The media reports on court proceedings. Journalist have a responsibility to society and to show the public that justice is being done. Also, the issues that happen within court have news values, such as controversy and drama, and the public is interested to know what is going on. Reporting on court proceedings fulfills a function of social control because when someone reports on a deviant behavior it sends a message to the rest of the people in the community that the particular behavior is unacceptable.
The court system is full of conflict. It is a human nature to take interest in the fortunes and misfortunes of others because then we are not focused on our own misfortunes. Court reporting boost circulations and ratings because readers are interested and curious about what is going on in court, especially at a local level. Journalists struggle with balancing their duty to present a fair and accurate report on the court proceedings and to still maintain a public interest in the matter.
Although journalist have access to report on court proceedings, there are restrictions journalist have to follow in order not to be charged with anything. Journalist should only report on what they see or hear. Journalist should never report on a court case that they have not been to because they may not know if there are any suppression orders and could be held with contempt because they were not aware of the restrictions the judge had put on the case. Traditionally, tape recorders and cameras are not allowed in the court room, but some judges will allow journalist to take notes and even record with special permission before the trial starts.
In order for one to be a successful journalist, one needs to be objective when reporting on court proceedings. Court reporting requires the reporter's bias do not taint the story. The report should be fair and accurate and a journalist should only state the facts and avoid descriptors because those things could have a journalist charged with contempt. When a journalist only reports on the facts, it allows the readers to form their own opinions and conclusions on the case.
In order for a journalist to report on court proceedings, one needs to have a general knowledge of the court system and its processes, not only in your jurisdiction but others as well when you report in that territory. Journalist need to be aware of the issues they cannot report on. All Australian jurisdictions prohibit the identification of a complainant in sexual offense cases in order to protect the victim and to encourage future victims to come forward and report. The identification of children charged with criminal offenses is banned in Australian jurisdictions. Journalist also cannot identify any parties involved in adoptions and issues in family court. Finally, any identification of jurors and discussing any part of the trial with jurors can cause the trial to be dismissed.
Sunday, 31 March 2013
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Agenda Setting and Framing
There are many things that happen in the news but only a small percentage is reported on. The stories or events that are reported on are because they meet the criteria of being newsworthy. Agenda setting defines what is or isn't newsworthy.
Agenda setting is the process of the mass media presenting certain issues frequently and prominently with the result that large segments of the public come to perceive those issues as more important. This simple means the more coverage a stories receive means it is important enough to receive that amount of coverage. Media doesn't tell you what to think, but what to think about.
There are two levels of agenda setting. The first level focuses on the amount of media coverage and it's concerned with the influence the media on which objects are at the center of public attention. The second level focuses on how the media discusses those issues and how the people understand. The attributes and tone the media use in their descriptions are the attributes and tone foremost in the public mind.
The media constructs our view of society. An individuals conception of reality is socially constructed through a process of communication and using shared language. This constructed view of society is done through the process of framing and agenda setting. Framing is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient to promote a particular problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation. Both framing and agenda setting call attention to the perspectives of communication and their audiences and how they picture topics in the news.
For example, the coverage of Hurricane Katrina after it hit New Orleans.
Agenda setting is the process of the mass media presenting certain issues frequently and prominently with the result that large segments of the public come to perceive those issues as more important. This simple means the more coverage a stories receive means it is important enough to receive that amount of coverage. Media doesn't tell you what to think, but what to think about.
There are two levels of agenda setting. The first level focuses on the amount of media coverage and it's concerned with the influence the media on which objects are at the center of public attention. The second level focuses on how the media discusses those issues and how the people understand. The attributes and tone the media use in their descriptions are the attributes and tone foremost in the public mind.
The media constructs our view of society. An individuals conception of reality is socially constructed through a process of communication and using shared language. This constructed view of society is done through the process of framing and agenda setting. Framing is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient to promote a particular problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation. Both framing and agenda setting call attention to the perspectives of communication and their audiences and how they picture topics in the news.
For example, the coverage of Hurricane Katrina after it hit New Orleans.
