Whether we like it or not technology is changing and determining society. However, the perceived effects of this technology on modern journalism are divided. Is online media devaluing journalism? Is it just regurgitating content, where the journalist becomes nothing but a word processor? Or, do we sit on the other side of the fence, where technology is a reflection of our creative and constantly changing and evolving society, which helps to connect people from around the world in ways otherwise not possible? Who knows! One thing that has become obvious though, is that journalists are needing to embrace these technologies in order to more effectively communicate with their audiences and ‘do their job’ per say.
Social media has changed the way people share and consume content. Journalists need to take into account this whole new audience that social media has created. And it’s certainly not all bad for journalists. Social media can help journalists be more effective and efficient in their news reporting. Not only, is social media an effective form of two-way communication, which can not only build stronger relationships with audiences but can also gain valuable user input, it also offers an array of sources and information in ‘real time’ so audiences can stay updated and get ‘on-the-spot’ reporting in an accessible and inexpensive way. But no, I don’t believe this media can overtake traditional journalism and all traditional journalism is garbage. That’s garbage! Publications do however, need to upgrade and provide the best services available to their audiences. It's no longer about traditional journalism vs. new journalism. It's about collaborating the two. If journalists can continue to be versatile in their storytelling traditional journalism will remain a valuable news resource. So, this whole social media thing…how can journalists contribute?
First, take twitter. Twitter can be used as both a primary news source, working alone to produce the news and also a supporting news source, in collaboration with traditional media to disseminate or build the news. Think about it, these days twitter is one of the main sources where people get their news and honestly, it’s the main way I get my news and it’s certainly the first source I learn news from. From following an array of news twitter sites, including the SMH, Daily Telegraph and the 7pm Project, to following newsworthy individuals themselves, twitter is good for getting information quickly, and often more accurately, especially when hearing it from the horses mouth. I mean, who is more credible to give news about the Kardashians than Kim, Kourtney and Khloe themselves? When I read the daily papers, I’ve already heard the news. Another interesting element of twitter is the fact that I get to choose my own news. I get to choose what I need to/want to know. I can follow whomever I want and therefore, to a degree, choose the information I receive. With newspapers-we’re told what we need to know. They’re deciding for us!
So, should engagement with social media like twitter be a compulsory part of the journalist’s job? Social media isn’t only good to disseminate information to audiences in a more efficient and perhaps effective way; it’s also a good tool for journalists to inform themselves about conversations around their topic, from around the world. If journalists can learn the vocabulary of modern social media, they can engage their audiences to get information from these resources. It’s all about pooling resources for the better of news…or is it?
This is the basic guideline of my part in our class seminar on this topic.
Bruner (2004) says global media giants should “Think Globally, Act Locally”. This gives the idea that the global companies should build local roots but I’m not so sure this is a good representation of what TNC’s really symbolize...
Globalisation, or commonly known as commercialisation, within the context of the media, means local publications are receiving their news stories from the same, global source. This could mean that news stories and the way they are told can be very similar in quite different publications from different locations.
Kirby stated that “television, radio, satellites, direct-dial telephones, mobiles phones, digital technology and modems have radically affected ‘the actions of the media and the messages they present’” (cited in Breit for Tapsall & Varley, 2008). The invention of these new technologies, especially the Internet, has created an environment called the ‘global village’. The term ‘global village’ refers to the way in which people from around the world can communicate with one another more easily making the world seem smaller and more like a ‘single village’. Holm (2002) describes the process of globalisation as the “gradual erosion of borders-physical, cultural and social...” Breit states that new technologies are linking humanity in all parts of the world, enabling this ‘global village’ to become more and more connected. He states, “technology has given the media a global audience, but corporatisation has given them power, with ten ‘super corporations’ dominating the global media...” (cited in Tapsall & Varley, 2008). Hence, the commercialisation of this ‘global village’, has lead to these Trans-National Corporations (TNCs) threatening the integrity of journalism. These TNCs are:
• Time Warner
• Disney
• Bertelsmann
• Viacom
• Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation
• Sony
• TCI
• Universal
• NBC, and
• Polygram
(Herman and McChesney, 1997, cited in Breit)
The Australian media is dominated by two such corporations: Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited – the Australian arm of News Corp and Kerry Packer’s PBL – a second tier of multi-million dollar corporations that dominate the niche markets within specific areas.
