University life: Not so scary after all.

When I wrote my first post on this blog it went something along the lines of, "I CAN'T DO THIS. ABORT MISSION. ABORT!" Well, things have changed since then. I still have my moments of doubt and terror where I believe that I'm not good enough for anything or anyone. But those moments are slowly happening less and less.

My first semester of university has taught me a lot. I've learnt that you need to be persistent to be a journalist. Persistent enough to chase the story you're after, persistent enough to get the information you need, and persistent enough to be switched on all the time. Whether or not I'll be able to do any of those things is anyone's guess.

Our lecturer for The Journalist and Society, Marie, has taught us all she can. Not only about being a journalist, but about how to be a good journalist. Thus far, we have covered an array of topics, including: What is this thing called journalism?, Commercial and Public Media, Convergence in the media, News Values, Agenda Setting, Reporting Print and Online News, Pictures and Sound, War, Disaster and Trauma, Ethics in journalism, Political economy of the media and Investigative journalism. Being a journalist herself, Marie has been able to give us first hand experiences about what it is like to be journalist. So far, the most difficult topic that we've covered this semester was ethics in journalism.

As I disagreed with most of the class about what they deemed to be "ethical", the experience of learning about it was rather an uncomfortable one for me. That's not to say that I believe them to be bad people. Not at all. For all I know, my opinions could be the unethical ones in the long run. 

A lot of the class (well, the vocal ones at least) deemed it okay to write about a politician's sexual orientation. Personally, the fact that a person's sexual orientation is news worthy baffles me. They're just a person who happens to like people of the same sex. Big deal. But apparently this is a big thing which needs to be discussed about at great length. 

Another topic that was discussed that irked me was learning about reporting on war and trauma. That lesson I learned that day was that I could never, ever be a reporter in a war zone as it would destroy me mentally and possibly physically as well. While this news didn't surprise me in the slightest, it did worry me that my chances of being a relatively successful journalist were slightly ruined. However, that doesn't mean that my determination is gone. Thanks to the amazing lecturers and friends I have made at university, I'm slowly starting to believe that I may have a shot at being good at this. 

So, for now, I'm just going to enjoy the ride that is university and pray that my sanity stays in tact through all the hardcore studying I'll be doing. 

Tattoos, piercings and red hair.

Getting a job is something that everyone needs to do eventually. Whether it's because you're trying to save for university or to keep your rent coming in on time, it's something everyone needs to have. For those of you who do not currently have a job or are looking for your first one, there are several things you will need to do and be. An integral part of getting a job is that you are polite, courteous, well-spoken and on time. When going for an interview it is imperative that you are all of these things as well as looking 

"respectable". 

Brightly coloured hair such as in this photo can make it
 hard for people to find a job

Now, when I say respectable I don't mean showering and washing your hair, doing your hair nice, etc. (You should be doing those things regardless. Well, the showering part at least.) I'm talking about unnatural hair colours, piercings, tattoos, etc. When a person is covered in tattoos, has multiple piercings, or bright coloured hair, it doesn't matter how courteous, hard working or honest they are. They're always being told, "you need to rethink all those tattoos/that hair colour/ those piercings. It'll make finding a job harder." The sad thing is, those people are right. 

Whilst a company cannot fire you for not complying to their appearance policies, it can prevent them from hiring you. According to the website WorkingWorld, sixty percent of employers are less likely to hire someone if they have tattoos or piercings. Companies such as McDonalds expect their employees to be tattoo-less and to have piercings removed. Although the piercings could be health and safety related, the tattoos cannot harm anyone. Coloured hair is another matter. You can be asked to re-dye your hair a natural colour if you apply to a place that doesn't allow brightly coloured hair. All of this comes down to people's perceptions and opinions. Although this isn't counted as discrimination, it complies with the description of it. Despite the fact that it is no one else's business what someone does to their body, society still feels the need to tell people how they should look.

It seems that people are more prone to tell someone that they dislike someone else's appearance if they have tattoos or piercings. One youtuber, Scarlett Saint, discussed this issue in one of her videos.  "They know [telling you that they hate your appearance] is probably going to upset you, they know it's probably not going to change your mind. But they just have to let you know that they don't like [the way you look]," Later on in her video she says, "At the end of the day you're commenting on my appearance and the way that I choose to look and just outright saying to me, 'you look disgusting, I don't like it' and that is rude. That is very rude."

60% of employers will turn people down because
of visible tattoos or facial piercings.

Sadly, it seems that she is right. Although some places, like the now closed book shop Borders, and some local establishments do not mind piercings, tattoos and brightly coloured hair, a sixty percent chance of not being hired is not good enough for the people of the western world who have tattoos and piercings or brightly coloured hair. It's time that people started minding their own business when it comes to other's appearances and stopped being so judemental.

How will same-sex marriage affect you?

Getting married is a big event for many people. Being able to walk down the aisle wearing a beautiful dress or standing at the alter as you wait for the love of your life to walk through the doors. It can be the best moment of your life. But for many Australian's a wedding can only be a dream. Currently, same-sex marriage is illegal in Australia. Despite more and more states in America legalizing same-sex marriage every day, Australia has yet to follow in the US's footsteps. Our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has made it clear that whilst under her government same-sex marriage will not be legalized. 

