Techology and the "New World"

It's recently been announced that internet giant Google has developed a way to show moblie phone users their location without needing a GPS reciever.

It's been reported that the tracking feature is available in 20 or more countries and and the does not collect personal data from users.

What gets me about this is that while the intentions may be good, it sounds like something out of the great speculative fiction worlds of Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World. And while I enjoy following technological developments, it can be startling to see things which may be convenient, also have the potential to be misused by people.

The internet itself is a great example. You've got one of the greatest communication and resource tools (possibly the greatest in this day and age) right in front of you. And so many different people connected. But still the internet is misused by bullies, opportunists and other people who don't deserve publicity here. I like to think not by many, but who knows?

The thing is, the good should balance out the bad. In the case of the internet, while it's still a highly debated topic, I believe it does balance out. There are lots of different opportunities available through networking sites and research is made much easer (I sometimes even search online for books I might need).

And I can see the merit of the new phone technology Google has developed. Sometimes you really do need to be able to see where you are. But I also believe it can be good to explore technology's avenues. And writing is one way of doing that. It's interesting to see that while technology is man-made, it often takes on a persona of it's own. Yet really, the merit of technology can be largely based on individual intentions and opinions.

Tuesday

I've been a bit of a Cinderella today, cleaning the house in KEY areas, doing the washing up etc. And once again my plans to meet up with friends were foiled. But tomorrow I will be going to the newest cafe in town, a sleek, city-style venue called Elite which opened up last year. Now, I have reservations about it (who in their right mind calls a cafe Elite in a diverse town?), but the idea that the owners, or at least the namers, are pretentious people who don't get this town is one I have to come to terms with and challenge. So I shall. And with my fellow Coffee Conniseur, Sasha, we shall see how it stands in the scheme of things.

Today's blog entry shall be short, and is brought to you by the word blog. I apologise to my brother, who hates the word, but he'll get over it one day, I guess.

I have been following the new web series quarterlife, created by Marshall Herskovitz and Edward Zwick, the producers behind Blood Diamond and a couple of well-recieved tv shows. At first I thought I wouldn't like it - the show is about five twentysomethings and their creative, complex lives. But I do like it. The representations are true, the acting is good and the script is as well. And I like the way it moves between blog-style video and tv-style cinematography. So that is the latest in the world of the web.

And as short I said, short I'll stay (for today).

Television Tricks

I knew there was reason to be excited by the idea of shows being broadcast online, and I realised tonight what that reason could include: the trick tv stations play to get in as much advertising and ratings (which amount to about the same) as possible.

Tonight, I was watching one of the few shows I regularly tune into at 8:30pm. Or, actually, I watched the last five minutes of the show before it because the show I wanted to watch didn't start until 8:35pm. This is a technique used so that ratings will go up for two shows instead of one, should people with ratings boxes tune in at the programmed time. I've read about stations doing that for a couple of years, so I know it's fairly routine these days. But after a while you start reading 8:30pm as meaning 8:35pm or even 8:40pm, and on the rare occasion that they are running on time, you miss part of the show you wanted to watch. Annoying.

But there's more. The other thing commercial tv stations love to do for their viewers benefit (of course), is squash the credits into one half of the screen and advertise the next programme. I wonder if they do this to remind people of the former technique, a way of saying "No, silly viewer, your show is still on, we're just running it a bit later, hahaha". Or maybe it's another attempt to boost (moneymoneymoneymoney) ratings. Tonight, they took this one step further and actually squashed the end of the show into half the screen, muted it and went into a "see this show next (but miss out on the end of the show you're watching while we advise you to watch the next show which will be on after this advertisement for it because we're cutting off the end of the show you're watching...)".

Seriously. That is bad advertising, bad programming and bad PR. Sure, try and get ratings by running a show 5 minutes later than scheduled, or squashing the credits (which I enjoy reading, thanks very much, I can definitely read the small, skewed print you substitute for full-screen credits), but not cutting off the end of a show. That's like starting a joke and not...