As you can see in these two different newspaper clippings, the difference in the way they described the efforts people were making just to stay alive. White people were described as finding food like they were surviving the tragedy. On the other hand, black people were described as stealing their food like they were taking advantage of the tragedy to get free food instead of trying to survive until they were rescued.
Monday, 25 March 2013
Feminist Theories
A theory is an explanation for something that happens in the world. It tries to explain something socially constructive. One of the major theories in today's society is feminism. Feminism does not have one single defined ideology. It's concerned with the conditions for women and an active desire to change the quality of women's lives. Feminism has a range of feminist ideologies, but I will only be discussing three: liberal feminism, marxist feminism, and radical feminism.
Liberal feminism believes women are equally capable of reason as men and therefore should have equal opportunity. They believe women oppression will end once women have achieved legal equality and equal opportunity with men. Women have been disadvantaged by the opportunities offered to men both personally and socially. In the legal system that have been major differences between men and women concerning laws and how situations are handled such as divorce, property, domestic violence and martial rape. If you want to search domestic violence before the 50s you will have to search wife disobedience and men could not be charged with martial rape because women were seen as a vessel and they were there to serve their husbands. However, every theory has its limitations. Liberal feminism is too simplistic because of the idea of choice and what that means. Women say they have a choice now to decide for themselves but is that really the case? Do when really have the freedom to decide something or is the society constructed for women to think they have a choice.
Marxist feminism believes women's oppression is based on the capitalist system of social organization and therefore argue it has primarily economic base. Marxist feminist see sexism as a symptom of class oppression which would resolved by a socialist revolution. They argue that the social, sexual, and emotional aspects of women's lives are insignificant politically because they fall within the personal and private sphere. Within the political world, women are pushed into the private sphere because they are not judged on the plans or view points but rather how they are handling running for office and managing their household and how their kids are affected by having a mom in the work force. The limitations for this theory are class and capitalism obscures women's experiences in the private sphere.
Radical feminism believes the cause of women's oppression is patriarchy which is a male dominance and oppression of women on the basis of sex. They see this as the oldest form of oppression and all men oppress all women. It focuses on sexuality, reproduction, rape and violence against women. A limitation here is the question of is gender truly the most fundamental form on inequality between men and women. This is the image people think of when someone says feminist. This radical theory has led people to believe in the feminist stereotype that all feminist are bra burning women who are passionate about hating men. However, in reality, a feminist is a combination of many different aspects of theories and their beliefs are determined based on their own experiences with oppression.
Liberal feminism believes women are equally capable of reason as men and therefore should have equal opportunity. They believe women oppression will end once women have achieved legal equality and equal opportunity with men. Women have been disadvantaged by the opportunities offered to men both personally and socially. In the legal system that have been major differences between men and women concerning laws and how situations are handled such as divorce, property, domestic violence and martial rape. If you want to search domestic violence before the 50s you will have to search wife disobedience and men could not be charged with martial rape because women were seen as a vessel and they were there to serve their husbands. However, every theory has its limitations. Liberal feminism is too simplistic because of the idea of choice and what that means. Women say they have a choice now to decide for themselves but is that really the case? Do when really have the freedom to decide something or is the society constructed for women to think they have a choice.
Marxist feminism believes women's oppression is based on the capitalist system of social organization and therefore argue it has primarily economic base. Marxist feminist see sexism as a symptom of class oppression which would resolved by a socialist revolution. They argue that the social, sexual, and emotional aspects of women's lives are insignificant politically because they fall within the personal and private sphere. Within the political world, women are pushed into the private sphere because they are not judged on the plans or view points but rather how they are handling running for office and managing their household and how their kids are affected by having a mom in the work force. The limitations for this theory are class and capitalism obscures women's experiences in the private sphere.
Radical feminism believes the cause of women's oppression is patriarchy which is a male dominance and oppression of women on the basis of sex. They see this as the oldest form of oppression and all men oppress all women. It focuses on sexuality, reproduction, rape and violence against women. A limitation here is the question of is gender truly the most fundamental form on inequality between men and women. This is the image people think of when someone says feminist. This radical theory has led people to believe in the feminist stereotype that all feminist are bra burning women who are passionate about hating men. However, in reality, a feminist is a combination of many different aspects of theories and their beliefs are determined based on their own experiences with oppression.