As many as 550 thousand people in Australia currently identify as either bisexual or homosexual. Meaning that 550 thousand people in Australia either have about a fifty percent chance of not being able to marry their partner or not being able to get married at all. This is both degrading and dehumanizing to the LGBT* (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans*) community. Shelley Smith, the Equity and Diversity Officer at James Cook University in Cairns shared her thoughts on the matter, stating that, "LGBT* people are clearly not treated as [equal] members of society... The fact that a law actively excludes a certain group of people is clearly discrimination and not only makes the LGBT* people lesser in the eyes of the law, [but] the existence of this legislation has a domino rollover effect to the general society, as it [is] clearly seen by many in the community as the Government actively allowing homophobia." She followed this statement up by saying that she believes that same-sex marriage should be legalized in Australia. 

This discrimination is a part of a bigger problem, as Smith mentioned. Homophobia is deeply rooted within society and the LGBT* community is usually on the receiving end of extensive abuse, both verbal and physical. This comes from the homophobic and dangerous attitude that it instilled in people from birth. This attitude is that being gay is wrong and immoral. As a result, there is a higher rate of depression amongst homosexual people than there is amongst heterosexual people. The depression rate amongst people who identify as bisexual is even higher. 

Many excuses for the continuous illegality of same-sex marriage can range from the absurd to the ridiculous. Some popular excuses such as, "The bible said Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," and "Allowing same-sex marriage will destroy society. If we let gays get married, next we'll be allowing pedophiles to marry children." Not only is that last statement extremely homophobic and insulting, but it is completely untrue and an overreaction from people who are so narrow minded that they can't see how they're ignorance and harsh words are affecting those around them. Despite people's assumptions, same-sex marriage being legalized will not be the end of society as we know it. The only thing that will change will be same-sex couple's rights to marry and people's perceptions of the LGBT* community, and that will be for the better.

Think about it for one second. Most people who are homophobic or intolerant to the LGBT* community are so because of how they were raised. Homophobia is a taught trait in society. No one is born hating gay people, just as no one is born a racist. In our current society, people view same-sex marriage being illegal as the norm. A decade ago the majority of society didn't question it. It's only in the past couple of years this fight for marriage equality has really started to come into the public eye, and with it the issue of homophobia. 

Imagine one hundred years into the future. Same-sex marriage is legal world-wide. No one questions it anymore. No one ridicules or abuses the LGBT* community. It has become a part of the norm. Because despite people's beliefs, legalizing same-sex marriage will not lead to pedophile's marrying children, the world will not end and your children will not brainwashed or traumatized. Same-sex couples will be allowed to marry and that is all that will come of it. 

Ethics in Journalism

The infamous "eagle" picture by Kevin Carter.

Do you save the life of the drowning man? Or do you take the photo of a lifetime which could get more coverage, and more aid, for this horrific event? This is the question that every journalist will  have to ask themselves at least once in their career. (Well, not with those exact words in that exact situation.) At some point in time, you will have to second guess everything you once distinguished as "good" and "bad". This train of thought is often referred to as "ethics".

Ethics has lead to the insanity of many a person. Situations involving death, extreme trauma or violence can arise where a journalist has to choose between their job and what the "ethical" thing at the time to do is. I say "ethical" because the journalist helping out a starving orphan, for example, seems like the best thing to do at the time, but may not be the best thing in the long run. A good example of ethics at play is the story behind the infamous "eagle" image.

At the time, many people questioned whether famous photographer, Kevin Carter's behavior was ethical. Today the debate is still going on. It is alleged that Carter sat and watched the eagle prey upon the little, starving girl for a whopping twenty minutes. Not once did he consider walking the 200 metres to go get the girl food. On the other hand, the photographers on the trip were told by their superiors not to touch any of the locals. By this stage of his career, Carter had also seen a lot of terrible things which led to his warped view of what some believe to be ethical behavior.

But what is ethical behaviour? When asked, some people say that in Carter's position that they would get the girl food. That could very well (and mostly is) be viewed as the ethical thing to do. Other's say that the ethical thing to do would be exactly what Carter did. When factoring in the warning from his superiors, the fact he is there to be photographer and not a medic and his warped state of mind, it's easy to see why he did what he did (even though it irks me to think so).

Being a journalist is tough. Sometimes you have to make decision you really don't want to make. Sometimes that decision involves putting someone's life into your own hands. The question is: what would YOU do?

The Amazing Spider-Man

Play the "spider-pig" song from The Simpson's movie to someone and there is a high chance that they will sing along. Play them the original version of that song from the old Spider-Man cartoons and you might get a couple of blank looks. But believe it or not, Spider-Man has been around for a very long time. In fact, even longer than Doctor Who. 

Stan Lee first bought the character to life in the comic extravaganza, Amazing Fantasy. A comic in which the whimsical hero, Spider-Man, was only supposed to make an appearance. He was added in later because Stan Lee was doubtful that the comic would sell. "Nobody cares about what you put in a book that's going to die," said Stan Lee, the creator of Spider-Man and the beloved Marvel Universe, "so I threw in Spider-Man. Featured him on the cover and then forgot about him." Martin Goodman, the publisher of the Marvel comics, didn't want to publish it as he was convinced that the audience would find the spider aspect of the boy-hero to be "distateful". But Spider-Man and his legacy went on to spawn hundreds of comics, several television series' and two movie franchises. Not bad for a hero who was supposed to be a "one-shot experiment". 

Spider-Man in the Marvel Universe.

The tale of the hero, Spider-Man is not only a classic, but easily relate able to almost anyone. Unlike the other heroes in the Marvel universe, young Peter Parker doesn't get caught up in the hysteria of having powers. In fact, at first he doesn't even know what to do with them. Later on he uses them for revenge. 

Although there are several different Spider-Man verses (including Ultimate Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man), they all contain the same event which pushes Peter to become Spider-man. *SPOILER ALERT* His beloved Uncle Ben is shot by a robber which Peter let slip by him earlier. Although the details are changed minutely throughout the different universes, the results are the same. The birth of the superhero known as Spider-Man. 

The latest franchise of Spider-Man movies is based on The Amazing Spider-Man comics, with Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker and Emma Stone

Andrew Garfield (LEFT) and Emma Stone (RIGHT)
in the 2012 film, The Amazing Spider-Man.

playing Peter's love interest, Gwen Stacy. Although it was originally rumored that a fourth installment of the Sam Raimi franchise starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst was going to be the newest Spider-Man film, it was later announced that the films would be receiving a reboot. Garfield and Stone were chosen out of the hundreds that auditioned. They are currently filming the second installment: The Amazing Spider-Man 2. 

Photoshop: the good, the bad and the ugly

Photoshop gone wrong... Jennifer Lawrence before photoshop (LEFT), and after (RIGHT)

Photos have always been a way of telling a story. From the cave drawings in prehistoric times to the GIFs we have now, photography is just another element to news stories and story telling in general. Often a photographer will photoshop their work to get rid of any minor inconsistencies in the photo. However, sometimes they go too far. Particularly in media publications like fashion magazines.

This is a GIF.

Far too often you see a magazine cover with an unrecognizable celebrity gracing the cover. They've had their lips plumped, their skin retouched and their noses scaled down so much that even they're biggest fans would have a hard time recognizing their favourite celebrity. Although men do fall victim to this issue, it is mainly women who suffer the consequences. They're told that in order to fit in they have to: be skinny but fit, have a nice golden tan, long flowing hair, big breasts and luscious curves all at the same time. So, pretty much look like a barbie doll. Although scientists have already proven that Barbie would not be able to survive due to her inconsistent and out of whack bod proportions, it doesn't stop girls from trying to look like her.

Thirteen per cent of girls in Australia are reported to have an eating disorder each year, along with seven percent of boys. From a young age children are bombarded with images of what "perfect" looks like. By the time they're in their teens, they've already been convinced that they're not good enough. That's when the dieting begins.

 Although photo-shopping in magazines has been known to get out of hand, that doesn't eliminate the use of photography in journalism. When used correctly, a photo can add a touch of sorrow or joy to an otherwise lacking story. Techniques such as the framing, focus and exposure in the photo, when used correctly, can make or break the story. As Eddie Adams once said, "If it makes you laugh, it it makes you cry, if it rips out your heart, that's a good picture."

Reporting War and Trauma

Journalist, Christina Lamb reporting from Afghanistan.

War and trauma are two of the hardest topics for a journalist to cover. In week eight of JN1001, we learnt about reporting in war zones and on trauma. As is it was such a sensitive topic, I  - and I'm sure a couple of other students - probably felt a little bit uncomfortable. But nonetheless it needed to be discussed.

 Whether it be writing about it for a newspaper or talking about it to a class of journalism students, the effects are always there. War, death, natural disasters and acts of terrorism are just some of the topics which come under the somewhat broad umbrella of war and trauma. From a local car accident to 9/11, trauma is always prevalent in society. Although most people prefer to be avert to trauma, some chase it, surrounding their life in it. These people do this by going to war zones for long periods of time to report on the tragedy on behalf of their news paper or country.

As a person who is not comfortable hearing about or seeing violence, it is hard for me to imagine wanting to have such a career. But alas, my opinions are not the most important and they certainly aren't the only ones. Many people who cover topics such as war face many challenges. Some of these are psychological problems. When faced with continuous violence and unspeakable acts day after day, it can affect a person in ways that are unimaginable. Our lecturer, Marie, reminded us that if any of us go on to be war reporters, that we must remember what our job is. That is to be a journalist and nothing else. 

To be a journalist reporting in a war zone or on a tragedy, one must be able to do several things. Maintaining your professionalism and empathy is one of those things. The other important thing is to be able to remove yourself from the situation. After all, you're a reporter. Not a medic, not a counselor and not a soldier. These are some of the abilities that one would need to possess if one chose to report on war and trauma. Whether or not one would choose this career path is up to you and you alone. After all, you only get one life. You may as well live it the way you want to.

Steven Moffat: Misogynist or Genius?

Steven Moffat: Writer or ex-term-in-ator of "Doctor Who"?

When the words "strong female character" are uttered aloud, the imagery one might produce might be that of a young woman with a couple of battle scars holding a gun and/or some other type of weaponry. At least, that's what Steven Moffat, the current show runner of the BBC's popular sci-fi show, Doctor Who, seems to think of. Many people could argue, "But Steven is a brilliant writer of female characters! Look at Amy Pond and River Song!" While he may be a perfectly talented writer who is capable of stringing together some of the most popular and well-written episodes of the sci-fi giant, that doesn't excuse the sexist and misogynistic writing that has befallen the audiences ever since Moffat has been at the helm of Doctor Who.

