He admits that in a time of staff cut backs, where journalists are pressed to deliver a story now, and above all sell those stories, the responsibility of good old scrupulous investigation is being wearied.

I want to place emphasis on story as Jonathan Holmes did. Story represents a piece of writing or media which can provide information, thought and above all entertainment for the audience. This element of journalism was discussed in this week’s lecture, in which facts are used as part of a story. The story must have entertainment value but nonetheless be based upon some form of factual evidence. Factual evidence is also run in counter to other pieces of fact, and so builds a nice story involving controversy, polemic and drama. As journalists it is important to substantiate your facts through diligent research and a wide range of sources, which as stated above is sometimes overlooked when time is pressing.

So, I guess it is up to the audience to maintain a sense of personal integrity towards what the media claims to be true. It is not so much about being passive and soaking up their every word as if it stemmed from some overarching authority of truth and reality. It is more about reading from a wide range of sources; from scientific journals (when scientific fact is an element, such as climate change), to newspapers, to online blog sites and documentaries. For we live in a world hungry for information, where it is a only a matter of sourcing out the good from the bad.

For example, in the article ‘Questioning the Generational Divide’, Susan Herring explores the way in which public discourse has constructed the image of the ‘Internet Generation’ or ‘the first generation to grow up in a world where the internet was always present’; as a member of the ‘Internet Generation’ my identity is efficiently narrowed down to certain traits as prescribed by public discourse. For example, media commentators often represent my generation of media users as vulnerable and in need of societal protection from the dangerous effects of the Internet. Herring explains that this discourse reflects what journalists perceive as the concerns of parents (of course taking liberties on the truth) whose children spend time on the Internet; especially those children who god forbid spend time on destructive and perilous social networking sites. There is a moral panic being represented in the media regarding the dangers of sites such as MySpace where child abductions, moral corruptions and a deterioration of societal values are supposedly inherent. Herring asserts that such discourses are manifestations of less techno savvy adults who view the Internet as an unfamiliar and intimidating landscape. Conversely however, the ‘Internet Generation’ uses the Internet as a normative communication and information tool. To misrepresent us as being vulnerable victims of the Internet ‘shows a great deal about the relations of power that structure youth’.

So, what is true identity then if identity is socially understood? In order to better understand identities it is important for us to understand the forces and influences of the media that create societal discourses surrounding those identities.

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

Herring, Susan. “Questioning te Generational Divide: Technological Exoticism and Adult Constructions of Online Youth Identity”. IN BUckingham, David (Ed.) Youth, Identity and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008, 71-91

The hype surrounding this previously unknown girl is amazing- stretching overseas. This is a great example of the span of new digital media and the question of audience/ producer roles. Could we label her as a producer? She has definitely generated an audience of her own. First through new digital media such as facebook and twitter and now through traditional broadcast media.  Could we also say that discourse has prompted her popularity? That her use of language and form has shaped meaning? What makes her so transfixing is beyond me!

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-AU&brand=ninemsn&vid=cbf002b2-a3bb-4aeb-a183-45d8ab0888bc

In this way we need to know how the media acts to reinforce or shape these norms; what effects do media have on the norms of everyday life. For us to properly understand these effects, we need to take a critical standpoint as described in Nigel Fairclough’s assessment ‘Critical Analysis of Media Discourse’. In this article, Farclough draws upon three main aspects in critically analysing ‘media discourse’ or discovering how language is used by the media to represent a certain point of view.

1. Discourse practice: how a text is produced and consumed

2. Text: how the language and form shape each other and hence shape the meaning

3. Socio-cultural practice: how different abstractions of the ‘event’ being described by the media is constitutive of different contexts.

I found this reading very engaging, as it seemed to relate directly to media and everyday life. For example, Fairclough notes how social norms or discourse shapes the way in which we use a given mode of media, he states “properties of socio-cultural practice shape texts, but by way of shaping the nature of the discourse practice- how the text is produced and consumed”. This relates to how new media such as the mobile phone is appropriated into society. Societal etiquette shapes the way in which we use our mobile phone, however not owning or using a mobile phone at all is now somewhat ‘abnormal’; it is contrary to today’s discourse. Similarly, he realises that “a complex dialectic seems to exist between media and the conversational discourse of everyday life”; that is the media is sutured into the normality and ‘care structures’ of our everyday life. This can be seen by example of the phenomenon of reality TV (as we have studied). How social networks are formed and the discourses in those social networks are specific to that media genre.

Fairclough, N. “Critical Analysis of Media Discourse” In Media Discourse London: Arnold, 1995, 53-74

The article by Shirato and Yell (S&Y) aims to re-examine Saussure’s work, without denying it its due credit. Rather this article draws upon four main problems with Saussure.

