Debate and controversy surrounding the arduous and ongoing murder case concerning American student Amanda Knox has been a heavily disputed issue and attracted worldwide attention in the media. Knox was convicted, along with boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, of the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy. Knox has maintained her innocence throughout the entire ordeal which has become the subject of intense media interest, where the guilty verdict was seen as widely flawed. After spending almost four years in prison, to being acquitted in 2011, only then to be reconvicted in early 2014, Knox has unquestionably endured an incomprehensible struggle.
From 2007 till the present day, an insurmountable amount of material has been written and publicised about the infamous student, with opinions, attitudes and beliefs regarding her involvement being incredibly varied. Two opinion pieces, Why Amanda Knox’s spin shouldn’t deny justice for Meredith written by Lindy McDowell and What Amanda Knox can and can’t tell us by Nina Burleigh offer two very intriguing, compelling and differing insights into the world of Amanda Knox. An analysis of each article reveals that although the pieces provide contrasting viewpoints, the style and class of argumentation and the way they go about justifying their perspectives are essentially similar. A comparative analysis of these two articles highlights the similarities and differences in nature in which they also bring to light a number of key questions that will further enhance their viewpoints.
In analysing both articles it becomes apparent that the underlying world view concerns the legitimacy, realistic influence and threat that the media can place on legal proceedings.
Ultimately, McDowell’s article believes that Knox’s PR strategies and public persona has allowed her to get away with murder, while Burleigh believes that even know her incarceration was caused by mistakes as the hands of the Italians, the media has influenced audiences to think otherwise. Essentially, the articles serve as a measure of what is perceived as just and unreasonable behaviour in the ongoing lawsuit.
In analysing McDowell’s article, we immediately become apparent to the author’s stance and overriding opinion, one that is in favour of Knox’s guilt. From the outset we are aware of her unsympathetic and condescending tone which concretes its status as an opinion article.
In regards to attitudinal assessment, the evaluative language throughout the text – with overtly stated support – suggests that McDowell is content with her subjective stance and believes that her audience will be in agreement with her position. Almost immediately, there is a blatantly pessimistic tone to the article.
“Her website informs us that ‘Amanda Knox is a New York Times and USA Today’s bestselling author…’ Actually she is a convicted killer who wrote a book about the murder and then made a fortune on the back of sale of the same.
…It’s almost as if the best-selling author’s claim is the important bit. The real reason we know Amanda Knox. Not that convoluted stuff about becoming involuntarily tangled up in an infamous trial.”
As a whole, the article is full of patronising and cynical comments which is a reflection of her use of emotive language which acts as a major part of her conviction.
“On her website, in that list of favourite books Knox reels off (before even getting round to even alluding to Meredith’s murder) she includes the fairy tales of Hans Christian Andersen.
Read into that what you will.
SHE POINTED HER FINGER AT AN INNOCENT MAN. NO PR CAN SUGAR COAT THAT”
This piece can be classified as an evaluative/interpretative text as the author seeks to position the audience via her own attitudes, feelings and expectations. McDowell advances her personal and value judgments based on her personal assessments.
The central claim for this argument is that clever PR should never be allowed to trump justice. In regards to explicitness, McDowell quite overtly states the claim in the latter part of the article which significantly emphasises and reinforces her viewpoint.
“This case is also America’s trial. Public opinion swayed by clever PR should not be allowed to trump justice.”
McDowell’s central claim also contains argumentative support in which a number of justifications are made to further enhance her position. An individual’s public persona in the media should not interfere with legal proceedings is appealing to ethical/legal and other social norms as it is referencing what is assumed to be a widely held value and belief. Furthermore, the justification that justice should not be undermined by a media frenzy is appealing to an authoritative matter which essentially reflects the central claim. The idea that Meredith Kercher’s family deserves closure, answers and justice is also an attempt to appeal to emotion. Fundamentally, the underlying warrant of these particular claims and justifications is that one should not be exempt from murder charges simply by having a public relations strategy.
McDowell attempts to appeal to authority, the facts and precedent/customary practice by supporting her argument with factual argumentative support. She offers this evidence in the form of rhetorical questions.
“Will she be extradited? Should she be extradited? It’s hard to see how the US could refuse to co-operate with a European and NATO partner which has previously complied with requests the other way (including the case in 1998 where crew of a US jet which hit a ski lift cable in the Alps killing almost two dozen people were returned to America for trial).
