I have locked in the dates mentioned in the Lectorial about the studios and they honestly sound very exciting. I originally went into this course to focus solely on filmmaking and editing but the course is Media not film, and at first I was rolling my eyes at the lectures on Media affordances, and social media.

That part of my mind is reserved for people who are really good at curating their Instagrams, and if you’ve seen my gram, you will understand why I’ve ruled myself out of social media. It’s a hot mess.

Yet the further we explored through media as an online institution, the places and spaces and the materialism and flexibility media can have, or not have, was fascinating. I think in the studios I might try to stray from film and TV and hopefully make something that will set me up as an online media practitioner.
I hope I get to do something like Miranda July’s app Somebody. An app where strangers were asked to deliver messages between friends rather than messaging online. It brought a physical side to messaging again. 

It’s interesting to think how each medium has different characteristics that make it distinct; physically, socially, psychologically. Books are intimate, and one of the few experiences we can have alone. It’s so much less likely that someone has read the same book as you compared to watching the same tv show or movie. I think it’s really special talking about a book with someone who has also read it, because it’s so rare. You immerse yourself in a text, which you use your own imagery to illustrate and then it ends. It’s a pretty unique experience.
Not to sound too pretentious.

It touches on media languages; the expectations of a medium we have, and the way we read it. To use TV as an example’ we understand it’s l;languages through time; how long the ads run for, spaces between ad breaks, cliff hangers, closure, lounge rooms, laptops, alone or with family. etc. These aren’t only languages but media environments. Ways to describe and create experiences.

Interesting questions raised in the lecture discussed historical texts for prediction of the future. These were;
how does technology rewrite the history
how does it change ourselves?

I believe the history of a medium form does not go from one technology to the other for no reason other than an advance.  Its the social and cultural history that motivates innovation. After the invention of the telephone social patterns were disrupted. Each time we lose a social capacity to an invention, we gain one with eh next technological advance in it’s area.

We briefly touched on the crossing of class values, exclusivity, accessibility of technology. An example was the digital divide in the 90s which defined who has access to information, who is left behind. By leaving behind poorer people with low technical infrastructure we create another social education class. This furthers into the political gearing behind technology and the ways it defines our world. but thats a topic for another day.

picture via Sunshine Coast Daily.

Earlier in the year, we were suggested to write a blog post on the nationalistic narratives surrounding ANZAC day. The first thought that popped into my head was a reference to ex-SBS reporter Scott Mcintyre’s controversial tweets from 2015 ‘disrespecting’ the honour of the ANZAC tribute.

I didn’t want to comment an opinion, this is my professional blog and from McIntyre’s prompt dismissal from SBS, I would hate to have my professional record tainted in the same way. However, rather than discussing the content of the tweets, I will discuss the ways in which McIntyre was expelled from an institution for not sharing the same values.

The SBS has long been a left leaning corporation being the forefront for Australia’s World news. However, this political alignment did not lean far enough to support McIntyre’s attack on one of the nation’s most patriotic and well-revered days of respect, leading him to be sacked. This is an example of a member of collectivist, institutional thought pushing his individualism and ultimately tainting the company’s brand.

SBS’s statement read:
“Mr McIntyre’s actions have breached the SBS Code of Conduct and social media policy and as a result…SBS apologises for any offence or harm caused by Mr McIntyre’s comments which in no way reflect the views of the network.”

As this did not reflect their views, SBS stated that McIntyre did not represent the shared values of the institution he was working for and breached his Code of Conduct as a member of their staff. Their sacking was then an expression of an institution’s need to regulate and structure the brand identity of the network.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/ww1/sbs-presenter-scott-mcintyre-sacked-over-inappropriate-anzac-day-tweets-20150426-1mtbx8.html#ixzz48my9puLV

Our PB4 topic discusses audiences. From the texts given to us through readings, discussion and research, most discourse surrounding texts discuss the power shift between media makers and the audience. “The People Formerly Known as The Audience” provides metaphors surrounding the accessibility and circulation of DIY media, home production and low budget User Generated Content.

Our group aims to look at interactive relations between tv and audiences, in particular Q&A (I’m not obsessed with Q&A, I know I bring it up a lot). This show operates on two levels of audience interaction; the questions from the audience members to the panel, and the live tweets from the viewers at home. Live interaction with TV is a driving force and one of the last remaining traits that acquires viewership in scheduled free to air television.

Another concept we will explore is audience boycotting of television or movie series. I am a vocal LGBT activist and my interest of media and my interests in activism often blend and I’m constantly arguing for better representation of minorities in film and tv. Too many times have I seen films boycotted due to their lack of representation, their white-washing or total reconstruction of LGBT narratives which has shaped our community. (Notable examples: The Danish Girl, Stonewall, The 1OO etc.)
The audience choice to boycott these texts cut their revenue in half and in turn, destroyed the reputation of all involved. This is the power shift the combined mind of the audience can have over media.

However in equal parts, we want to address media ownership, the power big businesses have over what we consume and the lack of control we have especially in Australia. Media ownership, censorship and coverage are topics we will define and hopefully make a statement on.

(I am trying to submit shorter posts more frequently here)

In John Mason’s reading The Discipline of Noticing, which was assigned this week, he provided us with brief exercises to undertake to increase our perception and ability to record. I believe that recording is the hardest part of noticing.

His suggestions such as notice the moon, or the temperature of the room, say I as you walk through a doorway etc are ideas that I will under take willingly. I believe it is important, especially as media makers to break away from “screen time” or even just media time (including non digital media)  and let the world provide substance. Sometimes I feel as though I am always just waiting for something to entertain and engage me. Music as I walk to the station, my phone on the train, listening and watching a lecture, my laptop and notes, music as I study, textbooks, readings etc.
It might just be me but sometimes I need to break away from taking in media. So to keep engaged and entertained I will be doing these exercises.\

My last observation from this reading was that I am already, unwittingly participating in recording! I keep a list on my phone of locations I think would be nice to shoot/photograph, story ideas that are inspired by things happening to me. Here’s my list of locations around Melbourne: