In week 1, we were asked to reflect on the things we wanted to achieve by the end of the course. I said:

1. Find something within the media industry that you are passionate about and can do as a career. So far, I’ve not made a lot of progress on this point. But I have discovered what I am not passionate about, which is a definite step in the right direction.
2. Learn practical skills related to film making. I don’t feel like I have significantly improved my practical skills. The videos I produce still look very amateurish, especially in the sound department. I did realise, however, that my interest lies more in the theory and creative planning behind filmmaking. I think I’d be happier as a storyboard artist vs a sound recorder, for example.
3. Be better at writing for a public audience. I’ve definitely improved on this. I remember it took me ages to write my first blog post, and now I smash them out.
4. Graduate with a positive outlook to the future and my place within the future. Plenty of time left to work on this one.
5. Learn how to pitch an idea to someone. Again, not much has changed. I may be confident in writing, but verbally I stumble on my words.

I decided to try this exercise again, but with more of a general focus rather than just regarding this course. I realise that improving my handwriting should have been one of them, but that will probably never happen.

France has just passed a law that forbids companies of 50 people or more from sending emails after work hours. Dubbed the “right to disconnect” amendment, the law is based on ideas that the work day is becoming too stressful, and due to technology and the Internet, this stress is no longer left behind at the office once employees go home.

I know for a fact that I have trouble “switching off.” My phone is the first thing I see in the morning, the last thing I see at night – I even take it to the toilet. And don’t lie to me, I know you do it too. I hate not having any notifications, but when I do, I don’t feel like dealing with them.

A question to consider is, are we more stressed because we have more to do, or are we simply too inefficient at doing the work we have because we’re constantly distracted by technology? I’ve checked my phone 3 times already whilst writing this post.

I think that the “always on” nature of how we live in the 21^st century has definitely affect us in some way. However, it is too soon to tell whether this has significantly affected our productivity or stress levels for better or for worse.

McCluhan is an important figure in 20^th century media theory, who is best known for coining the term ‘the medium is the message.’ Brian, in the Lectorial, described his writing as ‘associative,’ jumping from idea to idea. So, as he’s deemed to be an influential media theorist, I decided to watch one of his lectures to see what he’s all about.

The introducer of the lecture interestingly, and almost presciently,  mentions that 21st century academics will look back on Mcluhan’s statement ‘the medium is the message’  and view it was provocative and outrageous. Certainly, it is a loaded statement to unpack, but I do see its relevance to modern understanding and theories about the media.

Mcluhan states in the lecture, as an example “what you print is nothing compared to the effect of the printed word.” We know that the printing press revolutionised communication, and so did the advent of the telephone, television, and the internet. These technologies and mediums have shown to have significant effect on society and the way we communicate. I can therefore accept this part of Mcluhan’s argument: mediums are powerful, and capable of sending messages.

However, I’m hesitant to agree with Mcluhan on his argument that, for example, TV is the message, and the ‘affect of the program is incidental.’ Maybe TV sends a message, but the program determines the kind of message the medium is sending out. A blank canvas is void of meaning until a painter creates an artwork on it.

I did like that he described TV as a ‘popular folk art.’ If he was around today, I think that he would also give this term to the content people are able to produce with social media, like blogs and vlogs. They are perhaps even more folk art than TV – created by the people, for the people.

Photo credit: ABC

Ah, Q&A. Always delivering the goods.

Tony Abbott has declared ‘heads should roll’ over the scandal that involved Zaky Mallah, who was acquitted of terrorism offences, putting questions to MP Steve Ciobo. Q&A has previously been in hot water over airing  a tweet of someone with a rather lewd Twitter handle.

The panel discussion show which airs on ABC, features two interactive components: the live audience, and live Tweets from audiences watching at home which appear on the screen. This format allows for some interesting discussion and feedback, but it is also risky for the ABC. Live audiences are uncontrollable, and nor (at least they claimed) do they have control over the user names of the Tweeters who appear on screen. The ABC, as an institution, is able to curate the guests in their audience, the comments that appear on the screen, but they can’t control what questions are posed by their guests, and how the interviewees may respond.

Whether you believe it was a mistake to invite Zaky Malik to question Ciobo or not, this remains an interesting example of the times when institutions are able to exert power, and where they can lose control.

First, let’s take a look at what a trigger warning is. According to Urbandictionary.com, a trigger warning is a phrase posted at the beginning of posts, articles or blogs, that signals that the following content may be offensive or upsetting. Sounds reasonable, right? After all, similar warnings exist in broadcast media, such as on news broadcasts if they are about to show upsetting footage.

