Au revior blog!

So this is my final post for my journalism blog (and my final post for a blog for university!) and now I’m here at the end of it all I’ve found that I have a new appreciation for those of you going out into the world to be journalists. This course has really taught me just how much journalists have to deal with in their day to day practices – and even though I’m pretty sure I’m not going to go into the field of journalism – I’ll always appreciate how challenging it is and I must say that I admire those of you who have the drive and passion to pursue this as a profession.

So what next for me? Just a lot of travel next year and writing about the places I go, the people I meet and the experiences I have.

Anyway, that’s the end of that and I wish everyone all the best in wherever life goes.

new online media

Below is an article from Mark Boden on the future of online journalism. I must say that I agree with a lot of what he is saying:

Here’s an “old fuddy-duddy,” as he calls himself, who has opened his mind to the future of multimedia journalism in way that puts many newspaper editors and executives to shame:

I wrote here last week that I believe newspapers, despite their current hard times, will ultimately survive. I think the print edition will probably endure to some extent, but, without any doubt, the future of daily journalism is digital, not because it is the latest thing, but because it is, quite simply, a far better medium than paper and ink.

There are many editors who would still blanch at the idea that digital media is better than print media in all instances — but for news, it’s really hard to argue that it isn’t. Mobile device manufacturers (e.g. iPhone) are making progress on the portability issue every day.

Most newspaper sites are little more than Web editions of the paper product, and more difficult to use. They are a little bit like early movies, in which the director essentially filmed a stage play. But because journalism itself has value, eventually publishers will work out the profit problem.

It’s amazing that after 10 years on the web, newspaper websites are still so much like print newspapers. Many newspapers have launched innovative online video editorial products, aiming to compete with local TV stations, but those innovations are still dragging the rest of the site along like an albatross.

Unlike with TV and radio, which are stuck with people reading out loud, customers of digital journalism will get the best of all media forms. They can wade into any story that attracts them as deeply as they wish. Readers will gravitate toward prose, while those who prefer sounds and images can simply watch and listen. The digital report will not be locked into the strict chronological format of TV and radio news, but will be much more like a newspaper, which permits you to begin with sports and weather, if you wish, or go right to the editorials or comics.

I agree that atomization of video news, combined with text-based versions, is what will pull people away from their TV newscasts and their print newspapers to a fully digital news experience.

For newspapers, the business challenge is to find a way to subsidize this kind of multimedia investigative reporting — if the future of journalism is indeed digital, then at some point newspaper will have to consider laying off the printing presses.

Bowden also points to a much discussed model where staff journalists collaborate with citizen journalists, thus expanding what each person on the payroll can accomplish.

The old idea of reporters covering a beat might well be replaced by an online reporter/editor who oversees a subject area driven by the entire community - a constantly updating police blotter or transit map, for instance. Digital thinkers refer to this as a pro-am (professional-amateur) model, in which the reporter is corrected, tipped off and guided - just as I was with Black Hawk Down - by the expertise of his readers. Blog sites offer a rudimentary working model.

It’s a model that newspapers need to hurry up and develop while their businesses can still support a staff to learn it.

http://publishing2.com/2007/06/18/mark-bowden-on-the-future-of-journalism-online/

Media vs. the Law - case studies

It's little look at the case study which was mentioned in the reading for this week. I thought it was a really good example of how journalists need to understand the fine line between their commentaries and then the impact which this may have on the judicial process. So for those of you who aren’t familiar with the case, back in 1987, Derryn Hinch (who was a radio journalist at the time) was running a campaign against the abuse of power by people in positions of trust, particularly sex offenders. It came to Hinch’s attention that former Catholic Priest, Father Michael Glennon, was facing charges relating to the molestation of children at his youth care foundation. So Hinch basically went on air and revealed all this to his audience, and he also outlined the priest’s prior convictions. So the broadcasts basically implied that Glennon was guilty. Hinch was subsequently charged with subjudice contempt – because his broadcasts were made during the period after Glennon had been charged but before the matter had gone to court. Hinch tried to justify his actions by stating that the public interest in protecting children in Glennon’s care outweighed Glennon’s right to a fair trial. Despite, this the court still maintained that Hinch overstepped the mark and so he had to pay a fine and spend 28 days in jail. As further result of Hinch’s actions, Glennon later appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the radio report had tainted the juror’s judgment on his trial. Only by a 4-3 majority did the court uphold the conviction – so the guilty almost escaped his sentence because of a journalist’s commentary.

