of yesterday’s Australian:

- ‘My commitment to the Labor cause was destroyed by the bastardry of others’
- ‘I no longer regard Labor as a viable force for social justice in this country.’
- ‘...[Labor’s] massive cultural and structural problems are insoluble.’
- ‘Rudd is a terrible piece of work... never listen to Rudd on foreign policy... he’s addicted to it [the media spotlight], worse than heroin’

Hardly a great advocate of the political party he previously led, is he?

Interestingly, the front page of The Australian, along with two columns on Mark Latham by editor Paul Kelly, also fashioned an article about the Telstra deal getting the nod from the National party. Is there a little political agenda being pushed here, Paul?

Thursday, September 15, 2005

new-nano


Throw away you'r dodgy old ipods people, Apple have just released their new upgraded iPod Nano. It's about 5 million times thinner than the first ones(and only weighs 42 grams), and with more features like alarms, clocks, games notes, and longer battery life.

I want one!

I also hear rumours that they're testing some kind of iPod-phone gadget... where will the convergence end?

One problem though: when will Apple stop being so selfish and forcing everyone who uses their cool products to change all program functions and file formats to Mac? It gets a little annoying if you're a PC baby like me.

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Mcgrath: Awww, Mum, you're embarassing me


How about this guy. He's got his hands on some letters from Glenn Mcgrath's mum, Bev, and threatened her with publishing them on the internet. Bev refused to pay, so he put them up for sale on eBay. What's worse, it's all completely legal.

The ACMA can't do anything, the BSA wields no power to do anything, the government can't do anything, so the police aren't doing anything.

This form of blackmail exemplifies a few things:
- the willingness of some crooks to do anything for a penny
- the deminishing ability to trust and confide in people--when Australians once enjoyed the luxury of iron-clad handshakes
- and the travesty faced by the internet between content regulation and publisher freedom.

_____________________________________________
http://www.p2pays.org/images/
---------------------------------------------

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

'Give me a virtual home among the cyber-gumtrees...'


hmmm... doesn't quite have the same fluency, does it?

Well, it seems as though people are willing to buy, rent, sell and develop land and homes that exist entirely in cyberspace. They're calling them 'micro-nations'.

The other day I heard that some guy in the US who bought a piece of cyberland, is now selling off portions (of course the price increased) of it to willing cyber-bidders/idiots. And another guy, so obsessed with his little piece of cyber-paradise, that he murdered his room-mate for cyber-selling it to someone without him knowing.

If you read the 'IT Today' section in today's Australian, you would have learned about Mark Logan Pedley, a crooked Yank who has succesfully 'used the power of the web to found his own country'. He calls it Melchizedek--apparently it lies somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Yeah, in the fibre-optic cables under the seabed, maybe.

Who the hell would actually be gullible enough to hand over money for this type of thing?!

Yeah... Melchizedek... it's a beautiful place, home to the famous bull-shitaki mushroom, picturesque views, and I'm asking bugger-all for it.
Duh, can I see a picture of it? Where exactly is it? I can't find it on the internet... how do I get there?
Errr... sorry I wasn't listening... So do you want to buy it?
Duh, sure.


I think I'll keep my money for non-cyber items thanks...

_________________________________________________________
picture sourced from http://member.rivernet.com.au/balehirs/drHouse.JPG
---------------------------------------------------------

Monday, September 12, 2005

Television approaching its final screening...


I attended a lecture of Joshua Green's last week and he expressed his ideas that television as we know it will be dead in a few years. I agree. Without some serious and revolutionary changes to the industry, I can see the current format petering out into an uninteresting media format at the bottom of the consumer barrel.

For example, my daily media consumption routine exists as:
- I wake up to the radio, and listen to it until I get to uni
- then I plug in my mp3 player while I read the online news and daily blogs
- I buy the paper and read it over lunch
- mp3s again on the way home
- a bit of drive radio comedy while I check emails at home
- internet and radio/mp3s while I do homework
- radio in the shower
- some book reading before bed
- late night trashy talkback radio just before sleep

On the odd occasion that I am inspired enough to sit down and watch the telly, it's only ever moments before something else needs to be done (feed the dog, work on assignment, call the missus, solve world poverty through blogging, etc). It's either the impersonality of television, or the fact that it requires me to stay stationary and inactive for a period of time that makes it so utterly unstimulating and, therefore, so uninteresting.

Actually getting home and in position to watch the 6.00 news is a difficult task. And when I'm already savvy with the day's current events and news, why would I?

The media writers (namely The Australian's 'Media' section, issued on Thursdays) have been giving the radio industry the ultimatum, saying that they're not contemporary enough, nor willing to change or progress. I think radio's doing fine, it's television that needs to progress. TV programmers think tacky is trendy. It has relied on relatively the same format since its inception back in the 50s--talk shows: same, comedy: same, drama: same, news: same. At least radio has taken on audience participation (I mean real participation). As consumers, no longer are we satisfied with the hypodermic needle communication model, where the media message is injected into society and hopfully received in the intended way. People are seeking and finding their own information, thank you very much, and we'll respond however the bloody-hell we want.

