DFTBA - Lecture 13

I know earlier on in the semester I said that the radio lecture was my favourite, but I do think that this last lecture at least competes for that sentiment, if not beats it entirely. There was something about how casual and exciting and me it was that had me departing university that day with so many plans and daydreams running through my head.

The biggest problem I seem to be having with my life at the moment (indulge my teenage melodrama, please) is that there are just so many options and opportunities out there for me. One minute I want to be able to work every minute and be sent to all different places, the next I want a job where I hardly have to leave the house. Both are, interestingly enough, possible. As far as journalism goes, I haven’t decided what field I’m more inclined to, mostly because I could do any or all of it. Reporting at the moment holds strong appeal, but I also would love to be a foreign correspondent, or a radio announcer (and continue with what I’m doing right now), or work in entertainment (which would probably be more sci-fi and nerdy stars than the normal stuff although I would love either!), or my original plan to work in print media. Even the notion I had a few years ago of being a travel journalist (Get Away seems like a dream come true gig to me, always has) keeps popping up in my head. But this lecture pointed me back in the direction I had intended when enrolling for journalism at university. Do what I love – that seems to be the best piece of advice I could ever receive.

So our last lecture as I said was very relaxed, mostly because we had a special guest Steve Molks (though his last name is much longer and complicated so we’ll stick to Molks) who is the creator of the fastly flourishing entertainment blog MolksTVTalk.

http://molkstvtalk.com/

Now I’m rather fond of blogs. I read a couple, but I certainly following vlogging (video blogging, mostly on YouTube) a lot more avidly, possibly even religiously. Even then, I hadn’t heard of this MolksTVTalk. Which is a shame, because I’ve looked around the website and it’s actually really good and a wonderful concept. Much for helpful than anything on TV actually.

What I found most helpful and wonderful was seeing the creator in person and hearing his story, knowledge and advice. Because he made a name for himself and will continue to do so; exactly my type of role model.

Now blogs are definitely a different type of media, but are also a rapidly growing market for journalism. It’s a journalist playground out there to tell you the truth, be you a professional one or simply citizen. Take the blog Mamamia for example. That started out as a blog from a mother’s perspective and now it’s become an actual business with thousands of people traffic on the site. Heck, the other week the creator Mia Freedman had the Prime Minister of Australia use her computer to do a Q&A session on the website over public (mostly parental) concern over the changes in the Federal Budget.

But what makes a blog good? Well apparently its duration is a big thing. People want to know you are reliable and consistent. It’s hard to stay committed when an update is once every few months. If a blog can be updated frequently, even routinely, for 5 years with good quality material (of course) than it will be going somewhere. Blogs are also fantastic in the sense that it is completely personal (well if you so choose it to be). You don’t have a word limit, it is a source where all the extra information you find can be shared. Heck, if a journalist did an interview with someone for TV, edited it and had a lot of extras, even bloopers, a blog would be a great place for that stuff (with permission from your boss and the person interviewed, obviously).

Of course if you have a blog that is completely you, you are the publisher. This is fantastic because you control the message being sent out there, but it is also comes down to you for responsibility. How you represent yourself will have an input as to where you end up, and that can be a good or bad thing, depending.

The main points I jotted down from the lecture were these:

o   Journalism is not dead

o   Be my own publisher

o   Get a job/gig now

Like I said, when I left this lecture I had all sorts of plans and ideas running through my mind.  I’d actually like to put one of them into fruition and a blog seems to be the perfect way to do that. So I’m heading to the drawing board, putting as many ideas together as I can and who knows, maybe one day I’ll be talking about my successful blog and where it has lead me to some eager journalism students. The world is funny like that.

(I'm also briefly going to mention that because of MolksTVTalk I found a great Aussie sitcom called Outland above a group of sci-fi geeks who just so happen to be gay. So that's a wonderful thing.)

Attempt at a minor case study

I feel that there is an example of blogging to celebrity status that I should mention due to the topic of this blog. I’ve actually referenced them a number of times. The bloggers I am talking about are actually YouTube vloggers (video bloggers) – the vlogbrothers to be exact.

The vlogbrothers consist of John Green (popular young adult author) and his younger brother Hank Green (who just does everything, I can’t really narrow it down, but one thing is his own record label for internet talents). They have millions of hits and hundreds of thousands of subscribers and what they do, essentially, is record videos of themselves being themselves and looking at the world.