For years, female characters have received the same old story lines and roles in film and television; be the "annoying wife", console the male or spend the entire movie chasing after one. Whereas their male counterparts can spend an entire movie saving lives or simply just being with their friends without so much as a whisper from a female. These representations by the media translate over to real life, telling women everywhere that they're not worth anything unless they have a boyfriend or husband. And that's exactly what happened to Doctor Who's seemingly fiesty companion, Amy Pond and her daughter, River Song.

Karen Gillan as Amy Pond.

Both characters start out with a seemingly interesting story ahead, only for the stories to fall flat on their faces. Amy's story, although it starts out with just her and the Doctor's adventures, ends up mainly revolves around her relationship with Rory Williams. She is disguised as a strong woman by throwing quick quips at Rory and being the "dominant" one in the relationship. This is, however, thrown out the window in series seven when Amy decides that she and Rory are over. All because Amy can't give Rory what he wants; children. (Because if a woman can't have children, what good is she, right?! *sarcasm*). This right here is a perfect example of Moffat's misogynistic ways. 

Alex Kingston as River Song/Melody Pond.

River Song is another character who showed great promise only to be stuck in the same story line over and over again.  She first appeared in the series four episode, "Silence in the Library" and came across as a witty, interesting character from the Doctor's future. Unbeknown to the Doctor, she was to be his wife. In the end, that's all she becomes. Throughout the series' she spend numerous amounts of time tracking down the Doctor and flirting with him. Most of that time she is carrying a gun on her person. It is a well-known fact that the Doctor hates violence, in particular guns, and has been quoted on several occasions stating his strong dislike for them. A good example of this is a quote from the sixth episode of the fourth series, “The Doctor’s Daughter”.

THE DOCTOR: Call me old fashioned, but if you really wanted peace couldn't you just stop fighting?

 LIEUTENENT COBB: Only when we have the Source. It will give us the power to erase every stinking Hath off the face of this planet. 

THE DOCTOR: Hang on, a second ago it was peace in our time and now you're talking about genocide!

LIEUTENENT COBB: For us, that means the same thing! 

THE DOCTOR: Then you need to get yourself a better dictionary. When you do, look up genocide. You'll see a little picture of me there and the caption'll read 'over my dead body!' 

(Series 4, Episode 6 – The Doctor’s Daughter)

This character development is, however, thrown away in the later seasons in favour of a quick flirting session with River Song.

THE DOCTOR: Oh and this is my friend River.  Nice hair, clever, has her own gun and unlike me she really doesn’t mind shooting people.  I shouldn’t like that, kinda do a bit.

RIVER SONG: Thank you sweetie. 

Billie Piper as Rose Tyler, channeling "Bad Wolf".

It seems that in Moffat’s eyes, all women can be are smart, sassy and typically beautiful. This is a startling comparison to the companions who were featured in Russell T Daives’ era of Doctor Who. The characters were all relatable and shockingly imperfect (in a good way). Although they had their sass and their intelligence, they also had story lines which allowed them to grow and become better people, rather than just spend two seasons running around chasing the Doctor. Another startling difference between the female characters in Moffat’s era and RTD’s era is the companion’s abilities to be the hero without the Doctor. In the two-part finale of the first series, Rose (with the help of Mickey) opens the heart of the TARDIS and soaks up the time vortex, becomes Bad Wolf and single handedly destroys the Daleks and the Dalek Emperor. Whereas when Amy is faced with danger in “The Girl Who Waited”, she sits and cries whilst waiting for the Doctor to save her. See the difference?

Although there is evidence that Moffat can write (The Empty Child, The Doctor Dances and Blink), it appears that when at the helm of a television show, being in charge of character arcs and plotlines, he is somewhat hopeless as to what real women are actually capable of (other than flirting and being sassy, I mean). This is evident in his shallow portrayal of women on the show Doctor Who, particularly in the characters River Song and Amy Pond. To Moffat, it seems that women are no more than an accessory. Here’s to hoping that Moffat’s writing improves in the coming seasons.

Boston Bombings: A Day of Terror

Marathoners reaching the finish line as the first bomb goes off.

It was supposed to be a day of celebration and achievement. Instead, the Boston Marathons of 2013 will go down in history as a day of terror for the United States and the world. 

It had been three hours since the first runner had crossed the line. Then, at 2:56pm, a massive explosion was heard. With debris flying everywhere and people running in every direction, it was unclear what had caused the explosion. Then just fifteen seconds later, another bomb went off at the JFK Library right down the road. At 3:15pm, the Boston police department released a statement, saying that the two explosions took place at the on Boyleston Street near the finish line of the marathon. At this point in time the number of casualties and injuries was unknown.   

As it turned out, this was the beginning of a saga that would keep the world captivated for two weeks. As the number of injuries became clear, the country mourned for the loss of the two victims who died at the scene. An eight year old boy and a women who’a age is unknown. The number of injuries at the time was ninety-nine, with most of them suffering severe burns or severed limbs. It was reported by the Boston Hospital that “multiple amputations” were among those injured at the marathons.

The two victims: Dzokhar Tsarvaev (Right) and his brother (Left).

