There have been a lot of things going around in the media lately, and one thing really caught me was about how modern "journalism" in Australia is being carried out. I am sure everyone of us is proud that as Australians we have the freedom that many people from other countries may not enjoy. However, what seems to me is that the exercising of freedom has reached a point that people, even in the media, think that freedom means that they can do anything they want or they like.
Being a communication student who had studied media, journalism, writing, languages, theatre etc. I am quite appalled with the current so called "current affairs" programs. I still remember when I was studying at the communication school, my lecturers and all the elite journalists they brought in to teach us always reminded us that journalism is about "to inform" and not "to direct". You exercise your freedom of speech to inform people what is fact, present both sides of the fact and let people decide and exercise their freedom of speech and thoughts to continue the discussion if they want to.
However, in my opinion, this is not the case in the recent media saga that plastered all over my TV screen and news webpage. Personally, I am not in a slight bit interested in knowing certain people certain private lives, but I was appalled by all the presumptions and judgmental attitudes blatantly exhibited in the programs. I have watched both current affair programs but none of them impressed me. Both of them set the tone to the audience, present "facts" about what's happening, but during the process I wonder why every word they used, every interview they conducted and every part of speech they employed was just so judgmental? Where's the neutrality and objectivity that is required in journalism? I mean, having a girl who is proud of herself wearing mini bikinis in the public and parade them on page six to talk about how she felt degraded when others looked down on her is a bit absurd. She said she didn't need to justify herself but then why should other people justify their own views when they exercise their freedom of speech too. Isn't that a double standard in the whole judgment process?
Another thing is having a female "journalist" posing sensational questions and recording a sensational voice over didn't sound like I am watching a current affair program but a "Sex and the City" episode that went wrong. The blatant attitude of "let me cast the first stone so others will follow the suit" does not add a single sprinkle of trustworthiness in the reporting for me. The interview on another channel later in the week was no different. The blatant "Beat or Treat" attitude in the whole interview was a complete disappointment as I don't feel that I'm being informed of new information but being directed again to think in a certain way.
We will never know who is telling the truth unless we were there but none of us were. And to be honest, I don't think I need to know something that was supposed to have been dealt with 7 years ago now to destroy someone else life and career simply because I was directed by the so called "journalism" on TV and on the Internet. Other people's mess is other people's mess, they made the choice they dealt with them. At the time of writing more details from other people are coming out, but will we know the truth? Maybe or maybe not. But if the latest piece of information came in time before the serial broadcasting occurred, will it change the picture, maybe. The question is, how much more "face value reporting" do we need we before we realised that we are not being informed by most current affair programs but being directed?
I understand what moral standards or human values are correct or otherwise, and I don't condone a lot of behaviours because I believe in those values. However, I do think that I have the right, freedom and options to choose what I believe in without the media presenting a "one-sided reporting tsunami" on TV everyday. Sensationalism and controversies seems to be the way to go with modern Australian journalism and I think that's something I need to keep in mind, so that I won't become one of the casualties and lose sight of seeking objective views of events that actually matters.
Being a communication student who had studied media, journalism, writing, languages, theatre etc. I am quite appalled with the current so called "current affairs" programs. I still remember when I was studying at the communication school, my lecturers and all the elite journalists they brought in to teach us always reminded us that journalism is about "to inform" and not "to direct". You exercise your freedom of speech to inform people what is fact, present both sides of the fact and let people decide and exercise their freedom of speech and thoughts to continue the discussion if they want to.
However, in my opinion, this is not the case in the recent media saga that plastered all over my TV screen and news webpage. Personally, I am not in a slight bit interested in knowing certain people certain private lives, but I was appalled by all the presumptions and judgmental attitudes blatantly exhibited in the programs. I have watched both current affair programs but none of them impressed me. Both of them set the tone to the audience, present "facts" about what's happening, but during the process I wonder why every word they used, every interview they conducted and every part of speech they employed was just so judgmental? Where's the neutrality and objectivity that is required in journalism? I mean, having a girl who is proud of herself wearing mini bikinis in the public and parade them on page six to talk about how she felt degraded when others looked down on her is a bit absurd. She said she didn't need to justify herself but then why should other people justify their own views when they exercise their freedom of speech too. Isn't that a double standard in the whole judgment process?
Another thing is having a female "journalist" posing sensational questions and recording a sensational voice over didn't sound like I am watching a current affair program but a "Sex and the City" episode that went wrong. The blatant attitude of "let me cast the first stone so others will follow the suit" does not add a single sprinkle of trustworthiness in the reporting for me. The interview on another channel later in the week was no different. The blatant "Beat or Treat" attitude in the whole interview was a complete disappointment as I don't feel that I'm being informed of new information but being directed again to think in a certain way.
We will never know who is telling the truth unless we were there but none of us were. And to be honest, I don't think I need to know something that was supposed to have been dealt with 7 years ago now to destroy someone else life and career simply because I was directed by the so called "journalism" on TV and on the Internet. Other people's mess is other people's mess, they made the choice they dealt with them. At the time of writing more details from other people are coming out, but will we know the truth? Maybe or maybe not. But if the latest piece of information came in time before the serial broadcasting occurred, will it change the picture, maybe. The question is, how much more "face value reporting" do we need we before we realised that we are not being informed by most current affair programs but being directed?
I understand what moral standards or human values are correct or otherwise, and I don't condone a lot of behaviours because I believe in those values. However, I do think that I have the right, freedom and options to choose what I believe in without the media presenting a "one-sided reporting tsunami" on TV everyday. Sensationalism and controversies seems to be the way to go with modern Australian journalism and I think that's something I need to keep in mind, so that I won't become one of the casualties and lose sight of seeking objective views of events that actually matters.
