Annotated Bibliography

Reith, P. (2012, May 15). Give Craig Thomson his 30 minutes of fame. ABC-The Drum. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4010574.html

The Honourable Peter Reith, the author of this article, lends much authority to this opinion piece, having been a former senior cabinet minister in the Australian government. Reith immediately identifies himself as a sceptic of Craig Thomson’s innocence, using the platform of the ABC’s online forum The Drum to launch an attack on the Labor member. Using a series of rhetorical questions, Reith systematically illuminates questionable and potentially corrupt activities Thomson was involved with.
Reith outlines a enlightening version of the political events surrounding Thomson in the past three years, beginning with Labor’s and the independent MP’s defence of Thomson. He comments on the Oppositions stand against this and of the independents succumbing and conceding that Thomson should explain himself.
He discusses the stalling tactics of the Labor government, suggests Tim Windsor’s reaction to the whole debacle has been poor and quotes former democrat Andrew Murray to demonstrate how far politicians have fallen from their public’s trust. He concludes by saying the independents have to decide between “propping up a discredited government” championing “higher parliamentary standards.”
This piece is similar to the 2GB radio and DrumTV pieces. Reith is offering an informed opinion on the matter as a former government minister, but as he is heavily biased to one side of parliament, is opinions should not be taken as anything but that. 

Smith, C. (2012, May 18). A legal perspective on the Thomson affair. 2GB. Retrieved from http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=12852

Chris Smith of 2GB radio interviews Dr Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney about the legal possibilities surrounding the HSU/Craig Thomson scandal, in light of his upcoming speech to parliament.
The interview begins with Smith asking Anne if there is any precedent for the removal of a member of parliament without court process. Anne brings up the UK Profumo affair as an example, but states that Commonwealth law has been changed so that politicians cannot be expelled from office. Twomey goes on to say that despite being unable to be expelled, Thomson could still be suspended, fined $5000 or even imprisoned for up to six months in cells at parliament house, for contempt of parliament.
Chris then moves on, giving examples as to what the Opposition may do after Thomson delivers his speech. Twomey then discusses the options the Opposition has; they could call for a “prima facie case of privilege” to be decided on by the Speaker, or they could do nothing at all.
She then brings up the Independents, who would be the key to the vote for a Privileges Committee investigation, and concludes by saying the most likely outcome would be Thomson’s resignation.
This piece is masterfully done by Smith, and the high level of authority Twomey brings a degree of expertise not seen in the DrumTV report.

Palmer, T. (2012, May 7). The Drum Monday 7 May. ABC-The Drum. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-07/the-drum-monday-7-may/3996468 

Host of The DrumTV and long-time ABC journalist Tim Palmer, tables the topic of the release of the damning Fair Work Australia report regarding Craig Thomson with guests Kerry Chikarovski, former NSW Liberal leader, Peter Lewis from Essential Media and Andrew Greene, an ABC Political Reporter.
The show begins with a short prepared report laying out the key issues, quoting Bernadette O’Neill, General Manager of Fair Work Australia, and showing a press conference with Eric Abetz, a Liberal Senator.
Greene is the first to be addressed, describes some of the issues raised in and from the report.
Chikarovski’s opinion follows, discussing the justification of some comments made by Thomson. She also expresses horror at the poor handling of union members’ money.
Lewis, who works for several unions, then tells of the rigorous processes these unions use to utilise that money, and asks the question ‘what next?’ of the whole situation.
Palmer moves back to Greene to conclude the segment, who addresses the political implications for Thomson in regards the Federal Budgets announcement.
This piece is well constructed and, like the 2GB radio interview, is aired live with talent specifically tailored to the topic.

Esser, F, Strӧmbӓck, J, de Vreese, C.H. (2012). Reviewing key concepts in research on political news journalism: Conceptualizations, operationalizations, and propositions for future research. Journalism, 13, 139-143.
doi:10.1177/1464884911427795

Authors Esser, Strӧmbӓck and de Vreese, of separate universities in Switzerland, Sweden and the Netherlands begin this introductory article by broadly outlining political journalism research and identifying it as the intersection between political communication and journalism research. Discussing the increase in this research, the authors identify three key issues with the subject, namely conceptual clarity, comparability and cumulativity. Stating that these issues will greatly inhibit solid theories being made of the effects of political journalism, they then outline the purpose and scope for the special issue, offering logical and scientific reasons for the subject of each article.
Following a brief analysis of the varying degrees of political/public communication in news communication systems, the authors discuss the writers of the other articles in some depth, revealing their scholarly and geographical backgrounds and argue the advantages of their being from different language backgrounds in Europe. After outlining the form of the articles written, the authors conclude by emphasising their goal for the issue and welcoming debate and constructive criticism of the ideas put forward in the journal.
In comparison to the opinion piece by The Honourable Peter Reith, this article is highly credible and facts based, compared to Reith’s strong opinions and heavy bias and should be treated accordingly.

