1st MAY 1977 - LECTURE 9

Goodness how time flies! April was here and then it was gone so quickly (regretfully).

Everyday something happens; this we know to be true. It is the basis for these posts after all. Everyday somebody gets up and does something and we either hear about it or we don't. Either way it still happens. However, what constitutes whether we, the public, hear about it or not from various news sources, is the 'newsworthiness' of the particular event.

As was discussed in the lecture yesterday, newsworthiness is decided by a set of news values or "broadly agreed set of values." What I found interesting though, was the multiple attempts of people (various journalists, scholars and the like) to limit the number of news values to the fewest number possible. O'Neill and Harcup, Murray Materson, and Judy McGregor have tried and in ways succeeded to do this.

However for the purpose of looking at an event that occurred today and applying the news values to it to determine the newsworthiness of it, I shall refer to the 12+ Factors: the original set of news values created by Galtung and Ruge. I feel like these news values are really the essential ones. Despite the attempts of people to limit them down, they always seem to still be the same few, as it was discussed in the lecture.

On this day in 1977, a march in Istanbul, Turkey turned from protest into a gunfight. The May Day parade, in which 100, 000 people were involved, took a turn for the worst when rival leftist groups started shooting, resulting in the death of 33 people.

I'm only going to talk about a few of the news values that can be associated at the time with impacting what labelled this as a newsworthy story. However, the 12+ Factors are: negativity, proximity, recency, currency, continuity and uniqueness, simplicity, personality, predictability, elite nations or people, exclusivity and size. I shall discuss three.

The first of these three news value is simplicity: stories which are easy to explain are more likely to draw an audience than complex stories. The riots cover a complex story. There are quite a number of questions associated with this news story that make it complicated: what is the cause behind the riots? How long as the issue been a problem? How many people has it affected and for how long? From that then, I assume that whilst they are interesting political and cultural topics make for complicated stories.

The second is recency: this relates to the time period and when the article was published. Basically it's how recent it was as news (was it on the day or several days later?). At the time this was published it would have been breaking news. As it's associated with death and events that good effect everybody it's locality and the influence that a story that such as this would have on the people of Istanbul would have made it a recent and relevant story.

Lastly, the news value of simplicity is also an important factor in newsworthiness of a story. The riots were not a simple news story. It would have been very complex with many questions attached to it (why were the people doing the shooting fighting, what organization were they a part of, how long had they been active in Istanbul, how many people's lives had they effected?) Of course these questions would have been answered in any articles relating to the riots but the fact that the journalists would have had to go out there and find the answers and talk to people makes it very complicated.

Overall the effect of news values in shaping articles is a very important aspect of journalism. I like the fact that despite the development of journalism in the modern age with technology and digitalisation and stuff like that, there is still the whole idea of scoping out the story; finding the story that is the most important and the most important as news.

I really wish I was born in the 50's. Then I could be like a 1950's reporter.

Just for the suite really.






Image available: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/369245.htm

30th APRIL 1986

I'd like to write about something happy for a change. I'd like to be able to look at what happened on a particular day and see that it's not all war and death and political scandals. Unfortunately April 30th seems to be a day particularly rife with political scandal and war related subjects. However, that is as much as I am going to say about them and move onto some lighter news.

On this day in 1986, American actress, singer and dancer Dianna Agron was born. Born in Savannah, Georgia, Ms Agron's most notable role is that of Quinn Fabray on Glee. No offence to the creators of Glee or fans of the show, but I feel that it has kind of lost a lot of the attention it had when it first started. I mean I used to watch it back when first started. Nowadays I couldn't tell you if the main characters were even still the same, the plot or anything about the show. It's not like I deliberately stopped watching; it just stopped being interesting.

I know that Dianna's been in a couple of other movies including I Am Number Four and her small role in Burlesque. No offence to Dianna, but her part in Burlesque really could have gone to anybody else. She's most noted for a singing role; Burlesque is a movie about a small town girl wanting to become famous for singing, dancing, the usual; the main role went to Christian Aguilera; Dianna did not sing in the movie. Why have a singer, someone famous for being on a singing show, not sing in a movie about singing?? 

And I feel for people like Dianna who are most noted for a single role on a single TV show. It's all that actor has ever known. I wonder then if they start to forget the line between the character and who they are in real life. If I was playing the same character day in day out I would start to question what part of life was the real part. Am I the character or the actor? I have no idea if Dianna feels or acts like that.

I am of course just stating what I think.


Anyway, happy birthday Dianna Agron.





Image available: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianna_Agron 

29th APRIL 2011

Here comes the bride (dum dum de dum)...and of course her sister in that dress that really showed off her behind and made her essentially a star....

Yes that's right, it's been a year since Wills and Kate tied the knot.

On this day in 2011, millions of viewers flocked to the streets of London and world wide to their TV's, to watch His Royal Highness Prince William marry Catherine Middleton. The wedding was held in Westminister Abbey, with a guest list well over one and a half thousand people. It is estimated that nearly 24.5 million people watched the wedding live in the United Kingdom, whilst roughly 300 million to two billion people watched world wide.

Whilst there are various websites and fan clubs that support Wills and Kate (sites that continue to obsess over their wedding with pictures and memorabilia) it would appear that the press would rather focus on the little things that have almost nothing to do with the marriage of William and Kate.

First off there were the hats and the obsessions with the hats, namely those of Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. They looked rather odd and would quite obviously only be bought by people with particular tastes but still the press felt the need to obsess over the hats. The hats had nothing to do with the wedding! They were just hats!! It's not like the Princesses would feel any more famous or any less famous if the press did not obsess over their hats. (The amount of times I said hats then, the word has lost all meaning to me).

