Reflection.

I came into the course with the attitude that I’d done all this before and that I would drone on through the subject as it was something that I ‘just had to do.’ With the mindset that I’d been blogging for three years in my Journalism course, I was taken aback with how little I knew about everything behind it.

The discussion of the Public Sphere and Media Effects model were two topics that I found the most interesting as I had come across them previously, but never really knew what they were. Prior to the lectures I read David Gauntlett’s ‘Ten things wrong with the effects model’ which applied heavily to the work I am studying regarding the roles of the media in society. This combined with new formed knowledge of the Public Sphere, I found myself intrigued to learn more about the industry which I’ve been both working and studying in.

Having never heard the word semiotics in my life, week three was a large eye-opener for me. The tutorial exercise where we had to dissect images and what they represent was something that puzzled me. I was contributing what I believed the images meant, but skipping the steps as to how I got there. By believing I knew what the text was trying to communicate to me, I completely disregarded the use of denotation and connotation which in fact, swayed what I thought I was seeing. The reading from Mitchell Hobbs placed semiotics in a format which I could understand, helping me to grasp the concept and appreciate why this analysis of images is so critical.

By reading and commenting on other people’s work, I found myself taking tips and techniques they used and applying them to my own writing. I think the fact that everyone was in the same boat and all had things too improve on, it made it easier to respond to the challenges I faced by consulting and getting feedback from my peers.

I look forward to reading everyone’s work in the future!

References

Gauntlett, David. ‘Ten Things Wrong with the ‘effects model’, in Approaches to Audiences – A Reader, Roger Dickinson, Ramaswami Harindranath and Olga Linne (eds) Arnold: London, 1998  http://www.theory.org.uk/effects.htm

McKee, Alan. The Public Sphere: An Introduction , Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 2005, pp. 1-31.

Mitchell Hobbs, Semiotics: Making Meaning from Signs’ in Communication, New Media and Everyday Life, Tony Chalkley et al. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 83-95.

Shore Thing I Don’t Want My Kids Doing That!

Today’s public sphere has a heavy focus on the behaviour of the youth population. As well as from parents and educators, discussion on binge drinking and disorderly behaviour has branched into political talks even resulting in changes to legislation. A topic regularly emerging in mediated public spheres on this issue is the influence of popular reality TV shows such as Jersey Shore. The first of now many, Jersey Shore blew binge drinking into the public sphere with over 15.9 million people watching the season one finale.

Used as a pinup for ‘what not to do’ in many mediated public spheres, the actions of the cast members in Jersey Shore support claims that youth binge drinking has a negative effect on both society and the individuals themselves. With many youths taking part in these activities, just not on national television, the issue sparks debate from three main angles.

1. Parents arguing the show will influence their children and put them in danger
2. Youths indicating the show presents a false image of what their culture is
3. Blaming the show for creating a culture of violence, promiscuity and alcoholism

Now in it’s 6^th season, many of the cast members are in their 30s, some even with children. This takes the debate further as to whether this type of environment is healthy for a new family. The overwhelming answer being no, another way the show can be used as a weapon against mediated debated on youth culture.

By taking a group of 20 something year olds, giving them free alcohol and free rein to do what they like and putting it on MTV, the producers obviously knew the results would spark debate. The fact that Jersey Shore is so often the catalyst for debate in the public sphere is what makes it so popular, and profitable.

 

References

Binge-drinking law call. 2014. Binge-drinking law call. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/national/bingedrinking-law-call-20101107-17iyb.html. [Accessed  6 April 2014].

‘Jersey Shore’ ratings go nuclear: Most-watched MTV series telecast ever! | Inside TV | EW.com. 2014. ‘Jersey Shore’ ratings go nuclear: Most-watched MTV series telecast ever! | Inside TV | EW.com. [ONLINE] Available at: http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/01/07/jersey-shore-ratings-record/. [Accessed 6 April 2014].

McKee, Alan. The Public Sphere: An Introduction , Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 2005, pp. 1-31.

