The Grande Finale

The final lecture. What a journey it has been this semester going through the aspects of journalism for this introduction course. To mark this final lecture we had guest lecturer Steve Molk, the creator of MolksTVTalk.com.

To me, it seemed like an unprepared, prepared lecture - basically it felt so laid back that it seemed like Steve was just chatting to us, but really he imparted some good info to advise us what was happening in relation to social media and other new media methods.

So, let’s look at some of the interesting stuff he said…. Firstly his comment on Channel 7 and 9 and their reports on Kevin Rudd’s leadership challenge; one said it was just gossip, the other said it would happen. Well kudos to the latter, you got it right! Interesting though, this is a great example of the underlying biases and agendas behind the news stations. Assumingly both got the same information, and both broadcast at the same 6pm timeslot, so the denial and promotion of the challenge really just came down to the editors in the news room – agenda setting if I ever saw it!

The majority of what Steve talked about was the rising social media. You only have to look at the influence that social media had in the Libyan revolution to see the impact that it has today. And of course, what about Kony? While it lasted, social media promoted the story to millions of people who before were oblivious to the actions of Kony towards children and other Ugandans. Even though the campaign became a bit of a flop in the end, the point I’m making is that people knew about it.

Steve said you can basically write about anything when you’re online – be it crap or specialised (or perhaps even specialised crap, who knows!). Unsurprising, this media form is taking over traditional media. The downside, however, is the deterioration of facts and legitimate sources. Let’s face it, it’s a lot easier to speculate and post your ideas online than it ever was to post in a newspaper, magazine, TV or even say on the radio.

When it comes down to it, the blogs that we’re doing for assessments really aren’t that different to the blogs that people get paid for… perhaps just more freedom to write about what you want and putting in your own opinions, and not those of whom you are working for. Let’s look at the example Steve presented to us of Mia Freedman. Her blog is called Momma Mia, and this, along with another site, has 900,000 views per month. Imagine the advertising opportunities from that! Of course it didn’t just happen overnight, this took about five years to reach the audience it does, but that kind of market well exceeds that of TV influence or newspaper… plus it has a target audience, not just random distribution.

There are upsides and downsides to online news. For one, it doesn’t have a word limit, which means bloggers and other online communication outlets can be as long and in detail as need be. This also means people like me can waffle on about lecture content in great depth and bore those who are reading it (doing alright there Bruce? Not bored yet are you?). Alternatively, if you’re on Twitter you’ve got a character limit making it difficult to get your point across if you don’t put links to other pages in your tweets. What this also means though, is that you’ve got easy access to follow future employers or contacts/sources. This makes networking so much easier… even allowing the old saying of “it’s not what you know, but who you know” to be achieved so much easier.

It’s interesting to see, also, the use of Twitter from celebrities. Michael Clarke posted his wedding announcements and photos on Twitter rather than selling it to the media. Journalists no longer get exclusives and need sources “close to the family” to confirm the event. No, all you need to do is follow your celebrities and influential people and wait for them to Tweet or Facebook what you want to know (or maybe even Instagram a photo!).

All I can say now is that I’m looking forward to getting a career from journalism. Just the way Steve was talking about Tweeting people like Will Anderson and getting an hour interview as a result is incredible. He does what he loves and gets paid for - I hope I can do the same! 

Let's Look Into That

Investigative journalism is the form of journalism whereby a specific topic is examined in great depth, usually those of crime, political corruption and corporate misconduct. Ross Coulthart’s quote sums up my thoughts exactly:

“Isn’t all journalism meant to involve questioning investigation of facts and opinions presented to us?”

And Lord Northcliffe answers the question so well

“… what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is just advertising.”

So, what do you need to have to be an investigative journalist? Simply you need an “in”… or more precisely, five “in’s”. You need to be intelligent, informed, intuitive, inside and invest yourself in the story. Really, they’re all quite self-explanatory. Intelligent as you need to think about the issues, who’s involved, and the logical outcomes. Informed as you need to be in the know and what has happened in the past (or what may happen before it has from insight). Intuitive so that you pick up on things others might not and use that gut feeling. Inside so that you know what’s happening as a primary source, and not second hand and invest, your time, money and efforts to get to the bottom of the story.

Alright, so let’s look at the deeper definitions and purpose of investigative journalism. In our lecture four aspects were identified.

