HAM433 Blog Response (Week 6)

I am currently in the middle of reading Al Gore’s book “The Assault on Reason”. The book is focused on the US but much of it relates Australia. A main point of discussion in the book is that you need money to win an election. Therefore an independent candidate in a small town is unlikely to become president because they need money to pay for advertising. The most likely to win an election are those who are already millionaires or can get companies to invest in them. The election campaign becomes about who has the best commercials and who can get the most airtime. Once in power, the government then has to pay the media for advertising space using taxpayer’s money.

I think that political parties should get to advertise for free. There should be a law that if a political party makes an advertisement then the opposite party also gets equal time for advertising. There should also be a set amount of political ads per day.

I think that it is important that people get more interested in politics and world issues. The majority of people would just watch the evening news and many would have trouble answering general questions. People need to be encouraged to watch more current affairs. There also need to be more interactivity. Devices such as Tivo and Apple TV allow TVs to be connected the internet to download movies. This technology should be extended to allow people to have real-time conversations as they watch a show. Some movies on Blu-Ray already allow this.

Week Three Response: Toothless Tiger

This post is a response to the question posted here. Other people's responses here.

The Question:

In the lecture during week 2, I suggested that while ACMA has regulatory powers over broadcaster is Australia, when it comes to ethical breaches in the news, they have proven, in some cases, to be a “toothless tiger”. See this Media Watch episode for a good example.

So, this week, I want you to consider regulation of broadcast news. Does the broadcast news media need to be more tightly regulated? If you think ‘yes’, what aspects of the broadcast news reporting might need better rules and regulations? If ‘no”, why not?

My Response:

When looking at regulation issues and privacy, we have to consider that the media is the fourth estate.

Firstly, the fourth estate is supposed to be watching the government and therefore the media should be able to uncover corruption. Unfortunately the lines have been blurred on what kind of surveillance is acceptable. I would think recording a financial transaction in order to reveal bribery would be acceptable, but filming someone carrying out their daily chores at home would be unacceptable. Despite this, the paparazzi are constantly taking photos of celebrities through the windows of their house. If I did this I would go to jail, but they do not. In this regard, I believe that tighter regulation is needed.

Secondly, as the term fourth estate implies, the media is a large organisation on par with the government. Just imagine what would happen if the government collapsed. I believe that the ending of large media organisation would have the same effect. That is why ACMA would not take away a broadcasting licence even though they can. It would create a void that would bring uncertainty in society.

It appears that there is much regulation but not much enforcement. I do not think removing licenses would be the answer but penalties do need to apply more.

Review: NYPD Inaction over a Missing Black Woman

I recently read the feature article NYPD Inaction over a Missing Black Woman Found Dead Sparks a History Racial-Bias Lawsuit (6/5/2008, Sean Gardiner, The Village Voice). The article tells the story of a 21-year-old woman Romona Moore who went missing in 2003.

The article goes into great detail of how the family was impacted by the tragedy. The family was concerned for her well being because she had said she was going out to buy a burger and would be back shortly. She never returned. Despite being a shy woman who was always at home or studying, the police decided that she was a runaway and did not investigate further.

After several days of their own searching, the family finally got in contact with the media who said that they were not interested in the story. The family then went to local politicians who demanded the police reopen the investigation.

A witness contacted the family and told them where to find the body. She had been tortured for several days. The family were suing the police for not doing enough. They claim it was because she was black.

The writer tries to present the story from both the family and the police. He points out how many missing cases the police get each day and that the majority are runaways.

The language used is very direct and to the point. The article is written in a factual way with no embellishment. The main thread of the article is in chronological order, beginning with Ms Moore leaving the house then going through her search and discovery. Quotes from the family and information about the victim are interwoven throughout the article.

The most prominent section is where the lack of police interest is contrasted with the case of a woman who went missing two months earlier. This woman was the wife of a doctor. The police were active on the case immediately working full time and door knocking. There was a press conference and messages on a loud speaker.

The article also contains facts that further convey a sense of injustice. The police used a psychic to find the doctor’s wife. The murderers thought it odd that there was nothing about the abduction on the news. The police had gone to the house where the victim was being held and had noticed items of hers there but did not look further. The most astonishing fact is left to the last sentence, the officer that investigated the disappearance of Ms Moore got a promotion, for his good work on the case.