Am I lazy?

I’ve never understood to the extent how lazy I really am. I mean, are there levels of laziness? Is there a laziscale?

So I’ve just done a Google Search for ‘Lazy Scale’ and this is what has come up. (Yes I did click something already but it’s only because I’m eager).

Google Search -

Google Search  –, accessed 4th April 2016.

Alright so it looks like the ‘Laziscale’ hasn’t been created yet. But let’s take a look at ‘How lazy are you on a 1-10 scale’ and see what comes up.

Ok so far all I can gather is that it’s a forum based on asking people how lazy they are. Two relatable comments to me right now from this forum are probably these two:

Iam3green -

Screenshot of comment by user iam3green –, accessed 4th April 2016.

Screen Shot 2016-04-04 at 1.21.05 pm

Screenshot of comment by user ArchScabby –, accessed 4th April 2016.

I’m pretty motivated most of the time, but sometimes I have days where I’ll do a whole heap of homework but will be too lazy to get up and make myself a coffee. The problem is, other days I’ll be more than happy to go to the pantry, but too lazy to plug in my dying computer whilst writing a 2000 word essay.

Right now, I feel too lazy to even outline what the Laziscale levels would consist of exactly… but I’m thinking in short maybe levels ranging from 1 to 5; 1 being fully motivated to do whatever comes at you, and 5 being; I have been needing the bathroom for 8 hours now but I’m too lazy to move.

So now that the Laziscale has been established, let’s chat about how I feel in this exact moment, and maybe you can tell me where you rate on the Laziscale and why in the comments below.

It’s the beginning of Week 5. I’ve just moved into a new family home 4 days ago with mum and my brothers and the oven isn’t working. A guy will arrive soon to fix it. FOR ONCE, I actually got up and got dressed and was ready for the day ahead, at 9am. However, I’ve spent 4 hours since then, on the phone to Qantas Cash, AMIST, HostPlus, my mother and a guy recording my Voice Over demo’s. Ok, so that’s not exactly lazy, but in between those calls, I have been stuck on good ol’ Facebook – in this case it’s BAD ol’ Facebook though. I probably should have done a little more work at this stage considering I have an Essay Plan and readings due next week for Music in Pop Culture, a Networked Media Assignment and readings due next week and readings for my Media studio, It’s Alive.

I guess you could say I’m a number 2 on the Laziness scale right now, fully motivated to do everything BUT university work, and that includes making multiple trips to the pantry to find that there is STILL no food from when I checked 10 minutes ago.

So this has been a pretty pointless post, but I guess it’s good that I’m blogging at all. After all, I’m always TOO lazy to blog.

Catch ya folks’!



I’m not a big Vimeo user. It’s one of those sites that I’ve signed up to, purely for rare University use. However today I decided that I might take a look at the wonderful ‘Staff Picks’ section.

This section shows off, well simply, videos that the staff LOVE (“We really love videos, and these are the videos we really, really love. All of these videos have been hand picked by the real humans who work at Vimeo. We hope you enjoy them!” – Vimeo Curation, Vimeo Staff Pick Page,

One video that particularly took my fancy, posted by Paul Trillo has taken out a Staff Pick this week, for very obvious reasons.

CHROMATICITY is a video capturing “an ethereal flight over the ocean as mysterious coloured smoke leaves its mark across the sky. A beautiful choreography between four drones simultaneously in flight and hundreds of smoke grenades.” (Paul Trillo,

I’m not sure whether it was just the colours that took me or the fact that they used drones, but something about this video really caught my eye. The music is dreamy, the setting is simple, and we have beautiful colours dancing across the sky. The only thing I do wish, is that I could have been there.

Check it out below or click this link to watch it on the Vimeo website:

Are Tasmanian’s Happy?

Thanks to the ‘The Are You Happy Project‘, I was left in tears after watching a wonderful video filmed by a lady named Kate Nash, in Tasmania. The video is set outside MONA museum in Tasmania and visitors are prompted with questions in regards to whether they are happy and questioned about the definition of happiness.

In this weeks class (Week 4), we discussed the idea around Hypertext. Hannah (my tutor), linked us to a few websites that she liked that showed us examples of hypermedia and hypertext. I found that I really liked the idea surrounding the ‘The Are You Happy Project’. It centres around an experimental documentary from fifty years ago, asking people on the streets of Paris, “are you happy”. The website links back to this documentary by creating an online space where any person can get involved, either by tweeting about happiness, commenting or linking or even by going out into their local area and asking people whether they are happy.

