Saturday, 3 March 2012

Media inquiry calls for single watchdog


By Kylie Simmons

Updated March 02, 2012 21:11:20
An inquiry into Australia's print media has recommended a new council to oversee all news media organisations.
The News Media Council would be government-funded and would regulate print, radio, TV and for the first time, online.
The inquiry was set up in the wake of Britain's phone-hacking scandal.
In September the Federal Government asked former Federal Court justice Ray Finkelstein QC to lead an independent inquiry into the Australian media.
After months of hearings he has released his findings, with his main recommendation to establish the council, setting new journalistic standards for all media.
The council would take away responsibility for news and current affairs from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which looks after broadcasting, and it would also take away responsibility from the Australian Press Council.
The report found the Press Council suffers from serious structural constraints and that ACMA's complaints-handling processes were "cumbersome and slow".
The new council would also handle complaints by the public when standards are breached and it would have the power to make media organisations publish an apology, a correction or retraction or give a complainant a right to reply.

Support 'quality journalism'

Greens leader Bob Brown played an integral role pushing for the inquiry after the News Of The World hacking scandal broke in the UK.
"What [Justice Finkelstein is] looking at here is not punitive action on the media in terms of fines or imprisonment, but rather remedy of inaccuracies or falsehoods or slander if that occurs to people and they're hurt by it," Senator Brown said.
"And I think the public will be right behind that. The best way to do that is to require news outlets where they've made a mistake to remedy it.
"I think that we have an inadequate system of serving the public interest and truth, which are the two first things mentioned in the journalist code of ethics in this country at the moment, and I think this is a big step towards fulfilling the journalists' code of ethics and making sure that quality journalism is supported."
Press Council chairman Professor Julian Disney says its future is now in the hands of publishers.
"I think the problem that Mr Finkelstein faced is that he understandably felt that at least some of the publishers were not willing to provide the extra resources and other support that we need to be able to perform effectively," he said.
"I think it's clear from the report that is really the main reason why he then went for another approach and I think that clearly lays down a challenge now for the publishers.
"Do they want to avoid the kind of body he proposes, which is created by government and entirely funded by government and has quite some risks of excessive legalism?
"If they do, then they're going to have to provide more resources and more support and accept that we need some firmer powers. So really the ball is now in their court."
Conroy meeting
Key publishers are planning to meet Communications Minister Stephen Conroy in the coming weeks.
Senator Conroy has released a statement saying the recommendations will be considered but no action is likely to be taken until a wider review of the media is completed later this month.
The convergence inquiry is examining a range of regulatory issues across broadcasting, radio and telecommunications.
Opposition communication spokesman Malcolm Turnbull says a News Media Council does not appeal to the Coalition.
"The segment of the media that is most criticised for lacking in accuracy in balance is commercial talkback radio, but it is regulated by ACMA," he said.
"Metropolitan newspapers, on the other hand, are generally regarded as being doing better in terms of accuracy and balance and yet they are completely unregulated.
"So I think those observations, most people would agree with. Why would your conclusion from that be that the way to get more balance and accuracy is to have more regulation?"
Fairfax media issued a statement saying it is pleased the report acknowledges upfront the importance of a free press in a democratic society and that regulation should not endanger that role.
Like many other media organisations, Fairfax is going through the 474-page report and any further comments will be made in the coming days.
First posted March 02, 2012 15:19:18

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

How to make a movie poster

You think you just randomly ended up in that movie-theater seat watching things explode? No, that was the end result of a meticulously crafted propaganda campaign by the movie studio, utilizing all the persuasive powers of graphic design—as wonderfully elucidated in the infographic below, from Colour Lovers, examining the posters from the top 10 blockbusters of 2011. There are lots of interesting tidbits—note the preponderance of sans serif fonts and all caps, and the various textures and sight lines utilized. Did these factors alone fill theaters? Of course not. It helped that almost all of these movies were sequels—expanding on the equity built up in previous ad campaigns. Via Fast Company.

 click to embiggen

Sunday, 12 February 2012

TV Tropes

I recently found a great resource for teaching/learning about Narrative in Cinema Studies, it's called TV Tropes and it has heaps of links and information. But hey, enough of my yackin' Let's see what they have to say on their homepage.

What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
Tropes are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations. On the whole, tropes are not clichĂ©s. The word clichĂ©d means "stereotyped and trite." In other words, dull and uninteresting. We are not looking for dull and uninteresting entries. We are here to recognize tropes and play with them, not to make fun of them.

The wiki is called "TV Tropes" because TV is where we started. Over the course of a few years, our scope has crept out to include other media. Tropes transcend television. They reflect life. Since a lot of art, especially the popular arts, does its best to reflect life, tropes are likely to show up everywhere.