1.       Critical and thorough Journalism – the key is active intervention; the journalists are active participants and are thorough and make a substantial effort in obtaining the story and its facts

2.       Custodians of conscience – the key is exposure; civic vice is exposed for society to respond

3.       To provide a voice for those without one and hold the powerful to account – the key is public interest; to bring about social justice by giving a voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless

4.       Fourth branch of govt/”watchdog”/Fourth estate –

a.       Fourth branch of govt as journalists allow free flows of information necessary for the functioning democracy by bringing accountability to the judiciary, executive and legislative branches. This is especially prevalent in view of QLD no longer having a senate and also the mass majority in the lower house (only house, more like it) from the latest election.

b.      “Watchdog” as they again create accountability for public personalities and institutions whose functions impact social and political life. The question though, can they be held to much account in a “one paper town” like Brisbane… In view of online news being so prevalent, I don’t see why not!

c.       Fourth Estate as journalists represent those without power to balance the power of the government. Interesting to note that the other estates, in order in which they were presented and constructed according to the French social constructs of ancient times, were religion, the monarch and the people. In my mind, the fourth estate is really the joining factor which keep the other estates informed or bring sheltered/manipulated from the other estates (especially in view of media’s agenda setting)

To achieve this, you have to be prepared to get out there and search for the information (shoes leather journalism). You have to stand back and look at the big picture, while taking nothing for granted. You must question and be critical, however, there’s a distinct difference between being cynical and sceptical in obtaining a story and information; as an investigative journalist you want to be the latter. This is where it leads us back to our previous week’s lecture once again – CUT THROUGH THE AGENDA! Easier said than done. Even when we try and bypass specific media outlets inert biases and agendas, as individuals we all have inherent biases. Simply because we become journalists, it doesn’t mean these individual agendas are suppressed.

 

Agendas aside, let’s look at some of the big trailblazers of history. W.T. Stead wrote about the white slave trade and prostitution in the Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon campaign. The result of this was the raising of the age of consent from 12 to 16 – let’s not judge too quickly, back then girls got married off while in their teens!

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein brought to light the “Watergate” scandal, whereby the Nixon administration was caught for conducting illegal acts such as bugging political opponent’s offices and harassment of political/activist groups. The story was brought was picked up by the two reporters after a break-in at the Watergate Complex in Washington, which resulted in the resignation of Nixon. The movie representation of the Watergate scandal (All the President’s Men) is a fantastic representation of investigative journalism; before internet and information was kept in hard copies only!

Let’s fast forward to today. We examined the example of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. While I, myself, would not classify his information dumping as journalism, the information which he obtained (somewhat illegally) has allowed for true investigative journalism into political topics. Quite frankly, the information itself would not have made such an impact if governments made such an issue over it. The glorification/demonization of Assange’s action made WikiLeaks major news. It wasn’t until the Apache helicopter attack in Iraq that WikiLeaks became front page news, and with that it brought media and journalistic attention; only because of that has some sort of social justice come about.

While it’s not exceptionally prominent amongst the vast array of news stories every day, investigative journalism can still be found in sites such as The Global Mail, Crikey and Australian Story.

So how do we investigate? The old saying goes:

If your mother says she loves you, check it out

Basically this just means you always have check your facts – never assume anything! This also means be wary of your sources. Whistle blowers have a reason for coming out and sharing their story, with important information comes much risk and responsibility; the advice to journalists is to expect whistle blowers to be or go crazy.

The most straightforward ways of collecting information is to conduct numerous interviews, make observations, obtain/view documents, attend briefings and use leaks to your advantage, but if it alright to trespass and steal information? Surely, viewing it from a utilitarian standpoint, if the outcome is better for the greater society then it’s allowed… but sadly no, we still have to follow the rules if we want to be ethical journalists. The bottom line is, does what you were told, what you saw and what was recorded line up? If the answer is no, then get investigating!

As I’ve mentioned in other posts, the increase of online and new media changes the face of journalism. We want up-to-date news; as it happens. With this comes less time for investigative journalists to do their jobs. Saying that, the Four Corners’ report on cattle export was one of the biggest news stories last year and it was a piece of investigative journalism. Furthermore, the PR effect is also having an effect. With churnalism rates extremely high in some publications, it shows a lack of questioning and research into information and even the sources from which it’s obtained. This again puts a damper on investigative journalism in society.