I’ve also just got a quote here from Lex Lasry (who is a judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria) and he was commenting on the Mohamed Haneef trial: "I think the real disadvantage in this case, or at least the real potential disadvantage and unfairness in this case, has been that Dr Haneef has had two weeks of solid publicity, including commentaries from the Attorney-General and Prime Minister at one stage, so if he does have to face a trial, then inevitably the fairness of that trial is going to be affected by publicity". So this just sort of reinforces how careful journalists need to be when commenting on criminal matters, because in cases such as this one, it could muddy the trial of an innocent person.

Media and the Law

The Chief Justice of South Australia, John Doyle, once said that: “the judiciary and the media are locked in an embrace from which neither can escape”. So those caught in the embrace are from completely different cultures, with a history of very public antagonism between them. This opposition has seen members of the media imprisoned and fined thousands of dollars for being in contempt of court. The Australian judiciary, on the other hand, needs to ensure that justice is able to be served fairly, without the media tainting a case, and turning public opinion. RD Nicholson of the Federal Court of Australia believes that the tensions that exist between the media and the judiciary exist because of the different methodologies employed by each sector. So, he stated that judicial methodology is balanced, objective dispassionate, detached, impartial, neutral and informative. Journalism, on the other hand, gets quite a bad wrap from him, as he states it is characterised by: incompleteness, inaccuracy, quoting out of context, personalising, politicising, trivialising, entertaining rather than instructing or analysing. However, journalists state that they have the hardest job of all – ABC radio presenter, John Faine states “the pressure is more or less on the journalist to deliver, even if it means cutting a corner or taking a risk over a fact or detail of the case”.

So when journalists are reporting, whose interests exactly should they act in? The interests of their boss and publication, the interests of the individual on whom they are interviewing or reporting, the interests of the government in power or the interests of the reading public? Journalist, Ellen Fanning, believes that journalists should always act in the public interest. Though it might be a good idea for them to consider the other interests mentioned if they want to keep their jobs. Oh and another journalistic ideal which favours the idea of ‘public interest’ is that of editorial independence – which Lumby states, is belief that journalists and allied media producers should be free to report without interference.

Now we cross to the problematic issue of ethics. David Conley and Stephen Lamble believe that journalists make ethical judgments in three roles: as an employee, a professional and an individual – so in this sense, what is ethical can be very much in the eye of the beholder and for this reason, it is important that journalists learn to assess the various shades of grey that come with criminal proceedings. Perhaps the guiding principle should be ‘the public interest’; however academics Hurst and White express concern that this could easily be confused with the idea of being ‘interesting to the public’. Journalists should also consider what harm might be caused to individuals and groups as a result of reporting and publication. Can harm be justified? If it can’t, can damage be lessened while still serving the informative function? These are all issues which journalists need to consider when reporting or publishing on a criminal proceeding. And so, the legal system prefers to weigh up the social benefits of a situation – asking whether the public interest is served in allowing the media to report on certain matters – but even if journalists are able to report on an individual, it is important that they adhere to the legalities of the situation, such as the time zones which Louise discussed earlier.

So perhaps further enhancing the case for the public interest or public’s right to know is the fundamental right of freedom of speech. This quote comes from Breit and she states: The importance of freedom of speech has been restated in all human rights documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It sits within a triumvirate of fundamental human rights – freedom of thought and consciousness, freedom of expression and freedom of association and assembly – all of which are seen as essential to human development.

Though, that is not to say that there should not be limits on what a journalist should be allowed to say and publish to the public. Yes, freedom of speech is an important democratic ideal, however, also important is the respect owed to private individuals, and this includes individuals standing to trial. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right and needs to be balanced against other people’s and organisations rights and interests. Therefore the public’s right to know should also not be an absolute right.

