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

The Internet and it's influence on journalism is something that I think has come up in many discussions throughout the semester.

Technology appears to be unstoppable and the "focus of any consideration becomes dealing with the impact and effect of the technology, adjusting to life in the new age, or moving on to the next stage" (Tapsall in set text, Chapter 15; 239).
Therefore journalists and news organisations are challenged to cope with and in this digital media age as they can no longer ignore on-line, virtual and converged media forms.

Tapsall goes onto say that, “those who fail to accept, adopt, and implement the technological advances available to them – such as new converged electronic forms of news-gathering and publication – are viewed as Luddites, attempting to stand in the path of progress” (Tapsall, 2008: 241).

The role of the journalist is definitely changing because of this, and in turn the definition of what journalist is, is also changing.

“It is…clear that journalists who will cope best in the future, and be the most employable, will be those who are multiskilled – capable of working in more that one medium and using a digital camera as well as a notebook and sound recorder” (Conley and Lamble, 2006: 72). THis is something that has also been drilled into us at university, that to make it in this industry we must be a 'jack of all trades' being able to cope and produce in any or all mediums.

Seminar Report

This is my seminar report. Let me know what you think :)
Week 9: Moral Minefields: legal and ethical dilemmas
Presentation One: Public Interest and Privacy - Casey Stanwell

Ethical dilemmas for future journalists
Casey Stanwell, a communication student, presented a seminar on public interest and privacy, some of the many moral minefields in journalism.
The seminar was presented to a journalism class at the University of Newcastle earlier this week and questioned the morals in journalism, especially, when to draw the line between what is in the public interest and what is private.
Privacy is a legal and ethical dilemma for journalists and something that is encountered on a daily basis.
Ms. Stanwell also explained that privacy is a fundamental human right, yet there is no absolute definition and there are a number of dimensions to the concept.
She explained how journalists frequently test the line arguing that anything the public is interested in is in the public interest and therefore free to report on.
Ms. Stanwell described how there have been recent calls for a stricter definition of privacy, but journalists are questioning the consequences and what it would mean for them.
One reason against, is that they could possibly shield crimes and a journalist’s right to investigate.
"Privacy is something we value to provide a sphere within which we can be free from interference by others, and yet, it also appears to function negligatively, as the cloak under which one can hide domination, degradation or physical harm to others" said Ms Stanwell.
Ms. Stanwell came to the conclusion that there is a conflict between privacy and public interest with an imbalance of more privacy laws than counter policies.
Privacy laws impact on journalists as it inhibits and makes it harder for them to do their job and they must always be thinking about and weighing up the legal, moral and ethical issues and implications their story might have.
This is an important discussion topic for any future journalist.
Word Count: 297
Recommended for marking by: Sarah Snedden, Jillian Greig

Journalism and blogging

Is blogging a form of journalism?
I see them as a subject commentary of the world around the individual or group posting the information. They are more informal almost journal like and often do not have the accuracy or sources that traditional journalism does. But is blogging the way of the future with information gathering...

James L. Horton has this to say about blogging and journalism...
One thing that blogging does not do is replace journalism as we know it. Journalism is a process of gathering, checking and distributing news that is above blogging. Journalists still provide a gatekeeper effect and credibility that opinionated bloggers do not. In fact, I believe editors should not allow reporters to have blogs on topics they cover to prevent charges of bias. (Columnists are different. They are expected to express opinions.) Journalism provides accuracy and deadline frequency. A blogger can do the same, but it is not the same unless there is an established process for receiving, checking then publishing news like Slashdot attempts to do (http://slashdot.org/ ) (http://www.online-pr.com/Holding/PRandBloggingarticle.pdf)

Moral Minefields

So in class this week privacy was rediscussed as a moral minefield.

But I wanted to discuss something that I have thought about quite a bit doing journalism over the past three years and that is journalism and reporting on wars or war torn countries.

I remember watching this documentary (if anyone else remembers feel free to remind me what it was) and I think one of the ultimate moral dilemma's was raised. If you are in the middle of an attack and are uninjured, do you drop the camera or your pen and help out? or do you keep the camera rolling to witness the destruction to show the world?

The documentary said it was a choice that had to be made in a split second. I question though, why can't you do both?

What do you think? Would you ever consider being this type of journalist?

