The global financial crisis of 2008–2009 emerged in September 2008 with the failure, merger, or conservatorship of several large United States-based financial firms (Torbat, 2008).
It is characterised by stock market falls and crashes, collapses of large financial institutions and stimulus packages. Now since the crisis actually originated in the United States it means that other countries were affected because of the interconnectedness of business, money borrowing, offshore labor and most importantly borrowing of money, because it was the collapse of large financial institutions.
While the context seems to agree with the fact that globalisation has led to the global financial crisis we also need to look at the term by itself.
How global is global? There is no economic down fall in already third world countries, does this mean it should be called the Western economic crisis?
Here I would like to point out that there is a strong connection between media content and the use of the term, ‘War on Terror’. There is no body of people with the job of naming events and his terms seems like an American designed way a justifying the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, ‘War on Oil’ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it. At the same time the word ‘Terror’ rouses many more patriotic feelings than perhaps than naming the actual enemy-if in fact there is one.
If we deconstruct the term ‘global economic crisis’ in the same way, it is apparent that the same approach has been taken.
Global is a unifying word. It makes individuals aware that everyone is suffering the same as them and unifies the globe in the struggle against the economic beast. It also allows America to take no responsibility as igniting the crisis, when in realty there economic reach over the world and poor economics have led to the crisis.
By referring to the crisis as an economic one it puts the focus on the money, rather than the social implications such as loss of jobs, lack of jobs and social recession.
Overall the term is very passive and unifying, it is a form of agenda setting probably stemming originally from American media.
“The day-to-day selection and display of news by journalists focuses the public's attention and influences its perceptions. The specific ability to influence the salience of both topics and their images among the public has come to be called the agenda setting role of the news media” (McCombs and Reynolds, 2002).
Journalist have created this term, ‘global financial crisis,’ to set the agenda on how the economic downturn will be discussed.
“Because all the reporters are travelling on the same plane, eating the. same food, covering the same events, following up the same press releases and, most of all, reading one another's copy, reporters find themselves, as if by osmosis, sticking to the same script" (Sparrow, 2003).
Globalisation of media content through trans-national corporations such as News Corporation has led to this content and copy being shared and led to the construction and use of the term, ‘global financial crisis’.
Sources:
Torbat, Akbar E. (2008-10-13). "Global Financial Meltdown and the Demise of Neoliberalism". Global Research (Center for Research on Globalization). http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10549. Retrieved on 2008-10-15. "These happened in a matter of a few weeks in September, constituting the largest financial failure in the US since the great depression."
McCombs, M. and Reynolds, A. (2002) 'News influence on our pictures of the world', in Bryant, J. and Zillmann, DoIf (ed.), 'Media Effects', 2nd edn., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1-16.
Sparrow, Jeff. 2003, Weapons of mass disaffection -The media, the Right and the 'war on terror'. Paper in Old Wounds. Overland, no.171, 6-13. viewed 2/5/09 from Informit.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Public figure by choice or not?
A few weeks ago I discussed privacy and the public interest. I found this to be an interesting and highly debated subject so I decided to go a little more in depth.
Contemporary society and contemporary media is drowned by publicity and publicity seeking individuals. Paradoxically this same society values privacy to the point that it congers much public debate. The argument arises that privacy differs when an individual is a public figure, such as a politician or celebrity, compared to a person thrust into the public eye through such things as relations with public figures or surviving a disaster. With the media’s aim to inform, entertain and educate it is sometimes difficult to uphold strict social privacy rules whilst at the same time fulfil their social role as the fourth estate.
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy”(Besley, 1992 p.78). From this document it can be assumed that privacy is considered socially valuable. Legally speaking, “Situations that qualify as invasions of privacy vary depending on what a reasonable person would deem offensive, and what does not constitute a legitimate public concern.” (Booth, 1996). It is illegal for a photographer to take a picture of an individual in their bathroom, yet not illegal in their backyard because this is not considered a private domain by a ‘reasonable person’. Hence, privacy has no uniform definition but it does have an important role in society which is reflected by the way society values privacy.
