All Out of Wit

I'm so lost without you, I know you were right believing for so long. I'm all out of love, what am I without you? I can't be too late to say that I was so wrong. Althought we've come, to the end of the road, still I can't let you go. It's unnatural, you belong to me, I belong to you. We've come, to the end of the road, still I can't let go. It's unnatural, you belong to me, I belong to you.

Yes I began to look up sad goodbye songs to signify the end of this blog. Trust me, it was more than the two up there ^. There are so many things I want to say, like how if you still think this blog only has lecture content  you need to alt+f4 your life for a while, take a holiday to Barbados and search for your soul - I left it in the bottle of a Whiskey bottle for you, you heartless bastard!

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm a hypocrite. All I know is that, for all it's flaws and shortcomings, leaving this blog will tear my heart to pieces, for at least 11 or 17 minutes. We've been through a lot, late-night coffees, early morning pain-killers and hours searching for stupid puns. I haven't gained anything, and neither have you, but we're all searching for a way to waste away our time. This blog in that regard, and I'd like to thank it, and thank you whoever you are. Congratulations. I don't have a firework or a witty sign off, so I guess this is goodbye.

Goodbye.

The Eleventh Hour of Lectures

It's really quite satisfying that the "eleventh" lecture will be my second last post, just as eleven is the second last hour, but I'm also writing this in the eleventh hour in terms of the time frame to hand this bad boy blog right on in.

I've become too excited however, seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. I don't want to look at more lectures slides. It's always been that slides are looked at twice, once being explained by the person who wrote them and once to cram them back in to your brain for an exam. This blog has messed up the way of things, and it is disturbing me. I don't want to revisit, review, reconstitute this crap. It's just not cricket, and it certainly isn't croquet. I've been curled up, coughing up phlegm (great word) from the depths of two scum-ridden lungs feeling sorry for myself, and telling everyone to get out of the way because I got sick and therefore have reason to be irate for at least 4 hours this morning.
I open my laptop and try to start this abysmally worthless time-wasting activity with a renewed sense of pleasantness and a fresh and pine-scented outlook on life but I open up the lecture notes and Mr Ross Coulthart starts tearing down my façade of calm. The more I stare at his lop-sided, varying-sized eyes the more his smile creeps me out. I swear I saw him tell me he wants me to fail at whatever I do for the rest of my life. Maybe I deserve it, I don't know. My mind isn't clear enough to tell right now, all I know is that he looks like an Orc from Lord of the Rings when you stare for long enough. Let me go have a shower, make a coffee and eat a Berocca. Then I'll get back to you.

That's better, I think. I still can't tell. Ross doesn't look so Orc-ish anymore, so maybe it worked.

Right.

Investigative Journalism. What amazing insight will you give me that I won't throw away with the garbage of my mind and that rotten apple I chose not to eat? Will you offer anything but a plethora of dime-a-dozen quotes and a handful of laughable definitions that may or may not be examined but are in no way other than that useful? Mayhaps you won't include a jazzy list of things that are alike, and haven't colour coded them so they're easier to remember. Let me check.

Alright so maybe I shouldn't have been so naive and hopeful. But still, I checked out all the slides, sifting for something I could write about or something I could use to build a nice little rant, but alas my search came up dry. The only thing is the Star Wars reference, and if you, avid and devout reader are a fan of Star Wars, check these out:

Pretty cool if you ask me.

If you want to learn about Investigative Journalism, don't come to read here. If you're interested in those photos, find the rest here: http://thechive.com/2012/04/23/a-few-rare-photos-on-the-set-of-the-only-star-wars-movies-that-matter-43-photos/

Jahasra, and goodnight.

The Adventures of Tenten

The title of this chapter is misleading, as there is no adventure here. The title of this chapter is also misleading, because there was no Lecture Ten, but in the name of fluidity and structure and stupid puns I'm going to assume that 11 is 10 and 11 is the name for 12. These topics are so tedious and lacklustre that whilst reading about them I think my brain is shrinking. The backwards thinking that is required to develop some of this garbage is beyond me, and twists my mind and tires my mental capacity just trying to fathom it's vast expanse. Why anyone would ever categorise this information as "important" I can't comprehend. It even hurts to type out my disgust with the subject, a task in which I ordinarily revel. A repetition of the same, silly facts that could have been covered in less than 10 slides, let alone a lecture if we lived without all these "experts" putting their 2 to 3 cents in, any way they can. I save more than that at BPs with a Woolies voucher.

The repetition of all this crap is reminiscent of blogging to me. A bunch of reposted information, with a small twist which the author thinks is witty. None of it is interesting and none of it makes me feel like I'm learning something. I don't want you to think that I am anti-everything however, and I have rummaged up two things that I find interesting.

The first is David Mitchell's Soapbox, and this is an example:

The second is this:

When I built my first tree house, this is what I expected it to turn out like.

But back to the biscuit... the most useful aspect of these lectures, I think are the quotes. Sure they repeat each other, but if you really dislike one, or really like one for that matter, you can go look up the person and infuriate yourself even more at the stupid things they say. It's a cathartic experience for me, I think. The award for best slide goes to: The Portrayal of an Issue. I've always been a strong believer that you can make anyone agree to anything if you paint it in the right light or atleast let them look in the window of No. 12, Different View Drive.

