The Theatre of the Mind (Lecture 5)

"Radio is the theatre of the mind. Television is the theatre of the mindless." - Steve Allen

The fifth lecture, lasting exactly 31 minutes and 32 seconds if you don't count all the sporadic times I paused to type like crazy, focused on broadcast journalism. Specifically, we looked at factual storytelling over the radio. Certainly, radiojournalism is not as simple as mindless conversation. As a radio presenter is heard but not seen, the voice means absolutely everything. Your listeners are called listeners for a very obvious reason. As a result of this, silence is very powerful in the radio. This is less the case with television, primarily due to the fact that there is still a visual aid during silence on the screen. With radio, "silence" refers to a complete visual and audio blackout. You're left with nothing but thought, and that's a pretty powerful thing.

Television and radio, although both contained by the overarching category of "broadcast media", are very different mediums. Radio is a very intimate medium, and unlike in television, audiences want to be included, in a sense, to the conversation. Radio presenters are more facilitators than anything else; the conversation is more centrally between the interviewee and the radio audience. As a radio presenter, you keep the conversation rolling and keep the audience on the same track. In a way, a radio presenter is more an "avatar" of the audience; if the presenter is not keenly interested and engaging in the conversation, it is highly unlikely that the actual audience will be paying much attention, either. It must be noted that with radio, listeners are more than likely to be doing something else. They might be walking the dog or driving to work. Essentially, they are doing things that most people do not do when watching television. This makes it very easy for listeners to figure out when a presenter is being dishonest. There is no visual distraction.

This audio lecture really sunk in the importance of trust in a radio interview. The idea of a "magical moment" was brought up; a moment where an interviewee has developed enough trust for the interviewer that they almost seem to forget they're even in an interview. In this moment, people reveal very personal things about themselves. Good radio stories thrive on human experience, and so to me, this seems to be the ultimate tip of the hat to a radio presenter. If you've managed to gain someone's trust within only a few minutes of conversation, with knowing that other people are listening in, you must be a fantastic reporter.

Personal robots? Give M.I.T. about five years.

Image Source: justincaseyouwerewondering.com

It's pretty obvious these days that the average human being is a tad lazy. That's not a complete generalisation, either. After all, mankind has spent millenia attempting to make daily activities easier and less strenuous. Cavemen didn't exactly stop by the local butcher whenever they had a hankering for a juicy steak; they had to get it themselves. The dream of having a piece of machinery wash the dishes and paint the ceiling has been stuck in our heads for quite some time. You may even argue that robots are the ultimate epitome of human laziness; why do anything if you can  get somebody else to do it free of charge?

Reportedly, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have finally put a deadline on the time until this dream becomes a reality. A five-year long research project costing around $10,000,000 has recently started at the institute, with the established endgame of "bringing the power of robots to the average person". There's the supposed deadline: five years. So, around 2017, this gives the idea that you'll see people walking around the local supermarket with their own R2-D2 and C-3PO droids. Star Wars references aside, you have to admit that sounds pretty cool. But is it really realistic at this point? When you picture a "futuristic" world with robots, teleportation and flying vehicles, it's doubtful you'd associate the year 2017 with it all. Fiction in particular places substantial emphasis on that.

Image Source: news.com.au

Now, surely, you're thinking that picking up a $50 robot on sale at K-Mart isn't something you'll be able to do in only five years. Realistically, you'd be completely correct. With all the ridiculously experiment materials and technologies it takes to build an operational, mobile robot at this stage, you'd be more than likely to choose to buy a fancy beachside mansion instead. Allegedly, another major aim of this costly project is to find new means of manufacturing these robots. Essentially, the final goal and primary aim is  to make higher quality robots from lower quality materials. Clearly, that's easier said than done. The solution? Automated production of devices from paper and plastics. That may sound good on paper, but that clearly ignores the fact that the production of machines to fashion robotic devices from paper and plastics also needs consideration. Maybe we can fashion these machines from paper and plastics too! Not unless we want an infinite loop of machines created from paper and plastics creating subsequent machines out of paper and plastics as well.

The True Value of a Picture (Lecture 4)

After some routine housekeeping, the Doc got straight into the fourth installment in the JOUR1111 lecture series. The primary focus this time was on photography. Before I get started on my thorough, yet mildly humourous lecture analysis, I must give a nice insight into the value of an image. A few sources online gave me mixed results.

1 picture = 1000 words

1 picture = 84.1 words

1 picture = 10 megapixels

1 picture = 12 million downloads

1 picture = $50

All right, fine. I concede. Most of those are just completely random and meaningless. Some of them aren't even about pictures! These just serve to prove that a picture really can't have a value, per se. Two different people can look at the same picture and see it in a completely unique way. Most importantly, a picture can convey meaning. It may even be capable of telling a whole story to those who see it. In this way, pictures are vital to a good journalism story. This is what photojournalism involves; capturing a single moment that, in itself, contains exactly what the story is about. It's all about capturing "the moment", which some journalists will fly around the world to try and achieve. "The moment" is, in a sense, that single hit-or-miss opportunity that encapsulates the perfect vision of one's story. Photojournalists don't just want that, however; a good image has to have perfect framework, focus, angle, point of view, lighting and timing (shutter speed). That's not easy to do, but it really pays off when it hits the mark. Below are a collection of images I found that I feel brilliantly demonstrate these qualities that make a brilliant journalistic photograph.

