What I've Learnt

The very end of JOUR1111 is here.

Basically, everything I believe in and have really learnt this semester can quite eloquently be summarised with this picture.

It's been a fun ride folks! ^_^

I'm Not a Journalist, I'm a Blogger. It's Like Graffiti, Except With Punctuation

So JOUR1111 comes to a close.

To mark this occasion, we marked the final lecture with a guest lecturer: Steve Molks, a prominent media blogger with his own website.

Steve was a really good speaker with a lot of interesting things to say, which was the perfect way to end the course. Steve actually studied chemistry at uni and works in an analytical/scientific/technology based job. He was feeling a bit restless and decided to do something that he was passionate about... but he wasn't quite sure what that was.

Steve knew he was passionate about TV and the media, so he just started informally blogging about his interest in that area. His hobby has grown into something almost like a second job! Which just goes to show that if you're passionate and interested in something, then you can be successful if you try. Steve says that he still needs to keep his old job to pay the bills, but his media work is getting there.

When I started uni a few months ago, I had dreams of what I want to do in a few years when I graduate, but I didn't want to think of anything too ambitious. If I decide to go down the journalism path I would love to work for someone like Al Jazeera, SBS or the ABC because I love their approach to news and current affairs. And if I decide to go down the international relations path from my arts degree, I want to work for someone like the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, AusAID or another humanitarian NGO. But I didn't want to set myself up for disappointment, so I pushed these thoughts to the back of my mind.

After listening to Steve, I've learnt to embrace these dreams and keep them in mind. Steve still dreams of being a TV writer full time, but it's coming along due to his perseverance. If I persevere and work my way up in which ever path I chose to go down in life, I can reach my goals. 

Steve talked about the rise of social media and all that other sort of stuff that we've learnt about in the semester. But I think his personal journey is what this lecture was all about to inspire us to strive for our goals.

I'm really looking forward to developing my journalism skills and getting media experience in the years to come. I'm also looking forward to learning about the areas of international relations that I'm passionate about, like human rights, human security and humanitarian issues. I'm just going to try and get involved in everything that I can, because the time to start working towards my dreams of working for Al Jazeera and the UN start now. That is what I'll remember from this course, and from Steve Molks. 

General Investigation

Investigative journalism. One of the subjects I get to look forward doing next semester.

I think investigative journalism is best described in this way:

Sceptical not cynical.

I'm actually really looking forward to investigative journalism and would love to be involved in these kind of projects during my career.

Being the outspoken politics student I am, I enjoy questioning the status quo and looking at the reasons underlying everything. Which is exactly what investigative journalists do. Journalists are sometimes referred to as the Fourth Estate in society, which is pretty true as they're the ones that question authority, or at least bring challenges to authority to public attention.

Investigative journalists dig deep into issues. They look at everything and anything that is related to the issue that they are covering. It's like doing a history/politics essay. You look at everything to gain the best understanding you can. Even though I bitch and moan about my essays, I do love learning about the topics. Investigative journalism is hard work, but I think it's definitely worth the effort in the end.

Investigative journalism also dispels my worries about agenda setting as it looks at the issue fully and is able to provide an analytical framework. I'm a real nerd that likes to know everything.

I like to think of the Four Corners report in the 80's, The Moonlight State, when I think about where I want to head in my media career. Chris Masters and his team (including Dr Redman) risked a lot in order to get the truth. They faced a corrupt government that would do almost anything to prevent their secrets from getting out. 

And while on the topic of investigative journalism, Julian Assange and Wikileaks are not journalism in any shape or form. Assange just releases cables and lets them fall into the wrong hands. I'm very anti Iraq/Afghanistan War, but I don't attempt to endanger anyone's lives in order to get my point across. And all useful information from these cables has come from reporters from some the worlds largest newspapers going through them and discerning what is relevant to the public, and also how to protect soldiers and other such people involved.

