Online Journalism

Tapsall makes some interesting points about whether the future digital newsroom will actually improve or degrade news? As she discusses, theorists have many perspectives on technology's role in the future of journalism and society. Some believe technological change will generate social change, will alleviate poverty and educating third world countries. Others feel technology will increase the problems it tries to solve.

Personally, I think there can be no doubt that despite all the claims of diversity of opinion and education of the masses, technology will largely serve to further concentrate news. Despite the increasing proliferation of communication infrastructure in countries around the globe, many countries still lag behind in communication technology, and while developments of infrastructure may have dissolved geographic boundaries, it has also helped create another divide- a digital divide. This digital divide encompasses two aspects- the divergence of technological access between industrialised and developing societies, and the gap between the information rich and poor in each nation (Thussu, 2006).

News agencies such as Reuters, CNN, BBC etc. have established links all over the world and “they represent a highly participative exchange-based co-operative system and yet also a hierarchically organised global network dominated by US and European based organsiations” (Cooper Chen, 2005). This isn't a good thing for the future of news.

Similarly, as discussed in previous weeks, technology can be seen to reduce diversity, with many countries turning to foreign news as it is a cheaper alternative to home grown products. For example, South Africa doesn't export many shows and local content makes up less then half of TV programming because imports are cheaper. Also, advertisers don’t support local shows, they target more affluent audiences who normally watch international programs. So while technology may have helped connect the world, poorer countries are still only seeing news important to the global agenda, which erodes local identity. Increasingly, content is being sacrificed for the sake of visually appealing stories or stories that have the largest mass appeal. And this was a concern discussed during the presentations focused on globalisation vs localisation.

Technology also complicates the role of journalists. As Tapsell states, journalists now need to be multi-skilled as the are often required to do all aspect of story- writing, editing, presenting etc. This in turn is bound to have an effect on content, as journalists have less time to spend on stories.

• Cooper-Chen, A, 2005, Global Entertainment Media, Lawrence Erlbaum, USA


• Mohammadi, A S, Winseck, D, Mc Kenna, J & Boyd-Barrett, O, 1997, Media in Global Context, Arnold, London


• Morris, N & Waisbord, S, 2001, Media and Globalisation, Rowman &Littlefield, USA


• Nightingale, V & Dwyer, T, 2007, New Media Worlds- Challenges for Convergence, Oxford University Press, Melbourne


• Norris, P, 2001, Digital Divide, Cambridge University Press, USA


• Thussu, D K, 2006, International Communication- Continuity and Change, 2nd edn, Hodder Arnold, London

What do you think? Is society determined by technology?

Moral Minefields

The readings this week demonstrated the difficulties of defining a balance between law and public interest and establishing appropriate boundaries for reporting. As Pearson stated- “the legalistic approach is preoccupied with advice on what behaviours a journalist may not carry out, rather than presenting legal avenues for safe and sound reporting.”

I think there can be no doubt that journalists should be granted special privileges in order to bring information to the public, but as Pearson stated, journalists still need to act responsibly in order to afford such rights. It is also essential that courts be there to try to balance competing rights and responsibilities of journalists and the public. Indeed, public interest needs to be a matter of serious concern to the audience as citizens- not just as curious consumers. So courts must decide whether the public interest served by a story is greater than other interests affected by that action.

There are several main aspects of the law that directly relate to journalists.

1. Sub-judice
   Which is a publication interfering with a persons right to a fair trial (I think the Lindy Chamberlain media coverage is a good example of the failure of this law)
   


2. Freedom of information
   Which balances the right of access to government information with the protection of areas where disclosure would have a substantial adverse effect on public- such as national security. However access to information is expensive and as Pearson states, poorly under-utilised by journalists.
   


3. Defamation
   Where a person can sue for unjustified damage to their reputation. Journalists often use the defences of fair report/fair comment to defend themselves against defamation, but these areas are hard to define. What is perhaps most disturbing about defamation is that the government provides no legal aid for those suing for defamation, so while the law appears to serve a valid purpose, it is really only employed by those with money or power who can defend themselves. In turn, this can create a chilling effect in the media, with journalists not pursuing stories to their limits for fear of being sued. Therefore the rich and powerful can be seen to use defamation as a weapon.

