Real life journalism

This semester we have talked a lot about the public's right to know and the right to privacy. Also, about what to publish and what not to publish. On Wednesday, in the Maitland Mercury and the Newcastle Herald - there was the perfect example.

Both newspapers covered the funeral of Brendan Allwood, the 23-year-old apprentice plumber who was tragically electrocuted at work last week. His actions saved the life of his boss and good mate Aaron Watt (pictured below).

For the Allwood's it was a double blow. They had lost their husband and father less than five years earlier.

The main issue here is the photographs. Above, are two images, which were both used by both publications. The one on the left of Brendan's mother, girlfriend (left) and sister (right) was blown up on the Mercury's front cover. The one on the right, of Brendan's mother leaning on Brendan's girlfriend's sholdour, was used on the front by the Herald.

It caused many heated discussions around the Mercury office the next day. All the ladies in accounts were blowing up saying the image used by the Mercury was inappropriate and as mothers, they empathised with the griefing mother. They felt the image was to raw and the picture (above right) would have been the better choice.

I agreed.

On the other hand, the Mercury's front cover did show the grief, although graphically, and the family had asked the newspaper to be there.

But more importantly, if you were the editor/photographer/ journalist, and you had to make the decision, what would you do?

This is a real life scenario in a community newspaper close to home with real consequences, and you have to consider not only the paper, but the people. No text books now!

Here is the link to the online article - Woody funeral.

Photos by Cath Bowen and published on the Maitland Mercury website.

Bolts stops the clock - and Kingston murders

I am not normally one for sports and political pedestals but Usain Bolt, the Beijing Olympics triple gold medalist, made a fair point the other day.

I was reading a sports brief in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week and after winning some form of world sports award, Bolt had a message to send his countrymen that went a little like this: Me and my fellow athletes have done a good job and we are trying to promote Jamacia, so stop killing each other.

According to this article called "Usain Bolt offers hope to Jamaicia's troubled society" written by Jenny McAsey (heraldsun.com.au, August 22, 2008), 1500 Jamacians were murdered last year and 270 were gunned down by police.

"USAIN Bolt has revolutionised sprinting but his record-breaking deeds have an even greater power to change the crime-ridden youth culture that is threatening to destroy Jamaican society," McAsey wrote in her lead paragraph.

This was backed up by Owen Slot who wrote for the Times Online on September 9 this year, "That is the effect that the Olympics had on Jamaica. Barbara Blake Hannah, a special consultant to the Ministry of Information, Culture and Sports, said: 'Sports is one thing that holds Jamaica together. I heard that on the day of Bolt's 100 metres, no one here was killed. Even murder took a holiday for him'."

It shouldn't take an Olympic champion to stop murder but good on ya' Usain Bolt - for your incredible deeds on the track and for speaking up off it when your country was in desperate need.

QLD police investigate journalists

Check out this press release I received from the MEAA today.

It ties right in with the privacy and law issues we have been dealing with in class.

Click here to see the story.

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

The two presentations in class today were very informative.

Firstly, Lauren Carter outlined the advent of online media, compared it to traditional journalism and then examined its reliability.

"I mentioned before how one of the major advantages of online journalism is it's immediacy, and this begs the question of what exactly are we giving up in return for instant information gratification - and the answer given by many web journalism critics is accuracy and depth," Ms Carter said.

"Online journalism prides itself on delivering the latest breaking news first, but technology means that misinformation can spread immediately as well."

On the website Web Aware, an article about misinformation online is posted, "Unfortunately, the Internet also contains a great deal of information that is neither valuable nor reliable. Since anyone can post comments or information on the Internet, users need to develop critical thinking skills to judge the accuracy of online information".

"Traditionally, printed resources have had gatekeepers - editors, proofreaders and fact checkers - to weed out mistakes, lies and inaccurate information. However, the Internet, in many cases, has no safety guards."

Like Web Aware pointed out, these gatekeepers have traditionally been in printed material. Now newspapers are declining in an era that has already converged and is becoming more and more reliant on the World Wide Web for its news.