1. Every time we use a sign it gets translated into another sign
2. Not all signs are intentional- it is easy to create meaning without intention
3. Meaning is not always arbitrary- it is commonly deployed as tools of politics and power
4. Language is dynamic. It is impossible to ignore the changes of language based on context, time, generation, associations, gender etc

I would now like to focus on the use of meaning as a tool of power. This draws upon the article by Annabelle Lukin, ‘how ideology shapes the reporting of the war’ which I found most interesting. This article basically outlines the way in which reporters can use grammar and other language tools in order to shape and create meaning from an undisputed fact.  Lukin uses a news extract from the Iraq War in which a 12 year old boy lost his arms and family during a bombing raid.

It is strange to note how after reading this article I have become conscious in the way I produce these facts. This is exactly the point Lukin hoped to achieve; we must adopt a more critical approach in ‘absorbing’ news pieces. Lukin compared the way in which the piece on the 12 year old boy was reported by 6 different newspapers. She identified the different ways of reporting the piece and how these differences affected meaning.

So in the context of everyday life, media is something which can both affect meaning and create meaning. In the age of digital media, in which audiences such as us are perceived to be more media savvy, perhaps we should apply this new found skill when engaging in what we like to call the ‘news’.

Schirato, T. and Yell, S. “:Sign and MEaning”. Communication and Cultural Literacy: An introduction. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2000, 18-33

Such a theme draws upon and also makes sense of theories concerning media mobility and convergence. In our course we have learnt that rather than the media being a central hub of power, accessed at structured times of the day, new technologies such as digital media have diminished such temporality. We have the power to access the media at any time of the day, from the internet on an iPhone to live music streams on our mp3s. Couldry states that, “media are not just consumed as stand-alone texts, but embedded in the whole sensory environment in which we conduct our lives”

Furthermore, Couldry also mention that the media mobility can be attributed to convergence; there is a new spectrum of media outlets drawn from a combination of new and old media. He does not claim however, that being a member of an audience is a new sensation, or that we can label past audiences as being passive. Rather he believes that audiences are no longer linearly designated entities- the hierarchy of producer vs. Audience is being disintegrated.

Nevertheless, Couldry maintains that power relations vis-a-vis media corporations deciding firstly who appears on reality TV shows such as Big Brother and secondly what information circulates widely in society, still prevail.

Without denying the fact that the concept of media power is still audacious, I would like to offer some rebuttals to this particular position on power relations… We have learnt that through the increasingly effusive demand of audiences (through the expansion of digital technologies for example), reality TV was set in motion. So I argue that although the corporations have the final say in what content such reality TV will display, it is the audience who influence their choice.

Also, Couldry makes no mention of the proliferating grassroots news networks that occupy large spaces of the internet. For example, Crikey purports to “reveal how the powerful operate behind the scenes and tackle the stories insiders are talking about but other media can’t or won’t cover”.

Couldry Nick “The Extended Audience”. From Gillespie, M. (Ed.) Media Audiences, Open Uni Press, 2005, 184-196

Using American Idol as an example, Jenkins illustrates the imperative of networks and in particular advertisers to ‘listen’ to the viewers and in some way, heed to their demands. Reality Television shows such as American Idol, are tools in which viewers assert power over traditional media. For example, Idol bases its entire existence upon audience participation and community building. These audiences have the power, through mobile phones, the internet and other technologies, to gather in communities with common interests and thus agendas. These communities can be as large as entire fan base online networks and forums and as small as the household living room. Where a family has power structures and a moral economy, which as we have learnt through ‘domestication’ can determine the adoption of media; a community of avid fans and watchers can determine how the network and the sponsors structure their show and position their advertisements. It was interesting to read how emotionally involved and affected Idol viewers were, to the point of being patriotic. The example of how At&T as a sponsor of Idol was negatively affected by public backlash to ‘unfair voting’, illustrates how ‘debates about Idol are debates about the terms of audience participation in American media’.

This article helped me understand the forces which drove the popularity (if not overkill) of reality TV. In essence, reality TV was an attempt by traditional broadcast television to accommodate the challenges of digital technologies. In an environment in which networking and online community growth is thriving, a show which can not only interact with but also empower its audience would be successful.  

I do believe though that in as much as the Idol audience feels empowered, it is still running the rat race. Any group of people who can so easily succumb to the movements of the media to the point of total involvement and dependence upon (for social scenarios and day to day life) is by no means self-regulating.

Jenkins, Henry, “Buying into Amrica Idol: How We are being Sold on Reality Television” In Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York, NYU Press, 2006, 59-62

Ito’s main argument is that although mobile phones have enabled freedoms of communication (and a sharing of a private space) which would otherwise be unattainable, their use is structured around physical places. Rather than eroding the integrity of the physical place, mobile phone usage is controlled by the power dynamics within those places.

