Where is Journalism going?
While globalisation has lead to a radical improvement in global communication, erasing boundaries and connecting remote communities with the world, the phenomenon has also lead to a rise in transnational media corporations known as the 'Global Oligopoly', which has affected the content and quality of journalism.
These select few corporations, including Time Warner, Sony, News Corporation and Disney, have created a concentration of media ownership due to the corporatisation and convergence of media outlets.
Due to the fact that the news is now told from a select few, mainly American owned corporations, there has been a standardisation and marginalisation of information.
"The homogeneity of information is pitched at a predominantly middle-class and Western audience...with large sections of the world left under-represented" (Breit in Tapsall, 2001, p. 215-216 Journalism: Theory in Practise).
The enormous growth of these transnational media corporations has resulted in their increasing power and influence through their ownership of various media forms such as newspapers, magazines, movies and social media. These companies' internet ventures have also meant that new communication technologies have not given the world a diverse global voice but reduced our worldviews to a narrow few.
Breit highlights this in Journalism in the Global Village, that "Technology is giving the media a global audience and strategic alliances are giving the media immense power, but this has not created a global voice" (2001, p.215).
These media outlets controlled by large corporations are structured around a business model, whereby all processes and products are a commodity, needed to be sold to make profits. "This packaging of news as a commodity that can be bought and sold [is] one of the greatest changes facing journalists" (Breit 2001, p.218). Therefore, journalists are being criticised for the lack of quality news, as many journalists must now write infotainment and soft news to ensure their stories are read and newspapers sold.
Stokes and Hudson, authors of Journalism and democracy across borders, Globalisation and Citizenship: The Transnational Challenge, state that "journalism associated with the global media conglomerates gives priority to advertising driven, commercial ventures" (2007, p.58).
Breit emphasises this by stating that "commercial considerations are tainting the news agenda in the global media" (2001, p.216), while Grattan (1998) states that "this convergence is particualrly obvious in Australian newspapers, which are struggling to understand their role in the increasingly commercial world" (cited in Briet 2001, p.216).
These media giants are framing the news and spreading their viewpoints of world events. Journalists are now driven by commerical interests, putting these interests before the public's 'right to know', which Breit emphasises "given the commerical environment and the standardisation of the media's message and target audience, journalists must consider whether a 'right to know' still accommodates the public interest" (2001, p.218).
The Internet is a major component of globalisation that has created a global audience. However, with the decrease in trust of journalists who send out standardised and marginalised news copy, localisation has risen. In particular, citizen journalism has been at the forefront of this phenomenon. It personalises news reports, democracies the news and abolishes gatekeepers. However, it has also been noted to increase regionalism.
While parts of the public have been proactive in restoring the news to cover local content, by producing their own news, it is evident that these individuals do not have the same qualifications as trained journalists. Although their stories may be newsworthy and well written, it is professional journalists who know how to gather, source and find information, conduct interviews and cross-check facts to provide accurate accounts of events.
Perhaps the consumers of news need to take greater responsibility in what they want to hear and read. Rather than the current need of infotainment and soft news, as seen splashed on the covers of tabloids and online news websites, consumers need to want hard news so that jouranlists have the opportunity to write qualilty news and pursue their role as being 'watchdogs'.
I also believe that journalists should resist commerical pressures and pursue their investigative role as being the public's 'watchdog', whereby state funded and public broadcasting institutions continue to support and develop the field of journalism by allowing journalists the freedom and chance to regain their journalistic integrity.
Below is a link to a YouTube clip that highlights American journalists protesting against transnational corporations' push of biased propaganda on journalists.
Globalisation and the media
Below is a link to a YouTube clip that shows Rupert Murdoch speaking about chaning media.
How Technology Has Changed the Media
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Online News - is it an exciting opportunity or a recipe for bankruptcy?
Who will pay for journalism? Is it just about the money?
It is evident that the Internet and digital technology has changed the field of journalism.
Journalists are now able to enter a sphere where their stories can reach a far greater audience unlimited by geographical borders, in a faster and more compelling way, using slideshows, video footage, graphics, hyperlinks and background research to enhance their news.
The Internet has also enabled audiences to have a greater and more efficient participatory role in the news by offering them an opportunity to comment immediately, which has also seen the rise of citizen journalism, (see my first post for more information).
