by Kendall O’Connor
Osama bin Laden is dead.
But the news of bin Laden’s death did not stop there, each day details his of life are being unveiled to the public.
And to everyone’s surprise, it wasn’t exactly what you would expect from the leader of a militant Islamist group.
Living in a mansion in an affluent Pakistani suburb with a collection of pornography is not what you would expect from a man who prides himself on his strict devotion to Islam.
Since bin Laden’s death it seems the groups he affiliated himself with have further distanced themselves from their oppressive beliefs.
The Taliban, which has strong ties with Al Qaeda, has also utilised Twitter, in order to spread propaganda and attract followers.
So far they have been tweeting not only in Pashto (used in Afghanistan and Pakistan) but also in English, which could suggest they are looking beyond the Middle East for support.
But this is highly hypocritical, as it comes from a group that once shunned technology due to their fundamentalist beliefs.
How can they gather more followers if they keeps ignoring their own core beliefs?
There is also the question of how relevant bin Laden was on the international scene before his death.
The occasional video decrying the actions of the West has lost its punch due to repetition and the fact that so few attacks have happened on Western soil.
Also, as seen in Tunisia and Egypt, people living under oppressive regimes need not turn to violent terrorist groups to initiate change, they have utilised the power of non-violent protests.
Bin Laden and his violent followers have no place in a world that is turning to social media to affect change- Peaceful Revolution? ‘Like.’
Showing posts with label Editorials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Editorials. Show all posts
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Money and Votes
by Kendall O’Connor
It has long been known that money equals votes and there is no other country that shows this quite like America.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Bloomberg and Barack Obama are classic examples of the fact that money can wield power and influence when it comes to polling time.
With President Obama planning to spend approximately one billion dollars on his 2012 campaign, this indicates that electoral spending shows no sign of decreasing.
But is all this extreme spending really worth it in the end?
It is highly likely that Arnie, Bloomberg and Obama would have succeeded in their campaigns if they spent a fraction amount of the money they had.
It is just as plausible that the personality traits we saw in speeches, interviews, public meetings and debates gave them the advantage over their opponents.
A study conducted by acclaimed economist Stephen Levitt shows two interesting facts.
First, that no matter how much money a highly unpopular candidate raises, they will inevitably still lose.
Secondly, front-runners can still win by spending less, and even if they have accumulated a significant amount of wealth for the campaign, they only use it when threatened by another candidate.
Looking back at the 2010 mid term elections, businesswoman Meg Whitman spent a record amount of her own personal wealth ($163 million) to gain a republican seat in the state of California.
However, she lost to Democrat Jerry Brown, who spent less than half of what Whitman spent. Approximately $25 million was utilised to support his campaign, while over $31 million was contributed by independent groups.
Furthermore, there is now the gift of social media and other networking platforms. This allows politicians to have their views presented at a minimal cost to a large audience, particularly among the younger voters.
At the end of the day, it is the personality of a candidate that wins the election, and this is something that money cannot buy.
It has long been known that money equals votes and there is no other country that shows this quite like America.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Bloomberg and Barack Obama are classic examples of the fact that money can wield power and influence when it comes to polling time.
With President Obama planning to spend approximately one billion dollars on his 2012 campaign, this indicates that electoral spending shows no sign of decreasing.
But is all this extreme spending really worth it in the end?
It is highly likely that Arnie, Bloomberg and Obama would have succeeded in their campaigns if they spent a fraction amount of the money they had.
It is just as plausible that the personality traits we saw in speeches, interviews, public meetings and debates gave them the advantage over their opponents.
A study conducted by acclaimed economist Stephen Levitt shows two interesting facts.
First, that no matter how much money a highly unpopular candidate raises, they will inevitably still lose.
Secondly, front-runners can still win by spending less, and even if they have accumulated a significant amount of wealth for the campaign, they only use it when threatened by another candidate.
Looking back at the 2010 mid term elections, businesswoman Meg Whitman spent a record amount of her own personal wealth ($163 million) to gain a republican seat in the state of California.
However, she lost to Democrat Jerry Brown, who spent less than half of what Whitman spent. Approximately $25 million was utilised to support his campaign, while over $31 million was contributed by independent groups.
Furthermore, there is now the gift of social media and other networking platforms. This allows politicians to have their views presented at a minimal cost to a large audience, particularly among the younger voters.
At the end of the day, it is the personality of a candidate that wins the election, and this is something that money cannot buy.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Editorial Guidelines
ONLINE EDITORIAL GUIDELINES
_______________________________________________________________
1. INTRODUCTION
The School of Arts & Sciences, Fremantle is responsible for the operation and management of the Quasimodo Online website (Quasi Online).
These Online Editorial Guidelines (Guidelines) apply to Notre Dame Staff and Students intending to produce content whether in film, radio, television, photography and other emerging media platforms for publication on Quasi Online.
Students have an overriding obligation to ensure that all online editorial content produced and intended for publication on Quasi Online is consistent with the Objects of the University.
The continued operation of the Quasi Online website is at the discretion of the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor may order the immediate withdrawal of content from Quasi Online or may terminate the operation of the website at any time and for any reason.
All online material intended to be published on Quasi is subject to the approval of the University. The approval and posting of content on Quasi Online must be in accordance with the procedure set out in these Guidelines.
