Advertisements are the constant background noise of our daily lives. From television and radio commercial breaks, to the ubiquitous webpage adverts, people are bombarded with commercials, each crafted to target the demographic who might chose to watch or listen to the program, or who might choose to visit the particular website. Outside of our homes the barrage of advertisements continues, billboards on the roadside, signs in train carriages and at train stations are ever present. Where signs and posters are impossible to mount, people are paid to stand in public areas and hand out fliers with special offers, or lights are used to project the message onto the sidewalk, or against a wall.

Advertisements have become such a part of our daily experiences that they are easily overlooked, just as frequently encountering anything makes it blasé. However, occasionally an advertisement becomes noticed, not because of any clever trick on the part of the advertiser, but because of what has been done to the advertisement by someone else. From correcting spelling or grammatical errors with a black marker, to changing the message of the advertisement with paint and stickers, this form of cultural resistance, called ‘subvertising’, aims to change the background noise of our daily experiences. The subvertiser asks the questions “why are consumers so drawn to the idea of images and to an emotional connection with the things we buy? Why can’t we simply buy things because we need them, rather than buying things because we feel we should, because we feel like they will make us better people?” (www.subvertise.org)

Also called ‘guerrilla art’ or ‘citizen art’, this style of ‘talking back’ to the advertisements is a practice called culture jamming, which aims to allow citizens to respond to the advertisement’s message. “…most residents can’t afford to counter corporate messages by purchasing their own ads…they should have the right to talk back to images they never asked to see” (Klien, N. 2000) Culture jamming is a force opposing the spread of consumerism, by focussing on bringing discourse to a medium which traditionally has been a one way transfer of communication, from the advertisers to the citizens, by way of the billboard.
This paper aims to address the role of culture jamming techniques in the private citizen’s battle to open discourse with the messages placed on billboards, by examining the factors which drive the individuals to willingly break the law in order to express their concerns. It will focus primarily on the American based Billboard Liberation Front (BLF) and the Australian based Billboard Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions (BUGA UP) in order to show that people across the world are fighting back against the constant bombardment of advertising in public spaces, and that the many billboards that fill the empty spaces between the city’s buildings have become a place where citizens are ‘talking back’ to the images and messages, and ‘taking back’ the public spaces taken over by the marketing agencies.

By examining culture jamming, it is important to also understand the importance of ‘youth culture’ in the marketing venture, and also the tradition of marketers taking fringe cultural movements, such as punk, and turning them into mainstream images and ideals to sell products back to the consumers. This is an interesting and important tradition to understand since some of the methods used in culture jamming have themselves been incorporated by marketing agencies in a tactic known as guerrilla marketing, a term coined by Jay Levinson in 1984. This, as will be discussed, shows that the marketers are not only aware that culture jamming techniques create messages which catch the attention of citizens well, but that the marketing agencies are willing to incorporate these tactics in their own campaigns.

Culture jamming has its roots in the Situationist movement, with Raoul Vaneigem’s 1967 message “down with a world in which the guarantee that we will not die of starvation has been purchased with the guarantee that we will die of boredom” bearing strong resemblance to the manifesto created by the Billboard Liberation Front (BLF) which espouses that “the Ad defines our world, creating both the focus on “image” and the culture of consumption that ultimately attract and inspire all individuals desirous of communicating to their fellow man in a profound fashion.” Graham Meikle (2002) suggests that the Situationist influence is “at the heart of one objective behind the culture jammers’ project – to encourage acts of negation that become affirmations; to bite the hand that spoon feeds; to say no (to shopping, the news, to work) in ways that can lead to an unexpected yes.” A key tactic shared by these movements is the act of dénouement, expressed by Situationist’s Guy Debord and Gil Wolman as “When two objects are brought together, no matter how far apart their original contexts may be, a relationship is always formed…the mutual interference of two worlds of feeling, or the bringing together of two independent expressions, supersedes the original elements and produces a synthetic organisation of greater efficacy.”