The idea surrounding this website prompts me to consider the ways in which my work can be said to be a hypertext. By the use of simply commenting, tagging or even just linking, I can create a blog that screams hypermedia and hypertext from the rooftops. It enables me to delve deeper into the world of the internet, showing clear links to other things out in the world. I can have an online presence that doesn’t just solely reflect my work, but the work of others, seen through my eyes.

So are Tasmanian’s happy? Are Argentinian’s happy? Find out for yourself on the website here:

Reading Week 3 – Copyright and Creative Commons

I think it’s very important to distinguish the difference between Creative Commons and Copyright. They both work in different ways and effect us as online content creators.

Copyright has a wonderful way of automatically protecting your work once you place it out to the world. Most definitely not a bad thing, right?

The issue is, copyright often places some pretty hefty laws around those that want to use your work or just share it. This means that when you write that fabulous post that gets everyone talking, you’ll have Aunty Jan, Uncle Pat, Cousin Fan, Great Grandma Robin and even Step Mother February asking if they can all share your work. I mean, if we can avoid having the internet turn into a Grandpa’s 90th birthday, why don’t we use all that we’ve got?

This is where Creative Commons comes into play. The not-for-profit organisation allows anyone in the world wide web to structure their own license for their own work. Not only does this save your precious time from licensing every piece of your work, I mean, “ain’t nobody got time fo’ dat” but Aunty Jan, Uncle Pat, Cousin Fan, Great Grandma Robin and even Step Mother February, can now share your work, without having to ask for your permission. So now, we can avoid the slobbery kisses on the cheek and the questioning about where your boyfriend or girlfriend is.

So if we break Creative Commons down a little more, we can understand that it doesn’t counter copyright, but works along side it, making the sharing process between the author and reader, a little swifter.

Screen Shot 2016-03-15 at 4.54.43 pm


Screenshot image of text taken directly from: Creative Commons Australia: Licensed CC BY 4.0.

As we can comprehend from the above image, one must attribute the original owner of the work, even when they are transforming the original copy. Authors can select a Creative Commons license that either agrees or disagrees to their work being used for commercial purposes and whether or not someone can modify their work.

The Creative Commons license gives the author a lot of flexibility in terms of how their work is used once it is posted. For example, for this Media Factory blog, I added a Creative Commons license in the right sidebar of my blog, outlining that I have chosen the option of allowing my work to be shared and adapted, even for commercial purposes.

In all honesty, I am looking for people to credit my work if they are going to use or share it and this is why the Creative Commons license is important.

I think that because I now have the Creative Commons license on my blog, I feel a lot safer about the work that I do. I want to become more network literate and to be able to have an open opinion on particular topics that I like, whilst not feeling like someone is going to come along and rip me off. It also means now that I will take greater care when sharing others work, as I now understand how important copyright and licensing is to a creator.

Reading Week 2 – Network Literacy

The reading for Week 2 in Networked Media made me really consider the way the world is changing. Because of the fact that we are becoming more technological than ever before, we can begin to compare the old ways of finding a categorised book in a library to finding information on blogs and being able to categorise information.

It fascinates me that there is this term ‘network literacy‘. You would think that it means that one is literate in computers (understanding the functions of a computer). But in actual fact, network literacy is the ability to participate in various networks that we can share knowledge through. It’s an understanding of the “logics or protocols of these networks” (Miles, pg. 26). It includes a basic comprehension of network identities, privacy settings and communities.

This idea reminds me of Twitter and the ability to use hashtags. I am a huge user of Twitter and I find that I have definitely been able to voice my opinions over the years with hashtags. I’ve even had photos posted and retweeted several hundred times, as my opinion is shared by many. Screen Shot 2016-03-11 at 12.19.20 PM

Hashtags allow any user within the network to comment on a particular topic, allowing any type of person to comment on something. These people don’t necessarily have to be professors in the area but just need some sort of opinion on a topic.

In order for me to become more network literate, I have decided that I want to further comprehend information filters within various networks. This will enable me to assess and interpret the quality of various information I find more efficiently, allowing my blog posts to become a lot more concise and to the point.

Often it is easy to trust any site that you Google, but I think it’s important to use my resources through university, my fellow peers or preferred blogs as often their ideas will be more precise, or more creative.

As Adrian Miles states, it’s important to use tags to catalogue different works. This makes it very easy for others to roam through your blog to find information they are after and also makes a blog become a part of a wider community of users who also tag posts of similarity. This allows you to become a part of a broader community of users.

Week 2 Reading: Miles, Adrian. Network Literacy: The New Path to Knowledge [online]. Screen Education, No. 45, 2007: 24-30.