Politics is something I generally sometimes object to, the other times I'm indifferent. Therefore I played Solipskier during the lectures and skipped the slides upon online revision, so I can't tell you much about those.

Using my last fallback option, I opened my old notebook hoping to find something... anything. I flipped through the pages as I started speaking like Max Payne in my head - it was only a matter of time. I lit up another Corinthian Chocolate Cigar and sat in the vacant chair, careful not to get to comfortable. I knew the cleaners would be on my ass as soon as I relaxed, I ran of out Max lines and began to siphon through what I wrote in the lecture.

I really can't make sense of most of it... here's a taste:
Guest speaker from UniqueUQ: is she french?
wonderfully ironic old dude
regent's treat (what is Regent's Treat? Obviously it was mentioned but I've forgotten why)
salient (a pretty cool new word I learnt)
Adolf Hitler was such an excellent self-publicist
Noam Chomsky - why do all cool guys have cool names? (it's how I know that I will never be cool, my name is far too pedestrian.

I also wrote some Media and Agenda definitions, but they're boring. I tried to remind myself about a Mitch Hedberg quote that fittingly described the ideas of the lectures, but unfortunately I only wrote "-mitch hedberg quote-" so I'll leave you with a favourite (or two) and put them in psychedelic colours and maybe chuck in some Max Payne and/or Archer quotes (the three most influential men in my life).

"I bought a $7 pen because I always lose pens and I got sick of not caring." - Mitch Hedberg


"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg

Rip: Is this a ruse?
Archer: A ruse? Hi, it's the 1930s. Can we have our words and clothes and shitty airplane back?
Rip: Let's go, kid.
Archer: Call you back, 1930s. And, hey, watch out for that Adolf Hitler. He's a bad egg.


"I walked straight in, playing it Bogart, like I'd done a hundred times before. The trick in my situation was that there was no trick, no matter what the movies tell you. No rules, no secret mantra, no road map. It wasn't about how smart or how good you were. It was chaos and luck, and anyone who thought different was a fool. All you could do was to hang on madly, as long and hard as you could." - Max Payne

Hole 9

This is the lecture that I decided once and for all that I fully don't like the word newsworthy. It may be a little bit useful, but it just doesn't sound right. I didn't like visualness, 'sensationalisedation' (which was used) nor Judy McGregor. I did like celebrification though. Kind of like glorification, which is a good word.
I think it's hard to discern what people want to read and know versus what they should read and know. I know that Facebook is starting to show me everything it thinks I want to see, and same with Google. I don't think it's healthy to surround yourself with everything you like and not have a full scope of earthly happenings.
"News value is dictated by the prominence a story has been given" but its prominence is dictated by the new value. Something has to give. It's just one big ol' circle. Until someone in a big office decides he knows what I want to see. And there's one reason why I don't like the word newsworthy. People get the idea that it's how worthy something is to read about, but it's about how much a story is worth. Worth in the monetary sense. How many papers it will sell. Take, for example, #Kony. There are so many other happenings and interesting stories out there, but Kony became newsworthy. A mastermind homicidal child mass murderer, a cute kid talking to a camera and a drug rampage in San Diego. What more can you ask for to sell newspaper? I'd much rather read about anything else, however.


“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.”


Evelyn Waugh sounds like the type of bloke chap I'd like to meet. This one little quote struck such a deep chord in me that I was inspired to look him up on Wikipedia. A traveller, a writer, a schoolmaster and a reviewer. I want to read about this guy. Not only did he write Brideshead Revisited, but his great-great grandfather was called Lord Cockburn. There are two of the greatest claims to fame I have ever heard. His Wikipage made me think of a new word: prolificist. One who proliferates. It has its shortcomings but I quite enjoy the word.

Local stories really don't interest me. Apparently "If it's local it leads!" but I just don't see it. Maybe you have to be a certain age, or have to own more than 2 toothbrushes or spend more than $40 dollars when you go grocery shopping. I don't know. Do you owe more than 2 toothbrushes? If yes, do you care about local stories?
Maybe if there is a flood in my suburb, or rent of the area is going up because of the offshore price of coal-seam oil spills in the Stradbroke Nature reserve is going to deflate the price of lamb and XXXX at the IGA across the road, then yeah I might be interested. But Bligh opens school gate or Boy found after getting lost at school? Hey I just read that, and this is crazy, call me insensitive but I don't really care.
Now if it bleeds it leads - I can beleed that. The problem with that is, everything bleeds. There is so much bleeding going on that there's a bleed over load. The Red Cross is going crazy, blood is being spilled everywhere and what they would give to be able to scrape some of that off the streets. There's no use crying over spilt blood however.

It's strange how spilled and spilt have no determinable difference, apparently we can use them interchangeably.

Did you know that 1 in 3 people will need to receive foreign blood in their lifetime? But only 1 in 30 people will donate? If you, Barack and I all met up for toast and coffee one day - one of us will definitely need blood. Hopefully not at that particular moment, because that would be quite an interesting moment. A life-threatening interruption could threaten what could be an in-depth and worldly conversation.