Sunday, 24 March 2013
It's a principle, not a right
This past week in my media law class, we discussed open justice, which is a principle not a right. The judicial process can be under public examination because of the principle of open justice. It is a principle that can be both denied and limited in court and public debate. The media represents the general public who would do the criticizing the judicial process for themselves if they had access like the media.
However, there are limitations that go along with this principle. Based upon the jurisdiction you are in these limitations can vary. Because these limitations vary some much it is the journalist responsibility to know the jurisdictions for the area they will be reporting in. The main restrictions across Australia are concerned with sexual offenses, children, divorce, juries, national security, and official secrets.
Since the media represents the general public, journalist have more access to the court system than another citizen. Journalist have certain privileges such as sitting at the bench press, being able to take notes during the proceedings, audio taping and video recording. Depending on the judge, some journalist have the privilege of using social media to document the court's proceedings. This is usually done through the use of Twitter. However, journalist do have restrictions to particular court documents.
Even though judges can allow journalist to have access to court proceedings, they can also use suppression orders to prevent the disclosure of all or part of a case. For example, suppression orders can apply to protecting the identification of a witness. Anything said in court when the jury is not present cannot be published. Court can issue a 'pseudonym order' which is a type of suppression order that only uses a series of letters instead of a the person's real name.
Also some judges may not allow journalist the use of recording devices because may have repercussions on the case. Witnesses could be intimidated by cameras and it may affect their testimony. Equipment may malfunction that could disrupt the proceedings. Recorded excerpts of proceedings might be used for inappropriate or illegal purposes, such as letting a witness view the material before they have appeared.
With the use of open justice, there is also secret justice to protect particular individuals from the public and the media. Three processes in particular are considered secret justice. The first is the mental health system. If the suspect in a serious crime is unfit to stand trial, it progresses through the mental health system of that state or territory. The second area is 'alternative dispute resolution' which simply means out of court settlement. If this is the case then the details of the settlement are kept off public record. And the third is concerned with national security.
However, there are limitations that go along with this principle. Based upon the jurisdiction you are in these limitations can vary. Because these limitations vary some much it is the journalist responsibility to know the jurisdictions for the area they will be reporting in. The main restrictions across Australia are concerned with sexual offenses, children, divorce, juries, national security, and official secrets.
Since the media represents the general public, journalist have more access to the court system than another citizen. Journalist have certain privileges such as sitting at the bench press, being able to take notes during the proceedings, audio taping and video recording. Depending on the judge, some journalist have the privilege of using social media to document the court's proceedings. This is usually done through the use of Twitter. However, journalist do have restrictions to particular court documents.
Even though judges can allow journalist to have access to court proceedings, they can also use suppression orders to prevent the disclosure of all or part of a case. For example, suppression orders can apply to protecting the identification of a witness. Anything said in court when the jury is not present cannot be published. Court can issue a 'pseudonym order' which is a type of suppression order that only uses a series of letters instead of a the person's real name.
Also some judges may not allow journalist the use of recording devices because may have repercussions on the case. Witnesses could be intimidated by cameras and it may affect their testimony. Equipment may malfunction that could disrupt the proceedings. Recorded excerpts of proceedings might be used for inappropriate or illegal purposes, such as letting a witness view the material before they have appeared.
With the use of open justice, there is also secret justice to protect particular individuals from the public and the media. Three processes in particular are considered secret justice. The first is the mental health system. If the suspect in a serious crime is unfit to stand trial, it progresses through the mental health system of that state or territory. The second area is 'alternative dispute resolution' which simply means out of court settlement. If this is the case then the details of the settlement are kept off public record. And the third is concerned with national security.
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Convergence in the Media
Convergence in the media was the topic for discussion today in my journalism class. Convergence in the media is the connection between old and new forms of media and the transition where one media paradigm dies out and another is reborn.
