Factual Storytelling Exercise: "Invisible Scars"

Gabrielle was pretty busy the day I caught up with her. My sister was preparing for a day out with a friend, and only has ten minutes to talk with me. While our meeting is brief, she has more time to do anything she wants than she may have had if not for the life-saving touch of a surgeon almost twenty years ago.

When my mother, Cassandra, found out she was pregnant for the second time, she was looking forward to the new addition to her family, as was her husband Ron. “I was having a quite normal pregnancy until I had my scan at 26 weeks gestation, which was a routine scan,” she said. “During the procedure, the radiologist stopped and said ‘Oh, I just need to go and get a doctor,’ and that’s when I thought maybe there’s something not right.”

The doctor came back and told her that she would need to see her GP as soon as possible to book a specialist, as her baby had a large cystic kidney which would require surgery.

“I started panicking… because I was nursing at that stage, coming from a medical background, I probably looked at it a bit differently to how other people would, knowing that there are a lot of things that we can do these days with surgical procedures.” Despite this, there was little Cassandra knew about the condition as it was extremely rare. She had to travel from the small desert city of Broken Hill to Adelaide, the nearest major city, to undergo a series of tests. In utero surgery was considered for the infant, but the multi-cystic kidney had stopped growing after several weeks, so further action would have to wait until the baby was delivered.

Gabrielle was delivered by natural birth at Queen Victoria Hospital in Adelaide before being transferred to Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital for further care. “When she was newborn, [the right kidney] was taking up a lot of her abdominal cavity, so her belly was distended and distorted… Otherwise, she looked like a normal baby,” said Cassandra. Gabrielle’s odd-shaped abdomen was holding an adult-sized kidney, bursting with sacs of fluid. Any time she was laid down, the organ would push against her other insides, causing her stomach to reject its contents. The result was a baby that was lacking proper nutrition and was constantly dehydrated, and in constant distress.

The hospital left the surgery as long as they could, in the hope that the infant would be strong enough to tolerate the invasive procedure to remove her left kidney. Six weeks was the limit before she had to go into the operating theatre. “She had to fast before the surgery, of course, which she didn’t enjoy too much considering she was used to second hourly feeds; she had to be fed regularly in small amounts. She went to surgery and was in there for about three hours or so, and when she came out she was in a lot of pain,” Cassandra has to pause and tries to not get upset. “It was very distressing.”

Seeing her about to cry got me upset, so I tried to move on quickly. I asked her what my sister’s recovery was like.

“Very speedy… Her right kidney had started to function normally, and then started growing to compensate for the other kidney. She was a completely different child after the operation. She fed really well and began putting on weight… no problems since.”

Gabrielle told me she doesn’t really remember ever learning about her kidney and the story behind it. “Obviously they would have told me because I have a scar. You can hardly even see it now, you can only see where it begins, it's like a little dimple. I never really learned about it until a few years ago when Mum gave me some papers and said ‘That’s what happened,’ but all I ever knew is that my kidney was like a bunch of grapes.” Her insides are changed, but on the outside Gabrielle is like a regular 19-year-old: happy, beautiful and unburdened. Her scars are invisible.

“I guess to be careful with your organs, they are so valuable and you see so many people who have been in accidents or who have cancer who want these organs, so you should treat them the best you can so if you ever had to donate your organs people could use them.”

“It should be a law [that you have to donate], I don’t understand why people are against it, it doesn’t make sense. What are you going to do with them once you have passed away? What, is your family going to keep them in a jar? There is no point, you could save more than ten lives with your organs. People can get your corneas, your lungs, your brain… Okay, maybe not your brain, but you get what I mean!”

We talked about the Australian Paired Kidney Exchange, a transplant option for patients with an incompatible living donor. I explained that if she ever needed a kidney transplant, but none of her family were compatible donors, one of us could still donate a kidney and swap it for one that was compatible, so two lives that would have otherwise ended could be saved.

“That’s a fantastic idea, why would you not help someone else that can help you? I’m a perfect example of how you can live without both kidneys, so I don’t understand why people aren’t donating them anyway. I don’t expect everyone to just go out and donate their kidneys, but if someone you knew needed a kidney you should offer yours straight away, because it’s obvious people can live without two.”

We don’t know if anyone in our family is a compatible donor for her, because we were told it could put unnecessary pressure and strain on our relationships, but with the Australian Paired Kidney Exchange, that problem doesn’t exist any longer. Gabrielle knows that we would all raise our hands to volunteer if she ever did need our help anyway.

“I really appreciate that people would give up their organs for me to survive. I guess that’s what you do for family.”

For information on how to become involved with the Australian Paired Kidney Exchange program, or to learn more about organ donation, visit www.donatelife.gov.au.

Lecture Seven: Public Media

The lecture this week started off with an absolute cracker of a quote from the former Managing Director of SBS, Nigel Milan, who said "the difference between commercial broadcasting and public broadcasting is the difference between consumers and citizens," which made me feel very self important for being of that opinion already. It pleased my inner snob greatly (I need to kill that facet off if I'm ever going to get anywhere in journalism, but it's been difficult. It's why I'm here). I love public media. I feel that it's as balanced as the media is going to get, and while it's still unbalanced, it's good enough.