According to Biernatzki privacy, “is inherently a social concept, important mostly because without it there is no conception of personhood”(2004). This is a view agreed with by Sissela Bok who believes, “Privacy meets a need: it offers the self protection against vulnerabilities by providing comfort and control and by strengthening the sense of identity” (Besley, 1992 p.81). While these arguments establish a necessity for privacy there are numerous individuals in society who seem to experience privacy on a sliding scale.
Archard believes privacy is a social construct and that there is little justification for breaching an individual’s privacy whether they are a public figure or not. “There is no warrant for thinking that a person loses his privacy in virtue of becoming a public person…Most interestingly, the public’s interest in knowing what public figures do in private-an interest which print gossip serves-should not be dismissed as morally valueless” (Archard, 1998 p.93). The one justification Archard does agree with is that of matters of interest to the public. The argument here is that when justifying invasions of privacy three reasons are commonly cited:
1. the private information of public figures impacts on the public. The 1977 Court of Appeal said, “those who seek and welcome publicity…cannot complain about invasions of privacy which show them in an unfavourable light” (Archard, 1998 p.87). Archard quickly denotes this argument by using the example of private people thrust into the spot light by surviving a disaster. At no point did these individuals sanction their public life and hence at no point agreed upon publicity.
2. Invasion of privacy due to public interest. Here the question arises, does the public need to know the morality of a public figure? Archard believes this to be “self-serving rationalism”(1998, p.90) because moral significance and motivation differs between ones personal and public life.
3. That which is of interest to the community also known as gossip is a justification for invasion of privacy. Gossip has the capacity to define community unity by continuously engraining community values and by creating a sense of egalitarianism. Due to the need to see the ordinariness in everyone it is public figures, whether by choice or involuntarily in the public eye, that are the subjects of such gossip. Whilst this seems like a simplistic and passively accepting way of looking at the issue of privacy and individuals, this belief can be seen when looking at the amount of gossip magazines that are currently economically thriving.
The basis of Besley’s argument is “when some information about an individual that he or she would prefer to keep private should be in the public domain, then putting it there is not overriding that individual’s right to privacy because no such right ever existed”(1992 p.77). In other words whenever invasion is justified then no privacy existed in the first place therefore there is no legitimate reason to invade anyone’s privacy. Besley does however address specifically why both groups are fair game for the media to report on. “All aspects of the exercise of power must be open to public scrutiny”(Besley, 1992 p.78). Besley believes for this reason personalities and public figures that have power in society, due to their high profiles which were created and sustained by publicity, are rightly subjects of intense media attention. In becoming a personality the media can assume consent of publication. On the other hand people thrust into the media have been involved in events which are public matters and therefore need to be reported on. Yet, unlike personalities, they have the right to refuse consent for interview, information etc. This issue of consent comes down to the Faustian Contract (Besley, 1992 p.84). This is an un-written contract that public figures who knowingly put themselves in front of the media cannot falsely claim privacy when press turns bad.
I personally believe there is a difference between the privacy of public figures and involuntary public figures. This difference comes down to consent and relies on the ethics of an editor to decide whether certain information should be made public. In the end 'Privacy' is a social construct and can be just as easily de-constructed.
What do you think?
Sources
Archard, D. 'Privacy, the public interest, and a prurient public', in Kieran, M (ed), Media Ethics, (Routledge, 1998), pp 82-96.
ABC. ‘Cheryl Kernot and the Politics of the Personal’ [Transcript], Media Report 4 July 2002.
ABC. 'What is "Public Interest"?' [Transcript], Media Report 13 Feb 1997.
Belsey, A. 'Privacy, Publicity and Politics', in Belsey, A & Chadwick, R, Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, (Routledge, 1992), pp 77-91.
Biernatzki, W. "LaMay, Craig L. (Ed.). Journalism and the Debate over Privacy." Communication Research Trends 23.3 (Fall 2004): 33(2). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Retrieved 8 Oct. 2008.