There is no doubt that in an era of competitive news the hunger of audiences for information and the pressure of editors for the story makes it easy to see how a reporter may misjudge. But again it comes down to ethics- and there is no easy answer.

Ultimately the formation and enforcement of media law becomes a point of negotiation amongst key players. The politicians make the laws, so they have the potential to crack down on the media for their own interests. Similarly, powerful media can avoid reforms by pressuring politicians.

Have a look at this story which was published in my local paper. It focuses on a politician running for our local council, and exposes the fact that gay porn was found on his council issued laptop. http://portstephens.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/adult-gay-porn-images-found-on-port-councillors-laptop/1250581.aspx

Would you publish this? Why/why not? Is it really in the public interest? Also have a look at the comment at the bottom of the story. Do you think the guy has a valid point?

Case Study

Here is another interesting case study published by Mirror Newspapers on the 18th of December 1971.

Can anyone see why it might be defamatory? Or who it might defame?

50,000 TONS OF WHEAT STOLEN

FIFTY thousand tons of wheat valued at $5 million is believed to have been stolen from temporary storage sites in New South Wales country areas. The wheat disappeared from silos at Armatree, Merriwa, Nevertire, Geuri and Narromine.Police believe the wheat is being sold to chicken and pig farmers in the outer Sydney Metropolitan area. Detectives from the Sydney-based special crime squad have interviewed hundreds of farmers and workers throughout the wheat belt in the far west of the State. At least 20 people are expected to be charged with theft. Police are concentrating their enquiries in the Newcastle and Quirindi areas where the Grain Elevators Board has large storage silos. So far they have established that large bulk road carriers are being used to transport the wheat from the remote country silos to the pig and chicken producing areas. It is thought that most of the wheat stolen has been low quality off-grade wheat which easily escapes the notice of farmers more interested in the prospects of their premium and second grade wheat. Police will interview more than 1,000 people from farmers right through to the buyers of the wheat. Although police will not comment on their findings so far, investigations are expected to last for more than a year.”

_____________

As you would see, no person was named or described as the offender of the theft. But the newspaper was sued by a Mrs. Steele for defamation. At this time, Mrs. Steele was the largest single operator carting wheat in the area where the thefts took place, she used all the same equipment referred to in the article and had a prior criminal record. So she claimed it could reasonably be assumed that the article was referring to her.

According to Peason (2007) it's well established in law that defamatory matter, which doesn’t name anyone, is still actionable if there are ‘special facts’ known to readers which leads them to link the defamatory matter with a person, even if the writer didn’t intend to refer to them. In this case, the special facts included knowledge of Mrs. Steele’s wheat business, the fact she transported wheat in many of the areas where the thefts took place and she owned trucks big enough to steal large quantities.

In this case the law needed to consider how ‘ordinary sensible men’ would understand the words. The definition of this hypothetical reader is subject to controversy and can be presented as someone between the two extremes of ‘unusually suspicious’ and ‘unusually naive.’ However the law must be careful about what constitutes a reasonable reader; otherwise even the barest details of a crime couldn’t be reported. As Pearson states in the reading this week, many aspects of the law are hazy and journalists will only find comfort in new areas of the law as these finer details are determined by court decisions.

It appears to have been difficult in this case to get a sound answer on many legal issues, particularly as to who constitutes an ordinary reader and when to conclude their assumptions are reasonable. Mrs Steele was awarded damages, but these were withdrawn after an appeal from the newspaper.

Either way I think this case study contains some useful lessons for journalists.

• Pearson (2007) reminds us that a journalist cannot rely on ignorance as a defense .The intention of the journalist is irrelevant as is the fact that care was taken to avoid defamatory content. All that matters is the publisher intended to publish the article.


• “Several meanings may emanate from a single publication” so journalists must critically examine the ways in which their words can be interpreted.


• Material can become defamatory in a way they mightn’t have foreseen.


• It’s possible to report a crime in such as way that can identify an individual. In this case, it can be argued that the descriptions used in the article reasonably identified anyone who ran such a wheat collecting business in the area.