The first 60 seconds of this animation gives a good indication of how many people feel about the owners of these TNCs and the news they generate.
Obviously there is a strong backlash against this increasing concentration of media ownership but there are some who believe the effects of globalisation are positive, which will be discussed later.
Breit states “with globalisation the independence of society’s two most important watchdogs, the media and the judicial system, is being undermined” (cited in Tapsall & Varley, 2008). He says the integrity of journalism is being threatened and the public’s “right to know” is being ignored in favour of the commercial interests of media owners. Greirson (2006) calls this “framing knowledge”. She says globalisation has given big media corporations the power to frame the knowledge of nations. This is where the issue of “shaping the agenda” comes into play.
In this clip Murdoch talks about how large, powerful news corporations can ‘shape the news agenda’.
I just thought that it was interesting that he admitted to trying to influence public opinion and his papers supporting President Bush’s policies. I just wonder, if this is being done with every major issue, are we only ever going to hear Murdoch and Packer’s versions of the news?
Gerbner states, “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”. He says the TNCs have created a ‘homogeneity’ of information that is pitched at a predominantly middle-class and western audience (cited in Breit for Tapsall & Varley, 2008). This means, the information we are receiving from all of the different media outlets in Australia is basically the same. The same stories, the same angles, the same ideas. Gerbner calls it a “standardisation” of information and audience where large sections of the world are left under-represented.
However, The Age’s, editor in chief, Steve Harris aims to argue against these ideas when he states, “diversity of ownership and diversity of source has never guaranteed diversity of opinion, and...Independent ownership has never guaranteed quality, just as group ownership does not guarantee the absence of quality” (Gratton, 1998, cited Breit).
BBC News Online’s Michael Elliot agrees believing globalisation gives millions of people new choices, raises incomes everywhere and allows us to build “One World” (BBC News, 2000).
But if we’re thinking about local communities we can see the real issue in getting ‘quality’ information. There has always and will always be news happening in smaller, regional, local communities, but increasingly, this news is being overlooked for the standardised, global content that is easier than going out and reporting on what is actually happening in towns. Funding for independent local media is also becoming increasingly difficult with advertisers favouring the larger media outlets owned by the TNCs. So, where do local journalist’s wages come from?
The main point of localisation is-we want to know what is going on in our own back yard. We want news from where we belong, from the “local public sphere” (Ninan, 2007). We want local journalists out there in the community investigating local stories instead of generating copy purely from press releases and larger news providers. But how far should localisation go? Aiming for localisation is a position “whereby everything that could be produced within a nation or region should be” (Hines, BBC News, 2000). But is this really what the public value?
And the main question is: will people be willing to fight for and support their local news?
So, we’ve heard it before and we’ll hear it again and again; traditional journalism as a form of media is on its way out.
As people continue to demand for information to be delivered to them more and more quickly technological advancements are allowing for journalists to tell their stories in more and more ways. But the question is: while print publications are loosing their audiences and advertising revenue to the Internet, how will ‘quality’ journalism survive? Who will pay for this ‘quality’ journalism?
The main idea? Audiences will have to pay for online news content if they want quality information.
7 out of 10 Australians say NO, they will not pay for online news content. Obviously this was a small group of people surveyed, but still, the results are alarming for Murdoch.
This is because people expect online content will be 'free'.
So the question is: will audiences pay for this "independent, credible media"? When you're buying a print publication are you just paying for the medium, the labor and printing costs? Or are you paying for the words? This question will determine whether people will be willing to pay for online content. Journalists need to be inventive and find a way to deliver traditional and 'quality' journalism in a more attractive and valuable way.
