Acting Out – legitimising young peoples use of public space

We’d had a tough time with this applied theatre project. In our first three weeks we went to the actual space once and even then we’d had to relocate due to rain. It’s a downfall of trying to use public space for a project, because you’re at the mercy of the weather, and in Brisbane that means taking it one day at a time due to the unpredictable nature of our weather.

Last Friday it was a sunny day, we’d had a good workshop the week before (despite low numbers of participants) and I had met up with the two other theatre facilitators and planned out the whole workshop comprehensively. We’d even taken into account what people may or may not want to do. Our hopes were up and we were happy to be working.

An accident on our way to the park changed that momentarily. We had to stop, check that everyone was OK and make sure insurance information was exchanged. Back in the car one of the youth workers made a passing comment about how perhaps the drama stuff would not be engaging the first few times. I was even more motivated to make it work.

There were cyclists at the park. In our space, which we’d booked and got confirmation about more than a week before. People started to half-joke that the project was cursed. Now, I must admit I do hold a few superstitions when it comes to theatre, like not saying “good luck” or using the eponymous M-word from a Shakespeare play while in a theatre. However, I was not having any of these “cursed” jokes and argued we were being challenged and had to step up to the task.

There were about fourteen young people who came along. Most, it seems, live in shelters and sometimes sleep outside. The majority of them were male, which actually balanced out quite well because most of the youth workers and facilitators are women.

Another set-back, the wonderful police officers doing drumming as part of the project couldn’t make it. But we had our drama plan and once the cyclists had moved on we jumped straight in with high energy games. Almost every thing we did got a good response from them, and the dull, proper park was suddenly transformed into an atmosphere of fun and activity. People walking past sometimes stopped to see what was going on and the interest seemed to be mostly positive.

Young people, particularly those at risk of homelessness, have few options in a city like Brisbane. The constant city shift towards commodities means that public space itself is becoming a bit like a commodity in the central business districts. Business people who see young people hanging around often seem to feel uncomfortable, or look down on the situation even if nothing is going on. To be able to counter these negative assumptions is a great challenge. To be able to engage these young people is an even better reward.

Cities need to wake up to their communities. Marginalising people is not, and never will be, a solution. Engaging them and working towards solving the problems they face is a step in the right direction. I believe it’s a step we need to take.

Journalism in Australia – young people and the future

In this day and age it’s hard not to engage with journalism on some level. It’s in news agencies, on TV, radio and the internet, and with the development of globalisation it’s becoming even more important to engage with journalism on some level. So what is journalism like at the moment, and how could it change in the near future in Australia?

The answer’s not simple, and in an (arguably) postmodern world, everyone’s perception of the media is different. But there are certain views emerging which I feel the need to comment on. As someone who has both learnt about and practised journalism, it’s important to engage in the current perspectives on this industry, and to develop theories relevant to the individual’s experiences. Some of the views being thrown around at the moment seem to me particularly cynical.

One view which springs to mind is that young people are engaging with journalism more and more through new media, and ignoring the traditional formats. As a young person, I regularly go to networking sites like Myspace, online news providers like Google News (Australia), ABC Online, BBC Online and LiveNews.com.au. However, I also listen to ABC News Radio and ABC Radio National, watch ABC and Seven News regularly, as well as the occasional current affairs show, and read The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, local community-based newspapers and, sometimes, The Courier Mail. I admit it’s a lot of news, and not every young person may engage with the media as much, but the idea of young people accessing news from predominantly online sources seems ridiculous to me.

The internet is some fifteen years older, younger than the “young people” I am guessing these assumptions are aimed at, and as such it is still a relatively new platform for journalism. When something is new there tends to be more room for errors, exploration and trial-and-error processes. Some news websites have enabled user-generated content (UGC) by encouraging their audience to submit story ideas and media like photographs, audio or video and allowing comments on the content of the site. Some do so more than others, but in general UGC makes online journalism more involving for the public. Young people seem to enjoy being involved in the experience, so I assume that’s where this view stems from.

Having said that, a lot of the sites I visit have comments clearly left by people older than these “young people” talked about. The internet is a non-discriminatory format anyone can engage with, and to make the generalisation that young people get most of their news and information online is limiting how young people are perceived.

