This American Life

This American Life is a weekly radio program distributed by public radio international in the United States. Its host is a remarkable character by the name of Ira Glass who has an incredibly intriguing voice, one that truly draws you in and makes you want to return.

Accidental Documentaries originally aired on the 21^st of February, 1996. While is follows the typical format of most episodes in the series, with a host and an obvious theme, it deviates throughout the show to include an incredible display of citizen journalism.

One typically considers citizen journalism to be a conscious effort on the behalf of the ‘journalist’ to discuss or propagate a specific issue. However, the great difference evident within this program is that while the creators are using the content to display a very distinct message, in this case that of Accidental Documentaries, it is in fact the sources of the program that drive the story.

The bulk of the story is made from different audio recordings from different times in the 20^th century, not for the radio, but intended for members of their own families.

Typically one considers that citizen journalism is simply citizens attempting to promulgate a message, but what this program shows is that the dichotomy that one typically believes exists between journalists and citizen journalists can indeed be subverted. They can exist together and one can work in conjunction with the other.

Finally, I want to discuss, briefly the way in which this American life’s website is organised. It is, perhaps the best example of an ‘easy to use’ architecture of a website. While the website is simple and doesn’t seek to do too much, the features it does possess are organised impeccably. Traditional drop down toolbars are used throughout, but the most important aspect is that the headings of the different page options provide description, without requiring further questions. When I click on a certain hyperlink, in am taken to the page that I am looking for.

This American life is fantastic and I highly recommend it.

I love left wing journalists

Previously I have written about the tremendous hypocrisy of the left, today, I return to again share my chagrin for the ridiculous nature of the left.

When things turned ugly, is written by a man described as, “a former problem gambler who has turned his attention to gambling reform and the industry in general. He blogs, he tweets and he often annoys people.” I don’t know whether he ‘often’ annoys people, but he has certainly infuriated me.


In the current political climate, there is a great deal of heat and intolerance in our discourse. This is in no way limited to the right. Is it any wonder why Alan Jones might have taken offence to the suggestion that he had accepted a fee to appear?


2011 in Australia has seen ordinary Australians ridiculed and attacked by their government. They have been compared to Nazis, labelled as extremists, dinosaurs and in the latest display of contempt from government, the convoy of no confidence, a rally designed to protest the government, was dubbed as “the convoy of incontinence’ by a government backbencher.


Australians are angry!


Australians are furious with the contempt and the denial of democracy being perpetrated by their government.

Cummings, the author of this piece of propaganda, claims that, “Jacqueline Maley is a journalist; she was doing her job” and he is right. However, what he fails to recognise is the lack of respect displayed by Maley.

Maley was attending a protest, a protest organised and conducted by ordinary Australians, and rather than reporting on the protest, rather than speaking to the truck drivers present in the crowd, rather than asking why they were protesting, she decided to obfuscate the truth. Maley chose to ask if Jones had been paid to attend.

Did Jones step over the line? Perhaps.

But when faced with the unrelenting ridicule of government and unabashed attacked from journalists of the left, it is perhaps understandable for those on the right to be defensive and as a result, to go ‘on the attack’.

A Real Success!

Let’s be clear, Lazarus Writing is FANTASTIC!

It is written by the literary editor for The Australian, Stephen Romei. He should be congratulated in the strongest terms.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that I whole heartedly loved the content of the article, being a member of the Liberal Party and a huge fan of the former prime minister, but it is the way that the article is composed that is the most enjoyable aspect of this piece.

Romei tackles a subject that if not dealt with properly could be tedious and even boring. But Romei rises to this challenge and instead delivers a superb, humorous analysis and discussion.

Romei opens by comparing Mr Howard to a rock star and later transitions into a more reverent tone, describing the Mr Howard as “prime ministerial”.

The real success of this article is Romei’s ability to let the story flow. This has been achieved because he actually sat down and conversed with the former prime minister, but moreover, Romei gets out of the way and allows that conversational dialogue to exist, virtually on its own. Rather than breaking up Mr Howard’s words with useless and unending opinion and analysis, he lest the conversation run and provides context and much needed information in separate paragraphs and even different sections.

The authorial voice employed by Romei is to be commended. One could perhaps forgive a journalist for attempting to sound too pompous or reverent when discussing a revered former prime minister or even for sounds a little condescending when discussing that former prime minsters best selling book. But Romei falls into neither trap. He instead creates a comfortable and easy going tone to compliment the easy reading style of writing that he employs.

This type of journalism, through online media, provides a new and fantastic way in which to promote and sell products. In this case, the economic benifits flow to the publishers of Mr. Howards book.

New and social media, as well as the ability to share important articles among friends is a drastic change to the online media realm.

This article and the way in which it is disseminated is representitive of the changing landscape of news media through online sources.

Typical of the left

Richard Glover has provided one of the most ridiculous and, at the same time, least remarkable articles ever written by an ABC journalist/ broadcaster.

Ostensibly, Bone-headed beliefs bound to end in death by drowning  is a simple discussion and criticism of those who oppose the idea that global climate change is man made. But, true to the insidious nature of all ABC political commentary, this article does far more.

 

While the left leap at the opportunity to criticize right wing commentators for their inflammatory rhetoric, they are never really called up for their own disgusting misuse of the English language.

