Author Archives: cer987

Sorry, You’re Not Entitled To Your Own Opinion: Moderating the Conversation

‘Leave your comments in the section below’ is the sign off that Internet sensation Ray William Johnson uses every time he posts a new YouTube video (every Tuesday, incase you were wondering). It’s a function that’s used across a variety of Internet sites from those full of fodder like 4chan and Reddit, right up to our print media heavyweights like Sydney Morning Herald or The Daily Telegraph. The comments section allows for the average joe to have their say on the articles they’ve just read – in effect it entitles everyone to an opinion in the public sphere that is created. But should everyone really be entitled to their opinion? Does having a comment section allow for a more democratic approach to the Internet – individualising its members as well as the various factions of society? Or is it just a playground for unmoderated and, quite frankly, inane ramblings that are actually detracting from the debate at hand?


Lets take something like YouTube – I typed in David Attenborough, assuming that the comments should be as educational as his documentaries are. Here’s the top two:


This is completely unsurprising, being an avid YouTube user the sort of dribble that gets posted in the comments section is always the same. But what if YouTube had set up the comment function as a way to find out consumer preferences for their videos, or if BBC was monitoring the comments made on their videos in order to create better documentaries for us as the consumers? The problem here for these media corporations, that are seeking to utilise this online dialogue, is how do they begin to sift through the helpful and unhelpful comments? The fact of the matter is that it is an impossible feat, which makes me question the real usefulness of allowing respondents to comment at all.


And this brings me to my title, ‘sorry, you’re not entitled to your own opinion’, with the qualification that an opinion may be allowed if it is informed and can be backed up. There is a difference between blindly assuming that what you’re saying is correct because it’s simply what you believe, and in having a particular view on a contentious issue that is supported by strong evidence that you’re right in having such a belief. Some great debates have come from the ability to comment on posts, with some bringing insightful ideas to the table even for the person who created the original content. What is needed is a way to moderate these debates so that they are fair and worthwhile in contribution – and this can only be achieved by either greater regulation of online content or through the various media platforms establishing their own systems of control (e.g. through the use of up or down voting of comments). If this occurs, there is no reason why the comments section can’t be used to further democratic ideas of free speech.



Shaping a Childhood: Gender Inequality in Children’s TV


It seems that the makers of children’s television programs have a lot to answer for. As one of the main sources of education for impressionable youngsters, it saddens me to see that there is such a one-sided representation of gender. A vast majority of the main roles in programs for children are dominated by male characters with many of the female characters playing submissive or ‘traditional roles’. We are facing quite a significant problem with the way gender roles and tropes are portrayed to the next generation, giving them a very narrow and potentially endangering view of the way in which the world works.

How children learn about, or acquire gender roles has become an increasingly popular area of discourse. Indeed, with the increasing amount of television that children are watching, one might be concerned as to whether or not television plays any part in the concepts that children grow up with so far as gender roles are concerned. If television is found to influence children’s concepts of gender, then not only does it reflect upon the influence that television might have in other areas, but it may also have implications for the children in so far as what they come to expect as the norm, and the types of behaviour and attitudes they exhibit and expect others to.

I thought back to the shows that I used to watch as a child – Pokemon, The Powerpuff Girls, Sailor Moon – the latter of the two were the most disconcerting of all to unpack, but I’ll begin with Pokemon.

The show tells the story of a young boy from Pallet Town named Ash who inextricably lives in a world filled with Pokemon just waiting to be captured (‘to catch them is my real test’), trained (‘to train them is my cause’) and sent in to battle until one is the victor (yes, I can recite the entire intro). What’s interesting to go back and look at, however, is the way in which female characters are represented in the show. The main female role belongs to Misty. Sure she’s a domineering character that battles like the rest of them but her entire existence on the show revolves around submissively following Ash on his seemingly never-ending goal towards obtaining every gym badge this “pokeverse” has to offer. Other characters like Nurse Joy and Office Jenny, who never age or wear anything other than their uniforms, simply play the unattainable love interest for the dopey Brock character. Here’s a quick example of how the episodes generally portray this. The show sexualises and objectifies women, as well as suggesting that the natural role for girls is to succumb to the needs of their male counterparts and traverse the world until he’s finally become master of the universe (or something like that).

Next up we have The Powerpuff Girls. The premise of this animated show was that three, crime-fighting sisters went about their daily lives doing normal kid things until suddenly a call came through from the Mayor requiring their urgent help in defeating yet another bad guy terrorising Townsville. There are so many things to discuss with this one, but I’ll focus on the images presented by the three girls themselves. There is the glaringly obvious fact that all three of these characters are Caucasian girls. Furthermore two of the characters (Blossom and Bubbles) are a stark contract to the third (Buttercup). The former two represent the Aryan ideal of fair hair, big eyes and extremely well behaved. The latter has black hair and is stubborn and rude. Being the butch tomboy of the three makes her the black sheep of the family, and the show usually goes out of it’s way to make this apparent – she is the first to jump to action but invariably ends up following the rule of either Blossom or Bubbles. Two issues here, the first being that again we’re giving girls a submissive view of themselves – the girls are still ruled by their “father” The Professor and are constantly required to be at the call of the inept Mayor – the second is that there seems to be a commentary on societal ideals of what is perfect or desirable in girls – the fair skin, hair and big eyes… These views are not at all accurate and are warping the perceptions of youth on what should be socially acceptable.

