Read:
Christopher Harper (2003). Journalism in a digital age. In H. Jenkins & D. Thorburn (Eds), Democracy and New Media (pp. 271-280). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
(In E-reserve)
Clear paper about how journalistic practices change with the Internet. It is from 2003, takes a good look at “old media” journalism and continuity in the present.
Comment:
It sometimes is amazing when you find that somebody expresses would you are actually thinking - only in better formulated language. Although this reading is almost ten years old, I agree in major parts with Harper's comparision between the real world and online journalism. The major issue for traditional news publications is, that they have to be more careful about what to write and how to express their views. Before the Web consumers had to except what they were served. As Leibling rightly remarked, that the freedom of press belonged to those who own it - the Murdoch empire being a brilliant example.
As this article was published in 2003, I would assume that things have changed a lot for traditional media outlets. Indeed, todays news producers from TV, radio and newspaper publications heavily rely on bloggers and citizen journalism. All these people are voluntarily engaged in reporting, from their real world places around the world, about the latest developments in their area.
For the traditional print media, classifieds were the main source of income that kept newspapers alive. News were there to attract people to buy the newspaper and become aware of the ads placed within. But clearly, daily news papers have become a relic of the past. They are slow to respond in comparison to online media and most of the news has already been discussed on TV the day before. Technology has made acquiring information more convenient for the consumer. Every single piece of information is a mouse click away while in printed newspapers a limited amount of information is a couple of page turns away and further details are completely out of reach.
News publishers have to face the fact that their main sources of income are moving online. This is why newspapers have to adapt to the new situation. Not only moving online, but also accelerating the news turnover is paramount to keep the audience interested and the advertisers coming to rent banner space on the news paper Website.
Explore:
Online mainstream and alternative news sites including:
Crikey: http://www.crikey.com.au/
Perth Indy Media: http://perth.indymedia.org/
The West Australian: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/
The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Salon: http://www.salon.com/
Group work:
How do you get your information / news? Why?
Most of what I regard news is available on LinkedIn - the professional Social Network Service. It customizes the blogs and news articles to my profile and to my professional background. As a result, the news is often relevant and interests me. Also, some of my connections have linked their Twitter account to their LinkedIn account, which is another source of information as they often link to further information across their tweets. The only other communication channel for information and news that I use is the ABC breakfast news. But here I only watch for about 20 minutes. Most of the times there is a politician on, blaming the opposition for something or they discuss failures in the private lives of other politicians, which in my books is the reason for so many people dismissing Australian politics. I then watch the sport news and the weather, before I make my way to work. At work I check my Email for news from professional associations and blogs. I only listen to community radio (PBS FM) as there is no interruption through advertising and they purely engage in playing music. The only other information that I regard worthwhile is that from science series like Catalyst on ABC TV and SBS documentations.
How does this differ from older generations / family etc?
My mother just turned 80. In the past she regularly read the newspaper, especially on weekends. Meanwhile she has turned completely away from newspapers. First of all she claims that there is nothing of essence in there anymore and secondly most of what is discussed was on TV and radio news the day before. "Why regurgitate it?" She entirely relies on TV news. She doesn't make use of online news outlets as she actually fears the Web. I asked her for the reason and she responded that using anything else but her email account, people would be able to get their hands on her address and account details to empty out her bank account and use her identity for fraudulent actions. The only thing she uses her computer and the highspeed broadband connection for is communicating via email and playing Solitaire.
Many people belonging to my generation (Baby Boomers) are still completely overwhelmed with using the Web and in particular understanding social media. As a result they see online news outlets as copies of what is printed in the real world. Also the opportunity of researching news on particular topics is not recognised. Talking to people my age, many of them cannot grab the concept of a timeless and borderless environment that is available 24/7.
What do you find more credible – printed newspapers, online, wikipedia? Why?
For me credibility does not come with the format of news. Credibility requires trust. I trust journalists with an unbiased, critical take on news. People who question things and make the assumptions based on their experience. Having said that, in newspapers there are some columnists I regard higher than others, online I trust some bloggers more than others and in terms of Wikipedia I have to make the decision based on what I have found, conducting a search. There are too many authors involved to give a general answer. But if the information is well referenced (not so much the format, but the sources) and if the sources lead to further details outside Wikipedia, then I deem this article credible. I would no go as far as to say, Wikipedia is worthless. I have found a lot of valuable entries that also helped me to get further information on topics I was researching.
How has the rise of infotainment and celebrity journalism effected online and traditional forms of newspapers and magazines?
