ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Golan, G. (2006). Inter-media agenda setting and global news coverage. Journalism Studies, 7(2), 323 – 333. doi: 10.1080/14616700500533643

This article is a study by Guy Golan on inter-media agenda setting. Golan discusses that the newsworthiness of international news can be determined by inter-media agenda setting. This study was done because Golan felt that not much research has been conducted regarding this topic. Golan advises that scholars should consider inter-media agenda setting more in future research. He also advises that there should be raised concerns with regards to the notion that elite news agencies can be highly successful in determining another’s news agenda. Lastly, he concludes that there is an imbalance in international news coverage of nations and stresses the importance of studying how news coverage affects public perceptions of nations.

This journal article is short and concise with ample background information to understand the topic better. However, it is too brief. Golan could have done more when explaining his results. Also, this study was too focused on proving that inter-media agenda setting does exist. As a result, the other part of the research, which was to identify how international news’ newsworthiness is affected by inter-media agenda setting, was neglected.

MOVIE DATES...

or not.

I'm gonna be doing a post about movie dates, seeing as how there's an influx of awesome movies hitting the cinemas these weeks...

Have you ever gone to the movies and got so irritated by the people sitting around you (including the people you went to the movies with)? HELL YEAH, I'm pretty sure you guys have at least experienced this once, or twice, or more than thrice (oh you poor soul). So, here's a list of people I'd never wanna catch a movie with. EVER.

#1: COUPLES

 CRIME: PDA in the cinema

You lovebirds out there, if you wanna make out, PLEASE GET A BLOODY ROOM. I implore you to keep your funny business to the bedroom. There's nothing that gross out (or annoy) a person more than to hear you both sucking each other's faces while they're trying to watch a movie. Really. This has happened to me too often. It's either them kissing, or giggling, or I actually have no idea what they are doing and I plan to keep it that way! Them being at the back, or at the front (which is actually worse) is HORRIBLE. They're the reason why a perfectly good movie experience is destroyed. Yes, sadface ): There goes my $6.50, wasted.

SENTENCE: THROW POPCORN AT THEM!!!

#2: KIDS

CRIME: Screaming, crying, whining, yelling, talking etc., in the cinema. 

I'd understand if it was a movie for kids but parents, why would you bring your kids to watch a movie like, say, ALIENS VS PREDATORS (yes, I know this is an old movie but the experience still haunts me)?!?! They'd just sit there and cry or scream at scenes. Or continually ask questions about what is going on? Or, has the movie ended yet? Not to mention the classic: Mummy, I need to pee pee... Really, I want to enjoy my movie experience fully, in peace. I don't wanna listen to the continuous prattle of your child while I'm trying to watch my show!

Not to mention, kids are really clumsy. They might even spill their drinks on you (which, unfortunately, happened to me). At which point I was so pissed off, I yelled at them. Yes, I'm a child-hater, guilty as charged. But if they weren't so annoying most of the time, I might actually find them, alright.. But no, they have destroyed one too many movie (and flight) experiences for me. So, keep them away I say, KEEP THEM AWAY!

SENTENCE: YELL AT THEM TO SHUT UP. Or just sit far, far away...

#3: MR KNOW-IT-ALL

CRIME: Talking. At every scene. Trying to tell you what's going on, and what's gonna happen.

Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather find out what goes on all by myself. I really do not need a live commentary while I'm watching a movie. I do not need to know that the hero is fighting the villian right now, I do not need to know who wins after that, I do not need to know whether the hero always get the girl. Really, I'm there with you, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TELL ME.

This is really one that gets on my nerve. And this is especially so, because they are normally people you go to the movie with. A random stranger is, most of the time, not gonna suddenly start blurting out all these while he's sitting next to you. No, this category of movie-pariah is often, surprise surprise, your friend. Yes, there, I said it.

SENTENCE: NEVER EVER EVER, invite him/her to the movies with you. Or, just, avoid sitting next to them. No really, I'd rather watch a movie alone...

#4: CRAZY FANGIRL

CRIME: OMG HE'S SO HOT. OMG OMG OMG, I CAN'T STAND IT. *insert unintelligible screams* 

NO SHIT SHERLOCK, TELL THE WHOLE CINEMA WHY DON'T YOU.

