Week 13: Molk Talk

Getting paid to write a blog. Isn't that the dream. You get to write and say what you want. It's completely your opinion and you write it becuase you want to. Getting money for doing it is just the icing on the cake.
And Steve Molk isn't even a qualified journalist or anything. He is just a person who wanted to write about what interested him. Brilliant.

MolksTVTalk is a great blog because it offers so much. Not only does it have Molk writing about TV shows and what he has seen but also it has videos, his podcast, he has a Youtube channel, he is on Twitter, Facebook (and something else called Linked In...) and he is even on the radio. There are so many more mediums other than just text.

Molk had a lot of interesting things to say and I think he probably could have kept talking for another hour if he had of been allowed to. And I would have continued to happily listen to what he said as it was all interesting and relevant. Traditional journalism is changing, no one can deny that but can can accept it and move with the changes instead of fighting it. I think that if you are a good writer, you write about relevant things and it's always of a good quality then you are bound to get somewhere.

You get to publish your own stuff and craft your own thing, create your own brand as Molk said. Write about ANYTHING, find your specific interest and then find your 'tribe'.

Coming Sooner

I have found a very cool little Youtube channel by Marc Fennell (That movie guy) and a guy from Hungry Beast, Nick Hayden and Nicholas McD. It's where they review movie trailers and it's Coming Sooner. They have some prety great stuff and it can be pretty hilarious.

This is a rather different approach to their deconstruction of trailers as they attempt to summarise the plot from teh ridiculous amount of trailer releases for Prometheus.

They bring up some very good points in this video and they have really good attention to detail, plus they are just funny. They have a great rapour with each other and that is part of the reason it's so good to watch. And who would have thought to review a trailer. It makes sense though and it's interesting to hear about the different techniques that different trailer makers have employed. I don't know if it's just me, but sometimes you can just tell when you see a good trailer and you can identify a bad one and these guys can mostly point out why things work and why they don't. It's pretty cool.

Elizabeth: almost by chance or on purpose a really awful play

Elizabeth: almost by chance a woman. Wow. What can I say about this play?...

I hated it. I felt insulted. The jokes weren't funny. I was sitting in a theatre full of school students and I swear the only reason they were laughing was because they were on a school trip and the play that their school had decided to take them to was one that had lots of F-bombs and talked about sex. I have never wanted to leave a theatre more. And thats what we did. My family and I left at interval because we couldn't stand to sit through another hour of this ridiculous 'comedy' about this great historical figure. And, for me to walk out of a play is a huge thing. Theatre is one of my favourite things in the world and I left when I hadn't been to a play or performance for over two weeks (which is a really, really, really long time) and was really excited about this one. I left. It killed me but I think I made the right choice. Watching this felt a little like I was repeatedly bashing my head against a wall and slowly poking out my eyes just because I realised that I could. How ridiculously fun does that sound?

The whole way through I just felt agitated and could not comfortably relax into the play and lose myself in the story and the characters. When that happens, you don't even realise that you are sitting in a dark for 2 or more hours because you (well, I) get totally emersed. It seemed like the play didn't quite fit together. It seemed like the actors weren't even comfortable with it. It was like Dario Fo has written this play just to write it. I don't think he tried at all to make it any good. Just wanted to push people to their limits of how much crap one person can watch. Maybe it was a test to see how many people actually sit through the whole thing. A test of character that I seem to have failed. I couldn't do it. It was a kind of torture sitting through it. I haven't seen any of Dario Fo's other plays so maybe I should have been prepared or something but I thoroughly believed that someone who has won a Nobel prize would be capable of more than this, whatever this play was. Maybe this guy does try to challenge society and the norms and everything but I don't understand why the Queensland Theatre Compnay chose to do it. Normally they choose such good plays and do them so well but this... I just don't understand.

(Dario Fo; playwright)

Maybe I am just too conservative.
But hang on, nothing in the play offended me, well maybe that's not a good way to put it because I was offended by the awfullness of it, the shear disregard for logic and good writing or structure. Just making things dirty or vulgar doesn't make it funny. There is a time and a place. For me, there is nothing all that funny about a smutty queen who pisses herself on stage. I am all for someone trying to discover the insecurities of the famous (My Week With Marilyn does that pretty well) or writing a fictional piece about their private life and sure, make it a comedy and show the Queen in a completely different light that people aren't used to but this was just a mockery of everything, including the audience. Nothing challenged my perceptions of the world. The content wasn't shocking for me, it was just that it was out of place and I hated it. Apparently a lot of people like your work Dario Fo, but I do not. I am sorry.


I don't even want to go into what the play is about. It's not even about anything.

In the final day of her life, an ailing Elizabeth I clings desperately to her throne and her sanity. It has been eleven days since she last slept, and she rightly fears that if she allows herself to bed she may not rise again. (http://www.queenslandtheatre.com.au/what-is-on/mainstage/elizabeth/)

It pretends to have a plot but it doesn't really. They are just lying to you. It's a whole bunch of nothing crammed into 2 and whatever hours. And the characters, well there is Queen Elizabeth and then some randoms.

