Yes I don't think i've seen too many films where the journalist is the hero. In light of tragic events over the past couple of decades, the typical press reporter is shown as being sly, cunning, will do anything and go anywhere to get a good story, etc etc. I don't necessarily think that's true. We even have to do code of ethics modules which drill into us the fact that in the writing of an article, a survey, or whatever, the participants must always be protected and that falls back on you, the journalist.
So everything we get taught is above board, and yet in direct contrast to that, if you look at the newspapers at the moment it's just a mud-slinging contest. And these aren't just small, country newspapers that need to sell copies and only have semi-professionals on board; these are the biggest newspapers in the country - Telegraph, Courier-Mail, Herald Sun, etc etc.
I find it very difficult to believe that every single journalist from all these newspapers holds the same views, which leaves only the conclusion that they are being forced by the political agenda of the newspaper the powers that be at that particular newspaper to write such articles, which more often than not could easily be misplaced in a gossip magazine rather than in a supposedly professional news service.
It is very disheartening for budding journalists like myself to witness this kind of behaviour. I honestly believe that journalism should be used for the greater good - to bring good causes and important stories to the readership, not to enter some childlike "he said, she said, ooh look what they're doing" nonsense.
I don't CARE what Kevin Rudd ate for dinner last night, and I don't CARE what the Liberal Party said about it. I CARE about what their politics are and who is going to be the best government for my country and why I, and we, should vote for them.
Yes that definitely seems to be the case, and it's very unfortunate and disappointing. I can handle bad reporting but when the influence is obviously coming from higher powers who have the ability to influence the vote, then I don't believe it's fair or just which we, as a group, are supposed to be.
Decent human beings respond the way you have Adam. I have to say, my absolute favourite human beings are below the age of 5. After that they become tainted, indoctrinated, brain-washed or whatever by the people round about them. Sadly, some of these people don't have an evil bone in their body but they too have been brain-washed in the same way by their peers and push their ideas of behaviour on those who follow them. In this same way, the missionery travels to a foreign land to teach the poor ignorant native the error of their ways.
In the case of starting out in an accupation. Most of us have noble thoughts. Unfortunately we follow them and starve or confrom and work. Journalism and Politics are probably the two best examples of paradise lost.
The greatest example of this is the ever-changing attitude to every-day life itself. Nowadays people of my generation are scoffed at and ridiculed because we stick to our principals. Because we have standards and follow them. Even the principal Christian orgnisations are bending-over backward to be seen to conform. For me the words Hell and Basket are significant. Ah well! I suppose if I've got to act like a sheep, I may as well bleat about something?
Yep, you're spot on - people are a product of the environment in which they are placed. Of course there are exceptions to that rule but it's very difficult to completely remove the instincts and beliefs one gathers as a young child, even much later in life.
Personally i'm quite happy for journalists to have opinions - that's what creates discussion and debate and brings important issues to the fore in the public domain - so long as the news itself is still reported as accurately as possible. The problem with that begins, IMO, when journalists are evidently forced by their editors / bosses / publishers / whoever in the hierarchy to write 'news' stories which belong more in a gossip magazine than a serious, newsworthy publication. It is basically a repression of the simple right of freedom of speech and opinion, as the whole group is engulfed by this mad desire to influence the result of something major like an election, simply by publishing juvenile crap that anyone could have written in primary school. I don't want to spend 3-4 years and tens of thousands of dollars on university for THIS.
But alas, it's still early in the day and therefore much too early to get worked up on an issue like this, so for the time being at least, I shall digress. Thanks once again for your interesting thoughts, Jim.
I'd be going with the history major, achieving an understanding of political science is surely nigh on impossible. ;-)
Thank you for suggesting history. I have quite am interest in both, but I seem to like too many history subjects. I'm great at both American and military history and as anyone can see I am a huge fan of Titanic history. I don't know if I can just research/write/teach anything or if I have to single myself down to a subject. If this is true, then maritime history is out of the question since I don't there would be a huge career for it here in Wisconsin.
Knowledge is a wonderful thing. Profound knowledge is even better.
Studying a subject and becoming proficient at it is one thing. What you do with all that knowledge is an entirely diferent kettle of fish.
By all means major in a subject. Unless you have decided on a career path, the most important thing you will gain from doing so will be an ability to demonstrate to any employer your potential for learning.
I know, and I'm sure quite a few people on this site also know, of people who have majored in one thing but earn a living from an entitey different discipline.
Sounds about right! There's been so much political turmoil over here (and around the world for that matter) in recent years that i'm just over the whole thing, and so begin looking to history in the forlorn belief that things were better in the "good old days"....
Nothing wrong with having a generic degree in history and then specialising in a particular area/s. It would be very difficult indeed to become an expert of every facet of history. And even highly qualified academics still have different beliefs and opinions!
I can only echo Jim in wishing you good luck in whatever you choose.
I wish things were better in the Good Old Days, but they weren't. These more innocent times we all wax poetic and nostalgic about on close inspection weren't so innocent. Politricks in particular has always been an underhanded and sleazy game. One of the dirtiest elections in my own country's history was not the one where Bill Clinton was re-elected to office but the one which put Andrew Jackson into office almost 200 years ago.
I have also always had the interest in researching and doing a book on the Titanic, but I feel that would be rather out of the question since he story has been told so many times and by now has gotten old. I do actually have a bit of a story online now if anyone is interested. It is pretty generic, but I can show it to those who wish to message me.