John Green (our left) and Hank Green (our right) doing their signature nerdfighter hand signal.

It started off as a vlog to each other. They gave up textual communication (mobile texting, email, that sort of thing) and would alternate each day for a year (with the exception of weekends) to each other about whatever they felt like. I think it was an interesting idea and a way of bonding – and they achieved it with such success and enjoyment from both sides that they continued for a second year. This time only update three days a week, alternating the days again. It was soon that they got a particular audience who associated with their nerdy ways and brilliant minds, and thus the nerdfighters were founded! (Note: nerdfighters are nerds who band together to fight against not-awesome things, rather than people who fight nerds). And since then, everything has just sort of expanded on its own.

Currently the vlogbrothers have been running for five years. They still vlog weekly, get thousands of hits and get up to all kinds of mischief. They have been invited to NASA and Pixar and have celebrities who follow them (Wil Wheaton is a nerdfighter!). They have even set up an annual tour (the tour de nerdfighting) which goes to a bunch of different cities in America each year where vloggers can get together and do random, nerdy and wonderful things and meet other fantastic vloggers and followers. John has now had several bestselling novels, his latest The Fault In Our Stars can be found on shelves in common bookstores here in Australia now. Hank has a few successful businesses running out of nerdfighteria (the name given to the place where nerdfighters should live – its basically the name for the internet community of nerdfighters) including a record label and two very popular self-made albums of his own.

Probably the coolest thing they do is raise thousands of dollars for charity. As soon as they mention a charity and how we can help, thousands of dedicated fans who just want to do good, be awesome and decrease world-suck (which is the foundation of what attracts people to being a nerdfighter) will donate money or time or effort and do whatever they can to help.

In fact, this is basically how Project for Awesome started. Project for Awesome is something you might have actually noticed but confused about. Essentially it is a weekend in which people flood YouTube with videos about charities to spread awareness. What you do is you choose a charity that you want to talk about and think people should know about, make a video about it, use a pre-made picture for the Project for Awesome as your thumbnail and on that weekend you upload with the thousands of other people. Then that weekend is spent watching and commenting on those videos in the hopes of spreading awareness and taking over YouTubes from page of ‘most watched’ (which is an old design of YouTube now). And it worked, every year. And at the end of the weekend there are five charities chosen by the vlogbrothers where the funds they have raised throughout the year will go to in a way of helping the charities. That’s thousands of dollars. But each charity gets help because there is awareness and nerdfighters of their own accord donate money to all of them if they so wish it.

Here's a video in which Hank explains the Project for Awesome a whole lot better than I do. It's from the latest Project for Awesome, which was last year. Be on the look out for this year's one at the end of the year.

So blogging and vlogging are powerful tools. They can create communities, and in the case of the vlogbrothers, communities that support and expand themselves without the need of their creators. I think the biggest thing that makes blogging and vlogging so attractive to the eyes of the public is that people can be themselves, find others who agree and just run away with it.

The vlogbrothers are my idols and its partly because of them that I intend to be a journalist. They're slogan is DFTBA, which stands for Don't Forget To Be Awesome, and not only do I think that is the greatest goal ever, it is one I have set for myself.

DFTBA!

Let's Think About This - Lecture 12

So, perhaps the thing I would like to do most as a journalist is to be sent out and cover random happenings and try as many things as I can. But there is also something about investigative journalism that just seems so…alluring. I’m not sure if it is the passion or the intensity or the romanticism I’ve managed to associate with the job due to too many novels or shows, but investigative journalism strikes me as a lifestyle rather than a career. And I’d rather not see my work as a job and more as my life.

It is with no doubt that I say investigative journalism is in a league of its own – there are certain demands and rules to play by, and they can be just as murky as each other. However, to keep your head above water there are some features that a true journalist (not just those in the investigation field) must have. They are to be:

Ø  Intelligent

Ø  Informed

Ø  Intuitive

Ø  Inside (which is essentially understanding what goes on inside a person’s mind, to receive trust and know what that means)

Ø  Invested

I agree that all of these are important. I’d also like to think that I have most of these features already, and the starts of the rest. I’d like to highlight the importance of being invested though. I’m going to be repeating this a bit, but to me, being a journalist in general is a lifestyle. It’s not something I think you can turn on and off all that much, it becomes a part of your instincts. Being invested is going to guarantee not only the best result, but it is going to make you better, in your job and as a person (hopefully). You need to be able to put some of yourself into it, because what you are working on is going to have an impact on somebody’s life, probably very many. You can’t take that lightly. It also means you are going to be putting yourself at risk sometimes, and in many different ways.

