Mondays 3-4:30pm

How well does public broadcasting achieve its general goal of constructing a public sphere?

• Audiences are increasingly critical of the media and news today.
• The connecting diversity article says that “there is often distrust and disconnection associated with media content.”
• Audiences are often unwilling to accept what is presented in the media
• Shift towards more popular media which may potentially lead to a drop in integrity
• People want to be actively involved and television does not offer this
• Can public broadcasting services honestly and unbiasedly present a view of the government when their funding comes directly from the government?

Suggest a new or improved government programme

• Funding from multiple sources
• Establish new ways of interactive media

Governmental technologies

• Funding more interactive media e.g. podcasts so people can feel constantly up to date and involved

Visual powerpoint presentation: Print media presentation

During, Simon. “Debating Identity” In Cultural Studies: A Critical Introduction, Routledge: London, 2005, 145-152

During highlights many significant points about identity, particularly in its relationship to individuality and society. He aims to inform the reader that identity is different from individuality and that identity is socially constructed and, to an extent, imposed upon us without much say from us all, the recipients. Identities are formed in regard to what is present in relation to what could have been present. E.g. a woman is female because she is not male. However, as During suggests, any such identity poses issues of grey areas as there is never an all encompassing identity which everyone who fits into agrees upon as wholly accurate. d

Society imposes identities upon individual people and groups of people, acknowledging them in regard to characteristics they elicit. This is sometimes negative and sometimes positive, yet I wonder, do we ever make our own identity? I found During’s comment, “Quite often, words used by others to define a group insultingly or prejudicially are appropriated by the group themselves and turned into a term marking self-identity” (p146) People who refer to themselves, or align themselves with a particular subculture often refer to themselves in terms which were once used in an almost discriminatory fashion. The “Emo” trend of current society was first used to identify anti-social individuals yet has now become a trend among young people who identify with aspects of the label. Yet is this identity an accurate depiction of the individuals within it? As During suggests, its complex but definitely not an explanation of one’s true self.

Another issue I found interesting in the reading was the idea that social situations give rise to new identities being formed. Whilst this is most definitely true, opportunities for all sorts of change arise alongside social changes, During’s example of feminist movements in the 1950’s caused me to oppose, to an extent, some of his statements. I believe that social identity changes would occur whether or not the current social climate permitted them to. I think it is just the difference between a “movement” and a “revolution”. To me, a movement is a change which, although often shocking and new, is somewhat expected or understood by those in ‘power’. Yet revolution suggests that change is occurring in society and the search for new identity is not understood by those in ‘power’. During’s statements confused me somewhat because I believe that he meant something similar to what I feel yet it appeared to show that identity change can only occur when society allows it to, yet my issue lies with the definition of society “allowing” change.

Finally, During says, “It is impossible to exist in society without a proper name.” I disagree. What about “Unidentified” species of plants and animals? Scientists acknowledge their existence yet have no name for them. Does this mean they no longer exist? Even in reference to people, some people takes days to name their newborn babies, therefore they have no “proper” name yet most definitely exist. What is a “proper” name? Is simply being known as a baby good enough to count for a name? And how can something cease to exist simply because there is no name for it? Since when did something’s name change its physical makeup? In the words of Shakespeare, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. So as clichéd as that reference is, is it not true?

Macken-Horaik, M. “The Children Overboard affair” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 26.2 (2003), 1-16

The author aims to encourage an understanding of ‘multimodal grammar’ and promotes the significance of viewing any media event/story in its entirety, whilst also questioning its affirmations. The author uses the term verbiage when referring to how something is expressed through words, and aims to demonstrate how words and images were used in combination to create the “Children Overboard” scandal out of an entirely different event.

Everyone knows the saying “A picture tells a thousand words”, but how is it that we determine what those thousand words are? As expressed by van Leeuwen, often in newspapers and other forms of media, journalists and political commentators determine those words through suggestion and connotation. Any one specific picture can have multiple meanings and these meanings are determined by context of use and viewing. Whilst some images depict certain views quite strongly, others are ambiguous and vague and their meanings can be influence to represent almost any opinion; as was the case with the children overboard scandal and an unrelated image.

Politicians and governments have used the power of pictures throughout history, particularly in propaganda material. Another saying is “pictures speak louder than words.” Yet this I find this one somewhat more contentious than the previous saying. I agree with the author that the meanings of images are shaped by words, to an extent, and whilst I am not denying the power some images possess, words can equally be as powerful.