Booth,L. "Photos of Jemima and Imran Khan having sex." New Statesman (1996) 130.4563 (Nov 12, 2001): 63. Expanded Academic ASAP. Retrieved 8 Oct. 2008.
Farr, M & Barlass, T. 'In the garden of their home, a senator and his wife confront a scandal', Daily Telegraph 7 February 1997.
Contemporary society and contemporary media is drowned by publicity and publicity seeking individuals. Paradoxically this same society values privacy to the point that it congers much public debate. The argument arises that privacy differs when an individual is a public figure, such as a politician or celebrity, compared to a person thrust into the public eye through such things as relations with public figures or surviving a disaster. With the media’s aim to inform, entertain and educate it is sometimes difficult to uphold strict social privacy rules whilst at the same time fulfil their social role as the fourth estate.
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy”(Besley, 1992 p.78). From this document it can be assumed that privacy is considered socially valuable. Legally speaking, “Situations that qualify as invasions of privacy vary depending on what a reasonable person would deem offensive, and what does not constitute a legitimate public concern.” (Booth, 1996). It is illegal for a photographer to take a picture of an individual in their bathroom, yet not illegal in their backyard because this is not considered a private domain by a ‘reasonable person’. Hence, privacy has no uniform definition but it does have an important role in society which is reflected by the way society values privacy.
According to Biernatzki privacy, “is inherently a social concept, important mostly because without it there is no conception of personhood”(2004). This is a view agreed with by Sissela Bok who believes, “Privacy meets a need: it offers the self protection against vulnerabilities by providing comfort and control and by strengthening the sense of identity” (Besley, 1992 p.81). While these arguments establish a necessity for privacy there are numerous individuals in society who seem to experience privacy on a sliding scale.
Archard believes privacy is a social construct and that there is little justification for breaching an individual’s privacy whether they are a public figure or not. “There is no warrant for thinking that a person loses his privacy in virtue of becoming a public person…Most interestingly, the public’s interest in knowing what public figures do in private-an interest which print gossip serves-should not be dismissed as morally valueless” (Archard, 1998 p.93). The one justification Archard does agree with is that of matters of interest to the public. The argument here is that when justifying invasions of privacy three reasons are commonly cited:
1. the private information of public figures impacts on the public. The 1977 Court of Appeal said, “those who seek and welcome publicity…cannot complain about invasions of privacy which show them in an unfavourable light” (Archard, 1998 p.87). Archard quickly denotes this argument by using the example of private people thrust into the spot light by surviving a disaster. At no point did these individuals sanction their public life and hence at no point agreed upon publicity.
2. Invasion of privacy due to public interest. Here the question arises, does the public need to know the morality of a public figure? Archard believes this to be “self-serving rationalism”(1998, p.90) because moral significance and motivation differs between ones personal and public life.
3. That which is of interest to the community also known as gossip is a justification for invasion of privacy. Gossip has the capacity to define community unity by continuously engraining community values and by creating a sense of egalitarianism. Due to the need to see the ordinariness in everyone it is public figures, whether by choice or involuntarily in the public eye, that are the subjects of such gossip. Whilst this seems like a simplistic and passively accepting way of looking at the issue of privacy and individuals, this belief can be seen when looking at the amount of gossip magazines that are currently economically thriving.
The basis of Besley’s argument is “when some information about an individual that he or she would prefer to keep private should be in the public domain, then putting it there is not overriding that individual’s right to privacy because no such right ever existed”(1992 p.77). In other words whenever invasion is justified then no privacy existed in the first place therefore there is no legitimate reason to invade anyone’s privacy. Besley does however address specifically why both groups are fair game for the media to report on. “All aspects of the exercise of power must be open to public scrutiny”(Besley, 1992 p.78). Besley believes for this reason personalities and public figures that have power in society, due to their high profiles which were created and sustained by publicity, are rightly subjects of intense media attention. In becoming a personality the media can assume consent of publication. On the other hand people thrust into the media have been involved in events which are public matters and therefore need to be reported on. Yet, unlike personalities, they have the right to refuse consent for interview, information etc. This issue of consent comes down to the Faustian Contract (Besley, 1992 p.84). This is an un-written contract that public figures who knowingly put themselves in front of the media cannot falsely claim privacy when press turns bad.