I had a lecture of being safe when reporting not too long ago, where the general risks of being a reporter where listed, and even in being general there are many I wasn’t even consciously aware of. Even working at an office late at night can be a risk. Then you have disease from being out on scene, mental trauma, all before you reach actually being physically injured or in life-threatening situations.

A good example I can provide is a story I saw on 60 Minutes a little while ago where one of the reporters, Liam Bartlett,  went to the coldest habited place in Siberia (and if my memory serves me right, the world, too) where if its warmer than negative 55 degrees Celsius., than it's a good day.  That was actually rather dangerous because at a certain point your body does not recognise just how cold it is and you will suffer silently from hypothermia until it is too late. The reporter was told several times to rush inside and warm up because his nose was going completely white and he didn’t know it.

Here is a link to the video report to which you can watch the story:

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8443420

But what is the purpose of all of this?

Investigative journalism is a critical and thorough version of journalism. It is not doing anything by half-miles – getting as much information as possible, whether it be to break conspiracy, inform the public or just cater to interest. It is important because it is lending a voice and telling stories. Those investigative journalists are ‘custodians of conscience’ – fighting for the side of justice and truth and are to hold those in power to the same rules as everyone else and not give them any leniency. Investigative journalists are watchdogs, for the people, for the better of society. They are sometimes all that can provide balance.

It is important that this doesn’t go to anyone’s heads however. The key to being a good journalist, let alone an investigative one, is to be objective. Stand back and look at the big picture, and put in the hard yards; take nothing for granted and work and check and double-check.

A good motto that was shared with the class was: BE SCEPTICAL NOT CYNICAL! I think that is appropriate because while being optimistic isn’t necessary, seeing the worst in everything is only going to lead you down into darkness fast, I believe.

So besides keeping a level head, other tips for investigative journalism in particular are to always check your facts. Assume nothing and finally, on an interesting note, expect those who are whistle-blowers to be or become crazy. Simply because the world is a crazy place and sometimes their crazy isn’t unjustified.

Lastly I’d like to add that there are a lot of big investigative journalism breakthroughs, (Watergate is one that even I am aware of despite being ‘so young and naïve’). I like to look at Wikileaks as a prime example – despite the fact that Julian Asange and his team are not actually journalists. On a personal note, I don’t think what they are doing is wrong, but I do agree it is dangerous and can understand both sides of the argument. I do feel that they are changing the world and making it more honest, holding people in account of their actions and making many realise that they can’t get away with everything. Those who commit acts not socially deemed acceptable (even if it be in military battle) need to sweat a little or the world is in trouble. And that is what journalist do.

We change the world. And that is why I am here.

 

Agenda Setting - Lecture 11

“The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” 

- Bernard Cohen

Agenda Setting in journalism revolves around the social construction of reality. Much like in News Values, we all hear, see, and understand differently, but the media is a common source of information and can determine what the majority does or does not know. Media is a mediator of society.

Now I’ve made that sound really daunting, mostly because it is. It is a huge responsibility, and sometimes that responsibility falls down onto one journalist; one person. But journalism isn’t some sort of evil power. My favourite saying when it comes to journalism or even technology is that it is all tools and it is the wielder of the tool that is to blame for any wrong doings, not the tool itself. Many people talk negatively of journalists, and therefore put down journalism all together, but they are not aware of how the system works. So this is where understanding comes in and agenda setting is a good example to explain.

There are four agendas:

1.      Public Agenda – topics that appeal to the members of public as important

2.      Policy – issues for decision-makers or that are seen as significant by them

3.      Corporate – issues seen by the big businesses and companies

4.      Media – issues discussed in media

These four agendas are all interrelated and cover a broad range of the media’s audiences. And what agenda setting generally allows, stories that are shown more often are deemed more important by the public, therefore allowing the media to continue with that story and leaving others in the background.

Here's a visual representation of that concept:

Two theories have been put forward to explain how this system works.

The Hypodermic Needle Model (Harold Lasswell – 1920)

A rather straightforward method of the mass media simply injects the information it chooses into its audience, holding direct influence over them and what they then care about and understand.