From gathering evidence, it is plausible to say that McDowell’s underlying assumption is that readers need to accept the threat of media influence however unjust it may seem. Similarly, another possible perspective on the article is that McDowell is offering views so categorically and without any real evidence or justification with the intention of being inflammatory. McDowell’s article presents an interesting regarding ‘assumed’ readership. You could say that she is operating under the presumption that her intended audience has sided with the predominately negative coverage that the media has produced about the issue which highlights her style of reassurance. You could even go as far in saying that she may be seeking to annoy or confront people who are favourably disposed to Knox’s innocence not only by expressing negative views about her, but by doing so in such a way as to treat this negativity as universally held and hence a view that has been taken for granted. Similarly, she makes no mention of those who might have a different perspective which makes for a strong opinion piece.
“She initially pointed the finger at an entirely innocent man. But for the grace of a solid alibi, Patrick Lumumba would now be serving a life sentence. No PR offensive can quite sugar coat that one.
And you do wonder if Knox’s expensive and artfully spun campaign might actually rebound upon her.
Thus far it’s going well.”
If informal fallacies exist in views journalism articles, then you can justifiably argue that its argumentation is flawed and possibly unfair. An example of an evaluative presumption fallacy within McDowell’s article highlights an attempt to prove a point through value laden language.
“The Italian courts have found her guilty. And the Kercher family very obviously believe the Italian courts have got it right. By any reading of this story Knox does, as they say, have questions to answer.”
Another fallacy is indicative of the ad populum argument in which McDowell is asserting a belief that is believed to be widely held. Similarly, you could also classify this as a hasty/overgeneralisation fallacy as it is a general claim based on insufficient evidence.
“The picture of Meredith is credited to “the Kercher family”. Given what we know of the Kercher family’s belief in Amanda Knox’s guilt, it’s difficult to imagine that they actually supplied the photograph for display on the site. But that’s the cleverly subliminal message.”
Target audience bias is an issue evident in both texts, essentially because of the publications origins. McDowell is an opinion columnist for The Belfast Telegraph, a northern Irish publication which gets over 170,000 daily readers. Considering Meredith Kercher was from the UK, McDowell’s position could be seen as bias towards the victim because of her country of origin which could essentially explain her position towards her intended readership. However, there is no actual proof or evidentiary support to justify this. This argument is attacking in nature in which she is essentially stating the obvious bias that exists among the American supporters.
“A majority of Americans appear to back her (if only on the grounds that she’s good looking, and, well, American).
…But there must be many American’s too, uneasy about the hand-holding, fawning interviews. They will compare the carefully constructed, flawlessly made-up image of la Knox with the open, dignified Kerchers (no fist-pumping celebration at the verdict, just raw, ongoing grief, there).”
In analysing Burleigh’s article in a comparative manner, it is very easily evident of a more predominant opinion piece, yet considerably less harsh in nature. Even though the article is written in both 1st and 3rd person, her tendency and language style is evaluative, fair and open minded. Burleigh’s article is an attempt to shed light onto what she believes is the overlooked and real reason as to why Amanda Knox ended up in prison, and proclaims her innocence throughout. Having published a non-fiction book called The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox in 2011, the personal perspective and bias is evident in her tone.
Similarly with McDowell’s article, Burleigh’s is also evaluative/interpretative in style as it offers a new development and casts an individuals behaviour in a new light. It involves a subjective assessment as well as making a connection which is not immediately apparent. Burleigh’s article could also be classified as a causal argument as it proposes a causal connection between two events. Therefore in regards to the primary claim, Knox’s incarceration was the result of Italian mistakes.
Burleigh’s primary assumption and central claim is that mistakes at the hands of the Italian legal system allowed Knox to be wrongly accused and incarcerated. Although the claim is not explicitly stated, it is recurringly referenced throughout. Burleigh assumes that audiences around the world were not aware of this predicament which is incredibly vital in proving Knox’s innocence. The article is obviously highly opinionated. Amongst other things, Burleigh asserts that the Italian’s are to blame for the “police error, lies and xenophobic prejudice.”
Although Burleigh believes Knox’s innocence, in which she overtly states herself –
“It’s easy to envision that scenario if you believe, as I do, that all evidence points to her innocence.”
She also interestingly offers some counter-argument points in which she believes it an uphill battle for Knox to genuinely persuade people of her absolute innocence.
“In her first television interview, she gave the same answers she has always given to the main questions about how she could have showered in a house with blood on a bathroom floor and faucet, and then, a few days later, named an innocent man as the killer…
All that emotion can’t have distracted millions of viewers from the one thing that really matters: Who did it?