We are not a stuffy encyclopedic wiki. We're a 
buttload more informal. We encourage breezy language and original thought. There Is No Such Thing As Notability, and no citations are needed. If your entry cannot gather any evidence by the Wiki Magic, it will just wither and die. Until then, though, it will be available through the Main Tropes Index.

We are also not a wiki for bashing things. Once again, we're about 
celebrating fiction, not showing off how snide and sarcastic we can be.

Enough about what we are not. Go on, have a look at the 
welcome page, and have fun!

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Television 'misrepresents' young people and older women

Broadcasters negatively stereotype young people and fail to put enough older women on screen, says BBC-commissioned report


by guardian.co.uk, Miriam O’Reilly

The BBC-commissioned report comes just over a year after former Countryfile presenter Miriam O’Reilly won her landmark ageism case against the BBC. Photograph: Rex Features
Broadcasters have been accused of negatively stereotyping young people and failing to put enough older women on screen, according to a BBC-commissioned report.
The survey of viewers and industry experts found that more than 40% of young people were dissatisfied with the way they were portrayed on screen.
Younger viewers complained that they were stereotyped as being "disrespectful" and living "unproductive and vacuous lives".
Older viewers also thought they tended to be stereotyped on television, but of more concern was the lack of middle-aged and older women on the small screen.
The report comes a year after former Countryfile presenter Miriam O'Reilly won her landmark ageism case against the BBC after she was axed from the BBC1 rural affairs show.
"There was a particular and strong concern voiced about the lack of middle-aged and older female representation on television," said the report.
"This view was expressed by both men and women of all ages but was much more ardently voiced by middle-aged and older women who believed that a person develops a 'face for radio' at a certain point in their middle years."
More than a third of women over 55 said there were too few of them on television.
The negative portrayal of older people revolved around the perceived incapacity of old people and "perceptions about a reluctance to move with the times and tendency to moan", said the report.
Viewers accused the media of being "insulting" and "out of step" with the ageing society.
"There is some concern about the way different ages are sometimes at best presented as slightly humorous but exaggerated caricatures and at worst as negative stereotypes," concluded the report.
It said the audience would "welcome more middle- and older-aged women on television providing positive role models and greater genderequality".
The research was commissioned by the BBC on behalf of the Creative Diversity Network, a forum of UK media organisations set up to improve diversity across the industry and chaired by BBC director general Mark Thompson.
It followed O'Reilly's high-profile tribunal victory in January last year.
The former Countryfile presenter parted company with the corporation earlier this month and will launch a support network for women facing discrimination in the workplace next month.
The report, called Serving All Ages and carried out by independent social research institute NatCen, interviewed 180 participants, aged from 13 to 92, as well as industry experts.
It investigated how people felt they were portrayed in relation to their age in the media as a whole, including TV, radio and the internet.

Sunday, 29 January 2012

Infographic: Hollywood's long war on technology


Infographic by Anne Rhodes via matadornetwork.com

By  at 1:13 pm Saturday, Jan 28

You know, when I was sitting down with entertainment execs on a regular basis to debate applied, practical technology choices in DRM standards bodies, their constant refrain was, "We love technology! We use it all the time!" The implication being that if they instigated a law prohibiting a technology it would not represent ignorance or fear, but well-informed solemn judgement. I'd often cite Jack Valenti's infamous words to Congress: "The VCR is to the American film industry as the Boston Strangler is to a woman home alone," and they'd scoff. "Why do you always bring that up? It's ancient history!" And I'd say, "Oh, do you repudiate Jack Valenti, then? Because the last time I checked, you guys renamed your headquarters (I shit you not) the Jack Valenti Building." And they'd say, "Ha, ha, very funny. But seriously, is one wrong-headed statement from Jack all you've got?" And then I'd go into the long list of all the crap they'd fought as an industry, from the remote control to cable TV, from diversified cinema ownership to yeah, the VCR, and they'd mumble something about how EFF stood for "Everything For Free," and I just didn't understand the arts. Which always made me laugh because generally speaking I was the only working creative artist in the discussion, and I'd often be going to meetings in between working on novels. Clearly, to understand the arts you need to be an entertainment industry lawyer working for a giant multinational conglomerate, not a working artist.
Anyway, if I was still in those stuffy, hateful rooms where they plotted to ban technologies, I'd print out a stack of this Matador Network infographics, which are a handy guide to the pig-ignorant campaigns that Hollywood has waged against new technologies since the industry's founders ripped off Thomas Edison's patents and fled to California.