I delivered my seminar today and it went a little better than I expected. Everyone in the class had something to say at some point and although I made a couple of mistakes it seemed to go fairly smoothly.
But it was a survey of the class that I conducted early in my seminar that raised the most interesting information. To highlight the globalisation V localisation topic, I asked the people in my class whether or not they were on facebook. About 75% of the class raised their hands. I then asked the class whether or not they knew their next door neighbour. About 50% of the class raised their hands. While the difference in the response was not massive, and with the test not being the greatest, it still showcased the move of society, especially younger people to the globalised community, rather than the local community. The fact that more people were willing to share information to anyone across the world online, than to know the name of the person next door, signifies some sort of trend from the pre-Internet era.
Also, a quick show of hands revealed that most people in the 3-5pm Journalism class believe newspapers, especially local publications like the Maitland Mercury, will survive because of the publics thirst for local content.
2 comments:
Josh,
I firmly agree with Dan Gillmore that the four pillars of good journalism are: - Thoroughness, accuracy, fairness and transparency. These are a vital tool and of paramount importance for a journalist. You must also consider that resourcefulness, commitment, speed & accuracy, thick skin, news judgement, spelling & grammar, multitasking, interpersonal skills and confidence are pivotal qualities of good journalism.
Most peoples perception of 'good' journalism will vary. What 'good' journalism may mean to me may be completely different to your opinion on the matter.
Dan Gillmore in the article you provided portrayed his view Of objectivity being an outdated term. I don't know if its exactly outdated however, i do agree that objectivity can be usless and artificial. I suppose the question can then be raised, Do you think that an end in objectivity in journalism would spell the end of journalism in itself?
Overall, your account of the readings are very thorough and precise, you display sound knowledge thus understanding of the topic at hand. I enjoy reading your blog entries and i really like the way you summarise the readings and add an internet link or simply put your own spin on subject matters and do further research on issues. Working as a journalist i imagine would have given you a broader and in depth knowledge into journalism itself. You display clear and effective communication skills and your writing is very coherent. I also commend you on your ability to ask thought provoking questions.
Welldone!
Shanna,
I like the way you extended Gilmore's comments and added your own set of journalistic considerations. And while I can see your point in good journalism differing between individuals, I also think there needs to be some form of universal points, which highlight "good" journalism.
As for objectivity in journalism, I do not feel that the end of objectivity in journalism would spell the end of journalism itself. Objectivity, while a high ideal,is basically a redundant term. Everything we do as a journalist is subjective - the sources, the quotes, the lead, the number of stakeholders, the photo, the headline, the layout and the story itself. There is choice all the way along the process, which means subjectivity. But I do feel you can present it, the story in the most objective way possible to promote fairness, balance and accuracy.
And cheers on the complement. I think you cover the readings very thoroughly as well.
Post a Comment