Maybe I didn't like it because I was expecting something totally different. Some awesome play based on this historic great that maybe tried to shed some light on her life as the virgin queen and ruler of England and it's vast empire. Explore her deteriorating mind and her relationships with her people, Robert of Essex, and others but this did not happen. Nothing happened.

All right. I have found out what this comedy is called; commedia dell’arte. Apparently it is a form of comedic theatre meaning "Comedy of Art" or "Comedy of the profession'. It means unwritten or improvised drama, and refers to the manner of performance rather than the subject matter of the play and hails from the 16th Century. Where it should have stayed.

Annotated Bibliography

“The media expose pictures of distant victims of civil wars, genocide, massacres and other violence against civil populations and play a basic role in giving publicity to human suffering“ (Höijer, 2004). As the media is partly responsible for framing our way of thinking, all areas must be covered, including human suffering, close or distant. This annotated bibliography will explore the present news items surrounding the Anders Behring Breivik case in Norway, who is responsible for the bombing in Oslo and the shootings on Utøya in July last year, through the mediums of the Four Corners documentary, an online article from The Guardian and an online article from the Brisbane Times as well as an article by Birgitta Höijer. All the mediums promote global compassion in varying ways.

Höijer, B. (2004). The Discourse of Global Compassion: The Audience and Media Reporting of Human Suffering. Media Culture and Society, 26 (4), 513-531. doi:10.1177/0163443704044215

Birgitta Höijer, a professor at the University of Örebro, Sweden, specialising in the School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences focuses on the discourse of global compassion and audiences reaction to the media coverage of human suffering in her article. In the article it states that “media coverage seems to be something of a driving force in the development influencing both the public and the politicians” and that it “may be seen as an intermediate link between the level of social situations, in which audiences’ interpretations and responses develop”( Höijer, 2012). Höijer addresses a fast growing focus on human suffering in the media but says there is a common view that the audience is not emotionally affected by these images or pictures of distant pain. The article looks at ‘ideal’ victims; the older population, women and children, that an audience is more likely to be affected by if media coverage shows their being hurt in any of the aforementioned events. Höijer completes a study of peoples’ reactions to such events and notes the outcomes; different forms of compassion or indifference. The results both support and discredit the theory of compassion fatigue which is where an audience is so exposed to a certain subject or event that there is a lessening of compassion over time. Höijer also outlines different reactions in different genders.

Watts, E. (Filmed and Directed). Norris, H. (Narrator). Anderson, A. (researcher). O’Brien, K. (Presenter). BBC Production. (2012, April 23).The Killer Within. Four Corners. Queensland: ABC

The production team for this short documentary gives a balanced and well researched view to the Anders Behring Breivik case. They begin with a brief history on the island of Utøya and recounts of survivors as well as journalists and police that were at the scene. The production team goes through the order of events chronologically. They do not try to understand why Breivik did what he did, but they do give details into his preparation for the event as well as short quotes from his manifesto in order to give a balanced view of this event. At no point does this documentary condemn Breivik or his actions. They leave any judgement to the audience by providing all the relevant information and footage in relation to the attacks on that day in July last year. This source has good use of factual evidence, footage from the day and interviews with those involved. The survivors fit what Höijer calls ‘ideal’ victims, which promotes compassion in audiences around the world especially because of the subject matter and the raw footage of the youths on the island just after the attack.

Pidd, H. (2012, May 14). Anders Breivik Trial: young survivors give evidence. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/14/anders-breivik-trial-young-survivors

Pidd outlines the charges against Breivik briefly before she begins describing the testimony of a few survivors of the attack on the Island who were shot but did not realise they had been. She also writes how the first witness asks Breivik to leave the room whilst she gives her testimony and how she seems to be in a fragile state drawing attention to the fact that she is wearing flowers in her hair. The article describes the victim’s experience on the island and what they saw of their fellow camp mates and their attempts to survive the attacks of Breivik. The article does end on a positive note with a quote from one of the survivors. No account is given of Breivik apart from him going to watch the testimony via a video link in another room but as it is a court proceeding and it was not Breivik’s day for his testimony, this is still a fairly balanced article. This article is all about the victims which again fits into Höijer ‘s ‘ideal’ victim status which promotes compassion like the previous source, but this account is only text and does not have video footage like the Four Corners episode. 

Kissane, K. (2012, April 17). A ghastly litany of relentless slaughter: man of stone Breivik eventually reduced to tears. The Brisbane Times. Retrieved from http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/a-ghastly-litany-of-relentless-slaughter-man-of-stone-breivik-eventually-reduced-to-tears-20120417-1x493.html

Kissane takes a very descriptive approach to illustrate the events and the proceedings in the courtroom which differs from the heavy reliance of the victims in the article by Pidd. Kissane paints graphic pictures of the car bombing in Oslo as well as the shootings on Utøya. She compares the car bomb blast to a blast in an action movie and how much more devastating real life is, describing the explosion as being like “dragon’s breath” (Kissane, 2012). Kissane then brings the article back to real-time where Breivik remains unmoved despite a video of the explosion repeatedly being played, a phone call is then played from one of the victims on the island calling for help and the prosecutor reading out the indictment. The only time that Breivik is said to show emotion is when his own propaganda film is played where he tears up and “had to put his hand over his eyes” (Kissane, 2012). This article attempts to draw compassion from the audience through highly descriptive text and an account of the attacker that the other two sources have not really included in their reports.  The article includes a short video report at the top as which again focuses on Breivik, prompting compassion through images of the perpetrator and his stony face in the presence of such haunting events and images.