There are also striking similarities to the counterculture movement of the 1960s and 1970s, in particular the jester styling of Abbie Hoffman and the spectacles created by Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters. These events can be seen as a forerunner to events such as the Santa Rampage organised by the Suicide Club in 1994, and continued by the Cacophony Society across the world annually since. Although many of the ideals and the methods are not new, the term ‘culture jamming’ itself dates only to 1984. (Klien, N. 2000) More than any other media, it is the billboard which has become the main target of culture jammers, since “the Billboard is ubiquitous and inescapable to anyone who moves through our world. Everyone knows the Billboard; the Billboard is in everyones mind.” (Napier, J. 1987)

The anti-consumerism movement is a global phenomenon born from the post modern condition, which has “many negative tendencies [including] the increase in communication, the information glut and advertisements.” (Jencks, C. 1992) As citizens became aware of the constant bombardment of corporate messages, they also grew aware of how unavoidable they had become in public spaces. Of particular concern to early culture jammers, such as BUGA UP, was the spread of billboard advertisements for tobacco companies in Australia during the late 1970s.

Advertising tobacco products on television and radio had been banned in Australia since 1976 (Chapman, S. 1996) but billboard advertisements were spreading across the country. BUGA UP was formed to counter these messages by using spray paint to bring attention to the anti-smoking cause. “BUGA UP is credited by many to have played an outstanding role in politicising tobacco control.” (Chapman, S. 1996) By doctoring the billboard’s messages, and turning them into a humorous, thought provoking message, BUGA UP’s radicalism was able to “allow hitherto conservative medical and health groups to venture into the debate on tobacco advertising. By providing a ‘no prisoners’ discourse on tobacco advertising that admitted no shirking, BUGA UP forced these groups to declare their hands or risk being seen as wholly irrelevant to a debate that had captured the interest of a huge section of the community.” (Chesterville-Evans, A. 1983) The process of civil disobedience run by BUGA UP led to many arrests, but the end result was for the advertising of tobacco products to enter pubic debate. BUGA UP claim that the majority of their members at the time were people from a wide demographic of ages and professions, who joined to fight for a cause they believed in. In America, the anti-tobacco advertising battle was being fought by the BLF and the street artist Ron English, but their campaign, whilst aiming for similar results as those seen in BUGA UP’s campaign, had a very different visual style.

Jack Napier (a pseudonym) of the BLF has been involved in the billboard battles since the late 1970s, after attending an event organised by the Suicide Club in San Francisco. The style of art favoured by the BLF bares a different, more stylised look than that of BUGA UP, because many of the members either had a background in the advertising industry, or were working for marketing agencies. “Their philosophy require[d] that improvements be professionally accurate and easily removed.” (Segal, P., 2010) The style used by the BLF was far removed from the rough spray can work utilised by BUGA UP, and created images which, from a distance, can easily be confused with a traditional billboard advertisement. This subversion of the advertiser’s style creates images and messages which are very effective at gaining the attention of passersby, but more importantly, it mocks the advertiser’s media by aping it so realistically. The BLF pride themselves on using wheatpaste glue which can be easily removed by billboard workers, and often leave a dozen bottles of beer for the workers, which again, expresses the importance in their message. They are not out to destroy the advertising community, they are simply aiming to redress the one way communication model which billboards, by their very nature, insist on. Jack Napier (2010) says “We at the BLF have NEVER [sic] once stated anywhere, anytime that billboards are a detriment to society. We truly believe that anyone who wants a billboard should have one, preferably covered in neon, on the roof of their house…substandard copywriters and satirically challenged Ad execs should be banned.” As groups such as the BLF mock the advertisers style and media, it is important to realise that the advertisers themselves are always on the look out for cultures which they can incorporate into their marketing campaigns, in what Naomi Klein calls ‘cool envy’. (2000)

The study of youth culture during the 1970s focussed on the way youths used sub cultural styles to “symbolically challenge ideologies of consumerism and rapidly changing social and economic conditions…studies emphasised the inherent tensions in youth culture between authentic expressions of identity and their incorporation by fashion and media industries” (Cunningham & Turner, 2006) The media, in particular the advertising industry, view youth as “consumers-in-training” (Solomon, M. 2003) and often attempt to draw from the symbols, music and identity of subcultures to attain the ‘cool’ factor. “Advertisers [and] brand managers race back to high school, sucking up to the in-crowd in a frantic effort to isolate and reproduce in commercials the precise ‘attitude’ teens and twenty something’s were driven to consume with their snack foods and pop tunes.” (Klein, N. 2003) This attempt to capture what is cool by marketing agencies does not only focus on the identity of youth culture. In guerrilla marketing, ‘capturing the cool’ involves finding cutting edge approaches to advertising which draws from the urban sub cultures. This is most easily recognised in forms of marketing which are growing in popularity, and draw heavily from culture jamming techniques.

