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.