 The power of both words and images should not be overlooked in the media. The passivity or activity of particular words can indicate responsibility and indirectly, yet mostly intentionally, lay blame on certain individuals. Not only that, a story can be made from a picture, with little to no understanding of its context, yet that story may not be accurate.

All of these thoughts bring me to wonder how we trust media events. Can we justify a story because it has photographic evidence, and vice versa, is a picture powerful because of the story it represents? There is no denying that an effective story uses both image and words, yet I wonder how everyone can pick the same thousand words when viewing an image…

This week’s reading significantly highlights how certain events can be manipulated to suggest something, while leaving the facts intact and undisputed. Lukin aims to explain how both subconscious and conscious language choices affect the meaning of texts and how grammar use can indeed reflect ideological alignment.

Lukin addresses the idea of “marginalising and agent”, i.e. decreasing their role in an event. I agree that during times of war and conflict, this occurs frequently, particularly when government opinion and action is not to be contested. The ways media professionals use language to demonstrate or suggest responsibility is the same as the way we all learned to form sentences in kindergarten. Anyone recall how the cat sat on the mat makes sense, but saying the mat sat on the cat does not? This example, while not entirely reflective of Lukin’s concept, reminds us as an audience of how important something as simple as word order can be. The active agent in a sentence has the ‘doing word’ and changing who does something makes a huge difference regarding the meaning of a text. When accusing a particular party of executing an action, they are actively doing something and the verbs belong to them. When attempting to hide, or at least not openly acknowledge, responsibility the passive voice can be brought in and the doing words no longer exist in relation to the agent. They simply become a spectator. This simple understanding makes it easy to see how governments can manipulate the media audiences to subconsciously absolve them of responsibility or acknowledge involvement in positive situations.

While this may not always be negative, Lukin’s article suggests to me that responsibility for actions is much less accepted and acknowledged in times of conflict. No one wants to be held responsible for the tragic sufferings of a 12 year old boy, so often the media can help them in making sure that does not occur. Yet as an aspiring journalist, I question whether or not people realise the significance of grammatical expression in suggesting much more than the level of education of the writer. Spelling mistakes and punctuation aside, grammar is vital in conveying meaning through a text. Lukin’s article has demonstrated how important it is to understand the importance of grammar and the way sentence structure can change meaning. Often it is not the actual words which develop meaning, but the way in which the words are delivered that has the most significant influence on the audience.

The aim of this reading is to examine how to undertake research in the rapidly more complex and ever changing media environment of today’s society. It aims to take into account all forms of media not just the mobile phone, yet in my opinion the focus is still heavily on the mobile phone. This focus may suggest the significant role that the mobile phone has in our society and that when researching media, in relation to audiences or anything else, the mobile phone is central to understanding people’s relationships with media. It seems the iPhone is relevant to every topic in this course and once again it comes up here, but I will only mention that its relevance is so strong because now internet, email etc are not restricted to computers or laptops and everything is mobile.

The reading introduces the concept of a continuum of media. This, meaning that all new media is just a development of previous ones, I believe is quite true. Every day we hear of new technology “breakthroughs” but these can only occur when existing media and technology are altered or expanded on. I agree with Haddon that new media are hardly new inventions and existing media like the television will never die. Although the ways we watch TV are changing, also evident in the physical transmission of TV as in the current change from analogue to digital television, it still holds a significant value in media audiences. The ability to watch TV on iPods and the internet may be appealing to a certain portion of the population at certain times, but the television itself still holds more appeal for relaxation and pleasure purposes. Personally, I’d much rather watch a movie on TV than on a tiny screen on my iPod; unless, of course, TV is unavailable then the iPod is definitely convenient.

However, the reading also introduces the concept of a complexity of choice in deciding which media to use at certain times. I must disagree with this idea to some extent. Although there are complexities in how to use certain media, I personally do not get the iPhone, and there may arise some questions as to which is appropriate for certain people, my decision to text instead of call someone does not require much thought. The author suggests that practices are adopted and integrated over time, and this can potentially explain why I focus so little effort on deciding which media to use, yet I find it hard to support the idea that the decision process is complicated and technical. Why do we use certain media? For me, the answer is simply convenience. A text is easy to send and quick, especially in public places. Phone calls are good when needing to ask a significant number of quick questions. Another factor is most definitely, as a seriously broke uni student, cost. Texting is cheap and easy, yet also easy to get caught up in. Phone calls cost more but have their place. Internet and email is used whenever its available simply because its free (for those still living at home anyhow). I guess these examples do indicate some degree of technicality or complexity in the decision process, and perhaps the author is correct in saying that choosing media is a “complex decision”, but honestly, cost and convenience are pretty simple explanations for media choice.