Graffiti has long been a way for youths and subcultures to express themselves on the city walls. Graffiti here is not to be confused with the act of tagging, but is instead meant to include the painting of slogans, as discussed in relation to BUGA UP, and the art of stencilling, both of which have long been tools for those who believe they are unheard to be heard.

Illegally painting a wall would be counter productive to the marketing agencies goal, so they instead use a device called ‘reverse graffiti’, where instead of painting on a wall, the grime is scrapped away to create an eye catching advertisement.
The link between ‘reverse graffiti’ and culture jamming is clear, and shows how marketing agencies can draw on a culture that frequently use their advertisements as canvases. Along a similar vein, sticker art, or ‘sticker bombing’, has long been a form of street art, which marketers have taken to use. A recent example is the Father Bob Maguire campaign, which used stickers of knives and forks, placed on rubbish bins to resemble a table setting, with the slogan “for the homeless every day is a struggle”. (Dabitch, 2008) There are many other examples of marketing agencies incorporating culture jamming techniques, which shows how the two feed off one another. The anti-consumer cultures hijack the billboards and the advertisements as canvases to respond to the marketers, whilst the marketers are hijacking their techniques for their own commercial ends. Similar cultural phenomena’s utilised by marketing agencies include the flash mob, such as the Santa Rampage mentioned previously. T-mobile used this flash mob approach in an advertisement in 2008, which has received an amazing 21 million YouTube viewings. In this particular case, it is conceivable to suggest that flash mobs, which have also been used to advertise television shows including Glee and have appeared on the Opera show, are now such a regularly used tool of the advertisers that they are no longer useful as culture jamming techniques, since instead of creating a spectacle, they could easily be confused for a commercial. This highlights the strength of culture jamming devices to catch the attention of people, originally designed to raise awareness of the consumer society, they are now tools to be used for those pushing the consumer society forwards. Within the culture jamming community, there is also criticism levelled at those who are viewed to have sold out, those who have attempted to turn their subversive ethos into a money making device. The quarterly magazine Adbusters is well regarded as the most successful pro-culture jamming publications, and has been a great influence on many of the events, including the annual ‘Buy Nothing Day’ which has grown in popularity since its inception in 1995. However, this popularity has led to a growing distaste for the magazine, especially when the editors, almost unbelievingly, began selling T-shirts and stickers promoting Buy Nothing Day. Carrie McLaren, founder of the non-profit Stay Free! Magazine expresses the concern of Adbusters’ move to commercialism by stating “what comes out is no real alternative to our culture of consumption.” Whether being co-opted by the advertising agencies, or by simply becoming too large for a popular magazine to survive without turning to commercialism, culture jamming techniques quickly become ineffective because of the very nature of them, the fact they are subversive is too ‘cool’ to continue flying under the radar. “Because everything can be commodified and objectified – including all forms of opposition. The very idea of ‘revolution’ can be packaged as a sub cultural style, an advertising slogan…a fashion.” (Slater, D. 1997) For several decades the revolutionist Che Guevara had been a popular figure for culture jamming. Alberto Korda’s famous 1960 photograph has been stencilled and spray painted across many walls, and the image has been mashed up with those of other iconic images, including Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald to parody the icons. More recently however, the image has become a commercial commodity, being used to sell, amongst many other items, ice cream and jeans, and is used to advertise the Taco Bell chain of restaurants. T-shirts and carry bags with the image emblazoned on them show how revolution can be packaged, with a confirmed Marxist insurgent now a mainstream symbol of commercialism.

