Thursday, July 20, 2006

acuransx the foolish

FYP discussion between me and a friend leading to re-examination of values:

A: still no topic lah
R: !!
A: keep getting rejected by *****
R: i thought that u pitched some topics to *****?
R: even the media and religion thingy?
A: there were 2 rounds of that already
R: aiyohh
A: if only it were clear - wat were the guidelines for choosing a topic and scope
A: right now it just feels like its up to the fyp sup's interests or understanding of how wide or angled it would be
A: i'm quite disappointed lah
R: the media and religion kena rejected too?
A: keep refining... he keep insisting certain things arent worth it.... doesn't like our scope and approach... why r these ppl so 1-track? just like *****
A: well then have u tried the other journ profs?
A: who is he better to say that something is going to be more appealing to audiences than something else?
A: but anyway i sometimes feel i am in the wrong area of study
A: it is true audiences haf a short attention-span and want only the gist of everything
A: i only regret that i fooled myself into thinking it was something else.
A: cos i hate the restrictions that 'capturing audiences attention' or 'news relevance' imposes on me
A: if it were me, i'd rather write to make everybody read what i want to say. and convincingly too

In short, I want to define what ought to be newsworthy. HaahHAa...

People who say objectivity? there isn't any... The best they could strive for is balance or 'plurality of viewpoints' People who insist they can be objective are claiming to be espousing the viewpoint from nowhere - which doesn't exist. Shyam concedes with me on that :)

(sidetrack: Only God has the viewpoint from everywhere - the ultimate and only objective journalist in that sense)

But anyway the media industry just seems so... trivial... just like news, celebrities... it focuses on things that are here today and gone tomorrow and promote self-seeking, sensastionalism, gossip, controversy and all other kinds of rather unworthy distractions for people to spend their time and money on.

Maybe I'm too pessimistic. Maybe I'm just focusing on the negatives. But somehow I don't find my supposedly stated goal as a media worker any meaningful... apart from the fact that it pays the mortgage. But so many other jobs pay the mortgage too...

I still maintain that I like writing. I always will. Just that journalism isn't the same as writing. On that I was so mistaken. Does it give opportunities to write? Yes. But its stated intent of writing and impact on content is too great for me. I'm not just a writing machine no sir. I will write what I mean to write.

*sigh*

Why don't I just shut-up already and just get a job that pays the bills...

Ha. That's why I can never believe whole-heartedly in any job. Just Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

2 comments:

Benjamin ho said...

hi, have you considered blogging as a topic for research? Our group did a qualitative piece on blogging here... you may extend the work further, considering the amt of interest civil society has in this area.
either Cherian george, ben detenber or marko skoric (who moderated our paper) wld make good supervisors- cheers- ben

acuransx said...

I have a rather cynical view of social science research (you may gather this from some of my much older posts) and although it does contribute much as observation and insight to me its still just that, and perhaps the researcher's own views and comments and postulations on why things happen. Problem: nothing really conclusive an be said with certainty (at least with the certainty of hard scienes)