I'm looking forward to investigative journalism next semester. Not because I find it interesting and quite noble, but because I think I'll be good at it. I don't think I'm a good journalist, I'm a good Facebook stalker which means I can dig up information quite easily. It is amazing what I've learnt from my hours of stalking...

Laughter is my Agenda

The title refers to a previous blog post. I'm actually ridiculously unfunny. I'm a sarcastic bitch, which people do sometimes find funny but I really shouldn't encourage that...

I loved Bruce's opening about agenda setting for this lecture:

Agenda setting is a theory, but like all good, solid theories is all a bit obvious!

As interesting as I find agenda setting, it is pretty self explanatory. It's how the media shape public opinion.

Borrowing from the lecture slides...

So this kind of reminds me of 1984... as cynical as that seems. It just makes me think that there is stuff being hidden from us. Maybe I've gone insane from all this studying and what have you.

Essentially what agenda setting comes down to is news values. The Elders of the Newsroom decide what is newsworthy and give it extensive coverage which makes people perceive that it is important.

Again, returning to my 1984 analogy, this shows that some of our news providers have a vested interest in some issues and the public are being misinformed.

That's enough of my mad left-wing ideas for one blog post.

In the media there are four agendas:

Public Agenda

Policy Agenda

Corporate Agenda

Media Agenda

And somehow they are interrelated... Which just demonstrates the convergent and globalised world that we live in.

All forms of agenda setting work under two assumptions:

The mass media do not merely reflect and report reality, they filter and shape it.

Media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.

This goes to show that news providers have a message to get across. What that message is varies from source to source. Some may be good, some may be a bit more... selfish (for a lack of a better term).

I'll let you make of that what you want

Agenda setting is usually symbolised as a hypodermic needle injecting information and news into society. I find this quite apt, as media is quite omnipresent in our modern society. It also shows how agenda setting can go wrong with the use of propaganda...

Agenda setting is a bit obvious isn't it?

I mean, there is a fair bit to it but the name does say it all.

The thing that troubles me about agenda setting is that news is meant to be objective and truthful. If the people who provide us with news have an agenda, what does that say about their representation of an issue? 

Indie Hipster Douchebag Mix Tape

I'm a self loathing indie kid. 

To me, being indie means being a pretentious wanker. It means trying too hard to be obscure.

I like to think I'm genuinely obscure. I'm sure all those hipsters use the same raison d'etre, but that's what I think. I don't try to like the music that I listen to, I actually enjoy it.

So yeah, I'm stuck with a really annoying label.

And because I don't feel like doing anything productive, and feel more like deluding myself into thinking I'm doing something productive by working on my blog, here's a sample of some of my favourite songs by my favourite bands!

I'm aware that most of these bands are well known, but still, the label 'indie' seems to stay with me...

We Invented Paris - Iceberg

Bat for Lashes - Daniel

Something for Kate - Three Dimensions

Owl Eyes - Raiders

ALPINE - Villages

Clinic - Circle of Fifths

The Kills - Black Balloon

Regina Spektor - Dance Anthem of the 80's

The Dead Weather - Bone House

Yeasayer - Ambling Alps

Ball Park Music - iFLY

Ed Sheeran - Small Bump

Wild Beasts - Brave Bulging Buoyant Clairvoyants

Kimya Dawson - Tire Swing

Kaki King - Jessica

Anna Calvi - Desire

Grimes - Oblivion

BusbyMarou - Girls Just Wanna Have Fun

Theoretical Girl - The Hypocrite

Soko - I'll Kill Her

Kimbra - Cameo Lover

The Wombats - Moving to New York

Washington - Sunday Best

The Mountain Goats - Damn These Vampires!