"The convergence of communications and information technologies (CIT), the growth of on-line media, and the relative decline of both print and broadcast news journalism in Australia have encouraged prophetic statements about the future - or lack thereof - of the 'traditional' news media," Suellen Tapsall said in chapter 15, The Media is the Message (235).

While many people are calling the death of newspapers, Fidler says he has heard it all before, "Of course, this isn't the first time the pundits have written obituaries for newspapers. In the 1950s and 60s most of them were convinced that television would be the death of newspapers, and in the 70s and early 80s it was videotext. In each case, technology and economics were thought to favour electronic media. Yet far from killing them, new technologies actually helped to save newspapers and make them even more profitable. Now the pundits are wringing their hands again (Fidler in Tapsall, 237)."

I definately agree with Fidler. I do not believe that traditional news media will die with the advent of online journalism. I believe there will be an increase in convergence, which does demonstrate a bit of technological determinism, but I do not think newspapers will die.

What do you think? Will online journalism overtake traditional media formats?

You can participate in the exclusive online poll to the right of my home page as well. You have until the end of semester to participate.

The second presentation today was delivered by Amy Wilkinson and she concentrated on search engine optimisation (SEO). It cause quite a stir in class and it was a new term for me but I think I was aware of it already, without knowing exactly what it was called. And really, it makes sense, to attempt and maximise the hits on your web site by tailoring content and repeating words. There are millions of websites in cyber space and effective use of SEO makes it possible for yours to be found by the punters at home, work or play.

I think it opens itself up by dodgy back door deals with big companies like Google, but that is probably another issue all together.

Rather than a Josh Callinan conspiracy theory, I will allow Tapsall to have the last say on this blog topic: "The continued success of a medium-diverse journalism will certainly require news organisations to identify their niche and build on the strengths of their medium. More importantly, it will require a willingness to look beyond the technological determinist visionaries and doomsayers to consider strategically and realistically the promises and challenges posed by technology and convergence (252)."

"Shiver me timbers!"

Today is the 14th annual International Talk Like A Pirate Day. Grab your rum, put on your hat and sail away across the seven seas to find your buried treasure. Or click here for bit more on the day's origins and a couple of useful sayings.

Moral minefields: legal and ethical dilemas

Mark Pearson's opening words of Chapter 13, A Question of Legality, describes this weeks topic very well.

"The journalist's relationship with the law is occasionally precarious, sometimes liberating, usually comfortable, and almost always negotiable. It ranges across this terrain because it involves the balance of rights and responsibilities in a complex, ever-changing social climate (198)."

In today's presentation Eben Foster also quoted Pearson, this time in regards to the relationship between the law and journalists: "a two headed beast or double-edged sword with each competitively fighting for the interests of the public."

But more interestingly again was this Pearson quote, again used by Eben today: "Journalists have no rights beyond those of ordinary citizens, although they are given some special privileges in order to faciltate their roles in bringing information to the wider citizenery."

At first thought, this seems utterly ridiculous, but on closer inspection it is also fair. The above summation is right in my eyes. Journalists are the same as ordinary citizens but they do need some help in getting that information quickly and accurately into the public sphere.

One thing, which has put to rest, not completely, the notion of reporting without fear or favour, is the era of litigation, suing and passing blame. It has also worked to the detriment of sources providing useful information as well.

"More and more, legal considerations are influencing, if not determining, day-to-day decisions in the media," according to the Cyber College website.

It describes many situations, which can potentially lead to hefty law suits, including: a TV news report quoting a police officer about a drunk driver who caused a fatal accident; a photo from a web page used in a student newspaper; and a mistake that associated the wrong name or home address with criminal wrongdoing.

A closer examination of this topic highlights the many day to day considerations individual journalists and media organisations face each and every day.

Pearson also deals with subjudice, defamation, freedom of information and the public interest defence, in chapter 13.

The most recent example of this is the current Brisbane Broncos sexual assault drama in the middle of their NRL finals campaign. A report released on heraldsun.com.au reveals a fourth player has been linked to the allegations. Click here for more.

This comes on the back of other legal cases this rugby league season including Cronulla five-eighth Greg Bird, Canberra halfback Todd Carney and Gold Coast Titans forward Anthony Laffranchi.

Should they be named straight away? What rights do journalists have in these situations?

