Can I handle the truth?

In summing up my earlier thoughts about truth, I guess I need to come to some sort of definition of truth. If not a complete definition of the term, at least one within the field of journalism. The truth should be seen as an unbiased account of events, where the person accounting news consciously believes they are giving the most accurate account of events. I think this is what all journalists set out to do, but the problem is that with tight deadlines, and the increasing need for timeliness and newsworthiness morals become skewed along the way. This is unfortunately not something I can see changing in the near future, with tighter deadlines and increasing competitiveness for jobs the news will continue to feed the public what sells papers. This happens to be gossip and celebrity news. All I can hope for is that the morals which we set out with as first year communication students stay mostly in tact, obviously when you are getting a pay check, and your editor tells you something needs to be done, you just do it. But at some point integrity and accuracy, and most of all the ability to write will prevail as the important aspects of journalism. Or at least this is what we should hope for.

The unemployed graduate

With four weeks left in my university career it is becoming increasingly worrying that I will in fact become the unemployed graduate we have all been dreading we will be...
So my career aspects as of Tuesday October 13th are...

1. Retire early and go on centrelink



2.Freelance Journalism (probably the most likely)




3. Work for free at a local newspaper




4. Hounours - But do I really want to spend another year studying?





The last three years are looking quite worthwhile at this point in time. Maybe I will start a blog when I finish University. I can see it now, I could call it 'The Unemployed Graduate'.

Ill keep you posted on the address of this blog.

Can he say that?

Defamation is the word, its the time its the place its the motion... Alright, so maybe it's not as Funky or exciting as the Grease Lightning song... But today kids, we are going to talk about defamation!

(HOLD FOR APPLAUSE)


Defamation can be defined as “saying or writing something that damages or ruins the reputation of another person or legal entity, or makes people think less of them, their profession or trade” (Conley & Lamble, 2006:410). Basically it is saying something unkind about someone that is either not factually upstanding or explicitly mean.

The definition given by Conley and Lamble is somewhat troubling because it is based mostly on opinion. For example, the idea that something is defamation if it 'makes people think less of them'. Who is judging that they have had their reputation (yes I realise the simple answer here is a judge...)greatly tarnished. What benchmark of tarnished reputation are we measuring this reputation against?

There is also the problem of deciding whether someones reputation has been tarnished. For example, in the case of Pauline Hanson, when she sued (someone) for defamation over the 'Pauline Pantsdown' song.

Pauline Hanson Sued the ABC for $1.75 Million, arguing that
"Freedom of speech does not extend by allowing people the right to defame others and to tell lies." - Pauline Hanson, ABC 28 September 1998

Simon Hunt, the University lecturer in multimedia studies argues:

"My song is trivial. It’s a joke. If people are hurt by satire, they should get out of the political game, they should leave it to people who can actually justify their actions and their words and their policies."
- Pauline Pantsdown, ABC 28 September 1998


This portrays just one way in which both parties are forming their own ideas about the defamation law. With Mrs. Hanson feeling her reputation was greatly tarnished by the song, due to it lack of fact. On the other hand it is a parody which comes under the fair comment section of the law.

How far is too far?

Public vs Private:

In an ever growing age of celebrity obsession, it seems that any detail of a celebrities life is worth the front cover of a magazine, or headline of a news bulletin. But how far is too far. The arguments of publications such as TMZ and Entertainment Tonight, is that there is public interest and because these people (the celebrities) are seen as role models and cultural trend setters. Thus, they must be held accountable.

They are considered fair game for inquiring journalists, because they have entered the public life. But is this true?

I would argue that:

Celebrities: Drugs, sex tapes, bad behavior = yes! Let the world know, it is their fault, and as people who are often looked up to they need to be made accountable. Obviously, everyone makes mistakes, me included, but if you are going to take good publicity and use it to your advantage, be prepared for bad publicity.

Family struggles - such as marriage breakups, deaths etc, sure, report them but they have a use by date, and report them with the due care and integrity that such emotionally challenging things should be treated.

Journalists, and the general public need to consider the newsworthiness. Does anyone even care anymore that Jeniffer doesn't speak to Brad anymore? Or that Paris has yet another muscle bound handbag rack to dote over her?

Then of course, there are times when I think it is absolutely vital to hold accountable politicians and business people for their actions. They are the policy makers and people who run large businesses. However, the publication of such issues need to be within the topic. In other words, there is great relevance in outing a minister for family who is having an affair, because he/she is directly responsible for the policies surrounding family values, which this minister is obviously showing poor moralistic fiber.