Back in the old days, we refer to media as traditional or heritage and it composed of newspapers, magazines, radio, and television. These media platforms were mainly instrumented as a mass form of communication to target large aggregated audiences with their own specific market in mind. Back then people didn't check their Facebook or twitter accounts for information. People tuned in every night to listen to the news anchors that would report on the daily events.
For example, Walter Cronkite was a broadcast journalist for CBS network for over 19 years. He reported on events between 1937-1981, including World War II, Vietnam War, Watergate, the murders of President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.. People considered him the most trusted man in America and considered him the voice of reason because of his honesty, impartiality, and level-headedness. There is a Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
Here is a youtube clip where Cronkite announces the death of John F. Kennedy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8Q3cqGs7I
Now during the 20th century, people rely on the internet for the majority of their news intake. Convergence in the media includes new media which is everything that is not covered by the notion of old. New media refers to things we use to get information, listen to music, watch movies, and anything we use to access the web. The web has been broken down into three platforms: web 1.0, web 2.0, and web 3.0. Web 1.0 is a straightforward information gatherer. Web 2.0 is a social web without much interaction between people. Throughout the growth of web 2.0, people became producers of content with the use of Facebook, myspace, and twitter. With web 3.0, people are able to receive hyper-localised news, meaning news specific to them. This has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages being you are kept up to date on issues you are interested, but if you only hear news specific to you and your interests you'd be unaware of things happening everywhere else in the world.
The convergence in the media is not only technological. News outlets are wanting to make their audiences more comfortable and more at home when they view their news programs. For example, the news anchors maybe sitting on a couch instead of a usual news room set up. This is trying to develop the relationships between audiences and TV personal like the old days in media when people would tune in every night to listen to the news. Also, the way stories or issues are reported are differently. For example, discussing gay parenting and how their children may be affected by having two fathers would have never been a topic for discussion 30 years ago. The tones taken when delivering the news have changed. For example, the Colbert Report or the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. These are programs that deliver the news in humorous ways, but this can lead to unreliability and people can begin to trust this type of news outlet over a traditional journalist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fhs8foqnv8
Back in the old days, we refer to media as traditional or heritage and it composed of newspapers, magazines, radio, and television. These media platforms were mainly instrumented as a mass form of communication to target large aggregated audiences with their own specific market in mind. Back then people didn't check their Facebook or twitter accounts for information. People tuned in every night to listen to the news anchors that would report on the daily events.
For example, Walter Cronkite was a broadcast journalist for CBS network for over 19 years. He reported on events between 1937-1981, including World War II, Vietnam War, Watergate, the murders of President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.. People considered him the most trusted man in America and considered him the voice of reason because of his honesty, impartiality, and level-headedness. There is a Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
Here is a youtube clip where Cronkite announces the death of John F. Kennedy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8Q3cqGs7I
Now during the 20th century, people rely on the internet for the majority of their news intake. Convergence in the media includes new media which is everything that is not covered by the notion of old. New media refers to things we use to get information, listen to music, watch movies, and anything we use to access the web. The web has been broken down into three platforms: web 1.0, web 2.0, and web 3.0. Web 1.0 is a straightforward information gatherer. Web 2.0 is a social web without much interaction between people. Throughout the growth of web 2.0, people became producers of content with the use of Facebook, myspace, and twitter. With web 3.0, people are able to receive hyper-localised news, meaning news specific to them. This has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages being you are kept up to date on issues you are interested, but if you only hear news specific to you and your interests you'd be unaware of things happening everywhere else in the world.
The convergence in the media is not only technological. News outlets are wanting to make their audiences more comfortable and more at home when they view their news programs. For example, the news anchors maybe sitting on a couch instead of a usual news room set up. This is trying to develop the relationships between audiences and TV personal like the old days in media when people would tune in every night to listen to the news. Also, the way stories or issues are reported are differently. For example, discussing gay parenting and how their children may be affected by having two fathers would have never been a topic for discussion 30 years ago. The tones taken when delivering the news have changed. For example, the Colbert Report or the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. These are programs that deliver the news in humorous ways, but this can lead to unreliability and people can begin to trust this type of news outlet over a traditional journalist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fhs8foqnv8
Tuesday, 12 March 2013
Freedom of Press and Information
During today's lecture in my media law class, we discussed the issue of freedom of press and freedom of information. Some countries have strict restriction and limitations on their media freedom based on economic, religious, or cultural grounds.