I personally believe there is a difference between the privacy of public figures and involuntary public figures. This difference comes down to consent and relies on the ethics of an editor to decide whether certain information should be made public. In the end 'Privacy' is a social construct and can be just as easily de-constructed.
What do you think?
Sources
Archard, D. 'Privacy, the public interest, and a prurient public', in Kieran, M (ed), Media Ethics, (Routledge, 1998), pp 82-96.
ABC. ‘Cheryl Kernot and the Politics of the Personal’ [Transcript], Media Report 4 July 2002.
ABC. 'What is "Public Interest"?' [Transcript], Media Report 13 Feb 1997.
Belsey, A. 'Privacy, Publicity and Politics', in Belsey, A & Chadwick, R, Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, (Routledge, 1992), pp 77-91.
Biernatzki, W. "LaMay, Craig L. (Ed.). Journalism and the Debate over Privacy." Communication Research Trends 23.3 (Fall 2004): 33(2). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Retrieved 8 Oct. 2008.
Booth,L. "Photos of Jemima and Imran Khan having sex." New Statesman (1996) 130.4563 (Nov 12, 2001): 63. Expanded Academic ASAP. Retrieved 8 Oct. 2008.
Farr, M & Barlass, T. 'In the garden of their home, a senator and his wife confront a scandal', Daily Telegraph 7 February 1997.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Seminar report 2
Knowledge equals power
Newspapers have always been a threat to authority and a challenge to power, announced Rachel Morris.
Morris was the first of three speakers discussing journalism at the University of Newcastle, yesterday.
With the invention of the telegraph in 1844 the first news story was able to be transmitted beginning the instant gratification trend of audiences today.
The radio, television and the Internet followed making newspapers somewhat inadequate to fulfil their past roles.
“From the debate about newspaper finances to how we fund public-service television to just how much Twitter is really worth, we live in uncertain times,” said Morris.
“Soon all news will be online. Journalists of the future need to be multi-skilled, adaptable, resourceful and creative.”
It is often noted that audiences demand speed and the news hole is becoming more bottomless than full.
Recently the guardian wrote, “From the debate about newspaper finances to how we fund public-service television to just how much Twitter is really worth, we live in uncertain times”.
Yet Morris noted that the monotony of news content is mainly focussed at a standard western audience.
Even citizen journalism is being produced by those affluent enough to own a computer and have access to education and the Internet.
If Morris is right and all content moves online the digital divide between the rich and poor, the old and the young, will create groups of marginalised people unable to access the fourth estate.
Is this the future we want? By buying this paper you have already answered the question.
Newspapers have always been a threat to authority and a challenge to power, announced Rachel Morris.
Morris was the first of three speakers discussing journalism at the University of Newcastle, yesterday.
With the invention of the telegraph in 1844 the first news story was able to be transmitted beginning the instant gratification trend of audiences today.
The radio, television and the Internet followed making newspapers somewhat inadequate to fulfil their past roles.
“From the debate about newspaper finances to how we fund public-service television to just how much Twitter is really worth, we live in uncertain times,” said Morris.
“Soon all news will be online. Journalists of the future need to be multi-skilled, adaptable, resourceful and creative.”
It is often noted that audiences demand speed and the news hole is becoming more bottomless than full.
Recently the guardian wrote, “From the debate about newspaper finances to how we fund public-service television to just how much Twitter is really worth, we live in uncertain times”.
Yet Morris noted that the monotony of news content is mainly focussed at a standard western audience.
Even citizen journalism is being produced by those affluent enough to own a computer and have access to education and the Internet.
If Morris is right and all content moves online the digital divide between the rich and poor, the old and the young, will create groups of marginalised people unable to access the fourth estate.
