Swinging the blame for Immaculate Connotations regarding Moral Panic over the concentration of Media Ownership throughout the Mediated Public Sphere, and hopefully hitting the Undiluted Cordial itself. Do you even title?

I never would have thought that six lectures and six tutorials would have such an effect.

Before Uni was a staunch believer that Rupert Murdoch was all powerful and had influenced Australia’s last federal election to the point of automatic victory for the Liberal-National Coalition.

But then, we were taught about the Media Effects model – And asked to think about whether the media was being blamed for something and whether it was justified. Easy, I’ll talk about the media’s control of elections and blame NewsCorp for it.

Somehow my views were changed by that lecture, and I managed to deflect blame away from Murdoch. I actually came to the conclusion that he just recognized a swing in the electorate, and ran with it. I couldn’t believe that one lecture could open my eyes to such a possibility, but it did. Sometimes, the media aren’t to blame for EVERYTHING! *SHOCK HORROR*

Week Two. Semiotics. What the hell are semiotics? Connotations? Denotations? Well, I can tell you now. Just read this!

You know the chorus of that brilliant Hunters and Collectors song, Do You See What I See? (LiberationMusicAus 2010) – Never has it been more relevant!

Asking somebody to look at text and take something from it, before comparing it to your own ideas. People will always see things differently. The Antonio Federici campaign piece I discussed in that blog post was controversial, and the comments proved the theory correct.




Everyone had their immaculate connotations and looked at the text differently. The way the point was made was striking, and it illustrated a power in the way we present images. A power the media holds. But I question this – If the media has a lot of control, but people take its messages in a different way – does that mean it’s power is diluted?

Speaking of dilution. . .
Undiluted Cordial. This week’s topic threw us headlong into Australia’s media ownership web. After untangling myself, I decided to press into the issue. What is wrong with undiluted ownership? I settled on the idea that too much of one thing is bad – And drew a line from drinking undiluted cordial to consuming slightly unhealthy news and opinion made by the undiluted ownership of Australian media.

I learnt through writing this that Australia’s media ownership web left it weaker as a democracy – In a true democracy the thoughts and opinions of a small group of people wouldn’t influence the thoughts and opinion of others so heavily.

The negatives of concentrated media ownership lead nicely into the next section of the BCM110 program – The Mediated Public Sphere. The place where we all come together to discuss issues within our society – Mediated by somebody so that things don’t get out of control. Right? Maybe not.

A gatekeeper’s job is to withhold information from a piece so that it is ready for publication. Editing. We were asked to look for texts which generate debate, and I decided to go with the Letters to the Editor section of a typical Newspaper as that text – A debate provoking mediated public sphere.

Two birds, one stone.

I thought about this medium, and it became clear to me that despite this being one of the most pure forms of collective expression in our society, it couldn’t be the best. It still had a gatekeeper.


And then we got to Moral Panic.
Holy Moly.
Everyone was in stitches. But don’t let that fool you, this is a very serious issue. Moral Panic. The idea that society is freaked out by something if it’s talked about as a problem for long enough.

Surely if something was worth panicking about, the entire public would have discussed it through a Mediated Public Sphere and decided on a course of action together through elected representatives?

No, sorry, I confused my concepts. That’s democracy.

This lecture taught us the true power of mass media – It can send us into panic. Coverage is the most important ingredient. Reach. If people can hear you, they’ll inevitably listen to you, eventually.

The media are to blame. But at the same time, they aren’t.


Comic Book Resources, 2011, jk-simmons-jameson, image, Comic Book Resources, viewed 14 April 2014, <http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/jk-simmons-jameson.jpg>.Liberation Music Aus, 2010, Hunters and Collectors – Do You See What I See?, online video, 30 March 2010, Youtube, viewed 20 April 2014, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp-ZGFd5o5A>.Antonio Federici 2010, Immaculately Conceived Advertisement, image, The Inspiration Room, viewed 23 March 2014, <http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/print/2010/9/antonio-federici-immaculately-conceived.jpg>

4 thoughts on “Swinging the blame for Immaculate Connotations regarding Moral Panic over the concentration of Media Ownership throughout the Mediated Public Sphere, and hopefully hitting the Undiluted Cordial itself. Do you even title?

  1. Im not sure I agree with this – “I actually came to the conclusion that he just recognized a swing in the electorate, and ran with it”

    Most of the time Murdoch will choose to endorse a party based on what can/will benefit him politically, rather than a swing in public opinion. Im quite sure (as I was told last semester in PHIL106, which I am assuming you will do next semester) that Murdoch meets with potential candidates before “deciding” who to endorse in his papers.

    This might interest you – http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/28/murdochs-might-how-much-do-news-corp-papers-influence-elections/


    • YES! A comment that challenges! XD
      First off can I just say thank you for voicing your opinion, I place a great deal of value in the ideas and responses of others to what I think, believe and feel!
      Thanks for the article, I’m reading it right after publishing this comment!

      I’m really very keen for PHIL106! I think I’m doing it next semester (:

      Re: Murdoch and his bias, if that’s the type of thing I’ll be exposed to in PHIL106 than I’m really excited haha!
      I think there’s some merit in both ideas converging actually – His recognition of any swing or common thought would be beneficial to him, he can sell a lot off of that. Getting Australians to agree about anything is difficult – When they agree on something the best idea commercially is certainly to move with it. If he can sell papers while benefitting himself politically baed on a candidates policies than he’d do that.
      I just tend to look at it from the point of view that he is a very astute businessman and wouldn’t do anything which would jeopardise his publications seriously. Like going entirely against the flow of support for a party just because he doesn’t agree with it. If he doesn’t sell media he has no power.

      I think the ideas work concurrently.

      So keen for PHIl106 and thanks again for your comment! It has opened me up to another possibility, which I believe is so enriching!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s