Category Archives: Symposium

0=0 Neutrality and the weekly stalk

Posted on by under Readings, Stalking, Symposium

 

basic1-119_smiley_neutral-512

This weeks symposium and tutorial looked at the idea of neutrality. This term, one I thought I once understood, was quickly flipped and manipulated into a new sphere of confusion and over analysis.

It raised the question, is anything considered neutral?

So back to basics, what does the term neutral even mean? Michael  thinks that neutrality is the idea that something would have no influence on anything else. Evan also makes a good point and feels that the closest he can get to thinking of something neutral is binary opposition, such as light vs dark. Without having darkness, we cannot understand light, and vice versa. I think this is an interesting way of looking at neutrality.

Both Michael and myself agree with  Angus’ point as he explains that ‘it is pointless for someone to find something neutral because if that someone can reference it in some way, it is not neutral.’

Michael closes by making a good point that he is not sure that anything can be neutral. Even becoming aware of something occurring creates a chain reaction of though within one’s mind. Although it may not have direct relevance to you, it is still influencing you.

Good job Michael, you totally hit the nail on the head 😉

Symposium

Posted on by under Symposium

 

ipadClassroom

This weeks symposium merged into the land of education and in particular VCE. The point was raised about what we really learnt and retained from our high school life. Ellen wrote an interesting blog post about some statistics she found on this article which states that medical students forget 25-35% of basic science knowledge after just one year, and have forgotten up to 80% in 25 years.

I must admit that I completely agree with this research and to a degree think I would have lost more than 35% of my learnt knowledge after my first year out of high school. I’m the sort of student that can walk out of an exam (and ace it) only to forget everything by the next day.

It’s interesting to think about how we are taught and if these methods are working in todays technologically advanced society.

With more and more schools investing in ‘learning technologies’ such as iPads and laptops it will be interesting to see if these statistics will change throughout the school life of these ‘tech savy’ kids that today’s schooling system is pushing out.

If studies such as this one by National Geographic and this one are anything to go by then iPads and other new technologies seem to be the only way to go.

 

The Propaganda Model- Now who do we trust?

Posted on by under Random, Symposium

Censorship

As briefly discussed in my early blog post the propaganda model tries to explain media behavior by looking at certain pressures that influence and limit news content.

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky first introduced the model in 1988 in their book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

The propaganda model argues that news passes through five filters before the population sees or reads about it. These filters control what events are deemed ‘newsworthy’, how they are covered, where they are placed within the media and how much coverage they receive.

In today’s climate of online news I find it interesting to see how this model has changed and if it still applies today. It gives another interesting perspective on the question are online media sources less trustworthy, or has the news always been untrustworthy? Sorry once again for my cynicism, I really need to be more of a glass half full person.

These are the five filters:

1. Ownership

Concentrated ownership (think Rupert Murdoch in Australia) of mass media firms share common interests with other sectors of the economy, and therefore have a real stake in maintaining an economic and political climate that is favorable to their profitability. They are unlikely to be critical of policies that directly benefit them. Therefore these money hungry media owners (aka Rupert) click their fingers and anything that is not conducive to them and their money making ventures will not appear in their publications.

2. Funding/ Advertising

Advertising is a primary source of funds for media outlets. It would be against the interests of these news outlets to produce content that might provoke advertisers. For example if a large company, that has an advertising contract with a certain media company, does something that would usually be considered ‘newsworthy’ (for example an oil spill), it may not be covered by news sources at the risk of losing the advertising contract and the consequential funding.

3. Sourcing

This refers to a reliance on information provided by “expert” and official sources. Elites, such as business leaders, politicians and government officials are typically viewed as credible and unbiased sources of information. This pool of reliable sources are often needed for news stories and to report something negative that would affect these sources would be to risk losing them as an ally.

4. Flak

Flak refers to negative commentary to a news story that can work to police and discipline journalists or news organizations that stray too far outside the consensus. Flak includes complaints, lawsuits, petitions or government sanctions.