This category of movie-leper speaks for itself. They should be avoided at all costs. Nobody wants to watch an entire movie whilst listening to you gush over how hot Zac Efron is, or how wonderfully looking Chris Hemsworth's abs are, or how you'd totally sleep with Taylor Lautner if given the chance.

NOBODY. WANTS. TO. KNOW.

If you're just watching to gush non-stop over that dude, save your money. Go home and stare at a picture, it'll last longer... Also, it'll spare me the horrible nightmares I might get when I try to sleep later that night.

These kinda people, can be random dumb people in the cinema, or they might even be your friend.

SENTENCE: AVOID AT ALL COSTS. Because, really, who wants to listen to the musings of an sexually-fueled airhead? Either you NEVER invite them, or well, I'd love to say hightail out of the cinema at the sign of any fangirling activity, but that's just money wasted...

But, hearing them fangirl throughout the whole movie is practically money wasted as well....

#5: THAT BLUR COOT.

CRIME: "Errr, what's going on? What's happening? Who's dead? Why are they kissing? Is that the good guy or the bad guy?"

Yes, THAT BLUR COOT.

I understand you're slow but you see, I'm watching the movie as well, so I can't really answer you. And I really do not want to answer you... I can explain it to you AFTER the movie, but not DURING the movie.

Why not? Firstly, it's annoying. Secondly, I'm also trying to follow what's going on. Thirdly, I JUST DON'T WANT TO. So, there.

It's annoying if I'm the one they're directing all their questions to. And it's also annoying if I'm siting near a random stranger who keeps asking her/his friend these questions. Bottomline? It's annoying.

SENTENCE: As per the previous ones, DO NOT INVITE. Or tell them to shut up.

#6: FACEBOOK ADDICT

CRIME: having to add their own comment and opinion on EVERYTHING. DURING THE MOVIE.

*guy dies* "WHY DID HE HAVE TO DIE? THAT'S JUST STUPID."

*special effects scene* "OH, NO WAY. THAT LOOKS SO FAKE."

*kissing scene* "EEW, they aren't even compatible!"

*fight scene* "Pssht, how can he not be bleeding."

*shooting scene* "No way he doesn't die from that."

*random scene* "THIS ISN'T EVEN IN THE BOOK."

and so on... You get the idea. This person simply has everything to say about every damn thing in the movie. Keep it all in your head tyvm, I don't wanna know what you think about it.

SENTENCE: I'm pretty sure we have all had (yes, past tense) a friend who is guilty of this. UNFRIEND.

#7: POSEUR CRITIC

CRIME: Breaking down the entire movie into bite-sized parts to criticize and tear apart after watching the movie.

Yes, this is another category of movie-retards you never wanna catch a movie with. They can make a horrible movie seem even more ghastly than it already is. They can make an alright movie seem horrible. And they can make an awesome movie look bad.

In short, they make your movie experience terrible at the end of it all. You might feel happy, sad, slightly chagrined after a movie, but these people? They make you feel HORRIBLE. They make you feel like you've just wasted a couple of hours of your life watching a crappy movie (which, was actually really good).

They harp on every single detail, right down to the colour of the lead female's nail polish. And they have an endless flow of criticisms about the movie. Sure, they might have a few praises but ha, how naive you seem. Their negative comments outweighs their positive ones. Just being around them will drain you of any happiness the movie provided. They don't bother you during the movie but they sure as hell are going to after the movies.

SENTENCE: admit it, you're bound to have a friend who's like that. So yes, if you are gonna invite them to the movies, set some ground rules. Or tell them to shut their trap. Or just stop inviting them. And they might get the hint... Or not.

#8: NUMBER #1 FAN, ON CONTRACTUAL BASIS.

CRIME: claiming to be the number #1 fan of the show, the book, the series, the actors or actressess, the director etc. after the movie.

They can never name what other movies the actors/actresses acted in. Or what other movies the director has directed. Or the other movies in the series. Or have never read the book.

And yet, "OMG I'M THE BIGGEST FAN OF THIS EVERRRRRR!!!"