Finally I’ll move to Sailor Moon. My favourite show of the three. In fact I can still admit to being a massive fan girl of the series, so it came as a big surprise to me that the girls that I idolised as a child still portrayed the huge gender inequalities in kids programming. But isn’t Sailor Moon herself supposed to represent female empowerment? She’s the lead of a television show, she can fight like the best of them and she’s the leader of an all-girl “crime-fighting” group, so how can that be linked to gender issues? We discussed in class today that there is this tendency to presume that shows centred on female leads must be indications of female empowerment and control, however this is generally illusory and after unpacking the show further we find that each of the leads tends to come back to her ‘stereotypical’ quest for the perfect man/love. In this case, our focus is always brought back to the enigmatic Tuxedo Mask. Is this who we envision as the “champion of justice“?

I’m sure there are many who will argue that I’m reading too much in to this and that the minds of the children consuming these programs are not yet developed enough to see the underlying subtext they hold. However children use these shows as one of their sources of information about the world around them. Even if the gender stereotyping is subliminal, although in the above cases we can see it’s much more pertinent, it is still there and is still being absorbed by the viewers – children. If we are to continue to inaccurately portray the genders in children’s television then we must deal with the consequences that may arise – a misogynistic and unrealistic worldview.

Amazon: The New Big Brother


Like most people, I’m addicted to the latest online fad: Internet shopping. I trawl endlessly through cyberspace looking for new things for myself, rejoicing in the warm feeling I get when I press ‘buy’ on those cute new socks with pictures of banana’s on them, even if the act of buying them online has only saved me a few measly dollars. However, this endless trawling is painting a very clear picture about me – my tastes in clothing, my consuming preferences – without me even being aware that this is occurring. Take the online shop Amazon, I am forever scrolling through its pages, typing in the search bar what types of items I wish to look for, amazed when looking at one cd to buy another 10 pop up that are from bands that I either already love or end up enjoying.

The fact is, Amazon has been collecting my information for years. Not just addresses and payment information but the identity of everything I’ve ever bought or even looked at. And while dozens of other companies do that, Amazon’s doing something remarkable with theirs – they’re using that data to build our relationship. The ability of Amazon to store personal information about myself and the millions of other consumers that use its website presents a very interesting dichotomy. On the one hand, products are streamlined to my exact wants and needs saving me time and effort in my endless searches for things I never really need. On the other, I know very little about how this information is obtained (something about computer algorithms and the inedible kind of cookies?), how it is stored and, more importantly, how it is used for the benefit of third parties. Long gone are the days of general purpose computing, these days even typing in to my Word Press right now may be shooting off tiny bits of information to various third parties, all interested in giving me the ‘best online experience’.

Truth be told at the moment I’m more concerned about making sure no-one outbids me on my latest eBay purchase than thinking about who and what has access to my personal information. But after looking more closely at the significant impact even the slightest click of my mouse can have it’s definitely food for thought…


The Commodification of Knowledge


Traditional studies about the role of the University and its past and present changes have revolved around discourses about social and institutional developments. However there is a recent shift towards discourse surrounding the idea of the University as a capitalist venture that is putting a price on attaining higher levels of knowledge. With booms in the availability of scholarly articles on the Internet and subsequent lack of funding for scholarly research, there is an increase in the way in which our education is becoming commodified. Andrew Whelan (2013) labels this trend as moving from an ‘information scarcity to an information surplus’.


As with other employees, academics effectively sell their labour to provide a level of subsistence for themselves. This notion of ‘selling labour’, however, seems to be at odds with the idea that Universities are supposed to be about providing services for the ‘greater good’ of the community. If the original aims of of this institution were to place value on the advancement of people and the ‘truth’, then how did it suddenly complete a 180 degree turn and become about maximising economic returns?


There are two points of view that are interesting to consider here. The first, is that social forces have rendered the skills possessed by academics not as individualised skills that may be bargained with by the academic to obtain leverage in the labour market, but rather as a necessity to society – this establishes academics as disposable commodities. Secondly, in order to maintain and income the academics themselves must necessarily commodify their skills in order to remain competitive and get funding directed their way. And what is even more troublesome is the fact that we, as students, are paying for a service that effectively places us in this web of commodification – as Whelan (2013) puts it, education basically makes us a slightly higher commodity to be utilised in the labour market rather than turning us into simply more intelligent human beings. We must question why there is a price on, effectively, knowledge, and why this causing huge social inequities both for academics and for potential students.