Gay Marriage

For those of you out there that don't support gay marriage, I think you need to read this blog post.

How I learned my husband was gay

I think it is ridiculously sad that people have to or believe they have to live like this. As the blog says, it affects many people, whole families, not just those who have to pretend to be something they are not just because certain societies dictate this. It's not right.

What's so wrong with gay marriage?. It's not like it's really all that much of a sacred bond these days with the ridiculously high rate of divorce that our society has. And if you believe in God, aren't we all equal in the eye of God? Why are you not treating everyone as an equal by not allowing people to celebrate the love and committment they have toward another person? How can you think that these people are any less than you?

Obama has now admitted that he supports gay rights. How much longer can it take everyone else? "I've just concluded, for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," Mr Obama said in an interview with US network ABC.

ABC News has just recently tweeted that there are a few NSW government members that support gay marriage. Even Mickey Mouse supports gay marriage according to this article Mickey Mouse backs gay marriage.

The American  ABC has said that strong support now exceeds strong opposition as seen from an ABC news/Washington Post Poll.

Most of the arguments against gay marriage are "protect marriage". Protect marriage from what? We are all just people. And I am pretty sure that Henry VIII ruined it way back when.

For those of you who do support gay marriage, I just found the Gay Marriage Blog that seems pretty interesting. Really it's only a matter of time before equal rights are granted. Why not sooner rather than later? Why fight change? The world is always changing and we as a people are always changing. Just let it happen.

This is a message to Australia and Australians. We don't need to be as conservative as we have been in the past. Now is the time to be one of the first to support that which only makes sense and give the gay community full rights. We are all the same people!

 

 WE ARE ALL THE SAME PEOPLE

Fungible

I thought this article, well blog, was really interesting and has a lot to do with what we are studying and learning about right now. Definitely worth checking it out!

Fungible

Summary: A treatise on fungibility, or, a framework for understanding the mess the news industry is in and the opportunities that lie ahead.

Week 12: Investigative Journalism

Investigative journalism, to me, sounds really exciting. you can get caught up in some pretty crazy stuff and althought it could be pretty terrifying (especially if the police are trying to frame you) I think that it could be one of the most rewarding types of journalism out there. (I mean just look at Lois Lane and Clark Kent. Those two owned every story they got. I suppose it does help that they had Superman and that every story that they investigated had some sort of corruption element to it and they cracked every story they got. They also broke into places and stole stuff and always got away with its and it does help that they are fictional characters.) But I also think that it is definitely one of the hardest and one that takes the most amount of time. Like Dr Redman said about the Fitzgerald Inquiry, it took them 2 years to get 1 hour on television. Other reporters are on a story for the day or a few hours or a week but some invesitgative journalism stories can take forever to be broken and I am sure it gets to a point where you just can't get the story out of your mind so it would be really testing your sanity.

"What passes for investigative journalism is finding somebody with their pants down - literally or otherwise." - Robert Scheer, an American journalist.

Now this quote is pretty hilarious but sums up investigative journalism pretty perfectly. The best investigative journalism is the stuff that exposes what certain people are trying to supress from the public eye.

As an investigative journalist there are four things to keep in mind;

1. Active intervention - you must be an active participant making a substantial effort and to do so you must be critical and thorough.
2. Exposure - you must expose the 'civic voice' so that society can respond, you are custodians of justice
3. Public interest - you must provide a voice for those that are voiceless, power to the powerless, to provide social justice
4. Keep it balanced - you must be the fourth estate, the fourth branch of government and the watchdog

And the plan is to be SCEPTICAL NOT CYNICAL
  

I really liked the quote "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." Now that is the definition of not making assumptions. But surely if you get to the point where (if you have had a good childhood, with a mother that had stuck by you) you can't trust when your own mother says that she loves you then I think you could be a little paranoid and you might want to take a little time of work as investigative journalism must be getting to you. 

It could have just been me but I thought it was pretty obvious that you had to get up and get out into the world in order to investigate and to find the stories and the leads to help you break the story. 'Shoe leather journalism' makes sense. You need to walk around and ask questions, interview people, search through documents (and maybe trespass and 'borrow' but maybe not). How can you see the bigger picture from a desk? Take nothing for granted, even if its from your mother, and always check your facts.

Whilst looking up investigative journalism on the net, I found The Age Investigations. Seems like a pretty good site with a lot going on. Hopefully a lot will be going on for a while and further into the future. Also Crikey has quite a bit to offer for those who are lookng for investigative journalism. You have to subscribe but it's free for the first 20 something days before they want you to pay $3.55 per week. Investigative journalism costs money so it only makes sense that you have to pay for it.