Is this the future we want? By buying this paper you have already answered the question.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Seminar report
Goodbye Big Dog: slow death foreseen for local media
The negative effect of globalisation on rural areas is growing according to Rebecca Gallegos.
Gallegos gave a seminar on the subject of globalisation vs. localisation at the University of Newcastle yesterday.
The warning signs of this trend began in 2001 when Prime local news was axed.
“Lack of local content effects rural areas’ sense of community, reduces employment, connectivity, provides less access to information and therefore a loss of cultural knowledge,” Gallegos said.
Recently Newcastle MP Jodi McKay voiced her concern about declining local news content.
Triple J program Hack has documented the emergence of rural news being presented from Canberra by journalists who have never visited the area.
“Localisation is produced by nurturing local owned business. Why is local media important? Everyone wants to know what is going on in their own backyard,” Gallegos said.
She also stated media organisations are finding it difficult to justify the cost of local media, finding it easier to access news services rather than employing local journalists.
“Media watchdogs are threatened by the separation between judiciary and journalism,” Gallegos said.
There are problems regulating online journalism in the global environment.
The laws which were made for a local jurisdiction are incapable of regulating international publishing, and are therefore incapable of protecting the rights which they are designed to protect.
Gallegos also shared some positive news identifying a trend in the USA and Britain of consolidated media moving back to localisation.
In Britain the government has provided stimulus packages to rural newspapers.
The state based versions of A Current Affair are examples of this trend in Australia. Gallegos argued that some local content is derived from the global market due to concentrated ownership of trans-national corporations.
“Local is often produced within and by globalisation. Examples include Master Chef and Idol,” Gallegos said.
The negative effect of globalisation on rural areas is growing according to Rebecca Gallegos.
Gallegos gave a seminar on the subject of globalisation vs. localisation at the University of Newcastle yesterday.
The warning signs of this trend began in 2001 when Prime local news was axed.
“Lack of local content effects rural areas’ sense of community, reduces employment, connectivity, provides less access to information and therefore a loss of cultural knowledge,” Gallegos said.
Recently Newcastle MP Jodi McKay voiced her concern about declining local news content.
Triple J program Hack has documented the emergence of rural news being presented from Canberra by journalists who have never visited the area.
“Localisation is produced by nurturing local owned business. Why is local media important? Everyone wants to know what is going on in their own backyard,” Gallegos said.
She also stated media organisations are finding it difficult to justify the cost of local media, finding it easier to access news services rather than employing local journalists.
“Media watchdogs are threatened by the separation between judiciary and journalism,” Gallegos said.
There are problems regulating online journalism in the global environment.
The laws which were made for a local jurisdiction are incapable of regulating international publishing, and are therefore incapable of protecting the rights which they are designed to protect.
Gallegos also shared some positive news identifying a trend in the USA and Britain of consolidated media moving back to localisation.
In Britain the government has provided stimulus packages to rural newspapers.
The state based versions of A Current Affair are examples of this trend in Australia. Gallegos argued that some local content is derived from the global market due to concentrated ownership of trans-national corporations.
“Local is often produced within and by globalisation. Examples include Master Chef and Idol,” Gallegos said.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Facebook, Twitter, Myspace-am I sharing too much information?
You are actually sharing no more information about yourself than can already be found on large information systems and database that are in existence due to new technology. If you have ever brought a house or rented an apartment there is an online database that journalists and real estate agents can access. It will tell them your name, age, gender, how much you paid for the house, how much the value has risen or fallen, what occupation you had when you bought it, how big the land size is, it also has an all angles images section and the house plans. As a small example this is pretty scary. Another example is recruitment websites. For example, I applied for a job in one government department, yet in the last month I have received offers from four different departments via email. They have already filled in the majority of my application which asks questions such as address, academic record and alternative contact person. It is your personal opinion being on record, rather than your details which causes problems on such sites.