Culture jamming techniques are varied, but are predominately used by consumer social movements. From “International buy nothing day” to the practice of dumper diving, culture jammers aim to raise awareness of the prevalent consumer culture, at the heart of which is the image. Nicholas Abercrombie (1994) notes that “if images are at the centre of modern consumption and of the producer-consumer relationship, then the control of their meaning [sic] is similarly central to the distribution of authority in that relationship.” Central to the advertising campaigns spread across the billboards in our public spaces is the image, be it a well recognised symbol such as the Golden Arches, or an image of a model dressed in the clothes of a sub culture. The power of these images and symbols is immense, and the ‘control of their meaning’ is important. The culture jamming techniques favoured by the BLF and BUGA UP is in the turning of these images. John Fiske coined the expression ‘semiotic power’ to show the “power of members of the public to turn the consumerist signs and symbols that dominate contemporary life to their own uses.” (Watson, J. & Hill, A, 2003) For theorists like Fiske and activists like Jack Napier, every time a member of the public mentally rearranges an advertisement, they are partaking in culture jamming practices. They are automatically taking part in a subtle rejection of the consumer society. Saul Alinsky (1971) coined the term ‘mass political jujitsu’ in which activists can “utilise the power of one part of the power structure against another part.” Culture jamming utilises this jujitsu practice by using the power of images and symbols against themselves. Thus, consumer culture is celebrated across the cityscape on billboards which, in turn become the canvases upon which those critical of the culture paint their disapproval.

Amongst the most celebrated street artists who operate with these ideas is Banksy. The anonymous Englishman has, for many years, been painting and stencilling humorous messages across the world, and his work is sold at astronomical prices, in spite of his rhetoric about being opposed to the art community as a whole. Again, as with the previous examples, we can see the subversive rebel becoming a poster-boy for the commercial ventures, images of his work now adorning postcards and T-shirts. In his writings however, it is clear that Banksy is very much in favour of the power which culture jamming gives to the people, stating that “Any advertisement in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours, it belongs to you, it’s yours to take, rearrange and re use. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.” As a street artist, Banksy above all others highlights how the mainstream media are quick to co-opt a subversive sub culture. His paintings, when discovered in public spaces, are often sold to private buyers, with their tricky removal from the brick walls left for the buyer to sort out.
This cyclical nature of sub cultural forms of expression, be it artistic, musical or fashion, becoming mainstream via commercials shows an interesting symbiotic nature of both culture and the advertising industry. Sub cultures develop and change as the preceding versions are hijacked by the advertisers, forcing new and exciting forms of self expression to be created. The advertisers continue to track social movements and look to how they can turn them into a profit, forcing the social changes. Culture jamming will certainly remain a powerful tool in the citizen’s arsenal against the one way model of communication used in billboard advertising within public space. However, the strength in the devices must continuously evolve, as the marketing agencies are willing to draft them into their own campaigns. There is power in reversing the meaning of an expensive commercial with a cheap can of spray paint, as seen in BUGA Up’ campaign, likewise for the more expensive, and more artful approach favoured by the BLF. Both groups, and many others like them, have the techniques and the motivation to speak back to the advertisements which they didn’t ask to see. With a can of spray paint and a well worded turn of phrase, culture jammers have the ability, even if only for a few moments, to turn a consumer back into a citizen.

REFERENCES
Abercrombie, N. 1994 The Authority of the Consumer, Routledge, USA

Advertising by Subvertising, 2002, viewed 9th May 2010,

Alinsky, S. 1971. Rules for radicals, Random House, USA.

Banksy, 2006. Wall and Piece, Random House, UK.

Chapman, S. 1996. Civil disobedience and tobacco control; the case of BUGA UP, viewed 12th June 2010,

Chesterville-Evans, A. 1983. A civil disobedience movement against cigarette advertising. In Forbes WF, Frecker RC, Nostbakken D, eds. Proceedings of the fifth world conference on smoking and health, Winnipeg, Canada.

Debord, G. 1957. The Society of the Spectacle, viewed 13th June, 2010, http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/all/pub_info/4

Dabitch, 2008. The Father Bob Foundation – eat garbage – Ambient, viewed 12th June 2010, http://adland.tv/ooh/father-bob-maguire-foundation-eat-garbage-ambient

Klien, N. 2000 No Logo, Fourth Estate, London.