The Quasi Online website must be identified clearly to the public as a Notre Dame Students’ website. Quasi Online may only be used for the purposes of posting content produced by Notre Dame Students’ in the course of their studies at Notre Dame.
2. GENERAL CONTENT -GUIDELINES
Students must ensure that all content selected reflects the highest standards of integrity, professionalism and respect. The use of language, sounds or images that is offensive to any individual or any group of individuals is not acceptable.
Students must comply with the following guidelines in relation to the specific areas of subject matter outlined below:
2.1 Violence. There will be times when it may be necessary to use violent images and sounds to adequately illustrate a story. Particular care must be taken in the presentation or portrayal of violence. The decision to use such images or sounds should be based on editorial judgement, together with regard for the reasonable susceptibilities of audiences to the detail of what is broadcast or published. Such content should not put undue emphasis on the violent images or sounds, and where appropriate it should be preceded by a warning.
2.2 Language. Variations of language favoured by different groups of Australians are valid and have their place in our content. On occasions, the language of one group may be distasteful to another. Use of such language may be permitted provided it is not used gratuitously and can be justified in the context in which it is used.
2.3 Intrusion into Grief. Sensitivity should be exercised in presenting images of, or interviews with, bereaved relatives and survivors or witnesses of traumatic events. Except in special circumstances, children who have recently been victims of, or eyewitnesses to, a tragedy or traumatic experience should not be interviewed or featured.
2.4 Religious Content. Religious content includes coverage of worship and devotion, explanation, analysis, debate and reports. This content may include major religious traditions, indigenous religions and new spiritual movements, as well as secular perspectives on religious issues. Content must reflect the principle of religious freedom and mutual respect for different religions. Students intending to include religious content must ensure that the content is portrayed in a manner that is respectful of the religion. Students should not seek to portray religious content without consultation with the relevant religious group or denomination.
Guidance http://www.omi.wa.gov.au/omi_guidelines.cfm
2.5 Indigenous Australian Content. Significant cultural practices of Indigenous Australians should be observed in content and reporting. Students must verify content with recognised indigenous groups or community bodies. Indigenous content may incorporate issues such as acknowledgement and/or permission of indigenous ownership of materials, content of secret or sacred nature, consideration of cultural matters such as the inclusion of names, images of deceased peoples, awareness of different languages, cultural groups, beliefs and traditions. Students must ensure content has been checked and conforms with current cultural protocols for Indigenous reporting. There are various websites available for guidance:
http://reconciliaction.org.au/nsw/education-kit/protocols/#abc
2.6 Sex and Sexuality. Provided it is handled with integrity, any of the following treatments of sex and sexuality may be appropriate and necessary:
2.7 Discrimination and Stereotypes. To avoid discrimination and stereotyping, content should not use language or images which:
The above requirements are not intended to prevent content which is factual or the expression of genuinely-held opinion, or content presented in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.
2.8 Opinion. Any content which expresses an opinion of the student must comply with the specific guidelines on Opinion outlined below.
2.9 Privacy. The rights to privacy of individuals should be respected in all content.
Where content is approved but the content is of a nature that could disturb or offend some members of the public students must ensure that advance notice and warning of the content is given to the audience.
3. NEWS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS CONTENT
3.1 Every reasonable effort, in the circumstances, must be made to ensure that the factual content of news and current affairs is accurate and in context.
3.2 Content will be impartial. Editorial judgements will be based on news values. One perspective will not be unduly favoured over others.
3.4 Balance will be sought. If balance is not achieved within a single publication, it will be achieved as soon as reasonably practicable and in an appropriate manner. It is not necessarily essential to give all sides equal time to ensure balance. As far as possible, principal relevant views on matters of importance will be presented.
3.5 Content will aim to serve the public interest by investigating issues affecting society and individuals.
3.6 Re-enactments of events will be clearly identified as such and presented in a way which will not mislead audiences.
3.7 In keeping with industry practice, content prepared for news and current affairs, opinion, topical and factual or performance programs do not require the approval of content by interviewees or other interested parties prior to publication.
3.8 In keeping with industry practice, questions to be asked of interviewees do not need to be approved by interviewees before interviews are carried out.
4. OPINION CONTENT
This section applies to content categorised as opinion content including, but not limited to, blogs, opinion pieces, reviews and commentaries.
Opinion content is content which expresses a view or judgement formed by the student or some other person about something which is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
4.1 Content must be clearly signposted to audiences as opinion in advance.
4.2 If students intend to publish material which is based on opinion or includes content which is opinion by nature students must ensure they take reasonable steps to ensure factual content is accurate, reflects the honestly held views of the writer and that content does not misrepresent other viewpoints.
4.3 Students who wish to publish opinion content must ensure the audience is clearly advised prior to the publication that the opinion is the opinion of the student and does not reflect or represent the opinion of the University.
4.4 In obtaining approval students must identify to the unit coordinator any part of the content which relies on opinion content or may be perceived as inconsistent with the Objects and values of the University.
5. APPROVAL
All content produced by students and intended for publication on Quasi Online must be approved by the Dean of the School of Arts & Sciences (or delegate). The Dean has delegated the day to day approval and posting responsibilities under these Guidelines to a designated team of Communications and Media lecturers within the School of Arts & Sciences, Fremantle, which includes the unit coordinator of Convergence Journalism (CO306). The membership of this team will be reviewed and approved by the Dean on a needs basis.
