Everyone's a Journalist nowadays.... (2 Viewers)

[braindrainedAsh]

Read this interesting article from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1525911,00.html

The emergence of technology is something which media theorists debate about a lot.

Here are a few questions on the topic for pondering and discussion.

1. Does the citizen journalist undermine media credibility, and muddy the waters of what is true and what is not?

2. What do you think the effects of blogging will have on media in the future.

3. Does the role of the citizen journalist have a democratizing effect or does it do more harm than good?

I'm just interested in hearing some opinions because many people believe these new technologies mean the death of information credibility because there are no checks and balances etc while others believe that it is a highly positive thing because it allows more information (first hand) to get to the public etc.

Discuss! I will post my thoughts later.

 

[withoutaface]

I personally think blogging can only be a good thing, as it provides a spin on things which is different to what the mainstream media does not give you, and as for credibility, the newspapers are still there, as are their websites, so as far as I can see the only thing blogging can undermine is its own credibility.

 

[loquasagacious]

I did some work on this in politics at uni.

Found two basic viewpoints, good and bad essentially.

The positive aspect being that it incredibly broadens the scope of news available in that now we can access up to the minute news from international organisations. This combined with the possibility of accessing first hand news means there is potential to be much more informed and be able to have a more balanced view of events.

On the other hand though the internetdoes the opposite, whilst it has incredible breadth it allows incredible narrowness. The mere action of searching for something constitutes a fundamental filtering. eg The internet makes it possible for neo-nazis to access dedicated neo-nazi news and opinion.

The particular danger of this being group polarisation, that is the psychological fact that if you take a group of moderate people and then they converse the group consensus will become more extreme. In that way the internet encourages the formation of increasingly diverse and fragmented groups, one writer believed this could eventually break down democracy (I disagree).

Personally I believe the payoff to be worth the danger.

 

[Xayma]

Read this interesting article from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1525911,00.html

The emergence of technology is something which media theorists debate about a lot.

Here are a few questions on the topic for pondering and discussion.

1. Does the citizen journalist undermine media credibility, and muddy the waters of what is true and what is not?

2. What do you think the effects of blogging will have on media in the future.

3. Does the role of the citizen journalist have a democratizing effect or does it do more harm than good?

I'm just interested in hearing some opinions because many people believe these new technologies mean the death of information credibility because there are no checks and balances etc while others believe that it is a highly positive thing because it allows more information (first hand) to get to the public etc.

Discuss! I will post my thoughts later.

1. Not in all cases, in some they can improve it (George Bush's military records demonstrate this).

2. It will make them double check their sources.

3. It can do good if the information is true (but problems of bias exceeding media bias comes in even if the facts are true) it can do very bad if its false and people believe it.

 

[kaylz]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=banish

 

[loquasagacious]

rep to maddox

 

[nit]

Originally posted by braindrainedAsh
1. Does the citizen journalist undermine media credibility, and muddy the waters of what is true and what is not?

Well firstly, the media at times "muddy the waters of what is true and what is not", so the citizen journalist would possibly be seen to fit right in.

If you, however, take the media to be some pure, transparent vehicle for news broadcasting, then it depends on what type of journalist activity the citizen undertakes I suppose. The idea of taking photographs of scenes such as the destruction zones at London and allowing that information to propagate widely and with speed is, I think, a positive one. There could be hoaxes as alluded to in the article, however. The test for that may be simply determining how many images are received of the same zone in order to distinguish hoaxes. That would certainly slow the whole process, but that wouldn't be too much of a problem given the speed of transmission of the mobile photographs.

Blogs can, however, be very biased and, though possibly representative of the feelings of certain groups, may nonetheless turn out to be rubbish - I believe that taking news and sentiments directly from such personal accounts would certainly undermine whatever credibility the media still has. Blogs most definitely provide for unique, at least different viewpoints, but how seriously they are taken really does depend on what they rant on about.

In short, to answer 3, the democratisation of the media process to some extent is certainly positive - what the Londoners did improved the passage of media to the people and maintained the credibility of the media. Blogs on the other hand must be considered very carefully before anything they say is transmitted on a wider scale.

 

[loquasagacious]

The problem lies in that all of the medias 'goodness' is derived from objectivity and a large part of a blogs appeal is subjectivity. The two are directly opposed.

 

[withoutaface]

I agree that blogs are mostly opinion, but if you read two blogs with directly opposing, equally strong arguments you tend to get an objective enough view to make up your own mind on the issue.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

Many people in the media believe that allowing bloggers to perform tasks traditionally ascribed to journalists (reporting events etc) undermines the notion of fair and balanced reporting that underpins journalism as a profession etc.