As the suspense and terror rose in the US, so did the body count. By 8:03pm that same day, it was reported that one hundred and fifteen people were injured and another person was amongst the dead. More than ever, the public wanted answers. Over the next few days the Boston Police were under immense pressure to find the culprits who were behind this dreadful attack. Countless hours were spent tracking the suspects down, until much to the relief of the public, they were in custody.

The chase lasted a total of 24 hours and shut down the entire city of Boston. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured on Friday, after gunfire from both him and the police was exchanged. It is alleged that he had been hiding in the stern of a boat in the suburb of Watertown, according to police. A resident called the police after discovering blood on the boat. The suspect, Tsarnaev, was taken to hospital in a “serious condition” due to the injuries he had suffered. It is alleged that he had tried to kill himself by putting a gun into his mouth and firing. A failed attempt had left the police doubting he would be able to talk. He is, however, communicating via writing.

Fundamentals of Reporting

As a journalist, certain skills are expected of you. These are the fundamentals of reporting. On the 3rd of April 2013, the JN1001 class of James Cook University learnt about these values and how to correctly and incorrectly apply them to our careers as journalists. As a future journo, it is my hope that I shall be able to report the news in an appropriate manner effectively using these fundamentals.

When it comes to interviewing someone, our lecturer, Marie, was adamant about the rule of letting the interviewee know whether the interview being held was on or off the record. "On the record" meaning that anything they say can and will be included in the article  "off the record" means the opposite, that the interviewee is free to say whatever they want to without it being printed. As a person who believes that everyone should have the right to their own privacy, I believe that this is an important fundamental to incorporate into my job as a journalist. This ties in with another of the fundamentals, which is to be curious, not nosey.

The difference between being curious and nosey can be a fine line. Curiosity (in my eyes at least), is asking someone when their baby is due. Nosey is digging through all of their private files and ultra-sounds to find out what the sex of child is. Nosey is something that, as a journalist and human being, I hope never to be.

Being a journalist for me has been something that I've always been able to picture my self doing one day (If I'm being honest, my inspiration to get into journalism was Chloe on the television show "Smallville"). Whilst it wasn't always my first choice, I always believed that I would one day be doing it. This course has pushed me to learn more about the subject and has made me realize that this is what I want to be doing with my life. I want to be able to make difference in the world.

The classes are enabling me do this by helping me become the person I want to be. Particularly JN1001. In my first week of university I thought that Effective Writing would be my favourite class. English is something that I've always thought be quite good at. (How wrong was I!) To be frank, the Journalist and Society scared me. A lot. But over the past couple of weeks I've found myself looking forward to going to the lectures (even though the lecture is at 8am) and tutorials. I think I enjoy the class because it teaches us about the fundamentals of journalism in a way that doesn't make me feel like I'm being swept away in a tsunami of information (Which how I felt in my first week. Too much information, too fast). 

For now, I am quite enjoying this ride. Although I know it's only the beginning. I hope that one day I am able to look back at this and know that I got the best out of it and became the best journalist that I could be.  

Badwolf is back!

David Tennant and Billie Piper as the Tenth Doctor and Rose Tyler in the second series of Doctor Who.

With Matt Smith still at the reigns of the TARDIS, many were sceptical of the return of Rose Tyler for the fiftieth anniversary of the cult science fiction show, Doctor Who. Fans were delighted, however, when they heard that the previous Doctor, David Tennant, as well as fan favourite, Billie Piper would in fact be returning for the 50^th Anniversary special that is airing this November, in 3D nonetheless.

Earlier on in 2012, Billie Piper, who played the companion Rose Tyler to Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant’s Doctors respectively, denied any claims that she would be returning for the special this year on the Graham Norton Show. “I wasn’t asked, no…” she replied in answer to whether she had been asked to return.

From 2005 to 2006, Piper graced our screens as the feisty, yet lovely companion. For two years she travelled through time and space, fighting daleks, cybermen, slitheen and even a werewolf. She left in the heart shattering episode, “Doomsday” in 2006, only to make a return two years later in the fourth series.

Filming for the 50th Anniversary special began this week on the 3rd of April. So far, Piper has not been spotted on set. Although David Tennant along with the tenth Doctor's TARDIS has been sighted, sparking speculation that it will be the tenth Doctor that Tennant will be playing, not the meta-crisis Doctor who was created in the fourth series finale, "Journey's End" and was living in the parallel universe with Rose Tyler. 

Along with Rose, the eleventh Doctor (Matt Smith), John Hurt and new companion, Clara Oswald (Jenna-Louise Coleman) are also scheduled to appear. 

Currently the seventh series of the newly revamped Doctor who, which began airing in 2005, is halfway through with the eighth episode, "The Rings of Akhaten" airing on ABC2 at 7:30pm on Sunday the 7th of April.

Agenda Setting: Is it really that great?

A popular example of agenda setting; the case of OJ Simpson.

Whether or not you want to admit it, the media often control what news we see and hear, and any opinions we have. This is part of a theory called agenda setting. Journalists play a big part in this as they are often who the public rely on to get their news from. Usually, the information that the public is exposed to is portrayed accurately and fairly. Public media usually does a good job of reporting the news that would be deemed more beneficial for the public. Commercial media are more focused on revenue and ratings and are a good example of agenda setting gone wrong.Situations which involve bad agenda setting where facts are twisted around or omitted completely can be, and usually are, damaging. Particularly when there are people’s lives involved.