So the future of investigative journalism, like Dr Redman said, the Youtube channel hasn't got all that much to offer, yet (?). But I do have some questions to pose; who will be doing the investigative journalism stories for this channel? Will it be anyone or will it be proper journalists? Will they be proper stories or will they be trivial things?

Avengers brilliance!

This is the best!

Not so gaga about Gaga

So it turns out that not everyone loves Lady Gaga as much as you might have thought. Gaga is on tour for the Born This Way Ball. In most places, tickets to her concert sold out in just a few hours but in some cities in South East Asia, people aren't so ready to accept the pop queen into their countries. Hundreds of Christians roamed the streets on Gaga's arrival in the Philippines protesting against her "blasphemous" music.

According to Graziadaily.co.uk (lady gaga launches her own protest in the philippines and could now face arrest), 200 Christians from the Biblemode Youth Philippines marched through Manila calling for the cancellation of Gaga's (sold out) concerts. They pressured the singer-songwriter  to‘respect our faith, stop the blasphemy’, as they took particular offence to her song ‘Judas’ which they say ‘mocks Jesus Christ’. The Philippine Government banned any nudity or vulgar acts but allowed the two concerts on Monday and Tuesday night to continue ahead as planned.

Gaga, in true form, despite threats that she could be banned or arrested if she does perform the song in question, performed it anyway. She has been quoted to say ‘I’m not a creature of your government, Manila,’ before beginning the first verse of the song. In the Philippines, people can be arrested and sentenced for up to 6 years in jail for offending race and religion.

Gaga tweeted

This is similar to South Korea who banned persons under the age of 18 from attending the concert because of provocative lyrics and costumes.

She has also tweeted that "The Jakarta situation is 2-fold: Indonesian authorities demand I censor the show & religious extremist separately, are threatening violence".

So it's a rocky start to her BTW Ball tour but her fans, her 'little monsters' are still welcoming her with open arms, many of them dressing in ridiculous styles to match her own outfits. Gaga also has a new meat dress to rival the one she wore to the MTV Video Music Awards. And also performs in front of hanging carcasses.



Well surely everyone knew that you were insane (in a good way) before you said you were coming to their country. Everyone has seen the things you wear, the crazy things you do and the weirdness of your film clips and, for me, that ridiculousness and weirdness is what I like about you. If you want Lady Gaga you have to take all of Lady Gaga. You can't take a fish out of water and expect it live. So you can't take the weirdness away from Gaga and expect her to be okay with that. You get what you signed on for. And no one said that the Christians had to go to her concert, you can stay outside if you want and light some candles but you can't stop other people from doing what they want. If people want to see Gaga, then they are going to regardless of a few hundred people telling a poor woman to go to hell. It isn't nice to tell someone to go to hell whether they believe in hell or not.

It's also not nice to mock someone else's  religion but I don't think that Gaga planned it that way, especially when she is a Christian (albeit a very liberal one) herself. I don't think people should take the lyrics to literally, especially when it's a pop song. Just saying.

Latest update (which was a few days ago now), Gaga cancelled her concert in Jakarta due to safety concerns. According to Radio Australia, the most violent objections came from the Islamic Defenders Front or FPI. They threatened to send 30,000 of their members to physically prevent Gaga from entering the country In their opinion Gaga, is a porn artist and an emissary of Satan and that if her concert was allowed to be played, she would corrupt their youth.Wow. That's a bit harsh isn't it? Also pretty scary as I heard that members of their group bought tickets to her concer,t just to get in as their plan was to violently stop the show. It has been said that Gaga cancelled the show with concern for her fans as she didn't want any of the audience to get hurt. Full refund for the tickets has been offered.

Zombie Survival.

Ever thought about what you would do if there was a zombie apocalypse? 
I know I have.

It's a fun to think about when you are sitting at a bus stop or waiting in a line or anytime really. It's such a big,complex and important topic.

Where would you go? What could you grab from around your house to use as a weapon? Where would you get stores from?  Do you sit tight or keep on the move? Travel in groups or fly solo? What items would you carry with you? Would you wait for the army or military or would you start taking out as many zombies as possible? Would you ditch your friends and find people with special skills, like a doctor/nurse or someone who can handle guns or would you be loyal and see how you go? Also, do you use a gun because you can shoot them from far away or do you use something like a katana so that the noise of the gun doesn't attract the zombies? Do you head for a shopping centre so that you have access to lots of supplies or do you head somewhere that is less populated so you are less of any easy target? What would you do with your pets? Would you go inland or head toward the ocean?

Another thing you need to think about is what type of zombies the apocalypse will have; will they be fast or slow, strong or weak, smart or stupid. And also how would the virus spread. Is it through a bite,could it be triggered from contact with their blood or does it travel through the air or in the water supply? And to kill them do you just have to destroy the brain or remove the head and burn the body. There are so many representations out there that it's hard to know what could be coming.