Most of the young people I know believe credible journalism is predominant in traditional forms of news like newspapers, radio and television. Online journalism has the potential to combine elements from all three of these forms, but it doesn’t seem to be quite there yet (at least not in a broad sense). It’s fast developing, but that doesn’t mean the other forms will die out just yet.

I was watching the ABC show Q&A (episode 15) last week, and heard the federal Minister for Small Business Craig Emerson voice an opinion of current media forms and new media forms which is similar to what I believe.

“Don’t write off the traditional media,” he says, “People were writing off newspapers a decade ago and newspapers are still, notwithstanding these current problems, are still going pretty strongly. I think it’s just a changing world.” (Craig Emerson, Q&A, Episode 15, 28/08/08, ABC1)

It is a changing world, but I think there’s a place in it for all forms of media. I find, in particular, the idea that newspapers are a dying breed, to be cynical and narrow-minded in substance. It may seem that way at first glance, with most major newspapers in Australia getting lower circulation numbers than in the past, but to say newspapers will die out is not seeing the rest of the picture. People still buy newspapers. Why, if the internet has the same articles for free? Or if the TV and radio news get stories before papers go to print?

I think it’s because of the experience. Reading a newspaper is different to reading news online, or seeing or hearing it. I don’t buy papers every day, but I make a point of buying at least one on the weekend, and usually two or three during the week. I like reading newspapers because they seem to have a depth to them that other forms of journalism don’t.

On the other hand, I like listening to radio news because of the immediacy of it, because it’s current and relevant and engaging in a way reading isn’t. Television is different again, with sound and images as well as a script, and I like to watch the news to see how things have happened. Online can be all three, and that makes it amazingly versatile. But there are aspects of each form which can’t are mutually exclusive to other forms, which means all sources of journalism will probably be around so long as the experience is enjoyed.

There’s also other benefits I can see from having different sources of journalism. In Australia, the media ownership is concentrated between a few organisations, which many believe has led to a lack of diversity of opinion in the media. I would argue that the diversity of formats for journalism means there is diversity in the opinions presented. News providers may be owned by one overarching organisation, but the people involved in online will be different to the people involved in television or print or radio, which means the news will differ between formats regardless of ownership. It may not be ideal, but it is at least providing some diversity.

While the future of journalism may be indeterminate, intangible or indefinable, I think we can all too easily assume one outcome without looking at other possibilities. Our own judgements define what we see as the future, but it’s important to look at other opinions and keep an open mind. Without that, what else is there?

culture

The sunburnt country

Have you ever heard that joke? The one about Australian culture? It goes something like this:

Q: What’s the difference between an Australian and a tub of yoghurt?
A: The yoghurt has culture.

Not a very good joke, admittedly, but it raises a point I’ve been thinking about quite a bit recently. Part of it relates to the subjectiveness of definitions of culture (what is culture, after all?), but more is about the relationships individuals have with their society, specifically their country of residence (to avoid going off on tangents of multicultural families and individuals). And also how our culture might be represented in popular media forms.

I recently read an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about Australian actress Leah Vandenberg, who’s cultural heritage is vast and very much representative of the Australia I’m glad to be a part of (the diverse one). Vandenberg talks about how difficult it has been to get work with her darker skin, brown hair and brown eyes. She uses the term “blondist”, and while admittedly this is not quite as dominating as it once was, most local shows’ casting doesn’t reflect the Australian-ness I like to identify with. SBS is arguably the best at capturing what it is to be Australian, with shows like East West 101, but what about the other channels?

I was working on a film last weekend and one of the other actors there and I got talking about it. He wasn’t your stereotypical surfie Australian bloke, and he said it was hard to get cast because of that. I find it disgusting, because I could see he was a good actor, very committed to capturing and expressing the atmosphere of the movie we were working on. And I think he had a good look for film and tv. So I have to ask: why white? Why is it usually the “token” characters who obviously have a less anglocentric background?

The bigger issue here is our culture. What is it to be Australian? What does it mean? If someone were to ask, “what is your culture like?”, how would you (how could you) describe it?