Students have access to Quasi Online for the purposes of uploading content for peer review. Students do not have access nor are students permitted to post content on to Quasi Online. The procedure for approval of content is as follows:
5.1 Prior to online publication students must submit their content to the unit coordinator for approval. Students will create their content in their own workspace and upload it onto the Quasi website where it may be peer reviewed.
5.2 Once content is uploaded the designated lecturer must review the content and assess whether the material conforms to these Guidelines and is appropriate for publication. If the designated lecturer forms the view that the material is appropriate the designated lecturer will post the content on Quasi Online.
5.3 If the designated lecturer forms the view the content is not appropriate for publication he/she must advise the students of his/her concerns and request the content be revised and resubmitted for approval.
5.3 When re-submitted, designated lecturer will review and where the unit coordinator is of the view the concerns identified have not been addressed will refuse to approve the content.
5.4 Where any designated lecturer is unsure about the appropriateness of any content he/she must refer the content to the Dean of School who may refer the content to the Legal Office for advice.
6 ADDITIONAL REFERENCE MATERIAL
Students are also expected to abide by the Media, Arts and Entertainment Alliance (MEAA) Code of Ethics. A copy of the Code can be found at http://researchjournalism.wordpress.com/ethics/meaa-code-of-ethics/ .
_______________________________________________________________
1. INTRODUCTION
The School of Arts & Sciences, Fremantle is responsible for the operation and management of the Quasimodo Online website (Quasi Online).
These Online Editorial Guidelines (Guidelines) apply to Notre Dame Staff and Students intending to produce content whether in film, radio, television, photography and other emerging media platforms for publication on Quasi Online.
Students have an overriding obligation to ensure that all online editorial content produced and intended for publication on Quasi Online is consistent with the Objects of the University.
The continued operation of the Quasi Online website is at the discretion of the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor may order the immediate withdrawal of content from Quasi Online or may terminate the operation of the website at any time and for any reason.
All online material intended to be published on Quasi is subject to the approval of the University. The approval and posting of content on Quasi Online must be in accordance with the procedure set out in these Guidelines.
The Quasi Online website must be identified clearly to the public as a Notre Dame Students’ website. Quasi Online may only be used for the purposes of posting content produced by Notre Dame Students’ in the course of their studies at Notre Dame.
2. GENERAL CONTENT -GUIDELINES
Students must ensure that all content selected reflects the highest standards of integrity, professionalism and respect. The use of language, sounds or images that is offensive to any individual or any group of individuals is not acceptable.
Students must comply with the following guidelines in relation to the specific areas of subject matter outlined below:
2.1 Violence. There will be times when it may be necessary to use violent images and sounds to adequately illustrate a story. Particular care must be taken in the presentation or portrayal of violence. The decision to use such images or sounds should be based on editorial judgement, together with regard for the reasonable susceptibilities of audiences to the detail of what is broadcast or published. Such content should not put undue emphasis on the violent images or sounds, and where appropriate it should be preceded by a warning.
2.2 Language. Variations of language favoured by different groups of Australians are valid and have their place in our content. On occasions, the language of one group may be distasteful to another. Use of such language may be permitted provided it is not used gratuitously and can be justified in the context in which it is used.
2.3 Intrusion into Grief. Sensitivity should be exercised in presenting images of, or interviews with, bereaved relatives and survivors or witnesses of traumatic events. Except in special circumstances, children who have recently been victims of, or eyewitnesses to, a tragedy or traumatic experience should not be interviewed or featured.
2.4 Religious Content. Religious content includes coverage of worship and devotion, explanation, analysis, debate and reports. This content may include major religious traditions, indigenous religions and new spiritual movements, as well as secular perspectives on religious issues. Content must reflect the principle of religious freedom and mutual respect for different religions. Students intending to include religious content must ensure that the content is portrayed in a manner that is respectful of the religion. Students should not seek to portray religious content without consultation with the relevant religious group or denomination.
Guidance http://www.omi.wa.gov.au/omi_guidelines.cfm
2.5 Indigenous Australian Content. Significant cultural practices of Indigenous Australians should be observed in content and reporting. Students must verify content with recognised indigenous groups or community bodies. Indigenous content may incorporate issues such as acknowledgement and/or permission of indigenous ownership of materials, content of secret or sacred nature, consideration of cultural matters such as the inclusion of names, images of deceased peoples, awareness of different languages, cultural groups, beliefs and traditions. Students must ensure content has been checked and conforms with current cultural protocols for Indigenous reporting. There are various websites available for guidance:
http://reconciliaction.org.au/nsw/education-kit/protocols/#abc
2.6 Sex and Sexuality. Provided it is handled with integrity, any of the following treatments of sex and sexuality may be appropriate and necessary:
- it can be discussed and reported in the context of news, current affairs, information or documentary programs
- it can be referred to in drama, comedy, lyrics or fictional programs
- it can be depicted or implied.
2.7 Discrimination and Stereotypes. To avoid discrimination and stereotyping, content should not use language or images which:
- disparage or discriminate against any person or group on grounds such as race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, disability or sexual preference; marital, parental, social or occupational status; religious, cultural or political belief or activity:
- are not representative and reinforce stereotypes, or convey stereotypic assumptions convey prejudice
- make demeaning or gratuitous references; for example to, people’s physical characteristics, cultural practices or religious beliefs.