Gypsy and the Cat - Jona Vark

Arctic Monkeys - Crying Lightning

Hot Chip - I Feel Better

The Jezabels - Endless Summer

LIGHTS - Banner

The Vaccines - Post Break-Up Sex

Stonefield - Drowning

The Smiths - There is a Light That Never Goes Out

Bloc Party - I Still Remember

The Cranberries - Ridiculous Thoughts

Placebo - Ashtray Heart

Gotye - Heart's a Mess

The White Stripes - Blue Orchid

Sarah Blasko - We Won't Run

Matt Corby - Souls A'fire

The Black Keys - Dead and Gone

Foster the People - Call It What You Want

Gyroscope - Fast Girl

The Butterfly Effect - Beautiful Mine

R.E.M - At My Most Beautiful

Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Maps

Florence + the Machine - Cosmic Love

Muse - Stockholm Syndrome

Vampire Weekend - Oxford Comma

Fight Club!

My inactivity has been due to the onslaught of assignments as of late. But they're all finished now!... Except I still have to study for exams... shit.

I read this on The Drum the other day. It's about politics AND the media. My two favourite things ever!!

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4046520.html

This paragraph is what really got me thinking:

Ultimately our political culture is strengthened by a strong media. We rely on journalists to ask the questions that we can't. Imagine how our democracy would look if there was the same level of interest in policy as there was in personality. At the moment it's a pretty disappointing affair, with way too much sizzle and not enough sausage.

What I want to ask is: how is what the media IS asking relevant?

All we hear about is the fighting between the two major parties. It's rare that policy is debated. And when it is, all they do is berate the other side.

As a politics student I understand the desire for power. But what I don't understand is how neither side will ever compromise or agree with one another. That's what strong political leadership is, being able to do what is right regardless of your political persuasion. I mean, the Liberals are about free markets and liberal economics. And they have come forward saying that they support the reforms in aged care and disability pensions. But they still go on about the cost! They're ignoring what is morally right. And what is right is that we look after our most vulnerable citizens. That is what a liberal democracy does.

I know I'm always having a go at the Liberals on here, but Labor really isn't any better.

And as a journalism student, I don't understand why the media makes such a big deal about the fighting between the two parties! We're taught to be objective and to seek the truth. What the hell were our current journalists taught?! I want to know what the government and opposition propose we do about issues such as climate change, asylum seekers, and gay marriage. I don't want to see Tony Abbott standing next to signs calling Julia Gillard a liar or saying that she's Bob Brown's bitch.

A few weeks ago on ABC Radio they were having a discussion about Australian politics and the Westminster system itself. I can't for the life of me remember who was on, but what they all said was so true. They said that the Westminster system creates an adversarial political system. So no one can agree with their opponents for fear of the consequences from their own party.

See why I believe so strongly in an Australian republic??

I am sick of the bullshit that fills the news when it comes to politics. I want to see objective, truth seeking, and reliable reporting when it comes to politics.

Annotated Bibliography - The Portrayal of the Burqa Ban in the Media

Schlesinger, P. (1993). Islam, postmodernity and the media: an interview with Akbar S. Ahmed. Media, Culture & Society, 15(1), 29-42. doi 10.1177/016344393015001003

Philip Schlesinger wrote this article while working in the Department of Film and Media Studies at University of Stirling, Scotland.  He conducts an interview with Pakistani anthropologist Akbar S. Ahmed.  Schlesinger is interested in Ahmed’s research into the media and postermodernity when it comes to Western perceptions of Muslims and vice versa.  Ahmed argues that the media and globalisation are making it impossible for groups in society to isolate themselves and live a traditional lifestyle.  Ahmed relates this to an East-West division that is built on thousands of years of history and social relations.  Schlesinger probes the argument put forward in Ahmed’s research about film and television media and their role in postmodernity in the Muslim world.  Ahmed essentially argues that postmodernity is culturally contextual, for Muslims it has to do with the changing world order after the Cold War.  He stresses that the global aspect of Western media is intruding on traditional values and providing Muslims with misleading images of Western society and causing tension.  Ahmed suggests that reconciliation between Western and Muslim cultures needs to be based on respect, cooperation and celebration of differences.  Schlesinger conducts the interview with respect to Ahmed’s views but does attempt to highlight his cultural bias and prejudices.