I think it’s the indefinable nature of “culture” that causes some of these issues. We all have our own definition of what it is, and perhaps we don’t think about it enough. It seems all too often we talk about Australia’s “lack of culture”. I think we have culture, but whether or not everyone realises and accepts what that culture is might be another question.

This morning I read about the “white flight” occurring in NSW schools where white Australian’s have been leaving public schools which are more multicultural than the private or specialised schools. Is this really happening? Why?

I don’t often like to use the word racism, but that’s what it sounds like. The issue may be more complicated than that, but somewhere in there that word is floating around. And I wonder, do Australians talk about a “lack of culture” because we can’t agree on what it is to be Australian? Some might say it is multicultural, that you can’t stereotype an Australian by appearance because we are becoming more and more diverse; others would say it is the white Australian which defines our culture. Without a common ground perhaps the opposing opinions create a non-culture that leaves us all a bit lost.

The Dieing Language

Over the weekend I like to read newspapers. I perused three between Saturday and Sunday of the weekend just passed. And I was disappointed by the (mis)use of language I found.

People saying “a historic shift”, when “an” is the correct word, changing tense halfway through, as in “the journalist was sitting at his desk when he used the wrong word, but it would be weeks before he realises the mistake” and simply using the wrong words or misspelling things. It may seem petty to you, but many people read newspapers and, as published writers, journalists have a responsibility to check their spelling and grammar. They should, in theory, set a good example for us all.

That is, of course, unless we want to forget the joys of good grammar and spelling. We could all start writing about how it is hard labor to write good and that it is a specialized skill these days. “U dont need good word skills to talk or right”, we might say. And some will agree with that, but I do not.

Simple mistakes are ok, everyone makes them. I constantly have to go through everything I write to check for mistyped words, poor grammar or bad syntax. But I do actually check, and I think that’s part of the problem.

The Australian Labor (note the lack of a “u”) Party is apparently called so because it was, for a while, run by an American who wrote with American spelling (and rightly so for him). Someone, somewhere, saw “Labor” written by this American and thought “Oh, so that’s how the party writes it to differentiate itself from the labour unions*.

Teachers I’ve had in the past, at school and university, have written globalisation with a “z”, suggesting Americanization of Australia is definitely in progress. It would be different if they had grown up somewhere where the “z” was used, but most of them were born in Australia and grew up in Australia.

Why does this matter? After all, doing a google search for “odours” only yeilds 26.7 per cent of the results “odors” does (based on reliable academic research using the advanced methodology of a “google” search). It is part of our culture. And I believe that stands for something.

Also, it’s pretty annoying to the people who notice it. So we should all try and appease this whingey minority at the expense of our own time. Because stopping people whingeing would also stop people posting annoyingly long, ranty opinions like this.

*The Australian “Labor” Party information is based partly on an urban legend which few people I have asked (including members of the Labor Party) know of. Most say they aren’t sure why there is no “u”. The rest of that story is based on my own, clearly educated assumptions.

Friday – Election Eve

“We have a strong (track record) and plenty of performance,” Howard said as I drank my coffee and listened to the radio. I almost choked at the line “plenty of performance”, wondering what kind of “performance” he is talking about. Certainly he has been in power a long time, but that doesn’t mean his performance has been up to standard. Is it perhaps because they aren’t supposed to “perform” as such? I thought the job was more about getting things done, or have we moved far beyond that façade now and into the realm of reality – what seems to be more PR and public appearances than action. This election seems to be yet another battle for masculinity – who has the bigger promises? And who’s performance is more reliable?

Speaking of the government, I’ve started to observe some differences between politicians and other people in interview situations. In an attempt to better understand their “performance” qualities, I’ve outlined a basic “hard news” interview technique and how it could change with a politician on board.

The “hard news” interview
“Hard news” is a term used for the short, sharp news stories you might read in the paper, or see or hear on a broadcast news bulletin. This is also the interview technique I first learnt as a journalism student, and one that crops up in most forms of interviewing in some way. The interview should be concise, and questions can be an effective way to achieve that. Ask questions which are to the point. Don’t share your opinion on the issue (as a journalist you should not have an opinion, you should try to be balanced, ie harangue both sides of the issue). And – this is an important one – ask “open-ended” questions, ones which will discourage yes/no answers. That way you can get as much information as possible.
Question examples might be:

* How do you feel about the current state of satire in Australia?
* Why do you promote satirical content on your enemies? (although you probably wouldn’t use the word “enemies”)

You might also include a few closed questions (the yes/no ones) for clarification of an issue, for example “is there satire in Australia?”.