Why do humans have an obsession with death? We go on and on about it to no end. Shakespeare had to be one of the worst. Or best, depending upon how you're looking at it. We've invented cults to satisfy our desire to know what is after death. Why is that? Do we feel a need to always be occupied? I like the idea of a good hard rest. Now I'm sounding like a whingy teen with nothing better to do than blather on about 'existentialism' because I just learnt about the word in some crappy magazine and I've named a album of photos on my indie instagram 'existentialia' because I edit all my photos through the indie settings on Picasa and wear stupid clothes and ride stupid bikes.

Call me old fashioned, but I'd like to see the newspaper around for a long time yet. Not only a cheap lining for a rat cage and a fuel to light the fireplace, it's a fuel for thought as well. Online journalism seems to be a cheap whore-out version of print media and it is making it easier for the corporate world to control what we see, in effect changing history...

... I've been watching "Illuminati" videos all day.

I'll leave you with this: How do you titillate an ocelot?

...

Oscillate it's tits a lot.

To Huit concerns...

The Lecture of Week 8 was by far the most interesting to date - aside from the fact I mucked up my paper almost straight away. I was just TOO KEEN to fill out those neat little boxes! Who can resist a clean, crisp piece of paper, especially when it is so ready to be ticked or crossed or filled out or sniffed? It's like putting on a shirt from the dryer or that you've just ironed when the temperature is not hot, but not heaps cold either. The temperature of one of those days where a pack of TimTams, 4 Instant Coffees and 100GB of musicals and rock operas would not go ashtray... I mean: astray.

I think that grammar and punctuation is marked far too harshly these days. At uni, at school, resumés, the list doesn't really go on that far but it sounds better if  I say 'the list goes on'. I think that we should be teaching children the basics of grammar and punctuation, all the rules and stipulations and hyphens and dashes and colons and such and then let them figure it out for themselves. Writing scripts, I tend to find myself speaking what I write before I write it. This then leads to me putting a large amount of commas in my texts and makes it hard for anyone else to read. But that is how I say therefore my brain thinks that is how it should read. A sentence, using a forced application of this trait, will end up, almost invariably, like this. Of course, that may be overexaggerated, but the point still, remains. (Just kidding). But I've had to tone down my comma usage, against my better judgement, and let the reader figure out where the natural breaks are themselves. It seems an alien idea, but therein lies the betterment of multiple interpretations of the same texts. I respect how grammar and punctuation change how a script reads, and sometimes what a sentence means. I think it's a real shame the internet is allowing all these people without the proper care or instruction to write willy-nilly, and forego the rules that their Grade 4 teachers spent so long attempting to instil. 

There has to be some happy medium between the two. A mix between the overzealousness of 'seasoned' teachers smacking knuckles of those students who risk a interrobang, or jot an extra comma or two and the lawlessness that Facebook, Twitter and this shitty site compliment and encourage.

And that shall be called justice, and like Judge Judy it will be served hot and ruthlessly. In a manner without ruth. Ruth always seems to get left out of a lot of cool things.

Apart from "ethics is subjectice" which we all of course knew already, not a lot of stuff was said or learnt in this lecture. A lot of talking happened but not much was actually said. 

I don't like Deontology or Teleology but rather, I think Virtue is a good means of determining ethics. I think that virtue is something that can't actually be taught, which this lecture so amply proved. I like virtue however, it has a sort of compromise system that appeals to me. Like I elucidated with my round about grammar tangent. And although I DID say this was the most interesting lecture yet, it was also the most infuriating. I can't stand the fact Australia is such a bureaucratic nanny state.

The only one I had a problem with is Outdoor 5. I mean I don't even know what is being advertised. Being overtly sexual for no overt reason is fairly stupid, and surely should be called into question. The rest, seem fine to me.

Like a bullet lodged in the upper spine but too close to the brain to operate, I'll have to leave it there.

Public Meatier

Public Media. The Media of the Public. The Yin to last week's Yang. The People Vs The Big Man. David Vs Goliath.

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


Well, there you have it. What more is there to tell? Well if you're looking for an answer to a question - nothing. If you're wanting to bore a bunch a students - a lot more, apparently. If you're looking for a definition of tautology, take a look at these lecture slides. Not that I think there is anything wrong with tautology, quite the opposite. Without it, everything would be the same. Writing would be so monotonous. Texts would be so repetitive. Nothing would be said, just the same sentence, over and over again. At least the point is made clear, don't you agree?

I rely on tautology in my writing to fill in mind blanks that occur where I get off topic and begin on a slowing moving and cumbersome tangential topic that you can see kind of relates but you find it so tiresome to read you just want me to get back to the main point, and stop repeating myself.
Can you see where I'm coming from? These cyclical lectures are driving me around the twist, and when I say cyclical I don't mean repeating the story once. I'm talking multiple times. Multiple different iterations of the same stuff. Some say that's good writing, I say bollocks.

Now I don't even know what I'm talking about, but I do find it more fun to write. Do you really care what I write here, or is it free for all? After having a holiday to think about it, I'm finding it more and more difficult to grasp the concept of blogging. Even Blogger's dictionary doesn't recognise the word blog, or blogging, or Blogger. Why do you want my thoughts on this lecture? Do you want me to prove I have been/seen/heard/read it? Are you making sure the material you provide for the course is thought-provoking? Can you not be content with the knowledge that I've taken in the information, without having to regurgitate the notes? I saw a girl in the lecture today, writing her Blog as Bruce was talking. I asked her (in my head) what was the point? I managed to get a sneak peak of what she was writing, and sure enough she was giving a summary of events that my 7 year old cousin could do (only perhaps more imaginative). I thought perhaps that's what was expected, but that's just no fun. Pointless tangents are fun. In digression lies living.