In comparison, it was the obsession of the press and of males everywhere that succeeded in gaining Pippa Middleton fame. I'm not even going to talk about her dress or her body or the effect that it had on her lifestyle because I feel that she doesn't need to be talked up any more. She's already fabulously famous living the scandalous life.

And besides, all I can think about is hats.






Image available: www.quotes.whyfame.com/tag/prince-william 

28th APRIL 1996

The last couple of posts that I have written have been about depressing events (death, murder, crime and the like) and of course today's is no different. I'm in no way trying to write posts about depressing things; it just so happens that a lot of saddening things happened in the world in this month  over various time periods.

However, today's post is slightly different in one way. Today's post is about Australia.

On this day in 1996, a gunman, Martin Bryant, 28, shot and killed 35 people and wounded 21 in the tourist town of Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia at the historic Port Arthur Prison Colony. He held three of his victims hostage in a local guest-house before killing them. Police captured him the following day. He was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. Reading through the chronological events of the day, it's just hard to think that it all happened so quickly. It took Bryant 20 seconds to kill his first 12 victims and wound 10 in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Just 20 seconds.

The Port Arthur massacre remains one of the deadliest shootings world wide to be committed by a single person.

It's actually quite hard to comprehend all the information because I've actually been to Port Arthur. I've seen the ruins of what used to be the Broad Arrow Cafe (they tore it down: too many horrible memories). I've been in the gift shop where Bryant killed 10 people. I've seen stood in the car park where Bryant took away 8 people's lives. I've seen the numerous memorial plaques and signs for those who lost their lives so tragically at the hands of Martin Bryant. It's just hard to think that humanity contains people like that, who act in that way.

It's just sad.

A 7pm ABC News report on the Port Arthur Massacre.

Available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ7R301_8Do

27th APRIL 2008

Certain pieces of news, certain events and certain issues within the media and society are always hard to listen to. Death is never an easy topic to acknowledge. Neither is violence or crime. And most relevant to today's event, neither is sexual abuse.

On this day in 2008, Josef Fritzel, an 73-year-old Austrian man was arrested on the suspicion of keeping his daughter, now 42, locked in a cellar in Amstetten for 24 years. The crime committed by Fritzel, was only discovered when the woman, believed to be missing since 1984, took her teenage daughter, fathered by her father, to hospital. Apart from the hospitalised teenage daughter, Fritzel and his daughter, the 42-year-old woman had six other children together. Fritzel admitted to raping her a few times a week with the estimated number of attacks being well over 3000 during the course of her captivity.

Just reading that brings a disgusting taste into my mouth. How can she be alright? HOW she be alright? HOW? It's just not something you ever want to hear about anywhere. It's the not the sort of topic you accept lightly.


It's not the sort of topic you accept at all.






Image available: http://obscureoddities.tumblr.com/post/10198733302/josef-fritzl-an-egotistical-austrian-man-who

FACTUAL STORYTELLING

A story that needed to be told and shared.

Viewable here and at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SNI_5sII90

26th APRIL 2010 - LECTURE 8

On this day in 2010, the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, condemned Arizona's new immigration law, describing it as being discriminatory. The legislation required Arizona police to question people about their immigration status if they suspected that they are were trying to enter the country illegally. President Calderon warned that relations along the border would suffer and that he would use all means at his disposal to defend the rights of Mexican nationals.

In relation to Monday's lecture, there are several key points that raise questions about the ethics of this issue.

The first is this: the immigration law presumed that the Arizona police staff who would be asking the questions were not racist or biased in regards to the legality of immigrating Mexicans. In ways this is unethical, because it classifies and groups all Mexican people stereotypically as the same, with certain identifying characteristics. In regards to what was discussed in the lecture, the Arizona government assumed that the police staff would act derentologically towards the Mexican people wishing to immigrate, following the rules more strongly than their individual judgements about a person. That the police would do their duty.

However, the second point raised in regards to this issue is a matter of consequentialism, the concept that it is getting a good or right outcome that matters. This can be related back to the Arizona government and their introduction of the legislation in the first place. In the minds of the Arizona government, introducing the legislation was acted for the benefit of the people of Arizona, as such acting for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The legislation was introduced to protect the Arizona people. As was mentioned in the lecture, the end may justify the means. The Arizona government were simply creating a law that they thought would best help the people of Arizona feel safe or protected or any other variation of emotion.

The third and final ethical theory that was discussed in the lecture was of virtue ethics, so my finally point shall relate to this. Virtue ethic theory is about the goodness within people comes from them doing good deeds. Mr. Calderon, in his statement that he would do anything within his power to ensure that the rights of the Mexican people were not limited or manipulated, embodies this concept of a good person doing good deeds for the good of others. Whilst it is very possible that Mr. Calderon did have alternative motives, such as elections and the like, in regards to the theories discussed in the lecture he was displaying a use of virtue ethics in his quest for justice for the Mexican people.

Overall, I would say that the issue presented above may be considered both ethical and unethical for various aspects within the issue. Altogether though, the main idea is this: both parties felt the need to protect their people. Both parties were displaying a use of virus ethics.

We all want to believe that there is a little bit of good in everybody.

That is of course assuming that there is a little bit of good within ourselves first!






Image available: santosamaru.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/mexican-group-asks-icc-to-probe.htm 

25th APRIL 1915

Today is ANZAC Day.

Today we remember and give thanks to those who served for our country and lost their lives doing so during the first World War. We remember the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps members who ultimately sacrificed themselves in the hopes of creating a better future for Australia and the world. Today marks the anniversary of the first major military action fought by Australian and New Zealand forces during World War I.