Barns, G. (2010, May 7). Cory Bernardi’s sinister plot to ban the burqa. Crikey. Retrieved from: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/07/corey-bernardis-sinister-plot-to-ban-the-burqa/

Greg Barns has written something close to an editorial but with a heavy analysis of social and political commentary and Australian law.  Barns assesses the comments by South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi who made a claim that the burqa should be banned in Australia.  Senator Bernardi made this claim after an incident in Sydney when a thief used a burqa as a disguise.  Senator Bernardi links the wearing of the burqa to repression of women by Muslim society as well as criminality in Western society.  Barns writes that Senator Bernardi’s call for banning the burqa is more ‘sinister’ than claims from other countries.  He makes this assertion within the framework of racial vilification laws in Australia.  While these laws vary from state to state, Barns reviews each state and claims that Bernardi is in breach of racial vilification laws in Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria.  Barns claims that Senator Bernardi cannot defend himself against these laws by arguing that his comments were in good faith, as linking the burqa to oppression and criminality are deemed irrational.  Barns accuses Senator Bernardi of breaching these laws as he has incited ‘serious contempt’ for Australian Muslims.  This piece comes across as opinionated as Barns claims that Senator Bernardi’s comments are the most sinister ever made on the topic.  This statement is put forward before the legal and social justificatory framework.  This piece highlights that there is not a celebration of differences between Muslims and Australians.

French face veil ban comes into force (2011, April 11). Al Jazeera. Retrieved from: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/04/20114117646677858.html

This article was written after the French government implemented controversial laws that banned citizens from wearing face veils in public.  The writer highlights the immediate civil disobedience campaign against these laws by stating that two women, wearing niqab veils, were arrested.  However, according to French authorities, they were arrested for participating in an unauthorised demonstration.  The article includes comments from a variety of sources.  The French government said that the ban is due to male oppression of women.  Muslim leaders in France state that they are neither for or against the banning of face veils, as wearing these garments is a cultural, rather than religious practice.  Protestors claim that the ban is against their European and human rights.  The author analyses the reasoning behind the French government’s decision to ban face veils.  According to official rhetoric, it is to promote France’s secular values and educate the people about the responsibilities of French citizenship.  However, some human rights groups argue that it was a move by former French President Nicholas Sarkozy to win votes from far-right voters.  Al Jazeera is known for delivering news from a non-Western perspective and relies heavily on non-governmental sources in this piece, although it still does provide a balanced argument.  This piece highlights that there is not much respect between Western and Muslim culture and that differences are not being celebrated.

Human rights chief slams burqa ban. (2010, March 8). SBS World News Australia. Retrieved from: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1209342/Human-rights-chief-slams-burqa-ban      

This article discusses international and customary law regarding several countries’ attempts to ban the wearing of burqas.  This article consults human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe, Thomsas Hammarberg, to discuss the social, legal and normative dimensions and implications of banning the burqa in European society.  According to Hammarberg, banning face veils would be an ‘unreasonable’ invasion of personal privacy and would not liberate oppressed women.  He argues that banning the burqa and other face veils would in fact do the opposite of what the supporters are trying to promote, it would actually lead to further alienation and segregation of society.  Hammarberg not only relies on this social and normative argument, but also on the basis of international and European law.  He states that banning the burqa would be against the European Convention of Human Rights depending on the context of the banning laws.  Hammarberg then analyses the situation in France where he denounces their approach and calls it undemocratic considering the circumstances.  SBS is known for presenting a multicultural view on current affairs and has often been criticised for having a left-wing bias.  This article calls for respect and cooperation between Western and Muslim cultures and to celebrate the differences.      

All the News That's Fit to Print

News values are one of the most opaque 

structures of meaning in modern society … 

Journalists speak of “the news” as if events 

select themselves … Yet of the millions of 

events which occur daily in the world, only 

a tiny proportion ever become visible as 

“potential news stories”: and of this 

proportion, only a small fraction are 

actually produced as the day’s news …

That's what a news value is. What deserves to receive attention.