A recent example of this is the Steubenville rape case. Many news stations, in particular CNN, were only telling the rapists' sides of the story and portraying them as the victims in the situation. Not one mention of the girl whom was raped was made. This particular case is a part of a bigger situation which, through the media and agenda setting, has now become a huge problem in western society: rape culture.

Agenda setting can be broken down into two different parts: First Level Agenda Setting (FLA) and Second Level Agenda (SLA) setting. FLA is described as, “the transfer of the salience of […] issues”, and is for the most part suggesting what the public should focus on through coverage. SLA is how the media focuses on the attributes of the issues at hand.

Sometimes agenda setting can be misleading or misplace the attention. For example; Justin Bieber’s new haircut trumped the topic of AIDs in the news a while back as this was what the media knew the public would be interested in it. This is referred to agenda cutting. Noam Chomsky once commented on this, “The real mass media are basically trying to divert people,” he said, “[…] let everybody be crazed about professional sports or sex scandals or the personalities and their problems.”

Generally, unless it is of extreme import, newspapers and news channels will publish stories about celebrities or news stories with a news value of entertainment  newspaper about curing cancer. This is most commonly done in commercial media stations. The public are, however, very susceptible to the opinions the media give us about certain people, places and things. 

It is the opinion of one journalist, who wishes to remain anonymous, that agenda setting has more of a negative impact on society and journalism than positive. This is because they believe that the  media keeps the public in the dark on certain issues too frequently, or put a less important story ahead of a really important one, depending on which the  think the public will respond to better. 

What is your opinion on agenda setting? Do you think it has a positive impact on society or a negative one? Leave your comments below.

R.I.P Richard Griffiths, 1974 - 2013

He was the man that terrified a whole generation of children. Richard Griffiths breathed life into the horrible Vernon Dursley in the Harry Potter series, and boy, was he amazing. It is alleged that Griffiths passed away on the 28th of March from heart complications after a surgery, leaving behind a legacy throughout the British film industry that few can triumph.

Although Griffiths was most notably known by youngsters as Uncle Vernon, he had a vast resume in the acting world. From the television screen, to Broadway and the big screen. He covered it all. From his role as Uncle Monty in the film, Withnail and I (1987) to playing Hector in Alan Bennet’s play, The History Boys (2004), Griffiths was loved by many.

Daniel Radcliffe, who played the boy wizard, Harry alongside Griffith’s Vernon Dursley has nothing but praise for the late actor. “Richard was by my side during two of the most important moments of my career,” he said in a statement.

The first moment Radcliffe is referring to is the filming of the first Harry Potter film back in August 2000, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. “I was nervous and he made me feel at ease,” Radcliffe recalls.

The second moment being the Broadway show Equus, which sparked controversy when the then eighteen year old Radcliffe performed on stage naked. “It was my first time doing a play but, terrified as I was, his encouragement, tutelage and humour made it joy.”

Radcliffe is not the only high profile actor letting the world know of the sorrow he is feeling. Richard Grant, who starred alongside Griffiths in the film, Withnail and I tweeted saying, “My beloved ‘Uncle Monty’ Richard Griffiths died last night. Chin-chin my dear friend.”

Griffiths has won many an award over the past couple of decades, including several for his theatre role as the inspirational teacher in The History Boys, which played in London and New York. He also was awarded an OBE for his services to drama in 2007.

Griffiths was 65 when he passed away, leaving millions with nothing but gratitude for gracing us with his amazing talent and charisma. He will be sorely missed.

News Values

News stories are what keeps the world up to date with the current on-goings in society. But how do these news stories work? How do you differentiate between a happy story and a sad one? And most importantly: how does an editor decide which story is the most important?

This is where news values come into the picture (or story…). News values come in many different shapes and sizes (Okay. They don’t really, but bear with me.) The most common types of news values you will find in your newspaper are as follows: impact, audience identification, pragmatics and source influence. However, these can be broken down even further into smaller, more specific categories. These can be anything from celebrity, human interest (which is actually a pretty broad category in itself), all the way to terrorism. Depending on which news value the story has will determine the importance of said story.

One definition of a news value is: “The degree of prominence a media outlet gives to a story, and the attention that is paid by an audience.” A good example of this is September 11. All over the newspapers, news shows and internet forums, everyone was reporting on the tragedy that had occurred and what was going to happen afterwards. This is because a lot of people were affected by this and many more were still in danger.

Another factor in what deems the importance of a particular story is location. For example, unless it was going to have a significant impact, an Australian newspaper wouldn’t report on a robbery in a small American town, and visa versa. An Australian newspaper would, however, print a story about a robbery that happened in a small Australian town. This is a part of the rule “If it’s local, it leads”. The other part of the rule being, “If it bleeds, it leads”, meaning that if a mass shooting happens, or a horrific car accident takes place, it usually ends up on the front page somewhere, or everywhere.

Finally, I will leave you with this quote from Arthur Evelyn Waugh whilst you ponder on what you believe to be newsworthy. “News is what a chap who doesn't care much about anything wants to read. And it's only news until he's read it. After that it's dead.”  