I'm waiting for television to respond...

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Internet Regulation: how? why?



The other day I was asked to comment on internet regulation in Australia. I thought, internet regulation... what? is the internet meant to be regulated? And how the hell do you try and regulate such a massive source of content where anyone can publish anything?

Turns out the Australian government has a whole heap of useless regulations and initiatives in place to make broadband internet content ubiquitous and safe. The only thing I understand from reviewing the codes is that the ABA relies on what they call 'self-regulation'. That is, the onus is on us to regulate what content we consume from the internet. But who's stopping me from entering how to make a bomb into Google? For that matter, who's stopping me from explaining how to make a bomb right now in this blog?

Rather, I think that the government has felt they need to come across as moderating internet content, but are caught between the throws of free speech (completely unmoderated) and broadcast communication (needs to be regulated).

Let's face it, Australian media content in general, as it becomes less conservative, is moving towards a system of self regulation. Little Johnny may not be exposed to nudity on TV before his bedtime; but technically ofay Johnny knows that a quick type of the word boobies into Google will provide him with all the nudity he wants.

Self regulation... yeah, I guess it'll work to an extent. I think we should educate people on the constrictive advantages of the internet, like access to information, the ability for mass communication and its positive ability to network previously un-linkable people and organisations.

Anyway... after all the shouting's over, Van Morrison will still tell me that it's a wonderful night for a moondance, and I'll believe him. Thank heavens for stability in an ever-changing world,

Chris


__________________________________________________________
picture sourced from Photoshop-school (2005) http://www.photoshop-school.org/xmedia/goodies/wallpaper/1024.GIF, accessed September 7, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------

The Shortcomings of Australian Tabloid Media


Here's a few words on tabloid media in Australia. The quotes are taken from text books: I'll reference them as a 'comment' when I get home. I feel strongly about this, and just as strongly about misrepresentation (generally) within tabloid media. It's a bit scrawly (I originally wrote it in speech format), but I'd love to hear comments from anyone who takes the time to read it.
___________________________________________________________________________
The Australian Media Industry is a funny one. It’s not like the engineering, science, or medicine industries, because when we study it, right from day one we learn to critique it. We learn of its shortcomings, we learn how it has been semi-corrupted by corporate motivations. We also learn not to take it all as truth, and we learn to keep in mind certain things when we consume the media. But, unfortunately, a lot of people don't have the knowledge to take this approach to consuming news media.

I’m going to argue that the domination of tabloid news in Australian news media has and will continue to fail the Australian peoples’ requirements for truth and objectivity in the media. Which is simply a fancy way of saying that tabloid news is hopeless when it comes to effective journalism.

Tabloid news presents its hopelessness in two ways:
• In the age of information it does not contribute to providing information
• In the age of multiculturalism, tabloid media is pedalling Australian society backwards.
• I will also express my ideas on how we ought to consume tabloid media so as not to fall subject to its shortcomings

Sparks and Tulloch (2000) identify tabloidisation into three indicators:
• Range: the inadequate coverage of real/hard news
• Form: the simplification of press formats at the expense of necessary complexity .: easily understood illustration and simpler vocabulary and presentation
• Mode of address: outlines the relationship between the journalist and the reader as more casual and jovial. In tabloid media, the journalist tends to produce what the reader already wants to consume, so the consumer doesn’t really learn anything.

We supposedly live in the age of information, where now more then ever, we have access to facts and figures at our fingertips. And through globalisation, we see more of the outside world than ever before. Isn’t this a romantic idea? But I think that the information we receive now through the media is becoming less and less informative. Bill McKibben calls it the age of missing information. I believe that the news media has the potential to improve our knowledge of the world, but largely it doesn’t. I also believe that there’s a severe lack of in-depth current affairs programming in Australia.

One example of this was during the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky calamity in 1996, when current affairs media went ga-ga finding out and sensationalising rumour, gossip and unsubstantiated stories.
And more recently when poor old Johnny Brogden let go a slip of the tongue (2005) after a few private drinks and as a result copped an absolute thrashing by the media, to the point where he wanted to take his own life!
Interestingly, in the days following princess Diana’s death, tabloid magazines and newspapers—who had previously hounded her incessantly, publishing any picture of her they could get their hands on—suddenly decided to publish pictures of her helping the sick and assisting her children. They suddenly decided to grant Diana the loyalty and respect she previously didn’t receive.

This is how news media conducts itself in pursuit of ratings, but is this what we want from the media, tabloid concoctions dominating front pages? It’s news media’s obsession with ratings that has corrupted their purpose and blurred their vision with regards to the role Australian commercial news media should play in society. That is the role of informing Australians on events and current affairs occurring locally and around the globe accurately, without dominant discourse or bias.