Featured Image from:

Reading Week 1 – Why do we blog?

After a bit of printing and highlighting I have now been able to understand why the use of blog’s at RMIT is so important to my studies.

Blogs can be used like a journal or diary as an educational tool that allows us to reflect on ideas or to record progress in certain activities or creation exercises.

I think that it is so important that I continue to use my media blog throughout my degree as it is a public document that showcases my folio of work. It also enables me to become a part of the “larger community” (Miles, pg. 67) whenever I contribute/others comment on my work.

Blogs allow for anyone to become the “publisher” (Miles, pg. 66) rather than an “author of a single or even a series of web pages”. It allows me to have a public space where I can write whatever I want within reason, having a balance between a scholarly and conversational voice.

It’s vital that in this day and age, we are taught about using online spaces like blogs. We are moving towards an incredibly technological age where nearly everything is now online. Keeping a blog allows me to develop my online media skills and potentially gives me a leg up against those who don’t have the same skill set as me.

I am not 100% sure as to the direction that I want this blogroll to go in as I am interested in a lot of things. I absolutely love music, theatre and travel to name a few things, so I am hoping that my blog will head in this direction. I am also heavily involved in social media, so I will be writing a little bit about my experiences online as they will relate to my Networked Media class.

Week 1 Reading: Miles, Adrian. Blogs in Media Education: A Beginning [online]. Screen Education, No. 43, 2006: 66-69.

RMIT Student Charter

Keeping in touch with the RMIT Student Charter, I will be posting quality work that reflects my respect for all students and staff alike at RMIT. I will also keep in mind the responsibility I have to keep my blog safe and respectable as it is a personal folio of my work.

Television Cultures – Blog Post #5 (Reflection)


Having taken a weekly note of my television viewing habits, it becomes evident that I am not a heavy television viewer. Despite my efforts to attempt a ‘binge-watch’ once or twice throughout the semester, I was often left unsuccessful as I felt I had better things to do with my time.

However, I did find that 90% of the time, I was always watching TV in the evening, in the Kitchen/Living Room space. This is the most communal place in my home as this is where my family eat dinner and watch television. The television for my family, has always been a tool enabling us to spend more time together. It is always on in the evening as my parents watch the news and then flick over to watch whatever else is on free-to-air or Foxtel for ‘background noise’. I noted that I often watched television for a few hours on several evenings just because it was on. This is the case with The Living Room, a show I often watched on Friday evenings purely for the ‘Hot or Not’ segment, because it has become a family favourite. The segment only goes for around 5 minutes, but I would always end up watching the whole show, as it allowed for family time that I may not otherwise have. It has become a family favourite as my mum often enjoys finding new television shows that we can watch as a family and this show has become the best thing on at this time (7:30pm). This is also the case with The Bachelorette where I only watched the show because my family had it switched on. I ended up thoroughly enjoying the show and it became a weekly show my family loved to sit down and watch.

In Week Four of Television Cultures, we discussed concepts that are very relevant to my television viewing habits. I think that the idea of a ‘shared experience’ and ‘social rituals’ are really important to me because I enjoy feeling like I am part of a community. I watch a lot of live broadcasts such as when Collingwood plays in the AFL as I love going to the games where am a part of a crowd. However, it is often easier just to watch the games at home especially as I am always busy. When watching it on television, there is a sense of a crowd watching with me considering that underneath the commentary, you can hear the crowd booing and cheering. It enables me to feel like I am at the game and makes it more enjoyable. The idea of ‘social rituals’, again falls back to the idea that I often watch shows purely because my family members or friends watch them. It enables for conversation to be sparked about for example, the topics within the show or ideas about storylines. Neighbours is a television program that airs every night during the week. At times, I was not at home for the 6:30pm start for the show, and often relied on my family members to tell me what had happened. This show is almost like a ‘ritual’ show for my family, as we have all enjoyed watching it over the years.

When watching television, I am also quite into the interactivity and second screens. Whenever I watch The Bachelorette or the AFL, I am on my personal Twitter account looking at hashtags made for the particular show (i.e. #TheBacheloretteAU or #AFLPiesvCats). This allows me to see what other audience members are saying about the show or the game and enables me to be part of a wider community that I may not necessarily be otherwise interacting with.

In saying that I watch a lot of TV in my family room, I must also note the occasional use of YouTube and Netflix. I watch a particular show on YouTube called Carmilla, a web series that I began watching, purely because of it’s hype. I am a part of a few artist fan bases, and found that watching the show enabled me to connect with and make new friends in these fan bases. I also love watching Netflix in my spare time, but use the service purely because it is so easy nowadays to access popular TV shows like Orange is the New Black that Australia doesn’t necessarily get straight away.