We compared these restrictions and limitations to the United States because they are the leading advocate for freedom and press. They have this right because of their Bill of Rights and the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech which includes freedom of thoughts, belief, opinions, expression, assembly. It also ensures the freedom of press and other media communications.
We compared these restrictions and limitations to the United States because they are the leading advocate for freedom and press. They have this right because of their Bill of Rights and the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech which includes freedom of thoughts, belief, opinions, expression, assembly. It also ensures the freedom of press and other media communications.
For example, the Supreme Court case involving the Westboro Baptist Church and the parent of an American solider. The Westboro Baptist Church is known for their extreme ideologies and their hatred against homosexual people. They believe God hates homosexuality and that when evil happens God is the one to do it. They believe that God is punishing the military for their tolerance for homosexuality. The church group has anti-gay protest and protest funerals for soldiers.
The church was brought in front of the Supreme Court by a grieving father who buried his son, an American soldier, while the church protested his funeral. The Court ruled in favor of the church because of the First Amendment and protections against free speech, debate on public issues, and free expression. “Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible,” Chief Justice Roberts concluded. “But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials.” The church stays on public streets, protest quietly and without violence, therefore people say they have a right to be there just like anybody else.
On the other hand, Australia has no equivalent to the First Amendment. In Australia freedom of speech is guaranteed through legislations and journalist can get in trouble with the law if they publish anything that goes against them. The Freedom of press means that people have the right to be informed by the press on matters of public interests so they can exercise their rights as citizens. Laws and regulations restrict or inhibit the right press to freely to gather or distribute information. For expample, a suppression order which instructs the media what they can report of by the court during a trial. Also, Australia has Freedom of Information which gives the member of the public rights to access official documents of the governments and its agencies. Journalist use Freedom of Information rather than exposing a confidential source or themselves to disobedience contempt.
Thursday, 7 March 2013
Commercial and Public Media
Hey everyone!! I am an exchange study from the United States studying a semester at James Cook University in Australia. At my home university, I am majoring in communications. So while I am aboard, I am taking a variety of different communication classes at JCU.
During my journalist and society class the other day, we discussed the difference between commercial media and public media. Commercial media create content and programs that are attractive to audiences in order to produce a profit from their media products. The success or fail of these media products lies in the hands of the audience because audiences are the consumer. They are the ones who subscribe to the products that commercial media outlets produce. Public media serves or engages the public. Public media isn't usually associated as taxpayer supported media. It can earn a profit as long as its ultimate goal is to serve the public. Public media weighs public value and public service ethos against market impact.
Commercial media products are owned by just a few key players that control most of the distribution. These commercial media companies create content based on what kind of media their audiences are viewing more. They need to know whether the audiences like to view hard news versus entertaining news. Before technology became so advanced it was hard to determine if there was a connection between content and sales, but now the commercial media companies can monitor their audiences based on the number on clicks a story receives.
Some argue commercial media is becoming a problem in contemporary news because people don't necessarily want the news as much as to be entertained. I don't think it's the fact that people don't want the news anymore but more that they need something to take them away from their life and problems. They need an escape away for just a minute that they would rather want to be entertained versus hearing about a murder or a child being abused. Some may also think that if it isn't happening near them that it doesn't matter enough to view because it won't affect their lives. On the other hand, people may want to be entertained rather than view the news because their are scared of what is happening in the world.
Commercial media role in society is to produce a truthful, comprehensive, intelligent account of daily events in context that gives meaning. I think on some level commercial media does produce truthful, comprehensive, intelligent accounts of daily events to the public. On the other hand, with the commercial media outlets being owned by just a few companies is it possible that the daily events they report on are decided which ones are important enough to report on and whether to frame the story one way over another? And if it isn't the companies controlling what can or can't be reported on then the government exercises indirect control by certain legislations that stipulate what can be reported to the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)