What is binge drinking? Get the facts. DrinkWise. 2014. What is binge drinking? Get the facts. DrinkWise. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.drinkwise.org.au/you-alcohol/alcohol-facts/binge-drinking/. [Accessed 6 April 2014].

You’re in Control.

It’s hard to get out of bed without being subject to the media. Whether it’s checking Facebook or driving to work, you’re bound to encounter a sign, a story or a statement from a media organisation. But do the people who ‘control’ the media, control these messages as well?

Having studied journalism for three years, you come across many forms of bias towards the media. The most prominent being the politically inclined boycotting certain publications due to the right or left wing associations of the owners. Currently working with a Fairfax owned publication, there seems to be very little impact from the owners on what is published and rather from the publications audience.

The biggest difference made to the media content we are subject to is by ourselves. If we don’t want to read something we don’t read it. If we don’t read it, they don’t make money.

In its simplest form, this is how influences in the media are constructed. Owners of media organisations are ultimately there to make a profit, most of which are willing compromise their personal views in order to do so. For this reason the owners of the media we consume actually have very little input into what we physically read and view. The audience of a publication or text however, will determine its success or failure, giving them the greatest element of ‘control’ in the media.

Yes, the media can be used to change and evoke opinion, but only if the opinion or facts presented are received well by the majority of the target market. If not, then the control is placed in the hands of the consumer and changes must be made by individual producers of content in order to be both profitable and influential.

 

References

Hart, Elizabeth, ‘Media Ownership’ in http://www.oup.com.au/__data/assets/…/Bainbridge_1e_ Case_Study_6.pdf

Media and Journalism , Bainbridge, J., Goc, N. and Tynan, L. (eds.) Oxford University Press: Melbourne, 2008, pp. 400-408

Fairfax Digital – About Us – Australian leaders in Digital Media, News & Classifieds. 2014. Fairfax Digital – About Us – Australian leaders in Digital Media, News & Classifieds. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.fairfax.com.au/about-us.html. [Accessed 1 April 2014].

Social Media Usage Statistics 2012. 2014. Social Media Usage Statistics 2012. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.brandwatch.com/2012/12/how-we-use-social-highlights-from-the-social-media-report-2012/. [Accessed 1 April 2014].

Semiotics and Smoking.

As far as controversial texts go, this image has pushed more than a few buttons, hard. This anti-smoking campaign was first introduced in China in 2012, where it was received with shock but proved to have considerable results. When tested in several European countries, the results were very similar but after much protest the campaign was pulled.

The text was displayed in the public domain as a poster, giving it a broad and diverse audience. Regardless of the two cultures it was presented to, the text denotes the phrase ‘NO MORE Killing’ in reference to the effects of smoking. This is supported by the smaller text which reads ‘It is estimated that one person dies every 8 seconds from smoking.’ Other obvious denotation is the image of burning cigarettes in the background, which then brings us to the sign of controversy.

As was abruptly apparent to the advertisement’s Western audience, the image of the two cigarettes is a connotation to the tragic events of 9/11. With smoke billowing from the top of the cigarettes and filtering across the frame, the image takes a direct resemblance to the towers of the World Trade Centre in New York after they were subject to a terrorist attack.

The use of this image is symbolic in making the text a sign for the loss of life. Denotations in the writing and imagery that represent cigarettes as a killer, place the idea of death in the minds of the reader. By associating this already strong message with connotations of the twin towers, a globally recognised event causing death and destruction, a fear is placed into the minds of the audience, ultimately hoping to deter them from smoking.

Fear and death are two things that can evoke change and thought in a person, which is what makes this image such a powerfully confronting sign.

References

ASH Twin Towers Smoking | The Inspiration Room. 2014. ASH Twin Towers Smoking | The Inspiration Room. [ONLINE] Available at: http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2008/ash-twin-towers-smoking/. [Accessed 20 March 2014].

