Slightly annoyed at myself for not remembering to bring my headphones today, editing for Advanced Broadcast Journalism is going to be difficult without them so I've organised to come to another tutorial tomorrow at 8:30. Fortunately I am excellent at getting out of bed at early hours (not). Them's the breaks though..!

So while I cannot participate in today's tutorial activity, I thought I'd take a few minutes to have a gripe about a few things journalism-related.
1) $250 million cash-gift to free-to-air channels
2) Election-year 'distractions' / 'impetus' for journos to 'get up close' to politicians.

So first of all. Why is our government spending 'Aussie tax dollars' on commercial stations when these broadcasters create enough revenue through advertising and ratings to afford a plethora of American (pardon my French) shit that they need to create new 'multi-channels' to accommodate? Oh yeah, to help them make the move to digital television. Wait a minute though.. something's going unsaid here, would it be that Prime already has 7two, and Channel 9 has Go!, oneHD is a Channel 10 sub, while all three commercial stations already have HDTV channels, ready to go? And should I mention that these were all made available to these broadcasters at 'no additional cost' ?
Yesterday's article '$250m TV gift needs to be rechannelled' by Simon Whipp, found on the Australian online outlines the Australian-American Free Trade Agreement that extends to television, capping Australian content at 50%. Now who the fuck agreed to that?! (Again, pardon my French. Also, it was John Howard.) What sort of trading-off on Australian production is that? And why should we gift stations who quite happily create their own (billions of dollars of) revenue annually, even if under the guise of 'beefing up Australian content'?
According to Whipp, we ought to ensure the cash goes to production of Australian content and ensuring its quality. According to Stephen Conroy, "the Government recognises that the commercial television broadcasters will require some assistance to maintain Australian content production, while investing in a new delivery platform nationally."  (From a media release from the beginning of the month.)
If that assistance is increasing the impetus for local content in all stations, or readdressing the FTA that has capped local content, then they're going in the right direction. Frankly however it's hard for me to see right now why our tax dollars are being siphoned off to private health care (though apparently K Rudd is taking the stance of hardline opposition to this), private/independent schooling and now broadcasters who make lots of money from subpar programming and advertisement saturation/revenue.
Never one to wave the 'stop spending Aussie tax dollars' flag lightly (because I see it as a bit tabloid-esque, rallying the hardworkin' Aussie battler against just about any 'injustice' that will sell a story), it was Rudd's speech in Question Time early this week about private healthcare not being deserving of our Aussie tax dollar that helped some cogs and wheels start turning in my head.
Being on the look out for a story idea and also just as someone who enjoys Question Time, my ears pricked up. Weren't the 'elite' schools of Canberra just given funding to improve their already state of the art facilities? Personally, I pay my taxes a) cos I'm afraid of the taxman but b) because I support a system that supports those who aren't as well off as I am. The 10% or so of my meagre paycheck that goes to the Australian Tax Office helps me sleep at night. I'm helping my Nan afford the costs of her stay in a retirement home while also helping her receive the healthcare she needs in her old age.
I'm helping my best friend get through CIT as a youth with allowance. Furthermore, I'm contributing to a system that helps the little guys get ahead.
So when the quality of private healthcare usurps that of public because of a lack of funding and support, or when the little tackers in my neighbourhood don't want to go to school because they don't have a gymnasium with an indoor swimming pool and 800 new Macs and all the rest of it and suffer poor literacy and numeracy skills as a result, I have a problem with it. When skills shortages as a result of poor education from the outset affects the care given in public schools and hospitals, I don't mind jumping up and down about 'our bloody tax dollars.' It feels like being taken for a ride, and this $250m to commercial broadcasters with no strings attached or any real conditions smacks of scam.
Oh, and have I already talked about it being an election year..? Meaning our pollies want all media/ broadcasters on their side..?
So my next grievance (and this will be a bit more brief as it's time for my sandwich and nap, but NB my swell segue) is with journalists who appear to forget that their profession requires them to report information of relevance to the public. The point of press-junkets and conferences is to seminate the same, PR spun bullshit to all stations/outlets so that a) media is homogenised and b) is in favour of he/she who is deigning to give the press their time. So journalists who take part in 'distractions' like the insulation debate or Tony Abbott's near miss with a semi while failing to deliver important news like where public funding is going, what certain policy will mean for the Aussie battler or even just telling us something new instead of personifying and then vilifying that political personality make me shudder.
When I tell people I'm studying to be a journalist, invariably I am met with responses along the lines of, "Oh, so you're a bloodsucker then?"
I think it's hard for people who are either disillusioned by the he-said, she-said media style Australian journos are perfecting or who think we're just here to make assholes of assholes and poke holes in things that they'd rather believe to be airtight to believe that some of us want integrity and truth to be our mainstays, and what prompts us to make news. Because at the end of the day, if I wanted to watch banal mediocrities that centre around, "he said this! then she said this and they did this and it was horrible!" I could flick on my television and find on any number of stations an American sitcom that delivers the same calibre of content. The only problem there would be the decision between regular Prime or 7two, channel 9 or Go! or channel 10 or oneHD..

After reading this article by the ABC's Mark Scott, I was prompted to write a 'journal entry' in response, outlining where I get my news, why before discussing my views on the article. The Fall of Rome: Media After Empire is relevant right now so read it here! This was for my Advanced Broadcast Journalism unit but I feel it sufficiently reflects my views on the changing landscape of print/online news as well as provide an idea of the sort of news/media I choose to consume.