There is so much material out there to help you think about such questions or to create your plan of action. There are movies like Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, Night of the Living Dead and all the Resident Evil films. And there are a million more zombie films out there (there was no way I was going to list them all because that would be ridiculous!). And there aren't just films, there's all the computer games as well; Red Dead Redemption, Dead Rising, Doom, Left 4 Dead, and all the Resident Evil games. Again there are a heap more that I have not mentioned, including a fairly new mod that is based  on surviving in a world where there has been a zombie plague. This is not like other games; if you die, you do not respawn. If you die then that's it, you have to start all over again. When you start, you start with nothing and you have to find things to help you survive; guns, food, ammo and maps. (If you don't have a map then you can navigate using the stars.) Also you get dropped into the map at random. You could be in a town or in a forest, anywhere. If it's night where you are, then it's night in the game also and in this game, zombies aren't the only things you have to worry about as people have started to kill other people playing, just to get their stuff. None of this "let's all work together so that the human race can survive", it's all "let's kill everyone else because we want to be annoying and get lots of useful stuff". (I wonder what would happen in real life. Would people kill each other for individual survival, or would everyone work together to survive as a whole?)

And there are books as well. In recent years this book has been adapted to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. It has also sporned a prequel, Dawn of the Dreadfuls and a sequel, Dreadfully Ever After. As I read somewhere, what movie/book/game/TV show wouldn't be improved by the introduction of some flesh eating zombies? (In my opinion, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies didn't have enough zombies for my liking. Too much pride and prejudice and not enough zombies) It is also supposed to be being made into a movie by 2013.

The Zombie Survival Guide (complete protection from the living dead), by Max Brooks, was published in 2003 and is a great source to have a look at if you take this problem seriously. Here is a piece of the introduction;

The dead walk among us. Zombies, ghouls - no matter what their label - these somnambulists are the greatest threat to humanity, other than humanity itself. To call them predators and us prey would be inaccurate. They are a plague, and the human race their host.

This book has everything you need and will need to know. It goes through the myths about the undead, informations about weapons and combat techniques and pointers on attack and defense methods. This information is priceless if you want to survive the battle against the living dead.

If you still think you need more help, the website Cracked.com has a very helpful write up on zombie survival as well as some interesting articles about what famous movie character could survive if their movie contained zombies. There are also many a person who has blogged about such events.

And even more recently Canada has created a website (it's still under construction) that gives you detailed information into population, geography and even the gun laws in each state in the case of a Zombie attack. It gives you maps, information on transport, weather, and even information about the economy for the whole country. It also aims to give you tips on how to survive, with places to avoid and supposed safe places as well as telling you what items you would need to have in your survival kit.

(yes, they exist)

Good on you Canada. I am glad that you thought that this was a good problem to spend your time and money on. It's a very (potentially) serious dilemma.

Here are a few short tips to help you survive in the mean time from Zombieland;

                 
                          A full list because you need to read to them if you are going to survive

                                          Cardio                                        Double tap   
                                          Beware of bathrooms                Seatbelts
                                          Cast iron skillet                         Travel light
                                          Get a kickass partner                Bowling Ball
                                          Don't be a hero                         Limber up
                                          Avoid strip clubs                       When in doubt, know your way out
                                          The buddy system                     Check the back seat
                                          Enjoy the little things              Swiss army knife
                                          Clean socks                              Hygiene
                                          Always have backup

Really our society is obsessed with zombies. We can't seem to get them out of our heads, so much so that we have a walk dedicated to their honour. Check out Brisbane's Zombie Walk for more information. You can't escape it, so plan against it.

Week 11: Agenda Setting

Agenda setting theory. It's self explanitory. It's deciding what's important, about what the public should focus on and how they should think about an issue. It's almost brain washing. Propaganda was brought up in the lecture and that is basically brain washing. The media have so much power in the images and the events that they choose to promote, and the angle in which they choose to view that particular event.

This is a good chart. It presents two 'realities'; the media reality and the actual reality. The actual reality goes through a process of selection or agenda cutting whereby the result is the media reality serving the media agenda and both realities feed down to the public perception of realitiy (this is almost sounding like the martix) serving the public agenda. Interesting process...

But it makes sense. It's very much linked to news values as it has to do with deciding what's important and what the public would be most interested in watching/reading/listening to. It's sad that people are more interested in seeing that Beiber has a new haircut rather than hearing about the continuing conflict in Syria or Will Smith slapping a journalist rather than reading about the economic crises that some countries are facing in Europe. But I am guilty of exactly this, of avoiding "hard news" stories and reading about celebrities or movies. Also if you don't cater to what the public want to hear then people aren't going to watch/read/listen to your news.

It works both ways really. A media company has total control over what they show their audience but then if they aren't showing the right things people might not watch/read/listen.

But, like what was said in the lecture, there are strengths and weaknesses to the theory. The strengths are pretty obvious and there is much more that could be done in the way of further research but the weaknesses do stick out. For example, people aren't all the same and so they might no be as ideal as the theory assumes they are, if someone has made up their mind on a particular topic (Julia Gillard and the Carbon Tax for instance) then no amount of trying to make it look like the best thing in the world will be able to convice those people any different and the fact that news cannot be created or concealed. Also in the case of new media, the game is completely changed.

