Week 4

1. Obviously, the first factor is physical distance. Most of the countries are extremely close to Australia, and several follow on effects are generated. The first is that we were among the first countries in the world to become aware of what was happening, not simply due to getting the information first, but also due to our news cycle coinciding with the immediate occurrence and aftermath of the event. Second, the short distance inevitably meant that we have many more Australians travelling in our region at any time than elsewhere, so of course, the parochial attitude applies, for good or ill, not only to Australian tourists as victims in the tragedy, but also as witnesses, sources [even via mobile phone links], providing their footage from amateur filming or camera phones, and additionally, there will always be more Australian businesses, diplomats, journalists and expatriates catering to other Australians who are only visiting. Finally, as it is our area, Australia has a reputation for pressuring or sometimes interfering for security reasons in the Asia pacific region, so the tsunami was an opportunity to extend assistance to our immediate neighbours, particularly Indonesia, as the relationship is paramount in security terms, and had also been under strain, the media was aware of this and gave prominence to the post tsdunami assistance as a form of strengthening ties.
2. The primary news value in such a tragic case is human interest, followed most likely by conflict and proximity. This question is difficult, as one must take into account prevailing media coverage leading up to the Cornelia Rau case. As opposed to proximity, some may argue timeliness or currency was more important in the case, following human interest. The reason is simple, the treatment of asylum seekers, especially under the Howard government, had been an ongoing source of controversy and debate within Australia for at least two years leading up to the Rau case.
Although Rau was not an asylum seeker, or even an illegal immigrant, the case was extremely topical because it highlighted the lack of rights and access to basic assistance suffered by asylum seekers and others who are not citizens, and presumably how the situation could have continued or been repeated easily, because of the massive disadvantages that people face when coming from a weak position. Proximity would still have to come next though, because it made a big difference in the public imagination that such a thing 'happened here'. It challenged the way Australians though of their country and government, and provoked more in depth and protracted coverage here than it received overseas, even though it was reported internationally, it was obviously going to have a more profound impact among the people of the country where it all happened. Conflict, again it could only be called conflict under the heading of what some arts students insist on calling 'discourse'. That means, the case fitted into, and reinforced, a dispute between political parties, individuals [Like Tim Costello and Phillip Ruddock] and between different segments of society, like between young people like students, and older, white middle class people. The debate was about asylum seekers, but Cornelia Rau's case slotted in as a testament to the failures of the system that deals with them, and despite her status as almost exclusively a non participant in the debate, Cornelia Rau assumed a place in the conflict as as symbolic if not active 'aggrieved party'. Conflict might seem difficult to apply to the case, but in a larger context it is appropriate. Ultimately the primary news value of human interest, would dominate, because of the injustice commited against her, the woman's own tragic circumstances, the further offense of poor treatment as well as her original incarceration.
As a side note, a man was held in almost paradoxically inverse circumstances for years, in a Russian mental institution because authorities at the asylum did not realise he was speaking his native language, Hungarian, and mistook it for gibberish. Only when a more enlightened Doctor overheard the man sobbing to himself in a lament upon his circumstances, was the whole debacle unravelled and the man was belatedly released to his distraught family, who had long assumed him missing probably dead. So, a woman with mental problems was thought to be an illegal immigrant, while a foreign man whose language was not understood was thought to be deranged. [True story]
3. The question of prominence to a mayor or prince Charles. The obvious answer is Prince Charles, although it need not be in fawning tribute that he is given greater prominence. Rather, the advantage offered by prince Charles is that his comments can be used to cover both stories, incorporating, his presence on the visit, the urban renewal announcement, the crime it seeks to address, and the reasons put forward as causes for the problems. One way or another, a prince commenting on any given issues will always garner more interest among readers than a local mayor addressing the same issues. Even among audience members who hate royalty, the attention grabber can begin, [with a photo] 'Prince Charles blames city for problems, more on page...' and use it as a controversial statement, or to give just enough information to get people to find out what the man said, whether or not they agree with it. Basically, it is always more efficient to spark reader interest early on, and use it to keep them reading the rest of the story. It also deserves more prominence than just the visit itself, because it has a 'real' story latched on to it, about a local matter that also interests people. It is the combination that delivers benefit, and may cause people to think 'Why is he [Prince Charles] commenting on the matter?'.
4. News Is anything that changes, adds to or disrupts daily life for many, or provides a current topic for conversation.
5. No, the six questions should not be assigned equal value. Here is a simple example to explain why. The following makes no sense: "The announcement was made because the steep toll has been a magnet for the complaints and aggravation of drivers. It was achieved by extending the agreement between the government and the company involved." They are the why and how. But if you say "Morris Iemma has today given motorists a brief reprieve and allowed free use of the cross city tunnel to continue until next year." It is just the who, when and what, and where if you count the tunnel as the site in question. The second example gives readers most of what they need to know, not the explanation or the means, but they get something from it. However, the why and the how on their own are useless and inconclusive. Of course supplementary information can always be provided, but the example makes clear that the six strong serving men are not equal.
The who what when & where are paramount, other considerations are secondary.


Freedom of the press is for those who own one -jj Liebling