In essence this is the privacy debate (O’Shaunessy & Stadler, 2006, p.67). During April the EU called for tougher privacy rules on the Internet. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald said, “the commission was carefully watching how sites target users with ads in order to ensure they respect European rules, which she said were crystal clear: a person's information can only be used with their prior consent’” (2009). So next time a survey pops up on Facebook and you click allow before you do it take notice of how your advertisements change on your home page, becoming more and more relevant to you.
O’Shaughnessy, M. & Stadler, J. 2006, ‘Media and Society’ (3rd Edition), Hong Kong, Oxford University Press
The Sydney Morning Herald, April 12 2009, ‘EU urges tougher Internet privacy,’ Fairfax media.
In essence this is the privacy debate (O’Shaunessy & Stadler, 2006, p.67). During April the EU called for tougher privacy rules on the Internet. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald said, “the commission was carefully watching how sites target users with ads in order to ensure they respect European rules, which she said were crystal clear: a person's information can only be used with their prior consent’” (2009). So next time a survey pops up on Facebook and you click allow before you do it take notice of how your advertisements change on your home page, becoming more and more relevant to you.
O’Shaughnessy, M. & Stadler, J. 2006, ‘Media and Society’ (3rd Edition), Hong Kong, Oxford University Press
The Sydney Morning Herald, April 12 2009, ‘EU urges tougher Internet privacy,’ Fairfax media.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The Private lives of Public People
After the Della Bosca 'scandal' the ABC discussed the topic on the program The World Today.Here is an extract:
ELEANOR HALL: Professor Stephan Millet, are we seeing a heightened moralism as Catharine Lumby puts it – or do public figures forfeit their right to private lives?
STEPHAN MILLET: No they don't forfeit their right to a private life. I'm not quite sure whether there is a heightened moralism operating. I think it's partly a reflection of the media's ability to tell this story very quickly. It's an age-old story and they can tell it 25 words if they need to and still get it reasonably right.
So there's a sense that the story is an easy one to tell, and it's an easy one to tell in small words in big type on the front page.
ELEANOR HALL: So staying with you Professor Millet, is it a media frenzy or does the public really care about these things?
STEPHAN MILLET: It's both. The public do care. I mean we heard from the people in the street, there are mixed views on what they care about: should it remain private? Does it reflect on his ability to do the job? And you can say, well he's made a bad decision or a poor decision and in his own words he has to cop the consequences of that.
And I suppose it opens up the question more generally: what other poor decisions is he making under pressure.
ELEANOR HALL: What do you think Professor Tiffen? Is this just a media frenzy, and have times changed? I mean, there's a long history of journalists not publishing personal details when they clearly know about affairs.
ROD TIFFEN: Yes there is a long history of that. But there is also a long history of them publishing. Normally they need a public-interest angle. The public-interest angle in this case is almost non-existent.
He walked past, he got this lady to walk past a security guard without signing her in. My guess is that happens 10 or 20 time every day in Federal Parliament and the state somehow still survives.
The impact on the public role here is quite minimal. But one of the things that's changed is that politicians don't just sell themselves as competent performers as a public role, they sell their whole persona, they say I am a wonderful person, trustworthy, altruistic et cetera, et cetera; a warm human being with a wonderful family life.
And once you sort of make that part of your public pitch for election, the line between public role and private life becomes increasingly blurred and problematic.
To view the complete transcript visit http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2673316.htm
As I was listening to this I realised that the Della Bosca scandal is only the corner of a much larger issue. As Hall says, "do public figures forfeit their right to a private life?" Tiffen's answer is simple, "once you sort of make that part of your public pitch for election, the line between public role and private life becomes increasingly blurred and problematic". In other words once you sell your image as part of the product you offer expect anything that would diminish this product to be of the public interest.
Now this seems fairly straight forward, yet who defines the product and who defines the interest, as Hill asks about the media frenzy it seems it is the media that decides what will be on the agenda.