As we progress further into the technology age I can’t help but wonder if the news stories we will be exposed to will be primary agenda ridden and full of PR. With less time for even the consumers of news to sit and question what we see, the more likely it is we take in information without thinking. Despite the numerous and varying outlets of information we can access in the palm of our hands, we still just stick to the good ‘ol news sites that we visit every day, and sometimes even zone our when the pyramid of information starts to taper into the less interesting. If consumers do this, why are journalists even going to bother searching for the hidden truths in the political, criminal and corporate webs of deception? 

The Not So Hidden Agenda?

The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point Claude Shannon

I’m not going to question the influence media has on our lives. It’s everywhere; from our TV to out laptops and even our mobile phones. It’s no longer even about going onto to look at specific news stations or sites, we see it on our news streams on Facebook and Twitter. But, of course, from the millions of stories which happen every day, only a certain amount makes it to the news. While news values plays a large role in what stories we see and how much significance is placed on them, there is no question that the public, policy, corporate and media’s agendas play a role in what society sees and hears.

Before we look into agenda setting, let’s first look at what we mean by it. What we perceive as reality has been constructed through communication using shared language. We see, hear, read, type, say and even enact information which we’ve come across, and this shapes what we understand society to be. Basically an individual’s reality exists in the social relationships they engage in. The media play a large role in ‘constructing’ or ‘mediating’ the social world as we understand it. However, every person, company or group has a vested interest or preferred outcome they wish to see achieved, and this is where agendas come out to play.

When discussing mass media and agenda setting, there are two basic assumptions. Firstly that the mass media does not merely reflect and report reality, but also filters and shapes it, and secondly, that media concentrates on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.

As Katherine Miller states in Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes and Contexts, there are four interrelated agendas in society:

1.       Public – Topics that members of the public perceive as important

2.       Policy – Issues that decision makers are salient, that is, the legislators

3.       Corporate – Issues that big business and corporations consider important

4.       Media – Issues discussed in the media

In relation to Rogers and Dearing’s 1988 agenda setting theory, in which they only proposed three types of agenda setting and did not incorporate the corporate agenda, they argued that the policy agenda was primary a result of the public and media’s agenda. They argued that policy makers base their decisions on what society deems important and what issues are discussed in the media. I believe this to be a simplistic view. As Coleman, McCombs, Shaw and Weaver put it

“Agenda setting is the process of the mass media presenting certain issues frequently and prominently with the result that large segments of the public come to perceive those issues as more important than others. Simply put, the more coverage an issue receives, the more important it is to people.”

When it comes down to it, the media has to meet public interests, but the media can manipulate and bring importance to issues to get public response. Also, when we look to the policy makers, while they have to get public votes, by bringing their views and opinions to the media they can create a fiasco of public interest and debate. Of course, as Miller adds in, corporations and business have the power and money to alter public perceptions and even government policy. For Rogers and Dearing to say that it’s a one way influence is a very short sighted and doesn’t scrape the surface of the agendas which influence society.

In the 1920s Harold Lasswell introduced the “Magic Bullet” model of agenda setting. Despite having limitations of not considering free thought the differences we as individuals have in cognitive thinking (that is, thinking we would all just swallow the information the same way) this hypodermic needle idea illustrates the idea well.

“The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about”(Bernard Cohen,1963)

“Propaganda is used as a tool to help shape images in the minds of human beings in support of an enterprise, idea or group. Propaganda can be used to substitute one social pattern for another.”

Walter Lippman, 1922, argued that visual images play an important role in agenda settings. Just look at Hitler, while he used his propaganda for evil, you have to commend the man and Leni Riefenstahl for gaining so much public support through their use of images and propaganda.  

There are two types of agenda setting. The first is in relation to what the public should focus on in relation to coverage, the media outlets decide this based on news values and the agenda they have behind them. The second type is about the media forming how people should think about the issues in the first level, by manipulating information and the way it’s presented.

So after all that discussion, what does agenda setting actually do?