• Watterson (1995) argues we shouldn’t write in general terms. “either make the ID so general no individual could claim it referred to them, or make it so specific that no other person is identified mistakenly.” Perhaps in this case the Mirror Newspaper should have waited until the police had named a suspect, or included less detail about the methods used to steal the wheat, which were closely linked to Mrs Steele’s business operations.


• Journalist’s best defense- make proper inquiries before publication and ensure fairness, truth, accuracy and thorough research.


• Watterson (1995) recommends journalists should pause at the name of any person or organisation and consider who might be defamed by the context in which it is written.


• Be aware of the risks and seek legal advice if in doubt.

References

• Pearson, M, 2007, ‘Identifying Defamation’, in M, Pearson, The Journalists Guide to Media Law, 3rd edn, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW, pp. 175-205


• Steele v Mirror Newspapers [1974] 2 NSWR 348, retrieved August 19, 2007 from Lexis Nexis database


• Watterson, R, 1995, ‘Defamation’, in M Armstrong, D Lindsay & R, Watterson, Media Law in Australia, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 9-31

New Poll

Hi All,

Well there was no conclusive result for my last poll, as it resulted in a three way tie between the answers. But a big thanks to those who did vote!!

But there is now a new poll up and running, so I am hoping for some wider participation this time. Come on guys, get involved.

Tell us all what you think!!

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

An uncertain boundary exists between the public’s right to information and individual's right to privacy, and as the reading outlined, both terms are highly ambiguous.

Breeches may include entering private property without consent, placing surveillance devices or taking unauthorised photos/ audio with view of publication. Invasion of privacy may be necessary or helpful. Hurst and White (1994) consider that interviews and pictures which convey the grief of disaster victims may encourage public support for the victims and focus attention on the problem at hand, such as inadequate policies. Families of victims may even find it therapeutic to talk about their grief; however on this note, Hurst and White (1994) argue traumatised citizens are more vulnerable to intrusive reporting and manipulation. Similarly, invasions of privacy may be pursued as a cheap attempt to grab attention and increase circulation, and this is where the ethics of journalists come into play.

Although journalists are advised to respect privacy in codes of ethics, laws and many provisions are vaguely worded, so the ultimate decision is left to the individual journalist or company. However it is equally difficult to more clearly define the law, as some breeches of privacy may be exceptional and necessary for public interest.

Journalists have a number of defences for invasion of privacy-

1) People surrender privacy rights when entering public life
2) It’s not illegal
3) Journalists have a duty to report private matters of interest to the public
4) It's up to the public to decide limits- journos are just conduits (although this ignores the role of individuals as moral agent)

However it is also necessary to consider the difference between a matter of public interest and something that is interesting to the public. What about when we die; are we entitled to more, the same or less privacy? Was it really in the public interest to reveal (after his death) that Peter Brock had an affair? Often it seems the majority of disclosures that breech privacy serve little value, such as reports on sexual misconduct. As White (2002) argues, intrusions of privacy often contribute to voyeurism, rather than public interest. Ultimately, controversial private material needs to be justified in the same way as any other material- does it provide a significant understanding that couldn’t be achieved otherwise. There is therefore also a need to consider institutional accountability- not just the ethical decision-making of individual journalists.

It is also interesting I think to examine the idea that public figures have less privacy rights. Archard (1998) states while it is naturally harder for public figures to keep matters private, it is unacceptable to dismiss intrusions on their privacy on the basis that public figures should be prepared to take bad publicity with the good. Such perspectives are also unfair to unwilling celebrities, such as those born to fame. He also argues that loss of privacy is not a fair price to pay for being famous. On the other hand Bentley (1992) argues that while the genuinely personal aspects of a public figure’s life should be protected by privacy, this protected area is necessarily smaller than that of the ordinary citizen. But who determines where to draw the line?

Clearly this topic will tie in closely to next week’s topic on ethics and I believe overall that journalists suffer from individual ethical dilemmas in determining what is rightfully private. It is also necessary to consider whether citizen journalism and increased globalisation of news will have an even more detrimental effect on privacy in the future, as the demand for news content increases and anyone is capable of publishing information online, without the need for consideration of professional ethics.