Just plain stupid

Let me just take a moment to rage at this girl. I found this article on brisbanetimes.com.au; school fails to get student into law degree, and it made me very angry.
This girl has decided to sue her school after she failed to get good enough grades to get into law at the University of Sydney. Her and her mother claim that the school knew she was gifted and that she needed help with maths but didn't help her. I don't know what type of school Geelong is, but at me school, if you were struggling then it was up to YOU and not the school to get extra help. It was up to you to approach teachers to get them to explain in more deatil or to get extra questions or activities or even to just get them to sit down with you and go through a few questions or something. I find it ridiculous that these two women have decided that it's the school's fault.
In the article it says that the school did acknowledge that the girl was smart but they also said that she was disorganised and didn't get her work done. They also said that she missed classes and that she got glandular fever and didn't come back to school aftershe had recovered, even though the school had tried to contact her to get her to come back. And absences are something that a school has records of.
It also says that her score was good enough for her to study at other universities, just not the University of Sydney. She still could have studied law. And any normal person, if they really wanted to do something that badly, would find a way to get where they wanted to be. Do a different degree and work towards your goal.
This is just ridiculous. I couldn't believe what I was reading.

Utter Crap

I don't know why, but I went and saw The Lucky One the other night. Oh dear. Boy, was that a mistake. I don't like these chick flick type of movies anyway but something possessed me to go and see it. It could have been my friend that loves it and has seen it three times now...This genre is so very cliched and this one was awful.

It wasn't even that the acting was bad. The performances were fine. Each actor did a pretty good job and they were fairly convincing so that was fine and it's not the cinematography. That was quite pretty. Some shots were really nice and the place they were at was very picturesque. The editing was a little dodgy at times with bad or just out of place cuts but overall it was okay. It's just the storyline. I mean seriously. Who writes this crap. It's kind of insulting. All the plot twists are predictable as they are in any movie like this but even when you don't see something coming it's just a stupid plot twist. A surprise death of a character..I don't think people die that easily. It just didn't make much sense. The poor kid will have some emotional scars because of that but they just gloss over it and don't even mention again after is happens, all is just good again. (There is a pretty hot shower scene though.)And all that bull crap about fate. Come on, give me a break.

Plus the characters are messed up. The main woman's brother is a marine and is killed whilst in Iraq or Afghanistan (can't remember where exactly) and then this other marine comes along who is exactly like her brother and of course she falls for him. It's like she is fulfilling some weird sexual fantasy. That ain't right.
The best character is the young boy. He is awesome. He kicks ass at chess, plays the violin and has some killer dance moves. Oh and the dog, the German Shepherd called Zeus. That is one cool dog.
Also, I can't quite seem to adjust to seeing Zac Efron in this serious, army role. He just doesn't quite fit in my opinion. Although he has beefed up, it still doesn't fit. You just think of the guy that sings and dances. And dance he can. In my head he should just be singing about Highschool or Hairspray...

I'm not even going to tell you the plot because it's insulting and everybody already knows whats going to happen, so is there even any point?

 

And that just about sums it up.

Margaret and David

At the Movies 


Margaret and David are brilliant. I love hearing their opinions about different films and getting to see the interviews with different directors and actors and I also really like getting to hear about foreign films. Most of the time foreign films have limited releases over here and most of the time they only play in art house theatres and not the main cinemas. They are such a good team and whilst they may disagree a lot, it makes it a better show. Watching them argue is half the fun. If they don't disagree on a movie, even they find it strange and wonder what's happening to the world. Apparently Margaret got complaints about not letting David speak because there are many times in their arguments that Margaret gets that annoyed that she just doesn't want to hear what David has to say. These could be my favourite episodes. They are so funny and it just shows how passionate they are about their work and about film in general. They love what they are doing and you can see it and that's great to watch.
Also, Margaret's laugh is the best thing I have ever heard. It's this weird squeak type laugh but then she has quite a husky voice. And David has such a conservative view of things most of the time but then he can turn around and surprise you. They must be the best of friends. How would you be able to continue a show like this if you weren't. I heard on Triple J once that one of the artists they were interviewing on the radio was in the elevator with Margaret and David and they were thick as thieves, talking constantly and bickering, barely noticing that there were other people in the lift. The band was pretty famous but they said that they felt dwarfed by these two great movie buffs.
For their 25th year anniversary, Geoffrey Rush and Cate Blanchett reviewed Margaret and David whilst acting as Margaret and David, if that makes sense. They capture Margaret and David perfectly. In their hand movements, the way they sit and readjust themselves in their chairs and even their tone of voice. It's so good. If you didn't see it or don't believe me, then this is deffinitely worth watching.

And just a side note; Margaret Pomeranz has admitted that she is a Buffy fan. On national TV, whilst reviewing The Avengers, she admitted that she liked Buffy: the Vampire Slayer. Well actually to put it in her words; "I hate to admit it but I was a Buffy fan." You don't have to hate admitting that Margaret. Don't fight it, embrace it. It's a good show.

Avengers

Did I, or did I not say in at least one of my previous post that Joss Whedon is a genius? And the new Avengers film proves it. This is only Joss Whedon's second feature film (Serenity being his first, a much smaller production) but it's brilliant. Sometimes you really need a mindless action film to get you through the day but this is so much more than that.