It transfers issues of salience from the news media to the public

It transfers issues of salience for both issues and other objects, such as political figures

Elite media can often set the agenda for issues in the media through other outlets

This leads us onto the agenda setting family:

Media Gatekeeper – the media outlet which choose the issues and stories the public get to hear; how individuals control the flow of messages

Media Advocacy – the purposive promotion of a message through the media (e.g. health and smoking)

Agenda Cutting – The cutting of news stories which result in them getting less attention and being cared less about, such as AIDS in relation to Bieber and Gomez’s latest date

Agenda Surfing – This is the bandwagon effect, where everyone jumps on board to continue promoting stories which get attention

The Diffusion of News – The process through which an important event is communicated and released to the public, for example when it’s released (after it happened or is there a gap it’s held back from the media), where is it filmed or reported from and how it is released (all out press conference or just a PR statement)

Portrayal of the Issue – How the issue is shown and presented effects the public perception; the pictures, tone, language, exclusion and manipulation of the released information

Media Dependence – the more an individual uses it, the more susceptible that person is to the media’s agenda; with mobile access, we are becoming more dependant and on news and information despite the agenda behind it

There are of course, like any other theory, strengths and weaknesses to agenda setting theory. However, what interests me most is the emergence of the 24 hour news cycle as well as the online new media – it puts agenda setting into a whole new world!

With online news it’s all about getting the stories out there fast, why publish it after it’s already been read and discussed by the audiences – be the first to post it and you’re off to a good start. With the fast news cycles you have to wonder how news organisations can still engage in the high levels of agenda as with the traditional news, which consisted of an evening news broadcast and a daily newspaper (plenty of time to discuss daily agenda!). Nowadays, the news hot times online are first thing in the morning, lunch time and in the mid-afternoon slump.

Yet, agenda setting still has a huge impact on social perspectives. In the lecture we examined politics and agendas. The media has the ability (perhaps only the elite media and the resulting agenda surfing affect) to put different political issues on the agenda, even if the politicians don’t think it is! This was viewed in relation to the carbon tax/global warming. It seems to be one of the hot topics every week in the news, especially in relation to the struggle of passing the carbon tax. In comparison to the UK, which passed the a carbon tax, the run up to it had very little media coverage, and even on the day it was passed, it wasn’t anywhere near the top story. Evidently the agenda of UK media outlets does not extend to the semantics of a carbon tax like Australia.

With the continued commercialisation of media, it will be interesting to see how the news stories we see in the future are affected by the public, policy, corporate and media’s agenda.

“Agenda setting is not always the diabolical plan by journalists to control the minds of the public but an inadvertent by-product of the necessity to focus’ the news”(McCombs 2004)

Our Top Story Tonight...

News values. We finally get into the nitty gritty of what constitutes a news story. As I sat down to write this, my first thought was of the opening of The West Wing season 1 episode 7.  While I can’t find a (legal) video to upload of the opening sequence, I have found a transcript:

C.J.So, let me see if I have this. 

[looks at Josh] A hurricane's picked up speed and power and is heading for Georgia. 

[looks at Sam] Management and labor are coming here to work out a settlement to avoid a crippling strike that will begin at midnight tonight. 

[looks at Toby] And the government's planning a siege on 18 to 40 of its citizens, all the while we host a state dinner for the President of Indonesia.  

[Sondra the journalist walks in and tries to get C.J.'s attention]  

C.J.Amazingly, you know what I'll get asked most often today? 

JOSHWhat? 

C.J.Sondra?  

SONDRAI'm sorry, C.J.... 

C.J.[Describing the first lady’s shoes] Black suede and velvet. Manolo Blahnik slides with a rhinestone and mother of pearltoe buckle.

The West Wing is a show about the inside workings of the White House. C.J. is the White House Press Secretary and despite all the other highly relevant stories of the day (the hurricane, potential workforce strike and hostage situation) the press wants to know about the First Lady’s outfit to the state dinner – typical!

So, let’s get back to the lecture content. A. Boyd says that "News journalism has a broadly agreed set of values, often referred to as 'newsworthiness'...”

News values can be broken down into four sections:

1.      Impact
- the gee-whiz effect from the audience

2.       Audience Identification
- working out what’s of interest to the audience, be it global, cultural, social, etc

3.       Pragmatics
- What is in the news and its creation, the ethics, facticity, practice/practical, current affairs, everyday (24/7 news)

4.       Source Influence
- Where does the information come from, especially in relation to the love-hate relationship that the PR-spin-doctors and journalism have

Of course we’re not all the same when it comes to news values, that’s why they differ from countries/cultures and even between different news services in the same area. For any news station, the news it produces takes the inverted pyramid form. Not only are the individual stories ordered from most to least important information, so too are the news stories presented in an order which news outlets believe to be the most relevant and engaging with the audience.