Knox has a terribly high hurdle in winning hearts and minds.
She must overcome the challenge that confronts anyone convicted of a gruesome killing and then released without a substitute defendant. Millions of people believe she got away with murder.”
Burleigh’s central claim contains argumentative support by offering a number of justifications which further emphasise her views. It is unjustified to be wrongly accused and incarcerated is appealing to precedent/customary practice and authority as it is dealing with a serious legal matter. Furthermore, the Italian legal system should have been careful to avoid blatant mistakes is also appealing to facts and authority as that predicament is fundamentally what led to Knox’s imprisonment.
Also appeals to hasty/overgeneralisation are also made as Burleigh attempts to justify how Knox will distribute her multi-million dollar earnings from her book deal – (a memoir released in 2013). Essentially, she is also appealing to emotion by shedding light on the reality of her financial situation.
“But she spent four years in prison, wrongly accused, and endured outrageous and blatantly sexist abuse at the hands of the Italians.
Four million bucks can’t repair having one’s persona hijacked…
…Most of that money has probably gone to the lawyers anyway…
…If anything was left over, it went toward hauling a middle-class American family out the debt hole into which they plunged when they double-mortgaged their houses to defend their kid.”
The underlying warrant encompassing the central claim and its subsequent justifications is that legal action should be treated very seriously and carefully in order to avoid costly errors. Again, although the warrant is never explicitly stated, it is referred to throughout.
“Knox does not know what happened that night and is unable to provide us with a single new clue that could unravel the Gordian knot of police error, lies, national pride and xenophobic prejudice that turned a simple crime into an international mystery.
Burleigh’s article was a ‘Special to CNN’ written for the online edition of CNN International. Regardless of its international reach, CNN is predominately an American based (originated in America) publication in which they classify themselves as having a fundamentally objective approach to news in which we offer firsthand reporting, incisive analysis, no bias, no agenda. Therefore we can assume that perhaps Burleigh’s perspective is reminiscent of her patriotism (she is American herself), however just like McDowell’s situation, there is no real evidence to prove this.
An informal fallacy that exists within Burleigh’s article is reminiscent of an ad populum argument as she is seeking to argue a claim by simply asserting that is a widely held belief, and not necessarily factual on any account.
“Since she cannot offer that, her debut provides one thing only: performance.”
A number of primary conclusions and ideas can be evaluated from the findings from both articles. Essentially, both attempt to establish an immediate connection with their intended reader as well as leaving the audience ‘open to interpretation’ regarding Knox’s guilt. The fundamental message presented in both articles concludes that until a legitimate confession, people will never receive a definitive answer in regards to her innocence or guilt. Reinforcing the underlying world view, the media should not be an influencing factor – they have no right to interfere in legal proceedings.
For a story that has unfolded over seven years in the international news, it’s compelling to see the varied reactions and responses to the entire Amanda Knox saga. Although McDowell and Burleigh’s viewpoints and assumptions are relatively opposing, they both make interesting and effective attempts to persuade their readers. For Meredith’s family, the reinstated guilty verdict is long-awaited justice. However to the millions of news-watchers, this young woman is the very personification of evil. The tone, language style, argumentative and justifying support are all fundamental examples of persuasion techniques that attempt to further present and clarify the message to the intended reader.
Sydney based YouTuber Jordan Shanks now has over 18,000 subscribers
Photo by Rohan Hora
by Diahann Munro
All you need is a video camera, something to say, an internet connection and you’re pretty much set.
Thanks to YouTube, there is now a profession that allows you to make millions of dollars from the comfort of your own home.
According to YouTube’s statistics, 100 hours of footage is being uploaded to YouTube every minute worldwide. Its presence in the online world is unparalleled.
The inaugural YouTube FanFest is being held in Sydney this weekend and offers the chance to get up close and personal with some of the world’s biggest internet stars.
Avid fan and former ‘YouTuber’ Dominica Ingui, believes that the introduction of ‘fan’ conventions have greatly benefited the YouTubers’ celebrity status.
“I think that level of interactivity and engagement is really helpful to the community because audiences have grown so large now,” Ingui, 18, said.
“The popularity has gotten to such a threshold that makes it too easy to just say ‘my video got two million views’ and forget that every view is a certain person.
“They’re YouTube celebrities to the point where you don’t even need the YouTube anymore. They’re just celebrities. It’s an interesting form of fame because it’s self-made.”
When Jordan Shanks started his YouTube channel in early 2013, he had no idea of the possibilities it would bring.