I think this issue brings up the notions of objectivity and subjectivity. Is journalism ever truly objective?

Open democracy had this on their website:
Encouraging reporters to become emotionally involved in the stories they cover is a worrying new trend argues the BBC’s David Loyn. He calls for objectivity. Des Freedman sees this as admirable but naive; the problems lie with the larger commercial forces that structure news rather than individual journalists. (http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-journalismwar/issue.jsp)

Objectivity is the dominant ethos of modern journalism. It underscores notions of fairness, accuracy and lack of bias in the media. But although central to journalist behaviour, objectivity is a troubled idea. Is objectivity merely a code for journalists to go through the motions and avoid tackling the hard issues? Does a lack of bias prevent journalism from performing its watchdog function? Or is objectivity the core item that underscores all that is good about journalism “describing society to itself"?

In class, it was said that objectivity is impossible and that fairness is the best we can aim for. Walter Lippman, however, characterises objectivity as a method rather than stating it in relation to content. Is this then achievable?

What do ‘public’ and ‘private’ mean? And does the media have a duty to ‘tell it how it is’?

This information is based on the presentation I gave in class...

Hanson – states that the private sphere has emerged from the public.

Everybody needs their own private space and private life, and we also need a public space where we can come together to discuss common issues.

There is an uncertain boundary between the public’s right to information and the individual's right to privacy.

The terms ‘private’ and ‘public’ seem to be self evident.

Private - adjective 1 for or belonging to one particular person or group only. 3 (of thoughts, feelings, etc.) not to be shared or revealed. 4 (of a person) not choosing to share their thoughts and feelings.

Public -   • adjective 1 of, concerning, or available to the people as a whole. 3 done, perceived, or existing in open view.
• noun 1 (the public) treated as sing. or pl. ordinary people in general; the community. 2 (one’s public) the people who watch or are interested in an artist, writer, or performer.
- PHRASES go public 2 reveal details about a previously private concern. in public in view of other people; when others are present. the public eye the state of being known or of interest to people in general, especially through the media.


Over the past three decades, a host of issues once seen as personal of private – from domestic violence and childcare arrangements to sexual preference – have been brought into the public sphere by the media as well as by the demands of political groups. This broadening of what constitutes a matter of public interest isn’t just something that affects the news, it has also affected the kind of material many Australian magazines cover. (Catharine Lumby, 309) Contemporary blurring of the spheres could be due to ongoing democratisation of political life in Western cultures.

The public sphere has been defined as:
“an arena, independent of government...and also enjoying autonomy from partisan economic forces, which is dedicated to rational debate...and which is both accessible to entry and open to inspection by the citizenry. It is here...that public opinion is formed” (Habermas, 1991)

It aims to allow a greater accessibility to information, but in contemporary times there has been an accusation of a tabloidisation of our public sphere.

Notions of Privacy:
Australians are protected by the Privacy Act, but there are exemptions for reporting providing journalists subscribe to the specific industry codes of practice
Australians have rights to privacy which include:
*The right to be left alone
*The right to control unwanted publicity about one’s affairs
*The right to withhold any and all information that one does not want to be made public
*The right to personal autonomy
*The right to determine for yourself when, where, how and to what extent information about you can be communicated to others
*‘the condition of not having undocumented personal knowledge about one possessed by others’

Four key dimensions covered by Australian law, on privacy, include:
*Physical;
*Informational;
*Dignity (personal and social); and
*Property dimensions ;

The Australian Privacy Foundation categorises privacy into four classes:
*Privacy of a person;
*Privacy of personal behaviour;
*Privacy of personal communication; and
*Privacy of personal data

Privacy “as a series of zones radiating outwards from the individual: privacy of the body; privacy of personal space and place; freedom from eavesdropping, surveillance and spying and information privacy” Chadwick and Mullaly.
This approach sees privacy as individualistic, but it also needs to take account of cultural contexts and collective rights, such as aboriginal traditions which condemn the publication of photographs of the dead.

Public and Private Figures:
Celebrity and societies preoccupation with them – does the publics interest in disclosing personal information outweigh a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy?
Taxonomy of fame:
*Fame by election or appointment
*Fame by achievement
*Fame by chance
*Fame by association
*Royal fame

This led to the question:
Celebrity and societies preoccupation with them – does the publics interest in disclosing personal information outweigh a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy?