Journal Entry #1 - 11th February 2010
I choose to get my news mostly from ABC and SBS, the Canberra Times and occasionally the Australian. I tune into the SBS World News as well as ABC’s evening bulletin when is possible, my parents record both which is useful to me with my busy schedule (though said busy schedule often makes finding time to watch said recordings difficult). The medium I prefer (both for my career prospects and as a media outlet) however is radio – I wake up to ABC’s FM103.9 daily, which is a news service I have only recently started listening to. Its’ continuous service offers a fantastic alternative to other radio news channels who rely on ‘features’ to fill air time, which I often found was directed at an older audience. The array of world news programs on FM103.9 at various times of the day & week are another reason I choose to tune in – from deutschevelle, BBC and NBC programming I find that turning on the radio at any time will bring interesting news stories that have been put together by media outlets similar to the ABC or SBS, with relevance, depth, research, eloquence and interest. In fact, it is 103.9 spurring my own desire to get into radio broadcast! I very much am looking forward to ABC’s new continuous television news channel and am hoping it is similar to 103.9 in its content as it will mean more convenience for me in terms of soaking up more media content.

I found Mark Scott’s speech to be interesting, informative and also progressive. My personal feelings were an initial pride that Australia’s public broadcaster was so in tune, had come at the issue of a changing media landscape so openly and laterally and offered solutions that didn’t involve the ever growing dollar (at least at face value). Being that I choose to primarily consume news from the ABC it was a relief to find that ABC’s commitment to impartial, free media will continue. Furthermore, that they see their future in the audience is not only empowering but promising – the promise of engagement, of valuing the opinions of my generation and using that to their advantage to benefit us appears to be a win-win situation. An audience-centred organisation at a time of consumers used to social media to express and share opinion seems entirely appropriate. However, I am slightly afraid that this style of media will create an anarchic media system where countless public contribution will mean relevant and professional news may get lost or lose importance so I hope that controls will be in place to prevent this. As for the future of pay-per-view news online, I can only speculate with little basis for any argument. My first reaction is that news comes in papers! Online news, in either its format or in my mind, lacks tangibility and credibility, because of the internet’s nature - Mark Scott’s words were ‘anyone can instantly publish on the web’ which I feel supports my weariness perfectly here. Further to my views on online news, again as Mark Scott said, was that it is free. It has always been free. It is free because it lacks the credibility you find when you pay $1.50 at your news agents’ for your favourite broadsheet. It is free because internet advertising revenue is booming – unwitting browsers of sites like news.com.au are lining the pockets of giants, who in turn only need to pay AAP a pittance for a story to generate more readers, who generate more revenue, and so on.
My stubbornness aside though, I believe the future of journalism lay in hands of multi-media-digital journalists who are learning skills of the trade now – aka myself and my peers. We grew up with print, Fathers who read the paper at the breakfast table every morning, grandparents who watched the news religiously every night before dinner, bus drivers whose choice in radio news programmes exposed us to the world of radio broadcast.
Finally, we are the digital generation – we make the transition from old(ish) technology to new seamlessly. We understand it, we can manipulate it and we create it. Social networking is our thing and I do not doubt that the streams of graduates last year, this year and next year will help shape the future of media until it resembles a better, digitalised version of its former self, accessible anywhere to anyone.

Just words you don't understand.

Making the first mark on a new diary/blog/journal/almanac/log/etc has always appeared to me to be one of the most difficult things about diary/blog/journal/almanac/log keeping.
Was it Tao Tsu who said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step? Maybe I'm mixing my metaphors/quotes but that sentiment probably constitutes the greatest inhibition in my life. Stepping over the threshold from known to unknown is too scary sometimes.
On days like today though, after an afternoon of foraging through media releases and PR dribble from media departments of local and federal politicians while enjoying the creative outputs of my peers, a desire to put what I have to say out there made a powerful appearance in my afternoon.

So enter to the 'blogosphere' another uni student guided by a blind ambition. Or am I supposed to sell myself here and provide reasons as to why my blog deserves what little space in the World Wide Web it takes up..?
My name is Annie Schubert. The chef at my favourite public house calls me Lois Lane because I like to down a pint or two while I digest news or get the creative juices for a story flowing, and have in the past found a few stories in that particular part of the world.
I'm Not Quite Lois because though I don't know Clark Kent/any superheroes and I'm no crack investigative reporter but the evolution of her character as a largely determined, strong-willed woman in a man's world is certainly inspiring.
This year will be my third year in a Bachelor of International Studies/Bachelor of Journalism at UC and I guess it's time to get serious about prospective career opportunities.

So I'm exercising a little determination by stepping into the unknown. From where I'm standing here at the starting line of my journey, I hope to fill this blog with observations of the various media I choose to consume (or don't, you'll probably find out exactly why), critiques, ideas for articles, articles and any other bits I see fit for inclusion.

And before I finish up the awkward intro post, I would like to share an intro from an article I read in today's Canberra Times that I thought was led by particularly energetic creativity. Props go to Scott Hannaford's article, "Appeals threaten urban renewal, builders warn", p2, The Canberra Times, Monday 21st February 2010 for this intro:

"Vexatious planning appeals designed to thwart commercial rivals rather than address genuine concern were threatening the ACT Government's urban renewal aspirations, the Master Builder Association said yesterday. ..."