“I did know YouTube existed, but I didn’t know you could get those kinds of followings,” he said.
“Then all of a sudden somebody I knew, Neel Kolhatkar (fellow Australian YouTuber with 150,000+ subscribers), who was 19, 400,000 people now know who that guy is! That’s insane to me!
“Now, he has a career that most comedians think is plausible and feasible when they’re 30… he just shaved off a decade.”
Shanks, 24, creates satirical videos of Australian political issues and attributes his ‘left-wing Alan Jones’ antics to his success.
“The authorial goal is to get more people engaged with politics,” he said.
“Because I was never even interested in it myself, but then you actually realise it is interesting, just not sold well.
“I get comments and messages all the time of people saying ‘Holy sh*t! I never gave a sh*t about this stuff, this is pretty serious’. I just want to target apathetic voters.”
Shanks, who has a Degree in International Relations now considers himself a full time ‘YouTuber’ and sees himself continuing on a long term basis.
“I can’t see myself doing anything else anymore now,” he says.
“Because I’ve just been inside my room for a year (making videos)…I get agoraphobic now when I walk out of the house.
“It’s so weird, the transition; now I really don’t like taking orders again, I don’t think I can!”
Shanks, who now has over 18,000 subscribers mentions the support he receives from his family and sees how they would be sceptical towards an unusual industry.
“Now my parents are supportive, but I can understand why they weren’t in the first place because I would be not doing anything but sitting around and being like ‘Get out I need to film!’ he laughed.
“It’s incredibly foreign for them, it was foreign for me!
“I feel like I was just outside the YouTube generation, in a sense that Neel (Kolhatkar) obviously understood that it was a very feasible career path.
“I was always super sceptical of it, so that plus 30 years on you, of people that didn’t have the internet until the 90’s…I can imagine them (parents) being very sceptical.”
Shanks, who spends over 70 hours a week dedicated to the online platform credits YouTube for the numerous working opportunities it has provided.
“At the moment I’m not being paid by YouTube, but I’m in talks with GetUp! (Australian activist group) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) wants me to start writing articles for them,” Shanks said.
“I’ve also been approached by a few agencies. I’m very sceptical of them, I don’t know what to expect, so I haven’t signed up to any of them yet.”
Shanks, along with Neel Kolhatkar have just received a grant to create a series of 5 minute skits called Mediacrity to be uploaded to ABC iview in the coming months.
But just how much money are people actually making from YouTube? Statistics show that the top earners are receiving anything up to $200,000 a month.
The introduction of the YouTube Partnership Program in 2007 has allowed uploaders (who gain over 10,000 subscribers) a share in the revenue produced by advertisements on the site. Ultimately, this means that full time employment is an increasingly realistic prospect for many users today.
YouTube’s biggest success comes in the form of Swedish gamer Felix Kjellberg (aka PewDiePie). Currently, he has over 27 million subscribers, making him the most subscribed channel on YouTube and earned an estimated $15 million last year. Essentially, he is being paid to film himself playing various video games and offer funny commentary.
Ingui, a former ‘YouTuber’ herself believes that the introduction of partnerships has allowed amazing prospects.
“I do think that it’s an amazing opportunity,” she said.
“Because of advertising, I think that the boundaries definitely need to be clear. I feel that’s a definite legal issue in terms of what the audience perceives to be an opinion and what they’re actually being paid to say.
“The fact that people are actually able to have a job making YouTube videos is astounding. The fact that they’re doing it is amazing.”
Though is having a YouTube career hard work or purely a lifestyle choice? When asked, Ingui felt that it’s definitely an informal form of work.
“It’s definitely time consuming…but if it’s your job…a lot of them take it as a lifestyle. So it’s not a job to them,” she said.
So are we able to call YouTube a legitimate profession? Has the introduction of these partnerships been a successful and positive approach?
Andrew Murphie, an associate Media Professor at The University of New South Wales (UNSW) believes that if people have the ability to make money now, and it’s a hard thing to do, then good luck to them.
“Corporations are constantly trying to figure out how to adjust to this new beast (YouTube) that they themselves created,” Mr Murphie said.
“The interesting thing from a commercial point of view is that with such a complex situation there are all kinds of ways of monetising it.
“So I think all these new channels and partnerships, it’s kind of like YouTube saying ‘We get that the old model hasn’t gone away completely but we are also immersed in this new model distribution so somehow we want to put those two together’.”
Ingui on the other-hand feels that they are two separate things and there needs to be some differentiation. Is the overlapping of two worlds a positive thing?