Hard news interviews and politicians
In a recent interview Kerry O’Brien did with opposition leader Kevin Rudd, I noticed his questions leaned more towards closed questions. And an interesting thing happened. Where a regular interviewee might answer with “yes” or, if you’re lucky, “no. But this and that because of this”, Rudd’s answers were as long as a Mr Regular Interviewee’s answers to an open-ended question might be.

This observation led me to create a rule for interviewing politicians:

If you want an answer that goes for 5 minutes or more, ask the politician a closed question. If you have a spare hour, ask an open-ended question.

And another thing. If you ask a question you know they won’t answer, expect to be there for a long time, as the politician answers with policies and background to an issue which may possibly be related to the original question, but is not guaranteed to relate at all. They particularly seem to like doing that when it’s The Public asking the question. You can call them on this behaviour, but if you do, expect to be there for a long time as the politician answers with policies and background…

And that completes my advice on the “hard news” interview. Some time: I may look at other forms of questioning.

The Common Perception of the Australian Media

Is your news limited?

For years I’ve been dissatisfied with the media in Australia. Journalists seem to come across as sneaky, snide, sleazy, arrogant, unethical and unconcerned individuals which add up to the sum of media in this country. But are they like that?

Since this year (I suppose) I have been wondering whether the media really is as bad as we all seem to think it is. And this train of thought is fuelled largely by my study, but also by my increased interest in current affairs and news and satire like The Chaser and Frontline. I was having a discussion with my brother a few days ago about whether the Australian media help to enforce ideas of democracy. And he was saying that he believed the media is not doing that job in the slightest and is more hinderance than helper.

I used to agree with that sentiment, almost without question, but the cynical (journalistic) side of me questions everything. And really, are the media such a bad element? Should we distrust them, make them the butt of our jokes, treat the phrase “ethical journalism” as an oxymoron of old? What is it about the media that causes regard somewhat lesser than that you might have for mould in the shower?

Most of the journalists in this country are good journalists. They are ethical and they do their job not for glory, but out of an intrinsic human interest (and probably an ingrained duty some of the more weathered journo’s feel). Think about journalists like Kerry O’Brien, Sandra Sully (yes, she annoys me, but she’s pretty good really), George Negus, Indira Naidoo, David Marr, Michael Idato, Hedley Thomas (who exposed Dr Death and the mistreatment of Haneef). If you know any one of those names, think of whether they fit in with your perceptions of the media. I don’t think they would for my brother, but they are good, prominent journalists. And the majority of journalists in this country are just as good.

But if we have so many “good journalists”, why does the media seem like it’s doing nothing helpful? Therein lies the problem.

I think it has to do with the concentration of media ownership, firstly. Of course, I love Fairfax and News Limited, but with only TWO primary owners of media in this country, there’s very little competition. Think of a job you would like. And imagine you are in a position where you could be promoted for doing better than your colleagues. Ok, now imagine there are very few colleagues at a level above you as most are on the same level as you. That’s what I think we have with the media here. What’s the point in trying to get to the top when most people are level with you and going higher could expose you to a lot of nasty treatment?

There’s more legislative influences, but that is a big one, and I don’t want to harp on for much longer.

The other element is what makes up the definition of media. It includes news, current affairs, features (in magazines etc), documentary shows like Australian Story and celebrity gossip that you often see in magazines. Are you seeing the contrasts?

I’ll probably write a lot more political stuff over the next few days, leading up to and following the election.

Next time: Tune in for the best way to ask questions as a journalist, and the different techniques you can use. Baffle your friends with your investigative, persistant skills and stun politicians with your mastery of questioning.

But for now, I wonder if you might think about how The Chaser’s War on Everything only ever satirises a couple of sections of the media. If all of “the media” was the way lots of people think of the media, wouldn’t they satirise more than the usual suspects?