Ok, so now we can move onto looking at the reasons why journalists need to be careful when reporting on criminal matters and how the judiciary feels that journalists can impede upon a person’s right for a fair trial. So we have issues such as trial by media, which is basically where the media pick up on a story and run with it, sometimes falsely condemning the person standing, and don’t really consider the implications which this may have for the individual or the trial. So out of this, the ideal of a fair trial can be compromised, with the opinion jurors and the general public being tainted by what journalists have reported and written. The public might also feel less confident in the justice system if they believe that a trial has been tainted by things that the media have printed – it is pretty important in democratic that the legal system has the confidence of the general public. And then there is also cases where trials are delayed and appealed because the accused believes that they did not get a fair trial because of media reports – and as you can imagine, this can be quite disastrous for the justice system if someone is convicted of a serious crime but manages to get off on the basis of blaming journalists for unfair reporting, as we will find out in one of the case studies.

public vs. private pt 2

Lord Wakeham, Chairman of the UK Press Complaints Commission, suggested seven questions editors should ask themselves when questions of a possible invasion of privacy arise. I think we could all do to have a read through these and keep them in mind when (if in the future) we are ever faced with this moral and ethical dilemma:

1. Is there a genuine public interest involved in invading someone's privacy as defined by Clause 18 of the Code - detecting or exposing crime, protecting public health, preventing the public from being misled - or is this simply a story which interests the public?
   
   
2. If there is indeed a genuine public interest, have you considered whether there are ways to disclose it which minimise the invasion into the private life of the individual concerned?
   
   
3. If you are using photographs as part of the story, which will have to be, or have already been, obtained by clandestine means and therefore compound the invasion of privacy, does the public interest require their automatic publication or are they simply illustrative?
   
   
4. If there is a genuine public interest which cannot be exposed in any other way than intrusion - and possibly the obtaining and publication of photographs - have you considered whether there is any way to minimise the impact on the innocent and vulnerable relatives of the individual concerned, and in particular the children?
   
   
5. If you are intending to run a story about someone connected or related to a person in the public eye in order to illustrate a story about that public figure, are you satisfied that the connection is not too remote and that there is a genuine public interest in mentioning that connection?
   
   
6. Where you are preparing to publish a story seeking to contrast what a public figure has said or done in the past with his or her current statements or behaviour, have you satisfied yourself that it is fair to make such a comparison and that the original behaviour or statement was recent enough to justify publication in the public interest?
   
   
7. If you are intending to run a story about the private life of an individual where there used to be a public interest, have you applied each of these guidelines afresh in case such a defence no longer exists?

public vs. private

Where do we draw the proverbial line in the sand when it comes the matter of public interest (NOT interesting to the public – journalists need to be really careful there) verse an individuals right to privacy? Journalists need to tread carefully when writing about matters that may be very private to certain individuals.

But how can we define privacy? David Archard reckons that there is a distinct line between loss of control of personal information and then an out and out loss of privacy – he believes that privacy is only invaded when the information is made available to a larger third, party. So I guess this where journalists would need to use their moral compasses in order to determine whether or not they should release private information to the general public. The justification of the ‘public interest’ is often used here, although a lot of the time, the information seems to be more interesting to the public – and for that matter, who decides what is in the public interest?

Was it in the public interest for the Daily Telegraph to publish photographs of Senator Robert Woods and his wife having a strained conversation in their backyard (the photo was taken with a long lens camera after Senator Woods’ affair had been revealed)? I don’t think this could possibly be justified. Invasions into politician’s private lives can only be justified if their private activities impede upon their ability in public office.

However, Andrew Belsey argues that a public person’s claim to privacy is no more than a presumption, that their privacy can never truly be violated because they gave it up when they entered public life. I don’t agree with Belsey at all. Privacy should be a universal right afforded to everybody, regardless of public status. Journalists need to recognise this and perhaps become more ethical in the way they report upon private matters. Yes, putting a photo of a dead body on the front page may sell more papers, but we need to think about the implications which this has for other factors involved (such as families and reputations). It just seems a bit shady and dirty to me, like a trick that further cheapens the already tarnished image of journalism.

Oh and you can have a look at the Australian Press Council's Privacy standards here: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/complaints/priv_stand.html

truth and objectivity

So, I have decided to hand in the following news story. It was based on Kerryn's presentation which was very good and interesting and gave me a lot to write about (and think about). Here it is!

University students get a valuable lesson in truth.