I know I faced this immediately after the Bird drama broke and I saw him out on the beers in Maitland. It was only one week on and I just did not know what to do. Should I report it, should I talk to him, should I just let it go? What's legal? What's moral? What's ethical? What a minefield!

Any thoughts?

The day we die?

Came across this bizarre article on the SMH site tonight called, The Day We All Die: September 10, 2008.

"So, Buzzketeers, on September 10, do your best to protect yourself from the everyday dangers of existence. Wrap your head in packing foam, fill your tummy with starch-based peanuts, and keep yourself wet and/or naked to prevent sparks catching in your clothing and hair, because you probably won’t want to miss what’s coming out of the LHC."

Read more by clicking on the link above.

See you all next week - I think?

In the public interest: public V private

It is almost the crux of journalism itself. Public V private. To report or not to report? What's right and what's wrong. Where is the line drawn and why?

The MEAA provide a Code of Ethics for journalists but as Luke Coates pointed out in today's presentation, he sees them as a "useless wank".

"They sound nice but these guidelines effectively mean nothing," Mr Coates said.

"They are a useless wank."

In this week's reading (Chapter 12: Public Interest, Private Lives) Ian Richards does not quite go that far but he does criticise the code.

"While many have disputed this interpretation even the many journalists who base their ethical approach on it would have difficulty applying such provisions because they are so vaguely worded (191, Richards)."

I suppose this is partly due to the fact that the media needs guidelines, not rules, so they can bend them when they see fit. Maybe a bit harsh but take the recent Australian Law Reform Commission's massive report on privacy and The Australian's Media section comment.

"'Privacy threat to celebrity coverage' was the headline in the Media supplement of The Australian on July 31 for its lead story, which began: 'The celebrity media industry could be thrown into turmoil by moves to restrict reporting on public figures'," wrote Matthew Ricketson in Privacy Debate Needs a Wider Focus (theage.com.au, August 13, 2008).

Furthermore, Ricketson reflects, "Public cynicism about the news media is already widespread; the pity is that the concerns expressed by the Right to Know coalition about the proposed law against invasion of privacy are, in many ways, valid".

This moves into the definition of news itself and the move towards celebrity driven news both online and in newspapers themselves.

Take the reporting of triple gold medalist Stephanie Rice (pictured) by nineMSN after her swimming commitments in Beijing. The Michael Phelps kiss issue, the break with fellow Aussie swimmer Eamon Sullivan and her every party move. Is this right? Even prior to the games when she was caught in that police uniform through Facebook photos. Is this right? Actually, is it right that I have used the image again? Isn't that just as bad (Even though it was three of the first five Goggle images that appeared)?

But this is another issue all together.

"Balancing the public interest with people's right to privacy is a complex issue, and those in newsrooms know sometimes wrong decisions are made," Ricketson writes.

Richards concludes, "In short, the debate over media intrusion into individual privacy is far from over."

These concluding points are very true. The public V private issue is a difficult one and it is far from over. And this will continue to be the case regardless of what technology or format journalists are working with.

Any thoughts?

Sarah Palin?

A valuable lesson for all those in the media industry. Google is not God! Check out the fatal mistake by an SBS newsreader in regards to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin last week, as pointed out by Media Watch last night. 

Has the media become too dependent on the internet, and in particular search engines such as Google, to source information?

Inspiring sports stories

Still on sport and I have seen some of the most inspiring sports stories broadcast over the last two days. 

Firstly, Australian Story provided an unbelievable insight into the world of John McLean (pictured), who is going for gold in mixed rowing at the Beijing Paralympics tomorrow. But that is the icing on the cake for McLean who has already completed three Hawaiian Ironman's and swam the English Channel, all after being hit by a truck in a cycling accident, which left him unable to walk. The production itself was timely and well constructed/organised. Interviews with John, his father, his friend, doctors and fellow athletes provided an in depth account.

60 minutes the night before was not quite as in depth but still very emotive and inspiring. Peter Overton's report concentrated on runner Kelly Cartwright and McLean's rowing partner Kelly Ross.

Sensational stuff!

Do you agree or are these stories just overplayed and over emotive?