Audio Reel, October 2009.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
So far...
The past couple of months have proved challenging as a prospective journalist about to embark on 'the real world'. However, rather than turning me off the profession, it has highlighted the challenging but integral role Journalists do play within society. I do not think the newspaper is dying - at least not in my career span. I also think the role of the journalist won't be undervalued- at least not in the industry.
The most important thing I will take away from this course is to simply be aware. Most of the issues we have been presented with will not disappear, if anything they will only get more difficult to deal with. This means that as Journalists it is not up to us to change these trends but to achieve quality journalism despite their existence.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Some interesting articles
Google's vision of the future of journalism
Josh Cohen outlines the problems with Google owning the news. (The Guardian)
Why journalism needs PR
An interesting article by Julia Hobsbawm about our, somewhat unfortunate, dependence on PR. (The Guardian)
Amateur Hour
Journalism without Journalists? By Nicholas Lemann. (The New Yorker)
Josh Cohen outlines the problems with Google owning the news. (The Guardian)
Why journalism needs PR
An interesting article by Julia Hobsbawm about our, somewhat unfortunate, dependence on PR. (The Guardian)
Amateur Hour
Journalism without Journalists? By Nicholas Lemann. (The New Yorker)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The juggling act
How funny, the above cartoon depicts the level of multi tasking required by modern journalists but it also depicts exactly how I feel coming into the final weeks of my degree!
Time in class this week was used to work on and brainstorm our ideas for our major projects. I have decided, surprise surprise, to go with an audio piece. I am planning to interview Verity Webb, former editor of ABC radio in Sydney and Melanie James- our very own PR expert along with a journalism student being challenged by the ideas I will present.
The idea so far is to do a radio feature piece on the coexistence of Journalists and PR in modern news rooms. I will first gain the Journalist's perspective, followed by the PR - questions for this interview will be shaped by the comments of the journalist- then how our future news producers see the modern journalistic world. I will also include some news music to liven the piece up.
So far the piece hasn't taken off yet. I plan to conduct my interviews next week and edit it by week 12. With two 3000 word essays, a 1000 word media audit, ten minute interview and 2500 word internship report also due I'd prefer to get it out of the way! A such is the life of a modern journalist... student.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Journalism, the law and you
IF ONLY!
As aspiring journalists nothing is more scary than the prospect of being sued! The main issue dealt with in today's seminar was defamation. Wikipedia defines defamation as 'the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.' (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation)
For journalists attempting to 'uncover the truth' defamation is something that must always be at the forefront of our minds- for one person's 'truth' is certainly not another's.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/04/2208010.htm
Above is the case of the Australian Olympic Committee head John Coates against serial offender 2GB's Alan Jones. It is reported that 'Mr Jones was discussing the collapse of the Olympic rower, Sally Robbins, in the women's eight final in Athens that year. The jury found he implied Mr Coates ordered a cover-up, bullied the crew and was a poor leader. Justice Michael Adams has found the remarks were not true.'
Now Mr Coates walked away with $360 000 in damages from those remarks. $360 000! All from something said on radio - from someone who is paid to express opinions.
Now Jones is a special case, he is not likely to lose his job over something like this. For a young journalist, however, this could be a career killing situation.
It highlights the importance of verification. It also highlights why we are taught to go over every word and sentence before submitting work. Wording a sentence in the wrong way could land you in hot water very quickly- particularly if you are lucky enough to be picked up by a large news organisation, where messy journalism is highly penalised, let alone illegal journalism!
John spoke in his presentation and then later in discussion the way the internet is creating more room for error in this situation. Once again the concept of immediate news and incredibly tight deadlines in light of the technological age made an appearance in class discussion- highlighting the increasing difficulty of carrying out qulaity investigative journalism. Legally this has much more serious personal consequences for the journalist than any of the other issues faced in class.
Each week I seem to return to the importance of that V word... verification! But the more we go on the more class discussion is beginning to convince me that I may have to accept that due to the tech age high quality journalism is just about out of our reach.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Week 8 Article
Blog altered for report...
Information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people, Tom Stott said today.
Stott, a journalism student from the University of Newcastle, today discussed with his fellow students an issue that effects modern journalism: To write or not to write? Should Journalists risk stepping over the line of privacy in the name of public interest? And how do we draw this line?
