Week One : Niall Lucy

Lucy’s article – deconstruction of images/text; what is journalism/journalist role; exposing perceived hypocrosy

Does anyone think that the news we read and hear is unmediated?  It’s tempting to imagine we can just lay back and absorb the text and imagery without question.  Sitting back, thinking that this way we’ll receive the ‘Truth’ of events on a given day.

I’m not convinced that many people manage to do that.  Well, not all the time anyway.  Sometimes, if you feel tired or barely awake peering at the paper, you probably don’t have your critical faculties operative and you cruise the superficial highway of the news presentation.   Still, when awake, most people do question how/who/ and what about the news.  They ‘ve cultivated a cynical streak after a certain age (15?), haven’t they?  As I’ve heard it, when people encounter a certain image or account of events, these representational forms/ ideas interact with their experiences and produce their own interpretation of how authentic, interesting, connected to another topic etc., they feel those items are.   As such, I think it’s acknowledged that this is an active, not a passive event between reader/listener and reporter/reported.

Admittedly, regardless of all the variables interceding in communication events and agency of the individual etc., advertisers for one, are willing to pay embarrassing sums to have the opportunity to present us viewers/ readers/ listeners with their calculatedly constructed images/texts, because their stats clearly show that joe public can be manipulated often enough to make this effort worth the money.

Oops.  I think I may have just suggested that journalists are involved in a similar objective of selling a particular perspective to the public.  Is that fair?  This has actually been discussed ad nausem, hasn’t it?

In any case, I don’t think that the constructivist nature of the profession/industry is dealt with often enough.  There are so many conflicting notions about what works best, how to achieve more transparency or accountability (- just like the debates around good governance).  Keeping the topic on the table though, seems a useful idea.

I guess I better address some comment directly to Lucy’s paper.  What an opening! ( or ‘lead’ is it called?) Really a great attention grabber and effective entry to his unveiling of the notion of the journalist as capturing ‘the truth’ of a situation in text/image – as a myth. I think Lucy makes a point that Henson’s exhibit was not a very convincing target for someone seriously concerned about the sexual abuse of children.

Distinctions between people represented with clothes or without, as being artistic or otherwise, are the stuff of community debate and (of course) relate to community standards of the time.  Devine’s argument regarding Henson’s material lowering community standards were poorly supported.  In fact her argument, seemed to me to be looking to score points with her peer group, than actually challenge the status quo regarding the treatment of children.

Advertisement