So what now? Do I give my opinion on the lecture? Do I recount the facts? Do I forgo those obvious choices, and write my own blithering, dribbling, quibbling thoughts that I can't help but write in this ever time consuming medium that is supposed to help me be a journalist? You may have noticed that I don't know. I would inform you then, that I have no opinion on the points made in the lectures. Every now and then I'll disagree with something, but I believe that if you don't have anything negative to say - don't say it at all.

Well, since you asked...

In my feedback for this Blog, a main flaw in my writing was a lack of it. A lack of 'flavaa', my own twist, my take, my feelings boiled down and squished in to a Blog.
Although sometimes I feel like I should divulge and engage in making this Blog my own I can never bring myself  to actually do it.

This Blog is a piss in the ocean. A memory of a passing electron under an electron microscope, making it's way back to Pluto for the fourth time this second. Something so small and shitty I just want to end its measly existence and quench the small hypnotic heaves of its infinitesimally tiny lungs by crushing the life out of its chest. "What an ignominious end that would be."

Sure I could tell you what I think about Ms Redmond and her advice debacle, I could give you opinion on gay marriages, I could rant about KONY2012, I could tell you stories about Peter Pan, and the Wizard of Oz - there's a dirty old man. But you know what? I won't. I couldn't care less about what you (the reader) thinks about what I think, and I know you feel the same. Why deny that? It's like love.

A friend is reviewing music on her blog. It's been viewed over 1000 times last I asked and I assume it's growing (as things tend to on the internet) exponentially.
Let me say those words to you again.

Reviewing.

Music.

She's reviewing music. Now before I start, I've explained how I feel to her, and we agree to disagree so I'm not going behind anyone's back. BUT WHY FOR THE LOVE OF FUCK WOULD ANYONE READ A FUCKING REVIEW ON MUSIC?

ARGH! I can't comprehend the lack-mindedness that one must possess to want to read a fucking music review. There are too many words coming out of my head write now that I'm finding it hard to type, but let it be known that I think that is the stupidest shit in the world.

Music seems to me to be the one thing that cannot be held down by description. It's like reviewing fingerprints or snowflakes or grains of fucking sand. It's all different and intangible, unless you are telling me what notes were sung and what chords were struck and what beat was drummed (but who would read that either?)

Why not listen to the music online? Buy a CD? Go to a concert? Anything but read a review. All you are doing is fueling a bunch of wasters who go and trip on acid while they "dig the tunes" and blurt out some opinionated bullshit on whether they thought a band had a "good vibe" and whether they were "going off" or not.

I have different music taste to you, you to me, from him to her, from them to those. No one likes the same shit. If you happen upon people who do like the same music, hang out with them, listen to some CDs, watch some filmclips, buy old records but who goes and reads some fucking reviews on bands you like.

A car review: good handling, reliable, fuel efficient, mechanically sounds, 4 year warranty.
A music review: Yeah these guys really rock live, vocal melodies were sick and all the instruments really complemented each other, I really recommend checking these guys out.

Of course they complemented each other, you fruit-n-nut-bar... it's a fucking band. That's what they do. Unless you are Johnny Cash, David Gilmour or fucking Tchaikovsky I could not give a rat's ass what you thought of some shit hole band from no where going no where, that played at Wankfest on Saturday.


THERE. Like any good self-confessed hypocrite I've done what I said I wouldn't, and it was not a pleasant experience for me, you nor any other poor person who unfortunately stumbled upon this.

You never really wanted my opinion on anything, but now you know it.

Annotations of a Bibliography

Academic Source

McCracken G., (June, 1986), Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods Vol. 13, Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489287?seq=1

A culmination of over 30 years as a large corporate consultant gives Grant McCracken sway within the field of anthropology, and amongst his most recognised works is his first book ‘Culture and Consumption’. This reading elucidates McCracken’s ideas that cultural meaning is “constantly in transit” (G. McCracken, 1986) and is subject to the whims of producers, advertisers and the consumer as a collective. He labels the process of cultural meaning affecting the consumer with diagrams and explanations, stipulating the transition that occurs when fashion, advertising and other such entities produce goods for individual consumer markets. He often uses many effective examples to show that culture is a blueprint for human activity, which suggests to the audience that culture is a main constituent of the modern consumerist world by “supplying it with meaning” (G. McCracken, 1986). Some of his larger ideas that permeate the text include one that cultural categories are integral to the functionality of this blueprint, and other such extrapolations upon these notions. A plethora of citations are included in his writing, to substantiate (not always directly) his various claims, and making this book a timeless benchmark for any subsequent discussions regarding culture and consumption.

Print Media

Owen, M. (2012, May 23), Women told to ‘ignore sex bias at work’ The Australian. pp. 6.

