Lecture Ten

“Propaganda is used as a tool to help shape images in the minds of human beings in support of an enterprise, idea or group. Propaganda can be used to substitute one social pattern for another.” Lipmann

This lecture focused on Agenda Setting in the media. Research on the agenda-setting process suggests that the relative salience of an issue on the media agenda determines how the public agenda is formed, which in turn influences which issue policy makers consider. The theory revealed that the mass media have large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them. This closely links to the previous lecture about News Values however it looks more at the impact this 'agenda setting' actually has upon wider society. Often the elite media set an agenda for other media which is then transferred to the public, the issue then reaches other objects such as political figures.


The media sets the agenda in many ways:


Agenda Cutting - Newsrooms determine what is 'newsworthy' and generally speaking the public care less about issues not covered by the media.
Agenda Surfing - The media will cover events and issues that the public are already interested in. Social networking makes this even easier for journalists to pick up on topics that are grabbing the attention a lot of people. In running stories about an issue that's already trending, there is at least some guarantee of public attention.
News Diffusion - The deliberate distribution of news, regarding the platform, local and person it is distributed by.

Portrayal - The way in which the media portrays an issue can have a huge impact on how the public perceive it. Ideally a variety of angles helps the public to form their own opinions, however cross media ownership makes this 'variety' less likely.

Dependence - As people become more reliant on the media as a source of information, the more likely it is that will be susceptible to the agenda of the media outlet.

Agenda setting was particularly relevant in my annotated bibliography assignment. It's posted on this blog if you are interested. I was basically looking at how certain media outlets set the agenda for Climate Change debates despite the fact that a lot of what they say is completely incorrect. I think cross-media ownership in Australia is a big issue. It's less likely that an audience will receive variety when there are only a handful of powerful agenda setters in high positions. It's quite a scary thought really.

Lecture Nine

"News journalism has a broadly agreed set of values, often referred to as 'newsworthiness'..." A. Boyd


This lecture was all about the value of the news. Millions of things happen every day, yet only certain events end up on television, online, in newspapers and on the radio. Obviously at some point people in newsrooms have to ultimately make editing decisions and determine what the most important things to report are. 'News Values' are essentially degree of prominence a media outlet gives to a story, and the attention that is paid by an audience.


News values are not the same across different news services, countries or cultures. To use an example I just thought of; the current conflict in Afghanistan. Afghani media would be reporting on entirely different aspects and angles compared to another country directly involved such as the US or Australia. Even countries not directly involved in the conflict would report on events differently depending on their culture, geographic location and the public significance of events. While this example is obviously a lot more complex, even in this simple explanation, it becomes clear that news values are very subjective. This is not necessarily even a matter of conscious 'bias,' merely that some events are deemed publicly more important than others for completely legitimate reasons. 


In more general terms, there are obviously certain types of events that attract more attention. "If it bleeds, it leads," is a saying that came up in the lecture. Tragedy generally trumps most news stories. Accidents, wars, natural disasters, robberies, murder, fires and other crimes are highly valued because society deems that it is important for these events to be known. Additionally, the audience perpetuates this perceived importance by being interested in, and seeking out these types of news stories. 


Local issues are also highly valued within the media. Audiences are always interested in events that are happening around them, not only nationally, but at a macro-community level. While a report on vandals at a local library might be a serious and important issue to the specific community, the same report probably isn't going to interest a community on the other side of the country. News outlets cater for this by having local news programs in addition to national coverage.

More on Media Ethics

The ACMA is the government body responsible for the regulation of broadcasting, the internet, radiocommunications and telecommunications. Responsibilities include:

• Promoting self-regulation and competition in the communications industry, while protecting consumers and other users
• Fostering an environment in which electronic media respect community standards and respond to audience and user needs
• Managing access to the radiofrequency spectrum
• Representing Australia 's communications interests internationally.

I find that ACMA have a very strange role within the media. While they have a fair amount of power (and rightly so) to regulate and reprimand any media wrongdoing, they are also ultimately a government organisation. People don't really like the idea of their government controlling something like the media (just have to look at the censorship debates) so ACMA always has to be careful about when and how much power they exercise.

