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...
Thursday, September 24, 2009
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?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The September Issue
I’m going to step away from critiquing the media this week and instead discuss a film which portrays the magazine world. September Issue (visit http://www.theseptemberissue.com) is a film portraying Ana Wintour, editor of Vogue magazine and fashion industry dictator. This film is not only an up close and personal look into the life of Anna but more importantly it is putting a huge magnifying glass over the industry. The film makes it obvious that it is difficult to separate the fashion industry from the magazine industry when it comes to Vogue. Editorial is swayed by the advertisers paying to be part of this $300billion dollar industry and the trends which are mostly decided upon based on what is put in the September issue of Vogue. It is a strange cycle to watch because it seems that the advertising dollar has a huge influence over the magazine, yet Anna has a huge influence over what is advertised in the magazine so it is difficult to decide to what extent the editorial is driven by the advertising dollar.
While the film does have the documentary tag it can be argued that anything filmed, while the subject knows the camera is on them, has the potential to be melodramatic or tamed down depending on the image the subject wants to present. The film is however, an excellent look at the long hours of the magazine industry, the heated disagreements, the conflict and resolution between designer, magazine and editor, as well as the inability of some individuals to survive in an industry where resilience and ability to accept sometimes very harsh criticism are two necessary qualities. The film also deals lightly with the issues of celebrity culture, digital image-altering technology, power and the gap between those who can afford the clothes and those who buy the magazine because that is the only way they can access the clothes.
Personally, I enjoyed the film for its entertainment purposes as well as its insight into the industry of fashion journalism. Here is the trailer, if you happen to see the film let me know what you think. Did it successfully uncover the truth, or was it merely a tributary exercise?
While the film does have the documentary tag it can be argued that anything filmed, while the subject knows the camera is on them, has the potential to be melodramatic or tamed down depending on the image the subject wants to present. The film is however, an excellent look at the long hours of the magazine industry, the heated disagreements, the conflict and resolution between designer, magazine and editor, as well as the inability of some individuals to survive in an industry where resilience and ability to accept sometimes very harsh criticism are two necessary qualities. The film also deals lightly with the issues of celebrity culture, digital image-altering technology, power and the gap between those who can afford the clothes and those who buy the magazine because that is the only way they can access the clothes.
Personally, I enjoyed the film for its entertainment purposes as well as its insight into the industry of fashion journalism. Here is the trailer, if you happen to see the film let me know what you think. Did it successfully uncover the truth, or was it merely a tributary exercise?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Is the private really confidential?
In light of the recent Della Bosca sex scandal (Visit http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/01/2672539.htm if you need to get up to date) I think it is an appropriate time to discuss when the public domain stops and the private one begins.
The individual’s private space is the area where he/she communicates confidentially with his/her social environment. This could be interpreted as anywhere from the bedroom to the conversation between a husband and wife at a café. The public space is the space where the individual interacts with people outside of the private sphere, the space where the individual’s identity is both constructed and expressed. For example, the workplace, the street or the sporting field. Past public indiscretions have taken place in many of these different places yet have still made the morning paper.
“There was Bert Newton’s drink-driving charge, Naomi Robson swearing on the Today Tonight set in leaked outtakes, Video Hits host Axle Whitehead exposing himself at the 2006 ARIA awards, Dancing with the stars judge Todd McKenney’s arrest for drug possession and Biggest Loser host Ajay Rochester’s escape from welfare fraud conviction” (extract from The Guide, Sydney Morning Herald, 24-30 August 2009).
While Newton’s charge took place in the public space it has no impact on his professional life, only his persona, while Axle Whitehead conducted his indiscretion whilst at work. While these two different scenarios were both in the public sphere it could be argued that Newton’s was not necessarily in the public’s interest to know. So where is the line drawn?