I also have concerns over the fact that news and public affairs are morphing into entertainment and tabloids dominating over mainstream media by focussing on personalisation of news, story selection and framing. That is, news media sources will intentionally choose and personalise a news story into a particular frame or dominant discourse. For example, yet another story on politicians misspending taxpayers’ money. You can just about hear Ray Martin saying it. This technique has facilitated the rise of infotainment and the advertorial—horrible words. They basically mean information presented as entertainment and advertising presented as an editorial.

Not only does tabloid news provide us with weak, inaccurate information, this weak, inaccurate information provides content that is detrimental to cultural diversity. I was watching Today Tonight a few weeks ago and they ran a segment on a group of young Muslim males, supposedly documenting their lives in an inner-city Australian suburb. During the segment, one of the men said 'we will never integrate'. He was referring to the willingness of Muslims to integrate into Australian society. This one statement caused uproar all over the papers and TB radio of people disgusted with Muslims, saying that they aren’t welcome if they don’t want to adapt to Australian society and so on.

On Media Watch a few weeks later, they discovered that the entire statement was more like 'we will never integrate like other cultures integrate because our culture is very strict and what is seen as integration of one culture may be different from another'. Why would T-T take out these justifying remarks? To achieve exactly what it did achieve: outrage amongst Australians against the Muslims. People were absolutely 'fuming'.

This type of tabloid activity is not exclusive to tv programs, it also occurs in similar instances in the press, on the radio and on the internet.

But it’s not all bad news. We can be subject to tabloid media as long as we recognise it as such and understand what it is. There’s no doubting that tabloid news contributes to Australian news media, but it shouldn’t dominate over important, informative journalism. It has its place in 6.30pm timeslots on tv, half-sized newspapers and glossy magazines. Other than that, it shouldn’t interfere. We must also establish within society that tabloid news is not informative or accurately representative of the world in which we live.

Tabloid press is like Talkback radio: it should be labelled as such and received in a way that the audience knows it is sensational, opinionated and biased.

I’ll end with an idea from Julianne Schultz (2002) and an idea of my own. Schultz believes that the press has used the fourth estate rhetoric to achieve greater power and influence than it could otherwise enjoy. The idea of the fourth estate is that the press is the fourth source of maintaining a representative democracy, next to parliament, the executive and the judiciary. I’ll go a step further and say that media in general has exploited the fourth estate label and betrayed its consumers by presenting tabloid news as hard news, when in fact it is not. The shortcomings of Australian news media lie on this idea. Tabloid news is hopeless when it comes to effective journalism, and the sooner we all acknowledge this, the sooner Australian news media can regain its role in Australian society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image sourced from 'Girlfriend' web site, url: 144.140.25.180/ Images/ACF92E8.jpg (2005). Accessed September 7 2005
Schultz, J 2002, The Press, in Cunningham, S & Turner, G, The Media and Communications in Australia, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin
Sparks, C and Tulloch, J 2000 Tabloid Tales, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for reading. I'd be more than happy to discuss the issue, so feel free to comment: positively/negatively.
`till then,

Chris

Monday, September 05, 2005

google America?

A ponder:

If there is a Google Pakistan, a Google Russia, and a Google Namibia; how come there's no Google America? Isn't the US the home of Google?

And for that matter, how come there is no url suffix for the US? Just '.com'
I thought nobody owned the internet...

Strange. Any ideas?

Chris

Thursday, September 01, 2005

A Place for Media Watch?

So many people seem to be rubbishing the 'self apponted' Media Watch lately, and it prompted me to ask 'is there a place for Media Watch in Australian media?'. Well of course there is! Who else will monitor those yahoos at tabloid newspapers, magazines, talkback radio shows and current affairs programs like ACA and Today Tonight?

The buggers pretty much do what they want. They take interviews out of context, sensationalise almost to the point of lying, and when they're reprimanded, it's a tap on the bottom and on their way. At least there's some organisation to pull them up when they go too far. Today Tonight was featured on Media Watch last week for taking a documentary with a group of Muslim youths completely out of context. The guy who documented the group told them it'd give them a chance to show what it's like to be a young Muslim living in (I think) Melbourne. Instead, T-T ran the doco as a group of renegade Muslim youths who were in no way willing to integrate into western society. This is appalling! How is Australian society expected to move forward when muck-rakers like T-T and ACA are running segments inciting anger towards non-western cultures? The problem is that the majority of people who watch T-T wouldn't watch the ABC's Media Watch. All they see is the initial segment, and then after they get pineed, their pathetic response which basically focuses on rubbishing Media Watch.

That's all for now, it feels like I could go on forever about this... but I'm hungry.

Next time, Gadget
Chris