Stuebenville Sheds Light On Terrible World

The two rapists; Trent Mays and MaLik Richmonds.

Stuebenville, Ohio is usually a quiet town. But a case of rape involving a young girl and two young males has bought unwanted attention to the once serene place.

The victim, “Jane Doe”, was repeatedly raped after the two young males, Trent Mays, 17, and his teammate Mal’lick Richmond, 16, found her unconscious in the middle of a road near a high school party on the 12^th of August 2012. The victim has stated repeatedly that she was “very drunk” and doesn’t remember a lot of that night.

It is alleged that she did not even find out that the incident had occurred until she found a picture of herself via social media with what looked like semen on her stomach.

“Jane Doe” is just one of the many victims of a flawed society who have fallen victim to rape culture. This phenomenon is described as “[…] a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape.” Sadly, 54% of rape incidents go unreported every year as a result of this.

Many victims of rape are left feeling that the attack is somehow their fault. That they deserved it. By speaking out against her attackers, “Jane Doe” has done something remarkable, and is in turn been punished for it.

People who used to be her friends turned their back against her, many of them females. The football team which her attackers belong to tried to sweep the incident under the carpet, with much of the town willing to help. Because these two boys were star football players, their heinous crimes were to be overlooked. If it wasn’t for her parents persistence to report it to the police, this case might never have seen the light of day.

Throughout the course of this now infamous case, “Jane Doe” has been subjected to many forms of taunting and abuse, including death threats, whilst the two rapists were sympathised with.

Coverage from CNN included the reporters commenting on how the two rapists, Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond’s lives were now ruined as they had “such bright futures” and were “model students”. Not one word was mentioned about how the young girl’s life was also ruined because of their actions.

This disgusting report has resulted in a petition going around with over two-hundred and twenty thousand signatures getting CNN to apologize for sympathizing with the rapists.

Sadly, this is world we live in. A world where women are blamed for being raped because of what they wear and because men believe that they are entitled to use women as they please. Because obviously women are objects, not human beings with emotions, fears and rights.

A Pope for the New Ages?

For the Catholics around the world, it was a step forwards. But for the millions of LGBTQ people around the world, it was a step backwards. It was the news that millions waited for with baited breath. Ever since Pope Benedict XVI announced his retirement, the entire world – regardless of their religion or sexual orientation – awaited the news of who would be his replacement.

Finally, on the thirteenth of March, it was announced that Pope Francis would be taking over. Given that this is such a historic moment – and one that many people will only ever see once in their lifetime – it is a surprise that nearly all of the thousands who gathered to watch the event, chose to view it through the screens of their iPhone or camera. This is the difference that eight years and a technology advance makes.

Along with the technology, people’s opinions are also changing and advancing. So it comes as surprise to some that this new pope is also homophobic. Whilst most people wouldn’t bat an eyelash at this information (some would agree with the new pope), other people are beginning to wonder. Isn’t it time for a pope who’s in favour of same-sex marriage?

Pope Francis has already stated his opinion on the matter, making it clear what his stance on same-sex marriage is. “Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God,” Pope Francis disputed. But he didn’t stop there. He continued his hate speech by stating why same-sex marriage shouldn’t be legalized, “We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Despite having a tonne of cases of sexual abuse within the Vatican, Pope Francis also took a dig at same-sex couples adopting.  “The Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family… At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children.”

Whether or not he knows it, these words, both written and spoken aloud, will have a huge effect on the world in the coming years. Whilst countless countries have and still are legalising same-sex marriage, many more are stuck in the dark ages, still punishing people who come out as anything other than heterosexual. Powerful figures like the Pope saying dangerous and poisonous things like this are only pushing these people to cause more harm to our already fragile society.

So many advances have been made in the past decade. Can’t a Pope supporting same-sex marriage be another milestone to add to a growing list?

Entitlement: Will it be the death of the Journalist?

One hundred years ago, the human race didn't need so much as a telephone to get by. These days, our dependency on technology is rapidly increasing. From downloading movies to doing your groceries, the internet has become integrated into our everyday lives in a big way.

When the internet first became an everyday thing, it was mainly used for emails and looking things up. Then came the dawn of the social networking age. Facebook and Myspace became all the rage, and people started creating more content than ever, more than doubling the information that was available on the internet. Then in 2006, social networking was changed forever when Twitter came along.

Although it took a couple of years to take off, the 140 character “micro blog”, as it is referred to, took off in a huge way. With a staggering 520’250’000 users world-wide and over one-hundred and eighty million tweets a day, twitter has become one of the most popular social networking sites in the world. Its #search method has also enable journalists to have a quicker, more efficient way to get news of the day. However, this also means that the public also had a quicker, more efficient way to get the news, that didn't involve the newspaper or journalists.

Long before Twitter however, newspapers had begun to upload their stories on to the internet for free. Although this is nothing new in the virtual world, paying for that news is. Media watch covered this in their article "Paying for the news".

Most people will only pay for their news if it’s in a newspaper and according to a survey conducted online, eighty-six percent of people would not be willing to pay for their online news. Much like a young child who was given “free” jelly beans and then told to pay for them after eating some, the public has reacted in much the same manner. They believe that they are entitled to their share of free news. Hence why only a measly fourteen percent stated that they would be willing to pay five dollars per month to receive their news online.  So what does this mean for the future of journalism?