5. Anti-communism and Fear

This filter calls to the public’s need of an external enemy or threat. Although called anti-communism, this filter still applies today, especially since the events of 9/11 and consequential war on terror. This filter directs the population against a common enemy, for example terrorism, while demonizing adversaries of state policy as unpatriotic or as being ‘in bed’ with the enemy.

This model really confuses my opinion on trustworthy news sources. In my previous blog I had come to the conclusion that we can’t trust anything that we read on the Internet as any Joe Blogs can write something and call it ‘news’. Now I feel as though I can’t trust anything we read in mainstream mass media, thank god for the era of the blogger.

So I’m once again signing off my blog as being confused. University is once again hurting my brain.

Internet and trust. The “it’s complicated” relationship.

Posted on by under Symposium
During this weeks symposium the question was raised about how can we truly judge the validity of things we read on the Internet?
Kony-2012
For me this is an interesting point. I am the first to admit I scan my Facebook or Twitter feed as my primary news source. Often being dragged in by sites such as Gawker and Buzzfeed (the epitome of ‘non-news news’, aka trashy gossip). With tag lines such as “today’s gossip, tomorrow’s news” I really should look elsewhere. But there is just something about articles titled Woman Arrested For Smuggling Cocaine in Her Fake Boobs and Woman Cited for Climbing into Giraffe Pen, Getting Kicked in the Face that really drag me in.

As a typical Gen Y, I am easily bored. Sites such as these amuse me. Simple. But just how trustworthy a news source are they? I have absolutely no idea. And this is the worrying fact.

Today more and more people turn to online news. They want the news, they want it quick and it needs to be entertaining. These sites, call them gossip, call them news, it doesn’t matter, they simply cater to the growing needs of the consumer. They generate ‘polls’ and articles at an astonishing rate, pumping out masses of text hourly. With the consumer constantly demanding the most up to date news at all times, can we hardly blame them for publishing the odd lie or ’embellishment’ to make a viral article or make it on to a ‘trending now’ list?

To push this idea further Adrian asked how can we trust the validity of anything anyone says? Most large news sources today are censored to a degree. In fact, it could be true to argue that everything we read is tainted. Either by the views of government, business or an individual. It’s difficult to truly believe that any transparent news source exists today. Call me cynical, but even in the content that we choose to write or not write is considered a form of censorship.

An interesting theory, called the Propaganda Model  looks at this idea of media censorship in more depth. The model attempts to explain how people are manipulated by the press through five different filters.

During the symposium Adrian asked the panel about how they judge the validity of news. Some common answers were ‘how many people are saying it’, ‘what platform is it on’ and ‘who’s writing it’. I would agree with these, as I also use similar filters.

It was then interesting when Betty mentioned KONY2012. This campaign was viewed on Youtube over 99 million times and endorsed by celebrities, journalists and even some of my closest friends. Surely I can trust them? Major news sources covered the viral sensation and KONY2012 stickers began appearing in my local area. Yet the whole campaign was proven to be untrue and largely out of date and exaggerated.

So it really does come back to the point, how can we trust anything we read?

Symposium, enjoyable?

Posted on by under Symposium

creativecommons

 

This weeks symposium was focussed around three main questions based on this weeks readings.

I found the whole Q&A style, aka the non-lecture, to be an informative and interesting way of conveying information. The deconstruction of the traditional form of a lecture really allowed for a more two-way communication, ultimately I found the symposium to be enjoyable! I know, not the normal describing word associated with the idea of a university ‘lecture’.

Through answering and exploring the three main questions, Adrian assisted my understanding of copyright laws, although I must admit that I am now 100% more terrified that I will break these laws throughout my career. I guess sometimes ignorance is bliss.

We discussed the idea of critiquing the work of others, giving an almost green light, in the eyes of copyright law. This was an interesting point and as long as we can back up our opinions with reliable information, we should be covered.

I was interested to hear that copyright infringements are often not followed up as copyright laws fall under civil law. It’s therefore often not worth the time and money to follow up these infringements.

Overall, a very interesting symposium. I hope this style of ‘lecturing’ becomes more widespread throughout the university, hopefully sometime before I graduate.

 

Skip to toolbar