This week Woman's Day featured a frail looking Angelina Jolie with the text, 'Starving for Brad's attention', Take Five had a young boy with the line, 'Scarred for life at a Sleepover', Women's Weekly had a photo of Tracey Grimshaw saying, 'Tracey on Ramsay and Gay and Who, well Who speaks for itself. Here we have an actress who sells her 'product' as being an adequate actor, not a relationship councillor which means this story is NOT in the public interest. Then we have a boy of no public interest, who is not a public figure and whose story is neither timely, nor absurd or shocking (no news value at all in fact). We have a news host discussing gayness, something which she as a heterosexual has no authority to discuss and finally we have a magazine completely devoted to the private lives of public figures. So what do we take from this?
Yes this form of journalism must be what some audience members want, because otherwise these magazines would not sell. While Hill and Tiffen can debate the wrongs and rights of what should be private in the end there is no one to police such things. If there was this policing body would spend most of their time arguing over what should and shouldn't be printed. So while we cannot stop these things from being printed we can choose whether or not to believe what we read and whether or not we judge the people involved.
What is your view, please share in discussion via the comment option...
ELEANOR HALL: Professor Stephan Millet, are we seeing a heightened moralism as Catharine Lumby puts it – or do public figures forfeit their right to private lives?
STEPHAN MILLET: No they don't forfeit their right to a private life. I'm not quite sure whether there is a heightened moralism operating. I think it's partly a reflection of the media's ability to tell this story very quickly. It's an age-old story and they can tell it 25 words if they need to and still get it reasonably right.
So there's a sense that the story is an easy one to tell, and it's an easy one to tell in small words in big type on the front page.
ELEANOR HALL: So staying with you Professor Millet, is it a media frenzy or does the public really care about these things?
STEPHAN MILLET: It's both. The public do care. I mean we heard from the people in the street, there are mixed views on what they care about: should it remain private? Does it reflect on his ability to do the job? And you can say, well he's made a bad decision or a poor decision and in his own words he has to cop the consequences of that.
And I suppose it opens up the question more generally: what other poor decisions is he making under pressure.
ELEANOR HALL: What do you think Professor Tiffen? Is this just a media frenzy, and have times changed? I mean, there's a long history of journalists not publishing personal details when they clearly know about affairs.
ROD TIFFEN: Yes there is a long history of that. But there is also a long history of them publishing. Normally they need a public-interest angle. The public-interest angle in this case is almost non-existent.
He walked past, he got this lady to walk past a security guard without signing her in. My guess is that happens 10 or 20 time every day in Federal Parliament and the state somehow still survives.
The impact on the public role here is quite minimal. But one of the things that's changed is that politicians don't just sell themselves as competent performers as a public role, they sell their whole persona, they say I am a wonderful person, trustworthy, altruistic et cetera, et cetera; a warm human being with a wonderful family life.
And once you sort of make that part of your public pitch for election, the line between public role and private life becomes increasingly blurred and problematic.
To view the complete transcript visit http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2673316.htm
As I was listening to this I realised that the Della Bosca scandal is only the corner of a much larger issue. As Hall says, "do public figures forfeit their right to a private life?" Tiffen's answer is simple, "once you sort of make that part of your public pitch for election, the line between public role and private life becomes increasingly blurred and problematic". In other words once you sell your image as part of the product you offer expect anything that would diminish this product to be of the public interest.
Now this seems fairly straight forward, yet who defines the product and who defines the interest, as Hill asks about the media frenzy it seems it is the media that decides what will be on the agenda.
This week Woman's Day featured a frail looking Angelina Jolie with the text, 'Starving for Brad's attention', Take Five had a young boy with the line, 'Scarred for life at a Sleepover', Women's Weekly had a photo of Tracey Grimshaw saying, 'Tracey on Ramsay and Gay and Who, well Who speaks for itself. Here we have an actress who sells her 'product' as being an adequate actor, not a relationship councillor which means this story is NOT in the public interest. Then we have a boy of no public interest, who is not a public figure and whose story is neither timely, nor absurd or shocking (no news value at all in fact). We have a news host discussing gayness, something which she as a heterosexual has no authority to discuss and finally we have a magazine completely devoted to the private lives of public figures. So what do we take from this?