The most significant public media body in Australia is undoubtedly the ABC network. It boasts multiple television channels as well as radio, which reaches every part of the country that can get a signal. There is also it's online presence in the form of websites which support the various channels and stations, as well as ABC News online, a text-based news outlet. It was born to be a shaper of the nation; it sure shaped me. I watched ABC as a child, mostly because it's all I had living in far Western New South Wales, and listened to Triple J and ABC Radio, because, well, once again I'm from the boondocks and commercial media was just to cool to bother with people living in dust-bowls in the late eighties and early nineties. Either that or it was utter rubbish. (I had a feeling this blog was going to get personal, I wasn't wrong.)


Back to my point, public media is meant to be accessible to the public, because it's funded by us and it's exclusively for us, not for advertisers, not for media barons, just the average citizen. Which is a problem in itself; how does a media outlet cater for 22 million people who are all different. Not just "she likes unicorns, but she likes dinosaurs with laser cannons" different, but culturally different. This country is almost entirely made up of immigrants or descendants of them, and we come from every language and culture, so to cater to an audience so broad while not compromising on anything would be a nightmare.


Because of this, ABC and SBS are not all that accessible to everyone. There are many demographics which are not catered to. While their programming is considered, educated and contains important information, it is also viewed as elitist, limited and out of touch. Both outlets have tried to combat this by dividing their energy into different channels, such as ABC's children orientated channels, youth programming (Good Game, Hungry Beast, Triple J), SBS's multiple channels with different languages, while still keeping serious 'broadsheet' material for the rest.


Fortunately this country is fairly easygoing with it's media, so we can have programming like this. Public media in other countries often serves the purpose of delivering propaganda to the masses. Public media in Australia is held in common, not by the government, so it is owned and influenced by the people and their wants, rather than the other way around.


There are many challenges that public media faces to stay relevant and still maintain it's original purpose of being a nation builder and educator. I'm confident, however, that it will continue to be a strong presence in Australia's media climate. It wouldn't hurt if it got more funding though.

Lecture Six: Commercial Media

Early in this lecture, an interesting point was made, that I suppose I always knew but never really wanted to acknowledge: "Advertisers are the real customers of commercial media, not the viewers."


Without advertisers, there would be no commercial media. Commercial media needs money to survive and fund itself, and subscribers alone would never achieve that. Because of this, commercial media is often, unfortunately, more about catering for what would sell advertising space, rather than educating, entertaining and informing the audience. While is important that the latter is achieved, without catering for the former, as I mentioned above, there would be no commercial media.


This means "exciting" television and news print. Commercial media needs to generate an audience, because without it there is no one to view or listen to their advertisers. To do this, they need to screen gems like "Dancing with the Stars", "A Current Affair", and "Breakfast", which tries to catch as many eyes and ears as they can, with broad interest generating themes (Dancing with the Stars: dancing for young people and women, celebrities for young people, skimpy dancing outfits for, well... anyone who isn't asexual; A Current Affair, always out for a salacious scandal; Breakfast, to cater for the half asleep, half awake worker bees getting ready in the morning who need something a bit light hearted to encourage them out the door and not back into bed to dwell on the depressing state of the world). Many programs also feature product placement during the show, not just in ad breaks, in the form of a soft drink being enjoyed by a lead character in a TV serial, an iPad or laptop being used by a news presenter or more blatantly, BODY TRIM PLUS INFOMERCIALS BEING YELLED AT US BY A MUSCLY GUY IN A TIGHT TEE-SHIRT! Would you like a H2O Steam Mop with that protein shake? Just stay tuned in, it will be right after the segment about the Kardashian sisters. Maybe the bit about the miserable state of the education or health systems too, but that's boring.


Commercial media is also often viewed as biased towards the opinions of whomever holds the most cash (to pay for all that advertising, of course). While this isn't always a fair assumption, it's obvious in some instances, such as the Fox News network in the USA, or various Australian newspapers. It can be debated that these platforms are catering for a specific audience, which will in turn engage them more and then help sell more advertising space, which can be tailored for said audience for maximum effect.


There are controls on the media as well, commercial and public, to help keep it in line. In Australia these laws are fairly strict, which is both fortunate and limiting. It helps to regulate and censor content, which means less *extreme* bias.


Ultimately, commercial media is just that: commercial. You need to take it for what it presents itself as, which is a presentation of information and entertainment, quality varying, to fill in the time between the next ad. It can be useful to you or not, but it is your choice to consume it.

Lecture Five: Sound

I do listen to the radio, but not as often as I'd like, especially after I had listened to this lecture, or rather, these very informative conversations conducted between Carmel and Richard, and Carmel and Steve. Richard and Steven are both presenters at ABC Radio, and have been working in the industry for some time. For Richard it happened accidentally and for Steve it was the result of a lot of effort and hard work, but both seem to enjoy their experience in radio equally.

