Online: a ‘new’ journalism, content and the rule of the search engine

Traditionally journalism has been structured based on the confines of the newspapers design and size. There has been only one opportunity to ensure that the information is accurate, and balanced reporting is valued highly. However with the evolution of online journalism has give the audience greater power of how and when they get their news. The immediacy of the online forum means that the readers demand their news be available instantly and that it is constantly updated. This new medium also means that the audience can actively participate, by voicing their opinions, correcting and adding to the stories. However in this new territory new rules also apply. Search engines have a lot of control over where they navigates users to through their searches. They also have a big influence of content and have a huge presence through advertising. The power of the search engine is that they have control over their content. “Google achieved is unique in the history of media companies — not only did they perfect a new market for advertising, they found a way to control it.” (Karp, 2007)

Therefore journalists and audiences alike are conserved about what influence this is having on the online content and how publishers can exercise greater control. The latest piece of technology in the battle between a journalist’s content and the search engine is Automated Content Access Protocol (ACAP). The system has been implemented by Timesonline, giving publishers more control of the way search engines use and access their sites. The program is intends to benefit the audience, the publishers and the search engines. The publishers can apply limits on the amount of disruptions throughout the story from MSN, Google etc, giving them greater content control. ACAP also suggests that the program allows the publishers to be more creative in their online presentation.

Resources

http://publishing2.com/2007/04/04/the-battle-for-control-of-the-media-marketplace/
http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/530807.php

Moral Minefields: Legal and Ethical Dilemmas

There are various ethical issues that journalists are faced with throughout their career. Some ethical dilemmas have the law to guide journalists, however many situations do not. Journalists will face a variety of issues that will test person’s moral beliefs. This could include war journalism, protecting the anonymity of sources, what and when to report with relation to court cases, privacy rights, whether to publish something that is indecent or in bad taste, accepting gifts or money and more, all of these issues have to be weighed against the public’s right to know, the law and your own personal moral values. In many of these situations you can argue both sides and this is where the difficulty lies. However as we are currently engaged in blogging, I wanted to look at the ethics behind this new online media.

Blogging is a somewhat new phenomenon and it is facing some tough ethical questions. What responsibility do we have as bloggers to verify information or to publish opinion? Also should these rules only apply to journalists who write blogs or to everyday citizens as well? The law case of Blumenthal vs Drudge is an interesting case study. Drudge claimed Blumenthal was a wife-beater and this was very damaging to Blumenthal’s reputation, as this blog had a wide influence. However the judge ruled that Drudge was not a journalist and Blumenthal lost the case. While many said that this was the correct outcome as freedom of speech was protected, others claimed that this was an example of unethical online reporting and questions the nature of this new media form. There are many blogs that are written by journalists or are written by citizens but they work in an informative capacity. Therefore shouldn’t they be held to The Journalistic Code of Ethics, as all other mediums are? This is a particularly important question as the future of journalism looks to be heading increasingly to an online form. I think as journalists we should apply the same level of journalism standards that we would apply to the current mediums. “The fundamental principle of trust between reader and writer holds equally true for journalist and blogger alike. Whether you're reporting a story or blogging a link, you have to earn your trust the same way: one reader at a time.” (Hiler, 2002)

Resources
http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Online_Journalism_-_Ethics

Public Vs Private

As I completed my presentation on this topic I feel like I have a really good understanding of sides to this argument. The conclusion I have come to is that while there continues to be a lot of ambiguity with the law, every situation has to be assessed by the journalists own personal ethical standards. It is also apparent that even when the law is clear on an individual’s right to privacy (such as in the Derryn Hinch case discussed in class) your own personal ethical values may make you feel as if you have a greater moral obligation to the public. There are various issues that cause public interest to challenge privacy including; celebrities’ private lives, medical history, criminal and court cases and various other aspects that fall into a ‘private’ category. I think another important way of assessing whether the information is in the public interest is to look at the value of the information to the public, as compared to the harm it may cause. If the public isn’t going to benefit from finding out something trivial about a celebrities personal life, is it really worth the harm or personal pain it may cause the individual. However if we are talking about a media company (eg. a magazine) that’s profit relies purely on celebrity gossip, this is unlikely to be taken into account.

I have included some humourous cartoons that portray a very cynical picture of journalist’s views of privacy. While I don’t think this is an accurate portrayal of the way in which journalists treat an individual’s privacy, it is important for us to think about as journalism students.