Yes this form of journalism must be what some audience members want, because otherwise these magazines would not sell. While Hill and Tiffen can debate the wrongs and rights of what should be private in the end there is no one to police such things. If there was this policing body would spend most of their time arguing over what should and shouldn't be printed. So while we cannot stop these things from being printed we can choose whether or not to believe what we read and whether or not we judge the people involved.
What is your view, please share in discussion via the comment option...
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
All hail Google
After discussing the role of the search engine with my university class I was very interested when I came across one of Paul Sheehan’s articles in The Sydney Morning Herald last week. The title, ‘In Google we trust: our new faith.’ Sheehan puts forward the argument that Google is equivalent to God. Here is an exert from the article:
“The Church of Google offers what it calls nine proofs:
1. Google is the closest thing to an omniscient entity in existence.
2. Google is everywhere at once (omnipresent).
3. Google answers prayers.
4. Google is potentially immortal.
5. Google is infinite (The internet can theoretically grow forever).
6. Google remembers all.
7. Google can do no evil.
8. Google is believed (The term “Google” is searched for more than the terms “God”, “Jesus”, “Allah”, “Buddha”, “Christianity” and “Islam” combined).
9. Evidence of Google’s faith is abundant.”
While this is theoretically true the impact Google and other search engines have had on societies is huge. As Sheehan writes, “You can’t find collective wisdom via compromise. The best group decisions come from lots of independent individual decisions.” Google harnesses this idea of crowd knowledge and will this year process more than 180 billion requests for knowledge.
The search engine has changed the face of journalism, yet there is debate over whether this change has been a positive or a negative one. In one sense information is easier to find, contacts easier to get and stories easier to find. On the other hand it could be said that journalists to easily rely on information. For example the Jeff Goldblum story below which turned out to be very, very wrong.
From a different point of view search engines, if optimised, allow news sites to gain greater readership. Gina Chen a journalist and blogger writes, “One of your goals as a journalistic blogger is that people will find your post on a given topic. So when they type a search into Google, you want your blog to be among the first few sites that come up. (The first few sites are the ones that most people will go to.)” Search engines allow journalists to direct traffic in a way that they previously had no control over. If you would like to know how to use search engine optimisation visit http://savethemedia.com/2008/12/30/a-journalists-guide-to-search-engine-optimization/
But if Google is God, does that make journalists prophets?
“The Church of Google offers what it calls nine proofs:
1. Google is the closest thing to an omniscient entity in existence.
2. Google is everywhere at once (omnipresent).
3. Google answers prayers.
4. Google is potentially immortal.
5. Google is infinite (The internet can theoretically grow forever).
6. Google remembers all.
7. Google can do no evil.
8. Google is believed (The term “Google” is searched for more than the terms “God”, “Jesus”, “Allah”, “Buddha”, “Christianity” and “Islam” combined).
9. Evidence of Google’s faith is abundant.”
While this is theoretically true the impact Google and other search engines have had on societies is huge. As Sheehan writes, “You can’t find collective wisdom via compromise. The best group decisions come from lots of independent individual decisions.” Google harnesses this idea of crowd knowledge and will this year process more than 180 billion requests for knowledge.
The search engine has changed the face of journalism, yet there is debate over whether this change has been a positive or a negative one. In one sense information is easier to find, contacts easier to get and stories easier to find. On the other hand it could be said that journalists to easily rely on information. For example the Jeff Goldblum story below which turned out to be very, very wrong.
From a different point of view search engines, if optimised, allow news sites to gain greater readership. Gina Chen a journalist and blogger writes, “One of your goals as a journalistic blogger is that people will find your post on a given topic. So when they type a search into Google, you want your blog to be among the first few sites that come up. (The first few sites are the ones that most people will go to.)” Search engines allow journalists to direct traffic in a way that they previously had no control over. If you would like to know how to use search engine optimisation visit http://savethemedia.com/2008/12/30/a-journalists-guide-to-search-engine-optimization/
But if Google is God, does that make journalists prophets?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)