For example, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald have introduced their new iPad Applications where the version for the iPad mirrors that of the print version. This is where we need to be headed. Online content has devalued the journalist. However, Jay Rosen believes what journalism was, what it could be and what it should be are all ideas that are still up for grabs...
We are leading to the reinvention of journalism and with more ways to generate revenue than ever we need to be exploring what audiences are willing to pay for and embracing and adapting to this new technological age. If not, quality journalism may in fact die.
MARK COLVIN: Channel Nine says it's still employing the former Labor leader Mark Latham to report on the federal election campaign despite his run-in with the Prime Minister.
Mr Latham confronted Julia Gillard in Brisbane on Saturday. The Nine Network's chief executive David Gyngell has apologised to the PM for the encounter in which Mr Latham claimed she'd complained about his presence. She denied it.
Nine's political editor Laurie Oakes said on air last night that Mr Latham was only posing as a journalist and that he was concerned about damage to the network.
Brendan Trembath reports.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Channel Nine's newest news and current affairs recruit scored an impromptu television interview with the Prime Minister in Brisbane on Saturday.
MARK LATHAM: Julia!
JULIA GILLARD: Hello Mark how are you.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: It started well but ended badly.
MARK LATHAM: Can I just ask you why the Labor Party's made a complaint about me working for Channel Nine?
JULIA GILLARD: I don't know anything about that, Mark. If you want to work for Channel Nine, that's a matter for you.
MARK LATHAM: Well, you've made a complaint and I think I should be allowed to make a living. If you'd agree to the request to have an interview there would have been no need to make any complaint about anything.
JULIA GILLARD: Well, ah…
MARK LATHAM: So if you want to make complaints, you really should make them about Rudd. He's the one who's sabotaging your campaign.
JULIA GILLARD: Well, Mark …
MARK LATHAM: So have a dig at him instead of having a dig at someone trying to do a job.
JULIA GILLARD: Ah, nice, nice to see you and I hope you enjoy your life as a journalist now.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Prime Minister Julia Gillard kept smiling and wished Mark Latham luck. But she wasn't impressed.
Later, in an interview on the ABC's Insiders program, Ms Gillard described the former Labor leader's conduct as inappropriate.
The Nine Network chief executive David Gyngell has apologised to the PM. Mr Gyngell says in a statement that the Prime Minister of Australia, whomever that might be and whatever their political stripe, deserves to be treated with a due level of respect.
The network's political editor, Laurie Oakes, was offended by Mark Latham's interview too. Mr Oakes let it be known in a live cross with news reader, Peter Overton.
PETER OVERTON: Now Mark Latham continues to be a major distraction for Julia Gillard. He was in Brisbane today. How damaging is he, do you think, going to be for Labor?
LAURIE OAKES: Well, Peter I'm more concerned with how damaging he is for the Nine Network. That was an ugly incident yesterday with Julia Gillard and Nine's CEO, David Gyngell, was right to say Mark Latham crossed the line and to apologise.
The trouble is I'm not sure that Mark Latham knows where the line is. He's not a journalist. He's still full of bile and settling old scores. I don't really think it does 60 Minutes or the network much, much of a favour really to have him posing as a journalist.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: A spokeswoman says the Nine Network is entirely relaxed about Laurie Oakes' comments because he, like all journalists should, operates without fear or favour.
Veteran journalists who analyse the media agree with Laurie Oakes.
Ian Richards is a professor of journalism at the University of South Australia.
IAN RICHARDS: There's an obvious conflict of interest for someone operating as Latham was operating. With the history he's had for the Labor Party it's a bit farcical to have him up the front speaking to the current Prime Minister. And I also think it's an issue around his training. Obviously he's not a trained journalist.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: But he showed a certain brashness. He got the interview with the Prime Minister. Sometimes that's rewarded in journalism.
IAN RICHARDS: On the other hand though, I mean, the media has a major role to play in a democracy and I guess if it's going to be, have any claim to impartiality and to reporting fairly and accurately and independently then I don't really think this sort of thing helps that image.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Mark Latham playing a guest role as a reporter is also a worry for David Salter, a former executive producer of the ABC's Media Watch. He now edits a news magazine called The Week.