Traditionally news had the slogan “if it bleeds it leads” promoting stories about death, war, violence and accidents. However, with the vast emergence of local news stations, it’s turned somewhat more to “if it’s local it leads” with recent stories such as the floods and elections. Personally, when watching the news, I see the traditional slogan in use more often… probably because the producers have more fun using the rhyme to create the news!

So how do news stories take the order that they do? How do particular institutions shape their own news values? Obviously it’s all about ratings (at least for commercial media).  As such, it comes down to what their audience wants to see, and how they get more people to use their media.

Numerous academics/journalists have constructed and updated what they believe to be the criteria for news values. Galtung and Ruge outlined 12criteria in 1965:

Negativity

Closeness to home (Proximity)

Recency

Currency

Continuity

Uniqueness

Simplicity

Personality

Expectedness (Predictability)

Elite Nations or People

Exclusivity

Size

Further to this, Galtung and Ruge created three hypotheses:
The additivity hypothesis that the more factors an event satisfies, the higher the probability that it becomes news.

The complementarity hypothesis that the factors will tend to exclude each other.

The exclusion hypothesis that events that satisfy none or very few factors will usually not become news.

News values over the years have been transformed, moved around and edited. Judy McGregor in 2002 reduced it to four news values

Visualness – Appeal to TV/Online audience

Conflict – a tried & true news value… if it bleeds it leads!

Emotion – tied up with human interest

Celebrification of the journalist

It’s interesting to note that the latest set of values is from 2002. With the increase of internet news, it should be easier to track the news stories that have prevalence with audiences. For example, you only have to look on the home page of numerous sites to see the highest viewed trending articles. Though, I suppose, when viewing articles on pages such as Ninemsn the highest trending articles are rarely ever the hard hitting news and only the sensationalized or celebrity gossip stories. On that, it’s interesting to note that online sites, even when going on to look at the Seven and Nine news websites, the local news stories rarely ever go to the top of the news, and it’s the national/international/celebrity stories which continually make it to the top.

As for everything we have idealized notions, and journalism is no different. These include:

·         A first obligation to the truth

·         A first loyalty to citizens

·         An essential discipline of verification

·         Independence from faction

·         Monitoring power and giving voice to the voiceless

·         Provision of a forum for public criticism and compromise

·         Striving to make the significant interesting and relevant

·         Keeping the news comprehensive and proportional

·         Freedom to exercise personal

·         Conscience

What are the threats to newsworthiness? Three different aspects have been identified:

·         Journalism / Commercialization of media and social life

·         Journalism / Public Relations

·         Journalism’s ideals /Journalism’s reality

The harsh realities in relation to newsworthiness are that journalists have become lazy and incompetent, with information being untrustworthy, stories incomplete, misleading or just irresponsible. PR has also had a great effect on journalism, with churnalism taking over news stories, and PR tactics, propaganda, media falsehoods and distortion all effecting the news the audiences are exposed to. Hyper-commercialization also has allowed news cartels to form, controlling what news stories make it to the public eye.

We’ve also seen a shift in the audience. We as individuals are no longer just take in media, we can make our own stories – for example, a blog! As Jay Rosen says

The people formerly known as the audience are simply the public made realer, less fictional, more able, less predictable. You should welcome that, media people. But whether you do or not we want you to know we’re here. 

From Gultung and Ruge in 1965 to Judy McGregor in 2002, we see changes in media news value and general newsworthiness. We longer take a back seat, but create our own, and in view of threats to journalism it’s probably not a day too late. News is changing from day to day. We have different stories everyday, so it’s safe to say, each day brings new news values.

“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.”Arthur Eveyln Waugh

Ethics, eh?

Ethics, ethics, ethics. What to say about ethics? We started off with about a 25 minute survey on what we thought was ethical/unethical, and in good/bad taste. While I recognise the intended purpose of getting us to individually identify the above aspects in advertising campaigns, honestly I think the time could have been better spent further examining what makes something ethical or not, and how that relates more to journalism.