The above requirements are not intended to prevent content which is factual or the expression of genuinely-held opinion, or content presented in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.
2.8 Opinion. Any content which expresses an opinion of the student must comply with the specific guidelines on Opinion outlined below.
2.9 Privacy. The rights to privacy of individuals should be respected in all content.
Where content is approved but the content is of a nature that could disturb or offend some members of the public students must ensure that advance notice and warning of the content is given to the audience.
3. NEWS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS CONTENT
3.1 Every reasonable effort, in the circumstances, must be made to ensure that the factual content of news and current affairs is accurate and in context.
3.2 Content will be impartial. Editorial judgements will be based on news values. One perspective will not be unduly favoured over others.
3.4 Balance will be sought. If balance is not achieved within a single publication, it will be achieved as soon as reasonably practicable and in an appropriate manner. It is not necessarily essential to give all sides equal time to ensure balance. As far as possible, principal relevant views on matters of importance will be presented.
3.5 Content will aim to serve the public interest by investigating issues affecting society and individuals.
3.6 Re-enactments of events will be clearly identified as such and presented in a way which will not mislead audiences.
3.7 In keeping with industry practice, content prepared for news and current affairs, opinion, topical and factual or performance programs do not require the approval of content by interviewees or other interested parties prior to publication.
3.8 In keeping with industry practice, questions to be asked of interviewees do not need to be approved by interviewees before interviews are carried out.
4. OPINION CONTENT
This section applies to content categorised as opinion content including, but not limited to, blogs, opinion pieces, reviews and commentaries.
Opinion content is content which expresses a view or judgement formed by the student or some other person about something which is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
4.1 Content must be clearly signposted to audiences as opinion in advance.
4.2 If students intend to publish material which is based on opinion or includes content which is opinion by nature students must ensure they take reasonable steps to ensure factual content is accurate, reflects the honestly held views of the writer and that content does not misrepresent other viewpoints.
4.3 Students who wish to publish opinion content must ensure the audience is clearly advised prior to the publication that the opinion is the opinion of the student and does not reflect or represent the opinion of the University.
4.4 In obtaining approval students must identify to the unit coordinator any part of the content which relies on opinion content or may be perceived as inconsistent with the Objects and values of the University.
5. APPROVAL
All content produced by students and intended for publication on Quasi Online must be approved by the Dean of the School of Arts & Sciences (or delegate). The Dean has delegated the day to day approval and posting responsibilities under these Guidelines to a designated team of Communications and Media lecturers within the School of Arts & Sciences, Fremantle, which includes the unit coordinator of Convergence Journalism (CO306). The membership of this team will be reviewed and approved by the Dean on a needs basis.
Students have access to Quasi Online for the purposes of uploading content for peer review. Students do not have access nor are students permitted to post content on to Quasi Online. The procedure for approval of content is as follows:
5.1 Prior to online publication students must submit their content to the unit coordinator for approval. Students will create their content in their own workspace and upload it onto the Quasi website where it may be peer reviewed.
5.2 Once content is uploaded the designated lecturer must review the content and assess whether the material conforms to these Guidelines and is appropriate for publication. If the designated lecturer forms the view that the material is appropriate the designated lecturer will post the content on Quasi Online.
5.3 If the designated lecturer forms the view the content is not appropriate for publication he/she must advise the students of his/her concerns and request the content be revised and resubmitted for approval.
5.3 When re-submitted, designated lecturer will review and where the unit coordinator is of the view the concerns identified have not been addressed will refuse to approve the content.
5.4 Where any designated lecturer is unsure about the appropriateness of any content he/she must refer the content to the Dean of School who may refer the content to the Legal Office for advice.
6 ADDITIONAL REFERENCE MATERIAL
Students are also expected to abide by the Media, Arts and Entertainment Alliance (MEAA) Code of Ethics. A copy of the Code can be found at http://researchjournalism.wordpress.com/ethics/meaa-code-of-ethics/ .
Drinking, but not Drowning
by Melanie Dunn
Picture this: you have had a very rough week at work, it’s the weekend and your best friend has decided to hit the town for her birthday. How does your night pan out?
Situations like this can often result in binge drinking and this has become a big problem for today’s youth and the people who have to deal with it.
Although everyone is capable of binge drinking, it is mostly the 16-25 age group that we should be concerned about.
The serious health issues associated with this practice are not enough to put people off bingeing, and these days we are hearing too many stories of people of all ages binge drinking, so we have to question why this is.
People may feel the need to binge because they don’t drink during the week, so they think that they are making up for lost time.
Special occasions like birthdays or New Year can also bring out the worst in peoples’ drinking habits - they think that because it’s a special occasion they have to drink and peer pressure may be involved too.
Another reason people may binge is because of funds – these days, it is more or less expected that you have pre-drinks first so that you a) aren’t sober when you get to the club, or b) don’t have to spend your money on overpriced drinks when you’re out.
A sad, but common reason for excessive drinking is because you need to drown your sorrows, which I think is the worst reason for bingeing because it only makes you forget your situation for the night but the problems are still there the next morning.
I really don’t see the appeal in getting so hammered that you can’t remember what happened the previous night, let alone feeling so terrible the next morning.
It doesn’t say much about your self-control or how much you respect your body if you are tripping over your feet or having to rush to the toilet to bring up your last cocktail.
I think that this is the thing we should be teaching youths – how to control their intake, not stop it all together because otherwise we would be fighting a losing battle.