Here are some interesting references for this topic-

Archard, D, 1998, ‘Privacy, the Public Interest, and a Prurient Public’, in M Kieran (ed), Media Ethics, Routledge, New York, pp 82-96

Belsey, A, 1992, ‘Privacy, Publicity and Politics’, in A Belsey & R Chadwick, Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, Routledge, New York, pp 77-91

Breit, R, 2007, Law and Ethics for Professional Communicators, 1st edn, LexisNexius Butterworths, Chatswood

Chadwick, P & Mullaly, J, 1997, Privacy and the Media, Communications Law Centre, Melbourne

Christians, C.G, Fackler, M & Rotzoll, K.B, 1995, Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning, 4th edn, Longman, New York

Hurst, J & White, S, 1994, Ethics and the Australian News Media, MacMillan Education Australia, Melbourne





So what do you guys think?

Is there a difference between the privacy afforded to public figures and that of the general public?

If you worked on a newspaper, how would you decide what to publish?

Truth, you can't handle the truth!

I feel it is very difficult to come to a solid conclusion about notions of truth and objectivity in journalism, as these concepts are difficult to define at the best of times. For this reason it was interesting to read the interpretations in Chapter 6 regarding the history of truth as a concept and the idea that there is no simple way to define it. Can we understand truth if we haven’t directly witnessed the event? Can truth be universal? Or are cultural theorists correct in saying that truth can't be represented as it is a construction? While I agree that everyone's interpretation of the truth is different, I would like to believe that truth can still be represented as accurately as possible, even if there is always someone that disagrees. I also believe that it has become harder to determine the truth in the face of technological advances and the pressures faced by journalists, including time pressures, and pressures from market forces (including things like globalisation), laws, work culture and their own experiences. With new digital media, the tiered structure which previously existed to sift news is flattened-hence fact and source checking will be reduced or skipped. Alongside this it is indeed very difficult to put aside your own bias on an issue and report it in an objective manner.

I think it is true that the news not only describes, but constructs our reality, and it is for this reason that it is important to get as close to the truth as possible when reporting. However there are many truths out there and it is important to consider whose truth journalists will tell? Journalists turn to those of authority to verify truths, and I think it is for this reason that many people feel the truth isn’t being told, and indeed such sources can never be assumed to be totally accurate. Ultimately, journalists need to exercise judgement and select crucial elements of stories. Journalists can’t believe anything until it has been verified by the most authoritative source possible, and they must consider that there are many sides to a story. This is where further investigation needs to be undertaken by the journalist to uncover the truth. For example during the Chamberlain case, Kevin Hitchcock, a well-known and respected 10 Network television newsman, made a documentary that showed the other evidence available, and was critical in influencing the tide of public opinion to swing in favour of the Chamberlains. He started to suspect the information being provided by the Northern Territory authorities and chose to examine other sources, including witnesses, and local aboriginals (despite the fact that when he started he actually believed the Chamberlain's were guilty) (http://www.lindychamberlain.com/). Indeed it seems to be common in the media to jump to the conclusion that those who show little emotion over the disappearance of a loved one are guilty (ie Lindy Chamberlain, Joanne Lees and the Mc Canns). And I think it is such personal bias that can lead to the burial of important truths. There is unquestionably bias in reporting, and with some media you have to have the right behaviour, viewpoint, or bias, to get in. For example, a reporter who wishes to work the police or government beat regularly will find it difficult or impossible to get interviews with those people unless they report in the way that the police or government wants them to report.

The attitude of the media in general towards the Chamberlain case changed many times, initially the general media was 'for' the Chamberlains. But within about three weeks, in response to rumours started by members of some media and some government agencies, the media began to go against the Chamberlains, as the reporting of rumours started. The rumours turned out to be false, but by then the damage had been done in influencing public thought. In several instances Lindy's responses in interviews were rearranged so they sounded different, and it is this blatant misuse of information that gives truth and journalism a bad name (http://www.lindychamberlain.com/). It is inevitable that when something happens outside our normal range of understanding, in absence of knowledge, we will accept the first explanation. From that point on, we will subconsciously, and continually, interpret all further information to agree with our first conclusion (this can be said for journalists and the public- this is why it's so important to attempt to tell the truth as accurately as possible).