Ultimately, these people, both celebrities and politicians are in the public eye and make their money from the public. As such, they should be held accountable for their actions, however, I think there needs to be some level of conscience involved. If we think of it from our own point of view, wouldn't we want some privacy for certain matters, and it not to be told in such a black and white way?

You can't handle the truth!!

In a postmodernist world, is it ever really possible for the truth? Can we actually be sure that what we hear is in fact true? What is truth? I mean really, can anyone actually give me an unquestioned, true definition of truth (yes I realise the irony in the question)? I mean, as journalists, or aspiring journalists, we should have a firm grasp on the concept of truth.

"However, truth is a highly contentious term, truth can have many points of view, and many ways of being described. We all believe that there should be truth and moralistic fibre within the journalism industry. But is it not with the term itself that like so many others, means so much, yet so little to so many! The term truth can be put in a basket with other contentious terms, we could call this the basket of deception! These are terms like, genius, creativity, popular and now... truth. All of these terms are constantly used, but who can actually give them a set definition. For example the term popular can be described in many ways. This is an idea which first occurred to me during my study of popular music.

This is an extract from an essay I wrote in my second year of University, which I think sums up the difficulty defining terms:

The various ways in which popular can be defined creates numerous problems for all sectors. From business, to consumers, from artists to critics, the term ‘popular’ means various things for people in different cultures and countries. Kassabian (1999, p113) argues that popular “has a long, strange and highly charged history. It modifies a stunning array of nouns”. Meaning that ‘popular’ can be used in many circumstances to describe different things. This in turn, causes a great amount of variation in defining popularity. She further emphasises this through the statement “Popular can mean – and has meant - many things to many different people” (p122).

Thus, there is always going to be some confusion and contention around words such as popular, or the truth, because they mean so many things to so many different people. This is apart of the bigger picture, as to why the truth seems so unattainable at times.

I need to think more about this, stay tuned!

Futrure of journalism?????

From Television to Twitter, how journalism adapts and expands:









From Television to Twitter, how journalism adapts and expands:
In an age of ever growing technology, the very face of journalism is changing almost daily.

The death of newspapers has been predicted since the advent of television; however, it has proven its resiliency time and time again.

Rupert Murdoch refers to this as “creative destruction”.

He argues this new technology has resulted in tearing down the old ways of mass communication, leading to a new age of choice in news mediums.

However, the common argument is that quality journalism takes time, money and good workers.

Two of the three are just not possible in an era of instantly attainable online news.

Most journalists have to meet deadlines, leaving little time for investigation and source checking.

This partnered with the fact that Internet revenues for advertising are much lower than that of newspapers, has lead to massive cost cutting.

The implications on journalists and society in general could be huge.

It could mean “a serious risk of quality journalism being forsaken due to cost cutting” as Kate Hamilton, stated in a lecture to Newcastle University students.

Cost cutting is not just a trend within the print journalism sector.

Lucas Coleman stated, “jobs are expected to drop by 6.6% within the broadcast journalism industry” during three part lecture on Wednesday, August 19.

In addition to this, the advent of time shift technologies such as TIVO has given viewers the opportunity to skip advertisements, further cutting into revenues.

However, there is some light at the end of the tunnel as newspapers are becoming more lifestyle oriented and are once again focusing on investigation.

Additionally, there are now more niche television shows, print publications and websites.

These may have smaller audiences, but they are more specific, thus allowing for companies to aim advertisements’ at certain cultures.

Therefore, it can be argued that just like the advent of television before the Internet the panic will die down and eventually journalism will find new ways of adapting and responding to technology.

Follow up citizen journalism

These are some links to sites I was talking about earlier can be found below. They are openly inviting citizen journalists to contribute to every article.

• The Punch - http://www.thepunch.com.au/
• 'Opinion' section of mumbrella - http://mumbrella.com.au/first-law-of-digital-pr-at-least-pretend-to-read-the-site-8818
• The Vine - http://www.thevine.com.au/news/

These are a few examples of many. Another development is cites which encourage the public, and budding journalists to write about niche areas that they are passionate about. An example of this can be found at Faster Louder, a music site which is completely fueled by citizens volunteering their time to see bands and review them and report to the site so that music fans can make informed choices before paying for a live show.