All In the Name of the Game
by Melanie Dunn
For sports-lovers, the most devastating thing that could happen is that their favourite athlete gets injured and is out of action for weeks.
As upsetting as this may be for both the viewer and the player, it is a risk that comes with the territory and the athletes have chosen to accept this risk and play anyway.
With high contact sports like AFL, the inevitable injuries that take place and the athletes’ acceptance of serious injuries this is something I do not understand.
When Fremantle Docker Michael Barlow broke his leg in two places last year, it really made me question why the players willingly put themselves in such a situation.
Similarly, a friend of mine recently got concussed during his footy match and did not fully recover for two days. Bbut he took it all in his stride, claiming it is part and parcel of the game.
Yes, in most sports injuries are to be expected, and though there are preventative measures put in place (such as mouthguards and cups), there are circumstances where you can not anticipate what is going to happen, such as the Michael Barlow case.
I do not think that I would play a sport like AFL if I knew how high the injury rate was. That said, I play netball and although I haven’t had many serious injuries, I accept that there is a chance I might end up with a broken bone.
Sports-related injuries are definitely a risk to our health but there is a risk in everything we do, from walking across the street to eating a foreign food.
I don’t think we should stop playing because we are fearful of being hurt because it is part of the game, but we should definitely take more preventative measures and try to anticipate situations where an odd injury could occur.
For sports-lovers, the most devastating thing that could happen is that their favourite athlete gets injured and is out of action for weeks.
As upsetting as this may be for both the viewer and the player, it is a risk that comes with the territory and the athletes have chosen to accept this risk and play anyway.
With high contact sports like AFL, the inevitable injuries that take place and the athletes’ acceptance of serious injuries this is something I do not understand.
When Fremantle Docker Michael Barlow broke his leg in two places last year, it really made me question why the players willingly put themselves in such a situation.
Similarly, a friend of mine recently got concussed during his footy match and did not fully recover for two days. Bbut he took it all in his stride, claiming it is part and parcel of the game.
Yes, in most sports injuries are to be expected, and though there are preventative measures put in place (such as mouthguards and cups), there are circumstances where you can not anticipate what is going to happen, such as the Michael Barlow case.
I do not think that I would play a sport like AFL if I knew how high the injury rate was. That said, I play netball and although I haven’t had many serious injuries, I accept that there is a chance I might end up with a broken bone.
Sports-related injuries are definitely a risk to our health but there is a risk in everything we do, from walking across the street to eating a foreign food.
I don’t think we should stop playing because we are fearful of being hurt because it is part of the game, but we should definitely take more preventative measures and try to anticipate situations where an odd injury could occur.
Body Image: Being Proud of Reality
by Melanie Dunn
One of the highest concerns for young people today is body image and how we are expected to conform to a particular shape.
From around the mid 1990s it was fashionable to be super-skinny. However the negative impact of these expectations on youth in particular has initiated a body image war.
Young people were, and still are, developing illnesses such as anorexia and bulimia in an effort to conform to societal expectations and to look like the models in magazines.
As recently as last century, it was considered a good thing to be curvaceous; celebrities such as Marilyn Munroe and Elizabeth Taylor were considered sex symbols and an inspiration for curvier women everywhere.
So what happened to society to make them believe that being excessively skinny is healthy, and that developing an eating disorder is the only way to achieve it?
Supermodels like Naomi Campbell and Kate Moss were large influences in the wafer-thin look and since the introduction of airbrush technology, photographs have been edited to get rid of their ‘wobbly bits’ and to make models appear skeletal.
For example, a recent image for Calvin Klein has sparked outrage. It depicts Megan Fox, who was once envied for her natural curves, in the branded underwear looking skeletal and painfully thin.
The introduction of the 2010 Voluntary Industry Code of Conduct on Body Image has had a positive impact on society’s idea of ‘beautiful’, beginning with disclosing when images have been digitally manipulated.
Ex-Victoria’s Secret Angel Miranda Kerr bucked the trend of being super-skinny by appearing on the catwalk while pregnant, and while the Australia’s Next Top Model 2009 winner, Tahnee Atkinson, was slammed for her size ten frame, I believe her to be a great role model for young women as she has embraced her body and has not conformed to the expectations of the modelling industry to become a size 6.
I realise that it is not healthy to be overweight or obese, but neither is it healthy to look like a skeleton, so I encourage women (and men) everywhere to be proud of their body as everyone is unique and it is one of the things that make you who you are.
One of the highest concerns for young people today is body image and how we are expected to conform to a particular shape.
From around the mid 1990s it was fashionable to be super-skinny. However the negative impact of these expectations on youth in particular has initiated a body image war.
Young people were, and still are, developing illnesses such as anorexia and bulimia in an effort to conform to societal expectations and to look like the models in magazines.
As recently as last century, it was considered a good thing to be curvaceous; celebrities such as Marilyn Munroe and Elizabeth Taylor were considered sex symbols and an inspiration for curvier women everywhere.
So what happened to society to make them believe that being excessively skinny is healthy, and that developing an eating disorder is the only way to achieve it?
Supermodels like Naomi Campbell and Kate Moss were large influences in the wafer-thin look and since the introduction of airbrush technology, photographs have been edited to get rid of their ‘wobbly bits’ and to make models appear skeletal.