There's heaps more information on the website: http://www.acma.gov.au

Lecture Eight

I wasn't overly impressed with this week's lecture on ethics in all honesty. For the first 25 minutes of the lecture we were given a score sheet to mark how ethical/unethical a selection of adverts where. While I understood that this was to demonstrate that people perceive ethics differently, I think the same outcome might have been achieved in a more relevant way such as scoring various news stories that pushed the boundaries of being unethical. 

After this exercise we got an overview of theories of ethics (Deontology, Consequentialism & Virtue). In the practice of professional journalism, the media operate under a series of codes that outline appropriate conduct (Deontology). The main ones in Australia are MEAA, PRIA, AFA and AANA. These codes widely cover:

• Honesty 
• Fairness
• Independence
• Respect for the rights of others

While I understand that class needed a grounding in vague ethical principles and ideas, I was far more interested to hear about how the media breaches it's own codes and the consequences. Unfortunately this interest was not sated in the lecture which promptly ended after a brief rundown of the purposes of these codes. 

So I decided to go looking for some examples myself. The fact of the matter is, journalists and media outlets break the rules all the time. And not in the way that movie stars in Hollywood  'uncover the truth' (I can't think of that terrible film Russel Crowe and Rachel McAdams are in) often in the real world, it is because they want to 'create the truth.' So here are some of the truly appalling things Australian media has done (a mere tip of the iceberg). 

A Current Affairs - "Foreign Doctors"

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_311677

In 2007 ACA did a report on doctors trained outside of Australia saying that they are 'dodgy' and not sufficiently skilled. The program was found to be in breach of ACMA's code of conduct and they were reprimanded heavily. 

'ACMA found that the licensee failed to present material relating to the complainant accurately by omitting material regarding the complainant’s Australian qualifications. This was a finding of a significant error of fact which the licensee also failed to make reasonable efforts to correct at the earliest opportunity.'

Kyle Sandilands - 2Day FM

http://mumbrella.com.au/sandilands-breached-radio-code-rules-watchdog-81425

After a spout of controversial comments on live radio, ACMA reprimanded 2Day FM's Kyle Sandilands for sexist comments he made in regards to News Ltd journalist, Alison Stephenson after she gave a negative review of his television show.

“Some fat slag on news.com.au has already branded it a disaster. You can tell by reading the article that she just hates us and has always hated us. What a fat bitter thing you are. You’re deputy editor of an online thing. You’ve got a nothing job anyway. You’re a piece of shit.

“This low thing, Alison Stephenson, deputy editor of news.com.au online. You’re supposed to be impartial, you little troll. You’re a bullshit artist, girl. You should be fired from your job. Your hair’s very 90s. And your blouse. You haven’t got that much titty to be having that low cut a blouse. Watch your mouth or I’ll hunt you down.”

'ACMA said that Sandilands had shown a “flagrant disregard” for the guidelines on the portrayal of women on commercial radio.

2Day FM had argued that the station was not in breach of the rules on decency because they included standards based on the expectations of the listeners. It argued that Kyle Sandilands listeners would not be offended by the comments.'

Australian Media: Climate Change Bias - Annotated Bibliography

 Newspaper Biased Against Climate Change 

Australasian Science, 2011

Author, Ian Lowe, a Professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University discusses the anti-climate bias inherently present in News Ltd’s reporting, particular in Australia’s national newspaper.  Lowe presents examples of selective journalism and the propagation of unsubstantiated scientific claims used by The Australian to construct a seemingly plausible case against the existence of climate change.  He goes even further to point out that not only are the columnists in The Australian heavily opinionated in the manner they present climate issues, but that these opinions are allowed to dictate which stories are ‘newsworthy’ enough to print.  Lowe reveals that a recent analysis of the newspaper has revealed that there is a ratio of about four anti-climate action articles printed for every one pro-climate action.  This, he points out, is in no way a balanced presentation of this issue, given that around 97% of the world’s climate scientists believe that rapid climate change, caused by human activity, is a huge threat to humanity. According to Lowe, The Australian’s obvious bias toward climate deniers is a clear breach of the AJA Code of Ethics, requiring journalists to report fairly on controversial issues.

