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?

Toyota feeling for Williams

Old Ken "Blue eyes" Sutcliffe proved he still has what it takes in the world of sports reporting when he described Serena Williams post US Open jumping fit on Channel Nine news using a golden piece of Australian terminology: "Oh What a feeling!"

Cliche or clever?

Can you handle the truth?

I can't help it. Every time I hear a line similar, actually, that's a lie in itself, every time I hear the word truth it immediately takes me to this scene of this movie. I suppose this is helped by the fact I have watched A Few Good Men a few times, actually that is a lie to, every time it is on the television I feel compelled to watch it. I just can't take my eyes off it. The plot thickens, I pretend to be surprised but I'm always genuinely excited. Then it comes, after all the tension and the build up - the infamous scene, an explosion of passion and those magical movie lines. "I want the truth," a fresh faced Tom Cruise demands, "You can't handle the truth!" replies the man himself, Jack Nicholson.

I may have digressed slightly, but not completely from this weeks chapters by Sharon Tickle (Chapter 6 - The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but...) and the combined efforts of Leo Bowman and former Newcastle University journalism teacher Steve Mcilwaine (Chapter 7 - The importance of enquiry).

Firstly, to Tickle and a few points that I found interesting:

• The public perception of journalism, "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story," against the MEAA Code of Ethics, "Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism". Tickle concludes, "Between these two extremes lies the everyday reality of the working journalist," and she names issues such as time pressures, market forces, law, work culture, human frailty and experience, as issues that shape this reality.
• An historical overview of truth in society from Plato to Foucault and from Aristotle to Friedrich Nietzsche.
  
• Reasoning and judgment, more specifically, deductive reasoning (general principles related to specific fates) and inductive reasoning (specific facts related to general principles).
• Case studies such as: Stephen Glass (New Republic), Jonathon Broder (Chicago Tribune), and Matt Drudge (Drudge Report), which highlight how journalists have manipulated the truth by either plagiarism or making up stories, quotes and sources.
• "Journalists are doing more with less".
• "The day has already arrived when an individual can be handed a backpack and told to 'go get the story' anywhere in the world or in near space. The backpack would contain a mobile phone, a laptop computer, a hand-helddigi-cam, a passport, and a credit card. The new breed of all-in-one digital journalist will cover breaking news stories, acting as a journalist-editor-camera-operator-sound recorder-video-editor-presenter. Whether the beat is Kabul or Canberra, the cyber journalist will be a one-person shoot-show-and-tell."
• The statement, "...print will never die".
• And three things journalists will ignore at their "peril":
• "Don't believe anything you hear or read until it has been independently verified by the most authoritative sources possible."
• "There are many sides to a story as there are people who want to tell it."
• "There will always be someone who knows more about a subject than you do.

Secondly, to Bowman and McIlwaine, and the three stages of reporting:

• "To meet audience needs, the news-gathering process should always seek to encompass three levels of reporting, not one or two, as is conventionally accepted.
• Level 1: Reactive (immediate, sources)
  
• Level 2: Analytic (how and why)
  
• Level 3: Reflective (deeper, social trends)
• Bowman and McIlwaine use the 1996 Port Arthur massacre as an example. Level 1 was a report of the event itself. Level 2 was further questions like why a former psychiatrically disturbed person could have access to a firearm. Level 3 was a review of the gun culture in Australia and finished with the federal government imposing new laws.
  
• A more recent local example would be the 2007 June long weekend storms and floods in Newcastle and the Hunter. It started as a report of the events like the shipwrecked Pasher Bulka, the worst storm to hit Newcastle in 30 years and worst floods in Maitland since 1977. Level 2 reporting looked at how and why these storms and floods occurred by talking to the ship's skipper, meteorologists about weather patterns, and investigating the levee bank gates. Level 3 looked at the storms and floods in a historical context (frequency and patterns), the way Newcastle infrastructure handled the disaster and the Hunter's flood mitigation system.
• "The three-level system of enquiry encourages journalists to seek and explore the countless stories that await telling. It is a simple, sound technique for journalists at all stages of their careers and in all kinds of news outlets."
  

Finally, to see the infamous lines from A Few Good Men visit the You Tube site via this TRUTH link.

Churnalism

It may be cynical and a little bit dark but unfortunately Nick Davies is telling the truth. News rooms get press releases and journalists on the daily grind simply churn it out for the next deadline. Sad but true.

The interview he did with Kerry O'Brien on the 7.30 report late last month highlights the difficulties facing the media industry the world over. Commercial interests mean increase profits for big business, which then leads to editorial job cuts, which then means more work to be done by less people. Bottom line - more pressure on individuals and less quality.

What made it even more poignant was the fact Fairfax had just announced massive job cuts (see previous post). Funny in a way but bloody scary for the Australian media industry.

Davies talks a lot about the print media but O'Brien asks him about the future of television and radio as well. The outlook is similarly concerning: "(It's) In the same kind of mess that the print media are in. There's no difference, I'm afraid, because news is expensive and unless we find a new financial model we won't be able to deliver it and I don't quite see where that new financial model is coming from and I don't know any media proprietor who can see it either. They're all very worried."

To read more of the interview or to see it online visit http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2348362.htm.

Furthermore, Davies has a new book out called Flat Earth News, which deals with various journalistic scandals across the globe.

Monday night ABC

Four Corners on Monday night covered an issue that I have been contemplating for quite some time. The dominance of Woolworths and Coles in Australia. These massive multi-million dollar companies who have effectively killed off the corner store, the local bottlo, and the good old fashioned service station. Together these two corporations control more than half of Australia's groceries, 60% of fresh produce (eg: fruit and vegetables) and 70% of dairy (eg: milk). Add to that enormous liquor chains like Dan Murphy's and Liquor Land, combined with more than 1100 petrol stations, and you have major monopolies controlling the majority of consumer Australia. And this does not even mention the hotels, pubs, poker machines, fast food outlets and variety stores also in their empires.

The report itself by Stephen Long was interesting and engaging. It talked to most of the relevant parties, such as the ACCC, Woolworths, retail analysts, farmers and independent bottle shop owners. It probably missed the petrol players and the sequence, or the flow, of the actual story was a little disjointed, but overall, it was worth watching. Click on the link to have a look at "The Price We Pay" yourself.

This was followed by Media Watch where Jonathon Holmes, in his regular sarcastic tone, targeted a Who mix up, whale sex identification, Fairfax job cuts and Lismore's Neil Marks running for Mayor. Another amusing and informative episode, which can be seen by clicking here.

Finally, to Andrew Denton and his excellent interviewing style and technique. From the comedy of Bill Bailey to the serious stories of three foster care parents. Wonderful stuff. More by clicking ... here.

A couple of things

First of all, the Fairfax strikes on the weekend signal a significant point in the Australian media industry. It has been widely reported that 550 people from the Fairfax group will lose their jobs. Almost 200 of them from editorial. Apparently, most of those 200 are production workers. Never the less, it poses an important question; is this the direct result of the media move online? This seems to be the case at the New York Times.

What affect does this have on the industry? MEAA federal secretary Chris Warren thinks it spells the decline of excellence. Read his thoughts here. But others, like Justin Peters at the Columbia Journalism Review, says there can be too many journalists at the one spot at the one time. These analysts show both the positive and the negative.

More immediately, what affect does this latest strike battle have on us, as journalism students moving into the world of journalism? Furthermore, do you agree with the strikes, or is it necessary to cut jobs and each person simply look after themsleves?

If you are looking at joining the media workforce check out the MEAA website and consider membership.

Lastly, for a bit of comic relief, check out Naomi Robson lose it on You Tube.