Jon Chu steps up to 3D Bieber biopic

Any news story should be factual and accurate. No matter what the topic is. Even when it concerns Justin Bieber.

Jon Chu and Justin Bieber announcing the 'big' news on YouTube. Source: Jon Chu

While countless news sites have covered the ‘Justin Bieber 3D biopic’ story, Jack Ryan’s piece
- which discloses Step Up 3D's Jon Chu as the new director for the projected movie and reveals its release date - is unfortunately innacurate, contradicting, 'old' and contains numerous typos. 

Overall, it lacks appeal and fails to immediately engage readers – despite all the commotion and excitement that has become knowns as “the Bieber fever” since Bieber’s rapid ascent to fame. 

Firstly, the lack of images creates a disadvantage for the article as it makes it harder for the audience to connect with the story. Young female teens worldwide – the principal target audience – would most likely be less inclined to click on the story link.

The adage, “a picture is worth (more than) a thousand words…” may be applied in this case. One may choose to agree, or disagree, but it seems that images are able to grab our attention much faster than a string of words can.

Secondly, the fact that Ryan affirms that Jon Chu AND then later on David Guggenheim (who was previously attached to the project but dropped out) will be the director for the biopic is an indication of poor research and editing skills. By extension, spelling mistakes including the words ‘memoir’ spelt as ‘memior’, and ‘Paramount’ spelt as ‘Paramoujnt’, only enhances and exposes the article’s weaknesses.

In terms of prose, while the beginning of the article follows the news style, the last paragraph appears to be slightly opinionated and written a little too ‘casually’, as Ryan seems “…sure plenty [of] males are going to be dragged to the opening of this film” and that Bieber won’t “…win any points with the male crowd”.

Moreover, the lengthy headline is not catchy enough and reflects a news angle that has been previously covered. Instead, it should have referenced Jon Chu as the new director. The article would have also been more effective with the addition of Chu’s YouTube video with Bieber, letting the audience know about the news.

Emma Thompson to go lightly on Audrey Hepburn?

Emma Thompson. Source: Splash Photos

Audrey Hepburn's perpetual transcendent image has been defied in one of Peter Bradshaw's blog posts in which he appears to be, to a certain extent, in concurrence with Emma Thompson's 'twee' description of the late actress. 

Controversial? Possibly, as indicated by readers’ comments. 

For avid, loyal Hepburn fans, this may be regarded as the utmost insult, and as Bradshaw would say: "...akin to sacrilege..." For the majority of readers, Hepburn was remembered as “beautiful…timeless and effortlessly elegant” (MotorcyleDiarist 2010).

This story from the Guardian would certainly attract many British readers, puzzled over what the connection between two of their most respectable actresses could be. It may seem peculiar to them that someone of Thompson’s class would have the audacity to criticise the screen icon and “classic beauty” (in Coleman 2010). Additionally, the fact that Thompson has completed a screenplay for the projected remake of My Fair Lady may add further insult to injury to Hepburn’s image.

The iconic image from Breakfast at Tiffany’s of Hepburn as Holly Golightly – who is cleverly referenced in the headline – is sure to captivate readers. Timeless, it reminds generations of the Audrey Hepburn many fell in love with. The impact is instant for those who have ‘grown’ with her. For those who haven’t, they would either be just as charmed or, in some cases, equally disinterested in her.

Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

Bradshaw wastes no time in disclosing the key details of the story in the first few paragraphs. And while he appears a little bias by siding with Thompson, he does effectively present us with a generally fair account, providing links to other articles whose author is, for or against Thompson’s perception of Hepburn. This allows us to form our own opinion on the issue, despite knowing the author’s. 

While Bradshaw’s slight bias may be thought of as a drawback, it is worth noting that the nature of a blog does entitle him to share his perspective. An actual news article would not have allowed him to do so.

Frienship with a president helps Quaid fit the Bill

Craig Mathieson's article, 'Friendship with a president helps Quaid fit the Bill' overall works well with some minor flaws. Firstly, the title's play on words is subtle yet clever. Perhaps it might have been more effective to shorten the title to simply 'Quaid fits the Bill' similarly to the title used for this article.

Although the article's main point was expressed, I felt that it did not address the 5 W's and 1 H explicitly. For instance, if the 'what' referred to Dennis Quaid's suitability to play as Bill Clinton, then what do the 'where' and 'when' refer to? If they refer to the movie being released here, and now, respectively, then I found this to be rather ambiguous. However, if the 'what' is simply Quaid as Clinton, then the 'where' (in the movie) and 'when' (now) are answered.

The article is not too long and fits the average length of news articles, while the image used (see below) assists readers to visualise Quaid as Clinton.

Dennis Quaid as Bill Clinton. Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

By extension, the news link leading to the article was accompanied with a thumbnail of the same image to attract readers' attention (see below).

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

This article also considers a number of news values:

Timeliness: the information presented is 'new' because the movie was released on the same day the article was published. It is a new movie that not many people know about and additionally, the relationship/friendship between Clinton and Quaid is not something that is commonly known in Australia.

Impact: This article does not impact us directly and may in fact be more interesting to American and British audiences. Australians may not see it as relevant; however, this is based on true events, concerns two renowned people and is of human interest - which may have 'emotional' resonance due to Australia's relationship with the UK.

Proximity: the movie is out now (since 5 August 2010) in cinemas all around Australia.

Controversy: The article itself is not controversial but the fact that the movie centres on the lives of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, as well as its reference to the Lewinsky scandal, creates interest.

Prominence: Highly prominent - a known actor playing as one of the most talked about and controversial political figures in history.

Currency: The timing of the movie's release makes it current, particularly with Chelsea Clinton's wedding recently talked about in the press.

Oddity: The idea of Quaid taking on the role of Clinton is rather unusual because I was unaware of the relationship that they had. Furthermore, they don't exactly look like each other - something Quaid has said himself.