There was much class discussion and debate on this, with no definitive answer being resolved. What do you think?


The Media's Role and Duty is also up for debate when talking privacy.
Generally, the media is known as;
*A watchdog on democracy
*Notion of the greater good

McKee states that the tabloidisation of the media and that "by focusing on bodies, sex and similarly trivial issues means the public sphere is functioning exactly as it should do – allowing public discussion about issues that are of concern, and that underlie the social organisation of our entire society (McKee, 62)

Should such things be unimportant to our society or is it important that our society should discuss them in order to understand the individual basis on which it is built?

Should they act in the best interest:
of those they interview?
their bosses and publication?
the public?

I personally believe that it is not only what kinds of topics but also how these topics are discussed in the public sphere that should be of concern.

What do you think of the moral minefield that is privacy?

A free, public window on Australian democracy

Hey so I guess I never leave SMH, here is another...

I guess you could say that is links to who will pay for journalism and agenda setting. It talks about responsibilities, the future and what it means in Australia.

Mark Scott is managing director of the ABC. This is an edited extract of his address to the National Press Club yesterday.



Mark Scott
September 11, 2008

We are seeing a great transformation from the era of media barons and public broadcasters, controlling all that was seen or heard or read, to a great democratisation of media where anyone, anywhere can report or comment or analyse, and find an audience.

At the ABC there are challenges and opportunities that come from this revolution. As a provider of news and current affairs, being a trusted news source, with the resources to report locally, nationally and internationally, will be very important.

We are in no doubt of the extent of the media revolution. Choices are erupting for audiences. If you are my age, or a little older, you may remember an Australia with only four television channels. Then five with SBS.

But next year there may be 15 free-to-air channels in Australia, perhaps hundreds more through subscription, and thousands more online, increasingly able to be viewed on your television.

That change is placing a bomb under the traditional business model for commercial media in this country - and its impact will have fallout for audiences everywhere and the role of the ABC.

I came to the ABC after almost a dozen years in print journalism. My friendships and interests are still in it, as is my morning habit of trawling through the papers. I like the tangibility of a newspaper, having it spread out before me.

But I have to tell you that working in public media is absolutely no comfort or consolation when witnessing the colourful pageant of distrust, misery and dashed hopes of the industry today. I still care about it deeply.

Through all the turmoil within the Australian media industry, there is only one print mogul who has diversified his portfolio enough to offset the costs of quality journalism against profits made elsewhere in the business.

And yes, that last, best hope for newspapers is Rupert Murdoch. The world will be listening as he presents the 2008 Boyer Lectures on the ABC later this year. As Michael Wolff recently put it, Murdoch "may be the last person to love newspapers". But is this one exception to the rule enough?

Now Rupert Murdoch might live forever - but in case that doesn't happen, will whoever inherits the business still wear the cost of quality journalism in his unique, old-fashioned way?

I think there's a growing responsibility here for the ABC. The investment we can make in news reporting, from our rural reporters to our 12 international bureaus, is increasingly vital, as is the commitment we show to news and current affairs.

If the ABC doesn't do this, no-one else in broadcasting can or will deliver news content and analysis of this breadth, depth and quality.

The challenge of providing information so that the Australian democratic process is more meaningful grows greater each day. I am a fan of what Sky News has achieved in recent years, but the ABC has a different role to play. We must provide an independent news service and deliver it into every Australian home, free of charge. And I cannot stress this enough: we need to take advantage of new media opportunities to increase the reach and depth of what we offer.

We want to be able to create a service - online and on television - that allows citizens to watch for themselves key democratic processes and public events: unmediated, unfiltered.

I include in that category Parliament from Canberra and the state chambers; press conferences and parliamentary hearings; major forums like the ABARE conference; key annual general meetings; public addresses at places like the Lowy Institute, the Melbourne Press Club or the Centre for Independent Studies.

Again, there is not a dollar to be made from this for a commercial operator - but given the level of investment in the ABC, we could do it better and for less additional money than anyone else in the country.

A public affairs channel would be reinforced by the ABC's outstanding news and current affairs service, allowing updates around the clock and the ability to go live on major breaking news events. This is something that should be available free in every Australian home - access to our democracy in action.

The ABC was one of the great public projects of 20th-century Australia. It helped build the nation. It is up for the challenge of serving Australia in the decades ahead.