On this fateful day in 1915, Australian and New Zealand troops landed at Gallipoli, prepared to boldly knock Turkey out of the war in one swift campaign. However the attempt quickly became a stalemate, dragging on for eight months. In the end the allied forces evacuated, both sides suffering heavy casualties. Over 8000 Australian soldiers had been killed. Although militarily labelled as a great defeat, the Gallipoli battle and the actions of the ANZAC troops quickly became a legend and an important part of the national identity of both Australia and New Zealand. It became a powerful legacy for the Australian people to be proud of.

ANZAC Day is a time when Australians can reflect on the many different meanings of war, remembering past and present battles that were fought, won and lost.

Living at home I would normally attend the dawn service, then a second morning service and then march in the town parade. I would do this as a part of the Scouting movement that I was lengthily involved in, from when I was roughly 7 years of age until I was 16. I would also march as a member of my school. However this year, because I've moved away, I wasn't really sure what to do for ANZAC Day. I couldn't do the dawn service because neither myself, nor my roommates knew where a dawn service was being held closest to us (we understand that their is a service in ANZAC Square). Also as public transport is different on public holidays we weren't sure what to do. We could drive but parking would be an issue and as it is my friends car we didn't really want to do any damage to it or have to pay extra money to park and we just didn't really know what to do.

Basically, by typing this I'm reassuring myself that I'm justified in missing ANZAC Day ceremonies for the first time in 17 years of life.

So I plan to hold my own ANZAC Day smite silence sometime this evening, just to remember that the men and women did fight for us and lose their lives for us.

I feel I should at least doing something for them for once, no matter how small.






Image available: www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/thousands-pay-tribute-on-anzac-day-around-queensland/story-e6freoof-1226337630230

24th APRIL 1980

At the moment I'm reading a book called "The Kite Runner" by Khaled Hosseini. It's set during a time when the Taliban had first come to power in Kabul and throughout Afghanistan. It's probably one of the most riveting books I've read for a long time.
The reason I say this is because it shows a side of that lifestyle, a life ruled by the Taliban, that is sort of glazed over in other novels set during the same time period. For example, an incident within the novel greatly describes a public stoning of a man and a woman. It doesn't tell you why the two are stoned, as it's told through the perspective of a single male character named Amir and he doesn't know, but it still gives you a sense of the horror and disgust that people, repressed people, felt for events such as that. The novel follows Amir throughout his life from a child growing up in a free Kabul, to a grown man living in America, returning to Kabul to find his recently discovered half-brother's son. I'm really enjoying it, mainly because of my disgust towards the rules and reasoning that the Taliban are presented to have. Sure the book has the riveting aspects of a good novel, like the emotional turmoil, the self discovery, romance, heartbreak etc. But it's the events that took place, the journalistic elements you could say, that are really intriguing me.

One this day in 1980, a rescue mission, code named Operation Eagle Claw, to retrieve 52 hostages from the U.S embassy in Iran was aborted due to equipment failures. The hostage situation developed after a group of students took over the embassy in support of Iran's revolution.
Eight helicopters were sent on the mission. However, two suffered damage from a sand storm, forcing one to crash land and the other to return to the USS Nimitz (CVN-68), an air craft carrier. Arriving at the initial rendezvous point, Desert One, another helicopter suffered damage and couldn't take off again. A total of 5 helicopters remained operational and as the plan called for a minimum of six helicopters to succeed, the mission was aborted.

However, this is when the real tragedy struck.

As the force prepared to leave the base, one of the helicopters crashed into a transport aircraft, containing fuel and a group of servicemen. The resulting fire destroyed both aircrafts and the remaining helicopters could not leave the base. Eight American servicemen were killed.

The hostages were held for 444 days until the 19th January 1981, when the Algiers Accords was brokered by the Algerian government between the USA and Iran to resolve the situation.

After reading this, I couldn't help but relate it back to things in the novel. Tragedy can strike anywhere and in war zones it's likely to be because of higher authorities disputes than actually something that the average, repressed man has done. The eight men that died were ordered by a higher power to be a part of the rescue mission. They lost their lives because ultimately they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The hostages were kept hostage because of issues relating to an external source. That is to say that they were hostages because the students disagreed with the behaviour of America and its involvement in their country. The people working at the embassy were just that: workers. Through no fault of their own had Iran been over-run. They were just doing what the higher power ordered them to.

And this is where my disgust and confusion for the Taliban comes in. In the novel, the stoning incident is preceded by a Taliban member giving a long speech about how God is influencing he decisions that he makes, that it is because of his God that he has been told to stone this could to death. I could rabbit on and on about how this just doesn't seem like a justified reasoning. The novel also mentions the Hazara massacre, where members of the Taliban went door to door killing members of the Hazara ethnicity just because they were Hazaras. Again, I could rabbit on and on. Instead I'll just say this:

Is it wrong for me to wonder that if God did exist, why did he make people like this?





Image available: www.historyguy.com/iran-us_hostage_crisis.html 

23rd APRIL 1970

 Let's talk about cigarettes. (WARNING: this post talks derogatively of smokers. However no offence is meant. Well, maybe a little).

On this day in America in 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act. As soon as I saw 'cigarette' I was intrigued, not becuase I smoke and the word instantly made me crave a ciggie, but becuase I don't smoke (never have, never will) and basically I find people who do smoke a bit repulsive. I know it's their decision and all, but in this modern age when we are all aware of the fact that smoking causes cancer, people who smoke seem a little bit stupid.

Image available: www.gogreenzine.com/effects-smoking-environment/

The Smoking Act entitled that the advertisement of cigarettes would be banned on television and radio beginning January 2nd, 1971. Nowadays, cigarette ads are banned from billboards and some magazines as well. I don't think I've ever seen an advertisement PROMOTING cigarettes in a magazine or as a poster anywhere really. I actually think that the biggest advertisemnt cigarettes get is through the "NO SMOKING" signs that seem to be everywhere and the anti-smoking campaigns by the government.