Teresa Rizzo, in her chapter Programming Your Own Channel; An Archaeology of the Playlist, aims to investigate the role of the playlist and how it has influenced our consumption of broadcast media. The chapter focuses particularly on how and why the playlist has dramatically transformed viewing practices in an increasingly digital society.

Rizzo uses terms such as PDR; Personal Digital Recorder and EPG; Electronic Program Guide and discusses how the relationship between changing viewing practices and the concept of “flow”. She uses both Williams and Deleuze & Guattari’s definitions of flow to produce an appropriate definition in regard to the playlist. Rizzo ultimately prefers Deleuze & Guattari’s definition of flow and describes, somewhat ironically, flow through interruption as most relevant to her comments on the playlist.

In my opinion, the digital playlist is an extremely useful and appreciated invention. I no longer have to set timers on VCR’s to record TV shows or movies or fast forward through 3000 songs before I find one I feel like listening to and can find almost anything on the internet via YouTube, although I think searching for “Sean Paul, misheard lyrics” seems somewhat irrelevant to this discussion.

The playlist creates a “Spatial Mode of Viewing”, defined by Karen Lury as “a multi channel environment in which you locate your favourite channels to see what they have on offer”. This spatial mode of viewing means that people can develop media rituals based on their own schedule. Viewing practices have changed from a receiving format to a searching format. By this I mean people now search for what they want and can gain access to this, ultimately, whenever they want rather than being constrained by the pre set programming determined by producers.

While I believe living life around watching your favourite TV program every night appears somewhat pathetic, I admit I do possess a weekly habit of watching certain TV programs.  However, with Foxtel IQ I can watch these programs whenever I want and I generally do not watch them at their aired times but rather on days when I feel like nothing other than some mind numbingly enjoyable TV. This agrees with Rizzo’s definition of the channel as a “place to visit”. Other devices like YouTube take this a step further and not only can people watch programs whenever they want, they can sometimes even view them before it is possible on broadcast TV and search for alternate programs which are related to the one they are watching.

This convenience of watching programs is also evident in the iPod. As most people know, iPods allow mobile consumption of a range of media. In my opinion, the iPod is the greatest user of the playlist. My iPod has approximately 15 000 songs on it currently and no movies. So while I may not be using the iPod for TV programs or movies, I use it almost every day. Without playlists the iPod would be much less appealing. Sorting through 15 000 songs to suit my mood or location is tedious and hence I only like to do it once and save my choices; in a playlist. A frequent use for me is the On-The-Go playlist function. This is the ultimate example of mobile, convenient, personalised media consumption. The playlist can be created and changed instantly, wherever you are as long as you have the iPod and an idea of what you want to consume.

To sum up, I believe digital playlists have made media consumption much more personal, convenient and mobile. They allow people to view programs when they want, where they want and as often as they want without having to rely on VCR timers or hurrying home through peak hour traffic to catch their nightly soap opera. People can now access a range of programs from almost anywhere, even just by taking an iPod out of their pocket and hitting play. What’s not to like?!

I think we have all been, or at least bore witness to, the person Moores mentions in his third example, “Two ‘theres’ there in mobile phone use” (p29). I know myself that many times I have been on the phone, having a ‘private’ conversation, only to realise that the conversation is not as private as I’d assumed, ironic that seeing as it was on the train, or in a shopping centre. This idea that media can “pluralize” (p23) place is an interesting concept and one which I think holds very true in today’s global society. Moores aims to outline this concept, building on the thesis of Meyrowitz (1985) that media transcends typical social boundaries and provides examples, such as the one mentioned above, to highlight his point.

Today, the vast majority of people use media forms frequently and in all different kinds of environments. The technological advances which have made media portable and convenient have increased the use of media in public places. But is this media use public or private? Moores seeks to address this issue using the term “co-presence” (p30) to indicate that the person (using the media) is present in two different situations simultaneously. Decades ago this idea would have been condemned as crazy and impossible. However, today it seems far more reasonable with a distinction between physically being in two places at once and being present in two situations simultaneously. Media has allowed people to be present in two places, simultaneously. The communication via a telephone or more significantly, via webcam chat, allows an individual to witness and, to some degree, participate in events of two situations. However, this “co-presence” ignites the question of privacy (mentioned earlier). Is public media use, for private purposes, really private?