DAVID SALTER: It's a mug lair act of Latham's part. He's trying to do as much damage as he can. He's enlisting the power of 60 Minutes behind him and he's also pretending to be a journalist.I mean, it's citizen journalism gone mad, isn't it?
It's like, I mean he can be a journalist if he wants to. Maybe I could be a politician or a brain surgeon. I mean I find it very distressing that Nine have given him this kind of power.
They're trying to have it both ways too aren't they? They, he goes and does something plainly destructive so the boss of Channel Nine apologises but that's not going to stop them running it on 60 Minutes next Sunday night. They're hypocrites in this one.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: But to be a brain surgeon, you need to have a medical degree, you need to have passed exams, you need to have met some sort of professional standards. Does journalism have those?
DAVID SALTER: That's a different issue altogether. You can say that anyone can be a journalist, even Alan Jones can be a journalist, but the point is that if you're going to enlist the power of a big masthead like 60 Minutes or put yourself suddenly forward as a reporter for the ABC or The Age or something like that, I think you've got to have some credentials. You have to have some sort of track record as having respect for the truth.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: The executive producer of 60 Minutes, Hamish Thomson, says in a statement that Mark Latham has been hired as a guest reporter/commentator for a one-off campaign story.
Mr Thomson says Mark Latham is well qualified for his role. He's thoughtful, highly intelligent and has an intimate knowledge of federal politics. During his time in Parliament he was renowned for his contribution to policy debate.
Has citizen journalism killed the need for traditional journalists?
This week in class, we explored public and citizen journalism and how we can benefit from new realms of news reporting.
So, with the move away from one-way media streaming to a focus on two-way communication between the public and the media, why exactly should we reform journalism in Australia? And, if we don’t do something to change it, will traditional journalism and the ‘newsroom’ in fact die?
Some of the benefits of citizen journalism have been identified as:
1.Diversity of opinion
2.Quick dissemination of information
3.Wider range of sources
4.Powerful coverage i.e. citizens are there, right in the mix of things
But, is citizen journalism just “sloppy technique” (Tapsall & Varley, 2008)? Are people really willing to ‘believe anything these days’?
I think traditional journalism needs to embrace aspects of citizen journalism and public journalism in order to survive and keep the public’s interest and trust. People still have a hunger for journalism but traditionalists need to understand the increasing number of diverse ways to find, capture and tell a story. Audience participation is a large part of this. The key is, people don’t just want to consume anymore. The public wants to be involved in the stories and consequently be a part of the problem solving. In an attempt to re-engage with an increasingly distant public, journalism needs to expand its traditional ways.
But where does this leave journalism as the Fourth Estate?
This outdated notion of journalism as the public’s “watchdog” emerged from the 19th Century and still today, relies on notions such as “objectivity and professionalism to support this stance” (Tapsall & Varley, 2008). In doing so, the media have lost the public’s interest and have “alienated” the ‘citizen’, loosing creditability and detaching themselves from the community, all in the name of objectivity.
Tapsall and Varley (2008) state the traditionalist view sees journalists have the maxim: “tell it as it is and let the chips fall as they may”...but perhaps this isn’t good enough anymore. If journalists continue along the path of traditionalism the consequences will affect the media’s profitability and the public’s participation in wider political processes.
So, my advice? Let the public and the citizen have their say but keep the core journalistic structures like the inverted pyramid and codes of ethics and objectivity in place. We don’t need to compromise our beliefs in order to incorporate the public into our work. Whether we like it or not, things will inevitably change and journalism will continue to evolve, with or without our cooperation!
This blog is a product of my thoughts, findings and analysis as I study in my final semester of a Bachelor of Communication at the University of Newcastle.
My blog will discuss my learning experiences throughout my final semester, in particular, how my experiences and learning of Journalism and the concept of the Journalist in the 21st Century have evolved.
I will also incorporate, where necessary, the correlation between the Journalist and the Public Relations Practitioner in the modern age, as I continue my studies of both professions.