McLaren, C. 1995. ‘Advertising the Uncommercial’, Escandola, November ed.

Meikle, G. 2003. Future Active, Routledge Press, New York, USA

Napier, J. 2010. The BLF Manifesto, The Billboard Liberation Front, viewed 6th May 2010,

Napier, J. 2010. Questions for Redressing the Imposition on Public Space, The Billboard Liberation Front, viewed 5th June 2010, http://www.billboardliberation.com/response.html

Segal, P. 2010. History and Timeline of the BLF, The Billboard Liberation Front, viewed 7th June, 2010 http://www.billboardliberation.com/indepth.html

Slater, D. 1997. Consumer Culture & Modernity, Polity Press, Oxford, UK.

Solomon, M. 2003 Conquering Consumerspace, AMACOM, USA.

Vaneigem, R. 1967 The Revolution of Everyday Life, viewed 7th June 2010,

Watson, J. & Hill, A. 2003. Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies, Oxford University Press, New York, USA.

Anyone with an interest in interesting things should read Wark’s Hackers Manifesto and Free Culture by Lessig. Go on. It wont kill you, I’ll wait.

Anyone who has played it or read about it knows that the save system is terrible, but this is only the first cause of my ire towards this potentially aweome game.  The second hassle is the aiming system, which is awful for a fe reasons.  The major one, is that you are glued to the floor once you enter the over the shoulder targeting view.  This is naff for the simple reason that even I, about as far as you can get from an ultra hard core army guy, am able to aim whilst I slowly shuffle forwards, the way you can in most other first person shooters.  I find this concreted aiming system incredibly counter-intuitive, and endlessly frustrating when I decide to hurl an item at the walking dead.

However, the real reason I find this game so incredibly frustrating is the same reason I truly fear a zombie outbreak…the dead don’t stop coming.  And this frustration is a good thign, because…as ridiculous as this is to type, I guess its…you know, kinda what would happen…right?

When I stand in game and communicate with an NPC, whilst trying to work out what the text says on my GIANT FREAKIN’ TELLY, which is another point of frustration I just remembrered, I can hear the undead approaching, and when I am finally ready to move on with the NPC trailing along, there are hundreds of the moaning mother fuckers all around me, and I can’t find the chainsaw I dropped when one of them hit me…and then the game immediately selects the next item in my menu and as I line up to smack a zombie in the face…I end up reading the book I was holding in my gear menu?  FUUUUCK…Fuck, another point of frustration.

But truthfully, I’ll be playing it again tonight until the desire to throw the controller through the window over powers me, because I like the frustration of being completely out numbered by the walking dead, and even though I absolutely hate those psychos in the jeep who constantly kill me, I do enjoy walking around, smacking things with a fry pan, or slicing them with the katana.  And I am looking forward to Dead Rising 2, which will, hopefully, address some of these issues, without removing the good frustrating bits.

EDIT.  This rant has been written whilst I impatiently wait to hear if I am going to be doing my Masters this year…anyone who has dealt with academics in relation to bureaucratic differences between two types of paperwork called ‘academic transcripts’ and ‘statement of academic record’ will understand that this level of frustration makes one dream of something as simple as an outbreak of zombification.

The temptation to google the term ‘blocked nose + blood” is almost overpowering, but I don’t want to know.  Not really.

I mean, a bit, sure.

And I am moving house again…I think this is house number 17/18 or there abouts, I’ve lost count.  Really want to be able to settle somewhere, without the need to move on again after 12 months.  That was the plan for this house, a 12 month lease with an option for a second one…but the owner has decided to sell it so off we move again.

This same thing happened at the previous house.  Still searching for a rewarding and worthwhile career, once I have that sorted I can start really thinking about buying a house.  One day.

Until then, we pack.

Again.

My friend Fish was happy to see things happening.

They probably don’t really care that pavlova might have come from New Zealand, and if they heard that it did, they probably wouldn’t get into a fight over it.  I’d say some of the greatest Aussie’s don’t even care about lamingtons, haven’t invented lawnmowers.

Hell, some of them probably don’t even drink beer, and might not even request bacon and eggs for brekkie on a Sunday morning.

