Tuesday 31 July 2007
Coleridge Revision
Doing some Coleridge revision yesterday, I was reminded of this little funny I found last year.
Wednesday 25 July 2007
La Belle Dame and Pre-rafs
Stolen from http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/E392M/cp/WindAmongtheReeds/HostingofSidhePreRaphaelite.htmHave a read - some interesting stuff about Keats and the art movement.
Saturday 21 July 2007
Send in the Clowns
Lisa Prior thinks we'd rather be watching comedians tell us the news, not journos.
Year12, wanna come up with a reason why?
Seems like a logical conclusion to me. At least comedians like The Chaser boys tell us they're joking right from the start. Journos tell us they're serious. What's more entertaining?
Year12, wanna come up with a reason why?
Seems like a logical conclusion to me. At least comedians like The Chaser boys tell us they're joking right from the start. Journos tell us they're serious. What's more entertaining?
Friday 20 July 2007
Model Feature Article
After reading a couple of draft FAs I've realised that we've given you a very tricky task. After 2 years of telling you that techniques are important, we want you to write a FA where a detailed analysis of techniques has no place.
Talk about rude.
So I thought I'd try it myself.
I sat for a little more than an hour to write this first part of my FA. It's not good, and it's not the answer, it's just the way I would begin to tackle it, given an hour. There are many good answers possible for this question. The best thing to remember is to take on the persona of a journo - be ruthless, cut-throat, opinionated and determined. You need to keep your reader's attention for the enterity of your article - don't let them get bored or they will flick over to the nudie shots of Posh and Becks. Which, granted, might be more entertaining, but far less educational. Teach your audience something, make them think about the world they live in in a new light.
Don't forget that the question asks for related TEXTS (ie. more than one).
Also, the HSC Online site reminded me that you should try and differentiate between the two Frontlines. For the satire produced by Sitch et al, underline (or italizise) the title. If you are talking about the current affairs show hosted by Mike Moore, you should put inverted commas around it, as it is a smaller text within a text.
This is just a draft. Be kind.
-----------------------------
When representation becomes misrepresentation:
Who can we turn to for the truth?
The information age has truly begun. Yesterday, Blogger registered its 1 000 000th user. The internet-based computer game WoW has been part of court cases and probably broken up more relationships than (insert stupid comparison here). Surveys of Australians’ leisure time shows that while over 10 hours a week is spent in front of the television in the average home, the internet steals us away for an average of 20 hours a week. The one hour a week we used to spend on religion has now shrunk to a big fat zero, and I can guarantee that there is no time left in the working week for personal reflection.
We make usernames, profiles and icons to show the world who we are but what is the truth? We tell people what we want them to believe. Is DaisyBell99 really an 18 year old girl from Texas? Or is some 50 year old pervert taking advantage of the internet’s anonymity and your cluelessness?
When we do this as individuals, we’re only misrepresenting ourselves, and lying to a handful of people.
But what about the media giants, who lie to us on a daily basis? Who tell us what’s important, who deliver the cold, hard facts – are they to be trusted?
In the 1990s, a group of comedians brought the faults of the media to the attention of millions of Australian viewers. Frontline’s satirical expose of a fictional current affairs television show helped audiences to understand that ratings, money, public image and selfishness are often what drive news stories. The truth is often left behind.
The satire uses hand-held cameras and a documentary style to bring the audience into the very realistic episodes. We see inside private meetings, personal chats and reporter’s interviews. We also get the opportunity to view parts of the finished product, ‘Frontline’
The contrast between the two is startling. Reporters snark and snarl at each other in the office, but smile and swap pleasantries on air.
As a mindless, slack-jawed viewer of the idiot box, what are we supposed to believe?
The media’s tricks of production are shown through the documentary. In ‘Add Sex and Stir’, reporter Brooke Vandenburg changes the whole focus of an interview by rerecording a question, and tapping her ‘noddies’. The truth behind the interview becomes distorted, manipulated though the editing process, and without the interviewee’s knowledge. Not only is this entirely unethical, but it causes the audience to question the integrity and motivations behind real current affairs.
Misrepresentation of the sports woman’s case is further emphasised through a dramatization of the event – a technique frequently used by current affair shows for the sake of all-important visuals.
The sinister music used in this dramatization helps to stress Vandenburg’s point – this news story is all about sex...
--------------
Talk about rude.
So I thought I'd try it myself.
I sat for a little more than an hour to write this first part of my FA. It's not good, and it's not the answer, it's just the way I would begin to tackle it, given an hour. There are many good answers possible for this question. The best thing to remember is to take on the persona of a journo - be ruthless, cut-throat, opinionated and determined. You need to keep your reader's attention for the enterity of your article - don't let them get bored or they will flick over to the nudie shots of Posh and Becks. Which, granted, might be more entertaining, but far less educational. Teach your audience something, make them think about the world they live in in a new light.
Don't forget that the question asks for related TEXTS (ie. more than one).
Also, the HSC Online site reminded me that you should try and differentiate between the two Frontlines. For the satire produced by Sitch et al, underline (or italizise) the title. If you are talking about the current affairs show hosted by Mike Moore, you should put inverted commas around it, as it is a smaller text within a text.
This is just a draft. Be kind.
-----------------------------
When representation becomes misrepresentation:
Who can we turn to for the truth?
The information age has truly begun. Yesterday, Blogger registered its 1 000 000th user. The internet-based computer game WoW has been part of court cases and probably broken up more relationships than (insert stupid comparison here). Surveys of Australians’ leisure time shows that while over 10 hours a week is spent in front of the television in the average home, the internet steals us away for an average of 20 hours a week. The one hour a week we used to spend on religion has now shrunk to a big fat zero, and I can guarantee that there is no time left in the working week for personal reflection.
We make usernames, profiles and icons to show the world who we are but what is the truth? We tell people what we want them to believe. Is DaisyBell99 really an 18 year old girl from Texas? Or is some 50 year old pervert taking advantage of the internet’s anonymity and your cluelessness?
When we do this as individuals, we’re only misrepresenting ourselves, and lying to a handful of people.
But what about the media giants, who lie to us on a daily basis? Who tell us what’s important, who deliver the cold, hard facts – are they to be trusted?
In the 1990s, a group of comedians brought the faults of the media to the attention of millions of Australian viewers. Frontline’s satirical expose of a fictional current affairs television show helped audiences to understand that ratings, money, public image and selfishness are often what drive news stories. The truth is often left behind.
The satire uses hand-held cameras and a documentary style to bring the audience into the very realistic episodes. We see inside private meetings, personal chats and reporter’s interviews. We also get the opportunity to view parts of the finished product, ‘Frontline’
The contrast between the two is startling. Reporters snark and snarl at each other in the office, but smile and swap pleasantries on air.
As a mindless, slack-jawed viewer of the idiot box, what are we supposed to believe?
The media’s tricks of production are shown through the documentary. In ‘Add Sex and Stir’, reporter Brooke Vandenburg changes the whole focus of an interview by rerecording a question, and tapping her ‘noddies’. The truth behind the interview becomes distorted, manipulated though the editing process, and without the interviewee’s knowledge. Not only is this entirely unethical, but it causes the audience to question the integrity and motivations behind real current affairs.
Misrepresentation of the sports woman’s case is further emphasised through a dramatization of the event – a technique frequently used by current affair shows for the sake of all-important visuals.
The sinister music used in this dramatization helps to stress Vandenburg’s point – this news story is all about sex...
--------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