In Australia around 2.9 million people smoke. On average they smoke 17 cigarettes a day. Altogether they generate 18 billion non-biodegradable butts a year, an estimated 7 billion of which are thrown on the ground as litter. Those that are still alight are responsible for approximately 4600 fires a year, consequently causing 14 deaths and a minimum of $80 million in damage. Consituting less than 1% weight of litter, cigarettes butts are still the most common form of litter.

Keeping in mind that society is aware of the environmental and medical withdrawals of smoking my question is this: WHY DO PEOPLE SMOKE??

Is it a cool thing? The concept that I'm part of the cool kids becuase I don't give a damn about cancer.
Is it rebellion? A stick it to the man attitude, that it's all lies and that even if cancer is caused by smoking, the fact that the government has put all these labels up mean that I'm not going to do anything becuase the authorities aren't the boss of me!
Is it lack of intelligence?  Do they just not understnad exactly what smoking does? You would think that with all the anti-smoking ads the message would just get across?
Do some people do it to fit in to Western culture?
Or do they just not care at all about other people's health (second hand smoke), the planet or themselves?

Even though I'm saying all this I fully understand that it is the individual's choice.

You'd just think they'd make better ones.

22nd APRIL 1970

One of my closest friends is studying to be an environmental scientist. When she told me that, my initial reaction was something along the lines of, "oh so you're going to be a greenie." She then pointed out that being an environmental scientist did not automatically demand of her to be a 'greenie' and that wasn't I actually more environmentally conscious than she was? She was of course right on both accounts. I'm very environmentally aware, always trying to do my bit to help ensure the future of our planet is a healthy one.

On this day in 1970, Earth Day was observed for the first time in the USA. Organised by Denis Hayes, 20 million people across America took to the streets, parks and auditoriums to propose a healthy, sustainable environment. At the time, this was a very big deal because it was when cars were getting bigger and people weren't so much worried about the "miles per gallon" or the "kilometres per gallon", but rather the size, type and up-to-date-ness of their car. Environmental issues were discussed very little, if at all by most people. However, this event (and a statement made by U.S Senator Gaylord Nelson, that there would be a nationwide grassroots demonstration on the environment in the spring of 1970) started generating interest in environmental issues. Over the next few years, a realisation of sorts dawned on the average man; that what they did affected the Earth and its inhabitants.

Earth Day is still a yearly event. However, I don't know many people who still attend or celebrate it. Have we as society, come full circle as it were? Back to a time when all that mattered was whether or not what you had was up-to-date? Every year I participate in Earth Hour but it would seem that even I, a self proclaimed greenie, cannot find the time to spend more than an hour recognising the threat that humanity presents towards the stability of our planet's health.


Happy Earth Day humanity.




Image available: www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/04/18/the-dirt-on-earth-day/ 

21st APRIL 1956

1956 was a big year for the rock n roll industry. More importantly though, it was a big year for Elvis Presley.

On this day, Elvis Presley's first recorded single "Heartbreak Hotel" reached the top of the billboard charts, setting him off on a career that would ultimately change the sound of the rock 'n' roll industry. 1956 also saw Presley release his self-titled debut album, which also rose to the number one position, the first rock 'n' roll album to do so. The album stayed in the number one position for 10 weeks. Presley is regarded as one of the most important figures of 20th century pop. culture.

But then again, I suppose being referred to as "The King" kind of implies that doesn't it?

Image available: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PotB76gi2_4 

27th FEBRUARY 2012 - LECTURE 1

I would not say that journalism has always been a passion of mine, or that it was the one career I had always wanted to do. Still now I think it might not me the profession I end up earning a living from. However, it has always interested and somewhat fascinated me. The concept of scoping out the story, uncovering the facts and finding the story. The idea that the world could ultimate be changed for the better through something that I have written that is what attracts me to journalism. In this first lecture presented by Bruce Redman for JOUR1111 a lot of my initial intrigues for journalism and the reasons why I chose this course were reconfirmed through quotes from famous people of the journalism industry either in the past or the present. Such as the quote by Henry R. Luce, American publisher and editor, that, "I became a journalist to come as close as possible to the heart of the world."

That is what I inspire to do. To somehow connect with the amazing place that is planet Earth and the people that inhabit it, through the medium of journalism. I want to travel the world and talk to different people and experience their culture and then share it with the world because it was so extraordinary that everyone needs to know about it. What I aspire to do is to ensure that I can achieve what I want by encouraging the public to not turn news into entertainment, but to allow it to remain an experience. That is why I'm doing a communication degree as well. 

So to hopefully begin this experience I will start with this blog. A blog that follows what happened on this particular day in history, any given year, any given place. Through this not only will I learn something, experience something, but hopefully I'll help others learn something too.

After all, isn't the purpose of this course to be the story teller? 

All I'm doing is telling the story of human life. 

20th APRIL 1999

On this day in 1999, two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, walked into Columbine High School in Denver, Colorado, USA, firing automatic weapons and throwing homemade bombs. They had originally planted two home made bombs in the school's cafeteria and were planning on murdering students as they ran from the building. When the bombs failed to go off the pair entered the school wearing balaclavas and started  shooting.

24 people were wounded. 12 students and one teacher were killed. 

The pair then committed suicide.

It is the fourth deadliest massacre in U.S history.

The fourth...