In my opinion, any use of media designed for private use is just that, a private use. Yet when used in a public environment this does create an issue. People are not lawfully obliged to ignore a rowdy phone conversation, or to shield their eyes from a private email on another’s laptop, yet courteously, should we? Does the proximity of private media use in public situations make it public? The idea of co presence indicates that this individual is present in two places at once, so technically the public environment of their physical location is still relevant. Does co-presence rule one location as more important or more private than the other? And how do we as a society distinguish between public media use and private media use in a public situation? In my opinion, common courtesy rules we ignore any perceived private media use of fellow individuals. However, in regard to whether one aspect of the “co-presence” is more private than the other, that depends significantly on situation and circumstance.

Ashley Kopp

The ever changing world of media and technology has been the focus of frequent debate in recent years.  Not only regarding the ways technology are changing and developing but the role of media in our everyday lives. Hartley aims to address this in this chapter, particularly the role of news on our sense of time and its influence in shaping society.  He outlines the “frequencies” of public address and describes the role of different forms of public address in today’s society and throughout history.

Hartley uses the concept of frequency to refer to the amount of time between publications and updates and it is this concept which I will focus on. News media has the highest frequency of all forms of public address and with the continual invention of faster and more innovative technologies, this frequency is ever increasing.  As participants in a media dominated society, our demand for up to date information is great. Inventions such as the internet and laptops have increased our expectations for instantaneous news delivery. Through these devices, the frequency of news media is now measured in minutes and seconds rather than hours or days. The old habits of waiting for the morning paper have been overcome by the regular internet check and podcasts.

Hartley outlines that public writing of lower frequency is more valid as it often takes more time to produce and therefore has a nature which allows the information to remain relevant for longer. While I do not think that up to the minute updates are useless, I agree that that is often the type of news which becomes irrelevant quickly. The ability for everyone to upload information to the internet means that anything, and often everything, goes online and becomes available for consumption. This wide availability of ‘news’ can lead to irrelevant information and an increase in popular media, which becomes outdated much faster than academic research and other longer term public writing forms.

Finally, as Hartley outlines we base our time on the news media, therefore I feel it makes sense to claim that as the frequency of news availability increases, so too does the frequency of everyday life. This idea of an ever increasingly fast paced, media driven, society positions me to question whether the increasing frequency of news availability is helping society or simply just overloading us with information. As media consumers, we all must ask if the up to the minute updates in media are really essential or whether we should value lower frequency media greater and pay more attention to consuming less, more thoroughly.

 Ashley Kopp

Silverstone’s explanation of domestication arouses multiple questions, not so much about the process itself, but rather, about the role of media and technology within today’s society. He states that the emergence of domestication was “an attempt to grasp the nettle of socio-technical change” (Domestication of Media and Technology, Open Uni Press, 2006, p231). Silverstone follows on to explain this and aims to outline the process of domestication and its effect on society and also addresses domestication in relevance to the ‘moral economy’ of households. This moral economy refers to the set of values, patterns and behavioural expectations of a household.

Silverstone presents domestication as a process of consumption and outlines four phases in this process. These are; appropriation, objectification, incorporation and conversion. The initial stage, appropriation, involves taking possession of the technology. This is then followed by assigning value to the object and establishing a relationship between it and members of the household: objectification. Once the technology has been established in the household it is then incorporated into some form of regular use. Silverstone explains this as “the injection of media technological practices into the temporal patterns of domestic life” (Domestication of Media and Technology, Open Uni Press, 2006, p235). Following incorporation is conversion, and conversion is the stage which, in my opinion, has the most significant influence on society.

Conversion involves a change in the lifestyle and media use of an individual or a household. It is the stage at which the technology significantly begins to influence action rather more so than action influences technology. What I mean by this is that once a form of media or technology has been integrated into regular, often daily, use its presence is often required for the routine of the day. This then raises multiple questions about the changing role of media in our society. Silverstone addresses the desire for preservation and projection. By this he means preservation of the content and quality of current media life but also the desire for new and improved technologies. Society is always searching for more and continually pushing the boundaries of technological development. However, we must determine to what point is this sustainable and decide whether it will continue to benefit society or eventually become a detriment.  Silverstone raises similar questions at the conclusion of the chapter and addresses the drastically changing nature of today’s media society.

Finally, in my opinion, domestication today is a natural and expected process. New technologies remain new for increasingly shorter periods of time and most households are accustomed to the frequent introduction of new technology. This then raises the significant question as to whether we are in control of media and technology or whether we are allowing it to have too great an influence on our lives. I must wonder,  will there come a point at which technology takes over?

Ashley Kopp