...


See what I mean?

Friday - Election Eve

"We have a strong (track record) and plenty of performance," Howard said as I drank my coffee and listened to the radio. I almost choked at the line "plenty of performance", wondering what kind of performance he is talking about. Certainly he has been in power a long time, but that doesn't mean his performance has been up to standard. In other areas of life men can get drugs to assist in their performance failings, I wonder why they haven't found a way to assist politicians. This election seems to be yet another battle for masculinity - who has the bigger promises? And who's performance is more reliable? I don't want to be left unsatisfied again by the government.

Speaking of the government, I may have come across more differences between politicians and other people in interview situations. And as promised, I will explain some interview techniques and how they might change if you are interviewing a politician.

Technique 1 - The "hard news" interview
"Hard news" is a term used for the short, sharp news stories you might read in the paper, or see or hear on a broadcast news bulletin. This is also the interview technique I first learnt as a journalism student, and one that crops up in most forms of interviewing in some way. The interview should be concise, and questions can be an effective way to achieve that. Ask questions which are to the point. Don't share your opinion on the issue (as a journalist you should not have an opinion, you should try to be balanced, ie harangue both sides of the issue). And - this is an important one - ask "open-ended" questions, ones which will discourage yes/no answers. That way you can get as much information as possible.
Question examples might be:

* How do you feel about the current state of satire in Australia?
* Why do you promote satirical content on your enemies? (although you probably wouldn't use the word "enemies")

You might also include a few closed questions (the yes/no ones) for clarification of an issue, for example "is there satire in Australia?".

Hard news interview and politicians
In a recent interview Kerry O'Brien did with opposition leader Kevin Rudd, I noticed his questions leaned more towards closed questions. And an interesting thing happened. Where a regular interviewee might answer with "yes" or, if you're lucky, "no. But this and that because of this", Rudd's answers were as long as a Mr Regular Interviewee's answers to an open-ended question might be.

This observation led me to create a rule for interviewing politicians:

If you want an answer that goes for 5 minutes or more, ask the politician a closed question. If you have a spare hour, ask an open-ended question.

And another thing. If you ask a question you know they won't answer, expect to be there for a long time, as the politician answers with policies and background to an issue which may possibly be related to the original question, but is not guaranteed to relate at all. They particularly seem to like doing that when it's The Public asking the question. You can call them on this behaviour, but if you do, expect to be there for a long time as the politician answers with policies and background...

And that completes my advice on the "hard news" interview. Some time: I may look at other forms of questioning.

Thursday

Is your news limited?

For years I've been dissatisfied with the media in Australia. Journalists seem to come across as sneaky, snide, sleazy, arrogant, unethical and unconcerned individuals which add up to the sum of media in this country. But are they like that?

Since this year (I suppose) I have been wondering whether the media really is as bad as we all seem to think it is. And this train of thought is fuelled largely by my study, but also by my increased interest in current affairs and news and satire like The Chaser and Frontline. I was having a discussion with my brother a few days ago about whether the Australian media help to enforce ideas of democracy. And he was saying that he believed the media is not doing that job in the slightest and is more hinderance than helper.

I used to agree with that sentiment, almost without question, but the (journalistic) cynical side of me questions everything. And really, are the media such a bad element? Should we distrust them, make them the butt of our jokes, treat the phrase "ethical journalism" as an oxymoron of old? What is it about the media that causes regard somewhat lesser than that you might have for mould in the shower?

Most of the journalists in this country are good journalists. They are ethical and they do their job not for glory, but out of an intrinsic human interest (and probably an ingrained duty some of the more weathered journo's feel). Think about journalists like Kerry O'Brien, Sandra Sully (yes, she annoys me, but she's pretty good really), George Negus, Indira Naidoo, David Marr, Michael Idato, Hedley Thomas (who exposed Dr Death and the mistreatment of Haneef). If you know any one of those names, think of whether they fit in with your perceptions of the media. I don't think they would for my brother, but they are good, prominent journalists. And the majority of journalists in this country are just as good.