Bowles, Kate. ‘Representation and Textual Analysis’ in The Media and Communications in Australia , Stuart Cunningham and Graeme Turner (eds), Allen and Unwin: Crows Nest NSW. 2010 pp. 49-63.

Braithwaite, K, 2010. Cause and Effects of Fear in Mass Media. A Study of Fear, vol 1, pages 16 – 59.

Mitchell Hobbs, Semiotics: Making Meaning from Signs’ in Communication, New Media and Everyday Life, Tony Chalkley et al. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 83-95.

September 11 by Numbers. 2014. September 11 by Numbers. [ONLINE] Available at: http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm. [Accessed 20 March 2014].

Backwards thinking – The Media Effects Model.

We’ve all heard the media being blamed for teen violence, cyber bullying and other negative happenings in the world, but the media can also take blame for some of today’s more positive movements. Take global warming. We’ve all heard about it, thought about it and changed the channel during a climate change add. The media has been blamed for it, but did the effects model come into play?

It’s hard to deny the impact the media has had on the widespread acknowledgement and movement associated with what began as a climate scare and evolved into political fuel. In the beginning it was NFP organisations such as Green Peace and The Climate Group leading the forefront of awareness before the media stepped in and thrust the crusade into the global spotlight. Now, with carbon taxes and worldwide emissions schemes, governments are forced to implement policies for ‘saving the planet’ in order to avoid public backlash.

This backlash of course, can be blamed on the media. Which is undeniably justifies that the standards of government in relation to ‘green’ issues is upheld by the influence of the media on its variable audiences.

This brings us to the ‘media effects’ model. By using the model, you effectively already know that you want to put negative blame on the media relating to a certain stream of events, you just have to find evidence to support it. The media’s effect on the globalization of climate change shows that positive blame works opposite to the model.

Evidence of the media is present and this connects back to an event
vs.
An event occurring and it being traced back to the media.

 

References

Gauntlett, David. ‘Ten Things Wrong with the ‘effects model’, in Approaches to Audiences – A Reader, Roger Dickinson, Ramaswami Harindranath and Olga Linne (eds) Arnold: London, 1998  http://www.theory.org.uk/effects.htm

GlobalWarming.org. 2014. GlobalWarming.org — Climate Change News & Analysis. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.globalwarming.org/. [Accessed 13 March 2014].

Greenpeace . | Greenpeace Australia Pacific . 2014. Greenpeace exists because this fragile earth deserves a voice. | Greenpeace Australia Pacific . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/about/. [Accessed 13 March 2014].

The Climate Group. 2014. The Climate Group. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.theclimategroup.org/who-we-are/about-us/. [Accessed 13 March 2014].

Have you met Lauren?

Hey, I’m Lauren. Trust me I’m slightly more interesting than the title I was able to come up with for this post. But like I said, only slightly, so don’t set the bar too high.

I’ve lived in Jamberoo all 20 years of my life. No, I’ve never milked a cow or married one of my cousins and last time I checked I only had ten toes. I attended Jamberoo Public School growing up before I moved to Shellharbour Anglican College (SAC, funny right?) for the remainder of high school. I graduated in 2011 which was a whole three years ago, following which I threw my life away and have been studying a bachelor of Journalism ever since.

In my first year of uni I picked up a marketing job with football club, Sydney FC. Here I began their match day program ‘The Sky Blue Preview’ which I wrote, designed, edited and produced. This year I decided to pick up at BCM with a Marketing and Advertising major due to my love of the job I was in.

Starting from scratch again with all these first years makes me feel incredibly old and I’m pretty sure I found a wrinkle this morning. This shouldn’t be happening yet!

This year for me is looking pretty exciting, I’m going overseas for the first time despite my crippling fear of flying and later in the year will be pursuing my love for current affairs and newsroom journalism with a work-integrated scholarship at the Illawarra Mercury.

After working for Sydney FC and getting the taste for corporate marketing and publicity, I can confidently say that’s where I’d love to be in five years time. But who knows, I might take a liking to this flying thing and end up a pilot, Tom Cruise watch your back.