Image available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/17/columbine-massacre-gun-crime-us

19th APRIL 2008

Feminism is a movement that seeks to establish equal political, economic and social rights for women, through such things as determining qual opportunities for women in education and employment. Throught the movement of feminisim, places such as Australia, Great Britain and America have been transformed into countries that show diverse acceptance of woman, making them nice countries to live in for women. However, it is obvious that there are stil countries that do not accept women to be equal to men.

On this day in 2008, the Human Rights Watch group of New York released a report titled, "Perpetual Minors: Human Rights Abuses Stemming from Male Guardianship and Sex Segregation in Saudi Arabia" in which it was stated that some Saudi Arabian women were being kept in "perpetual childhood", a state which allowed male relatives full guardianship over them. As a result of this guardianship the women could not work, travel, study, marry or even receive health care without the permission of the male relatives.It also said that the women were denied legally the right to make trivial decisions for their children, things such as opening bank accounts for them, enrolling them in school, obtaining school files or even travel with the children without written permission from the fathers.

The article was based on more than one hundred interviews with Saudi Arabian women.

How is this a justifiable act? People discriminate against feminism saying that a woman's place has always been in the home, to care for their families, to act as the damsel in distress, backing their claims with the notion that it's always been that way or that in same ways it relates to a religious view. But how is the concept of not even being able to travel with your own child without written permission justifiable?

I suppose that to some extent it could be related back to the religion of Saudi Arabia and these particular women. However, I don't think that in this day and age, to be fully classified as a modern country living in the first world, it can seriously be acceptable for this extent of religious restrictions to have effect. I'm not disregarding the rules and conventions of their religion, I'm looking at this with an open mind and assuming that it is through religion that this occurring. But what if it's not?

What if the reason these woman are being treated as "perpetual minors" is simple to appeal to the male relatives fancy? How can you intervene in a situation like this? I'm not religious but I fully accept other people's religion and the diverse array of religions that there are. I'm not discriminatory in any way.

It's just hard to fully grasp the idea that just because where I live I'm accepted as an equal, doesn't mean that women elsewhere aren't offered the same opportunities. And that I really can't do anything about it.



Image available: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Saudi-women-to-cover-%E2%80%9Ctempting%E2%80%9D-eyes-23212.html

18th APRIL 1956

Grace Kelly is one of my all time favourite movie stars. She was glamourous, poised, photogenic and stylish. She had flair, grace and very good bone structure. It's quite easy to be envious of Grace Kelly.

On this day in 1956, Grace Kelly married Prince Rainier III of Monaco. The Academy Award winning American film and stage actress became known as Princess Grace, or her official title of Her Serene Highness, The Princess of Monaco. Grace Kelly began her acting career at the age of 20, after appearing in New York City theatrical productions. She appeared in 'Mogambo' which earned her fame and a Golden Globe award in 1954. She also obtained an Academy Award for her role in 'The Country Girl'. She retired from acting at the age of 26, to better focus on her duties in Monaco. Prince Rainier and Kelly had three children, Caroline, Albert and Stephanie. Kelly died in 1982 after suffering a stroke at the wheel and crashing her car.

Grace Kelly is ranked No. 13 in the top female stars of American cinema.

Image available: http://mysite.verizon.net/res0qaye/id24.html 

17th APRIL 2012

ONE DIRECTION!!!

Did I get your attention? Probably, what with the current phenomenon that is the five piece British-Irish boy band. On this day the band touched down in Australia (well, when I say today I mean sometime during the evening, but hey it still counts as the 17th!) I'm not a super huge fan of the band. I appreciate their "rags to riches" story and I'll admit that some (read: ALL) of their songs are catchy and very easy to find yourself singing along too. But I just don't understand the craziness that 13 and 14 year old girls show when ever you mention their names. What is up with that? What is with the crying and the screaming and the sobbing and the way-over-the-top-to-hard-to-handle emotionality?!?!?
I remember watching One Direction on Sunrise a little while ago, when they first came to Australia to do their Sydney shows. They seemed to be trying their hardest not to acknowledge the crazy fans that were outside. It made me think that they must have the best PR group in the world!! Girls were literally throwing themselves forwards onto the barriers surrounding the sunrise building, clawing at the air in front of them, just trying to reach the five innocent boys sitting in a building behind glass windows! Some of them fainted. A lot cried.

And when I was googling the band, trying to find pictures of them, the number of blogs that came up was incredible. My favourite was one titled "There's only One Direction to my bed!"

Teenage girls - it's just such a hard concept to grasp!




Image available: http://onedirectiontothebed.tumblr.com/ 

16th APRIL 2012 - LECTURE 7

This weeks lecture was about public media and the role that it plays in the distribution of news, information and entertainment for the average man. Public media can be defined as media whose mission it is to serve or engage a public. It may broadcast for a profit, but as long as its initial purpose is to serve that public can it be classified as public media.

In Australia, the last major public media source is the ABC. Founded in 1929 as a "nation building project" the ABC was meant to join together the people of Australia and become the media institute for Australia. It was meant to symbolise the Australia that we thought we ought to be. And in many ways it did achieve this. At the time, the ABC, whether as a radio or television broadcast, was the station to tune into, for its reliability and relevant stories. It could be trusted by the public. In contrast to modern times, Australian pride was something that was a focus of day to day life. Nowadays people feel the need to compare themselves to America or England; countries who seemingly hold a lot of power and are "cool". Using just my friends as a generalisation for the whole of Australia maybe rather stretching the truth, but I know that they would rather be proud of something that was the same in Australia as it was in America, than something that was entirely Australian. Basically, the idea of national pride for Australia has changed a lot since the 1920's. Maybe that in some ways, is why the drift to commercial media by the average man is increasing so rapidly. People feel the need to keep up with the cool countries and commercial media offers them this connection, through reality TV rather than shows about national heritage, or boring stuff.