 

It's your average save the world, superhero story. The Earth is threatened by a powerful alien and a team is assembled to stop it from destorying slash taking over the world but this time instead of only one superhero we get a whole heap. Want a summary thats a little more indepth?
Loki, an exiled Norse god, brother of Thor, comes to earth and steals the Tesseract, a cube of pure energy found when Captain America was pulled from the ice, from S.H.I.E.L.D, an international peace keeping agency, led by Nick Fury. Fury brings together a team of superhumans (Ironman, the Hulk, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow and Hawkeye) and creates the Avengers Initiative to save the earth from Loki and his army.

This film has outrageous action sequences, awesomely choreographed fight scenes, great quality CGI and witty dialogue. You will be sitting in the theatre and the characters just whip out these hilarious one-liners and you find yourself in hysterics. I didn't expect this movie to be very funny but it was just that funny.



Ironman or Tony Stark is one character that really holds this movie together. He is also probably the most hilarious character too and Robert Downey Jr. revels in it. He knows this character having already had two movies and a third in production, and you can see that familiarity shine through, he is just comfortable.


I have never really liked Scarlett Johansson as an actor and this film is probably the closest I will get to liking her just because her character, Natasha Romanoff a.k.a Black Widow, is so cool and majorly kick-ass.



Mark Ruffalo brings new insight into the big, angry green guy, the Hulk or Bruce Banner. He is probably the best Hulk out of the three. Erik Banner was okay but that movie was so boring and Edward Norton was okay as well and the movie was a little better but Mark Ruffalo seems to have something that the others were missing and does a really good job.


Chris Evans as Captain America or Steve Rogers (looks really good in his tights) is also making a come back to the role and as he is supposed to be from the 1940s, its hilarious to watch him when not understand things and information that we take for granted, like who Stephen Hawking is (but he does seem to be ok with some of the new fandangled technology, like the inner workings of the big, invisible, flying base that S.H.I.E.L.D has)



Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has a voice that sounds like Heath Ledger's that I could happily listen to all day. He has lovely blond hair and in a particularly tense scene he gets to be in a field of yellow flowers.

Hawk-Eye or Clint Barton, Jeremy Renner, has some mad skills with those arrows. Half the time he isn't even looking at his targets and he still never misses. He also looks ridiculously creepy when the tesseract turns his eyes blue.




Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is a bad-ass and really pulls off the eye patch. I don't really know how hw is all that special but it doesn't matter because he is such a boss character.



And last but not least Tom Hiddleston, Loki,  is great as the bad guy. His face is perfect for looking completely insane but calm and serene at the same time. Exactly what you need in a villain.



 Put all these characters together and you have a movie that is worth millions, well billions. It is still packing out cinemas and I should know, I work at a cinema and the cinemas playing The Avengers is always the worst to clean because it is so full of people and for some reason people can't seem to keep popcorn restricted to just their mouth and the popcorn box. They have this ridiculous tendency to get it all over their seats and the floor and make it really annoying to have to clean. But it has also become the most successful movie to date, setting multiple box office records. Just check this out Avengers - BBC News

In an interview with Ellen Degeneres, Robert Downey Jr. and Scarlett Johansson were talking about who had the most uncomfortable and hard to wear costume. The final verdict was that the Ironman costume was indeed the worst to wear. Downey was saying that he was told that if he fell that he couldn't put his hands out to break his fall as his arms would break. The suit would be fine though, he would just have shattered bones within it and apparently this happened to one of the stunt doubles.

Also Loki's head piece apparently weighed around 20 pounds or just over 9kgs. Imagine having to walk around with that thing on, especially with those big horn type things sticking out of the helmet. It's a ridiculous outfit really but then he is a Norse god so I guess he can wear what he likes, especially when he is stark crazy and wants to take over the world.

Not only did Joss Whedon direct this film, he also wrote the screen play. He has such attention to detail and understands how characters work and interact together so he is able to give the film real heart. His other gift is being able to make a movie that hardcore fans will love but also people who know nothing about these Marvel Comic heroes will love as well. I came to this movie knowing nothing except what I had seen from the first Ironman movie, Captain America and the Hulk movies. I hadn't seen any of the other Marvel movies they have made, nor had read any of the comics or read into any of the characters and it was still a great movie. I think thats a hard balance to get right, not having too much so that the audience doesn't get confused but putting enough in so that the real fans aren't disappointed. As far as I know, everyone is more than satisfied with this one. It's big and it's cheesy but you just don't care cause it's that good.

Surely everyone has seen The Avengers by now but if not, you really should. It's so good I saw it twice and I would even consider seeing it again.

Gold movie moment

Ocean's Thirteen- Oprah Scene

One of the best scenes...ever.

