Entertainment Journalism is one of the most popular forms of journalism today - thousands of magazines that are loaded with 'celebrity' coverage, music journalism or any sort of entertainment related subject matter are sold every day. People love to read about the rich and famous. We are fascinated by them.
Why then is entertainment journalism often attacked as 'fluff' or 'nonsensical' writing; and those reporting it are often critiqued and insulted. Producer Don Murphy on his website makes some stron allegations that entertainment journalists are 'lazy' and put 'little effort' into their work - he states that reviewers are lazy and talk to eachother to create very similar reviews because in his opinion they find it too much work to have an original idea.
He continues his attack throughout his piece entitled 'Entertainment Journalism's an Oxymoron.'
In reading this and thinking about my major assignment piece on entertainment and it's local and global values I find that entertainment journalists are writing a lot and we are lapping it up. I know that they are hard working and create or re-create many stories that the audince they are aiming at want.
The two major research subjects that I have interviewed regarding the issue, Jade from the Newcastle Herald and Dr. Phil McIntyre are both very well written and know their subject areas very well.
I am very excited to write a major piece about this subject area as I find that if the community is interested in a story then it should be written about. Certain celebrities appeal to people in certain areas - Newcastle for example is interested in people who may be playing a concert or doing something in our area - one of the most regular 'superstars' to appear in Newcastle is Pink so we as a populus are often interested in reading about her along with many others. Jennifer Hawkins for example - a local who has made it big, as a community we are interested in our 'own.'
The localisation and selection of who and what to write about reguarding entertainment journalism is a massive task in itself.
So more power to entertainment writers I say!!!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Legalities My Friends!!!
Today laws and the media are changing. New technology is bringing about so much change and introducing new barriers for journalists.
Robbie Patterson identified some of the major laws that affect journalists in today’s tech savvy world. Sub Judice law; Freedom of Information; and Defamation laws.
Sub Judice is a very confusing law for journalists as it is different in every case. It deals with the ethical implications for certain journalistic reporting on court cases. The idea behind Sub Judice came out of courts trying to balance and individual’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know.
The Freedom of Information act was one put in place to help with journalistic investigation. When used correctly it can be a very effective way of journalists getting true information. The only problems are the expense and the fact that many things are hidden away or exempt from this act.
It was suggested that some companies who don’t want certain information leaked, will tie those who are looking into these things up for a very long time.
The other major law talked about was Defamation. This was developed with the implications that the internet has on this law. Where is the information published? Australia frowns greatly on defamation while some other countries are more lenient. If an item is published in the U.S for example, and is defamatory towards an Australian whose colleagues can access it can the case be brought to court in Australia?
John Hanlen provided a few points that journalists need to consider when publishing on line; they include:
• Being a good Journalist and publish only the truth – not assuming anything.
• Don’t be argumentative or judgemental on line.
• And be ethical and responsible in your writing.
These are good journalistic practices to have anyway.
Robbie Patterson identified some of the major laws that affect journalists in today’s tech savvy world. Sub Judice law; Freedom of Information; and Defamation laws.
Sub Judice is a very confusing law for journalists as it is different in every case. It deals with the ethical implications for certain journalistic reporting on court cases. The idea behind Sub Judice came out of courts trying to balance and individual’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know.
The Freedom of Information act was one put in place to help with journalistic investigation. When used correctly it can be a very effective way of journalists getting true information. The only problems are the expense and the fact that many things are hidden away or exempt from this act.
It was suggested that some companies who don’t want certain information leaked, will tie those who are looking into these things up for a very long time.
The other major law talked about was Defamation. This was developed with the implications that the internet has on this law. Where is the information published? Australia frowns greatly on defamation while some other countries are more lenient. If an item is published in the U.S for example, and is defamatory towards an Australian whose colleagues can access it can the case be brought to court in Australia?
John Hanlen provided a few points that journalists need to consider when publishing on line; they include:
• Being a good Journalist and publish only the truth – not assuming anything.
• Don’t be argumentative or judgemental on line.
• And be ethical and responsible in your writing.
These are good journalistic practices to have anyway.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
When it comes to Privacy...
There is a line that should not be crossed when it comes to the privacy of the individual. When a private person is involved in an incident that is in the public interest - there needs to be a respect for their personal privacy.
In the tutorial we discussed this reguarding several issues. I actually made the statement that when looking at a story from our perspective (journalists), in contrast to the actual personal feelings of the parties involved we will go for the story. If an editor is telling us to go out and write a story about the young South African 'Hemaphrodite' runner or our job will be cut - we will go get the story.
As journalists though we need to know where we truly stand. It isn't right for us to go and cast a negative light over something out of someone's control - she (I will be referring to her as a she as this is the identity that she knows herself as) didn't know she was a hemaphrodite and didn't live as a man - so for the media to push this story the way that they did raises some ethical concerns - I believe.