“I saw Tyler Oakley (YouTube personality) on TV and I remember thinking ‘What is he doing on TV? Get back to your bedroom!’,” she said.
“I thought ‘that is so mean’, but it’s sort of true. I feel like they are two separate things for sure.
“They probably shouldn’t overlap. They shouldn’t take their celebrity status for granted because they have gotten to where they are because of their fans.”
In the YouTube community there is an extremely wide variety when it comes to content. However what do people identify with more?
Is it purely personality or craft? YouTuber’s such as The Fine Bros. and Sawyer Hartman are filmmakers essentially, who produce actual content, and then there are people like Tyler Oakley and Joey Graceffa who are known for their big personalities.
When asked who connect with audiences more, Ingui feels that it is definitely a combination.
“I think you need to take into consideration both, because that’s their voice – that’s through their craft they develop and personify a voice,” she said.
Charlotte Blythe, (CharlieCharizard on YouTube) started uploading videos in January 2013 to show people that she was serious about music and wanted to be heard.
“It’s a free way to explore, be heard and make money,” Blythe, 17, said.
“It’s so simple to use and understand. This creative industry of film, television, radio and comedy is so difficult to get into, and YouTube just allows you to take the plunge.
“Yes you will get comments (maybe some bad ones) but it’s free critique and the more views you get, the more chance you’ll be noticed and your career will begin.”
Statistics show that from 2010 -2011 there were 4.3 million new users on YouTube from Australia. So why the intense interest?
Laura Daniels, a regular watcher of YouTube believes that people in today’s society are so invested in online platforms because of its accessibility.
“Society has definitely become enamoured with online content because it is so accessible,” Daniels, 19, said.
“As well as the fact that you can relate to the people you watch, creating a sense of empathy.”
Ingui similarly believes that the entire phenomenon of watching YouTubers is quite a strange concept. Recalling on the time when she first started getting into YouTube, Ingui describes it as chaotic.
“…and then I guess I got a channel and started subscribing, and started watching regularly, like you’d understand the schedule,” she said.
“And then suddenly you’re in this routine, and it’s like you’re seeing friends every day, it’s sort of like you’d come home and watch their videos – it’s the strangest phenomenon.”
So where does the future lie for YouTube? Is corporatisation inevitable and has its growth disrupted other industries?
Mr Murphie believes industries, established media forms and social habits all play a big role.
“This is where YouTube is disrupting other industries which aren’t strictly speaking, media industries,” Mr Murphie said.
“Fashion/beauty, music and education are classic examples.
“You can think of YouTube as a standalone thing in terms of monetisation, commercialisation and making money. But you can also think of it as a point in a much more complex marketing strategy, for whatever it is that you are doing, example fashion blogging.”
Shanks believes that YouTube’s increasing popularity within Australia is a great thing and is part of the ‘new world order’. He comments that eventually, it will gain bigger prominence and perhaps overtake traditional media forms.
“It’s such a conspiracy theory, but I do actually believe that though…because eventually nobody will watch television anymore,” Shanks said.
“I can just imagine the (TV) figures going down… so obviously in the same period of time, it was when 1.3 million subscribers have gone onto YouTube. There’s the numbers, that’s a sign. It’s definitely the future.”
The YouTube FanFest is being held this Saturday, 31st May at Luna Park Sydney with appearances from Jenna Marbles, Ryan Higa (Nigahiga), Tyler Oakley, Tobuscus and many more.
Bryan Jordan is a very ambitious kid. Three hundred drafts, 120,000 words and $40,000 raised. That’s what it takes if his creation is to ever see the light of day.
Former St. Aloysius College student Jordan, 18, is about to embark on the biggest project of his young life. Over the past 10 months, he was been working on creating a comedy television series called Flux with hopes to pitch it to major TV networks. With filming beginning on the 14th of this month, it’s situation go.
“I’ve always been really ambitious as a kid, and I’ve always done things a bit differently. I knew I was going to take a gap year, and I knew I wanted to do something, so I’m devoting my whole year to this,” the Belrose resident said.
Flux is essentially about a young Australian school boy who was formerly optimistic and is explaining how he’s become imprisoned three years in the future.
“The show is broken up into three periods, the present, three years before the present because it’s all based on one day and three years in the future,” he said.
“It’s just kind of explaining how all these events are linked into this guy’s life.”
Jordan’s idea originated after having a desire to make a mockumentary whilst at school.
“I kind of let that idea settle for year 11 and 12, and then sort of whatever happened at school, I’d just down the idea,” he explained.
