Monday, 10 October 2011
Whilst I'm Procrastinating...
Went to see Gotye at the Powerhouse on Saturday night, and after missing him at Splendour due to timetable clashes I was very glad I got a second chance. It was the happiest set ever - the visuals made the music one hundred percent better if that's even possible.
Favourite new sound: "Don't Worry, We'll Be Watching You"
It's kind of feels like Bob Marlee just walked over your grave.
Online is its Own Worst Enemy
I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE FOR THREE HOURS and still haven't blogged anything for KJB222....the powers of online distraction *shakes head* I'm telling you!
Saturday, 8 October 2011
Growing Trade with South East Asia Will Have Mixed Impact on Australian Industry
By Jayd Mahady
Trade growth in the South East Asia region is set to boom in the next decade, with both the meat and livestock industry, and the timber industry expecting imports and exports to increase significantly.
Trade growth potential between South East Asia and Australia is causing mixed reactions from local industries.
The meat and livestock industry says it is expecting revenue gains of as much as twenty percent in the next four years purely from Asian markets.
Aaron Iori, regional manager to South East Asia and Greater China for Meat and Livestock Australia, says economic growth is the main reason for increased trade.
“The major reasons for increases in meat consumption and exports in this region is the fact that there are a lot of emerging economies that are benefiting from very strong economic growth, which is resulting in a larger or increasing middle class,” Mr Iori says.
He says that once an emerging middle class is established, beef becomes a more viable and affordable source of protein, hence, beef imports to South East Asia are intrinsically linked to national development.
“Major emerging economies in South East Asia include places like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam which are certainly being supported by strong manufacturing industries and exports to developed countries such as Australia, Europe and America,” Mr Iori says.
He says free trade agreements, including a recent deal with Thailand, are likely to increase market cooperation between Asia and Australia.
“At the moment in China, New Zealand has a preferential tariff over Australia for sheep meat, which places us at a price disadvantage to our major competitors.
"The Meat and Livestock Industry strongly supports breaking down barriers such as these, as a way of opening up free and open trade," he says.
Contrarily, the timber industry says it will struggle with a shortage of timber, as a CSIRO report says timber is likely to run out in the Asia Pacific in 2038.
Greg Haroldson, communications manager of the Australian Forest Products Association, says Australia will have to look elsewhere for its timber supplies.
“Australia is predicted to have a population of about thirty-five million people by 2050, that’s going to require about 1.6 million new homes, so if we’re going to continue building homes, we’re going to need to source our timber from somewhere,” Mr Haroldson says.
He says Australia is reliant on Asian timber.
“We currently import about $4 billion worth of forested wood products to Australia, and we only actually export about $2 billion, which leaves a $2 billion trade deficit.
“Asia being such a close neighbour obviously fills a lot of that timber need,” he says.
International trade expert, Professor Warwick Mckibbin, says emerging markets tend to invest highly in service industries.
“If patterns in the future mimic patterns in the past, then as people become richer they buy more and more luxury type goods.
“Particularly they invest in human capital, including education, tourism, a clean environment, and medical services, which will all be big export earners for us.”
He says industry should not worry about doom and gloom reports.
“Prices will rise, and countries that are cheaper producers will be the ones that dominate the market.
“Those forecasts about what happens in thirty years time are usually wrong,” Professor Mckibbin says.
Opinions:
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
News for Positives and Negatives
Here’s something that I’d never considered before: how do the public (and news organisations) perceive online journalists? - And I don’t mean do they think they’re (we’re?) all unbelievably intelligent and good looking.. Research by the Poynter Institute indicates that online journalists working for Latin American newspapers earn less than their print media colleagues, and on top of this their print media buddies also identify them as being at a lower professional level.
You can read the full article here: http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/22212/the-state-of-online-journalism-in-latin-america/
It brings up a number of interesting points, however the two that really caught my attention were:
“The work of these online journalists is focused on writing and editing, but very little on reporting. And even though they typically don’t have an educational background in online journalism, they feel the need to acquire it... especially in learning how to create multimedia content.”
and
“Most of the Internet departments that online journalists work for are small. According to their employers, that’s because revenues that these business units bring in typically don’t support their own operation.”
It sounds a bit like the chicken versus the egg all over again; are online news departments struggling to support themselves because they don’t have a staff with a background in journalism? Or are the print media/radio/television journalists unwilling to join the online news department because they feel they will be paid less and categorised as being at a ‘lower professional level’.
It’s a tough question, especially when most print, radio and television news corporations are all in the race to incorporate online journalism into the daily spiel. However that’s not to say its all bad news for online journalists – sometimes there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow...
Monday, 29 August 2011
Thursday, 25 August 2011
Do people engage with online news?
For some time now I've been trying to come up with something interesting to blog about for #QUTOJ1 and let me tell you, ideas have not been forthcoming. So I decided to start having a look into other people's interest in online journalism and came across this gem of a thesis by Arthur D. Santana, Randall Livingstone and Yoon Cho about how audiences are able to engage and recall online and print newspapers:
The thesis begins by saying that "increasingly, newsreaders are abandoning the print newspaper in favor of online news." No 'news' there. However, the research that the trio completed about how people engage with the news yielded some very interesting results. Without going into too much details, a test group, half of whom read the New York Times in print, and half of whom read it online were questioned on "the extent to which the news stories made an impression." They found that those who read the print stories remembered much more than those who read online articles, and changes made to story formats online over the past decade had made little difference to how well the information was retained by the audience.
Interesting stuff. Personally, I find I have difficulty concentrating for extended periods when staring at a computer screen which is a challenge when reading in-depth news articles online. However, the brilliance of online sources to me is the sheer quantity of information that’s available at the touch of a button. Possibly one of the reasons online readers retain less information is because they are processing much more information all at once. For example, take a look at the home page for Melbourne’s ‘The Age’:
Offhand I was able to count over 150 links to articles listed on their homepage alone. This didn’t include links to other news providers, nor what was available when clicking on an article link. In comparison, the front page of the print newspaper offered links to less than twenty articles.
I think that even though print media may be retained more easily by audiences, online journalism allows audiences a much greater variety and immediacy of sources, which can only help people to be more informed, right? MAYBE...as long as the quality and accuracy of reporting is up to scratch, but that's an entirely different can of worms.
Don't agree with me? Let me know...I'd love to hear your feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)