            Michael Owen of The Australian has presented a fair and balanced report in of South Australia’s Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond’s statement concerning discrimination against women in the workplace. Unlike the many articles that filtered through the internet after Ms Redmond’s statement which belligerently attacked her reasoning, Owen shows the audience both sides of the story. It is a true representation of Redmond’s speech at the function, with a factual take on the varied opinions surrounding her advice. He doesn’t leave much to speculation, using quotes from Ms Redmond and others to bolster the integrity of the article, making it a worthy reference. Owen has organised his information to have the most recent and relevant at the forefront, allowing one to quickly sift through what can sometimes be a cumbersome quagmire of information that isn’t so useful. He provides viewpoints from the woman to whom the advice was directed and Elizabeth Broderick (the Sex Discrimination Commissioner) which allows the audience a lot of accessibility to the topic, and makes it easy for one to relate to either side of the difference of opinion within the article. Starting with the original quote that is under dispute, he continues to give new snippets of lesser importance of Ms Redmond’s speech with reactions from various women’s rights supporters, rounding out the article as a very unbiased, useful and organised resource.

Internet Article

Novak L., (May 2012), Ignore discriminaction, Isobel Redmond tells women, News.com, Retrieved from: http://www.news.com.au/business/your-business/ignore-discrimination-isobel-redmond-tells-women/story-fn9evb64-1226364123189

            This article written by Novak is deceptive in the way it seems like a balanced recount of events, but when read intimately is more one sided than one would like. She never goes out of her way, but the writer manages to include subtle hints she doesn’t support Ms Redmond’s claims. The subtle bias is enough to deter one from using this as a source, but also the amount of original content supported with quotes rather than paraphrasing is lacking. The quotes used are relevant as such, but are still not quite as supportive of the story and representation of events that Novak attempts to display. When Redmond is quoted in the article, it is positioned to make it seem weaker, rather than letting the audience have the straight fact. “…she does not think there [is] 'any point in confrontation' over discrimination” is one example where the quote is weakened to make the article pitched towards one side of the argument. One downfall of this article is its inherent need to appeal to the fast-pace of the internet. Unlike Owen who, comparatively could take his time and delve in to larger detail, Novak seems to gloss over a lot of detail and leave her report very unsupported. Overall this article is ill-suited as a source, more so in juxtaposition with Owen’s report.

Radio Source

Fidler R., (May 2012), ABC Local Radio, SA: Conversations with Richard Fidler, Retrieved from: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/local/adelaide/201205/r946304_10058559.mp3

            The last source is a radio interview with Ms Redmond, concerning her statements and advice given to the conference. Unlike the above sources, this provides an insight without third party speculation which makes this interview a very useful resource. Ms Redmond is put on the spot about her various disputed comments and gives her recount of what transpired and what she believes she meant. Although sometimes harsh and quick-tempered, Fidler provides fair question and like any interviewee, questions Ms Redmond’s defence. He quotes the luncheon conference, and asks her to explain her choice of words, giving her a chance to dispel conjecture. Although it becomes obvious Fidler takes a different standpoint to Ms Redmond, he still allows her to speak her mind, unlike the previous source, which without doubt surreptitiously excluded and included certain quotes and tailored her words to suit the writer's own underlying agenda. The complete interview includes her reaction to quotes of workplace bullying from Rupert Murdoch, and also opinions of callers who get their say in this discussion. If writing a piece on Ms Redmond and her advice for dealing with sexual discrimination in the workplace this would be a very direct, unbiased and informative source that is strengthened by its primary nature and lack of writers’ interference.

The Real Great Debate

Sorry for that last little rant on Lecture 5, I'd just been watching Grumpy Old Men, and thought I'd channel it a bit. It doesn't, however, change my views on the topic. But back to the mainstream of this evenings symposium, Lecture 6. After faith lost from the Sound Lecture, I stayed home for this one. Really quite hypocritical of me. I've heard that reading the slides is just as good. Let me tell you - it isn't. There isn't a lot of information on it, so discerning opinions on it was quite hard. I think it was talking about the differences between now and then, which seems like a common theme in this course. A sign, perhaps that this monumental shifting won't be finished  until long after our cohort hits the workforce.
I think that Commercial Media shouldn't have a place in our media spectrum, but it's hard to deny that they do their job damn well. Also, it could have a larger net of influence over what we see. TV Stations need viewers to sell their advertising to, and therefore they need shows to attract a large audience. Thus, they won't let on shows that would turn viewers away from their station, so they must have a large comb, stroking the hair of quality. This said, I highly doubt that's the case, when people would prefer to watch something like Neighbours over something with (arguably) more integrity and quality, like Antiques Roadshow for example.
I think Commercial Media delivering on the "Public Trust" front is like the healthy menu at Macdonalds. Yeah it looks like it's good, but underneath it's still the same old shit.
Overall they have their pro's and con's, but no matter what, I'm going to keep muting the ads and laying down my own voice-overs in between my favourite shows.