I have heard a lot about this from both sides and personally I think blogs pose no real threat to journalism as a profession... I mean, some people watch ACA and some watch ABC News, some read blogs and others read the Guardian Online, it's just the way it is. Digital photography and phone technology have made more information more accessible so I think that is only a good thing.

I think that blogging allows more people access to have their opinions heard in a public marketplace of ideas and is a positive thing. There are two points when meaning is generated- at the time of production and at the time of reception. Do you think Fox News intends for its bulletins to be seen as unreliable conservative propaganda crap? No, but that is the meaning that the lefty sitting on the sofa might generate from that text. Ultimately, no matter what the intention of the producer (blogger or journalist) a part of the meaning gained from news comes from the audience. If the audience wants to believe something, it will.... so if someone wants to read a left wing blog and believe it to be a balanced and truthful source of information, then that is up to them in one way.

But I do understand where concerns are coming from. But I think this is going to be something that is only going to become more prevalent, so news outlets will have to think of new ways of harnessing this type of change. Murdoch made a speech not so long ago about the power of blogs and how he intended to integrate them in to his news sites etc.

 

[Xayma]

braindrainedash: You might want to take a look at [url="http://wikinews.org]Wikinews[/url]. It is open source news, yet it seems to be fairly balanced and accurate (granted they occassionaly refrence other news sources) but for example in the recent London bombings they were amoung the first to be updated and with any user able to edit any article any errors quickly get removed (in practice).

 

[hello99999]

let's face it, nobody's going to get their information solely from random people's internet blogs- the primary source of information for most people would still have to be tv and/or radio, and sometimes newspapers.

people who learn about news/current events from the internet do so voluntarily- ie. they actively search for information because they want to know more, they don't just absorb information that is forced upon them from news updates during the OC etc. This would have to be positive as it allows access to a much more diverse range of opinions.

 

[katie_tully]

When journalists actually start following the Journalistic Code of Ethics, without deviating from course...And when they actually start writing unbias, factual content, then and only then should the credibility of blogs or the accuracy of the civilian journalist be up for debate.

 

[katie_tully]

On the topic of Maddox and his hate for blogs;
http://maddox.xmission.com/web_logs.html from 2001.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

katie_tully, I think you are being biased in your view of the news media lol. It is totally impossible to write something completely unbiased. Your world view and experiences are always going to shape your perspective on things, no matter how much you try and detach yourself from it. I think you are being a little harsh.... if you watch commercial news, maybe a proportion of it is not in line with ethics, but what about SBS, BBC and ABC? Even papers like SMH, the Guardian etc aren't too bad really.

The AJA Code is a good guideline to journalistic ethics. But in the real world they can't always apply. Some of the best and most important stories have been written or broadcast when journalists have broken the code. Stories like Moonlight State on Four Corners (which brought down the repressive Sir Joh regime in Qld) wouldn't have stuck with the AJA ethics "without deviating from course". When you go to uni at CSU I am sure you will have lots of debates about the realities of the application of the code of ethics in real life professional practice as a journalist. Even though it is impossible to be completely objective and unbiased there are still certain things which should be worked towards, such as balance, accuracy, fairness etc to try to be as unbiased as possible. As a journalist you should always endeavour to follow the guidelines, but which is more important- the code of ethics, or the publics right to know about a story of major significance?

Yeah Xayma I agree Wikinews is quite good, and I think it is a demonstration of the notion that "truth" can be found by allowing all voices to be heard. It is definately a player in the democratization of news, as are blogs etc. I personally think the people that are all in a dither about blogs undermining journalism are just afraid of change and new technology. All blogs are are letters to the editor and talkback radio taken online and made more interactive (with a bigger potential audience). People have always aired their opinions, technology such as blogs etc simply allows more people access to publish their thoughts to an audience.

 

[loquasagacious]

Oh you post-modernist....

Read Elton and Evans for the best ctriques of it.

 

[kaylz]

On the topic of Maddox and his hate for blogs;
http://maddox.xmission.com/web_logs.html from 2001.

Thanks a bunch tully, that's actually what i posted...

 

[loquasagacious]

Actually its different.

You posted a relatively new piece Tully posted an article from 2001, the urls are also different....

 

[kaylz]

Oh... I assumed it was the same. My sincere apologies.

 

[loquasagacious]

Maddox just happens to be a very prolific angry man.....