Ito’s research is focused on the youths of today- predominately those who still live with their parents. This is because it is those dependent youths that use their phones to circumvent the power structures of their parent’s homes, schools and public places (such as trains).

In this week’s lecture it was mentioned that mobile phones can be ‘internalised’ by the users; they can act as prosthetics. This is very evident in this article as it seems the Japanese youths studied, were very dependent on their mobile phones; their mobile phones enabled them to express freedoms within restricting environments. Their usage was boarderline excessive for me…a number of 30-56 texts on an evening makes my sms usage seem conservative, even lazy!

 However, it was interesting to read how their usage was still controlled by means of their context or a set of ethics or expectations. The power structures of society were not completely dissolved in spite of these new ‘freedoms’. I remember how restricting mobile phone use was in high school. Even in University Lectures it is deemed rude and inappropriate to be using one’s phone. I can only imagine what glares I would receive if I decided to have a full blown private conversation while in a tutorial.

So, mobile phones actually structure the norms of existing places while also being regulated themselves.

Ito, Mizuko. “Mobile Phones, Japanese Youth, and the Replacement of Social Contact”

Moores draws his argument from Scannell’s observation on broadcasting and its subsequent effect on time and space- yet he would also like to expand beyond this and include an analysis of those electronic media which also have the capacity for virtually instantaneous transmission of information across sometimes large distances.

He however, makes it very clear that he does not suggest a complete dissolution of the importance of physical spaces as his reference Meyrowitz suggests. Rather he asserts that through new media technologies, there is a pluralisation of places.

Examples he uses to defend his argument include…

1. He refers to Princess Diana’s funeral and its mass broadcasting. People stayed at home to watch the funeral in their ‘T.V rooms’; they ‘lived’ the funeral while sitting at home through feeling a sense of connectedness. Though Diana once existed spatially apart from ‘us’, it is through her celebrity status as broadcasted by the media, that we could ‘relate’ to her on an everyday basis.

2. Internet Chat rooms are a pluralising of a place and relationships. Being at home, on the net interacting with both people who are online (in one’s virtual space) and in one’s physical space.

3. Mobile phones- Being in a ‘public space’ while simultaneously having a private conversation in a ‘private space’. By no means does Moores believe this is a negative impact of the media. He refers to opportunities of feeling connected or having the ability to stretch of relationships over one’s physical space.

I like to think this as a good thing as well. I enjoy knowing that I can contact people, regardless of my proximity to them. I also agree with the idea of coexisting in two spaces at once- I experience this on a daily level. Each time I log into facebook I am entering into a completely different dimension- a dimension of different politics, structure, networks and of course freedoms. I am able to be in touch with friends from the other side of the world. However, I also consider the dangers of breaching the public and the private. How does it feel to be dumped on facebook? Or perhaps fired? Do the same ethics apply in this space as opposed to the physical space? I do not know…

Moores, Shaun. “The Doubling of Place: Electronic Media, Time-Space Arrangments and Social Relationships.” In Couldry, Nick. and McCarthey, Anna., Eds. MediaSpace: Place, Scale and Culture in a Media Age. London: Routledge, 2004, 21-37

Dasein:

In essence Dasein is the state of a human being’s ‘my-time’ (my being on earth) in relation to care (what matters to us and how). Scannell states that care is, “first and last, what it is to be in the world, to be with others”. It is through this state of being that broadcasting institutionalises our ‘my-time’, in other words broadcasting hones on particular times of the day to tune into our daily issues or preoccupations of what we think about.

Dailiness:

Dailiness is the routinisation of the production of service (radio and television) which affects our sense of days; that our days are pre-determined by the media. Scannell believes that for us our time of day is zoned by the media from breakfast to bedtime. These ‘zones’ are the guidelines by which broadcast services arrange themselves to appeal to the cares and concerns of people, for example- morning TV.

I know that shows like Today or Sunrise change their content based on time. The early half of the show is programmed towards those people who are on their way to work; it is designed to include the news regularly as well as traffic updates. However, if one tunes into Sunrise or Today at around 8am, one must expect a more commercial and tabloid style of show; from ‘how to get the best looks at a low budget’ to ‘baking made easy’. Scannell believes that the media is the architect and we are the canvas. The care structures of news are what give our days a sense of eventfulness and transform our ‘my-time’ world to include the public.

I would like to note though that high frequency media such as the internet is not mentioned in this writing. I believe that the internet empowers consumers and gives them the independence to pick and choose the times of day in which they will be ‘mediated’. I personally choose the manner and structure of my media usage. I do no wake up to a clock radio or watch morning TV. Although I listen to the radio on my drive to uni, it is certainly not in any particular structure…sometimes in the morning and sometimes I prefer cds or my iPod.

So are our days really this structured as Scannell believes?