Sweet Swingin' Sounds of the Sixty Year Olds

Lecture 5. I'm just kidding, they might not be sixty but Richard Fidler and Carmel are surely boring as a conversation with a Wiggidy grub. I don't want to offend anyone, but I did think this "Lecture" was fairly tripe. Maybe because of the fact it didn't feel like a Lecture, I just sat in my room and didn't listen. I'm grateful I was saved the trip to go to a lecture theatre to not listen - but I might have preferred it. That's not to say I didn't listen to all of it, I grabbed a beer and bag of chips and lent them my ear for as long as possible. Every now and then, I like to learn things. This recording taught me one valuable gem of information: oh wait... no it didn't. It didn't teach me shit. I don't know what else I can say about this recording, but if I wanted to listen drivvel I would have recorded thirty minutes of an Ozzie Osbourne interview. Instead, here are a few things I'd rather listen to:

HEYYEYAAEYAAYE - Heman (Ten Hours)

One Direction :|

Ozzy Osbourne Interview

To sign off, I'd like to quote Ozzy:

"And they thin thar thar show wionman inasecing man, and then heinamson likyfrutster, you know?"

Talking Pictures will never amount to a thing.

Week 4 was a great lecture. Some things I didn't fully agree with, namely straight up - that pictures tell a thousand words, I could just never stomach that one. Words and pictures complement each other,  but I can't even compare the two. It's like saying computer games made of films are similar to the films themselves. I think it's a totally different style of story telling. That said, I didn't let my preconceptions get in the way of my open mindedness when it came to this lecture. I'd really like to have a copy of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, how very quaint! For some reason though, I think the price range could be a bit similar to this:

If you can't read those small numbers at the bottom, that is a four, followed by a three, following by five zeros. That would be one expensive childhood, aside from the fact that, in the day this would have set you back around ten cents. More? You want more?

This one is a cheapy, a good 70,000 dollars off. But who wants to read Batman anyway, am I right?

The photoshopping was pretty shocking, I mean we all know it happens, but it's never occured to me how drastic it is. It's times like these I'm glad to be male and thus immune to the need to change my appearance to match a magazine.

It reminded me of this photo of a ten year old French girl. I mean, I don't know what I was doing when I was ten, but I think there were more sandpits and less high heels and jewellery. I did have a couple of toy tigers though, so I suppose times haven't changed too much.

As soon as the Moving Pictures section came up on the big screen, I immediately thought of:

And was plagued with bouts of humming Singing in the Rain and reciting the words, so the rest of the lecture is a blur, but one thing I did remember that I love is a quote from Donald O'Connor in the film. "Talking Pictures will never amount to a thing" "Well that's what they said about the horseless carriage." Must be a 'had to have been there sort of thing.


Anyway till next time, Adiós!

Once Bitten, Thrice Lectured.

Ah Week 3. The Week I wished I stayed home.
This lecture for me seemed to waste a lot of time. What there was was good, but the computer game? Really? Perhaps telling us about the game would have sufficed, a quick explanation. Maybe there was truly nothing left to discuss about text, but that seems like a highly illegitimate excuse. I didn't get anything worthwhile from this lecture... maybe something about metadata and keywords but even that seemed a tad obvious. I'll leave this a short one. Word to your mother.

Too Weak to Week Two.

New News. Apart from being absolutely delightful to say, was inexhaustibly interesting. The lecture formed within me, an ultimatum that I can't seem to solve. First: I like to use the internet and I know how useful it is to be able to get my news online but Second: I love the newspaper. I think it's something, like the dinosaurs, that we shouldn't let die out. Newspapers are such a versatile item, for consuming media and news, but also for wrapping fish and chips. Not only that but I would hate to sit down for breakfast and sip on my coffee with an iPad, or at a computer - it's just not gentlemanly. On a digressional note, I found the most wonderful newspaper from 1956 in my school's costume cupboard for the drama department. The articles were so amazingly sincere and cute, it was difficult to read without swelling from nostalgia of a time gone that I never even had a part of. Even the advertising was so innocent. I just don't think we'll get that from the internet.
"Hey do you remember that time, when there was that meme on the internet, and everyone thought it was funny?" - The Future
Nah... it just doesn't seem plausible. Even with these shifts in "Web Iterations". I found the idea of Web 3.0 intriguing, but quite scary at the same time. I want to see the whole range of news items, and pick the ones I want - not have the ones I want to see shoved down my throat and forget the rest. Especially not when it's chosen by a computer that bases it's exclusion because of my internet history. I like to mix things up.

Now the other big point of this lecture: Jelly Beans. Yes, just... yes. Love it. Apparent from being a wonderfully  tasty exercise, this too was an efficient way of getting across the point. I'm not even a huge fan of the sweet palette, but when those Jelly beans were taken away I felt a sense of loss. My rights as a JOUR!111 student have been flouted! I needed them back badly. When the sugar craving section of my brain settled down, it was quite startling that this is actually happening to our news. On one hand, I see why the paywall is necessary, but I always have and always will think of the internet as "The Land of the Free (Stuff)". Another reason, I think newspapers should stick around. If not for us, for our children, and our children's pet dogs. If not the postman, who will man's best friend turn to, to chase? Kony?

Like a poor chef, I'm way out of thyme - so word to your mother.

Mix Master 2000

Like a shitty DJ, I thought I'd take something perfectly fine and mix it up a little bit. I spent a bit of time changing up my background, embedding some pictures. Making my blog the for real deal.