Having said that, let’s reflect on what was presented. We were posed with the questions to think about:

How do we know what is…

·       Good and bad?

·       Ethical or unethical?

·       Right from wrong?

·       The difference between the bad, the wrong and the simple tacky?

We were presented with three ethical theories: deontological, consequentialism (aka teleology), and virtue.

Deontology. All ethics codes are deontological, and are broken down into rules, principles and duties. While we mainly discussed that you will be ethical by following the “rules”, wiki likes to add that deontology “is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule" -based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty".”

So what are the rules? We derive the rules mainly from the laws that our county sets out, but also, and often underlying the laws of countries, are the social codes we engage in. For example, Kant set out in his Categorical Imperatives ideas on ethics; the best, and probably a humorous way to break up the monotony of discussing ethics, is this Three Minute Philosophy clip: 

Consequentialism. The root word is obviously consequence, and that’s exactly what this theory is about; the outcomes. It’s about getting the “good” or “right” outcome from your actions, and therefore we see that the end may justify the means. Basically this is a utilitarian approach and it’s about getting the greatest good for the greatest number. But how can we measure the good of an outcome? And further, is the good outcome for one, equal to a bad outcome for another, or does the negative affects bestowed unto one outweigh the good an action does to another?

We see Jeremy Bentham break down pleasure and pain in, while still ambiguous, more measurable terms in what is called the utility calculus. This is broken down into notions of:

• ·       Intensity
• ·       Duration
• ·       Certainty
• ·       Propinquity (proximity)
• ·       Fecundity (the chance that a pleasure is followed by other ones, a pain by further pains)
• ·       Purity (the chance that pleasure is followed by pains and vice versa) and
• ·       Extent (the number of persons affected)

Virtue. This theory states that “goodness” comes from habits of character. These virtuous values include honesty, integrity, empathy, good judgement, and a sense of social responsibility. Goodness of character is thought to be acquired human qualities, earned through experiences. Virtue seeks to provide the good life for the individual, and seeking the mean, or middle, of actions and feelings, does this. The mean is the middle of excess and deficit. For example, courage is the mean of rashness and cowardice.

However, after all this analysis and breakdown, what are the ethics of journalism? In journalism practice and professional communication deontological ethics are the ones that are followed… “because that’s the way things are done.”

Codes that journalists have to follow include: MEAA, PRIA, AFA, and AANA.

Ethic codes are further broken down into:

• AANA Code of Ethics

• AANA Food & Beverages Code and AANA Food & Beverages Code Practice Note

• AANA Code for Advertising & Marketing Communications to Children

• FCAI Motor Vehicle Code and FCAI Motor Vehicle Code Practice Note

• AFGC Responsible Children's Marketing Initiative of the Australian Food and Beverage Industry

• Australian Quick Service Restaurant Industry Initiative for Responsible Advertising and Marketing to Children

• AANA Environmental Claims in Advertising and Marketing Code with AANA Environmental Claims Code - Practice Note

• Alcohol Beverages Codes

• Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code

• Weight Management Industry Code of Practice

• ASTRA codes of Practice (including Television and Radio)

• Commercial Radio Code of Practice

• Commercial TV Code of Practice

As I said before, I think we would have had more value from this lecture had we discussed in more depth the actual ethics that impact journalists, and further received more analysis from our guest lecturer.

Nonetheless, the reading were able to fill left an interesting quote in my head:

Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.

Good 'Ol Public Media

Nigel Milan - rocking the bow tie!

The difference between commercial broadcasting and public broadcasting is the difference between consumers and citizens

– Nigel Milan

So what is the role of public media? While formerly public media was wholly associated with tax-payer funding, today public outlets can operate for profit as long as the ultimate purpose is to serve the public. According to the WGBH Educational Foundation Conference on open content and public broadcasting, the primary mission of public media is to serve or engage a public.

To serve or engage the public – sounds a tad ambiguous to me. No worries, our lecture content broke it down more. It is Media that is in support of public and democratic processes and should have public value.

Right, that totally makes more sense… but just to clarify, how does the BBC breaks down “public value”?

1. Embedding a ‘public service ethos’

2. Value for licence fee money

3. ‘Weighing public value against market impact’

4. Public consultation

Perhaps we need to be more pedantic in our definition.... The Broadcasting Research Unit 1985 further breaks down public service:

- Geographical universality.