That isn't to say that public media doesn't still have its merits.  41% of Australians get their news from the ABC. This is an encouraging figure because it says to me that those 41% understand the reliability of the ABC in contrast to Channel 7. In my journalism tutorial we were shown a short clip on Media Watch about a story whose details had been manipulated such that the original story was completely changed. It demonstrated the lack of commercial media to seemingly complete research on a story properly, leaving large gaps in the articles, creating areas for assumption. What frustrates me most about this though is that the commercial media sources such as Channel 7, do not in any way lose face or lose audience members through articles like this. The mass population still assumes that getting their news from a commercial source is better than a public media source, even if the public media source has better facts or put more effort into their story.

Each week 12.6 million Australians watch ABC TV. ABC is a good public media source in the sense that it contains a lot of cultural shows, which appeals to a wide demographic. Just because commercial media is all about "appealing to the masses" doesn't mean that public media can't offer a diverse range of stories either. I think that sometimes people forget that public media is diverse. They instantly associate it with being serious, boring and of limited interest. However, that is just one of the many brilliances of the ABC as a public media source. It continues to broadcast the same general types of shows and is known for those shows. So whilst people might not like the seriousness of the ABC, its consistency offers a certain level of comfort for viewers. I mean where else are you going to be able to watch the Eurovision contest? Yet even after all this hype public media is not without its faults. Its shows are a tad dull and appeal to an older demographic. In attempts to up its cool factor, ABC2 was created. Although it does contain some interesting shows, it was rather like your mum trying to be hip and cool to get along with your friends.

Ultimately, what I learnt from the lecture in collaboration with my own viewing of ABC and other similar sources, is that public media is serious media.

I mean, you wouldn't expect to see an episode of Big Brother on the ABC.



Image available: http://www.embelton.com/embelton-wins-abc-studios-project-in-brisbane/ 

15th APRIL 2010

It appears to me that natural disasters are nowadays more likely to be tsunamis, earthquakes or tornadoes than volcanic eruptions. Maybe this has something to do with global warming. Maybe it has something to do with the constant evolution of the planet. Maybe it's because the planet is slowly but surely dying. Who knows? My point is, that when a story comes a long about volcanic eruptions it definitely draws a lot of media and public attention.

On this day in 2012, a volcano, Eyjafjallajokull, in Iceland erupted, causing up to four thousand flight to be cancelled due to closure of flight zones in Norway, Britain, Sweden, France, Finland and Denmark. At the time, Euro control said that the problem would last for at least 48 hours. It ended up causing delays and other problems to flight patterns for six days.

All because of some giant ash cloud in the sky.




Image available: http://article.wn.com/view/2011/10/13/Experts_warn_over_Iceland_volcano/ 

14th APRIL 1865

 One of the most famous assassinations in all of history occurred on this day in 1865.

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of America was shot and mortally wounded by John Wilkes Booth while attending the comedy "Our American Cousin" at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. Lincoln's bodyguard left the theatre during intermission to join Lincoln's coachman for drinks in the Star Saloon next door. Booth crept in from behind and at around 10:13pm shot the unguarded president in the head. As a result of his wounds he died the next day.

It was the first assassination of a U. S president.

Abraham Lincoln was a great man. He ended slavery, reserved the Union, promoted economic and financial modernisation all while trying to ensure success for the North in the American civil war. 


He's been claimed as one of the greatest American presidents of all time. 



Image available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abraham_Lincoln_head_on_shoulders_needlepoint.jpg 

13th APRIL 1943

Black cats, walking under ladders, opening umbrellas indoors. And of course the king of all bad luck superstitions Friday 13th!

On this day in 1943, Four convicts attempted to escape from Alcatraz prison. Two were drowned in San Francisco Bay after being shot and the other two were recaptured. The pun here is that it was bad luck for them to get recaptured.

From this though I would like to talk about the television series based on the Alcatraz prison, also ironically called Alcatraz. It was claimed that this show would be unlike any other crime/police drama on TV. That it would redefine audiences thinking in regards to the prison and its history. I've only seen the show once but for me I felt that it wasn't that different from any other crime show. I'm not sure if this is because of my blatant disregard for crime/police shows (there are just so many of them!!) or if the promos for Alcatraz lied (wow, what a surprise).

However, the series has lived up to one promise. The public interest in the actual Alcatraz prison has increased so much that the National Park Service responsible of maintenance of the prison has had to install warning signs for it public tours. Fans of the TV show have broken away from tours in attempts to find the "nerve centre" that is shown to be underneath the prison on the show. The signs read: "The TV show Alcatraz is fictional. Many areas it depicts are not real. Closed areas protect you, historic structures and nesting birds."

The nesting birds may or may not be there, but the idea that people would actually believe everything that is shown on TV is a little disconcerting.

The again, I believed it would be different from other crime shows.



Image available: http://www.magx.com/places/alcatraz-the-legendary-prison.html 

12th APRIL 1992

On this day in 1992, Euro Disney, a new 4 billion dollar theme park, was opened in Marne-La-Vallee, a town on the outskirts of Paris, France. This was only the second Disney resort to be opened outside of the United States, the first being in Tokyo. Nowadays it is one of Europe's leading tourist destinations.

Image available: http://www.taylorau.com/photos/paris/euro_disney3 

11th APRIL 1953

On this day in in 1953, 1000 inmates from the Stillwater Prison, Minnesota, USA, start fires, smash windows and shout profanities at guards during a prolonged prison riot. They were rioting against a change in prison regulations.