Truth and Objectivity in Journalism

It has been suggested that some of the core aspects of journalism; truth and objectivity are becoming more and more difficult to preserve as journalism continues to develop and there are greater time pressures. I think that objectivity and truth are at risk because journalists are under pressure to produce more work in less time. It can simply be a matter of cutting corners, and not doubling checking information and typically it is the use of press releases, rather than researching and writing stories from scratch. Furthermore all truth is subjective, and the idea of absolute truth even when striving for democracy is unrealistic. However the fact remains that journalists have opinions and these are conveyed in their articles even though they are trying to remain objective. I think as journalist you should be honest about your own views and try to represent the facts in the fairest way possible.

There is a great clip I found, (‘The First Casualty? War, Truth & the Media Today’) that talks about how the media has failed to analyse its own role in presenting the truth to society, and its lack of ability to own up and talk about this role, means it has failed to be objective. It focuses on the ‘War on Terror’ and the impact the media’s framing has on the information about the Iraq, the protests etc and this had a influence on the way the audience viewed the war, and some suggest they are partly responsible for its occurrence. It is interesting to watch because , while the media wasn’t being out rightly dishonest, the lack of research, the framing of the stories and the coverage which all amounts to a lack of objectivity had a major influence on what people knew about the war and how they felt about it. It questions where journalists should draw the line, and reemphasises the fact that it is a journalist’s role to be objective and seek the truth. It also looks at embedded journalists in Iraq, and questions whether this provides an important insight or is simply a facade of truth, as it is ensured that soldiers toe the line. A very accurate statement made in this video was “Authority does not mean truth.” And I think this is something future journalists need to keep in mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFwD2xlAmVM&feature=related

Who Will Pay For Journalism?

One of the biggest questions that plagues journalism today is who will pay for journalism as the landscape of the media industry changes. Traditionally, particularly in the case of newspapers, advertising paid for journalism. However with the proliferation of technology, advertising is moving to an online forum and this leaves journalism in a difficult position. Many feel that because of this shift that we will see the end of newspapers, and the public will seek its news primarily from the internet, television and radio. But how will this impact of the quality of the journalism produced? Much of the investigative journalism in Australia is done by newspapers initially, and is further covered by other media outlets. In particular radio relies heavily on newspapers for the source of topical discussions. Will an online form be able to provide all this and keep up with the growing demands the audience has from the media? An article in The Australian newspaper called ‘The Winter of Journalism’s Content’ makes a case for many of these arguments and suggests that there are so much news available online because of newspapers and that without them, it would also make it more difficult for online news websites to survive. “We are living in an interregnum between the age of print and the age of the net. The content-rich newspaper websites in Australia and overseas are living off the assets of newspapers and their present advertising. Many non-newspaper sites, in turn, depend on them. If newspapers decline, the tap will be turned off and the apparent abundance of news will dry up.” (McKnight & O’Donnell, 2008) This articule also argues that advertising will also suffer if newspapers no longer exist. This is because the readers pay attention to the advertisements along with the stories within the context of a newspaper. However the stories are generally individually picked out online, rather than taking in the whole paper meaning that the advertisements are ignored. I have to admit reading ‘The Winter of Journalism’s Content’ story online (the irony!) the advertisements are down the column of the page, however I do ignore them, and don’t pay any attention to what they are about.

This also raises the question if it is not advertisers paying for journalism, then who will? This ulimately leads to an obvious answer, that the consumers should pay. While consumers are already paying for their news in some regards, it continues to be heavily subsidised by advertising, so would consumers pay more for their news, and if so how much are their willing to pay? I think that consumers are willing to pay for their news, however I think it will require ajustment as so much of our news is avaliable for free. I also think that although it could be tempting and may seem economically feastiable for newspapers to become more entertainment based, but I think people turn to newspapers because they want ‘real’ and quality news, and that if this dimishes they may also lose readers.


The Australian- ‘The Winter of Journalism’s Content’
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24283745-7582,00.html

Globalisation V Localisation

With the constant technological developments, both the media and the law are constantly playing catch up, and while there is uncertainty with their roles, they must continue to consider their international responsibilities. The concept of the ‘global village’ developed as a global media audience was created through the advancement of new technologies. With the development of this global media audience, big corporations have seen the opportunities available to dominate the global media, and these corporations not only earn billions through their various companies but also hold a lot power as well. Obviously with ten corporations controlling the world’s media there are concerns over the concentration of ownership, however different voices do not guarantee different opinions. Editor-in-chief of The Age, Steve Harris, argues “...diversity of ownership and diversity of source has never guarantee diversity of opinion, and... independent ownership has never guaranteed quality, just as group ownership does not guarantee the absence of quality.” (Harris cited in Breit, 2001, p. 214-215) However it cannot be denied that there is a greater danger of less diversity with less voices and that these corporations can and have used the media for their own agenda. Further more the joint ventures between the ten corporations in control of the world’s media dominate smaller markets and many believe they will soon move towards having greater control over new technologies, such as internet. Also O’Shaughnessy & Stadler argue that the media’s dependency on global content could mean that the convergence of media technology leads to “...sensationalism, trivialisation, generalisation, recycling of content, and lack of diversity of information. This standardisation of content can decrease the substance and efficiency of communication, just as easily as convergence can enrich communication by providing more options for senders and receivers of messages...” (O’Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2005, p. 437)