- Universality of appeal.

- Special provision for minorities, especially disadvantaged minorities.

- Sense of national identity and community.

- Distanced from all vested interests, and in particular from those of the government of the day.

- Universality of payment.

- Encourage competition in good programming rather than competition for numbers.

- Liberate rather than restrict broadcasters.

Finally, a definition we can stand by. In fact, a very altruistic sounding goal, but can a media outlet actually maintain this integrity when we are commercialising our public media?

Australia's public media forms 

Unquestionably, public media, in the form of ABC and SBS, produces a higher standard of media information than commercial media (though often very underfunded in its production). 41% of Australians get their news from ABC, but does that mean we should continue endorsing the News CAFF and opinionist style of news some public media channels are producing?

In my opinion, I actually think that shows like the Drum and other opinion based shows provide for greater discussion opportunities in society. For me, discussion and debate are the underlying factors of a democracy and we should be encouraging well informed and opinionated individuals to promote and engage audiences.

So what are the challenges? Commercial media only needs to satisfy advertisers and consumers to make a profit. For public media, their role is to scrutinize the government (where they get their funding from) as well as keep the audiences happy. I can’t help but wonder, who ultimately decides the content?

Obviously public media has to maintain a higher level of journalistic integrity but we can still see some bias in their reporting. The 7:30 report always puts editorials spins to it and on most news shows the opposition party (i.e. Liberals) are questioned more vehemently then the government – at least that’s what I see from an outsider perspective.

Undoubtedly, Jeremy Paxman’s approach to media is one we should all adopt:

I am always asking myself, “Why is this lying bastard lying to me?”

… an approach we may need to hold dearer as public media further becomes the underfunded poor cousin of commercial media.

Commercial Media - All Aboard!

In media today there are two different outlets: public and commercial. This week we examined the commercial strand of media through mediums including TV, radio, newspaper, magazines and the new digital methods.

So why do we have commercial media? Well companies want to make money, and the easiest way to advertise is when you’ve got your audiences’ eyes and ears at your full command. The larger the market share your media outlet commands, the more you can charge the advertisers – a simple economics supply and demand model.

Advertisers are the real customers of a commercial media organisation, not its readers, viewers or listeners.

Commercial media is like any other business, whereby its success is dependent on the audiences it can generate, and the revenue and profit it can make through selling advertising. So who are the major players in this media battlefield? 

It was interesting to break down just what media outlets each of these overarching companies controlled, and as such their approach to attracting different social groups for advertising. However, the crux of this lecture was about form and function.

The form of commercial media can be broken into three sub-categories; subscription, sponsored and subsidised. These include channels such as Foxtel, regular free-to-air channels and government subsidised channels respectively. The function can also be broken down into three sub-categories being commercial, propaganda and social. These include Ausradio, Fox News and Living Local respectively.

According to the Hutchins Commission, the social responsibility of the media in a democracy is to:

1. a truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context which gives them meaning;

2. a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism;

3. the projection of a representative picture of the constituent groups in the society;

4. the presentation and clarification of the goals and values of the society;

5. full access to the day’s intelligence.

However, can we ever really guarantee that commercial media will fulfil this responsibility when profiteering is so lucrative? In Australia we’ve got formal state requirements, legal prescription, and state oversight to control media actions, as well as statutory and voluntary bodies to ensure adherence to the media’s social responsibility. As such we see an “ethical wall” between editorial content and the commercial side of media – well that’s the idea anyway!

But what is the problem with commercial media? Well to put it bluntly, most people in society don’t want the hard hitting news. People would rather engage in tabloid news than to hear an in-depth analysis on what’s happening in Syria or with the Greek riots. Moreover locals really don’t care about politics until they think the government’s trying to take their money or tell them what they can and can’t do.

So where is commercial media heading? We see a large decrease in advertising spending on the traditional media forms as society shifts their attention to the web. Nonetheless, of the top 10 news websites, seven are commercially owned, as such we see still a huge sphere of influence from these commercial outlets.

The most exciting thing I discovered thanks to this lecture was the Global Mail. Not only does this form of commercial media go against the critique of commercial “Mickey Mouse” news but it also shows that not all commercial media outlets are profiteering business men with hidden agendas…. Or at least this one is exceptionally good at hiding it.