Something that I find interesting about this is how did they start the fires? How did they smash windows? Isn't the point of a prison to separate inmates and not allow them access to any equipment or tools which could potentially cause problems? It kind of calls into question the safeness of an institute like a prison. What really goes on behind those prison doors? I've never been to a prison, never known anyone sentenced to time in prison, never field-tripped it there with a school, so I don't really know what happens. But for me the idea of grouping a large number of people together who are known to be murderers, sexual predators, thieves and basically just criminals is a somewhat sketchy concept. Maybe if I knew more about the prison system in Australia or in any country, I would understand how this event was lead to happen.

Right now it just makes for interesting reading.


Image available: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/facilities/stillwater.htm 

10th APRIL 1972

Tragedy is always hard to fully come to terms with.  For a death of some close, such as a relative or really good friend, you don't want to acknowledge or accept that they are really gone. You want to believe they'll be able to answer your phone calls.

On this day in 1972 an earthquake struck the town of Ghir in southern Iran, killing what was first estimated to be 4000 people. Not a single building was left standing. Police, soldiers and surviving villagers dug through rubble for almost four days after the disaster trying to find survivors. After these four days the death toll amounted to 5300.

The tragedy and heartbreak experienced by all those families must have been tremendous. To know that in a single moment, your life would be changed for ever. The earthquake (which measured 7.1 on the Richter scale) was one of the strongest in Iran's history.

Perhaps what struck me most was that at the time the Shah (or ruler) of Iran rejected offers of international help. People were dying, there was evidence of widespread of hunger, lack of shelter and basic supplies, and it was decided that even a little bit of extra help was not needed.

Humanity is brilliant at rallying together to help those in need. Haiti, Cyclone Tracey, Hurricane Katrina and any tsunami that has ever caused devastation anywhere, are all great examples of the ability of human kind to come together for a good cause, to help those who are suffering. As a people, we generally don't like to see someone hurt or upset. A perfect stranger can see you crying and offer words of support or encouragement, just by asking "what's wrong?" And yet the Shah of Iran was maybe too proud, or too indignant of the situation to accept even a little bit of help.

I mean, think about it. Money needs to be spent to acquire food, clothing, shelter and medicinal treatment for those survivors of the earthquake. After that more money needs to be spent to rebuild homes, places of work and other various buildings. The town was completely devastated so this rebuilding will take some time. In that time, the shops and such won't be open, meaning that no money will be exchanged, which causes other businesses to close. From this families don't have the money to continue living.

A little bit of help goes a long way.

You just have to accept it.



Image available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/10/newsid_4400000/4400137.stm 

9th APRIL 1927

On this day in 1927, Mae West, an American actress, screenwriter and sex symbol, was arrested. During a time of heavy censorship, Ms. West's starring role in the play "Sex" (which she wrote, produced, directed and as mentioned starred in), was seen to be publicly obscene, such that she was prosecuted on moral charges and sentenced to 10 days in gaol. 

Sexuality nowadays is basically an upfront issue. You judge a person's sexuality by what they wear, by how they walk; you basically assume that a person's sexuality is on the surface. In 1927 it was clearly a different time, when people weren't as sexually 'up-front'. Also back then, homosexuals, transgender and bisexuals were closeted, taught to feel ashamed of themselves and their sexual inclination.


I have friends who are homosexual and they are proud of who they are and their sexuality. Mae West was too. She wrote what she wrote, she acted how she acted, she was who she was because that was what she wanted to be. She didn't let others define her. She was her own person and proud to be.


As everyone should be. 




Image available: http://www.poetrygrrrl.com/2010/09/20/marriage-is-an-institution-quote-by-mae-west/ 

8th APRIL 1994

Life is a fickle thing. We arrive into this world in screaming, agony and pain. We then grow up in hopefully in a mixture of happiness and sadness (if we were happy all the time, it would be too unreal, too Disney). We then depart this world in pain, tears, unhappiness and sadness. It's almost a vicious circle. For some though, the middle part of life is almost as bad as the beginning and the end, full of just sadness and unhappiness.

Whilst being hailed as the unofficial spokesperson for Generation X, Kurt Cobain, lead singer, guitarist and songwriter for grunge band Nirvana, felt that the public had misinterpreted his message and artistic vision. He struggled with heroin addiction, illness, depression, fame, his public image and the professional and lifelong personal pressures surrounding him.

On the 8th April 1994, Kurt Cobain, lead singer, guitarist and songwriter for Nirvana, role model and idol to numerous number of teens, committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

Suicide as a concept and action has always confused me. I know that people commit suicide because they are depressed, sad and just generally really unhappy, but how could they not think about the consequences that their actions would have for other people? Are they really that lost within their own emotions that they just can't find the will to live for anybody or anything?

The circumstances of Cobain's death have become a topic of public fascination and debate. In other words, even in death his music and his life are still focus topics in the media. With the certain unknown facts surrounding his death, the public are still misinterpreting Cobain's life.

And here I think I can connect Cobain to journalism.

Journalism is about telling stories. A journalists job, as I have sort of started to learn, is to be fair and unbiased, but still want to tell a story that will make a difference. Ultimately that's what Cobain wanted to do. He wanted to use music as a medium for sharing his story, his emotions and thoughts, similar to that of the medium of text for journalists. Ultimately that's what anyone wants to do. They want to share their story and have it heard, if not public in their own small social group. But what happens when telling the story isn't enough any more? What happens when you get to the point in your life where you think, "no one is listening to my stories. No cares. Why am I writing them?" The only reason you hear about celebrity deaths is because journalists want to tell the story. Are there journalists out there committing suicide because they feel their story isn't being received or listened to by anyone? And from that is suicide the final story? Is it a medium for which people can say finally, once and for all,

"listen."




