Like the collapse of the twin towers and the deaths of JFK or Princess Diana before, the presidential election of Barack Obama will likely forever be preceded by the question, ‘Where were you when you heard…’.

This cataclysmic shift in American politics has dominated televisions, newspapers, radio and dinner table conversations for almost a week, and is not expected to ease for some time yet. While I could easily write a books worth of commentary about the election (and no doubt hundreds have already begun) for the sake of this post I wanted to stick to two points I found particularly interesting.

Firstly, while I do not wish to take away from the magnitude of the event, I find it somewhat ironic that Australians were (and are) so much more invested (some might say obsessed) in politics on the other side of the world than those in our own backyard.

And I don’t comment on this as an outsider, for I too made firm friends with my refresh button as I waited for the votes to be tallied (thankyou, Crikey). But had you asked me to stay home and watch Aunty cover Kevin 07’s ascent to power just last year, I may very well have laughed in your face and/or run screaming in the other direction.

While the importance of our leader on the world scale is undoubtable smaller, it would not seem too much to hope that Australians would be more interested in politics on our shores than off. And yet so many of us aren’t. Voter engagement clearly remains a serious stumbling block, particularly (and forgive the blatant generalisation) for the largely apathetic youth.

Secondly, the standard of rhetoric from both men on Election Day was nothing short of impressive, even for a hardened cynic like myself. Obama in particular displayed an eloquence and emotion largely absent in Australian politics. Whatever your leanings, I suspect most will agree that both KRudd and little Johnny Howard fall well short in the oratory stakes.

Whether you choose to give credit to the man himself for the delivery or his speech writers for such inspirational words, you’d be hard pressed not to be moved by the obvious passion and dedication.

For everybody’s sake, let’s just hope Obama’s policies can meet the expectations set by his prose.

- Jacqui Flint

November 12th, 2008  |  by Jacqueline Flint Published in Events, In the News, Publicity

I went to a book reading/ Q & A session with author James Frey recently, which threw up some pretty interesting ideas on the media. Labelled by Time Magazine as ‘America’s Most Notorious Author’, Frey garnered international attention when it was revealed that his published memoir ‘A Million Little Pieces’ contained a number of factual inaccuracies.

An audience member asked Frey what he thought of the very public slamming he got in the US media. The interest was understandable given the nasty backlash he received - it’s not often someone can lay claim to the fact that they got trashed by Oprah. Then again, it’s not often you get someone like Frey, who simply commented that he ‘couldn’t give a f#$k’.

Frey went on to argue that he set out to write ‘a piece of art, a work of literature’ and as such shouldn’t be held to the same standards of factual accuracy as journalists or historians. A fascinating add-on was his comment (and I paraphrase) that the New York Times, which is so revered and regarded as the great purveyor of truth, printed many more lies about him than he ever did about himself.

The underlying premise was that the audience should (and does) expect journalists to stick to the facts, but authors should be afforded a more generous scope for creativity. Whether or not you agree with the latter statement, it was the former that most piqued my interest.

The fact is that most people inherently trust their chosen media sources and assume that what is written is correct. Don’t get me wrong, we may be sceptical when reading about Britney’s latest scandal or Brangelina’s septuplets in the trashy magazines, but I suspect we are somewhat less critical when reviewing the latest banking news in the Fin. While I am certainly not suggesting that the media has morphed into a bunch of bald-faced liars, I do believe that having ‘blind faith’ in the media can be dangerous.

In this day and age where information is so prevalent and accessible, I believe the onus has shifted from the publication to the public - it is our own responsibility to seek different viewpoints and make an informed decision. We can no longer stand up and defend the validity of our viewpoints by saying ‘but I read it in the paper, it must be true!’ Not that a pesky little thing like the truth has ever been known to get in the way of the dedicated soapbox crusader…

- Jacqui Flint

September 26th, 2008  |  by Jacqueline Flint Published in Events, In the News, Public Relations

I have a few favourite blogs that I check from time to time, one of these being social network strategist Laurel Papworth’s. I checked Laurel’s blog just yesterday, and was immediately drawn to a recent post showing images of Uluru, plastered with advertising boards. An hour later I opened the Sydney Morning Herald to page three, and there in front of me was a news article … based on Laurel’s post.

