It's actually more about Jacky's dream and my beloved Aussie TV program Media Watch, I dunno wut's the connection coz it just came into my mind in a sudden, still it will make sense to somebody hopefully.

 

In Jacky's dream, Grace (his girlfrd) is hanging out with me, he couldn't believe this cuttie gal being with somebody like me, the huge belly deadly old man. When he lay down, he saw me taking grace's hands entering his house, we stayed for a while? (couldn't remember) then left the house, grace has somewhere else to go, I just left her with CC. Jacky and I were downstairs with a group of kids smoking, later Jacky's mother came a long way together with grace's mum, he threw the butt away, however his mum still noticed of this, and came to sue him, he cheated by saying it's those kids but him. I typically reacted by saying " how dare u cheat on whom love u most? " period, and it's just like me, always trying to be impartial, seeking balance of love.

 

I nearly forget everything in that dream, but I still remember this feature of my egoism, and that is what I found from the new media guidelines of Australia promoting by Communication Minister Senator Helen Coonan (cool, I can remember her name), for the last week's Media Watch, I wrote like this:

 

 

As the must see program for Journalism student, Media Watch has been discussed thoroughly in the universities and by the media coverage. It is actually not a typical news and current affair programme; however the media watchdog can’t live without discussing current affair, though somebody might argue that Media Watch is rather causing current affairs than broadcasting them.

 

Despite all these contentions, here I am trying to focus on the broadcast style of this program (not particularly for today’s issue, because they have a strict agenda which limits them with nearly same kind of style each week.) to figure out why Media Watch always reminds people with the word “acuity”.

 

In this week’s program, Media Watch is facing the threat of their own under the new media guidelines of which demands diversity of opinions for the purpose of impartiality and balance.  By responding, Media Watch uses its typical method, quoting two science and medicine presenters’ words to oppose. Because Media Watch wants it to be textually provable, they would not bother to interview anybody themselves, instead they send emails and waiting for replies or just grab a piece from newspaper, radio or TV, it takes time and so they have got chances to reorganise others’ words to suit their own agenda, I surely agree with that. By doing so, they are able to blow up the words in the email and make it sounds big and reasonable, that is the style, they keep a simple face, big text with sound bites or footage from other programs to show that they are actually not biased. It can not be like that, because simply the way people choose a grab or published words can be biased in its own way.

 

Still, the Media Watch seems to be arrogant and evident, that is exactly what contributed by the presentation. Firstly, the presentation studio is simply made up by the background colour, a table and the host Monica Attard, and on the table, there’s a pile of newspapers. That is signifying that they are watching the media on behalf of the audiences, the image builds up their credibility within this field. Secondly, the host Monica Attard is gazing at the camera like she’s gazing at the ones who are criticized in the program, she speaks orally with the names mentioned and post then respond to them, so her arrogant would not be seen as pointing to audience but the media. For a common TV viewer, this would simply be a self-criticism coming out of that big or small TV set, and the topics would not be considered that serious, unlike if you see a picture of young child starving on the desert somewhere Africa.

 

In its broadcast way, there are no PTC, nearly no voice over or those typical broadcasting things, Media Watch construct itself with a sense of conversation to the people they quoted, and the quotes are certainly not prepared for dealing with their enquire, so what people see is how Ms Monica Attard makes viewers feel that the people quoted should be embarrassed.

 

Media Watch is like a well-edited documentary, which has its own argument and by referencing the others, to support itself, however it sees conspiracy to the whole media. That is what they call “critical”.

 

Simply, I will take Media Watch as a reminder, to the viewers of which weekly saying that, never entirely believe things on the media. As a Journalism student, it reminds me to see what the watch dog is doing, so that I can be prepared. But Media Watch might have forgotten that it belongs to the media, it is making its big name out of its mates, and certainly there is nobody watching this watchdog.