Journalists admitting the pitfalls of relying on the internet

Hey,

So I stumbled across this article on SMH. I thought it was interesting and relavant to the course.

So either visit SMH at http://www.smh.com.au/news/perspectives/truth-trash-and-the-internet/2008/09/08/1220857455486.html

or keep reading :)

Truth, trash and the internet

* Saved

Graeme Philipson
September 9, 2008

Mea culpa: journalists must be vigilant for the facts in an online era of instant disinformation.

'A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots on." So said James Watt, inventor of the steam engine, back in the 18th century.

Or did he? Mark Twain is supposed to have said "A lie can run around the world six times while the truth is still trying to put on its pants."

Which quote is correct? Is either of them? Did Mark Twain rip off James Watt?

Try to find out on the internet and you'll very soon run into a confusing array of conflicting references and attributions. But the sentiment that the quote - or quotes - expresses is very true.

That is, disinformation passes through the world much more easily than information. Rumour spreads more quickly than fact, lies more easily than truth.

If this was true in Watt's day, and in Twain's day, it is even more true today. The internet has made it so.

And your correspondent, dear reader, who often rails against the iniquities and benefits of the internet era, was caught out. My own column has spread world-encircling disinformation while the truth has struggled with its boots, or pants, or whatever.

In this column last week, while illustrating how the computer industry has advanced over the past 30years, I quoted Bill Gates saying that if General Motors had improved its technology at the same rate as the computer industry, we would all be driving $25cars that get 1000miles to the gallon.

I said that GM responded with a press release saying that if it developed technology like Microsoft, cars would crash twice a day and every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car. I quoted from the press release: "Occasionally, executing a manoeuvre such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine. Every time we introduced a new model, car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as in the old car."

Highly amusing. And totally wrong. Gates did not say that and GM issued no such release. I am guilty of gullibility, over-eagerness, and - worst of all - poor journalism. I did not check the facts.

I am sorry. Mea culpa. A couple of readers pointed out my error and I stand castigated and corrected.

My source? Myself - I used the story in another piece a few years ago. I didn't check it then and I didn't check it for the latest column. I found the "story" and used it without going back to original sources.

There is on the internet a website called snopes.com. It exposes urban myths such as the one I unwittingly and lazily propagated.

But, ever willing to make a virtue of necessity (a phrase used so often in our house that we have abbreviated it to "a V of N"), I thought I would use my mistake to illustrate a very important point.

And that point is the ability of the internet to obscure sources and to obfuscate the truth. "We are drowning in information but starving for knowledge" (try to find the origin of that quote on the internet).

Much was written, some of it by me, of this phenomenon. If you can find it, read what I wrote on these pages on February18. "It is hard to find quality amid all the dross. This has always been one of life's greatest challenges but it is vastly exacerbated by the internet, which is no respecter of quality or order and which makes it easy for the loopiest or most poorly expressed idea to be propagated."

Andrew Keen wrote a book last year called The Cult of the Amateur, subtitled How today's internet is killing our culture. Its thesis is that the internet, by giving unbridled access to the masses and allowing everybody to be a publisher, is lowering the standard of expression and debate. "The information business is being transformed by the internet into the sheer noise of a hundred million bloggers all simultaneously talking about themselves."

Keen is upset with untalented amateurs competing with "real" writers and YouTube videos competing against "real" films. He abhors Wikipedia: "Every visit to Wikipedia's free information hive means one less customer for a professionally researched and edited encyclopedia such as Britannica."

There is no doubt that the internet is full of the most abhorrent drivel and that at times it is very difficult to find quality among the pap.

The internet is but a facilitator. It makes the process of sharing information infinitely easier than it was. Unfortunately, it also makes it much easier to commit the kind of mistake I made - lies have always travelled faster than truth and with the internet lies are everywhere, while the truth is hard to find.

But would you have it any other way? My recent experience is a salutary lesson to me and I hope to you. But I for one don't wish to return to the dim, dark days of 15years ago, when we didn't use email, when Google and YouTube and Wikipedia and Amazon didn't exist, when the only way to read a newspaper was to find a physical copy.

I'm sorry I misled you. It's my fault - I'm not blaming the internet. James Watt (or was it Mark Twain?) made me do it.

graeme@philipson.info