Writers Glenda Cooper and Stephen Whittle (2008) say 'There is currently a battle around the point at which freedom of expression and the public interest meet the right to privacy.’
Stott introduced to his listeners an example of this battle with Hollywood columnist Perez Hilton and his coverage of a car accident involving celebrity Lindsay Lohan, who was found to be under the influence of drugs whilst driving.
Hilton made speculation that the cocaine, which was found in the vehicle at the time of the accident, could have been owned by passenger of the car Samantha Ronson.
Following Stott's example the audience divided.
Many students began advocating the right to privacy- stating that this incident shouldn't have been reported – and the remaining half declared the actions of a public figure or celebrity should be public knowledge due to their public status.
'To apply Tom's [initial] statement to celebrity their private lives aren't at all in the public interest,' student Brooke Lees said.
'Then why do these stories remain at the forefront of the news,' asked Lecturer in Journalism Christina Koutsoukos.
According to Stott this is because the public is interested - they want to know. They do not, however, have the right to know - and this is where the difference lies.
Information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people, Tom Stott said today.
Stott, a journalism student from the University of Newcastle, today discussed with his fellow students an issue that effects modern journalism: To write or not to write? Should Journalists risk stepping over the line of privacy in the name of public interest? And how do we draw this line?
Writers Glenda Cooper and Stephen Whittle (2008) say 'There is currently a battle around the point at which freedom of expression and the public interest meet the right to privacy.’
Stott introduced to his listeners an example of this battle with Hollywood columnist Perez Hilton and his coverage of a car accident involving celebrity Lindsay Lohan, who was found to be under the influence of drugs whilst driving.
Hilton made speculation that the cocaine, which was found in the vehicle at the time of the accident, could have been owned by passenger of the car Samantha Ronson.
Following Stott's example the audience divided.
Many students began advocating the right to privacy- stating that this incident shouldn't have been reported – and the remaining half declared the actions of a public figure or celebrity should be public knowledge due to their public status.
'To apply Tom's [initial] statement to celebrity their private lives aren't at all in the public interest,' student Brooke Lees said.
'Then why do these stories remain at the forefront of the news,' asked Lecturer in Journalism Christina Koutsoukos.
According to Stott this is because the public is interested - they want to know. They do not, however, have the right to know - and this is where the difference lies.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Privacy and the Public Interest
The issue discussed in class this week is one that all Journalists will encounter at some point in their career. To write or not to write? Do we risk stepping over the line of privacy in the name of public interest? And how do we draw this line?
'There is currently a battle around the point at which freedom of expression and the public interest meet the right to privacy,' writers Glenda Cooper and Stephen Wittle said.
As an example of this battle Tom Stott discussed hollywood columnist Perez Hilton and his coverage of a car accident involving Lindsay Lohan, who was found to be under the influence of drugs whilst driving.
Hilton made speculation that the cocaine, which was found in the vehicle at the time of the accident, could have been owned by passenger of the car Samantha Ronson.
Heated discussion followed this example, with half the class advocating the right to privacy- stating that this incident shouldn't have been reported - and half the class declaring the actions of a public figure or celebrity should be public knowledge due to their status.
Stott stated that 'Information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people'
Applying this statement to celebrity it would appear that their private lives are, in fact, not at all in the public interest. However they will remain at the forefront of the news whether quality journalists approve or not. This is because the public is interested - they want to know. They do not, however, have the right to know - and this is where the difference lies.
'There is currently a battle around the point at which freedom of expression and the public interest meet the right to privacy,' writers Glenda Cooper and Stephen Wittle said.
As an example of this battle Tom Stott discussed hollywood columnist Perez Hilton and his coverage of a car accident involving Lindsay Lohan, who was found to be under the influence of drugs whilst driving.
Hilton made speculation that the cocaine, which was found in the vehicle at the time of the accident, could have been owned by passenger of the car Samantha Ronson.
Heated discussion followed this example, with half the class advocating the right to privacy- stating that this incident shouldn't have been reported - and half the class declaring the actions of a public figure or celebrity should be public knowledge due to their status.
Stott stated that 'Information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people'
Applying this statement to celebrity it would appear that their private lives are, in fact, not at all in the public interest. However they will remain at the forefront of the news whether quality journalists approve or not. This is because the public is interested - they want to know. They do not, however, have the right to know - and this is where the difference lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