Radio is a completely unique medium. It's intimate and personal, unlike television or newspapers where it is plain to see it's for a mass market. Even though radio is delivered with the intention of reaching many people, it can still feel like it's almost people talking to you, but inside your head. There are no visual distractions, only sound. This personalised feel to radio is on purpose; a radio presenter is always mindful that they're speaking for the listener, not just spouting out what they want in the hope it will appeal to the audience. The audience must always be in the forefront of their mind and the cause of their actions.

Radio continues to be delivered successfully, even though it has been much the same for decades. It's because it is a valuable source of information and entertainment for the time poor, and it can be easily integrated with other media externally, like Twitter, text messages, forums or podcasts.

Despite its universal appeal, speaking on radio can be difficult to master. Enunciated is critical, and if for a moment you are fake on radio, it's obvious. There isn't body language or other visuals to distract the listener, there is only your voice. You also need to keep control of the conversation, without smothering the other person in the studio. Allowing them to speak is important, because you can make a really emotional and subconscious connection with that speaker, however you still need to be mindful to steer them back on topic if they get distracted.

After listening to the lecture, my interest in the field of radio has risen. After all, I do like to talk. I just need to be mindful that if I ever was to be in radio, I'd be talking for an audience, not for me. 

Lecture Four: Picture Stories

While last week's lecture focused on text, this week we looked at how images can communicate a story. Only in modern history have we relied predominantly on text to communicate what we want, however before that images were the primary method of story telling. Reading was an exclusive skill, not something most of the population had access to. Images were displayed in the stained glass windows of churches to illustrate scenes from religious texts, cave paintings told folk tales and reliefs and carvings brought legends to life. More recently, photographs have become an important part of story telling, however it is usually in conjunction with text that it is most effective.

Photography is a very common medium in today's news stories. It's almost obligatory to include an image with an article. This is to do with the advent of digital photography and the internet; together, a photograph can be taken at an event, uploaded to an iPad soon after then immediately emailed using mobile internet to the newsroom, where text is added and the whole lot is posted on a news site, which can happen in minutes.

But what makes a good photograph? We looked at several examples, but the best were ones that communicated an emotion clearly, even with little context. The method used to capture the moment is almost irrelevant these days (many would argue the opposite, but that's another article); the photograph that won News Photo of the Year in 2009 was shot on an iPhone (which might not be that great of a shock, the iPhone's camera outclasses a lot of point-and-shoot cameras on the market). The reasoning behind the win would have been that they photograph was well framed and emotive, and clearly communicated a story without need for words.

Framing, focus, point of view and exposure all contribute to a good photograph. The key to a great photograph, however, would be "capturing the moment". That shot where grieving family members embrace, a girl is being caught by a fireman as she leaps from a burning building or the bursting of joy is displayed on a winner's face for that fleeting moment as victory is realised; these all make great photos.

If you want to get technical, you also should have a working knowledge of how to operate a SLR camera with manual controls, so that way you can have a precise grip on how the shot is taken, and not just when. It's all well and good to take a photo of a great moment, but if your exposure is too high or low, the focus is wrong or shutter speed is too slow, the image could change from perfection to a blurry blob of colour.

In summary, I feel very fortunate to have experience in photography and I hope that will work to my advantage when it comes to finding a job in this field of journalism. I just have to learn how to operate a camera without shaking it all over the place as well...

Lecture Three: What is Text?

Guest speaker Skye Doherty presented a lecture on text this week. I also learned what a 'stand-first' was, which is helpful. The lecture was all about text, and how we use it.


Ms Doherty spoke about text being fast, flexible, controllable, portable, and searchable. Text is truly an amazing innovation of mankind. Without it, communication would be immeasurably more difficult. I communicate to others mostly through text, and my future career will depend on it and my ability to manipulate it.


The Sun was offered as a prime example of text used effectively. The Sun's articles are delivered in a concise method, with the whole article often summarised succinctly in the first sentence which is often less than twenty words.


While text is often thought of as sentences and paragraphs, text can also be meaningful in other ways. As singular words, text can become metadata and tags, which are increasingly important in a world where most of our text is on the internet. Metadata and tags help us search through text to find precisely what we're after, so we can maximize the meaningful consumption of text, rather than general consumption in the hope that we may stumble across something we're interested in.


Key words used during a search for text are essential for including in the texts we write. This way people will be able to easily find and consume the text we create.


Less related to the lecture topic, Ms Doherty also mentioned ways that you can increase the significance of your text on the internet through search engine optimisation. Having a significant and relevant URL for your text instead of gibberish is important, as this will make it more visible in search engines. Also, if important websites link to your own, your ranking will increase on some search engines, making your web pages easier to find.


An interesting point that was covered in the lecture was methods to communicate news in methods other than text. An example shown was a 'news game' called Cutthroat Capitalism, which told the story of East African pirates and their methods of capturing significant ships to raise funds and continue the cycle. It was very simple, and was almost comical, but when you remembered that the options in the game are based on real examples, it kind of stressed the danger of those kind of situations. I thought it was an effective way to illustrate that story, and is definitely a useful tool in adding depth to an article.