The story about the young boy at Mullumbimbi high school, who was named and facts seemed to have been very 'falsificated or fabricated.' The approach by most news sources towards this story were horrible and it seems that they held very few ethical standards. In the case of this story privacy was breached and this should be dealt with.
The question again though - 'If it's your job, or the story; do you get the 'news'?'
In the tutorial we discussed this reguarding several issues. I actually made the statement that when looking at a story from our perspective (journalists), in contrast to the actual personal feelings of the parties involved we will go for the story. If an editor is telling us to go out and write a story about the young South African 'Hemaphrodite' runner or our job will be cut - we will go get the story.
As journalists though we need to know where we truly stand. It isn't right for us to go and cast a negative light over something out of someone's control - she (I will be referring to her as a she as this is the identity that she knows herself as) didn't know she was a hemaphrodite and didn't live as a man - so for the media to push this story the way that they did raises some ethical concerns - I believe.
The story about the young boy at Mullumbimbi high school, who was named and facts seemed to have been very 'falsificated or fabricated.' The approach by most news sources towards this story were horrible and it seems that they held very few ethical standards. In the case of this story privacy was breached and this should be dealt with.
The question again though - 'If it's your job, or the story; do you get the 'news'?'
Private Parts: When Private Becomes Public
Celebrity news has become one of the most dominant features in news reporting today. The Rhianna, Chris Brown debaucle was brought up in the discussion of public vs. private information. Was it right for TMZ to break this story like they did?
Chris had done a very negative and abusive thing - therefore as a role model for those who he influences he needed to be shown in a very negative light. People need to know that Chris's actions were wrong here.
The definition of celebrity is that of a 'widely known person; or a role model; or a renowned or famous person.'
Ian Richards quote: 'By entering public life, individuals surrender any claim to personal privacy.'
This means that when someone famous does something stupid or illegal it will get published somewhere by someone- it is in the public interest right?
The question needs to be asked as to when do public figures get a private life? Everyone needs to have a bit of privacy, so when actions are undertaken that are not in the public's interest and are done in the privacy of a well known persons life - they should be given certain private rights.
Shouldn't they???
Chris had done a very negative and abusive thing - therefore as a role model for those who he influences he needed to be shown in a very negative light. People need to know that Chris's actions were wrong here.
The definition of celebrity is that of a 'widely known person; or a role model; or a renowned or famous person.'
Ian Richards quote: 'By entering public life, individuals surrender any claim to personal privacy.'
This means that when someone famous does something stupid or illegal it will get published somewhere by someone- it is in the public interest right?
The question needs to be asked as to when do public figures get a private life? Everyone needs to have a bit of privacy, so when actions are undertaken that are not in the public's interest and are done in the privacy of a well known persons life - they should be given certain private rights.
Shouldn't they???
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
My mama always said 'objective is as objective does'
To be objective is something in which one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish - a purpose, a goal, or a target. In journalism being objective is really telling the truth.
In todays society though how true is the truth?
David Brooks makes a very interesting statement when he talks about truthful journalism and objectivity; he says 'I think there is truth out there and objectivity is like virtue; it's the thing you always fall short of, but the thing you always strive toward.'
Journalists are needed to report the happenings in the world - the news!!!
This means that they should be objective; sometimes though there is a line into how truthful one should be - should journalists betray their friends in order to sell a story?
Here in lies the idea about the publics right to know - do they need to know about the issue or do they not?
If a journalist has a friend who is a drug smuggler, or some sort of dnagerous terrorist, or killer then the public do need to know.The journalist should break this story.
But what about a friend having an affair or something private about certain individuals?
The recent scandal surrounding shamed ex health minister John Della Bosca is a great example of this. Debate has surrounded this case; does the public have a right to the private affair that Della Bosca was having or should it have been left alone?
He made certain mistakes in his duties due to the affair and this is really the only justified reason for the public knowing - is this fair?
Were the journalists and PR folk involved in breaking this story really being objective or were they just trying to sell a story?
In todays society though how true is the truth?
David Brooks makes a very interesting statement when he talks about truthful journalism and objectivity; he says 'I think there is truth out there and objectivity is like virtue; it's the thing you always fall short of, but the thing you always strive toward.'
Journalists are needed to report the happenings in the world - the news!!!
This means that they should be objective; sometimes though there is a line into how truthful one should be - should journalists betray their friends in order to sell a story?
Here in lies the idea about the publics right to know - do they need to know about the issue or do they not?
If a journalist has a friend who is a drug smuggler, or some sort of dnagerous terrorist, or killer then the public do need to know.The journalist should break this story.
But what about a friend having an affair or something private about certain individuals?