Public Opinion (Walter Lippmann – 1922)

Essentially, the media creates images in our heads of events and these images affect our judgements of the topic.

What makes this theories hold what is probably the truth? Well there are a group of aspects that can manipulate the audience. Together these aspects are dubbed ‘The Agenda Setting Family’.

o   Media Gatekeeping – exposure of the issue/the message chosen by media to reveal to public

o   Media Advocacy – purpose in promoting message through media

o   Agenda Cutting – most of truth isn’t represented and is cared about less

o   Agenda Surfing – “Bandwagon” effect: following trends/opinion influences others towards that opinion (e.g. the fact that Lady Gaga hit her head and got concussion in a concert the other night seems to be more interesting than the war currently going on in so many countries for human rights)

o   Diffusion of news – the process that an important event is delivered to the public (who decides the when, where and how of the release of information)

o   Portrayal of an issue – portraying issues/how the public perception is influenced by these portrayals (e.g. stereotypes of girls/teenagers/indigenous folk/Americans, etc.)

o   Media Dependence – the more people who depend on the media the more they are susceptible to Agenda Setting (Facebook and Twitter have become almost a way of life)

The most important message I received from this lecture is the value of critical thinking. As both an audience member and as a journalist. Critical thinking does not happen as much as I would like within the general public, so many people take what is said as word. Proof of that is all the people who fall for scams on the internet or really think they have won a free iPad (the ads would stop if they weren’t successful).

I have always been a curious soul and I often say the only thing I truly hate is closed-mindedness. I try not to be a hypocrite and question everything I hear over the internet and television in particular. I think as a writer, not as a viewer. I wonder in the purpose of telling us a certain article of news, or even in a drama series why they would use that particular shot or introduce a new character. I also believe that it is this nature of mine that has lead me onto this route of choosing journalism as a career – where all I have to do is amplify who I am, get to the truth and share it with the public.

Journalism isn’t bad. It just needs the right people, and I’d like to think I am one of them.

"Yet in truly effective thinking the prime necessity is to liquidate judgments, regain an innocent eye, disentangle feelings, be curious and open-hearted."

Walter Lippmann 

News Values - Lecture 9

“The degree of prominence a media outlet gives to a story, and the attention that is paid by an audience.”

The news is a mighty power, for it determines what the majority of us will hear, read, see and not hear, read or see. It has the power to manipulate what we think and how we feel. A lot takes places every day – more than 7 billion people are experiencing experiences and yet all we see is 30 -60 minutes worth of stories. Only some make it.

But what makes news?

News Values:

Impact – the Gee Whiz effect!

Audience Identification – what is interesting and relatable to the audience, placing ownership on the story

 Pragmatics – ethics/practical

Source Influence – the source of the story, who wants it heard and why?

As journalists in JOUR1111 we’ve heard of the phrase ‘newsworthiness’ used over and over again each lecture. It is the crux of sharing the news, because newsworthiness is the umbrella term for the values a story must fulfil to some degree to be told to the public.

‘If it bleeds, it leads!’ / ‘If it’s local it leads’ – seem to be prime examples

However news values are different everywhere. Not just in different cultures and countries around the globe, but in Australia and local areas as well. You have rural versus city. Liberal versus Labor, higher-class versus lower-class, bike-riders versus car drivers. In the end, figuring out what is worthy of the news is something you discover for yourself and get a feel for with experience and observations.

Here are some common factors shared in international news:

1.      Negativity

2.      Proximity – if its local

3.      Recency – breaking news

4.      Currency – has already been deemed valuable/re-occuring news

5.      Coninuity – continuing impact (e.g., war)

6.      Uniqueness – say if a man bit a dog, or Alice Cooper’s snake dying after it was bitten by a rat (that’s true actually)

7.      Simplicity – obvious but true

8.      Personality

9.      Expectedness

10.  Elite Nations/People

11.  Exclusivity

12.  Size – bigger impact

You also see stories which have entertainment or drama value. My favourites tend to be ones with educational value (anything done from Vlogbrothers or 60 Minutes) or that are just generally interesting.

Of course, like all things there are threats or downsides to newsworthiness. The most pressing seems to be that of commercialisation, tabloidisation and Public Relations. Mostly because this means there will be someone controlling what the public are ultimately seeing and with that power comes great responsibility – one that most people tend to neglect or abuse. Lastly there is the issue of what is ideal versus what is reality.