This isn’t the first time I’ve noticed ‘news’ being drawn from online content. The interactive nature of the online medium means reader interest and opinion can be more easily gauged, resulting in the increasing frequency of ‘news’ being sourced online.

Anyone who’s viewed the ‘Christian the Lion’ footage (which to date has received around 40,000,000 views world-wide on youtube alone) would have also watched the 30-year old story become a news hit. Following uncontrollable sharing of the footage and undeniable public interest, it suddenly became ‘news’ and has been picked up by talk shows, news programs and newspapers around the world. Most recently, Sony Pictures have started negotiations to turn the story into a movie.

Then there’s ‘Trent from Punchbowl’ – an interview with a foul-mouthed, drug addicted ‘low-life’ found at Punchbowl train station. Various versions of ‘Trent from Punchy’ received more than 1,400,000 views on youtube – that’s 82 times more people than the population of Punchbowl. Various forums, an official website, youtube posts, responses and online discussions led Trent to appear in the Daily Telegraph online. The news angle - is Trent real, bloggers are divided.

In today’s changing media landscape, there is no doubt online information sharing is impacting on what we see and hear in more traditional news mediums – not to mention how long it lasts. Online news stories on the Hungry Jacks Stacker generated hundreds of online responses over two days, and meant a story that should have lasted a day, stuck around for a week. And by the way, the story first appeared in blogs several days earlier.

The value of online cannot be discounted as it continues to grow as a source of entertainment, interest, and news – even for journalists.

- Kara Jecks

September 10th, 2008  |  by Kara Jecks Published in In the News, Online, Public Relations

A tiny blurb in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago confirmed that the urban myth ‘six degrees of separation’ is almost statistically spot on. Microsoft analysts determined that 6.6 relationships linked every person on this planet.

I am actually linked to more than 30 million people, but not through an individual, but an animal. His name is Christian. Have you met my lion friend?

I have watched the YouTube video about a dozen times and told at least twice that many people. Everyone I know has done the same. Everyone one I know has reacted the same. The collective experience of the YouTube community seems to heighten our emotional response.

I wonder if this is what Marshall McLuhan imagined when he proclaimed ‘the medium is the message’ way back in 1964?

Is our reaction so visceral because we are participating in a global groundswell? Would I have taken such possession of Christian if I could not have shared him with everyone in my office in an instant? Probably not.

If I had seen him on TV, I would have almost certainly forgotten about it by the next day. And a photo in a newspaper, may only rate a mention if I was sitting beside a friend at the time.

In any case, it has taken an animal set wild in our vast Internet neighbourhood to remind me that most of us enjoy sharing a bit of happy human emotion – at least with 6.6 people.

- Christine Gotz

September 3rd, 2008  |  by Christine Gotz Published in In the News, Online, Public Relations

The plight of baby humpback whale Colin, stranded in a Sydney waterway, captured the heart of the Australian public last week and generated a media frenzy - print, TV, radio, online, blogs and more. Within days you could even visit a special Colin website featuring musical youtube tributes, a petition to PM Kevin Rudd and (because we simply can’t escape commercialism) a range of Colin 08 merchandise.

The story split public opinion. Before long, lines were being drawn in the sand (or perhaps more fittingly, the sea). Were you a tie-dye wearing, bleeding heart hippie wanting to waste tax payers money on pointless rescue attempts? Or were you a greed-driven, cold-hearted cynic choosing economic rationalism over the survival of an innocent creature?

Regardless of my own personal ambivalence towards ‘poor Colin’, I found the saga fascinating. The more I read, the more I realised just how much a dash of subjectivity can change a story. Over the course of a week, Colin went from being (with all due respect) just a whale, to a symbol for pro-euthanasia, bureaucratic ineptitude, economic rationalism and even national pride.

Unfortunately despite everyone from politicians to animal rights groups to the Average Joe putting in their two cents, the passion of the people could not keep Colin alive.

But it sure did sell a lot of papers.

- Jacqui Flint

August 27th, 2008  |  by Jacqueline Flint Published in In the News