To keep with the theme of mixing it up, today I'd like to share une petite chose that occured to me the other day.
As much as I love telling tales of the happenings inside the wonderfully colourful world of the JOUR11!1 cohort - I thought I would bring to you a much more valid and current  issue (Journalism is about bring the most import issues to the readers, right?). The proverbial wool, ladies and gentlemen (cotton/polyester blend if you're allergic) is being at this very moment (including others) being proverbial pulled over our eyes, making them quite itchy and impeding our vision.
False advertising is something, like bench-seats, that I neither stand on nor stand for. This scam has been going on for a long time and it is about time we rooted this evil from our backyard, because soon we will not be able to make it to our own Hill's Hoist for the abundance of this prolific weed. I'm talking about advertising for gambling, or more accurately - FALSE advertising. Let me recount a little tale:


It was a late Saturday night, the 412 line was packed with boozy men whose pale faces and red noses gave away their full stomachs, sloshing around with each lurch of the unpredictable bus. I try to block out the lady in the candy pink high heels and the "sloppy make-out induced" smudgings of bubblegum lipstick, whose voice rings and resonates and bounces from every metal surface, by looking out the window. I won't bore you with the details of a dark and for the most part an un-seeable scenery, but needless to say, after a brief and predictable chat with a man who wanted some smokes, I got off at the last stop in the city. I looked around, tilted my head back and smelt the night air, the Channel 7 wheel turned hypnotically in the distance and I set off towards Pane e Vino, a quaint little Italian restaurant with poor service but good food and cheap beer. As I walk along George St, I come to the Treasury Casino and see a sign advertising the Casino that looked a little like this:

Now this may innocent enough, but as I got walking, I got thinking and I came to the conclusion that most Casinos advertise themselves such. Upon reflection I became quite outraged, because all these signs show a person winning, and having fun. But you know, that's what happens the least. It's like going into MacDonald's and seeing a man choking on a burger on the sign. It should be a sign more like this:

"Welcome to the Treasury: this is the most likely out come for you."


So I thought I'd get that off my mind just quickly, just to break up the monotony of writing about all these lectures. I'll try not to stray so far, if I do this again.

These are the Lectures that were.

Journalism One One One One, Lecture One.

Choose your hours, they said. It's so much easier than school, they said. Bring your own burritos, they said! University, like a malformed egg - ain't what it's cracked up to be. In fact, like a under nourished duck it ain't what it's quacked up to be. In honesty, like an Apple product it ain't what it's mac'd up to be. Hopefully I can tell you why in the ensuing document.

Lecture One, Day One, Year One, Formula One, Vote One. This is it. I roll over and subconsciously brush the vomit away from my mouth with a red-raw hand, the stench of cheap beer from the Royal Exchange wafts up my nostrils and tickles the hairs hiding there. Neuro-electric signals are fired off in all directions, causing my body to spasm into life. All limbs immediately explode, all boilers burst. The dam-busters just dropped the bomb, the Thunderbirds sent Thunderbirds 1,2,3 and 4 into blast off position all at once. Two miniature deep Arctic explorer abseil down from my brow, they reach the corner of my eyes and swing their ice-axes high above their heads and heave down to crack the brittle layer of vomit that has held my pupils hostage for the few short hours I had managed to lay unconscious in what appears to be my bed. The light thrusting through the windows hits my eyes and the world whites out like a shitty "indie" photo from instagram and...

Welcome back to tonight's episode of Actual Reality. The dream of O-Week at St. John's college is over. It's Uni time. I throw on the clothes closest to me and trundle off to wide open spaces of the University of Queensland. I walk around, pretending I know where I'm going for about 10 minutes. After swaggering around the campus for a while longer, by an act of something divine I come across I sign with shapes, numbers, letters, numbers and letters, Letters and Numbers but most importantly: the wanderer's worst nightmare, the disciple's best friend - a big, fat, red, juicy arrow that merely says "You are here". I devise a system for narrowing down the choices of building I'm meant to be in, "if I walk around in a spiral shape I might have a chance."
I took the spiral shape approach and excelled in it's use. As I became more and more dizzy, I keep checking my watch - hoping I wouldn't be late. We all know what happens when you're late right? School has drilled into me an innate sense of impending doom should I ever dare to flout the bell. The circumference of my journey became smaller and smaller. I could see the last building left on my whirlpool of walking. Just my luck it was the biggest, most central, most obvious building it could ever be in. Building 1. I could smell the Journalism already. Or was that pretentiousness and black coffee from the coffee shop? I couldn't tell, my mind lurched, I was jumping into a void of darkness. I was watching myself walk through corridors from security cameras in the hallway. The avatar dressed as me was heading down, led (seemingly) by an innate knowledge of the location of the lecture like a turtle heading to its birthplace. The figure came to an open door, and was ferried inside by a horde of students, eager to get inside. Everything blacked out. When I woke up I was inside the lecture theatre, my vision blurry and deceiving I looked up at the the projected screen and reached for my pen and notebook (freshly purchased to signify the start of my New Years resolution to be organised). I'd been prepped for this moment since January. Organistion: new books, binder folder, new pens lined in colour code according to frequency of light waves emitted from purple to red. This was it, I reach in to my bag and... shit. Nothing. Probably should have put something in there if I wanted to pull it out at Uni. Oh well, I'll borrow pen and paper from the girl next to me. Damn, she is pretty fine, but focus on the slides. Telling Factual Stories. I like white on her. "Introduction to Journalism and Communication. What is Journalism/Communication? Who are we? Best legs I've ever seen? Legtures and Tutorials. Assessment. Assassment. Harassment? Whoops, this is probably harassment... I'd better stop. Back to the task at hand: the lectures.