Personally I think a lot of the answers are sitting right in front of us; listen to your audience! This isn’t a novel where the ending has already been written. Things can change and the audience should be allowed to say what they want to hear and don’t. Social media is certainly assisting many in this manner with many talk shows reading feedback on air. You have citizen journalists who are finding stories out of their own interest and passion and wants others to know about. If there can be more dealings with the public than the big bosses then a lot of hope can be restored to the industry.

Where Has All The Good Stuff Gone? - Lecture 8

I found the ethics lecture quite an interesting one where the power of difference was really amplified. Something can be perceived as perfectly acceptable by one person can be interpreted in dramatically the opposite – to the point where offence is taken. It is no wonder that ethics revolve around personal morals.

To me, ethics is the need to colour things in. It either has to be white or black; right or wrong. So for me it makes sense why I get very confused and awkward about the topic. I wouldn’t say I’m a fence-sitter, I just believe that every situation is rather unique and can see both points of an argument. In most cases my sense of justice is most heavily relied upon.

For instance, the debate over whether abortion should be legal or not. I think it should be, but I really wish it didn’t have to be.

I also tend to take the villain’s side in almost everything when it comes to novels, television series’ and movies.

So I believe there are grey spots, lines that can be blurred, whatever you want to call it. They are there. Otherwise ‘ends justify the means?’ wouldn’t be such a hot topic for debate.

Coming back to the lecture, there was a very interesting activity that was undertaken. While the examples and the activity itself was rather fascinating and cool to think about, I found the fact that the personal information was so feverishly emphasised very telling about ethics themselves. There are, like with most things, obviously majority and minority groups.  We gave the year of study we were in, our gender and what nationality we were. So clearly these three aspects alone hold a powerful influence over us, particularly when it comes to our morals and sense of right and wrong, which only makes sense when you think about it.

I am one who loves humour; a snarky sarcastic attitude is a favourite for me. So I would take a lot of campaigns a lot less seriously. Rather than think about all the implications, I would laugh at an advertisement I see on the road, take a picture and put it on Facebook or make a meme. Most of the time I am aware if something is wrong, but a lot of the time it is so bad that I just have to make fun of it. I can understand other people getting angry and complaining about such a thing.

I think, however, this part of my personality explains a lot of my reactions to the examples we were given in the lecture. I found confronting images good and ethical – people need to feel to be able to get the message. But the images that took a sexual tone without any subtlety I thought were in bad taste, just because it is so overly done and unnecessary. Plus the message can be lost. Like in this example:

The last thing I would have noticed there are the shoes. I mean seriously.

Now there are three ethical theories:

1. Deontology – do the right thing by following the rules

-          all ethic codes of practice fall under this category

2. Consequentialism or teleology – it doesn’t matter what you do as long as you get the right income, or as I like to think of it as the ‘ends justify the means’ argument

3. Virtue – intrinsic values that drive the way we live and do not compromise our identity

So what is best for a journalist? The third option is ideal, but sometimes the world can be a harsh place and we are put in situations that really test us. Personally I don’t think a single option there is wrong. I do believe that sometimes doing what is socially deemed wrong does not mean it is actually wrong when done for the right reasons. I also don’t think that it is an excuse to do whatever.

At the end of the day you have to be happy with yourself. If following the rules is the best way to do that, then great. If you achieve what you set out to do even though things got out of hand, okay, learn from it. If you were yourself and did everything that you could without crossing a line, then that is wonderful.

All I believe is that you do have to know yourself for this job, you have to be at some level of acceptance and peace. You have to have a strong sense of justice, even if that firm grasp of what is right and wrong might be a bit blurry. That’s why I am excited to be a journalist. I think I have the right mindset and personality for it and I really just want to put society into shape any way I can.

I’m not going to draw a thick black line between what can and can’t be, because experiences have shown me that will only cause trouble and confusion later on. Keep an open mind and do what you feel is right. Those are my ethic guidelines.

Here are some more questionable examples:

This particular advertisment has caused quite a bit of controversy lately. It stars Dakota Fanning, who is a well-known child actor admired by many, you guessed it, children. She was the image of innocence and purity, until she posed for this perfume.

