The Truth of Curiosity

tumblr_n4kbiji2ja1qbqbiko1_500

Growing up, I had always used the word ‘curiosity’ and ‘curious’ to get answers from anyone and everyone. Whether it was to my mother, wondering what was for dinner or whether it was a vague yet random question to one of my peers or teachers, completely unrelated to the topic being discussed. In saying this, I am not one to try new and different foods to aid curiosity. I have always been a curious person, I just always manage to showcase different levels of curiosity when it comes to certain things. If you were to ask me what makes me curious before I started my degree, I’d respond with something vague like ‘Not knowing whether or not dogs know that they are dogs’. However, now being in the middle of my degree I am able to explore the depths of my curiosity further as more and more questions are being put forward to me.

Last semester, one of my lecturers stated ‘The truth is subjective until proven absolute’. I believe that this statement has stuck in my mind as it wants me to satisfy my curiosity which means fully understanding subjective and absolute truths. There is an issue with this however, when studying a degree that involves many different theories, it is solely up to your own mind and conscience on which theory you want to believe. Whether it be Sigmund Freud’s ‘Psyche’ theory based around the human mind and body’s ‘Conscious, preconcsious and unconscious’ responses and instincts or whether it be the philosophies about art such as the epicurean and educational. These all depend on the beliefs and morals of each individual.

I believe that curiosity drives many to wanting to know more things about the world and to want to discover new things. That’s why i think many people travel, they’re curious about what the world has to offer. For someone to not feel curiosity on a daily basis is to not strive for more knowledge.

Advertisements

Its the REMIX to ignition

To many of us music lovers, we sometimes love the remixed version of a song better than the original. Or we may not even know the original even exists. Never the less, remix culture is a strong commodity within the media community.

There are many YouTube videos on the internet that go through the step by step process of how artists remixed various different sounds and songs to create their own song. For example, artist The prodigy’s song ‘Smack My Bitch Up’ is a remix of many songs. These are all combined together to create a unique sound. This video is an example of the creation of the remix that is this song.

Meme’s are also an example of ‘Remix’ within today’s society. These memes are created from normal photos to then add text to create a whole new meaning. One of the most popular memes on the internet is the photo of Jean Wilder as Willy Wonka:

Willy Wonka Meme

If you search ‘Willy Wonka meme’ in Google Images, this is what comes up and more. However, are remixes of songs and creating memes infringing copyright? When artists Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams released their song ‘Blurred Lines’ in 2013, it became an instant hit. Climbing the iTunes charts quickly to number 1, however the more times that this summer hit was played on the radio, Marvin Gaye had decided to sue both Thicke and Williams for copyright. Marvin Gaye and his family believed that ‘Blurred Lines’ was very similar to his song ‘Got to Give it up’. However, when referring to the copyright act involving songs, one can only be legible to sue if the other song copied lyrics or snippets of the music, Gaye claimed that ‘Blurred Lines’ had the same ‘vibe’ as his song. In saying this, your initial reaction would be ‘Oh so, Robin Thicke and Pharrell won the case’, WRONG.

The jury sided with Marvin Gaye as they believed it infringed copyright due to similar vibe. This case is further elaborated in this article.

t5y7ak8 - Imgur

References

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/blurred-lines-case-music-copyright-2015-12

Citizen Journalism & Video Blogging

Citizen journalism has got to be one of the easiest concepts provided throughout my course at university so far!

Basically it just encapsulates the fact that due to the development of technology over the past decade and the speed at which we receive information increasing ten fold, anyone with an internet connection can be a journalist. Mainstream online journalism is often accused of being slow to respond to events and issues within the media. Because of this people have started citizen journalism. Citizen journalism is an effective form of journalism as it consolidates the publics opinion and views within the articles.

Henry Jenkins is an advocate for citizen journalism. Jenkins runs an online blog in which he delves into certain issues such as video blogging and citizen journalism; called ‘henryjenkins.org’. In one of his posts he recounts an interview with John Barth (from Public radio exchange) and Steve Garfield (who is widely credited for the video blogging movement). Throughout this interview, Garfield and Barth discuss the many pros and cons of video blogging and citizen journalism. The pros stated within the article include that when reporting an event, you can get 5, 10 or 15 people blogging about the same event and with this you are able to get a good sense of what happened at the event. Another pro is also that you can video blog however you want, you don’t have an editor telling you what to say and what side of the argument you should be for. Its all your own opinion, your own voice.

Cons mentioned within the interview include the fact that video bloggers and citizen journalists do not have the money or resources that mainstream news media outlets have. Citizen Journalists have to utilise what is readily available to them such as social media. Some people may also see that the lack of credibility is a con, due to the fact that video bloggers tend to report on their own views and their opinions, they rely on the trust of their audience.

Its also a way to get information out to the community quickly through means of social media. For example there are many online community board pages such as the ‘Camden & Narellan Community Notice Board page’. This community notice board page is used for many different things such as alerting the area of any fireworks being let off and to ensure that dogs are looked after. To tell the community of any discounts that people may be interested in from places such as Coles or Woolworths.

 

Link to Prezi: http://prezi.com/kmaoyhpo1ovv/citizen-journalism/

 

Does it matter who owns the media

Does it matter who owns the media? Yes, it does matter.

Society today is obsessed with knowing what is going on around the world. Collectively we all like to know how other countries are progressing politically and we like to know of anything that should possibly worry us. The majority of people know that it is Fairfax that owns the majority of news media such as local newspapers and the Daily Telegraph. The matter of who owns the media is important to the public because if it were all owned by the one person or company, the articles produced are more than likely going to be subject to bias. However, just because the media isn’t specifically owned by the own company or person, doesn’t mean that news articles are not subject to bias. Prime Minister Robert Menzies went to Federal Parliament in order to stop a British company from buying out 4 radio stations, it was his belief that such a strong tool for propaganda shouldn’t fall into foreign hands. He also believed that this form of media shouldn’t fall into the hands of a special interest group that are narrow minded and more likely to produce biased articles. It is writing an article that is neutral so that both sides of an argument has been discussed and they are neutralised in order for the audience to devise their own opinion of the issue is what makes an article successful. It matters who owns the media because without the variation and acknowledging fact versus opinion within an article, Australia would all have the same view as opposed to devising their own opinion on the matter.

For example, whenever it comes time to vote, newspapers tend to publish stories that make the party that they’re voting for look better than the other. Newspapers will also post stories for the opposite parties which can hinder their reputation. A prime example of this is when it came to the election in 2014 between Rudd and Abbott, the Daily telegraph posted newspaper headlines in order to make Abbott look like the better option for parliament against Rudd:

The market is too narrow for newspapers to play to the centre ground, it’s the outrageous headlines such as ‘Kick this mob out!’ With a photo of Kevin Rudd and headlines like ‘Australia Needs Tony!’ With a photo of Tony Abbott that catches the audiences eye. Headlines like ‘liberal and labor: both beneficial’ aren’t going to make the audience want to read the article because they have already formulated their opinion and are more than likely not going to agree to anything that the opposition has to say. However if the headline were to relate to a robbery or a plane crash with a neutral slogan, the audience is more likely to read the article due to the fact that they have no knowledge of the story.

Example

image

Overall, it matters who owns the media because the public needs to learn about the events happening around the world but need to do so without the excessive amount of bias that would come if there were only to be one man or company owning the media.

-Kathryn

References

http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/06/26/crikey-bias-o-meter-the-newspapers/

http://theconversation.com/malcolm-fraser-does-it-matter-who-owns-our-papers-yes-it-does-7738

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664