Image Source: prisonphotography.wordpress.com

This photo is exemplary as an example of "capturing the moment". This is really not a shot you can get without an almost unnatural stroke of luck.

 Image Source: timporter.com

 Image Source: blog.photoshelter.com

Image Source: msubretort.org

This photo really captures a great solemnity. The raw emotion of this shot helps explain a great deal about the obvious story focus of war.

Another aspect of this lecture that really had me intrigued was the concept of fauxtography. What exactly is fauxtography? Essentially, it's fraudulent photography; photographs that aren't "real". This can be caused by a variety of things, ranging from simple "photoshopping" of an image to actually staging photographs for public use. A particularly thought-evoking example of this was shown in the lecture.

"No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted."

It's really quite difficult to attempt to find out the original source of this sort of editing. After all, this video makes it clear that there is indeed a solid definition of beauty out there. That said, it also conveys the message that the easiest way to replicate this definition of beauty, for whatever purpose, is literally to edit somebody into it. Evidently, it's more difficult to find somebody who fits the mould of beauty than it is to "make" somebody fit into the mould. Given how obvious that is, where did this interpretation of beauty start out? No matter the answer, an individual's beauty is determined by society. Society is not the source; it's the enforcer.

There's Text Everywhere! (Lecture 3)

The third episode of the first season of the smash hit series Introduction to Journalism and Communication was really very interesting. Guest lecturer Skye Doherty made an appearance to give us all a rundown on text. We looked into what text specifically is, and how crucial it is to the role of the journalist. "Crucial" is prbably an understatement, really. Text is not just the bread and butter of the journalistic craft; it's the entire sandwich, complete with lettuce, cheese, tomato, bacon, and whatever else makes a sandwich good. That is, of course, the most useless metaphor in history, but it establishes just how important text is. Text is not just the article itself; in journalistic terms, text is any and all blogs, emails, Facebook updates, tweets, hypertext, metadata, headlines, standfirst (the line of text directly following the headline that further explains the story), captions, pull quotes... you get the drift. A journalist does need to have mastered the art of the written word. If there was any simply means of describing this lecture, it is that text is in absolutely everything that a journalist does.

"Text is fast, flexible, complete control, portable, searchable and online dominating."

Yes, these are the words of Skye Doherty. Gone are the days where text was simply the very words I am typing. Being able to punctuate a sentence does not equate to having a firm grasp of text. I was informed that writing is craft, and therefore the only real way you can master text is through practice. I understand that this is particularly accurate for headline writing. It's no where near as simple as one would assume. It turns out that one may have to write upwards of three different headlines for one story nowadays because news has a very large audience to appeal to. People picking up the paper in the morning want to see something catchy, maybe even humourous and pun-ridden. People searching online, however, are never going to be able to find an ambiguously titled story, no matter how darn funny it is. Keywords are necessary for online headlines; not broad terms. The vast amount of mediums for news today really does require journalists to approach the same stories in a variety of ways. In this way, I can easily think of journalism as being a very on-your-feet career path. You need to be able to think flexibly to get your audience reading.

Metadata and hypertext are two terms that were introduced to me in this lecture. Text can be both of these things as well. It's to my understanding that metadata is basically data about other data, much like metacontent, which is content about other content. I know, right? Mindblowing. Online, web pages contain metadata in the form of meta-tags. These generally contain keywords and overviews of the content on that page, primarily to "draw people in" to that page. Search engines, such as Google, naturally consist of truckloads of these. That said, if Google holds the metadata for every website out there, who holds the metadata for Google? A deep philosphical question indeed, although it could probably be answered by a quick Google search. While you're at that, have a look at the metatags that "promote" certain webpages with the answer to that question. In a way, you're looking at metadata guiding you to metadata about Google's metadata. I will gladly point out that your jaw just dropped in sheer fascination.

Hypertext is where things get messy. Where metadata is data about data, hypertext is text linking you to more text. Hypertext is non-linear. There's really no discernible sequence to it. You can be looking up the Australian legal system and "hypertext" (of course that's not meant to be a verb!) your way to an article about how to a make a really mouthwatering batch of spaghetti bolognese. Maybe that will never happen to you. Maybe it will. Who knows?

Yes, I've just been hypertexting you. Much like I used the term "hypertext" as a verb in the previous paragraph, I used it again with a different meaning. Just because you're interested, they are as follows.

Hypertext [verb]: 

1. To click through many textual, online links and end up reading a page completely unrelated to the original source material. (Example: You can be looking up the Australian legal system and hypertext your way to an article about how to a make a really mouthwatering batch of spaghetti bolognese.) 
2. To force others to read a variety of unnecessary textual links in the hope that at least one person will click on one of them. (Example: Billy hypertexted the email accounts of Jane and her friends so frequently that Jane irritably slapped him across the face.)

Media Use Diary: Monday, March 12, 2012 to Wednesday, March 21, 2012

 Over a period of ten days, my media usage was recorded and then analysed.