Lowe, Ian. (2011). Newspaper Biased Against Climate Change. Australasian Science. Retrieved http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-november-2011/newspaper-biased-against-climate-change.html (05/2012)

Climate Claims Fail Test

The Australian, 2009

Professor Michael Asten wrote a feature article for The Australian during the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Council Summit on the ‘inconclusive’ nature of supposed climate science.  In an attempt to discredit climate scientists, Asten asserted that because the chairperson of the Copenhagen Climate Council, Tim Flannery, had stated that scientist couldn’t possibly have perfect knowledge on the issue, therefore the science was not proven.  Although Asten is a reputable source in the field of geosciences, he had never published anything to do with climate science prior to this article.  After complaints were made as to the accuracy of his assertions, it was later revealed that Asten had close links with the mining and coal industries in Australia, however The Australian never responded to this criticism.  Asten used findings in the prominent science journal Nature, to substantiate his claims that there was no certain link between CO2 and global warming.  Even when the actual authors of this journal article complained at the misrepresentation of their research, The Australian did not retract any of the statements.  The newspaper used its powerful position within society to allow an unqualified and false account of this important issue to be presented to the Australian public in a way that implied Asten was a reputable scientific source, when in reality, he was an opinionated vested interest.

Asten, M. (2009). Climate Claims Fail Test. The Australian. Retrieved http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627 (05/2012)

Balancing A Hot Debate

Media Watch, 2011

ABC’s Media Watch presented a short television segment discussing the climate denial bias present in Fairfax Media radio station’s talkback programs throughout Australia.  Presenter, Jonathon Holmes offered copious examples of prominent radio presenters using completely false scientific figures and presenting heavily opinionated views as fact.  For example, 2GB Sydney’s breakfast show presenter, Alan Jones, was quoted stating that, “Human beings produce .001% of the carbon dioxide in the air…” [i] In reality, it is widely accepted that humans produce around 30% of CO2 in the atmosphere, a finding that completely discredits Jones’ statement, although is never retracted or amended by the Fairfax station.  Journalists such as those at Media Watch, who question the credibility of the claims surrounding controversial issues, are crucial in providing a fair and balanced argument to society.  The Media Watch report revealed that in most major talkback shows in the capital cities around Australia, there was a much higher proportion of climate sceptics than not.  Given that Fairfax own most of these radio stations, it would appear that there is a strong anti-climate bias across most of the Australian media outlets.

Holmes, J. (2011). Balancing A Hot Debate. ABC Media Watch. Transcript retrieved http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3169309.htm (05/2012)

Green Left Climate Change Bias Easy as ABC

The Australian, 2012

A recent opinion article in The Australian openly attacks the integrity of the ABC and tries to recover some of the credibility supposedly denied them by the public station’s, ‘greenie-left-wing-bias’ reporters.  James Delingpole is a climate sceptic and author of the book, Killing The Earth To Save It, who claims that the ABC treats climate sceptics with as much disdain as ‘Nazis’ or ‘kiddie-fiddlers’.  Delingpole is outraged at being told by various presenters he meets at ABC stations that he is only being interviewed in the interest of presenting both sides of the argument.  While this may be a shock to Delingpole, it seems unreasonable that he expects that the vastly outnumbered opinions of climate sceptics should receive equal weighting with climate scientists, despite the fact sceptics make up less than 3% of the opinion spectrum.  He then goes even further to applaud the beliefs and attitudes of Sydney radio host, Alan Jones, adding that at least if Australians did not like his opinion, they weren’t paying for it through taxes.  Although it is true that the ABC is publicly funded, by the very fact that Delingpole receives airtime suggests that despite personal bias, journalists at the ABC do present both sides of the argument. While in contrast, The Australian sees fit to give Delingpole’s own bias and opinionated rant national coverage without any consideration of the potential misrepresentation of the ABC.

Delingpole, J. (2012). Green Left Climate Bias Easy as ABC. The Australian. Retrieved http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/green-left-climate-change-bias-easy-as-abc/story-e6frgd0x-1226363902728?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianOpinion+(The+Australian+%7C+Opinion) (05/2012)

---

[i] 2GB Sydney, The Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 15th March, 2011