By Victoria Tayler

Kerryn Christie, an aspiring lawyer from the University for Newcastle, yesterday treated her peers with a discussion on truth and objectivity in journalism.

Ms Christie’s presentation was focused on the commercial pressures which affect journalists in their pursuit of the truth.

The first issue raised surrounded the problems with the creation of truth, where students discovered that the reality of the profession of journalism does not always match the ideal of journalistic truth which comes with the notion of ‘the fourth estate’.

Ms Christie stated that: “Journalists are left to do the best they can in the everyday life of their profession.

“This might lead to different representations of truth, such as half truths or misappropriation”.

Students further discovered the commercial pressures which journalists must deal with each day; these include such factors as advertising agendas, shrinking budgets and the notion of spin.

Because of these pressures, journalists are finding it increasingly difficult to access the truth due to the layers of media management and the influence imposed by public relations.

These pressures are leading to an increase in ‘churnalism’, a concept coined by journalistic commentator and author, Nick Davies.

Mr Davies comments: “They just churn this stuff over without having the time to check it, without having the time to decide whether or not this is what they should even be covering today.

“And it flows into the news and a lot of it is garbage.”

Ms Christie believes that there has been a considerable shift in what is considered news worthy, with media proprietors attempting to retain audiences by increasing the amount of celebrity and lifestyle stories.

University student, Ms Casey Stanwell gave her opinion on the matter, stating: “Journalists just need to be aware of the pressures and work within them to produce the best, most objective story”.

who will pay for journalism?

As we all know, since the mass media and printing press emerged around the turn of the century, advertising has financed the practice of journalism – however, everything and everyone seems to be turning on their computers and getting their info off the internet. Newspaper sales are dropping as people sit in their little rooms, reading the computer screen (and probably eating cereal – don’t we all read news in that sleepy pocket between waking up and getting ready for the day?). Anyway, the point is advertising is moving with the rest of the world and taking journalism finances, salaries etc away from the professionals. Now, Jay Rosen would have told us to embrace this fact, get on our little journalism boats and sale on over to the new world of the internet.

An article in The Economist magazine said that newspapers are an endangered species, and that to remain un-extinct (yes I know that’s not a word), they should become more commercial – yes, that’s what the world needs, more stories on Tom Cruise and his whack religion. Yuk. I think I would rather see newspapers and journalism go under before I have to read (or write) about scientology. If newspapers want to regain some credibility (and readership) they need to “respond properly to doomsday thinking by relying on their traditional strengths and reject research that tells editors the future lies in infotainment."

Oh and an article from The Australian also brings up a really good point!:

Governments can regulate electronic media through licensing. They do not regulate newspapers. If newspaper advertising and journalism are unbundled, newspapers will not only lose financial independence but society will lose an important institution that has autonomy in the political field. Whatever newspaper critics may say, this move is likely to degrade the information available in a liberal democratic society.

Here it is in full: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24283745-25192,00.html

So, I don’t really know who is going to pay for journalism. Journalists may do it for the love of the job, but this isn’t exactly going to feed their families or pay their mortgages. I don’t think newspapers will die out either, but they will probably have to look to sources other than advertising – and at the moment I’m not really sure what these could be.

citizen journalism

Here is a video which pretty much gives a nice, neat overview of citizen journalism.

globalisation

So, as we have seen in previous weeks, the most important development over the past twenty years in international communication has been the increase in concentration of media ownership both nationally and internationally. This concentration of news ownership has pretty much come with a commercialisaiton of news and the ‘softening’ up of news stories. It is my understanding that all of these processes are part of globalisation. Mix new media technologies (namely the internet) into all of this and we have quite a complicated little situation on our hands – so complicated in fact, that both the media and the legal system have been forced to re-evaluate their roles.

So global media giants enter into partnerships with national media firms and produce, provide and disseminate news and entertainment to domestic markets. Satellite broadcasting has more or less projected these products into the cultural and information marketplace of every section of the globe.

So where does this leave the rest of us? If these trends continue does that mean that we will come into an age where the majority of the worlds information and entertainment is provided by or somehow connected to one of these global media conglomerates. Herman and McChesney seem to think that these corporations will even dominate the internet in years to come.