But if we have so many "good journalists", why does the media seem like it's doing nothing helpful? Therein lies the problem.

I think it has to do with the concentration of media ownership, firstly. Of course, I love Fairfax and News Limited, but with only TWO primary owners of media in this country, there's very little competition. Think of a job you would like. And imagine you are in a position where you could be promoted for doing better than your colleagues. Ok, now imagine there are very few colleagues at a level above you as most are on the same level as you. That's what I think we have with the media here. What's the point in trying to get to the top when most people are level with you and going higher could expose you to a lot of nasty treatment?

There's more legislative influences, but that is a big one, and I don't want to harp on for much longer.

The other element is what makes up the definition of media. It includes news, current affairs, features (in magazines etc), documentary shows like Australian Story and celebrity gossip that you often see in magazines. Are you seeing the contrasts?

I'll probably write a lot more political stuff over the next few days, leading up to and following the election.

Next time: Tune in for the best way to ask questions as a journalist, and the different techniques you can use. Baffle your friends with your investigative, persistant skills and stun politicians with your mastery of questioning.

But for now, I wonder if you might think about how The Chaser's War on Everything only ever satirises a couple of sections of the media. If all of "the media" was the way lots of people think of the media, wouldn't they satirise more than the usual (A Current Affair and Today Tonight)?

Sunday

Paige Smith is a journalist who works in Australia. Where she works doesn't really matter, because she knows who her real bosses are ("their are only two of them", she says in her professional, trained newsreaderspeak). She likes the current political system and what it does (to) for the fourth estate. "The anti-terror legislation is good for journalists...and we know we don't have to concern ourselfs with Freedom of Information requests because what we get back is generally similar to what we start with - a blank page," she reports.

I could go on about Paige, she's certainly interesting in her support of the current system (the 'fourth estate' didn't get it's name from agreeing with governments, I promise), but that is enough. And the laws which Australian journalists abide by are enough. If you follow the code of ethics, set out by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, if you stand by the twelve short points set out, you should be a decent journalist. But under the current laws, following at least one of these principals ("Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.") can get you put in (contempt) gaol. Is that fair? Is that allowing journalists to do their jobs properly? Maybe, but I'm not sure we're out of the woods and following the path.

In other news (haha), I am still thinking of all the Writers Guild of America members who are on strike. It seems as though (especially in film) producers and directors and actors get the most respect from the general (not that word) public. I can understand their cause, and I make a point of appreciating the writers of both films and television shows I enjoy (more so with tv shows as you're more likely to become familiar with a writer). I hope it ends soon though, for the sake of the writers and all the other skilled professionals like costume designers who are currently out of work.

At least we can write about it for them.

Friday

I was having a busy but good day today. I got treated to a coffee this morning at the cafe, had a nice chat there and headed home to cook for mum. I was in the kitchen from 11am til 3pm non-stop with different cooking things - the cake, chocolate coated stawberries and cherries, salsa, hummous. It kept me busy but I enjoyed it.

Just when I was resting (drinking coffee and reading a Stephen King short story), someone stole my thunder.

It so happens that I got an excellent mark for an assignment which was more than an assignment to me. And I have plans for it outside of uni too. Plans I would prefer to keep slightly to myself until they lead to something like the clearing at the end of the path for this assignment. But obviously Fate (or someone there when I got my assignment in the mail), had other plans. I don't like people spreading good news for me. Let alone the part which hasn't been achieved yet. So now my thunders been stolen, but the storms here in a coffee cup (I'm drinking coffee, tired from all the cooking today).

Hopefully things will look up later though.

Tuesday

It's been a while. I actually think I should write one of my inevitably long emails soon, but some recent correspondance from my Future (soon) Director in Hungary made me decide I should do more blog entries.