It depends on how you look at it, I guess. I think it's difficult to judge other eras in comparison to our own when we haven't lived in them. From what i've heard, there is a general concensus amongst elderly individuals who i've spoken to over the years that things most definitely were better in times gone by. Even I, at 23, would rather live a decade ago than now. But we can't choose these things. Every passage of history has its positive and negative points, only now there seems to be an increasing amount of negative ones!
There's always new angles to be explored. From my experience it's not having ideas that's the problem, it's sitting down and actually committing those ideas to paper right through to the end - it's a huge task. I would definitely be interested in seeing any stories you've put together so far.
As one who has had the pleasure of knowing and listening to 5 generations of friends and family (I even sailed with and was taught by men who were at sea at the time of Titanic; I would offer my take on "The Good Old Days".
The operative word is 'good'.
Excluding one-off traumas; if a person who has principals, morals and standards and lives by them can hand-on heart swear that he or she has generally had more bad days this year than they did last year then last year (which was made-up of days older than this year) could be considered 'the good old days'.
If that same person reaches further back in time and still can't find a year of days as bad as this year, then that person's opinion of the 'good old days' is strengthened by time.
Following my own rather weird explanation; I can most deffinitely say that I lived in 'the good old days'. However, my ancestors and those of my wife- great, great grand parents on both sides- were part of the Highland Clearances. They most definitely did not have 'good old days'. Those who crossed the ocean for a new life in America most certainly had the prospect of 'good new days'.
Reminds me of the good old days when a dollar was a dollar and a good women was like a good suit; double-breasted and made you feel good in public.
I think you're right, it depends on what the individual experience of the "old days" was like exactly. Somebody who has come from a wartorn country or poverty to a peaceful life in their elder years are hardly likely to yearn for the "good old days".
It just seems to me that technology has played a big part in all of this; things were much simpler in decades and centuries gone by and acquaintances were much more genuine - they would take the time to visit you personally rather than just "like" a status on Facebook or something instead. It may be simplistic in many ways but I genuinely believe I would have enjoyed life a lot more a century, or even half a century ago.....but I guess you have to live it to make that judgement, and again, it depends on your own experiences of the old days. A double edged sword!
Strange that you should make the 'war-torn' connection. I was born before WW2 and grew up during these terrible days. I tavelled the world for almost 50 years before I settled down. During those years, I witnessed the world grow and innovate rapidly. I now live in an idilic place where the weather is perfect all year round and where 7 years ago, the people were 1950.ish in attitudes.
7 year ago people were well mannered and the children were polite and respectful. In the short time since then, this place has not changed- just the people.. even the older ones. The change has not been gradual but rapid. It matches exactly the electronic communications boom.
When I was a boy growing up in Scotland, 'love thy neibour' was almost a civil code. A very large proportion of the people lived in three or four story, 3 families to a story buldings. No one was ever alone. No one ever died alone. Now we see old people dying alone in the very same buildings and remaining unfound until the smell of decay demands action. How on earth will any future generation be able to describe the present time as 'the good old days'? Come to think of it: how will the present-day people difine 'good' in the future? At the present rate of social decay, I suggest the meaning of the adjective will need re-vamping in the very near future.
Very well said. As technology advances at a horrifying rate, there are certain groups of society which get left behind in it all, especially the older generations and I think that's really sad. Take a walk through any mall in any city in the world these days and you won't see many people stopping to have a chat; you'll see much more of people walking along fiddling with their Smart Phones or sporting earphones with their iPod playing, etc etc - completely absorbed in their own space and entirely ignorant of the place and people around them.
Don't get me wrong, i'm one of the younger generation who does - to an extent - partake in this technological phenomenon. However, deep down I am a bit of an old soul, and so I see both sides of it and it really is apparent that society is decaying - as you say, fast.
There's hardly any feel good stories these days like back in WWII when Londoners stuck together in their "stiff upper lip" style during the onslaught of Blitz, it's just all about fighting and destroying and so on - usually over something that's not even worth the time of day.
But I digress, it is what it is and we all must live as the era dictates.
I've not heard "wicked" as much in recent years. "Cool" has been the constant for decades. And "awesome".
No, "sick" is probably the most recent one. If something is "sick", it's not ill, it's a good thing. "Ace" and "Rad" are also making comebacks.
Do not get me started on the current generation's overuse/misuse of the word "awesome."
The day the Messiah appears hovering in the sky and descends to Earth, that will be awesome. The Grand Canyon is awesome. Men walking on the moon for the first time was awesome. Try as I may, I cannot think of anything the current generation refers to as awesome that actually is awesome.
True, the word 'awesome' is used to an awesome extent these days. 'Fantastic' is another adjective used almost as a prefix to any noun. But I do approve of its use with reference to youth fashions, meaning as it does "bizarre and strange in concept or appearance". And I have to admit that even in my own youth (ie a very long time ago) in London people of all ages favoured adjectival overkill, but mainly for negative concepts. Any behaviour or quality even slightly below par, for instance, was condemned as "diabolical", which is perhaps a little over the top for a less than startling performance on the football field or for a beer served chilled rather than at the proper room temperature. Even if the quality of said beer is normally fantastic and the performance of said team is normally awesome.