It’s also not dissimilar to the rating system, which informs consumers and audiences about media content. Someone who is upset by violence can choose not to watch a film that is rated MA 15+ and advises that it contains violence. Similarly, in class today, our lecturer warned us that a video he was about to show touched on suicide and mental illness, and that we could choose to leave the room and not watch the video if we might find it upsetting.

All of this seems perfectly reasonable, right? Then why have these ‘trigger warnings’ caused so many people to take up arms? The example phrase on urbandictionary.com is undeniably bitter: “Trigger warning: If you think this phrase needs to be posted before politically incorrect opinions, you don’t belong on the internets.”

It’s tempting to comment on the validity of the opinion of someone who refers to the Internet as ‘the internets’, but instead, let’s take a closer look at why people are so upset. A recent occurrence in American universities and colleges has been the attempt to get it of anything that may cause offence, ranging from banning certain phrases, to literature. Students are even demanding trigger warnings for F Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby because it contains misogyny and physical abuse.

However, as G Lukianoff and J Haidt from The Atlantic purport: “ According to the most-basic tenets of psychology, the very idea of helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided.” They argue that it is good for students with PTSD to gain exposure to these negative associations, especially in safe places such as classroom discussions.

As somebody fortunate enough to have not suffered any significant traumatic experiences, I can’t really give an opinion on whether trigger warnings are necessary or not. But, for what it’s worth, I do believe that it’s impossible and unethical to try and remove and ban all things that have a chance of offending someone. We do not live in an offense-free world, and part of life is to learn to live with this fact.

Sources:

Lukianoff, G,  Haidt, J. ‘The Coddling of the American Mind.’ (2015) The Atlantic. Link

www.urbandictionary.com

Source

I was in the elevator in building 80 the other day, and noticed that 7 out of the 12 people in the elevator were wearing Nike shoes (myself included, I must admit.)  Today’s Lectorial reminded me of this incident. Nike is an institution: it is enduring, has a certain status, is collectivist, and promotes certain values that its employees and fans alike share. Most important of all, however, is its brand. The famous ‘just do it’ line and the Nike ‘tick’ are almost ubiquitous today.

Nike’s brand, though rooted in sports, has become part of popular culture. It is perhaps more important than the actual products it produces, as many consumers are drawn to the brand due to the lifestyle it promotes. Through its partnerships with athletes, Nike has managed to stay relevant through the years.

I think ‘sneaker culture’ has had somewhat of a surge in popularity throughout the last few years, becoming fashionable for not only men but also women – so, hurray for comfy footwear equality.

Ladies rejoice. Source

Credit/Source: Arcadia Missa/Amalia Ulman

Amalia Ulman, an Argentinian artist, posted a series of photos on her Instagram account in 2014, mostly selfies taken on her phone, that appeared to chronicle her life. She posted about pole dancing classes, having breast surgery, breaking up with her boyfriend and becoming a ‘sugar baby’ to make ends meet. She received criticism from her peers – who believed it all. However, these posts were all part of an art project playing on stereotypes of women online. She had manipulated her followers into believing this fake life.

This is an interesting case that demonstrates how audiences can be easily manipulated through online media. Despite post-broadcast theories regarding active audiences, who are supposed to be critical of media texts, Ulman’s followers easily believed her posts to be the truth.

We discussed in the workshops today some of the cons of social media and the internet. Whilst this means of communication can be instantly gratifying and spread quickly, it is perhaps not as reliable as more traditional media produced by institutions who have to abide by codes of practice. Most audiences who are communicating via social media have no such liability, and it is therefore easy to spread misinformation.

“The idea was to experiment with fiction online using the language of the internet,” said Ulman about the project.

According to this article on cordcutting.com, 75% of Netflix’s user base believes this to be true.

If anything is a good example of changes in how audiences in the post-broadcast era consume media, this statistic is. The idea of a ‘mass audience’, i.e. families gathering on the living room couch at 7:30 to watch a certain program, is outdated. Modern audiences are engaged and have agency, a long way from the ‘passive’ audience theories of the early 20th century.

Interestingly, however, is that the same article also cites that 67% of respondents don’t believe that Netflix can replace movie theatres.  In the Internet age of convenience, multi-tasking and distracting, going to the movies is one of the last few truly immersive experiences. Unless, of course, the person in front of you is on their phone the entire time. So, whilst there have been significant changes in how audiences consume media, certain more traditional ways of consuming media are still cherished.