However, this new digital age forces the question of who will pay for journalism, as few media websites charge fees for viewing content.
Media Alliance commissioned Essential Media to survey shifts in dominant news sources in the past five years and found that the:
• Use of online news websites increased by 13 per cent
• Use of radio news bulletins increased by 3 per cent
• Use of TV news bulletins fell by 8 per cent
• Use of newspapers fell by 6 per cent
Media Alliance Federal Secretary, Christopher Warren, states “whether all newspapers will survive is no longer a parlour game but a genuine consideration,” (2008, Future of Journalism – Life in the Clickstream).
See the link below for the full report.
Life in the Clickstream
This report emphasises the decline in newspapers. It states that in May 2008, at the Media Alliance summit, one of Britain’s leading media commentators, Roy Greenslade, predicted the death of newspapers.
“Popular newspapers, the mass newspapers, are dying and will die. They have no future whatsoever. I’m sad to see newspapers go. I worked on them for 40 years,” (Greenslade 2008, Future of Journalism summit, Sydney).
Newspaper editor and Knight Professor of Journalism at the University of North Carolina, Philip Meyer, emphasised this stating that, “We’ll have to reinvent journalism” (Meyer 2008, Future of Journalism summit, Sydney).
Alan Mutter, a former newspaper editor and cable TV CEO, also stated in 2008, on his blog Reflections of a Newsosaur, that “newspapers are set to lose US$7.5 billion in advertising sales this year, a fall of 23.4 per cent of its peak revenue in 2005,” (Mutter 2008, Monitor move doesn’t spell end of print).
Reflections of a Newsosaur, October 2008
In my journalism class at the University of Newcastle, it was discussed that while the decline of Australian newspapers is not as severe as in the United States, Australian newspapers might need to source their funds from elsewhere, as advertisers pull out due to the drop in print sales.
This loss of advertising revenue which sustains newspapers has resulted in a digital revolution. The rising power and scope of online news is undeniable. Access is easy, quick, current, 24/7, interactive, environmental more sound (less trees are being cut down to print on paper) and ultimately its free!
Problem
However, this last aspect poses issues of profitability for these news corporations and thus the question of how to fund journalists.
Already there has been a decline in journalistic jobs, as seen in the report The Future of Journalism, which states that “The number of full-time Australian journalists has, by Alliance estimates, fallen 13 percent since 2001, from just under 8500 across all media to around 7500” (Media Alliance 2008, p.9).
Possible Solutions
Diversification was offered as a solution to the question of funding journalists, as well as the Ipad, which Rupert Murdoch has enthusiastically supported as being a way for people to pay for his news, because people buy 'apps'. However, Murdoch should not be so confident, as the Ipad is simply a laptop, offering users the opportunity to browse the internet easily and find the news for free somewhere else.
Why pay when it’s free, just a click away?
Therefore, we are faced with our original dilemma.
Philip Meyer envisaged in the American Journalism Review, that niche publications could save print journalism, stating that a “smaller, less frequently published version, packed with analysis and investigative reporting and aimed at well-educated news junkies, that may well be a smart survival strategy for the beleaguered old print product” (2008, The elite newspaper of the future).
I believe at this point in time that this may be the best option for news media corporations in sustaining an avenue for funding journalists, however further research in the topic may come to another conclusion.
Below is an interesting American YouTube clip that shows footage of The Nation's John Nichols and others about new models for journalism. Media Critic, David Carr of The New York Times, argues vigorously that government funding and subsidies can't save journalism, and discusses some 'green shoots' - emerging new models that are promising ways forward for the struggling media industry. More videos about the future of journalism and media are available at TheNation.com/multimedia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJHDMSDSt9A
Friday, August 13, 2010
You, the journalist. Citizen journalism – is it shaping the future news?
Image: The Vinceton Post |
With the advent of the internet and new media technologies, the definition of journalism is being blurred and the profession stretched to include the general public, as the audience continues to gain a greater capacity to participate in news gathering and news dissemination.
In today’s times where new media such as blogs, Twitter and Facebook, as well as technologies such as camera phones and iPhones are a part of everyday life, citizens are receiving more power in broadcasting their opinions, stories and news to the world.
As Stephen Quinn and Stephen Lamble state in their book Online Newsgathering: Research and Reporting for Journalism, citizen journalism is where “members of the public, who are not professional journalists, contribute content that is published on traditional media,” (2007, p.43).