Week 9: News Values

News values are general guidelines or criteria that determine the worth of a news story and how much prominence it is given by newspapers or broadcast media.  They are fundamental to understanding news production and the choices that editors and other journalists face when deciding that one bit of information is news while another is not. (Owen Spencer-Thomas)

"If it bleeds, it leads!"
Well that is true. I would rather read about a some sort of violence that happened somewhere rather than read about an old lady that used to play bowls but she hurt her arm and can no longer play (that was off the top of my head. I seriously couldn't think of anything else).
I get news values, I do. I get that you have to prioritise all the crazy stuff that happens in this world and try to present it in an organised way that makes it easy for a reader or the audience. But what I don't understand is "if it's local, it leads." I don't get that one. I read one of the local newspapers, ages ago now, on the Sunshine Coast (when they still existed) and the front page was about someone local doing something-or-other either for someone or they did something worth mentioning and then on page 15 there was an article about 100 words long about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Now that confused me a lot. How is that local person more important than the oil spill that was making international news? Different news values indeed.
Bring on the blood and guts and misery of the world. That is what I want to know about. That is what I think is important and that is what I think that people should be reading.
I think that only reading reading local things can limit you. I think that everybody should strive to be a global citizen. Think globally but act locally...

Adorkable

Whilst procrastinating instead of doing an assignment, I came across this article critising Zooey Deschanel and the awkward, quirky character that she is known for playing.

Enough with 'adorkable': The case against Zooey Deschanel

It criticises her for being too awkward. For pretending to be awkward all the time just because she thinks it's cute...

But she is an actor and actors are supposed to act, to personify a character, to make it real. This is what she is doing. I am quite sure that in real life, Zooey Deschanel is not the character she plays in New Girl. How could someone as successful as Zooey, get where she is without some sort of social skills which she seems to lack in the show. She has been in movies and TV shows and even has her own band, She & Him. If she was really that socially awkward I don't think that she would have got as far as she has. Maybe the fact that people believe she is like this in real life is a credit to her acting ability.

As for downing that character, the show is a comedy. Comedies rely on stereotypes and exaggerations to be funny and this show is no different. Her character Jess is pretty hilarious and it's not because she does what you expect her to, it's because she does the most outrageous things that no one would ever think of doing, or the things you imagine yourself doing but never do. It's the unrealistic part of her character that is so alluring. If that character wasn't a part of New Girl, it just wouldn't be that funny and therefore not worth watching. Why would you watch a comedy like this and criticise it for not being realistic? Go and watch a documentary or something on the history channel or Australian Story even if that's what you want. This show isn't supposed to be a reflection of real life but an exaggerated, stereotyped comedy for entertainment and not education.
But the article is able to accept that this is a fictional construction and that that is ok as it is TV.
What they are not able to accept is Zooey's add for the iPhone 4s. Apparently she is trying way to hard to be the awkward person that she portrays. The article says;

To pretend that you're perfectly identical to the broke, adorkable everywoman you play on Fox each week in order to sell iPhones is not only incredibly dishonest, it shows exactly the same business sense that the QUIRKY OLE SOUL Zooey pretends to be would not possess. It's cashing in on an image, and it's pretty gross.

That just doesn't make sense to me. Yes I am sure that Zooey is getting paid a lot for that commercial but I am also sure that she is just told what to do for the advertisement. I don't think she was given the creative license to write the add for a multi-million (billion or more) dollar company. I think they would have told her what to do, what to say, what to wear and would have organised the setting in which the add would be shot. So I think that it's the Apple company that is doing the cashing in on the popular character. And who doesn't cash in on things when they are popular. That's like telling George Lucas that he isn't allowed to sell Star Wars merchandise. And that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. They say that "really awkward people don't make themselves awkward for profit" (and maybe that's where they have gone wrong all their life) but I don't think that Zooey is trying to sell her real self as an awkward person, I think it is just a role that she plays and has now become so successful she keeps playing it. Her sister is Emily Deschanel, the main character and producer of the show Bones. No one criticises her for playing the same straightforward, anthropologist who lacks social skills (quite a similar concept to that of her sister's characters, maybe it runs in the family) and she has been doing it longer than her sister.

As for the add, I think it was quite successful. It showed what the new iPhone could do and it was pretty entertaining. Who doesn't like to order food when it's raining and dance in their pjamas? And to prove it, here is a comment from one of the readers, ashmeadow, "Am I awkward if I completely don't understand what was weird and awkward about the commercial?". LadyLLeafdawn replied, "Nah, I think you're just normal. I mean, who wouldn't want to order delivery and dance all day when it's raining outside?". The general consensus was that the add was good and that the readers didn't quite understand what the writer of the article was going on about (also that he used to word awkward far too many times). So it wasn't just me.

I quite like New Girl and a lot of the other things that Zooey is in. I also quite like the music of She & Him. Why be a hater on someone who is really quite talented when you can be a hater on someone who isn't talented but still successful (Scarlet Johansson, Megan Fox or any of the Kardashians).

Why Do You Let Me Stay Here? - She & Him

 
In this video, Zooey is many characters, she is dead, she gets shot, she ahs an axe in her back and she kills a few versions of herself. I hope that's socially awkward, I mean adorkable enough.

And what is with the word 'adorkable'? I mean seriously. It's a weird orgy of adorable, awkward and you could even go so far as to say dork as well. That isn't a classy mix.