Journalism, the World and the Future
Discussion of the future of journalism from GMU
Archive for Future of journalism
A recent study in Korea showed that Twitter was more than narcissistic recordings of one’s breakfast choices. It is a news service the provides timely information about global events.
One of the researches, Haewoon Kwak, presented the paper at the WWW2010 conference in South Carolina last week.
Joad Jackson at ITWorld reported on the paper:
The newsy aspect of Twitter is reflected in the question its users are now asked when posting tweets — “What’s happening?” — as opposed to the earlier question, “What are you doing?” And many people use the service to search for up-to-the-second information about unfolding events, such as a football game or a natural disaster.
Jackson also notes that unlike Facebook or MySpace, if oyu want to follow someone, you do not heed his/her permission. Plus, Twitter allows you realtime searches of topics and the ability to keep topics organized with hash (#) tags.
If you are into complicated math, you can read the whole report here as a PDF document: What is Twitter, a Social Network or a News Media?
This survey backs up anecdotal information.
When PBS merged the various offices of the NewsHour into one place and enhanced the program’s online presence, the old and new media saw how the other worked.
When the shootings at Fort Hood took place the Old Media folks grabbed their phones and started calling sources. The New Media folks grabbed their mobile phones and started Tweeting looking for immediate and accurate information from people on the scene.
Thanks to Steve Klein at George Mason for Tweeting about this.
First posted at DC SPJ Pro site.
Reporters Without Borders issued a statement over the weekend about the situation in Thailand. (Media beset by both violence and state of emergency)
The statement discussed the massive censorship taking place by the government — more than 2,500 websites shut down and newspapers intimidated — and violence against journalists on both sides. (Two journalists killed while covering the demonstrations and demonstrators tossing bottles and other debris at journalists.)
But one portion struck me as a lesson about changes in journalism:
Unaware of the risks, foreign tourists have also been “covering” the protests in the hope of being able to sell photos or video footage of the clashes.
These citizen journalists are stepping into situations that could endanger their lives in the hope of selling material to news organizations.
Even the seasoned journalists assigned to Bangkok are nervous about the situation. The RSF statement makes that clear:
Bangkok-based correspondents have little training in covering “conflict zones.”
Journalists understand that at any time we could be tossed into a dangerous situation. And I wonder how many of those currently covering the situation in Thailand ever expected to be in the middle of a series of war zones. (An explosion over the weekend killed a Japanese cameraman.)
But what we all bring to the story is the ability to provide context. That is what our profession requires of us. A picture of a demonstrator means nothing (other than showing anger, frustration, dedication) unless the reader/viewer also knows the story behind the picture.
Pictures and videos help tell the story. By themselves, these graphics cannot tell the whole story.
For more information about the situation in Thailand go to Thai situation dangerous to journalists and media freedom
A while back (April 7, to be exact) I wrote about a piece in Foreign Policy about WikiLeaks and the future of journalism. At that time I expressed the same concern as the FP author: Is WikiLeaks the future of journalism?
I, and other journalists, are concerned that the use of WikiLeaks material is feeding into a political agenda. And let us be clear, WikiLeaks has a political agenda.
Sadly, one of the best interviews exploring this was done by Stephen Colbert. (I am having problems embedding the video, so just click here to see the interview.)
In addition to the Colbert interview that bastion of liberalism, Mother Jones, has also called into question the journalistic credentials of WikiLeaks.
I worry because so many news organizations are depending on groups such as WikiLeaks rather than going out and being competitive in the field of investigative journalism.
It bothers me because journalism is supposed to be about remaining true to the readers/viewers/listeners rather than a political agenda. WikiLeaks makes no bones about having such an agenda. Assange openly admits he and his team used “hot” words to title the video and that they edited the video before making it public.
As and editor I would like to know what happened before and after the video. I would like to know what was edited out of the video. In other words, I would like to know the context of the shots.
We don’t get that from WikiLeaks. Nor did we get it from many of the news organizations when they ran the video. (Yes, later we got some more information. But shouldn’t we have had that info the first time the video was run?)
It is fair to report what WikiLeaks has but it is beginning to look as if some news groups are willing to let WikiLeaks lead the way in getting material.
I repeat what I said before, I am concerned because the news organization has no way to judge the material. Without an active role in the gathering and editing process, how can news editors really trust the material.
We are seeing more outsourcing of reporting by major news organizations. And I am not talking about using freelancers (like me) to get stories. Groups such as WikiLeaks and Current News have journalists working for them and developing stories. But these are groups with political agendas and no news organization should be beholden to them.
By now we’ve all seen the dramatic pictures of the Apache gunship attack of the journalists in Iraq.
The film got into the wild thanks to Wikileaks. The non-profit organization has its server in Sweden and its registration in the United States. It depends on whistle blowers and other anonymous sources to get information out.
Foreign Policy ran a piece today (Apr. 7) discussing Wikileaks and 21st century journalism.
Is This the Future of Journalism?
Given the cut backs in editorial staff in news organizations, maybe Wikileaks is the future of journalism. But what does that say about the state of journalism — especially in the United States — if news organizations have to contract out the work their own reporters should be doing.
In his Foreign Policy entry, Jonathan Stray takes a quick look at the issues involved.
At its best, the rise of Wikileaks represents the type of accountability journalism made famous in the 1970s by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, and practiced today by Jane Mayer of the New Yorker and Eric Lichtblau and James Risen of the New York Times — and Seymour Hersh in both eras.
But, as Stray later points out, Wikileaks is not a news organization as we know it. It does not owe allegiance to the public but rather to a political agenda.
Wikileaks, however, makes no bones about its desire to advance a political message, promising sources that their material will be used for “maximal political impact.”
on their own web page, Wikileaks makes it clear it is not an impartial gatherer of facts.
The Sunshine Press (WikiLeaks) is an non-profit organization funded by human rights campaigners, investigative journalists, technologists and the general public.
When the Washington Post ran the Watergate stories, it was not the policy of the paper to bring down the Nixon Administration but rather to shed light on government actions.
Major news organizations and journalism groups — including the Society of Professional Journalists — offer moral, legal and financial support to Wikileaks.
I am not upset that Wikileaks exist. I am upset that news organizations have failed readers/viewers/listeners so much that they have to depend on out sourcing news gathering. Without some sort of active participation in the process, how can editors or news directors trust the reliability of the information?
But, I guess we will just have to keep going. We are where we are.
There has been a lot of buzz about finding the right model for the future of news organizations. It seems the London Financial Times has found a method that works.
It actually made a profit last year.
As expected, it was not one silver bullet that did it. The combination of paywalls, increased subscription rates and advertising seems to have paid off. (But only after many years in the red.)
And of course, they turn out a product people WANT to pay for. In other words, good journalism is still worth paying for.