For example, a recent image for Calvin Klein has sparked outrage. It depicts Megan Fox, who was once envied for her natural curves, in the branded underwear looking skeletal and painfully thin.
The introduction of the 2010 Voluntary Industry Code of Conduct on Body Image has had a positive impact on society’s idea of ‘beautiful’, beginning with disclosing when images have been digitally manipulated.
Ex-Victoria’s Secret Angel Miranda Kerr bucked the trend of being super-skinny by appearing on the catwalk while pregnant, and while the Australia’s Next Top Model 2009 winner, Tahnee Atkinson, was slammed for her size ten frame, I believe her to be a great role model for young women as she has embraced her body and has not conformed to the expectations of the modelling industry to become a size 6.
I realise that it is not healthy to be overweight or obese, but neither is it healthy to look like a skeleton, so I encourage women (and men) everywhere to be proud of their body as everyone is unique and it is one of the things that make you who you are.
Do Pills Really Solve our Problems?
By Melanie Dunn
The summer flu season is definitely here and I was unfortunate enough to get a particularly bad case of it, resulting in a horrible throat infection which has only just subsided.
In my desperation not to become sick I had ingested all sorts of medicines, prescribed, over-the-counter and natural, and it begs the question: Why do people feel the need to pump themselves with drugs at the first sign of illness?
Should we not let nature takes its course and build up a natural immunity?
I admit that at the first sign of illness I will do anything to prevent it, but I know that it was all a bit excessive this time.
A good friend of mine swears by gargling hot salty water to kill the germs so I tried her method but it only seemed to make me feel better for about an hour and then I returned to my grumpy, self-pitying state.
The issue about whether or not to let nature do its work is even more questionable when it comes to common, short-lived ailments such as a cold.
Are we fearful of what we will miss out on if we’re ill, whether it be work, university or social events, or are we scared we will pass it on to our loved ones?
Either way, nobody enjoys being sick so perhaps we feel that the easiest way to attack it head on - with medicines.
It is also a convenience issue: The drugs are there waiting to be bought, so why shouldn’t I buy them?
The fact of the matter is, if you want to get well quickly, it is likely that buying medicine will help you, but you must wonder whether it is good for you to attack your body at such a concentrated rate and whether it will have any negative effects on your body in the long run.
It’s clear that I am not opposed to using medicines to get over an illness.
This is because it is convenient and they usually work wonderfully for me, but I admittedly went overboard this time around, so I will definitely think twice about pumping myself with drugs next time I am ill and consider more natural methods.
The summer flu season is definitely here and I was unfortunate enough to get a particularly bad case of it, resulting in a horrible throat infection which has only just subsided.
In my desperation not to become sick I had ingested all sorts of medicines, prescribed, over-the-counter and natural, and it begs the question: Why do people feel the need to pump themselves with drugs at the first sign of illness?
Should we not let nature takes its course and build up a natural immunity?
I admit that at the first sign of illness I will do anything to prevent it, but I know that it was all a bit excessive this time.
A good friend of mine swears by gargling hot salty water to kill the germs so I tried her method but it only seemed to make me feel better for about an hour and then I returned to my grumpy, self-pitying state.
The issue about whether or not to let nature do its work is even more questionable when it comes to common, short-lived ailments such as a cold.
Are we fearful of what we will miss out on if we’re ill, whether it be work, university or social events, or are we scared we will pass it on to our loved ones?
Either way, nobody enjoys being sick so perhaps we feel that the easiest way to attack it head on - with medicines.
It is also a convenience issue: The drugs are there waiting to be bought, so why shouldn’t I buy them?
The fact of the matter is, if you want to get well quickly, it is likely that buying medicine will help you, but you must wonder whether it is good for you to attack your body at such a concentrated rate and whether it will have any negative effects on your body in the long run.
It’s clear that I am not opposed to using medicines to get over an illness.
This is because it is convenient and they usually work wonderfully for me, but I admittedly went overboard this time around, so I will definitely think twice about pumping myself with drugs next time I am ill and consider more natural methods.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Can a Westerner understand the Burqa?
by Danielle Alosi
Initially I viewed the burqa as a symbol of oppression for women but thinking critically about the subject showed me that I really knew nothing of its true religious meaning.
Initially I viewed the burqa as a symbol of oppression for women but thinking critically about the subject showed me that I really knew nothing of its true religious meaning.
Is this something that I as a western woman will ever be able to understand?
I went in search of the reasons behind this religious attire.
Are You Sorry?
by Hayley Goddard
An apology is supposed to mean something. However in today’s society - it no longer does.
Politicians, sportsmen and the media have all apologised for one thing or another.
But are they really sorry?
An apology is supposed to mean something. However in today’s society - it no longer does.
Politicians, sportsmen and the media have all apologised for one thing or another.
But are they really sorry?
Friday, 7 January 2011
Women’s pay gap widening
By Katherine Dumont
Imagine checking your bank account balance and realising that you hadn't been paid for months.
You ask around the office at work and discover all your male colleagues have been paid on time and in full.
How might you feel if – after putting in all those hours, reaching your targets and hitting all those key performance indicators (KPI’s) – you hadn’t received a cent, while every man at your company had no such trouble?
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
ESSAY: Describe the impact of piracy
Describe the impact of piracy, p2p and/or file sharing on the digital distribution of media.