Overall I have found that I mostly watch Television due to its social factor. I tend to watch popular shows like The Bachelorette, as I am able to connect with family members and friends through conversations about these shows. It enables me to have a sense of community and makes television feel less lonely.

Television Cultures – Blog Post #4

For years, researchers have studied television audiences and viewing preferences. Advertisers, commercial broadcasters and even government policy makers care about audiences as they are the individuals who will bring profit to the industry. These ‘commodity audiences’ are reflected via ratings as they “reflect neither mass taste nor the taste of an intellectual elite” (Jenkins, 2013). Ratings give a small representation of the actual audience, making them only an indicator for companies using television as a way to make money.

But what about Fandoms?

Many television culture researchers have attempted to trace the emergence of an organized media fan culture, to the late 1960s efforts “to pressure NBC in returning Star Trek to the air” (Jenkins, 2013). In 1969, the show was cancelled after a lack of popularity shown in the ratings. The ratings only give a small representation of the actual audience, and perhaps this meant that the fans were excluded. However, reruns were then aired in over 150 domestic and 60 international markets, helping Star Trek develop a fan base greater than its popularity in the original run. As a result of large fan gatherings and conventions in support of the series between 1967 and 1972, the franchise was revived and is still thriving today.

Fandoms are stereotyped as cultural others – “as obsessive, freakish, hysterical, infantile & regressive social subjects” (Hill, 2007). Fans are often seen as ‘textual poachers’ who find pleasure in aspects of the text that are not necessarily valued by producers or those with institutional training. Pop cultures take on fandom has typically been one of distaste and critique, with fans’ emotional attachments to media texts and celebrities being viewed as “irrational” (Jenkins, 2013).

Yet despite all of this, fandoms have become an incredibly important tool for many television programs. Many producers have “employed fans as a base of support in their own power struggles with network executives” (Hill, 2007), in order to keep their programs on the air. Other producers have gone down the path of transmedia storytelling, providing extra content for fans, such as trailers, behind-the-scenes footage or webisodes in order to gain a larger fan following and to keep fans interested. At the end of the day, the fans enable programs to continue running as they are the ones that bring in capital for producers.

First being aired on May 31, 2000 on CBS, Survivor is an example of a “TV Phenomenon that sparked a multilayered convergence of media-based fan activity” (Taddeo and Dvorak, 2010). The reality television program follows a group of strangers, or celebrities, in an isolated location where they must provide food, water, fire and shelter for themselves, whilst also competing in challenges to stay on the island, in order to win the million-dollar prize. Viewers clamored to be part of the “Survivor experience through fan sites, discussion boards, mediated videos posted on YouTube, and a host of other online participatory” (ibid.). Survivor also has behind-the-scenes footage and other exclusive content, that fans are able to access via a website, promoting the concept of transmedia storytelling. It is also important to note that Survivor produced two seasons of ‘Survivor – Fans vs. Favourites’, created for fans who believed they could out-survive original contestants of the show. This suggests that producers took note of the conversations being had by fans stating that they could ‘do it better’, and thus created the program as a way of saying ‘prove it’.

It could be said that fandoms are a problem for so called ‘legitimate culture’, as they perhaps, muddy the boundaries of mass culture texts that otherwise wouldn’t be considered so highly. However, fandoms also enable important theory and criticism surrounding texts. Often their interpretations and evaluations go unheard despite the fact that they provide legitimate, negotiated ideas that may not necessarily be commonly represented. They also allow for an understanding of their own relationships to texts.

Whilst some people view fandoms to be full of individuals who are “obsessive” or “freakish”, we must consider the fact that they allow for a revival of particular popular culture texts, especially in the case of Star Trek. They enable texts to be interpreted in a deeper, more meaningful way and often become a tool for more enriching studies into the cultures surrounding television productions.


Jenkins, H. (2013). Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York: Routledge. (p. 28-33)

Taddeo, J. and Dvorak, K. (2010). The tube has spoken. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. (p. i-v)

Hill, A. (2005). Reality TV. London: Routledge. (p. 3-37).

Wikipedia, (2015). Survivor: Caramoan. [online] Available at: [Accessed 22 Oct. 2015].

Wikipedia, (2015). Star Trek. [online] Available at: [Accessed 22 Oct. 2015].

Wikipedia, (2015). Star Trek fandom. [online] Available at: [Accessed 22 Oct. 2015].