The recent scandal surrounding shamed ex health minister John Della Bosca is a great example of this. Debate has surrounded this case; does the public have a right to the private affair that Della Bosca was having or should it have been left alone?
He made certain mistakes in his duties due to the affair and this is really the only justified reason for the public knowing - is this fair?
Were the journalists and PR folk involved in breaking this story really being objective or were they just trying to sell a story?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Futures: The Dawn of a New Journalism - Can You Dig It?
This week it was our turn to present; Myself, Mitch and Nikki took to the floor and blew away a captivated audience. We were discussing New Technologies and their impact on Journalism today and its future.
I began with an outline of what is happening and how the new technologies are creating a 'New Journalism.' It was an outline and an introduction as to what is really happening. I was able to discuss with enthusiasm and excitement the brilliance of some of these new technologies including web 2.0 and CIT's (this is just an abbreviation for Convergent Information Technologies). It was a very intriguing research area that seems to continually open more doors to more and more questions.
I moved away from these for a while and addressed the issues surrounding the death of the newspaper and the other traditional forms of news media; here is a little snippet of my presentation: ‘The major difference today with CIT’s is that it’s not just a fear of newspapers that is being predicted but the end of both television and radio journalism as well; when you can go online and access what you want when you want it, or when breaking news is just a click away – why would we cling to these ‘old’ forms of news?’
There was also some discussion regarding the new terms and technologies that have become a part of journalism today; these include blogging, tweeting and the most recently coined term 'living story.'
As a group we had decided to follow the Kyle and Jackie O story, regarding the incident. I was focusing on Kyle's tweeting which seems to have slowed of late.
Mitchell then took it away dealing with more in depth research across the journalism platforms. He identified the different representations of different stories for different audiences and across platforms, can you believe that sometimes a story is just taken and placed with sometimes the same, and sometimes a different heading, from a newspaper to a website?
Mitch provided some pretty brilliant examples of this regarding Kyle and Jackie O.
Our presentation was brought to a close by a very strong and thorough presentation from Nikki which delved more into one of these CIT's - blogging.
She identified why this phenomena is so gripping and provided examples of where to find blogs and their purpose - it was fantastic.
Overall I think that as a group we were very pleased with the result of our presentation.
It is a very exciting time in the journalistic environment in which we are seeing a lot of change and can hopefully embrace some of it in order to create the best news for everyone.
Can You Dig It?
I began with an outline of what is happening and how the new technologies are creating a 'New Journalism.' It was an outline and an introduction as to what is really happening. I was able to discuss with enthusiasm and excitement the brilliance of some of these new technologies including web 2.0 and CIT's (this is just an abbreviation for Convergent Information Technologies). It was a very intriguing research area that seems to continually open more doors to more and more questions.
I moved away from these for a while and addressed the issues surrounding the death of the newspaper and the other traditional forms of news media; here is a little snippet of my presentation: ‘The major difference today with CIT’s is that it’s not just a fear of newspapers that is being predicted but the end of both television and radio journalism as well; when you can go online and access what you want when you want it, or when breaking news is just a click away – why would we cling to these ‘old’ forms of news?’
There was also some discussion regarding the new terms and technologies that have become a part of journalism today; these include blogging, tweeting and the most recently coined term 'living story.'
As a group we had decided to follow the Kyle and Jackie O story, regarding the incident. I was focusing on Kyle's tweeting which seems to have slowed of late.
Mitchell then took it away dealing with more in depth research across the journalism platforms. He identified the different representations of different stories for different audiences and across platforms, can you believe that sometimes a story is just taken and placed with sometimes the same, and sometimes a different heading, from a newspaper to a website?
Mitch provided some pretty brilliant examples of this regarding Kyle and Jackie O.
Our presentation was brought to a close by a very strong and thorough presentation from Nikki which delved more into one of these CIT's - blogging.
She identified why this phenomena is so gripping and provided examples of where to find blogs and their purpose - it was fantastic.
Overall I think that as a group we were very pleased with the result of our presentation.
It is a very exciting time in the journalistic environment in which we are seeing a lot of change and can hopefully embrace some of it in order to create the best news for everyone.
Can You Dig It?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Question for Class
Myself, Nikki and Mitchell are presenting this week on New Journalism or Convergence Journalism, and the technologies involved in this occurrence.
I just thought I'd post my major discussion question as a heads up for you very studious students.
Here it is:
‘Will the result of convergence/ new technology journalism be improved access to information for the general public, a better level of understanding of the news events, or just the ‘same old?’’
I just thought I'd post my major discussion question as a heads up for you very studious students.
Here it is:
‘Will the result of convergence/ new technology journalism be improved access to information for the general public, a better level of understanding of the news events, or just the ‘same old?’’