I have returned to the beautiful town of Bellingen, population somewhere between 2 and 3 thousand people. The river's full, the birdies are singing, crickets chirping and even the yellowish grass is green (much greener than any Brisbane grass, anyway). I am very happy to be away from the city for a while.

Of course, there are things I miss, like access to the movies (particularly for less than $11), shops, and other entertainmenty stuff. But I have actually had a rest since being here. I'd almost forgotten than word existed out of the few hours of sleep I'd get a night during semestertime.

At the end of last week (Friday Saturday) both my performances went well. I was buggered by Sunday, but my first Shakespeare workshop also seemed to be fun for all. And there should be a few more people coming along this Sunday, so that's promising.

I've devoted a lot of the resting to reading, and some to watching shows like Battlestar Galactica, which Sister Dear suggested I'd like (and rightly so). Mainly reading, and drinking coffee. And I think I'll leave it at that for now. I'd enjoy any comments you'd like to leave too.

Tuesday

Time is speeding away from me like cars on the highway at holiday time. I don't mind, but at the same time I do. I feel like things are slipping by me without getting my full attention, and I don't like that idea.

I've started reading Stephen King's Lisey's story, upon Sister Dear's suggestion to do so. I'm not very far into it, but I like it so far. A lot of the King books I've read are not done from a female perspective (the only one which I can think of that uses an exclusively female voice is The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon). While things like male or female perspective rarely bother me, it's interesting to see how they might differ for writers. A few writers I'm familiar with go very cliche when they write from a certain gender perspective. Stephen King does not (at least not from my reading so far).

Today has been spent reading, writing up my last assignment and watching Boston Legal with Sister Dear. We're watching Season 3 at the moment, and I have to say it has been my favourite so far. The characters are good (some of the new ones great), the stories are excellent and the morality behind them highly entertaining. And, I must admit I do enjoy figuring out what angles they might take for their court cases (as I say to some friends "I like it 'cause I know a bit about the law", and never mind that I've only studied Australian law in depth, and only in relation to the media at that!).

Otherwise, things are as they should be.

Monday

Yes, I took a week off. Well, a bit more than a week, but close enough for government business as some might say. I needed a break from things to try and take it easy. Evidently "taking it easy" is not simple task for me, I've still been busy. But I'm slightly more relaxed.

I spent the first few days of last week writing my last essay for the year, and the rest milling through other forms of work and arranging my holidays and other nonesuch. Rehearsals have played a bigger role the past week or so. And my back has been sore. At first I had no idea why, but I think it's from lifting a girl in the play up and carrying her as if in a funeral procession. Because I'm the shortest cast member the weight isn't distributed fairly, so it's not been good. But I'm doing stretches and I should be ok.

I am looking forward to performing in it. It's just getting to that stage which is difficult. The directors are making some great decisions, but they are not good with time management or considering cast members. For example, they waffle along for half an hour or so before getting started at a rehearsal, don't do very well chosen warm-ups, and ask cast members to come in even when they know that certain cast members won't be needed until hours later.

And they don't understand stage etiquette. One cast member felt they were facing upstage for too long in a scene, but couldn't do much about it because of the blocking, and I heard one of the directors say to the other "does it matter if she's facing upstage?", to which the other director replied "not really, as long as she projects". Ok, rule number one is NEVER have your back to the audience. Obviously once you know this rule you can manipulate it and play with it, but to not know it at all? O, grim looked night!

The weekend just passed was very nice for me. My mum and brother came up to visit and we all went to see the play that Sister Dear assistant directed for. I thought it was good, but at times a bit overacted in a bad way. But it was the first night, and Sister Dear said they were very nervous, so I think it would have improved a great deal since then, and I enjoyed it all the same.

And for now, I think I shall take my leave for another day. It's been a while, but I shall strive to be more constant in the future.