Approaching the cashier in any supermarket I am always amazed about the numbers of gossip magazines, especially addressing women - all with the same stereotypes. My experience is that it is dumbing down society, but people seem to love it. While most men I know engage in endless discussions about footy and cricket, the women I know can't get enough of the latest news about celebrity divorces, pregnancies, fashion and TV drama. It may sound arrogant, but I find it tiering to engage in any kind of conversation on this level. I am not asking to discuss Einstein's relativity theory, but I'd wish to have a decent real world conversation with somebody, every now and then.
Although I agree that information should be fun, fun shouldn't be regarded as information. As I said, people seem to love infotainment and celebrity journalism. So why shouldn't news and magazine publishers address the audiences needs? From the publishers perspective it certainly has a positive impact as each audience member is a potential consumer interested in an item or service advertised within the publication. Consumers are what the advertisers subscribing to the news and magazine publications want.
To answer the question: Yes, certainly they have an impact on both traditional and online forms of newspapers and magazines.
Discussion Questions:
Stephen Oakes response from Wednesday, 25 April 2012 20:02:05 o'clock WST:
Editorial control is up for grabs when visiting Wikipedia. It is a great first port of call for information gathering but I think I would pay for an iPAD edition of Encyclopeadia Britannica instead. Some interesting stats here:http://mashable.com/2012/03/16/encyclopedia-britannica-wikipedia-infographic/
It says it all that EB has 4000 contributors – all with great credentials – nobel prize winners etc. and Wikipedia has 751,000 contributers – including your neighbour. The difference between a blog and a normal website is becoming hard to discern as our digital culture immerses itself deeper into participatory culture. It is important to have discretion when using the web for information – check the sources, etc, but it is also important to nurture new and experimental forms of journalism/expression/blogging/activism. Ethically, the web community seems to be self regulating, with the most spectacular example being the Kony2012 phenonema. An amazing fizzer on so many levels, but an amazing example of where the networked globe is at in April 2012.
Interesting viewpoint here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/apr/20/evgeny-morozov-online-activism-video
My response:
Hi Stephen, although I'm sure it was not your intention, I could imply that you are saying, to be credible of writing something epic as the Encyclopedia Brittanica you have to be a nobel prize winner. And further it is out of question that your neighbours could possibly have the capacity to contribute at the same level as a nobel prize winner?
Then tell me, what can 4000 EB contributors provide against 751,000 contributors - including my neighbour, and myself?
Being interested in everything Holden since I first went on holidays to Australia in 1989, I started the German Wikipedia entry for General Motors Holden, doing research on Norm Darwin's excellent book, "The History of Holden since 1917", corresponding with Holden historian and author Don Loffler and constantly asking feedback from early model Holden clubs in Australia. This is at least 8 years ago now and the original text has been vastly extended. Discussions have emerged and some things certainly turned out to be incorrect. What I am trying to say is that people don't just randomly contribute to Wikipedia. When they contribute it is out of enthusiasm for a topic or because they have a special knowledge. There might be political topics, eg. nationalism, totalitarian countries that are put into a favourable light etc. But again, There are other sources that may help to verify if a Wikipedia entry is either genuine or biased.
In my view, Wikipedia is in excellent example, where with the community that shares the space is in control, and no longer a single entity or an elite of 4000, excluding us and our neighbours.
In response to Kieran Rafferty:
Author: Kieran Rafferty
Posted Date: Saturday, 28 April 2012 19:44:50 o'clock WST
Edited Date: Saturday, 28 April 2012 19:44:50 o'clock WST
A late reply but better late than never i suppose. I truly do believe that traditional forms of information media are dying out. Who will continue to run down to their local street corner to buy a newspaper when an alternative will be the option of lying in bed and with the press of a few buttons on your smartphone, your able to bring up said newspaper and other related articles? I think it is the sheer fact of convenience that will press out forms of traditional information media. I dont, however, think that it will die out completely. I believe there will always be a market for the traditional media, mainly because of the differences between gen y and the baby boomers.Media will transform faster the peoples ability to use it and therefore people will rely on what they are most comfortable with.
My response:
Wait a minute Kieran, I am a baby boomer (old fart) and I haven't bought a newspaper in ages. Which brings me to the Melbourne Age, which was the last newspaper I subscribed to. We still have the Saturday Age and the Wedensday Australian at work, but even there I can't be bothered to read them anymore.