Really, do we have to go down this path, again? You do this after every single movie for god's sake. Or maybe selected movies but still! NUMBER #1 FAN? REALLY?! PUHLEEZE, you didn't even know there's 7 Harry Potter books for god's sake. Do us a favour, and shut your piehole.

You can state and gush and vomit rainbows over how awesome the movie is, and how you'll totally watch the other movies but NEVER, EVER, claim to be the biggest fan just after 2hours in the cinema. It's hugely annoying. And a really poseur thing to do. DO NOT JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON. Only to hop off after the hype dies off you shallow bitch person. It's a huge insult to the genuine fans out there.

SENTENCE: ROLL YOUR EYES AND WALK AWAY. TOTALLY IGNORE. Or just do it simple: NEVER INVITE THEM OUT.

#9: I CAN'T HOLD ALL THESE FEELS

CRIME: too much emotions.

 

Yes, these people. Who can't seem to hold it all together. They have to cry at every sad scene, laugh at every happy/funny scene. Stay on the edge of the seat at every action seat. Cover their eyes and scream and every scary scene. And continue to do that even after the movie ends, whenever you guys talk about the movie. Extended emotions from a movie, ain't cool. 

But mostly, they just cry. A lot. Someone died? Cry. Someone breaks up? Cry. Someone loses a battle? Cry. Someone had a touching moment? Cry. Everything, cry cry cry. At first it'll be alright. And then you'll just start getting annoyed every time they sniffle. Trust me on this.

SENTENCE: They're mostly harmless though. I'd say it's fine to watch a movie with them, but choose wisely which movies to watch. Although they pretty much find all sorts of stuff to cry about. Apply in small dosage.

#10: RIDING THE BANDWAGON

CRIME: going crazy over a movie that is the current "IN" thing.

Yes, those kind. You know? The kind that has never read Hunger Games before but is "SO PSYCHED FOR THE RELEASE BECAUSE I TOTALLY LOVE IT." They are different from the temporary #1 fans.

They will read up all about the movie and stuff like that, but will never actually read the book. They will not get what the movie is about, but they'll randomly spout stuff they picked up off Wikipedia or film reviews. They will have no idea what is going on, but will act like they know everything and can't wait to share all their views with people. And express how much they love it.

In short, FAKE FAKE FAKE. They will try to impress you with their reservoir of knowledge but you just couldn't care less.

SENTENCE: Don't bother with them. Do not falter, they'll go in for the kill. AVOID, Right from the start.

And, well, that's all I can think of for the moment. In my opinion, these kinda people should be banned from ever watching any movies. But hey, that's just what I think.

Hope you enjoyed this! :)

Till then, cheers.

LECTURE 9 REVIEW: NEWS VALUES

"If it bleeds, it leads!"

That statement pretty much sums up most news values, to be honest.

News values are the degree of prominence and attention we pay to a story, regardless whether we are journalists or the audience.

So, what are news values? They are:
i) IMPACT
ii) AUDIENCE IDENTIFICATION
iii) PRAGMATICS
iv) SOURCE INFLUENCE

From there, we are lead to newsworthiness. As A. Boyd said:
"News journalism has a broadly agreed set of values, often referred to as 'newsworthiness'..."

The main question here is
Are news values the same across different news services? How about across different countries/cultures?

NO.

News values differ across all platforms. However, what remains constant is that they always follow the inverted pyramid.

How are news values shaped? Do the individual journalists have roles to play? Or is it just the big media moguls who decide all these? A lot of people will argue that journalists rely largely on their instincts rather than logic when it comes to what is newsworthy or not.

"A sense of news values is the first quality of editors - they are the human sieves of the torrent of news, even more important than an ability to write or a command of language."

 ~ Harold Evans

Galtung & Ruge (1965) identified 12 Factors of Newsworthiness:

• Negativity (bad news)
• Closeness to home - proximity (how does audience relate)
• Recency (e.g. breaking news!)
• Currency
• Continuity - events that continue (e.g. war)
• Uniqueness
• Simplicity
• Personality (centered around a particular person)
• Expectedness (& predictability)
• Elite Nations / People
• Exclusivity
• Size (yes people, SIZE DOES MATTER!)

From there they drew 3 hypotheses - additivity, complementary, and exclusion.