According to The Guide advertisers look directly to blogs to decide on the impact a celebrities’ indiscretion will have on their market. In 2007 Lord Browne chief executive of BP resigned after it became public knowledge that he had lied to the high court about a relationship with a man. While his sexuality did not in any way impact on his ability to do his job and while this does seem to be a private sphere issue the story was told because he lied in the public sphere of the court. The overwhelming thoughts of the blogosphere was that his sexuality was not an issue however his ability o tell a lie was, yet one could not have happened without he other. Comments included:
Comments: 190
• Lord Browne's sexuality is entirely irrelevant to his downfall. The pertinent issue is the fact that he believed that he could steamroller a lie through the judicial process. Thankfully, he failed, as did Archer and Aitkin.
Iain
on May 12, 2007
at 11:39 AM
• There is a very basic and simple policy; If one uses the media to publish positive points to forward ones career, status, popularity, then one must be in the position to accept negative headlines, irrespective of the subject matter. Also, if you are paid from public resources, you must expect to receive some adverse publicity. Browne was proved to have lied. Strip him of his title and imprison him like other perjurors.
Graham Spurrier
on May 07, 2007
at 05:52 AM
(Visit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1550233/Should-the-sexuality-of-people-in-public-life-be-kept-private.html to view further comments).
Spurrier brings up another debate for the publishing of private information, that celebrities cannot use the media only when it suits them. If you rely on the public for survival/popularity then you should expect your down falls to be made public also.
In my personal opinion I don’t think there is a clear line between public and private, it is the journalist’s job to act ethically. What do you think?
The individual’s private space is the area where he/she communicates confidentially with his/her social environment. This could be interpreted as anywhere from the bedroom to the conversation between a husband and wife at a café. The public space is the space where the individual interacts with people outside of the private sphere, the space where the individual’s identity is both constructed and expressed. For example, the workplace, the street or the sporting field. Past public indiscretions have taken place in many of these different places yet have still made the morning paper.
“There was Bert Newton’s drink-driving charge, Naomi Robson swearing on the Today Tonight set in leaked outtakes, Video Hits host Axle Whitehead exposing himself at the 2006 ARIA awards, Dancing with the stars judge Todd McKenney’s arrest for drug possession and Biggest Loser host Ajay Rochester’s escape from welfare fraud conviction” (extract from The Guide, Sydney Morning Herald, 24-30 August 2009).
While Newton’s charge took place in the public space it has no impact on his professional life, only his persona, while Axle Whitehead conducted his indiscretion whilst at work. While these two different scenarios were both in the public sphere it could be argued that Newton’s was not necessarily in the public’s interest to know. So where is the line drawn?
According to The Guide advertisers look directly to blogs to decide on the impact a celebrities’ indiscretion will have on their market. In 2007 Lord Browne chief executive of BP resigned after it became public knowledge that he had lied to the high court about a relationship with a man. While his sexuality did not in any way impact on his ability to do his job and while this does seem to be a private sphere issue the story was told because he lied in the public sphere of the court. The overwhelming thoughts of the blogosphere was that his sexuality was not an issue however his ability o tell a lie was, yet one could not have happened without he other. Comments included:
Comments: 190
• Lord Browne's sexuality is entirely irrelevant to his downfall. The pertinent issue is the fact that he believed that he could steamroller a lie through the judicial process. Thankfully, he failed, as did Archer and Aitkin.
Iain
on May 12, 2007
at 11:39 AM
• There is a very basic and simple policy; If one uses the media to publish positive points to forward ones career, status, popularity, then one must be in the position to accept negative headlines, irrespective of the subject matter. Also, if you are paid from public resources, you must expect to receive some adverse publicity. Browne was proved to have lied. Strip him of his title and imprison him like other perjurors.
Graham Spurrier
on May 07, 2007
at 05:52 AM
(Visit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1550233/Should-the-sexuality-of-people-in-public-life-be-kept-private.html to view further comments).
Spurrier brings up another debate for the publishing of private information, that celebrities cannot use the media only when it suits them. If you rely on the public for survival/popularity then you should expect your down falls to be made public also.
In my personal opinion I don’t think there is a clear line between public and private, it is the journalist’s job to act ethically. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)