With speculations that newspapers could soon be a thing of the past, the journalism world is in panic mode. Whilst it would have seemed like a brilliant idea at the time to upload the daily news onto the internet available to the public for free, many newspapers are having doubts about their “brilliant” idea.

This completely unforeseen situation has a name.

It’s called “Amara’s law” and focuses on “… overestimat[ing] the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate[ing] the effect in the long run”, which perfectly sums up what’s happening right now.  If the public continue to refuse to pay for their online news and continue to source it from Twitter and Facebook, then the journalism profession may become a thing of the past. But how long would the world last without it’s journalists there to tell the world’s people about what’s going on around them? Only time will tell. 

Commercial media: is it really doing us any good?

"In this regard, one things stands out above all others - the view that the very nature of the commercial equates to a corruption of the social. In other words, as media become more commercial, they do so at the expense of their social function. This is seen as zero-sum game. Profits come before equality."

The quote from Professor Michel Bromley sums up the daily injustice that are our commercial media outlets (ie; various newspapers, television stations, radio stations and magazines). They cast aside the relevant and important issues in our society today in favour of trashy, tabloid stores about celebrities and fashion. This is done out of a need to make a profit. But has it gotten to the point where money is more important than actual news worthy stories? 

If you looked at a newspaper, say for example, The Courier Mail, your chances of finding an important and newsworthy story on the front page would be very slim. Depending on what the latest scandal is, you could be seeing anything from Kate and William's unborn child, to a sports scandal - most likely to be involved with the AFL or rugby. The sad things is, this shocking phenomena has been going on for years. 

It seems that people these days are more interested in the latest celebrity "news" (ie; the use of drugs in sport) than the state of our hospitals, or the fact that our LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) youth are three and a half to fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than the general community. But are there news stories on either of these things? No, there are not. Instead, every news program, newspaper, and radio station focuses on the issue of drugs in sport and how that "affects" the rest of the country. How and when did the issue of what steroids athletes use become more important than preventing our youth from dying?

One journalism student shared her opinion on the matter, "I think that there are some issues that need to be much more prevalent in the media than some of the topics that are being reported," she said. "There needs to be more articles on what's happening in Iraq, or the issue of sexism and how it's still prominent in society."

Whether or not the media ever do start reporting on what's important, one thing's for sure;
as media become more commercial, they are most certainly doing so at the expense of their social function.

Mardi Gras Nightmare Tip of the Iceberg

It was supposed to be a night of fun and celebration, instead for one teenager, Mardi Gras became a living nightmare. Jamie Jackson, just eighteen years of age, was approached by the police after he innocently tickled a fellow Mardi Gras goer. Later on in the evening, Jackson was apprehended with a charge of offensive language at approximately 10PM. After a couple of minutes, the altercation became violent, with Jackson being thrown to the ground by the police officers. In new footage recently released, a woman can be heard screaming at the police officer, "We just saw you throw his head against the ground. His blood is on the ground!" Jackson commented on the situation to A Current Affair, "I could have been killed," he said, "The way they threw me on the ground, like, if I hit my head in the wrong position... it was just crazy. I was in handcuffs, what could I have done? Why did I have to get thrown down like that? Why couldn't he handle it, like, maturely?" 

Jackson claims that at the time of the tickling incident, the woman was on her phone. Initially she did not take any offense to his actions. She just turned away and continued her phone conversation. "I'm not even sure that tickling someone counted as an offence," Jackson told A Current Affair. "Okay, yes, I shouldn't have approached someone I didn't know, I understand that, but I just don't even know how it got to this point. I just don't know a simple altercation could turn into a big, massive scuffle." He says that memories of the incident are hazy, but he believes that he blacked out  after he was thrown against the ground the second time, and awoke seconds later, crying. Whether or not the appropriate level of force was used is debatable. The State MP and gay rights activist, Alex Greenwich, has spoken out about the situation, stating that is was very concerning that a police officer "body slammed" a teenage boy for swearing. He then went on to say, "If the only thing that the individual did was use offensive language, then I think that many would agree that the approach the police took to the situation and the body slam on the ground is certainly a heavy handed approach to the matter."

Jackson just hours before the incident.

Another incident that occurred on the night leads to speculation that the brutality used on young Jamie Jackson has been more prevalent in society than it may have seemed. Gay activist, Bry Hutchinson, was also assaulted on the same night. He was held down by five police officers and kicked after ignoring their instructions not to cross a road."I was kicked several times," the former convenor of the Community Action Against Homophobia said, "I had my face pushed into the ground," and perhaps the most shocking revelation yet, "I had a police officer leaning on me. I told him I couldn't breathe. He told me, 'If you can talk, you can breathe.'" Evidence like this suggests that the officers policing the Mardi Gras may have some issues that need dealing with. 

One man at a recent rally against police brutality said, "Police are constantly abusing people and taking advantage of their position of power and not being held accountable for it," Rami, 24, who did not disclose his last name, "It makes no sense to have police investigate police ... it needs to be independent and transparent." He also said that he hopes the police know that they "can't get away with everything they do. If you act outside of your power and if you take advantage of your position of power the community won't be quiet," he said.

Jamie Jackson will appear in court on the first of April, and Bryn Hutchinson will appear in court on the fifth of April.