Although, on one hand, I have to admit that I miss the haptic sensation of flipping through a newspaper, on the other I don't miss crawling around under the shrubs in the front yard to find my #@#%$ copy of the Age, hesitant to grab it because it's wet, although it hasn't rained...
I also realised that even the Age got very shallow and mainstream in their reporting. Most of it had been discussed in the TV news the day before and the rest was made up of gossip, food and fashion. The worst thing is, that the newspaper editor makes the choice for you, which doesn't leave you with much choice.
So: Seriously, I agree that convenience is king. People would always prefer to make the smallest effort to get anything done. Clicking a mouse to open a news page and clicking again to find a related article rather than sifting piles of old newspapers is definitely much more convenient and quicker to do.
Daily newspapers will certainly vanish some time in the future from the real world, but news publications will stay. They will only move online and compete against the same group as before: other news publishers, bloggers and citizen journalists.
In response to Erika Philpott
Author: Erika Philpott
Date: Tuesday, 24 April 2012 09:11:24 o'clock WST
Subject: RE: What happens to editorial control, credibility and ethics in the new media forms of information presented in wikipedia, blogs?
Wikipedia allows all it's users to edit an article. Personally, I don't like to use Wikipedia as a resource because I am often skeptical of how accurate the information I am reading is. I like that Wikipedia engages users, but I think they should be more careful with how they handle their information. They could still allow user to submit changes for review and have hired researchers on their end affirm the information before it can be changed on the article page.
I find I am of the same opinion with blogs. Anyone can run a blog, and publish their opinion or a biased representation of what they believe to be factual. I question the credibility of any site or webpage unless it can back up it's credibility or I know it is a trusted news source. The internet can be a blessing but it pays to make sure the information you have accessed is reliable and accurate.
My response
Hi Erika, You are taking a very popular position with Wikipedia. But I don't understand the hesitation. If an entry is not properly referenced, the Wikipedia volunteer editors will make people aware that there are issues with missing references. Also, Isn't it a good thing that any entry needs to properly reference to other sources, to prove that the article is credible?
This is what I like most about Wikipedia - it demands referencing and I look into the references to find out further details. Just imagine how hard it would be to create fake references for a fake text. Further, I miss your take on newspapers, TV and radio news. In my whole life I haven't found a single report that was properly referenced to any further information. Now that we have the Web to further investigate if claims are correct or not, isn't this a quantum jump compared to the olden days of one to many journalism, when editors decided what you were supposed to read and how it would be served?
The same applies to blogs. Blogs are there to be shared, to be commented on and to be ripped apart if they try to manipulate their audience. You are right: Everybody can provide a biased interpretation of things they write about. But again, we are no longer helpless if we feel that there is something smelling funny. We can explore the Web and see if we find any other information on basically any topic, which enable us to make up our own mind.
"The internet can be a blessing but it pays to make sure the information you have accessed is reliable and accurate."
Right again, but don't you agree that it's a big step forward from impossible (before the Web) to the fact that it's worth investing time to make sure nobody combs the raw prawn?
It says it all that EB has 4000 contributors – all with great credentials – nobel prize winners etc. and Wikipedia has 751,000 contributers – including your neighbour. The difference between a blog and a normal website is becoming hard to discern as our digital culture immerses itself deeper into participatory culture. It is important to have discretion when using the web for information – check the sources, etc, but it is also important to nurture new and experimental forms of journalism/expression/blogging/activism. Ethically, the web community seems to be self regulating, with the most spectacular example being the Kony2012 phenonema. An amazing fizzer on so many levels, but an amazing example of where the networked globe is at in April 2012.
Interesting viewpoint here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/apr/20/evgeny-morozov-online-activism-video
My response:
Hi Stephen, although I'm sure it was not your intention, I could imply that you are saying, to be credible of writing something epic as the Encyclopedia Brittanica you have to be a nobel prize winner. And further it is out of question that your neighbours could possibly have the capacity to contribute at the same level as a nobel prize winner?
Then tell me, what can 4000 EB contributors provide against 751,000 contributors - including my neighbour, and myself?
Being interested in everything Holden since I first went on holidays to Australia in 1989, I started the German Wikipedia entry for General Motors Holden, doing research on Norm Darwin's excellent book, "The History of Holden since 1917", corresponding with Holden historian and author Don Loffler and constantly asking feedback from early model Holden clubs in Australia. This is at least 8 years ago now and the original text has been vastly extended. Discussions have emerged and some things certainly turned out to be incorrect. What I am trying to say is that people don't just randomly contribute to Wikipedia. When they contribute it is out of enthusiasm for a topic or because they have a special knowledge. There might be political topics, eg. nationalism, totalitarian countries that are put into a favourable light etc. But again, There are other sources that may help to verify if a Wikipedia entry is either genuine or biased.