As you may or may not have clued on to, I'm not too sure what to write about. Do I just summarise the content? Do I give you my opinions? Do I tell you my highscore on Plants Vs Zombies? Nope, I just checked it - it's what I learnt from the discussions. Well straight off the bat I'll throw a curve ball with my instant reaction: I dislike Twitter, I'm not comfortable with having two Gmail accounts and I don't like Blogger.

To something that is a little more substantial though, here's my thoughts on the first lecture. After an extensive search through the vast expanse that is my room, my notes and the borrowed piece of paper seem to be both missing, all that's left is a summary in my notebook from after the lecture, and from it I shalt recite, for it spake thusly:

"JOUR1111 Lecture: I didn't realise that Journalism was being rocked so hard by the internet and online newspapers. Personally I'd rather read the paper. Out of all the quotes given today, only two struck me as being worth my while: People may expect too much of journalism. Not only do they expect it to be entertaining, they expect it to be true. - Lewis H. Lapham and Journalism is little more than scribbling on the back of advertisements. - Anonymous. Love it. A lot of people in the lecture keep very closely up to date with the news... I probably should start that - I haven't read any form of news since I got to college. I'll catch up on that for next time. Check blackboard for assessment, tutor and timetable details."


And there you have it, my thoughts on the first lecture. I'm sorry for the lack of insight and thoughtful discussion on hard hitting topics, but it seems all I could muster was a vague description of events.

Media Use(less) Blog

As far as Media Use Blogs go, I’m going to have to say that this will be the most useless. Having 9 out of the last fourteen days without internet in my house is quite the blot in the copy book when it comes to my Media Use. However, seeing as though we can’t let such setbacks set us back much so I’ll make the most of the data I have collected.

Let’s start, as I tend to, with comparing myself to others. I’m sure I could go into a big scientific exposition and conduct tests and experiments pertaining to the direct influence that the internet has on the lives of the youth and yadda yadda teen binge drinking yadda yadda Kony 2012 yadda yah. But to quote Oasis, “I’m sure, you’ve heard it all before” so I’ll keep that to a minimum.

            According to the survey, I’m a sheep. A follower. A pedestrian who lives within a very tight mould of a Journalism One One One One student. Apart from being a male, the only difference between me and the majority is my Samsung phone. It’s like we’re all playing Simon Says and everyone wants to win. To take a closer look at this let me put all my puns on the table right now, and serve it up for you.

	Socialising			Uni Work		Entertainment			Reading
	Facebook	Phone	Twitter	Blogging	A.R.I.U	Television	TheChive	Gaming	Internet	Print
Monday 19/3	2	1	0.5	0.5	0	0	0.5	1	0.5	2
Tuesday 20/3	1.5	2.5	0	0	2	0	0.5	0	0.5	1
Wednesday 21/3	1.5	1.5	0	0.5	1	0	1	0	1	1.5
Thursday 22/3	2	2	0	0	3	0	1	0	0	0
Friday 23/3	3	1.5	0	0	2	0	1	1	0	0.5
Saturday 24/3	3.5	2.5	0	0	0	0	0.5	1.5	0.5	1
Sunday 25/3	2	3	0	0	0	1	0.5	0	0	0.5
Monday 26/3	1.5	2	0	0	2	0	1	1	0	1
Tuesday 27/3	2	1.5	0	0	1	0	0.5	1.5	0	0.5
Wednesday 28/3	2.5	2	0	0	1	0	0.5	0	0.5	0.5
Total	Facebook	Phone	Twitter	Blogging	A.R.I.U	Television	TheChive	Gaming	I.R.	Print
1	21.5	19.5	0.5	1	12	1	7	6	3	8.5

*Here are some quick administrivia points about the table. For the sake of nice numbers I’ve rounded everything to the nearest half an hour. A.R.I.U: whilst it sounds very official, merely stands for Academic Related Internet Use.

I assume you skimmed over that, so let’s take a look at a graph because everyone loves a good graugh.

One equivalent that can be drawn between the lines of my media use and the survey is that my internet use is just a little bit higher than average; for example on the fourth day of media use my true love gave to me 6 hours of internet use (about twice the amount your average Journalism student would use).

As seen on the graph I don’t watch a lot of television, I don’t tweet and I try not to blog (don’t worry I’m writing about my lectures still) but I do try to read at least half an hour a night, be it books, articles on the internet or very rarely print media. I follow the Chive fairly religiously but the biggest eater of my time is most obviously Facebook. I couldn’t tell you why, but I am obsessed with checking out what Sarah wore on Saturday, or what Eric thinks about Tammy’s break up. Again I fit right in, with 91% of the course also professing their obsessing with FB.

There is just so potential analysis yet so little space to do it in! It’s a bit frustrating, but like a Scrabble player with no vowels I’m out of words. I hope you found this insightful and interesting rather than repetitive and regurgitative.