I think that global regulations need to be put in place in order to ensure that media conglomerates and trans national corporations maintain high standards of news – it’s a slippery slope that we are on at the moment and I would really like to see journalisms integrity restored.

I found a really food article on the whole issue, you can check it out here:

http://www.idsnet.org/Papers/Communications/HEMANT_SHAH.HTM

Churnalism?

Who watched the 7.30 Report tonight (27/8)? If you missed it you should really check it out on the show's website - Nick Davies raises a lot of the issues which we have been discussing in class for the past five or so weeks. I really liked his concept of churnalism - and I must say that I agree with much of what he was saying. Journalists are basically time poor now and therefore don't really be seeming to be actively going out and seeking and gathering information - instead they just 'churn' the information which flows in to them. Davies uses the example of the weapons of mass destruction in the Iraq War, and basically states that the media clutch on to certain stories and just run with them, then when they blow up, nothing is really done to rectify the misinterpretation. Another example which has been mentioned in class is the Haneef affair - the guy basically had his life in Australia destroyed by AFP, government and media - he turned out to be innocent in the end, yet there was no real reflection on how the media stuffed things up so badly.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the journalists fault - it's just the state of the profession today - the pressures that journalists have to deal with today (commercialism, the Internet - bloggers + citizen journalism etc) have completely changed the playing field from what it was thirty or so years ago (that's not to say that there weren't problems back then though).

I'm really confused about what I think is going to happen to the profession of journalism in the next ten or so years. I think I'll have to do some more reading on the issue and mull it over a bit and perhaps come back to it in a few weeks time after it has all sunk in.

The practice of journalism

So, we have defined (or attempted to define) what a journalist actually is - but what of the practice of journalism? The readings this week looked at the role of journalism and how it has changed throughout history. The practice of journalism developed from the idea that media institutions should be seen as 'the fourth estate' - completely independent from the judiciary, government and parliament - adopting a sort of 'watchdog' role within society. However, I think it is obvious that this is no longer the case. Previous readings have showed us how the journalist can no longer be independent and that there are always pressures (financial, commercial, corporate, government) which influence the way in which journalism is now done. The Iraq War is a perfect example of how journalists are no longer able to maintain their 'watchdog' role - http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_iraqmedia.shtml - this article really highlights the point. I particularly like this section of it:

"He [Todd Gitlin] likened some war coverage – particularly that practiced by television – to a televised sporting event. Rather than journalism, it becomes entertainment. When the primary motive of media institutions becomes audience share, then these institutions "seek a rapture of attention" in order to procure as many eyeballs as possible. This, said Gitlin, conflicts with "a journalistic duty not to please," but rather to shake the safe assumptions of their audience." (Berkley News Online, 2004).

In the reading, Carey argues that journalism came about as a form of speech, a flow of conversation "that enabled the specific social formation of 'the public'" (Meadows 2008, 43). However, the question needs to be asked - who is now participating in this conversation? Are journalists really playing out their role of the fourth estate or are they simply the mouthpieces of the people paying them? I liked Gramsci's ideal of journalism, an ideal which looks to "not only satisfy all the needs of its public, but also to create and develop these needs, to arouse the public and to progressively enlarge it" (Meadow 2008, 45). Ideally, journalism should be a form of communication in which the public can participate to sustain democracy - however, as already highlighted, this is not the case.

The combining of information and entertainment has also had pretty dire effects on the practice of journalism. What constitutes news now? Is news the stories on 'Today Tonight' which describe how yoghurt can kill you? I don't think so, yet there seems to be a pretty big shift towards towards these kinds of 'human interest' stories. Oh no! Turner also believes that the move towards 'infotainment' has had detrimental effects on journalistic practices.

Journalism needs to put the public back into the practice if they want to survive in contemporary society. Gone are the days where newspapers and journalists were a persons only window to the world. New technology, like the Internet, allows almost anyone to adopt the role of a journalist. The information we want is only a click or two away - much of it is not even filtered or altered by the pressures which traditional journalistic practices are effected by. Journalism needs to change its practices pretty drastically if it is to remain relevant today.