In 2007 Radiohead, a popular musical act released their seventh studio album, In Rainbows in a way not seen before from such a well known musical, act: They made their album available to download, at a cost decided by the consumer, from the bands website—as well as making a hard copy available to be purchased by fans in conventional music stores1. It was big music conceding defeat in the digital distribution war.
The distribution of media through piracy, even p2p is not a new phenomenon. Video piracy was widespread with the consumer availability of VHS recorders, software piracy plagued developers since programming shifted from hard-coded chips to the floppy disk, and music piracy was no different2. With technological advances come new methods of breaking the law, it must follow then that legislation needs to keep up-to-date with emerging technological trends.
Digital distribution of music was not a new concept for the music industry3 in 2007, the time this white surrender flag was waved. By 2007 the case of Napster was long in the past and Apple’s iTunes store was now five years old. The music listening public had made their choice and it was up to the artists and record labels to catch up—people were not going to stop downloading music, (no matter what the cost?).
Not so much that’s it was the musicians themselves, as most of them shared their voice with the people in the battle cry for digital distribution, Acts as diverse as pop music’s Moby4 and Prince; New Metal band Slipknot; and the anti-establishment political rap group Public Enemy5 had been long advocates of digital distribution; In the case of Public Enemy, this stance put them up against their own label: Def Jam6. The record label, the face of the enemy.
Recording companies were the biggest opponents of digital distribution, primarily because it was seen to undermine their position in the music industry heavyweights, the generals and brigadiers leading their elite squads of musical acts in the pursuit of money and fame. The record companies saw digital distribution as synonymous with piracy and responded with legal actions against its proponents—both those end users downloading music, but also those that put in place the infrastructure to accomplish this.
Sony was one recording company that had tried, and failed horribly to counter digital distribution in 2005 with their DRM software7. People who had brought compact disks legitimately, were the casualties, a root-kit installed on a users computer once the CD was inserted into the optical drive, making the users computer vulnerable to malicious code. It was the wrong approach, for the kids of generation Y, downloading music was seen as a rebellion against an over-zealous corporate establishment8. Punishment for rebellion would only prove counter productive.
Apple, makers of designer electronics, had taken a different tact. Unlike Sony, Apple did not see digital distribution as a threat to their existing business model. Apple may not have had the massive back catalogue of music it owned rights to, but it did have dominance over the MP3 player market, so the choice to embrace digital distribution with its iTunes store could be seen as less of a risk. By October 2007, Apple had secured rights to distribute “digital” boxed sets from 1970’s super group Led Zeppelin9, people would still download music, even if they did have to pay for it.
Legislation was seen as something that needed to be brought into line with the emerging technologies, legislation that was fair to both user, creator and publisher. After the Napster case hit US courts, a “Digital Recording Act” was proposed10. Without a legal framework corporate interests would still look at digital distribution with an eye of mistrust, they needed a guarantee of return-of-investment on their stockpile of music11.
What the success of the Apple model of distribution, over Sony’s DRM failure taught musicians was that the old paradigm of selling music was becoming obsolete, and it followed that the record companies themselves were obsolete. Artists could do away with the corporate drill, and take on their own means of getting their music to their audience. Bands had taken on this endeavor before, as militant anti-government rap group Public Enemy had done. But popular music had yet to free itself from the corporate hierarchy—that was until an internationally known pop band Radiohead released “In Rainbows”, in its first month online over a million copies were downloaded taking US$3 million, from 40% of those users choosing to pay. At an average of $6(US)12, proving digital distribution can still be lucrative for the artist.
What the significance of In Rainbows had to the digital distribution of media was not a technological one, but a larger cultural paradigm shift. Indy bands, and militant rappers had embraced the technology before, but this was confined to smaller sub-cultures. The mass adoption of digital distribution had been proven effective, and it wasn’t until In Rainbows was this acknowledged by anyone from within the corporate music mainstream. This act meant not that the battle lines had been redrawn, but that the war was finally over.
1. Wikipedia, “In Rainbows” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows
2. Kembrew McLeod, 2005, “MP3s Are Killing Home Taping: The Rise of Internet Distribution and Its Challenge to the Major Label Music Monopoly”
3. Sean Ebare, 2004, “Digital music and subculture: Sharing files sharing styles”
4. Moby, “Napster” 2001 www.moby.com/journal/2001-01-29/napster.html
5. John Borland, 2000, “Rapper Chuck-D throws his weight behind Napster” news.cnet.com/2100-1023-239917.html
6. MTV News, 2000 “Public Enemy Leaves Def Jam, Will Distribute Next Album Online” www.mtv.com/news/articles/1427080/19990114/chuck_d.jhtml
7. Molly Wood, 2005, Cnet News, “DRM This!” www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-6376177-1.html
8. Carrie James, 2009 “Young People, Ethics and Digital Media”, Page 53, MIT Press
9. Apple Co, (Press Release) 28th October 2007, “Led Zeppelin Digital Box Set…” http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/23itunes.html
10. Raymond Shih Ray Ku, 2001, “The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics od Digital Technology”, University of Chicago Law Review.
11. Jeevan Jaisingh, 2004, “Piracy on file sharing networks: Stratergies for recording companies”, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.
