Communication techniques and responsibilities

• Facebook group
• Post any articles that will help for the project brief
• If a team member is struggling they should feel comfortable approaching other members in the group for help.
• If any members feel as though they have more responsibility than others, it can be discussed and sorted accordingly.
• If a group member is unable to go to a tutorial or lectorial other members will be willing to share notes and information that was missed.

 Meeting times/places/dates

• Monday 11:30 after cinema screening – group members will meet up and go through work that is completed and plan to complete pending work.
• Meet at RMIT – easy for everyone to meet.
• Make sure other meeting times can be arranged if there are more urgent issues.

Meeting procedure

• Meeting on Monday allows the group to plan for the upcoming week.
• Make sure everyone has an equal say within the meeting
• Arrange what will be addressed prior to meeting for efficient time use.
• Allow room at the end of the meeting to clarify or explain ideas.
• Any work that has been completed should be read and critiqued between members before submission.

Individual roles and responsibilities

Bridgette: writing primary – most comfortable with text.

Corey: Editing primary – confident with editing software.

Sherry: Storyboard cinematography – confident with technology.

Social opportunities

• Meetings will take place in a social environment i.e. Café.
• Meetings will not be overly formal – to allow for easy and comfortable communication.

After our first group meeting it became apparent that everyone in the group seems very willing to pull their weight to ensure the best possible outcome for this project. Everyone is very active in the Facebook group and is excited to share their work and ideas. When writing the contract we divided the points of the contract up so we could all bring our own ideas and also ensure that the contract was written as efficiently as possible.

‘Googling’ is a phenomenon with which we are all familiar. Whether to settle a debate amongst friends, validate facts or just to define an unfamiliar word, it is often our first port of call. Google allows us to find an instant answer, and often it is taken as gospel; however there are disparities between the outcome and Google’s own intent. Although Google’s main function is to find answers, it is during this quest that many are misled, often by others’ bias, incorrect facts and false recounts of events.  Although this could, and in many ways is, an argument regarding the Internet as a whole, Google, for lack of better word, ‘drives’ it.

‘Google’s mission is to organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,’ in other words, theoretically make the world smaller with access to knowledge. Information, although it predominately evokes positive connotations, is an incredibly ambiguous term. Incorrect information has the ability to spread prejudices, creating a bigger social divide within different demographics and cultures: an almost polarised outcome to Google’s intent.

The spread of counterfactual information is definitely not only of this generation, however.  The Guttenberg Bible (1455) was the first major book printed in the West using movable type. It was the invention of mechanical movable type printing that led to a vast increase of publication across Europe.  Such an increase in print led to an immense amount of publications that were either factually or politically incorrect: spreading inaccuracies and falsehoods and so the same is happening again.

The sheer amount of publications in the World Wide Web is astronomically vast and complex, so knowing first, if the article you are reading is valid but also secondly, is it a scholarly publication is a near insurmountable task without resources like the RMIT Library. Prior to this lecture I had the littlest idea of how complex and helpful the online library can be for any students, but particularly for media students. One may say that this particular lecture was dry, and perhaps it was, but it did, however explain the way the online library works and how incredibly imperative it is to understand this tool and use it in upcoming projects, particularly the group collaborative project. The idea that you have an amazing amount of publications and articles literally at your fingers is an amazing resource, one that I will truly utilise in the upcoming project brief, in which one of the required task is an annotated bibliography. An annotated bibliography requires one to research a chosen topic using scholarly resources and then surmise the piece of writing. Without tools like the online library this feat will be far more challenging.

The process used to critique and evaluate peers work is easily broken down into a simple colour system:

Yellow: positive view – things that worked well for the project brief.

Red: Initial feeling, or gut reaction

Black: Something that didn’t work.

Green: alternative ideas sparked by the brief.

The feedback I received from my peers was overall positive. It seemed what they particularly liked about my video was how I was able to give it a creepy vibe, which was what I intended. Further, I was complemented on my use of found footage, feeling as though it complemented the aesthetics and theme of the video, whilst offering a deeper interpretation of my subject. Straying away from my norm of using text, and instead, using voice over to convey messages and offer explanation was also complemented by my classmates. This, to me, was very important, as it is one area I am very uncomfortable in and having it acknowledged was very reassuring.

Areas my peers critique me on were possibly not exploring some points of the video to the best of my ability. Some images and footage where offered with little to no background of explanation and perhaps I could have expanded on these areas to offer a more dynamic exploration of my subject, Jes. Although my peers did not give me ‘black feedback’, possibly too worried about hurt feelings, I gathered from the comments made that I could have explored some images further as I did not offer deep enough explanation of them, therefore leaving some audience members confused.

As a whole, I am happy with my project brief. I was able to explore more creative concepts then previously, challenging myself and learning from my experience; overall a positive outcome.