This is not provacative.

What is my problem! I mean really. It seems so simple to write down your opinions and thoughts. Why is keeping up with this assignment a problem or rather a delayed reaction on my part. It should be perfectly easy to contribute a stream of my consciousness to the web. Is it the aspect of being assessed? No, I don’t believe it is, being in the system of higher education for as long as I have been…. Well there is just no problem in that department.

Is it possibly my awkwardness with the technology that makes me so incapable of conforming to the current Internet standard? I don’t feel incapable of completing this assignment but there is something awkward of even the most detached discussion through blogging. Ultimately the reader is connected directly to the writer. There is opportunity for discussion and reaction. It can be guaranteed to reach the author. This is unprecedented with print. True one could always write a letter to the editor but in the arrogance of the journalism room this would be dismissed. I mean there will be plenty of people who read your paper even if one does not. But the blogging system is so different. It is about the connection you make with your reader. The reader, more then ever, is the important aspect of this connection. And for the first time since Barthes declared the writer to be dead the technology has shown us how that can be turned on its head.

The idea that Barthes gives basically (and I mean basically) empowers the reader and takes away some of the preconceived ideas of the power of meaning from the author. This technology, however, reinstates that power to some level, as communication between the reader and the author becomes more frequent and each takes on the other’s role.

It is a complex idea and a long-winded way to state my struggle with this form of self-expression. I guess I’m old fashioned. I believe conversation and interaction should be on a face-to-face level. Here is a beautiful video to show just why. I think at the end of it you’d have to agree that understanding and reading is part intuition and visual contact to the author of the idea is key. VIDEO

As I said. Maybe not provocative, but hopefully thought provoking.

Inter-literate

Just wanted to work out what it means to be literate in relation to the Internet. Is the use of the Internet the simple navigation through the abundance of information an indicative sign as to the literacy level of the user? Or is it the fact that any user, no matter how familiar, is using the Internet for any and all aspects of inquiry? I’m starting to believe that it is the combination of these two aspects. As one, inevitably, leads to the other, once a user is more familiar the frequency of use is increased; equally increased use will lead to knowledge in the manipulation of the medium. Aside from the overwhelming levels of online entertainment and shopping, the Internet is the single most accessible tool for self-educating without hours of research.

What happens in most academic circles is that no matter how much research is conducted through the Internet ultimately there will be a physical written source that will need to be accessed. I have a more entertaining exercise in mind however. Let us assume that the Internet is the super computer from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, It is therefore able to answer that unanswerable question of all "What is the meaning of life?", the answer may not be a simple one but somehow through a search an answer can be formed. Just have a try. Start at the basics: Google - a bit of a mix from the definition source to the inspiring and philosophical. NEXT. Yahoo, much the same really. Internet literacy here however requires a more in depth search one that probes the existing answers: Youtube, Answers, About, Searchgeek, Bing, Cuil, Mamma. All these are search engines and all are able to draw in on separate pieces of information to draw together an idea. I guess being Internet literate is not about the answer as much as it is about the search. Along the way you learn what is existentialism and how a collection of data can be organised in a mathematical and systematic format to tell you all kinds of things, even things about yourself. (Enter your birth date)

Hope you had a bit of fun. I was just hoping to remind us all (this includes myself) that there is more than just Google out there.

ON AIR... Are these people serious?!

The story so far: Kyle and Jackie had a radio show. They often did segments involving the public and the public’s real and honest feelings, reactions and stories. One day [29/07/09] they did a show where they asked a 14-year-old girl, with the presence of her mother, some very revealing and personal questions. On Air of course! In the end they messed it all up by being insensitive and unprofessional when the girl revealed a rape experience.

Now the tone of this blog may sound a little pretentious, or even judgmental, if you are in any way offended by it. I say too bad. I, unfortunately for my own intellect, read in today’s paper that Kyle Sandilands will be fired from the Australian Idol and possibly his radio show on Austereo's 2Day FM following the repercussions of the above mentioned incident. Personally I don't watch or listen to either - mainly because they're crap. But what did get my attention is that The Age in their report on this, used the comments of fans from the Idol website as a source of valuable reporting! I don't know what is more embarrassing for the Australian media, the fact that grammatically incompetent people can make it into the news:

Blogger Melissa wrote: "I think this whole thing has been blown out . I feel the mother is to blame she knew about and asked her daughter that question not Kyle. Get off his back and I will think twice about watching this year." The AGE (4/8/09) The AGE

Or, the fact that there are people who actually believe that Kyle and Jackie O aren’t possibly the worst Radio DJ’s in the country. Their stardom and popularity gives them a unique opportunity to instill some positive ideas but they have time and time again chosen the insensitive (and unfortunately popular) gags to up their ratings and fatten their wallets.

Mainly I think it is the consistent lacking in Entertainment News to provide any enlightenment or food for critical thought. I went to my usual ‘diner’ for such appetizing ideas - ABC’s Media Watch. Sure, there is a sarcastic tone of judgment from the show but just have a read at what the two Radio DJ’s have hosted in the past Media Watch. For a balanced news item it would have been a little more impressive if The Age had used a comment from this website:

Keep Kyle and Jackie O off the Air!
 Why does he get paid so much money to be a jerk? Nothing he contributes to radio is ever positive; it always has a rude and negative slant to it. Which is why I stopped listening to them a long time ago! (Orange Girl, Media Watch website)

Finally a comment on the pathetic self-defense article by Kyle, he made an attempt to clarify the situation. Stating in his letter on The Punch that in hearing the 14-year-old girl confess to rape while hooked up to a lie detector on his show with Jackie O – stunned him. Seriously?

It stunned him so much so, that he was unable to (with a 7 second delay) cut the show from air and blame it on a technical fault. A technique they teach all hosts of radio shows in the first week. A technique which to a Radio host of so many years (excuse me here not sure of how many exactly but at least 10) just didn’t occur?! SERIOUSLY? I say pull the plug on the whole damn thing, sponsors get out, and radio station re-model your programming.

Lastly, The Age, up your damn standards and introduce some critical thinking to your readers, even those who read Entertainment News.

end.