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Globalisation vs. Localisation - The Whole World in our Hand(held Computers)
There are two major phenomena taking place in the world of news media at the moment; these are the ideas of globalisation, which is identified by Carely and Flew as "more than expansion of activities beyond the boundaries of particular nation states; globalisation shortens the distance between people all over the world by the electronic communication” (1992 & 2002). And its counterpart localisation, which as defined by Rachel Drane is the reversal of globalisation and ensures that all goods and services that can be provided locally should be. Pippa Haughton expanded on this definition by identifying Localisation in journalism as ‘the practice of making things relate to local audiences or niche markets.
Pippa continued with a concept that identified that in some instances these two ideas can work together; in the form of globalisation bringing localised news to migrants with news surrounding their ‘local’ or homeland.
New technologies and Trans National Corporations – TNC’s are having the largest effects on news media, both locally and globally.
Rachel identified that with new technologies news becomes interactive; and can raise issues regarding legal issues and barriers across nations (eg. American freedom of speech could be seen as racist or hateful in Australia). It also allows for citizen journalism, the idea that anyone can be a published journalist. She noted that these new technologies are changing/ transforming media in 4 ways:
Content
Process
Structure
Relationships
And identified that across nations and religion there may be many truths, not just our western one.
There was also a fear about what these major TNC’s might be doing if they are controlling the world’s media. They may be agenda setting and creating the news agenda; and with this ownership journalists could be put in a position in which they put commercial interest before the public’s right to know.
Pippa continued with a concept that identified that in some instances these two ideas can work together; in the form of globalisation bringing localised news to migrants with news surrounding their ‘local’ or homeland.
New technologies and Trans National Corporations – TNC’s are having the largest effects on news media, both locally and globally.
Rachel identified that with new technologies news becomes interactive; and can raise issues regarding legal issues and barriers across nations (eg. American freedom of speech could be seen as racist or hateful in Australia). It also allows for citizen journalism, the idea that anyone can be a published journalist. She noted that these new technologies are changing/ transforming media in 4 ways:
Content
Process
Structure
Relationships
And identified that across nations and religion there may be many truths, not just our western one.
There was also a fear about what these major TNC’s might be doing if they are controlling the world’s media. They may be agenda setting and creating the news agenda; and with this ownership journalists could be put in a position in which they put commercial interest before the public’s right to know.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Who Will Pay for Journalism?
Right now I am using the Internet to try and source files that can answer this question. I am currently reading an article on the free online version of the 'Australian' newspaper which identifies to me that 'the bundle is falling apart' (Nick Carr); I am able to access the stories that I want to read - in this case the 3rd of September issue of the Australian and the story 'The Winter of Journalism's Content.'
Rupert Murdoch last week announced a paywall introduction to begin charging people to view news online. This will provide the financial capital that is deserved for the hard working journalists to be paid their due and will hopefully keep more of them in jobs. The move suggests to me that Murdoch may be attempting to move the audience from online back to print journalism and newspapers - 'Is this a last ditch attempt to save the newspaper?'
There is also the new concept of both video streaming and podcasting - each of these could possibly have an effect on the radio and television news - people are getting what they want when they want it. Should they have to pay for it online?
Rupert Murdoch last week announced a paywall introduction to begin charging people to view news online. This will provide the financial capital that is deserved for the hard working journalists to be paid their due and will hopefully keep more of them in jobs. The move suggests to me that Murdoch may be attempting to move the audience from online back to print journalism and newspapers - 'Is this a last ditch attempt to save the newspaper?'
There is also the new concept of both video streaming and podcasting - each of these could possibly have an effect on the radio and television news - people are getting what they want when they want it. Should they have to pay for it online?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Hey guys so I realise that my link to the Jay Rosen video didn't work last time and I've actually hyperlinked it this time (Thanks Eryn) so here it is. It is only short like 30 seconds and gives a very brief but pretty solid account of what citizenship journalsim is!!!
Jay Rosen on Citizenship Journalism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcYSmRZuep4
Jay Rosen on Citizenship Journalism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcYSmRZuep4
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Kickin' it Citizenship Style
Citizens of the world have you heard about the new phenomenon that is sweeping the community of journalists today. It is known as Citizenship Journalism.
So I hear you asking "What is Citizenship Journalism?"
Well frankly I am glad that you did ask this brilliant question. Citizen Journalism, also known as "public, participatory, democratic or street journalism" is becoming one of the most prolific and prominent forms of journalism today.
First and foremost those involved in citizen journalism are not professional journalists, they are just regular folk like you and I who have claimed it as their civic duty to inform those around of the events that are occurring in their world. Some people may see it as being in the right place at the right time and seeing as the news breaks and using modern technologies like mobile phone cameras and recording devices to capture the news as it occurs.
So who are these citizen journalists?
Well according to Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at NYU (see link below) they are the "people formerly known as the audience."
Does this mean that even you could be citizen journalist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