Image available: http://antebellumgallery.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/kurt-cobain-would-be-45-today.html 

7th APRIL 2001

Have you ever wondered if there is life out there apart from humanity? I mean, we seriously can't be the only ones floating around in a big ball of chemical elements can we? 


On this day in 2001, the Mars Odyssey spacecraft took off on a six-month, 286-million-mile journey, designed to orbit the planet, hunt for evidence of past or present water and volcanic activity, and to basically help answer the question "could there be, or have every been, life on Mars?"

When the Odyssey returned, people were shocked. It had found evidence that supported the idea of life possibly existing on Mars: large water ice concentrations beneath the red rust surface of the planet's Southern Hemisphere. 


The concept of life being supported on Mars is very much a possibility. 


So just imagine if there were life forms out there trying to find us? 






Image available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Mars_Odyssey 

6th APRIL 1917

In 2012 it's Easter time. Chocolates, bunnies, holidays, good times basically. For me it means spending time with my family, eating a lot of good food and basically just relaxing. 


In 1917 however, the 6th of April was not a happy day. Following the sinking of an American liner, the Housatonic, by a German U-Boat and then the sinking of four more U.S merchant ships, President Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the USA, decreed before Congress a declaration of war against Germany. 


On the 6th April 1917 one man formally declared war on Germany on behalf of a nation.

Before this declaration of officially going to war, President Wilson had tried to suggest being a mediator of the peace between the Allies and Germany. However, the Allies declared that what they wanted more than anything was victory, rather than peace. It's interesting to note how one single action, the sinking of some ships, can ultimately change a man's whole perspective. 








Image available: http://www.post39warner.com/Story-N.aspx?rcd=100 

5th APRIL 1955

So I know that the 5th of April 2012 was a long time ago. However in that time I went home for the holidays and basically did nothing but relax, eat chocolate and enjoy sleeping in for a change. Yet I feel that to officially (not to mention finally) get serious with this blog I need to start living up to its namesake. It saddens me that it has taken me this long to finally get into the concept and routine of having a blog. I was never one for blogs. I kind of felt like they were invasions of my privacy, such that people would only read my blog if I wrote something about myself that they would find interesting. Sadly, I don't consider my life to be particularly scandalous, hence the lack of enthusiasm.

And yet, is it always scandal that puts a person at the centre of attention?

On this day in 1955, a man who was very much in the spotlight, Sir Winston Churchill, the 80 year old British leader who guided Great Britain and the Allies through World War II, retired as prime minister of Great Britain.

Winston Churchill was in no doubts a great man, who was always in the spotlight. He brought the Allies to victory, he governed a country throughout a time of terror without getting everybody killed and he basically kept himself alive too, even with him being such a figurehead and obviously a target.

And he was at the centre of attention because of a scandal: the scandal of World War II.

So, is scandal the only way to be in the spotlight and remain that way for a long period time? To be remembered when you die and throughout history?

The really famous celebrities today are the ones who have the most scandal in their lives (Brad and Angelina much!) Even if a person starts of being in the spotlight for a good cause, without any scandal, it'll eventually become a scandal (KONY 2012 much!)

Does scandal equal celebrity?


Image available: http://www.sunlituplands.org/2012/04/sir-winston-churchill-day.html 

3rd APRIL 2010 - LECTURE 6

Okay, so say you have a choice of three news stories. They are "Twelve-year-old New York Girl is Suing the City for Being Arrested at School", "Asylum Seekers" and "Danger of Fizzy Drinks".  Which one do you pick? Why?

More likely than not you would have picked the first story or the last, and as I learned in yesterday's lecture, the influence of commercial media has a lot to do with that decision.Thanks to the "dumbing down" of news, shows like A Current Affairs and Today Tonight, news is no more serious political stories than it is stories of cat's being run over (thanks for that one lecture girl!). News has been tabloidisated, which is why you would more likely read a story about a twelve year old girl being arrested than a story about asylum seekers. That isn't to say that you wouldn't read those stories. It's just more likely that you'd read the gossipy ones first. 

As profit driven media production, commercial media's main goal is to appeal to the masses. Appeal to every single academic, teenager, elder, dole bludger and his best friend. Newspapers, cable TV, film, magazines, radio, tele-comms, outdoor advertising are all aspects of commercial media that influence the masses everyday. It's become 'Mickey Mouse News'. (I really like that term. It brings to light a whole new concept for me to use: to mickey mouse-ify something. I plan on using it a lot).

In 2010, on the 3rd of April, Apple released it's very first iPad. Much anticipated, much speculated about, much published (read ADVERTISED) the iPad sold 3 million units in the first three months. Would the iPad, or for that matter any Apple product, be sold in such large quantities or be such a well known brand if it wasn't for a) advertising and b) the rivalry between it and Windows/MP3 players/any-other-brand-who-happens-to-make-a-similar-product-to-Apple?

Probably not.

In much the same way, commercial media uses rivalry to swing the viewers, to promote its greatness above all others. Just imagine if news was told because stations wanted to give truthful, comprehensive, intelligent information about the day's events? Imagine! Instead, we're stuck with stations fighting with each other, trying to get the best ratings, trying to demonstrate that only they have the real, hard hitting, serious news of the day, that they and ONLY THEY are the station that you should be watching/listening too. Commercial media survives or fails on business success.

Commercial media dominates over public media because it gives society what it wants. It answers the beckoning yell from the masses about what it wants to watch/listen to/read about. And through the world of online media now, publishers can look at what people are clicking on and see that, "Hey! This is popular, let's do more of these shows!" increasing their commercialistic revenues.

No one is safe. Commercialism is out to take over the world.

Or has it already?

Image available: http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Mickey_Mouse