My Aussie hero is this bloke I met while queueing up to vote last time in Mordialloc.

He was a man of Arab decent, no idea what country he was from though, and when the woman at the desk told him that he could not vote this year he burst into tears.

We need more Aussie’s like this guy, a man who understood the value and importance of his vote.  He wasn’t a standard Aussie who views voting as a wasted Saturday morning, instead of the one act of democratic action he has the hard fought for right to complete.

A man who knows that across the world people are killed and tortured even for suggesting that perhaps the lowest person in the country has the right to a voice.

So sorry Sir Don, Bob Hawke, Boonie and Kochie and anyone else who has, at one time or other, tried their hardest to prove how truly fucking hard core Aussie they are, but this little fella who wasn’t allowed to vote is the best Aussie I have ever met.

And I tell ya what, when it was my turn to vote, I really took my time and made sure that my damn vote was going to count, especially after I heard the woman at the desk tell this hero that ‘it doesn’t matter…you can try again next election’.

For no real reason, here is an essay about journalism.

Please don’t plagarise it, that’s shit behaviour.

Journalism is often cited as being a vital element of society, because it acts as an independent check on the government, and keeps the public informed on issues which are important to them, but which they may not learn about if not reported in the daily newspapers or on nightly news television shows.  The role of the journalist has changed greatly over the centuries, but the idealised role of the traditional journalist has not changed at all.  Mark Deuze (2005) lists five ideal-typical traits or values, which include objectivity, providing a public service, autonomy, immediacy and ethics.
This idealised role that journalists traditionally carry is today countered by many other elements of journalism, which cast the role of the journalist into a negative light.  Stories in which journalists are accused of hounding grieving parents or friends are a common complaint, as is the idea that some journalists do not operate within the ethical guidelines of the profession.  The blurring of the lines between providing a public service and acting as a vulture has led to a decline in public opinion of journalism as a profession.

In a recent poll asking which professions are most and least trusted by the public, journalists ranked 36th out of forty professions, beating politicians, car salesmen, telemarketers, real estate agents and sex workers.  (“Burns pioneer Wood tops trust ratings”, 2008)  The suggestion being that journalists, who are ethically obliged to report fairly and print stories that are balanced and honest, are widely regarded as dishonest and untrustworthy.  The reasons for this are varied, the confusion between what is journalism and what is public relations being a strong element of the decline in trust and credibility, as is the negative influence of behaviours of an element of the journalistic community.