Not only is the pose suggestive and the flower symbolic of virginity and other such things, but you have the 'Oh Lola!' comment underneath that is in reference to a very controversial and banned novel, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov (a novel I have actually read) which regards pedophilia and all ranges of socially immoral concepts.

The big debate that has come from this is whether advertising is sexualising children and how young is too young for such things?




Then there is this story: the debate over Kevin Carter's photo. This lead to the Pullitzer Award in 1994 and the photographer's suicide in a short amount of time.




The ethical debate here is the backstory. Kevin Carter didn't help this little girl who was on the verge of starvation. He in fact waited for the vulture to get closer before taking his photograph and shooing the bird away. This seems to be enough for most people to judge upon, but there is much, much more than that. There were strict instructions given by officials for Carter's expedition, a small amount of time, and children in similair states everywhere with adults not too far away.

Here is a quick video discussing the ethical question of Kevin Carter's photograph:

In the end its a personal decision whether Kevin Carter did the right or wrong thing. But I think at least he took the picture and made us think.


I found this website that has a whole bunch of these that are all quite interesting to know about:

http://www.thecheers.org/Entertainment/article_3205_13-Weird-Ad-Campaigns.html

Giving All I Can

I’m going to put up a small article I wrote for a reporting assignment regarding giving blood and the shortages in donations that occur.

 

Negative Signs for O-Negative Stocks?

Jessica Gregory (18) is a frequent and proud blood donor, inspired by seeing both perspectives of the donating process.

One in every three Australians will require a blood transfusion, and yet, only one in thirty donates.

Blood is a critical element in the saving of lives, however, the Australian Red Cross Blood Service is currently facing a shortage of the precious and universal blood type; O-Negative.

Vital through its diversity of uses, blood is included the treatment of trauma, cancer and dialysis-stricken patients to name just a few. O-Negative blood is compatible with most people and is therefore the most used and in demand.

“Blood prevents or alleviates some illnesses,” explains Jeremy Stevens, employee of the Brisbane Royal Children’s Hospital, “For those who need it, a blood shortage puts their lives in danger.”

Jessica Gregory, 18 and a frequent blood donor, understands the severity of the situation all too well after losing her grandfather, who received blood transfers frequently, to cancer in early 2011. She donates every twelve weeks despite having a fear of needles. “If I can prevent someone going through what my family and I did, then I will…this is my way of doing it,” Ms Gregory shares.

“You don’t have to be a surgeon or a scientist to save a life,” she continues, “it’s free and easy…there are no consequences.”

Belinda Haymes, Red Cross Public Affairs Officer, informs us that, “due to the aging population, the need for blood will double in the next decade.”

“We need more people to give blood and to give it regularly. A lot of people donate only once when they can donate every 12 weeks….how often is just as important as how many.”

However, the future is looking less threatening with most other blood type stocks in their necessary ranges and an increasing number of youth donors stepping forward and committing, such as young Ms Gregory.

“So many people need blood and you can save someone’s life with that 500mls you give…I will continue to donate as frequently as I can and urge others to do the same.”

So I thought I would share this because last week I gave blood, and even though so much went wrong, I still intend to give blood again because it is so simple and easy and so very important.

Now I consider myself an expert procrastinator. If there was a title, Queen of Procrastination, I would definitely compete for that title, and probably win. I procrastinate with everything, from assignments, to eating and even going to bed. I have done so many ridiculous things, including reading the first two books of Harry Potter in one day, baking enough cupcakes, pikelets, muffins and cookies to run my own bake sale, skydiving, and last week I added giving blood to that list.

By all rights I should have been studying. I had finished my lectures for the morning and had seven hours to fill in until my next and last lecture for the day. I also had a test the next day that I had avoided thinking about for a number of weeks. So, that day I had intended to sit down, read over all my hand-written notes and printed out lecture and tutorial PowerPoint’s and activities that I had spent an hour or two printing out the night before. But on the way I walked passed a Red Cross blood donation van and for some reason the idea popped into my mind that I had never given blood before, and hey I had seven hours to kill, why not?

I organised with a friend to meet up and we would do it together. I had to wait an hour so I sat down, ate lunch, watched the end of a documentary and helped a friend with their assignment. (When I’m procrastinating I’m also one of the most helpful people). Then I went to the van, filled in a form and within fifteen minutes I was in the van, getting prepared to have a needle stuck into me and 500mls of my blood sucked out.