I don't really know how to feel about that... I mean, I understand that there is just too much going on for it all to be reported. But everything that happens is going to have an affect that will impact someone. So shouldn't people know about this? What do I know? I'm a first year uni student, I'll learn in time.

In this modern age we need to make everything appealing, even the news, because lets face it, people need to know what's happening around them no matter how dull it is. So everything is transient according to the general public. Life is only a series of unrelated events...

As Arthur Evelyn Waugh puts it:

News is what a chap 

who doesn't care much 

about anything wants to 

read. And it's only news 

until he's read it. After 

that it's dead.

There are four main aspects of news values:

IMPACT

AUDIENCE IDENTIFICATION

PRAGMATICS

SOURCE INFLUENCE

These aspects result in what news values is all about

NEWSWORTHINESS

Despite all sources of media trying to be relevant to the public, we can't say that news values are universal across all cultures and societies. And to me, that will make working in the media fun. I intend to travel and work overseas after uni, so I'm really looking forward to the challenge of working with a new culture and new people. My education is going to teach me to how report what is worthy of people knowing about, while travelling is going to teach me what is worthy to different people.

But there are two values that people who work in media across different cultures believe in:

If it bleeds, it leads

It it's local, it leads

People are drawn to tragedy. A sad and morbid fact. So, serious hard hitting stories are going to get people's attention. And of course, people want to know what's going on in their local community.

News values shape these ideas because news values determine them. News values are what makes journalists chose stories full of blood and tragedy, and at the same time, stories close to home. Values vary from place to place, but they serve the same function: to keep an audience.

I think John Sergeant sums up news values pretty well:

Journalists rely on 

instinct rather than 

logic when it comes 

to the defining a 

sense of news 

values.

There have been three main hypothesise about news values. Firstly by Galtung and Ruge, second by Golding and Elliot, and third by O'Neill and Harcup. They all try to explain what is newsworthy, essentially. And my first thought about them is that they appear very Western in their outlook... But that's just me and I haven't read anything else about them to really back up my claim.

However, news values have been threatened over the past couple of years by three factors:

Commercialisation of of Media and Social Life

Public Relations

Journalism's Ideals/Journalism's Reality

These three factors are limiting the reliability and quality of news in various forms of media. This then makes people question the values held by journalists and discredits the field.

One particularly interesting threat to news values is something called 'churnalism.' This is when journalists just churn out information from press and media releases by PR companies rather than write original reports that contain relevance to an audience.

Like I said in a previous blog post, I'm a massive fan of British comedy. It's just so much better than American comedy, and most Australian comedy for that matter. My favourite British comic (and lets face it, my favourite comic of all time) is Stephen Fry. I'm sure most of you know him from shows like Blackadder, A Bit of Fry and Laurie and QI. But he was in another show called Absolute Power, which is my favourite show with Stephen Fry in it.

Absolute Power is about a PR company, headed by Stephen's character Charles Prentiss, who disregard all forms of ethics and morals in order to do their job. I find hilarious as well as a quite thought provoking about the media. And it wasn't until I started JOUR1111 that I really began to fully understand the dynamics of the company and media in general.

In this episode, they are hired by a right-wing political party to handle their PR. Absolutely hilarious and raises questions about values in the media (sorry for the awful quality)

Part 1

Part 2

Another questionable client. They go ahead with it, by the way.

Another episode about politics

Part 1 This time with people that matter

Part 2 Taking it a step further...

Shaping public opinion

And my favourite episode. A comedy actor beats his heavily pregnant girlfriend in the car park at Ikea. And Charles takes on the challenge to sort out the wife beater's PR, with absolutely hilarious results.

This episode needs to be watched to be believed. The degree of manipulation and moral cowardice is enough to make you cringe yet piss laugh hysterically. Truth be told, Absolute Power is what got me interested in the media. I was really tempted to study PR. But I decided against because I knew I would never be as brilliant as Charles Prentiss, even though I lack a moral compass.

