What is the media’s place in reporting the news?

These are just some of the things that I have noticed over the years, particularly highlighted within the last few weeks. Over the last few weeks there have been many issues with the American that has affected the world economies. How has the media influenced and contributed to these crises? And, another age-old question, what is the purpose of the media when informing the public about the news?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the stock market is that it relies on consumer confidence. My extremely simplified understanding is that people buy stocks and assets when they are confident that a good return and profit is possible. When this confidence is lost or do not supply a good enough return the stocks are sold off. Thus a stock market crash is when everyone looses confidence at once. I feel that it is important to understand the media can influence consumer confidence.

If you want to take an alarmist point of view, it could be said that the media directly influences consumer confidence and has the power to insight stock market crashes. By reporting in a hysterical sensationalist way people will become court up in a whirlwind of panic and quickly sell their shares. I have found that people act on an emotional impulse when there is money and high stakes involved. This point is highlighted when people committed suicide after the stock market crash of 1929. Money is highly weighted with emotions.

Mass media seems to have a very short memory. I am also doing history subjects and there is a saying that “the only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns from history.” This seems to be the case with the recent stock market trouble. One day it is the end of the world and there is a huge crash, and the next consumer confidence is up and the stock market has evened only to crash the very next day.

Please let me know if I am on the wrong track here.

Record Labels find new ways to continue their reign of terror.

In the presentation that peter and myself gave the other week we discussed that downloading music is technically illegal, however people are not that concerned about copyright infringement. There is even an argument that by offering free music and downloads an awareness of the band will be profitable down the track. The theory is that after the band is well known people will spend more money on concert tickets and merchandise. I have found that this theory applies does hold up for me personally as I will spend money on tickets. Seeing a band live is sooooooo much better then listening to a recording.


These days bands and record companies are creating awareness around bands with a different media, one that is harder to pirate and steal. The video game. Playstation’s Guitar Hero games have breathed new life into many older bands that had gone out of fashion. Aerosmith used to be one of the world largest rock bands but haven’t released any memorable albums for the last decade or so. The Aerosmith Guitar Hero game has brought a new generation in contact with those old ‘classic’ songs.

Its not just “old” songs and bands that are profiting from Guitar Hero, earlier this month Metallica released their new album “Death Magnetic” in two formats. The first being the ‘traditional’ cd album format while the other was as a Guitar Hero game. It has been argued that Guitar Hero will introduce many people to Metallica’s music.


Guitar Hero has allowed many people to become excited about music for it offers an interactive experience. On the newer versions, the player is also able to play the drums and also sing. Now you are able to play games while rocking out to classic metal and rock from yester year. I could think of nothing better.

The music industry has managed to find other ways of getting around the copyright issues. By making music interactive and ‘fun’ the record companies have ensured that they are not going to starve and they can continue to be the soul destroying controlling conglomerations that they have always dreamed to be.

More information can be found at http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/21896070/rock_games_battle_for_bands/1

Privacy and the Digital Image

What is the danger of uploading too much personal information onto the personal networking websites such as Facebook? One major criticism of Facebook is the lack of privacy. Every move and text that is written is publicised to all of your friends. Every move is open to scrutiny. What are the ramifications of this lack of privacy? One of the dangers of social networks is that people will unwittingly supply personal information that will be used by Facebook stalkers. However, if the Facebook user is aware of their digital image they can regulate how the social network is used.


I know that people will say “but the youth don’t think about their digital image and thus cannot regulate this private information.” If the stereotype of teenagers is a preoccupation with image, why can’t they control their digital image? The life of a teenager can at time be ruled by personal image in all aspects of their life. A lot of time and effort is put into their social networking profile. Media sceptics believe that there is a naïve culture that people are essentially good and can be trusted. Young people must be protected from the perils of the internet. I believe that young people have the ability to be sceptical of shady characters on the internet. Arseholes and stalkers are quickly sniffed out and blocked.

The internet is full of real dangers and shouldn’t be approached in a flippant or naïve way. People should be educated about the amount of personal information is digitally distributed, however, it shouldn’t be assumed that the youth do not know what is going on. It needs to be understood that online images are not something that are made flippantly. Great care is put into their construction. People are aware of the information that is provided online.

Technical Hitch

i just figured out how to use blogger. now the links work. i hope that you enjoy

Digital Identity: I am the Symbol of My Own Creation

A few weeks ago we discussed how we would create a public image of ourselves that could be used within the mass media. I believe that to make a successful image of ones self, one simply mustn’t tell all the gritty details. People don’t want to know the ‘real you’ they want to see the highly stylised image of you that can become a symbol. You have to represent something. To some Corey Worthington represents out of control teenagers and the dangers of the Internet and social networking spaces. For along time all the images that appeared of him within the media included his female retro yellow glasses and a hoodie. He became an icon and an symbol rather then a person.

One of the important elements to creating a popular symbol is to create an image to which the majority of people can relate. For many leftist alternative types, Che Guevara represents counterculture, revolution and freedom to the oppressed. The fact that within popular culture the only image of him is iconic helps to spread the cause and the symbol.



So, what identity would I want to create for myself? I would like to be perceived as a champion of counterculture and an urban revolutionary. I would like to spread a message of anti-establishment freedom within the world of art and urban life, similar to the English stencil artist Banksy who culture-jams the streets of the world. With the Internet I am able to create this image of myself and promote the work of urban artists who use graffiti to express themselves. But the reality of who I am as a person may be someone who a pro establishment rightwing ‘square.’

Identity can be constructed and propagated in the digital world, but these identities cannot be called ‘false.’ The fact that they were created in the first place is informative of the ‘true’ identity of the person. We all have our part to play within the digital world. Digital identities are valid identities for they point to what the person aspires to become. The brilliance of identity is that it is forever changing evolving and growing.

Advertising’s all pervasive reach.

How does advertising invade your private space? Yahoo now puts adverting material at the end of all emails. The presentation of the ads is of a similar style to the text within the email. The font is the same and there is a simple sentence that points to a web address where more exploration is possible. The once private forum of the email is now an avenue for corporate plugging. It is becoming harder to ignore advertising material. This breaking down of the boundaries of private and public space is becoming more and more evident within today’s society.

Advertising is absolutely everywhere where mass media is concerned. Channel Nine is the king of cross promotion. According to media watch, on the day that Jane McGrath died, the first two news stories that Nine ran on their Sunday News were a blatant plugs for that nights programs. The first was a piece that would appear on 60 minutes about the Wayne Carey incident. The second being a piece about the Corbeys that just happened to coincide with the documentary nine was airing. The Jane McGrath story was the third news item that evening. Advertising as news is a scary image of the future of information.

I like to believe that I am out of the advertisers reach but I think that I am just a little delusional. What stays within my mind with ads is not the brand names but the creativity within the ads themselves. The beaver ad is funny, (and gross) however I cannot tell you the brand from the top of my head. For the advertising firms I would imagine that a compromise has to be made between creativity and brand recognition. Most ads that are simply and image and a link on a website do not inspire me to inquire farther. They just aggravate me and clutter the computer screen.

Don’t even get me started on pop up windows…