Though I phrase it that roughly, it really was enjoyable. I had fun and didn’t suffer from any nerves really. I wasn’t uncomfortable all that much, just a bit tense and worried about dropping the ball they wanted me to continue rolling my hand. I did drop it though so I think it was an honest concern and I did manage to knock my arm trying to catch it. No damage was sustained however.

Really, it wasn’t until everything should have been over and the needle extracted that things didn’t go according to plan. I suddenly felt very queasy in my stomach and was taking some deep breathes. For some reason I decided to tell the lady who was cleaning me up and she rushed to roll me onto my side and give me one of those puke bags. She grabbed a Japanese fan and swiftly began to give me a lovely breeze, which I needed because I was very hot, clammy and drenched in dry sweat. I ended up being given an oxygen mask, which gave me almost instant relief.

Anyways, that lasted for five to ten minutes. Unfortunately the drama didn’t cease there. For some unknown reason, from that point onwards, it was near impossible to detect my blood pressure. At first it was just believed that my blood pressure had dropped a very significant degree, but when my blood pressure refused to pick back up they had three or four people checking and double-checking. Then the machines were brought out and they couldn’t find my blood pressure.

Now I was clearly not dead. Alive and kicking and all, but they kept me around to make sure everything was okay. So instead of being there for fifteen minutes like everybody else, I was there for three hours.

In the end they gave up. I had eaten, drank bottles upon bottles of water, had lain down, sat up, walked, went to the bathroom (with a supervisor following me to make sure I didn’t pass out or anything) and talked my mouth dry. So they let me go with plenty of information, advice, instructions and phone numbers should anything feel wrong. I was perfectly fine for the rest of the week. Just a bruised arm from all the times my blood pressure had been taken.

Why I’m telling this story is one, it’s entertaining. But two is because I want to convey how important giving blood is. I will go back in 12 weeks’ time despite the dramatic experience. The people are so nice; there was no pain, very little levels of discomfort, and great outcome. I will save three persons’ lives. And even though it took three hours, it was definitely worth it. For most people it would be much simpler, faster, easier. So I don’t see why people don’t do it.

The main thing I have gotten from doing interviews for assignments and talking to people when actually giving blood myself is that it is not people to give blood that is really being asked for. Yes, the Red Cross always needs this. But it’s the fact that most people who give blood think it’s a one and done thing. No, what is needed is for people to keep coming back.

So give blood. It doesn’t take long or much. And keep going back.

Imagine all the lives that can be saved. It’s a wonderful thing, really.

Mime it for the World!

I just heard today that the British orchestra organised to perform at the London Olympics Opening in a couple of weeks have been told that they are to mime playing their instruments to a previously done recording. The reasons for this put forward are that it is a big night and too risky to perform live to a crowd of millions on site and across the globe.

The musicians are understandable upset and against the idea. I myself am kind of outraged.

Now I could be slightly biased because I am a huge fan of the Olympics. I think mostly this is due to the tradition in my house of watching the Olympics and also because I really love seeing large groups of people getting together and just spreading love, cheer and pride in themselves and in one another. In addition to this, I am a strong believer in performing live. While I am not hostile or negative towards those who prefer to lipsync (like some artists shown below) – I do understand that entertaining and performing whilst trying to not die of lack of oxygen is incredibly difficult – I do think it is important to be genuine and give your all to your audience. To me they have paid money to see you live, to hear what you have to give. If you are known as a singer foremost, than you should sing for them.

(Chris Brown has received some criticism for his latest performance at the Billboard Awards)

The fact that these people want to perform and show the world their talent and passion and love of their country and art, but officials don’t want to chance a mistake that supposedly would blemish the evening is frustrating a step backwards for the art industry and the respect it depends. Because music and performing is an art form, one that rather than be celebrated in this event that is to showcase everything a country has to offer they are being stifled and overshadowed by competitiveness.

So I hope something can be done. Even if it doesn’t I still hold the utmost respect to the performers and know that it is probably harder on them than it is us.

Here are some amazing artists that have vowed to never lip-sync and sound fantastic live!

It's safe to say who I would pay to see live and who I wouldn't. Don't you agree?

Fighting the Flu

Isn't that attractive?

So it is pretty much common knowledge or a gross stereotype that people get sick in winter. Fear of the flu or the common cold is always sky high, proven with how the numbers of people who donate blood dwindle right done due to fear of contracting or passing on the illness (I know that for a fact from talking to a Red Cross Australia officer). But it seems this winter there is genuine worry to be had what with an old string of the flu mutating into a more resistant strain.