In our tute for JOUR1111 on ethics and news values, Carmel showed us this video about churnalism and the relationship between PR and journalism (I couldn't link the video like I did with the others for some reason...).

See any connections between Absolute Power and Chris Atkins' investigation?

Watch a full episode of Absolute Power. It will blow your mind how similar it is to Chris Atkins' video. And it's bloody hilarious. More than anything, watch it because it's funny and has Stephen Fry in it.

Values underpin everything in society. Not only do I have values as a (future/aspiring) journalist, I also have values as a student.

I went with good grades and enough sleep. I'm going to be a socially inept journalist/foreign affairs adviser one day. I try to make the right decision and I'm still disadvantaging myself.

My Dream

Forget about being a journalist or working for the UN.

THIS is what I want to do with my life.

This is probably one of the best things I've ever seen.

James 'Spoons' Turner ;-)

They Didn't Change My Mind About Climate Change

I can't sleep and don't want to work on my International Relations essay so I'm just going to blog some stuff and listen to All The Rowboats by Regina Spektor on repeat.

Because I've been busy I only watched the ABC's documentary I Can Change Your Mind About Climate and the following Q&A discussion last night.

My God, that was a PAINFUL two hours where I had to resist yelling at my laptop...

I seriously had hope for this. The ABC usually produces balanced and intelligent programs. Yet they cast two polar extremes in the climate debate where there was absolutely no chance that either of them would change their minds.

Nick Minchin is a moron. There I said it. And Anna Rose is annoying, despite myself being a member of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition.

They both arranged meetings with people that agreed with their respective views. It was pathetic.

Nick was just facetious the whole time and did nothing but try to discredit legitimate science with some of the most absurd claims I have ever heard.

His first interview with 'experts' was a couple in Perth who used to believe in anthropogenic climate change but are now sceptical of the idea. They said that one of thermometers that they use to measure temperatures around the world is located next to an airport and that the results are skewed. That means that every thermometer in the world can't be trusted...

Yeah, because scientists are that stupid...

And that atmospheric physicist who has taken money from groups with agendas about climate change. Nick only furthered Anna's point by not being able to produce anyone really reliable. Although his last guest, Bjorn Lomborg, suggested an investment over time in green technology made the most sense out of them all.

While Anna did have a lot of respectable scientists to help her case, she herself didn't do much for it. She just repeated herself over and over again. But I will concede that once you state the science behind climate change, there isn't really much else you can say.

The thing that annoyed me most was when Nick brought Marc Morano on...

Anyone who knows who Marc Morano is knows that he is definitely the most UNreliable source when it comes to ANYTHING to do with climate change.

Morano has been called one of the 25 most influential right wing journalists in the world. So clearly, the fact that he has a bias shows that he isn't a good journalist. He runs a blog called Climate Depot that only spreads climate change denial propaganda.

According to Source Watch, Morano has no scientific qualifications whatsoever. He has protectionist views of American industry and thinks that regulation for sustainability will endanger 'American values.' Morano continuously lists costs, figures and statistics that he does not reference. And a simple search for his information reveals no source. Morano lies in order to push his agenda. He is a narcissist and a disgrace to journalists everywhere.

My favourite guest on the show was scientist and writer Ben Goldacre. He said that anthropogenic climate change is almost universally accepted by scientists. Very rarely is there completely universal acceptance of something in science, so this is as good as we're going to get. Goldacre said that we shouldn't waste our breath with climate deniers. Debating something that is pretty much universally accepted only creates room for scepticism.

This raises an important point, should journalists allow for both sides of the argument to be represented in the media?

I think climate deniers should be kept out of the media. Yes they have the right to free speech and should be allowed to make their voices heard as that is a core tenet of liberal democracy that I hold dear. But, the media should only report on actual scientific evidence that supports anthropogenic climate change. I don't think this because I believe in climate change, I believe this because journalism is about reporting the truth. Anthropogenic climate change is pretty much universally accepted in the scientific community. You can't really get much closer to complete acceptance when you deal with idiots, and some scientists are idiots.