There are increasing amounts of citizen journalists who contribute their first-hand accounts, photos and videos of events, as seen during news coverage of natural disasters and terrorists attacks. While these citizen journalists, as they are called, provide on-the-scene action and accounts, (remember the shocking images we saw on replay of the 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks, 2004 Thailand Tsunami and 2005 London bombings – see YouTube clips below), should they be called journalists?
While these clips demonstrate citizen journalist footage being broadcast, it is evident that the citizen journalists’ footage is used as part of a news stories. As Roger Fidler states in his book Mediamorphosis: Understanding New Media, “New media do not replace old media. Traditional media change to absorb the best of new media,” (1997 p.23).
Although these citizens are contributing to media stories and broadcasts, it is professional journalists who have been trained with the skills to gather various sources, check facts, and hopefully have gained the credibility to write newsworthy and accurate stories. While I highly value the contributions made by citizens, who improve and enhance the news, I do not believe that they should be given the title of a 'journalist' when their professional counterparts have undergone the education and training to be given such a title.
However, there are always two sides to every argument. Some say the rise of citizen journalists is due to the public’s dissatisfaction with the media and criticism of journalists who continue to write frivolous stories in the aim of selling papers and making profits. Suellen Tapsall and Carolyn Varley conclude in their book, Journalism Theory in Practise that the progression of journalism has seen the journalist as no longer a reporter of quality news but an independent businessperson who needs to sell goods to make a profit.
This viewpoint has contributed to the significant increase in online blogs, personal websites and now newspaper websites offering public comment, as citizens and audiences reject the framing of the news by media conglomerates and want to be a part of the process to ensure the voices of the public are heard and their true interests and needs met.
A perfect example of this is OhmyNews International (OMNI), a South Korean online news source that was created in 2002 for citizens of the country to become reporters of news that was censored or strictly prohibited by the government. However, professional editors still edit and monitor the news content. The following link provides a view of the OMNI website and an article on the organisation’s plans for the future and the significant value and belief in citizen journalists changing the future of the news.
On OMNI’s new website (see link below), which features a more blog style and format, there is an entry from the 29th of June 2010 that describes Yahoo’s debut style guide for the web, The Yahoo! Style Guide: The Ultimate Sourcebook for Writing, Editing, and Creating Content for the Digital World, which OMNI describes as “an excellent addition to citizen journalists’ toolbox, and a boost to their credibility in the world of professional journalism” (2010, online).
In 2007 OMNI recorded 50,000 citizen journalists (Quinn & Lamble 2007, p 43), and while some good quality blog content appears in mainstream media, professional journalists continue to filter the content that appears in traditional media.
Therefore, I believe that the term 'citizen journalist' is not fitting, as these members of society are rather informants than journalists. They help shape the news by providing eye-witness accounts and real time action, but it is the trained professionals who gather, arrange, write and disseminate the news that are the true journalists, worthy of the title. Perhaps citizen journalists should be called 'citizen informants'?
What are your thoughts?
Bibliography
Darylvdz. (2007). 7/7 London bomb terrorist attack on bus, Youtube, accessed 13 August 2010, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuhBdHc8Nqs>
Fidler, Roger. (1997). Mediamorphosis: Understanding New Media, Thousand Oaks, California, Pine Forge Press.
JoesZone 2006, Rare Amateur 911 Videos, Youtube, accessed 13 August 2010, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fH7c8H6SNw>
OhmyNews International. (2010). Citizen Journalism Theory and Practise, OhmyNews, accessed 13 August 2010, <http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=386159&rel_no=1&back_url>
OhmyNews International. (2010). Curating the debate on citizen journalism, WordPress, accessed 13 August 2010, <http://international.ohmynews.com/2010/06/29/ap-stylebook-for-citizen-journalists/>
Quinn, Stephen & Lamble, Stephen. (2007). ‘Citizen Journalism and Audience-Generated Content’, Online Newsgathering: Research and Reporting for Journalism, Focal Press, Burlington, p. 43-57.
Tapsall, Suellen & Varley, Carolyn. (2006). Journalism Theory in Practise, Oxford University Press.
The Vinceton Post [image] (2007). The Rise of Citizen Journalism, WordPress.com, accessed 13 August 2010, <http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/the-rise-of-citizen-journalism/>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)