More on journalists

In chapter two, Hirst and McManus give journalists a pretty hard time and assert that "journalists are peddlers of a commodity called information that is marketed to commercial advantage". (Burns 2008, 25). Burns also goes on to state that the advertiser is the most important customer in journalism, and furthermore, that the advertiser is always right. Evidence of this can be found in the 'cash for comment' scandal - where John Laws was more than happy to 'advertise' banks to his listeners if it meant gaining a multi-million dollar deal (the ads were passed off as Laws' opinion). However, Laws maintained that he was not a journalist, but an entertainer and should therefore not be held accountable to a journalists code of ethics. The idea of journalists as entertainers is further explored in the text.

So how do we classify journalists if the proverbial line between journalists and entertainers is becoming increasingly blurred? Are the boys from 'Chasers' journalists or entertainers? They don't educate and inform in the traditional journalistic sense - but what they do is certainly a lot more appealing to a fifteen year old then reading a newspaper or watching SBS. They still discuss current affairs (though it seems as though they do more silly skits these days), so are they journalists or entertainers or both?

Burns sums up the ideological divide pretty well, stating: "it may be argued that the commercial imperative that seems so at odds with the aspirations of a free press is at the very core of the media's independence from government control, thus securing its role as a public watchdog". Poor journalists, there is obvious some serious conflict going on between their role to inform and educate and then their job to make profits for their bosses.

A Journalist?

What is a journalist? Before I began reading the text or doing any sort of research towards answering this question - I thought it would be a good idea to describe my current idea of a journalist. When pondering this, the first image that popped into my mind was of a friend of mine, a uni student, who is a practicing journalist (and is in Beijing doing lots of exciting and wonderful journalistic things with the Olympic swimmers). For me, she epitomises what a journalist should be: hard working, a good writer, thick skinned, inquisitive, a good listener etc. I found that a lot of these things were mentioned in the reading as being core skills and attributes of journalists.

However, I hadn't really thought about journalists and the profession of journalism in quite as much depth as the reading went into - and I found it interesting to read about the changing landscape of this media profession. So, I have decided to pull out some of the most interesting aspects of the readings and share what I think about it all.

For me, Peter Cave puts it best: "... a journalist is an intermediary between the people who want information and the sources of information... at the same time, the journalist is a filter of information... and that's where the danger lies." (Tapsall and Varley 2008, 6). This got me thinking about the different 'filters' which journalists need to consider when writing a story - I don't think that journalists themselves are the filters of news, but I do believe that there are a number of factors which do influence the way they write (employers, advertisers etc - more on this later). Our textbook states that more than ninety per cent of journalists feel as though they should be responsible to the public and community - but how can this happen when there are so many other forces and pressures operating against the journalistic ideal of being the 'watchdog' or 'fourth estate' within society?

"News organisations have attempted to combat the slide in news consumers by 'dumbing down' serious stories and increasing the entertainment quotient of the news." (Tapsall and Varley 2008, 13). This is an issue which was also raised in the 'Media Watch' episode which was screened in the tutorial - I remember the example of 'The Sydney Morning Herald' and how it was dedicating more space to celebrity and lifestyle stories than to 'hard' news. I found this quite concerning - does this mean I can no longer get up on my i-read-quality-newspapers high horse/soap box when talking to friends who read 'The Telegraph'? What is a good newspaper in this day and age anyway? The reading also talks about journalists having to deal with the pressure of producing articles with sales impact rather than articles for the greater good - do people really want to hear about whether or not Britney has dropped her baby rather than an international crisis. Did Sales and co. hit the nail on the head when they stated: "It is possible to broadcast to the world, but is the world interested? Apparently not." How sad...

I also found the point about technology interesting, especially the quote from Kingston - "it's all so structured. You know, it used to be free. And new technology has not made us free, it has imprisoned us." (Kingston as cited by Tapsall and Varley 2008, 14). If anything, I would have thought that the internet would have made the practice of journalism more open and fluid - obviously not.

Overall, it is obvious that defining 'journalists' is problematic (to say the least). On one hand, there is this ideal which surrounds the profession, but on the other, is the reality of the matter. The modern day journalist has been pushed and pulled in so many different directions that the original form/profession is almost unrecognisable.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog!

I will use this blog over the coming weeks to reflect upon the ideas I have come across in the readings and classes for CMNS3420 - Journalism.

Happy reading!