“The day the HSC finished, I went straight into writing the first draft, and I think I did it in about a week, that was 10,000 words. And now I’m up to the 300th draft, so it’s just evolved from there. I write it then I leave it. Then the next day, I read over it again, certain jokes or whatever and it just keeps evolving.”
What makes Jordan’s screenplay different from other Australian comedies we have seen in the past?
“One day I was flicking through TV and I was like this is crap, that sucks etcetera. So I want Flux to be something like a fresh start, that’s what I’ve been describing it to people as, a fresh start, and it is, that’s the feedback we’ve been getting,” he said.
“It’s going to be unique, so different from what you have ever seen before, the comedy itself is going to be different. Everyone thinks of Chris Lilley for Australian comedy over the past decade, and when I wanted to make a mockumentary, like what Summer Heights High looks like, visually it was going to look like that and I didn’t want that at all. I was always struggling with how to do that. So it’s a very different kind of comedy to his.”
Throughout the creative process, there was one significant turning point for Jordan, one in which he actually believed his idea was suddenly worthy.
“The major turning point would have to have been watching the Oscars,” he said.
“Because it’s a comedy-drama, it’s very difficult to balance comedy and drama at the same time, with a really intense plot line. It wasn’t until I was watching the Oscars and The Wolf of Wall Street came on, that I realised that’s how we should kind of balance it out, in visual terms, like lighting and the general feel of it.”
“After that I went upstairs and I think I worked for 17 hours, like 8 hours of complete script changing, to like completely changing every detail of everything else.”
Cracking into the entertainment industry is a challenge itself, even harder when you’re 18 and fresh out of high school. Jordan says that there is really only one way to avoid the stigma.
“I never tell people my age (laughs) because they would be like ‘um, no’,” he says.
“There is a stigma. It’s a stigma for professionals that don’t understand the full extent. It takes so long to explain how much effort and work has gone into this.”
Does it worry him that he has no tertiary qualifications?
“No, and I don’t have any so it’s all based on the credibility of this. So I’m hoping, I’ll make this, then I’ll show it to them (potential TV networks) and then the stigma of being 18 and everything else won’t matter,” Jordan explained.
“At this stage, after this is over, I can’t see myself at University. I just don’t think I could do it,” he said.
“Even if we don’t get the success we want, it opens so many other doors. I’m open minded but at the same time I’m biased…we’ll see how we go. Screw Uni, I don’t want to study. I just want to go straight to a career and cut out the middle part.”
The biggest challenge Jordan has faced is raising sufficient funds to continue the production of his show. As to where he gets the money:
“With investors,” he said.
“We’ve actually raised $40,000 worth of investors.
And how does he approach these people?
“With massive spam messages,” he laughs.
“That’s how it is unfortunately, because it’s all private investing, so if we wanted to go to the bank to get a loan, it would delay production by literally 12 months. Essentially it’s everyone I know on my Facebook. It makes it weird when you’re asking for money, because it’s personal, but at the same time you can’t take it personally anymore.”
In regards to approaching possible people to star in his show, Jordan says it’s a matter of simply searching for them on the internet.
“You have to email their agents. Literally type it into Google,” he said.
“I’ve got some big comedians involved, Alex Williamson, Greg Fleet, Neel Kolhatkar, and Geraldine Hickey. But we’re trying to get John Cleese as well.”
Rejection is a natural part of the industry, and with a few ‘no’s’ from the likes of Hamish Blake and Peter Helliar, at times it can be disconcerting, however never losing sight of the ultimate goal is key.
“It’s brutal. With investors, it’s a lot worse. It’s 50 ‘no’s’ before you get a yes. It’s all based on money but you have to keep going,” he said.
And what happens if it all doesn’t work out? For Jordan, it’s ambition, dedication and the power of positive thinking that are crucial if you want to succeed. When asked if there was ever a time when he’d ‘had enough?’ –
“Not really, no I haven’t because I’ve always been positive. I’ve had the experience so I know what to expect,” he says.
“You just have to take opportunities.”
Finally, what is his best advice for other young people trying to crack into the industry?
“Probably just like f**king do it,” he laughs.
“You have to. You can’t give a sh*t what other people think about you. I hate excuses – I was like that from the very start. If you want something done, don’t waste time, just do it. As clichéd as it is, there’s no reason why you can’t do anything.”
“You can’t go half-hearted or you won’t succeed, especially in such a cut throat industry. You’ve got to put in 120 per cent, that’s the only logical way to do it.”
Watch this space.