1. Media Usage (Tabular Form)

Note that all values below are in minutes, for convenience. 

Recorded Data	Mobile Phone (texting, calling, games, etc.)	Internet Access (via iPad, Laptop, Mobile Phone)						Radio (via internet, or actual radio)	Television (via internet or actual television)
		Emails	Facebook	Twitter	Blogger	Research and studying	Reading news articles
Day One 12th March	15	5	50	20	0	40	15	20	45 Doctor Who
Day Two 13th March	10	5	60	30	30 (1) 45 (2)	80	15	20	20 How I Met Your Mother
Day Three 14th March	10	10	90	40	40 (3)  25 (4)	30	15	20	45 Glee
Day Four 15th March	20	5	75	35	0	0	15	0	45 Doctor Who
Day Five 16th March	15	10	60	30	20 Reading only	0	15	20	20 The Big Bang Theory
Day Six 17th March	45 Played Sudoku	10	100	40	20 Reading only	120	15	0	45 Doctor Who
Day Seven 18th March	20	5	100	25	0	120	15	0	45 Doctor Who
Day Eight 19th March	15	5	50	30	0	50	15	20	45 Doctor Who
Day Nine 20th March	10	5	90	35	0	80	15	20	20 How I Met Your Mother
Day Ten 21st March	20	10	80	30	0	30	15	20	45 Glee

2. Comparisons with the Majority

2.1 Mobile Phone

The graph demonstrates that my phone is in usage for non-internet purposes for only about 10 to 20 minutes per day. A serious outlier that occurs on Saturday (Day 6) may be excluded from analysis, as in this instance I was playing a mobile game out of the normal routine. The survey does not record the amount of time people typically use their phones, however it can be extrapolated from the large number of applications people have reported owning that smartphones a revery commonly used devices. It may be deduced from this that I use my smartphone device far less often than most other people. This suggests that my relationship with journalism and communication is lessened through the smartphone medium.

2.2. Internet Access via. mediums of laptop, iPad and mobile phone.

 

It can be extrapolated from this data that I have a very close and intimate connection with my immediate social surroundings, and I am constantly exposed to news deemed interesting by my fellow peers. As an example of this, I can point out that it did not take long after the first release of the Kony 2012 video for me to be sent a link via Facebook. Similarly, this high level of social media usage heightens the amount of general interest stories I have access to. Twitter and Facebook are two simple means of sharing this sort of information. Being actively online for approximately 14 hours each week exposes me to these common interest stories in very substantial doses, strengthening my connection to journalism and communication.

Teenagers are clearly becoming productive encyclopedias of the social realm, spending hours each day and night taking in all the local news story and the topics their friends are interested in.Only 19.2% of the JOUR1111 students have a smartphone with a Twitter-enabled application, and 67.7% (approximately 2 in every 3 students) reported maintaining no Twitter accounts at all prior to joining the class.Twitter is more company- and individual-oriented than Facebook, which is more inclusive of social groups instead. Twitter is more of a news repository than Facebook is, so it can be suggested that my small, yet constant usage of the site proves that I do feel the need to connect with local media outlets, celebrities and news sources to really get a firm understanding of the facts and the "what's on" of the world around me. Through Twitter, I am very intimately connected with the worlds of journalism and communication.

The time spent reading news articles, having now become routine for me, is negligible in data analysis. I spend approximately 15 minutes each day having a quick read through The Brisbane Times' website on my iPad, which provides a consistent and clear connection between myself and the larger worlds of journalism and communcation, and gives me a direct relationship with local, national and global news.

2.3. Radio

I listen to the radio via my mobile phone on the train to the University of Queensland every day I attend. As I have no courses scheduled on Thursday of any week, I only listen to the radio four times per week for approximately the same amount of time in each case. This behaviour resembles that of the rest of those surveyed, as the most prominent duration of radio exposure was less than 1 daily hour. This level of usage exposes me only to morning radio stations, which generally do consist of the occasional news bulletin. Typically, radio bulletin are short and to-the-point, as listeners can not simply pause or rewind to listen again, and there is no option to read over it a second time. As I generally alternate between radio stations 97.3 and b105, I only really get to here about one bulletin per day, which accounts for a very minimal amount of exposure to radio-journalism. It is clear that my relationships with journalism and communication are not strengthened very much through the radio medium.

2.4. Television

 

I watch virtually no broadcast television on the average week, and watch my shows entirely online and without ads. As such, I am exposed to little sources of journalistic value via the television, and of the little time I am exposed to television in general, I am just watching a show. On Tuesdays, regular airings of How I Met Your Mother, a 20-minute long show without ads, make up the entirety of my television viewing. The rest of the week consisted of watching catch-up episodes of Glee on Wednesdays, and Doctor Who every other day of the week. As a result of this consistency, there is little variation shown here. In the survey, it was noted that, on average, 60 to 120 minutes of television is viewed by the majority each day. In both cases, my usage of the television medium is well below average. The fact that I watch no broadcast television at all serves to prove that I rarely ever see media advertisements and breaking news bulletins. A strong relationship to journalism and communication definitely requires this connection.