12. Wired Magazine, 12.18.2007, “David Byrne and Thom Yorke on the Real Value of Music”, http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_yorke?currentPage=all#ixzz0jlXr4Ley
In 2007 Radiohead, a popular musical act released their seventh studio album, In Rainbows in a way not seen before from such a well known musical, act: They made their album available to download, at a cost decided by the consumer, from the bands website—as well as making a hard copy available to be purchased by fans in conventional music stores1. It was big music conceding defeat in the digital distribution war.
The distribution of media through piracy, even p2p is not a new phenomenon. Video piracy was widespread with the consumer availability of VHS recorders, software piracy plagued developers since programming shifted from hard-coded chips to the floppy disk, and music piracy was no different2. With technological advances come new methods of breaking the law, it must follow then that legislation needs to keep up-to-date with emerging technological trends.
Digital distribution of music was not a new concept for the music industry3 in 2007, the time this white surrender flag was waved. By 2007 the case of Napster was long in the past and Apple’s iTunes store was now five years old. The music listening public had made their choice and it was up to the artists and record labels to catch up—people were not going to stop downloading music, (no matter what the cost?).
Not so much that’s it was the musicians themselves, as most of them shared their voice with the people in the battle cry for digital distribution, Acts as diverse as pop music’s Moby4 and Prince; New Metal band Slipknot; and the anti-establishment political rap group Public Enemy5 had been long advocates of digital distribution; In the case of Public Enemy, this stance put them up against their own label: Def Jam6. The record label, the face of the enemy.
Recording companies were the biggest opponents of digital distribution, primarily because it was seen to undermine their position in the music industry heavyweights, the generals and brigadiers leading their elite squads of musical acts in the pursuit of money and fame. The record companies saw digital distribution as synonymous with piracy and responded with legal actions against its proponents—both those end users downloading music, but also those that put in place the infrastructure to accomplish this.
Sony was one recording company that had tried, and failed horribly to counter digital distribution in 2005 with their DRM software7. People who had brought compact disks legitimately, were the casualties, a root-kit installed on a users computer once the CD was inserted into the optical drive, making the users computer vulnerable to malicious code. It was the wrong approach, for the kids of generation Y, downloading music was seen as a rebellion against an over-zealous corporate establishment8. Punishment for rebellion would only prove counter productive.
Apple, makers of designer electronics, had taken a different tact. Unlike Sony, Apple did not see digital distribution as a threat to their existing business model. Apple may not have had the massive back catalogue of music it owned rights to, but it did have dominance over the MP3 player market, so the choice to embrace digital distribution with its iTunes store could be seen as less of a risk. By October 2007, Apple had secured rights to distribute “digital” boxed sets from 1970’s super group Led Zeppelin9, people would still download music, even if they did have to pay for it.
Legislation was seen as something that needed to be brought into line with the emerging technologies, legislation that was fair to both user, creator and publisher. After the Napster case hit US courts, a “Digital Recording Act” was proposed10. Without a legal framework corporate interests would still look at digital distribution with an eye of mistrust, they needed a guarantee of return-of-investment on their stockpile of music11.
What the success of the Apple model of distribution, over Sony’s DRM failure taught musicians was that the old paradigm of selling music was becoming obsolete, and it followed that the record companies themselves were obsolete. Artists could do away with the corporate drill, and take on their own means of getting their music to their audience. Bands had taken on this endeavor before, as militant anti-government rap group Public Enemy had done. But popular music had yet to free itself from the corporate hierarchy—that was until an internationally known pop band Radiohead released “In Rainbows”, in its first month online over a million copies were downloaded taking US$3 million, from 40% of those users choosing to pay. At an average of $6(US)12, proving digital distribution can still be lucrative for the artist.
What the significance of In Rainbows had to the digital distribution of media was not a technological one, but a larger cultural paradigm shift. Indy bands, and militant rappers had embraced the technology before, but this was confined to smaller sub-cultures. The mass adoption of digital distribution had been proven effective, and it wasn’t until In Rainbows was this acknowledged by anyone from within the corporate music mainstream. This act meant not that the battle lines had been redrawn, but that the war was finally over.
References
1. Wikipedia, “In Rainbows” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows
2. Kembrew McLeod, 2005, “MP3s Are Killing Home Taping: The Rise of Internet Distribution and Its Challenge to the Major Label Music Monopoly”
3. Sean Ebare, 2004, “Digital music and subculture: Sharing files sharing styles”
4. Moby, “Napster” 2001 www.moby.com/journal/2001-01-29/napster.html
5. John Borland, 2000, “Rapper Chuck-D throws his weight behind Napster” news.cnet.com/2100-1023-239917.html
6. MTV News, 2000 “Public Enemy Leaves Def Jam, Will Distribute Next Album Online” www.mtv.com/news/articles/1427080/19990114/chuck_d.jhtml
7. Molly Wood, 2005, Cnet News, “DRM This!” www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-6376177-1.html
8. Carrie James, 2009 “Young People, Ethics and Digital Media”, Page 53, MIT Press
9. Apple Co, (Press Release) 28th October 2007, “Led Zeppelin Digital Box Set…” http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/23itunes.html
10. Raymond Shih Ray Ku, 2001, “The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics od Digital Technology”, University of Chicago Law Review.
11. Jeevan Jaisingh, 2004, “Piracy on file sharing networks: Stratergies for recording companies”, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.
12. Wired Magazine, 12.18.2007, “David Byrne and Thom Yorke on the Real Value of Music”, http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_yorke?currentPage=all#ixzz0jlXr4Ley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)