So, I Can Change Your Mind About Climate pissed me off unbelievable as the debate went absolutely nowhere. They came to 'common ground' at the end and then just went back to their polar extremes on the following Q&A discussion, which just rendered it pretty much pointless.

I can feel the rage build inside me as I write this so I'll be brief about the Q&A forum. Anna and Nick annoyed me because they just repeated themselves again. Chief executive of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark, social researcher and writer, Rebecca Huntley, and all round corporate fat cat Clive Palmer joined the panel.

Megan and Rebecca were by far the best that night. They were respectful with their answers, to the point and thought provoking with their commentary. Clive Palmer, don't get me started. And then to find out today that he's challenging Wayne Swan's seat... The last thing we need is his agenda being supported by Australian politics.

My opinion about the debate between climate alarmists and deniers can be summed up with the eloquent, funny and oh so true words of Ben Goldacre:

"I would rather slam my cock in a door than debate with someone who doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change!"

Regina Spektor Obsession

IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE IT'S ALMOST HERE 

29 MAY

I MUST SHARE THIS WITH THE WORLD!!!!!

ENJOY FRIENDS!

Is it Acceptable to Kill a Whale in Order to Save Two Pandas?

Well, is it?

Five years of Catholic education and learning about morals and ethics, I'm an atheist and lack a moral compass...

I guess what this lecture asked us to look at is whether or not media is unethical or just in bad taste.

I am very hard to offend due to my amoral status (if anything Catholic education just makes people more cynical, that was definitely the case with my school). However, I understand that other people have different feelings and thoughts than me, so I do try to tread lightly around controversial issues.

Returning to the media, I think there's a weird juxtaposition when it comes to ethics and taste.

Take for instance this ad for the World Wildlife Fund.

To compare an act of violence against civilians to a natural disaster is immensely insensitive, even I know that. And this doesn't even help the cause of WWF. They talk about how the world is more powerful than people (using the worst analogy ever) and then say that we have to conserve the world... Following the logic of this ad, the world should be able to take care of itself (I am all for ecological sustainability and conservation don't get me wrong, this ad is just stupid).

Now, I'm going to keep talking about the media but I'm going to bring up something personal. In any religion class I did at school we learnt about ethical and moral frameworks, and we were given real life examples were we could apply them. Every example was abortion. Abortion is the easiest thing to condemn using an ethical framework.

People are allowed to have opinions and views that differ from me, I'm not expecting everyone to be pro choice like me. However, I won't stand by and let people be indoctrinated into following something that they don't understand fully. Admittedly I was at a Catholic school where life is considered sacrosanct. However, I won't stand by and let biased opinions (be them religious or otherwise) try to persuade our secular media.

There are so many things surrounding the issue of abortion that we can't just have a blanket rule that says they shouldn't be allowed. Why should women who have been abused have to have a child that will remind them of that terrible experience? Why should a woman give birth if it is going to endanger her own life?

Thinking about it maybe I do have some sort of moral compass... At least some sort of egalitarian one.

I think it comes down to this:

Media is meant to be unbiased and secular. People can use media to represent their ideas, but not to indoctrine people or force their agenda upon them. I think in the case of the Ron Paul ad, he is trying to appear both rational (as a doctor) and moral (as a Christian) which shows that he is trying to push his agenda by hiding behind this facade. 

I'm in a weird place when it comes to ethics and morality. I don't really follow any moral codes apart from respecting others and treating others as I want them to treat me. I think when I work in the media one day I need to understand the various views and perspectives in the community or order to convey information and ideas properly. I also want to one day work in foreign affairs (hence doing an arts degree) and that too requires a moral approach. I have an obligation to do what is best for my country as well as for others in this world.

Ethics and morals are both the bane of my existence and what underpin how I act and view the world...