All these factors were further developed on through the years and most recently, Judy McGregor reduced the 12 factors to only 4 bases in 2002, where she brought up a curious point - celebrification of the journalist.

Threats to newsworthiness have identified 3 tensions:
i) Journalism vs commercialisation of media and social life
ii) Journalism vs Public Relations
iii) Journalism's Ideals vs Journalism's Reality

These 3 points draw towards the fact that journalism has become lazy and incompetent; the PR influence over journalism has somehow made the whole thing a tabloidisation; and of course, hyper-commercialisation. All of these therefore assert pressures on the newsroom and in term, to put it bluntly, crappy work is produced.

To prove a further point, the term "Churnalism" has been coined. It refers to stuff coming from PR outlets as PR is influencing journalism more and more nowadays.

We, as journalism students, have to take note that there is a difference between an idealised notion of journalism that we have, and the harsh reality of the newsroom. What we expect is often not what we can get.

Lastly, the people formally known as "The Audience"...

HAVE THEY MOVED ON?

Now with the uprising on citizen journalism, blogs and social media, the Audience has become the Public. They are now involved in the news instead of just reading it.

So, what does this hold for the future of news values?

Oh, and one small thing, just before I go... Remember how Dr Redman was talking about the factors of newsworthiness and he mentioned that "DOG BITES WOMAN" is not as interesting as "WOMAN BITES DOG"?

So yeah, next thing you know, "WOMAN BITES DOG" makes the news headlines the next day...

Drunk US woman charged over biting dog. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1198468/1/.html

What a coincidence!

And that's all folks!

LECTURE 8 REVIEW: ETHICS

Before I begin, here's an advertisement!

Dr Harrison did the lecture on ethics with us. It kicked off with a couple of questions:

How do we determine what is:

GOOD / BAD?

ETHICAL / UNETHICAL?

RIGHT / WRONG?

How do we tell the difference between the bad, the wrong, and the simply tacky?

And of course, there are those really sleazy ones that make your hair stand on its ends.

To get a rough gauge of how we view ethics, we had a small exercise during the lecture where we were shown print and video ads, and were asked to grade them on a chart. I'd have to say, some of the ads were downright BAD. Some were boring but ethical, some were unethical but good, some were good ethical. Question is, how do you draw the line at producing a good advertisement without compromising your morals, or the public's morals for that matter?

There are 3 paradigms of Ethical Theories - Deontology, Consequentialism, and Virtue.

Deontology (now trying saying that outloud 10 times, quickly)
is basically about rules, principles and duties. It is all about doing the right thing by following those guidelines. Thus, all ethic codes are generally deontological.

On the other hand, Virtue Ethics
is all about "goodness", or happiness. They come from good habits and dispositions of characters. These habits are what constitutes to "virtues", like courage, temperance and so on. It is an intrinsic theory as compared to Deontology.

Lastly, Consequentialism (or Teleology)
I was so excited when I saw the word, inner POLS geek in me was screaming "HEYYY I KNOW THAT, YAY ME." so loudly that I thought Dr Harrison might send me out of the room.
It is simply about: the ends justify the mean.
The only thing that matters is that the right outcome is achieved, it is irrelevant how we got there.

Of all, Virtue Ethics contributes to the Golden Mean of behaviour. (don't you just love that phrase? It seems all, shiny) HANDS UP THOSE OF YOU WHO THOUGHT OF A SHINY GOLDEN EGG WHEN YOU SAW THOSE WORDS! Or am I the only one who thought of that? ):

Anyway, back to the Mean...
For example, courage is the mean between rashness and cowardice, and justice is the mean between the injustice of overzealous and excessive law, and the injustice of lawlessness. Oh boy, was that a mouthful of words.

To sum it up, ethics is essentially about the "balance". How do we know when we've crossed the line? In fact, how do we know where the line is? There's a fine line between what is ethical and what is not, and especially so as it is a very subjective matter.

Before I leave, I'll leave you with this question Dr Harrison posed to us:

"Is it more important to follow rules, or go by what you believe in? As a journalist, are codes or character more important?"

Now just think about that.

And that advert at the start...

ETHICAL? OR NOT?