Where once journalism was considered the fourth estate operating as a watch dog operating for the people, in the 20th Century it has also become responsible for covering all events which might be of interest to the public, be that the private life of celebrities, or reporting on the aftermath of a murder or any other disaster.
For this reason, the image of the journalist providing a public service has become clouded, as journalists are now knocking on the front door of people who might have recently lost a child or friend.  In a similar vein, paparazzi are easily, though not necessarily correctly, viewed as ‘eager journalists’ operating outside of the ethical boundaries.  Thus, public opinion of journalists as a whole drops when paparazzi are accused of crossing the lines of decency, as seen in the death of Princess Diana in 1997.  The blurring of the lines between what is, and what isn’t journalism gets even murkier when the role of the public relations (PR) is added in.  Without digressing too far into the different roles journalists and PR representatives play, it is easy to see how, to the public, the two seem to be almost interchangeable at times.  Sally White (1991) goes to great lengths to suggest that PR can be a useful tool for the journalist, as long as the journalist continues to investigate the information being given to them, just as if they had uncovered the story themselves.  “It [PR] provides a stream of information into the newsroom…[but] it has sapped initiative by providing story ideas that can be covered at the first reporting layer without check or challenge.” (White, S. 1991)  The worry is that the journalist, instead of investigating the information handed out by the PR representative, will instead treat the media release as fact and essentially report it ‘as is’, becoming a spokesperson for the body which has released the information, instead of an independent, and unbiased, reporter acting in the service of the public.  Lee Salter (2005) goes so far as to suggest that “there is a quite explicit danger of merging public relations and journalism that can only diminish the effectiveness of journalism in fulfilling its normative role.” (Salter, L. 2005)  The dangers of this merge relate to the different goals between the two occupations.  Ideally, journalists are ethically obliged to serve the public, whereas PR agents are principally concerned with working in the best interest of the company or body they represent.  “Public relations is structurally unable to generate a coherent ethical practice…even those with good intentions are unable to act ethically without prejudicing their capacity to be (instrumentally) good [sic] public relations agents.  In contrast, it is the contention that a good [sic] journalist is necessarily ethically orientated.” (Salter, L. 2005)  The notion of ethics is essentially destroyed if, as Sally White suggests happens, “[media handouts] are published as finished articles…To the reader, handouts look like the work of an independent reporter but they tell only one side of the story.” (White, S. 1991)  It would seem then that the greatest and most important aspect separating the journalist and the public relations agent is the oft times slippery ideal of ‘ethics’.  To a member of the public, with more interest in the story they are reading than any interest in the idealistic role of the journalist, will not easily separate a ‘puff piece’ from a carefully researched, fully investigated and objectively written article.  To the public, the story is the work of a reporter, and thus, when enough one sided ‘advetorials’ have been written, it is obvious that trust and good opinion for the profession will falter.
The role of the journalist as a watchdog has, as mentioned earlier, evolved into other fields.  Many of the ‘beats’ modern journalists walk today have not changed, the crime beat, as an example, is as vital today as it was one hundred years ago, and there is rarely any mention of unethical behaviour.  Yet along with these more traditional areas of interest, the 20th Century has given the idea of the ‘star story’.  These are the stories about people in the public sphere, football players, actors and so forth.  Famous people are often newsworthy in and of themselves.  “A journalistic adage is that ‘names make news’.  A large proportion of news is about leaders of nations, towns, companies…institutions of all kinds.” (White, S. 1991) Celebrities, be they sports stars or actors are also ‘names’ that make news.  Their arrival at an event, would be covered by the press, it would not be ‘hard news’, nor necessarily interesting, but it does met the criteria of informing the pubic of things which may be of interest to them.  Yet often eager reporters will delve into unethical behaviour in the misguided understanding that what is not known about the celebrity can also be newsworthy, and here we can see how the actions of an individual journalist can tarnish the reputation of the profession as a whole.  In 2007 Dylan Howard, a Channel 7 reporter, paid $3000 for a folder of medical records which listed AFL football players who were involved in drug rehabilitation programs.  Channel 7 began running promo’s promising the ‘AFL story of the century’, but once the new story broke about how Dylan Howard came upon the files, a far greater story began  Soon Channel 7 were facing a ban by AFL footballers, who refused to answer questions asked by any Channel 7 reporter.  Dylan Howard was eventually stood down from his position and the contents of the medical reports were never publicly released.
It is easy to see how the journalist stumbled upon a big story and he and the media outlet were interested in breaking the story.  Yet ethically, it sits uncomfortably for a viewer.  Whilst AFL footballers have celebrity status, particularly in Victoria, very few would be willing to suggest that private and personal medical records are suitable for a public airing, or that doing so is truly in the publics best interest.  Because the story evolved into one where football players were banning an entire television station, the contents of the medical files became secondary to how the reporter came across them, and the ethics of the individual and the station in question.  This story highlights how the actions of a well respected journalist can tarnish the reputation the profession.  While not as clearly intrusive as the actions of the paparazzi, it is obviously inappropriate and unethical.
Another aspect of journalism which acts to lowers public opinion of the profession is the rise of ‘check book journalism’.  In recent months Roberta Williams, ex-wife of convicted murderer and drug trafficker Carl Williams, has been the target in several fights between rival programs Today Tonight and A Current Affair.  A sum of $40,000 was eventually paid for an interview with Roberta Williams about her former mother-in-law’s suicide.  Again, it is easy to see how an element of the journalism profession can be viewed in a negative light, when it is known that the media has paid for a story.
Looking at the methods used by journalists to get their stories, there are some signs as to why the public may have a low opinion of the profession.  The “deathknock”, in which a journalist will approach a bereaved friend or family member, is an interesting method of news gathering which will clearly place the journalist in a negative light.  John Harrison (1990) says that “their [journalists] professional socialisation leads journalists to be unquestioning of the deathknock as a legitimate journalistic practice…competition, and more fundamentally ratings and sales, and the bottom line, the dollar, is argued as making deathknocks inevitable.” (Harrison, J. 1990)  This particular journalistic practice seems to cross the line of what is ethically, or perhaps morally, right and wrong.  Despite all the rhetoric about the journalist’s role in acting as a watchdog, and informing the public, and ignoring all the discussion about the different roles and ethical responsibilities of the journalist and the public relations agent, it is very likely that actions such as the deathknock, viewed as a ‘legitimate practice’ by industry professionals, have led to a lowering of opinion in the public’s eye. The person handing in this essay is a plagarist. Janet Blank-Libra (2008) makes a strong point that compassion has a place in the journalists occupation.  “That the journalist can put a human face on the everyday events is not a news flash. It is, however, a fact that the traditional journalistic approach directs the journalist to remain detached in order to function objectively.” (Blank-Libra, J, 2008)   Should journalists stop making the deathknocks, perhaps the public will again view them as the idealised fourth estate once again, but in doing so journalists are being asked to disregard the notion of objectivity, which as discussed earlier, is one of the ideal-typical traits which makes up the idealised role of the traditional journalist.  Yet approaching a deathknock with compassion, whilst helping the person being interviewed, will not necessarily change the opinions of those who witness the approach from afar.  In a theoretical world it is easy to see ways in which journalists are, perhaps unfairly, viewed in a negative light, yet in the real world, perhaps it is these practices which, more than the theoretical ideas, have caused the public’s opinion of journalists to drop.