People Power: The Rise in Citizen Reporting



Citizen reporting is a relatively new feature in the sphere of journalism, but already its effects are profound and widespread. It represents the future of journalism, away from traditional forms, towards radical new forms that appear to be by the people, for the people. While some argue that citizen journalism is an antidote to the widening gaps in society, where traditional news media is in decline and reporting carries undertones of political bias, it is evident that the societies that would benefit most from this style of reporting are facing repressive regimes working to suppress freedom of press. The lecture presented by Marcus O’Donnell (2013) painted a very interesting picture about the advantages and disadvantages presented by the phenomenon of citizen reporting. He questioned whether citizen journalism diminished the quality of reporting, or whether it reinstated our trust in journalism due to the open-forum nature of participatory journalism. I’m going to try and unpack this a little bit in order to come to grips with the future of journalism.


“News travels fast”

It’s an old adage, but has so much more literal meaning in today’s fast-paced, news-hungry society than it ever did when it was coined. But the adage also highlights the challenges in accuracy of reporting by citizen journalists. Gaps in information, lack of referencing of sources and a general lack of context, all because of stringent time constraints, often leads to narrow reporting – quantity over quality. Further, the availability of online reporting methods to the ‘average joe’ means that although we’re closer to establishing a free press, and everyone’s voice can therefore be heard, maybe we shouldn’t be hearing every voice that’s out there? Jeremy Porter (2009) stated ‘the only real problem with citizen journalism is that it gets more difficult for all of us to decide what to believe.’


“We are the eyes and ears of the news”

Professional reporters cannot be everywhere and cannot cover every event taking place, especially those that are unplanned. Citizen journalists can alert the media to breaking news, and provide information and visual documentation of events that can help to inform news stories. Some newspapers and news sites, especially smaller ones who may have limited staff, rely on citizen journalists to contribute comments and blog posts about their stories in order to broaden the news they cover and make the stories more interactive, and more accessible. In fact, many believe that citizen journalists present a fresh and more exciting angle on a story, making the news more engaging. We’re given the information we want in small, digestible pieces and this allows us to remain up-to-date with breaking news stories and global trends.


Sure, professional journalists put themselves in harm’s way every day to cover news around the globe; they have been trained to handle potentially dangerous situations and are equipped with the resources and staff to protect themselves as best they can. However, there is certainly much to be gained from having everyday people in the midst of breaking news stories, documenting them as they play out and giving an unmediated view of the world around us. I am all for citizen journalism, but there is a line to be drawn before too much unmediated content starts warping our perceptions of what is relevant news.


Reference List

Media Sensationalism: Making a “Martyr” Out of Meagher


A questionable culture is emerging in Australian media and is threatening the integrity of journalism as well as exposing inherent issues surrounding media regulation. Sensationalism in the media is hardly a new phenomenon – just look at the effects the media has had on issues like the war in Afghanistan or the outbreak of Avian Influenza – however the current state of crime reporting, particularly in print media, is presenting significant issues for both the credibility of news items and for consumers of this news.

The recent, and tragic, death of Jill Meagher is testament to the reprehensible style of reporting that is emerging in Australia. I am a huge advocate of the reporting of crime in print media – possibly due to the fact that I’m currently studying law alongside my BCM degree, though more likely down to the fact that I have a penchant for reading about all things crime related – although there is a certain line that must be drawn when writing about criminal acts (particularly ones that are still being investigated). The media has released footage of Meagher’s last minutes, written detailed descriptions of the attack, and even revealed information about various aspects of her social and personal life all in order to generate a broader interest in her death. Again I am all for freedom of speech and press but I question why knowing about the gruesome details of her death could be considered beneficial to anyone other than the profiteering journalists.

Underlying this rant about media sensationalism is my want for greater controls on the reporting of crimes in the media. It is clearly in the public interest for mechanisms to be put in place that prevent the reporting of unnecessary or macabre aspects of criminal acts. Why? For a multitude of reasons too extensive to post here, but I’ll divulge the main reasons as follows:

  1. Overexposure to morbid details – shock tactics may sell more papers or magazines, however this doesn’t mean they should be employed. We are creating a generation of people that are becoming indifferent about the reporting of heinous crimes, breezing over them as though they were the social pages.
  2. Trial by media issues – the Victorian police were critical (and rightly so) of the coverage afforded to Meagher’s death since it has proved to be a hinderance to the investigation and prosecution processes. Consider the effects of a trial by media in the Skaf case (again, the inner law student coming out in me but a good example nonetheless).
  3. What about the family? – this is perhaps the most contentious issue of all. Those close to Meagher have been unable to privately grieve over their loss; it is making front page news continuously. What makes me more concerned is that people that are in no way connected to Jill are holding protests, walks and vigils over her death – all due to the bombardment of information about her death by the media.
The effects of sensationalism corrode the awareness level, contemplate the critical issues and present it in a immature and unrealistic way. I think it’s high time that media should end this disillusionment in reporting and start reporting the facts. The rest should be left to the public to interpret and understand the meaning rather than stuffing unnecessary details in their minds.