The Cultural Fiesta

For my video report, I chose the Cultural Fiesta at UQ.

All camera work by Immogen Grosser.

All interviews done with permission.

Special thanks to organiser Kate Bottom for her assistance.

Lecture #10-Agenda setting

Agenda setting. It happens.
I'm not sure if it should. People should be able to talk about what they want, right?
Apparently that's not what happens though. This was the big thing I thought about during this lecture. The first quote we got was a really good one, describing what agenda setting was and what it does.

“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.”

  Coleman, McCombs, Shaw, Weaver, 2008

That's a pretty true statement. There are examples of it all over the news, all the time. Most recently it's been the Peter Slipper and Craig Thompson scandals. The treasurer of Australia released the budget for the nation, and the media barely gave it a second glance. That was some pretty heavy agenda setting.

There are four agendas, for four different groups of people, but they are all interrelated.

1. Public Agenda
2. Policy Agenda
3. Corporate Agenda
4. Media Agenda 

All of these agenda's influence each other, which is good. Imagine what would happen if only one of these four set the agenda.

Since this was a journalism lecture, we mainly stuck to the Media Agenda section.
There are, apparently, two main assumptions of M.A. One is that mass media filters and shapes reality. That directly and intentionally manipulates 'reality' by choosing what news the public consumes. The second is that media concentration on a few things causes the public to think these things are more important.
This seems more likely from a purely speculative stand point, and being a part of the public I can see that the media isn't 'filtering and shaping reality' in an intentional way. The media does have the important job of deciding what makes the news each day. This is a case of filtering the news, because not everything can be on the news, and someone has to decide what makes it and what doesn't.
This goes back to what we learnt in our last lecture about news values, and is very close to agenda setting.

The first level of media agenda setting is choosing what the public should think about. For several years it's been things like the 'war on terror' and climate change/global warming. These things wouldn't be in the public mind if the media hadn't continued to put them in the news.

The second level is more subtle, and boils down to what the owners of the media outlets opinions are. This is describing to the public how they should think about certain issues. This is far more dangerous, and part of our duty as journalists is to remain impartial and simply report on things. 

This is why I think agenda setting shouldn't happen.

Australia does not have a spokesman for the media. There is a media 'watchdog' but it rarely does anything to call out outlets that begin to agenda set.
America, however, does. A man by the name of Alex Jones has a national radio show in the US. Most of it is hilarious conspiracy stuff, but he very aggressively pursues the truth, particularly in the media.
I recommend you check him out.

Lecture #9- News Values!!!!

This week we saw the return of the dreaded 'upside-down triangle'. I'm starting to think it might acutally mean something after all.
So, news values are how news agencies rank their news, and how they decide what gets the headline in tomorrows paper, and what gets more focus etc.
Things such as negativity (something bad will always rate better, and recieve more hits on the net, than 'positive' news), locality, recency and elites (people and places) are all news values.
Of course, as with most things, there are always exceptions to the rule. People are often interested in world news, particularly businesspeople and stockholders, people watching Wall St. Community newspapers take the 'elites' idea very differently, but it's still essentially the same.
You may have heard of the saying 'If it bleeds, it leads'. This is a great example of the news value of things such as drama, tradgedy and violence.
A newer type of news value is 'visual attractiveness'. People don't often think about this, but often news will headline on tv or the internet, but won't headline in the newspapers. This is because of the different types of visuals that news has, and the ability to encorporate sound and film into television and website news.
My favourite part of the lecture was discussing the threats to good journalism and news values that contribute to society.
Two main points were mentioned. The commercialisation of media: mergers throughout the world are gradually pooling the sources we get news from. This limits where the public derives their news values everytime a merger takes place.
Public relations: Allowing someone else to do all the work and put all of their own spin on what ever they're selling or announcing is both poor and irresponsible journalism.

The final point was the slow breaking down of the barriers between journalistic media and public generated media. Blogs, twitter and youtube feeds are all slowly shifting the balance of power of the news world. I think it's a good thing