In my view, Wikipedia is in excellent example, where with the community that shares the space is in control, and no longer a single entity or an elite of 4000, excluding us and our neighbours.
In response to Kieran Rafferty:
Author: Kieran Rafferty
Posted Date: Saturday, 28 April 2012 19:44:50 o'clock WST
Edited Date: Saturday, 28 April 2012 19:44:50 o'clock WST
A late reply but better late than never i suppose. I truly do believe that traditional forms of information media are dying out. Who will continue to run down to their local street corner to buy a newspaper when an alternative will be the option of lying in bed and with the press of a few buttons on your smartphone, your able to bring up said newspaper and other related articles? I think it is the sheer fact of convenience that will press out forms of traditional information media. I dont, however, think that it will die out completely. I believe there will always be a market for the traditional media, mainly because of the differences between gen y and the baby boomers.Media will transform faster the peoples ability to use it and therefore people will rely on what they are most comfortable with.
My response:
Wait a minute Kieran, I am a baby boomer (old fart) and I haven't bought a newspaper in ages. Which brings me to the Melbourne Age, which was the last newspaper I subscribed to. We still have the Saturday Age and the Wedensday Australian at work, but even there I can't be bothered to read them anymore.
Although, on one hand, I have to admit that I miss the haptic sensation of flipping through a newspaper, on the other I don't miss crawling around under the shrubs in the front yard to find my #@#%$ copy of the Age, hesitant to grab it because it's wet, although it hasn't rained...
I also realised that even the Age got very shallow and mainstream in their reporting. Most of it had been discussed in the TV news the day before and the rest was made up of gossip, food and fashion. The worst thing is, that the newspaper editor makes the choice for you, which doesn't leave you with much choice.
So: Seriously, I agree that convenience is king. People would always prefer to make the smallest effort to get anything done. Clicking a mouse to open a news page and clicking again to find a related article rather than sifting piles of old newspapers is definitely much more convenient and quicker to do.
Daily newspapers will certainly vanish some time in the future from the real world, but news publications will stay. They will only move online and compete against the same group as before: other news publishers, bloggers and citizen journalists.
In response to Erika Philpott
Author: Erika Philpott
Date: Tuesday, 24 April 2012 09:11:24 o'clock WST
Subject: RE: What happens to editorial control, credibility and ethics in the new media forms of information presented in wikipedia, blogs?
Wikipedia allows all it's users to edit an article. Personally, I don't like to use Wikipedia as a resource because I am often skeptical of how accurate the information I am reading is. I like that Wikipedia engages users, but I think they should be more careful with how they handle their information. They could still allow user to submit changes for review and have hired researchers on their end affirm the information before it can be changed on the article page.
I find I am of the same opinion with blogs. Anyone can run a blog, and publish their opinion or a biased representation of what they believe to be factual. I question the credibility of any site or webpage unless it can back up it's credibility or I know it is a trusted news source. The internet can be a blessing but it pays to make sure the information you have accessed is reliable and accurate.
My response
Hi Erika, You are taking a very popular position with Wikipedia. But I don't understand the hesitation. If an entry is not properly referenced, the Wikipedia volunteer editors will make people aware that there are issues with missing references. Also, Isn't it a good thing that any entry needs to properly reference to other sources, to prove that the article is credible?
This is what I like most about Wikipedia - it demands referencing and I look into the references to find out further details. Just imagine how hard it would be to create fake references for a fake text. Further, I miss your take on newspapers, TV and radio news. In my whole life I haven't found a single report that was properly referenced to any further information. Now that we have the Web to further investigate if claims are correct or not, isn't this a quantum jump compared to the olden days of one to many journalism, when editors decided what you were supposed to read and how it would be served?
The same applies to blogs. Blogs are there to be shared, to be commented on and to be ripped apart if they try to manipulate their audience. You are right: Everybody can provide a biased interpretation of things they write about. But again, we are no longer helpless if we feel that there is something smelling funny. We can explore the Web and see if we find any other information on basically any topic, which enable us to make up our own mind.
"The internet can be a blessing but it pays to make sure the information you have accessed is reliable and accurate."
Right again, but don't you agree that it's a big step forward from impossible (before the Web) to the fact that it's worth investing time to make sure nobody combs the raw prawn?
No comments:
Post a Comment