The flu is actually very dangerous. Really, all sicknesses are to some person in some sense. But mutating ones are cause for concern particularly because of their unpredictability.

Can we stop it from happening? No. It's going to happen and we have to trust in the truly talented and brilliant scientists to find ways around protecting people from these deadly viruses. But we can take a few preventitive measures.

So what do we do? Well the first thing is to make sure you stay in contact with the elderly, the already sick and the infants. That’s not just family, but friends and neighbours too. A little bit of consideration goes a long way. Everything else is those small but practical touches such as washing your hands consistently, covering your cough (with your elbow to prevent spreading the germs – I personally cough into my shirt), and basically keeping yourself warm and healthy. It is also a really good idea, and highly recommended, that you consider getting the proper imunisations for the flu. That's not for everone, but take some time to really think about whether you would be okay in getting the injection for you and your family. These basic things will go a long way and hopefully we can all stay happy and healthy not just this flu season but all year round, every year.

And not end up like this:

Freefalling

I’m that friend that always tries to convince you to do random things outside of most people’s comfort zones. Not because I am a bully, but because I feel people should generally try something once. My main mission as of the last year or so is to get as many friends and associates of mine to go skydiving. I’ve done it and found it absolutely amazing and I wish that as many people as possible could experience it.

And then something like what happens today ends up in the news and everyone feels justified in thinking those who go skydiving are insane and would never ‘jump out of a perfectly good airplane’.

The event I am referring to is the tragic accident in the Lockyer Valley today that saw a sixty-two year old, very experienced skydiver fall to his death when both his parachute and reserve parachute failed. Very little is actually known (or shared with us) of the details. All I could find out was this man had done jumps like these for something like 1,000 times and had packed his own chutes, but for some – currently – unknown reason they did not work for him. People rushed to the scene and performed CPR but they couldn’t help him.

Understandably those people are traumatised, especially because the thought of someone falling that far and knowing the likely grave outcome that would result is absolutely horrible. I would never wish that upon anyone. I do, however, have issues with what I know is going to result from this; people will turn their noses up at skydiving or will protest against.

Now, as I said above, I’ve been skydiving. Only once mind you, but I’ve always wanted to do it. And I plan to do it again, many times in fact. Even this incident, as upsetting as it is – even to me – has not put me off jumping out of a plane at 14,000 feet, and I honestly don’t think it should for anybody else either.

Yes, there are dangers when it comes to skydiving, but there is in most things you do in your everyday lives. Skydiving’s threats are just more glaringly obvious. But all the necessary precautions are taken. The thing that bugs me most, and what I really want to convey as my message here, is that there are very few deaths related to skydiving. The biggest killer is motor vehicles. More people have died driving home from work or going out than jumping out of a plane thousands of feet in the sky. I think a little perspective is needed here. When you jump out of a plane you put on all the safety equipment, you run over procedures, you do every possible thing you can to make the experience as safe and happy and successful as is possible. Now look at driving and we have people that don’t wear seatbelts, don’t care about lights or speed restrictions or even keeping their eyes on the road because – oh! They have a text message on their phone!

I just think it’s a little wrong. People thinking they know what is right and wrong when there are so many people making the same mistake recklessly and yet skydiving is worse. Unfortunately I get rather frustrated when people think I’m wrong or just stupid because I have been skydiving. I don’t like when people close their minds to things – I’m not saying they should go skydiving, but they shouldn’t completely shut it down to those who actually care. That’s what I’m saying.

Well, that, and to pay my respects to a man I didn’t know but have a lot of respect and admiration to, by defending something that he was clearly passionate about after doing it 1,000 times, but can’t express his opinion because of a mishap.

So if you want to go skydiving, or have been considering it but are unsure, I highly recommend that you try it out. At least once. It's an amazing experience and one worth feeling, if you ask me.

On a more pleasing note, here is some photographic evidence that I went skydiving. I was surprisingly unfazed by the entire act, despite the fact I only decided to do it all in just twenty minutes (as a form of procrastination from a school assignment). So relaxed was I that the professional jumpers were trying to psyche me out. It didn’t work. They will see me back there again sometime this year.

Skydiving pictures: there are always so flattering!