This article not only compares, so called, ‘Climate change deniers’ to the Nazi’s during world war two, but appears to threaten them. It essentially calls, “for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies”.
Just last week, Alan Jones, perhaps the right wing equivalent to Mr Glover, jokingly mused that Julia Gillard be placed in a bag and thrown into the ocean. The left went nuts, claiming that Jones was inciting violence. But they obviously do not remember those words written by Mr Glover.
Neither of these comments are dangerous, they are jokes, analogies and comments. What is remarkable is the way in which the language of politics in this country is treated by the right and the left.
This article works! This article, no doubt helped instill within those on the left the idea that ‘climate change deniers’ are evil. Glover achieves this through his dramatic language. What this article lacks, is balance, facts and commonsense.

The question that must be asked...what sort of online authority does this article represent? 

In my opinion, very little.

Class presentation

http://www.slideshare.net/barnesy911/information-architecture-8794381


Today I will try to explain the concept of information architecture and why it is so important.

Let’s start with why exactly information architecture is necessary. Today, websites hold monumental amounts of information, so it isn’t possible to simply have all of their information on the front page.

THERE NEEDS TO BE

A WAY

TO NAVIGATE

This is where information architecture comes in…

(QUOTE- Iain Barker)  

“The challenge facing organisations is how to guide people through the vast amount of information on offer, so they can successfully find the information they want and thus find value in the system?”

Information architecture seeks to take the enormous amount of information on offer by a website and present it to the consumer in such a way that is easiest for them to navigate and as such, comprehend.

I guess, if you can’t find what you’re looking for, then the websites architect has failed.

(QUOTE - Kat Hagedorn)

The art and science of organizing information to help people effectively fulfil their information needs. Information architecture involves investigation, analysis, design and implementation.”

What is important from this definition is the idea that information architecture needs to fulfil the needs of the consumer.

http://iatelevision.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-to-set-up-information-architecture.html

00:36 – 01:43

There are two primary ways in which information architecture fulfils consumer’s needs: the Top down approach and the bottom up approach.

The Top Down approach seeks to determine what consumers want then answers those questions on the front page.

So here, we have the Sydney Morning Herald’s website  and immediately the architecture becomes obvious, as some of the most important questions that a user needs to know are demonstrated right from the beginning.

•         Where am I?

SMH Masthead.

•         I want to search for something.

Search box at the top of the page.

•         How do I get around the site?

NSW, National, World ect… also at the bottom of the page with links to the site map and a plethora of other aspects of the site.

•         What’s happening?

Main articles, weather, Hot topics, Newswire – breaking news.

•         What's available?

Further down the page. Where the site details the NSW, National, Video, world,           sport sections ect.

The bottom up approach requires information architects to assume that their consumers are tech savy. Generally this means that they may not be coming onto the site through the front page. They may, instead arrive through a news aggregation site such as google. I came to this site after a google search of the name Madeline Pulver, the girl in the middle of the bomb scare hoax. So my first experience of this site, is not through its front page, but instead I am getting my first look, well within the site.

Thus, the bottom up approach wants to allow users to move around the site freely, without have to learn the top down structure.

Importantly then, the site tells the viewer exactly where they are, in this case, we are on the SMH.com, which is associated with the Sydney morning Herald, and we are viewing something in their NSW section.

Now it is important for the viewer to be able to identify what is available on this page. Quite clearly, it is an article titled, Maddie: 'the strongest girl in the world’ and it is written by Gareth Hutchens.

Finally, the consumer can then move around the site quite easily. They can look at articles and videos related to the article that has brought them there, the most clicked articles from the sites, NSW section, and they can look at the specific NSW topics and even share the information on social networking sites.

http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_whatisinfoarch/index.html

A really interesting article from Iain Barker, published May 2nd, 2005. A fantastic discussion of the whole information architecture realm.  

http://argus-acia.com/white_papers/ia_glossary.pdf

A great glossary of Information Architecture terms, I found the link on the website of the Information Architecture Institute.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/insideguardian/2010/feb/02/what-is-information-architecture

A great article on the Guardian’s website. A fantastic way to first ‘get into’ the subject.

http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~l38613dw/readings/InfoArchitecture.html

A very detailed elucidation of Information Architecture from the University of Texas.

http://iatelevision.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-to-set-up-information-architecture.html

An informational but somewhat boring discussion of the issue. I recommend watching it.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/maddie-the-strongest-girl-in-the-world-20110805-1iex6.html

smh.com.au

What is the point?

Incredimazeballs rules, OK? is an article by Anne Treasure providing intriguing analysis and compulsive reading. But throughout, I constantly find myself considering the purpose of the article.

Treasure’s analysis is compelling; she provides numerous examples of the way in which our language has evolved, through the creation of new contractions for use in social media, such as “LOL”. She then identifies the way in which that language has found the antithesis of its initial contraction by expanding the aforementioned modern social media language, for jovial or hyperbolic use in the modern verbal language sphere, eg. “Lulzapalooza”.

Treasure utilizes a remarkably playful voice to hook the reader, while simultaneously   discussing a redoubtable subject (national political discourse). But I cannot reason why she would attempt to link the lackluster public discourse that we are currently forced to endure, with the evolution of a new language phenomenon.

This article works if its purpose is to attract and entertain readers. Perhaps it will even work to create a public discourse on the subject, (simply because I expect many will be drawn to reading and then considering its meaning). But, if its purpose is to draw a link between the emergence of a unique social media language with the unfortunate decline in public political discourse or even in political and journalistic language, then she has undoubtedly failed.

Treasure’s style is remarkable; the pace at which her writing flows is consistent and noteworthy, if only she was saying something of note. She most certainly holds a commanding control of the language and her topic, but she fails to adequately link the topic with the content. Nor does she succeed in drawing any conclusions from what can only be describes as her discussion.

In an article that should have been authoritative and fighting, Treasure skirts around the edges and fumbles with meaning.