REFERENCES
Blank-Libra, Janet (2008) “The Inaugural Moment: The Lost Poetry of Compassion” http://vikingdays.com/pub/values/JanetBlank-Libra080218.pdf. Retrieved 03/12/08

Deuze, Mark (2005) “What is Journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered”, Journalism 6 (4).

Harrison, John (1990) “Deathknocks: the media come to grief”, in John Henningham (ed) Issues in Australian Journalism.  Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Hastie, D. & Rucci, M. 2007, ‘No interviews until channel apologises’ The Herald Sun
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22325098-11088,00.html retrieved 29/11/08

Salter, Lee (2005) ‘The communicative structures of journalism and public relations’, Journalism 6(1)

White, Sally (1991) Reporting in Australia, Melbourne, MacMillan Publishers.

2008, ‘Burns Pioneer Wood tops trust ratings’,  The Age,
http://www.theage.com.au/national/burns-pioneer-wood-tops-trust-ratings-20080618-2seu.html?page=2 retrieved 29/11/08

This is a confession of sorts.

Reality TV…oh you dirty low life preacher of all things evil and stupid in society.  How you promised to show us real people in unreal positions, or highlight a strange few who have jobs and tasks and dreams which make our own appear so small and infantile in comparison.

I like reality TV shows, not all of them, but many of them are quite high on my television agenda.  Masterchef, Biggest Loser and a few others, not the documentray ones though.  Things like The Recruits and Border Security bore me to tears.

The trick to enjoying reality TV though, is to be cynical when you watch it.  Without getting all academic (cause I can’t be arsed…if you want academic, ask) Reality TV is edited, the arguments, the announcements and the ‘drama’ are creations of clever editing and gentle guiding on behalf of the show’s creators.

BLAH

I’m over this now, going to go and write a stage play for my wife to direct.

She also drove home because I had far too much to drink.

I should also mention that she let me eat some wedges off her plate of Parma, which came with a beer she let me drink.

Jacob turns to me, “Chopper Read?  Awesome.”

Chopper explains that the greatest fucking band to ever fucking come out of fucking England are here tonight.

Cheers from the audience.

“Better than the Rolling Fucking Stones” he says.

“Who?” replies the audience.

“That’s fucking right who are the fucking Rolling Stones?”

And so on.

Then the Alabama 3 come on stage and like always, they errupt into that unique sound that the fans love and that new listener’s either immediatly shun or enjoy.

I think it was an hour and a half…maybe two hours, but it was a great show, not as small and personal as the unplugged tour last time they came to Australia, but louder, and with a more full sound.