Particularly important is the fact that the global media has not created a global voice. As the media is owned by large corporations this means the media is treated as any other business, and that the media has to packaged to ‘sell’ as well as being cost-effective. This packaging has a detrimental affect on the diversity of voices, as the ‘packages’ are added at a specific group within the audience rather than at the world. “Globalisation has resulted in standardisation of information and audience with large sections of the world left under-represented.” (Gerbner cited in Breit, 2001, p. 216) All these factors relate to concern that commercial interests are setting the news agendas rather than the public’s right to be informed.

With both the media and the law being jeopardized by globalisation, journalists must accept the changing of their role whist attempting to uphold their developed ethics and responsibility to society. And hopefully the law will eventually be able to keep up with these developments and come up with an international law that protects journalists and closely monitors the TNCs who control the media.

Resources

O’Shaughnessy, M & Stadler, J 2005, Media and Society: An Introduction,3rd edn, Oxford University Press, Victoria

Tapsall, S & Varley, C (eds) 2001, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, Victoria

Citizen Journalism

As journalism has evolved and technology has developed one of the biggest changes to journalism practice is that journalism now forms public opinion rather reporting on public opinion. Carey suggests this is because of the convergence of journalism with the entertainment industry have caused the lines to become blurred. “The press no longer facilitated or animated a public conversation, for public conversations had disappeared. It informed a passive and privatised group of citizens who participated in politics through the press. What conversation remained was orchestrated by the press in the name of a superior knowledge and superior instruments of inquiry into just what was going on.” (Carey cited in Tapsall & Varley, 2001, p. 43) This dissatisfaction with the media, coupled with the accessibility of technology has lead to the development of citizen journalism. Gramsci proposes ‘intergral journalism’ which “...aims not only to satisfy all the needs of its public, but also to create and develop these needs, to arouse the public and to progressively enlarge it.” (Gramsci cited in Tapsall & Varley, 2001, p.45) This concept is also linked to Jay Rosen’s notion of community or citizen journalism. The concept of citizen journalism allows the public to examine its cultural role, and uncover some of the economic power behind the news. “Cultural forms , like the media, and cultural practices, like journalism, continue to make a significant contribution to the way in which we ‘imagine’ ourselves and communities.” (Tapsall & Varley, 2001, p.46) Romano and Hippocrates suggest that not only has the increased availability and saturation of technology lead to citizen journalism but also the lack of traditional media outlets addressing topics that are actually of interest to their audience. Public journalism lets the public decide what is reported, rather than those in power and it aims to include the public in discussion and the decision making processes. What supporters of citizen journalism consider the flaws of traditional journalism is this failure to link to community, and it is this they suggest that this leads many away from traditional methods of receiving the news to newer forums. However there are justified concerns regarding citizen journalism, in particular that it will erode the professional standards of journalists and that a poor quality of professional writing will also be prevalent. It is also argued that a sense of duty to the community could also interfere with journalists presenting the truth to that said community.

However as argue in the ‘Global Digital Journalism: A Transformative Moment’ video, citizen journalism give the public access to information that would not get otherwise, and as highlighted by Joyce Barnathan (the presenter) the information is of a high quality, and should not be dismissed as amateur, because the technology is allowing citizens around the globe to share information with the world. Without the presence of citizen journalism, some of these stories would never be told, and there is an important level of authenticity to this, as it is often told by those affect or part of the story. Barnathan also discusses how she believes Google to be the most powerful news source, setting the agenda for readers worldwide and questions how they can control the integrity and quality of news sources on the internet. This video is quite long, but definitely worth a look, Barnathan covers many of the major questions facing modern journalism; citizen journalism, the journalists’ role, technological changes and how this impact on journalism ethics.

Citizen journalism will continue to raise many questions for journalists around the world, and being a new development only time will tell whether it will have a positive or negative impact on journalism. From this research and the Jay Rosen conference viewed in class, it appears as if citizen journalism could have some real benefits for the public, but could be potentially harmful to the traditional journalist’s role.

Global Digital Journalism: A transformative Moment Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBB8zzgJAF0

Resources

Barnathan, J 2007, Global Digital Journalism: A Tranformative Moment, video, viewed 16 August 2008 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBB8zzgJAF0>

Tapsall, S & Varley, C (eds) 2001, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, Victoria