Television Cultures – Blog Post #3

What do you get when you cross a group of mid-twenties, female New Yorkers and Lena Dunham’s real life experiences? That’s right, the comedy-drama Girls, starring Lena Dunham, herself, as the main character, Hannah Horvath.

Girls is an American television series created by Lena Dunham, that premiered on HBO on April 15, 2012. The show centres around an aspiring writer, Hannah, and her three friends, Jessa, Shoshanna and Marnie, “who are as messed up as [Hannah] is” (Sheffield, 2012 pg. 32). Hannah gets a shock when her parents visit Brooklyn from Michigan to announce that they will no longer financially support her. She is left to her own devices where she must navigate her twenties alongside her closest friends. 

Classed under ‘comedy-drama’, Girls provides audiences with just that, comedy and drama. Lena Dunham, a comedian herself, takes the audience on a comedic journey showing us the typical humiliations, disasters and rare triumphs of the four women. The show has been heralded as “frank and fearless” for it’s “gritty and straightforward approach to taboo topics like abortion, its naturalistic and frank take on sex scenes and the importance of female friendship the show celebrates” (Daalmans 2013, pg. 359). This ‘up-front’ approach is typical of HBO quality drama, known for seeking “discomfort” (Fuller and Driscoll 2015, pg. 258) and exploring “contemporary anxieties” (Johnson 2005, pg. 61).


However, the show adopts an interesting approach on women by suggesting that the girls are all “self-evolved, self-entitled and… unable to define themselves without male influence” (Daalmans 2013, pg. 359). There is a “notion that these women’s sense of self-definition only comes through their relationships with a man”. This provokes a sense of disconnect for women, especially as the show attempts to represent women aged in their 20’s. What is also surprising is that Lena Dunham herself is extremely successful, yet she is portrayed as a character who lacks self-direction. Overall, the show is deficient of the millennial, successful and multi-cultural women, especially in a time period when society is pushing for equality and a positive representation of women.

In saying this, HBO’s Sex and the City is quite similar, in that it explores “sexual content… and the importance of sexual expression to its females” (Fuller and Driscoll 2015, pg. 259) so it is no different to Girls. Evidently, Girls follows a similar storyline to Sex and the City featuring four central female characters who are concerned with their sex lives. Girls has been critiqued for its similarity with Sex and the City, albeit the obvious shift in time periods where the show encompasses ideas that are relevant to the time in which it was created.

However, “Girls includes in depth sexual stories that Sex and the City would “never canvass, entwined with different stories about aspiration and identity, including the looming possibility of complete life failure” (ibid.). Whereas in Sex and the City, the women were not as concerned about complete life failure. Girls seems to make a clear comment on the way women approach their sex lives within today’s society and suggests that women are more open to talking about it. It also makes a comment on the fact that there is potentially more pressure today, to be a ‘successful woman’, signified by the women in Girls feeling as if they will fail, compared to the time of Sex and the City.


Girls has also caused a lot of controversy due to its lack of racial diversity. The show’s characters are all white, middle-class females living in the highly multiracial New York City. Hadley Freeman (2014) states that “when it transpired that there were almost no people of colour in the first series of the show, critics cried racism in a way that no one ever did about the similarly New York-based and Sex and the City” (ibid.). This leads to the fact that “New York is much more segregated” than people think; Dunham is making a comment on what needs to change. It is also impossible for Dunham to “represent all life experiences of everyone in her generation”, as she doesn’t have an everyman’s “view of the world” (ibid.).


But despite the criticisms that come with the show, we must herald this “fresh” and “ground-breaking” (Daalmans 2013, pg. 359) programme that seems to be a part of the revival of successful female-lead shows. The show provides a reflection for many women in their 20-somethings especially within today’s society.




Sheffield, R. (2012), Girls! Girls! Girls!. Rolling Stone, p.32.


Daalmans, S. (2013). ‘I’m Busy Trying to Become Who I Am: Self-entitlement and the city in HBO’s Girls’, Feminist Media Studies, 13(2), pp. 359-362.


Fuller, S. and Driscoll, C. (2015). ‘HBO’s Girls: gender, generation, and quality television’, Continuum, 29(2), pp. 253-262.


Johnson, C. (2005). ‘Quality/Cult Television: The X-Files and Television History’, The Contemporary Television Series, pp. 57–71.


Dunham, L., Dunham, L., Williams, A. and Kirke, J. (2015). Girls (TV Series 2012– ). [online] IMDb. Available at: [Accessed 22 Oct. 2015].


Freeman, H. (2014). Not That Kind of Girl review – Lena Dunham exposes all, again. [online] the Guardian. Available at: [Accessed 22 Oct. 2015].