So clearly the truth is slippery and while journalists may seem to have inadequate tools and time to fact-check etc, they must continue to practice the essential skills needed for presenting a credible description. Inaccurate reporting is often due to laziness, bad ethics, or time pressures, but journalists need to do what they can to overcome this. Ultimately most journalists would feel they are representing the truth, however this is different to deliberately fabricating a story, we need to maintain respect for the truth seeking process or else we will be faced with nothing but gossip and hearsay.

As chapter 7 outlines, a decrease in staff numbers, article length and context have all effected the reliability of info, but as discussed, stories can more accurately reveal truth if they are developed in three stages- reactive, analytical and reflective reporting. I have found examples of these notions in news stories surrounding the September 11 attacks.

This first story is from the BBC and is reactive, reporting what happened, observed facts etc. So what actually happened when the planes struck. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/11/newsid_2514000/2514627.stm

The second story is from the ABC and it is more analytical reporting, answering some of the deeper questions about how, or why the event happened. This story examines how authorities ignored warnings that the September 11 attacks might occur. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/02/11/1300618.htm

This story functions on the level of reflective reporting, examining deeper social trends that allowed the event to occur. This piece examines the role of democracy in the attacks and the influence of democracy in the Middle Eastern countries (those the USA attempted to influence) after September 11. http://www.smh.com.au/multimedia/pmg/start.html

Overall I think the important point to remember is that we must continually do a reality check; read and write always with the question of 'What is not being said? What is just below the surface? Could this have happened any other way than what is said?'

• Can anyone think of a time where the truth has been distorted?


• How about where the truth has been actively pursued?

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000728.html There is another interesting example regarding truth on this blog.

Or for more info have a look at the book- Journalism- Truth or Dare, by Ian Hargreaves.

Go ahead, pay my wage!

This topic has further notions for the quality of journalism and what, or whom, constitutes a journalist. I found the presentations very interesting this week and I feel this is a topic which could use further explanation and study in the future, because it would be really intriguing to see some up to date local figures, so we could see just how much (or little) the wages of journalists have been affected in recent years. The idea that the nature of journalist’s contracts are changing was also brought up, with the argument made that more casual and freelance journalists are being chosen over long term positions, and based on some of the websites and blogs I have looked at there is certainly a lot of freelancers out there. Therefore I thought it was useful this week to look at this option in journalism, because throughout uni it has always been implied that we would work for a company, when this is not necessarily the case. I believe great journalism can still occur through freelancers or funded newsrooms, rather than what we would think of as 'traditional' journalism.
I think it was also an interesting point to link low wage to unethical reporting (once again figures would be good) but I think such things ultimately come down to personal ethics.

The following is a link to a story about Fairfax media axing 550 jobs across its New Zealand and Australian newspapers in coming weeks.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/fairfax-media-to-cut-550-jobs-in-australia-nz-20080826-433v.html
While the cuts are not restricted just to journalists, about 50 editorial positions are to be eliminated at the Herald and The Sun-Herald, and the two papers will be combined under a seven-day roster. Assigned journalists will then be expected to work across both titles (which surely has implications for quality) and it appears no wage increase will occur for this extra work. The sub-editing area will be reduced, and outsourcing will occur for some sections of the papers- again raising questions of quality and possibly the loss of local stories. So as stated in the presentations, it is clear that the wages of newspaper journalists may be most affected as advertising revenue moves elsewhere. However as it was said on the Future of Journalism DVD, perhaps journalists need to be responsible for combining their skill with new technology and creating and securing their future online.

It is clear that many media moguls are still making enough money to be able to properly pay the wages of journalists, so it is useful to consider why wages are suffering. The rise of civic journalism may be one reason, it is easier and cheaper to get footage from public citizens (many of which are not paid) and I feel it also links back to globalisation. News content can now be obtained through larger press agencies etc so fewer journalists are needed at a local level, as news can still get produced without them.

The presentation outlined some possible solutions to wage cuts- subscriptions, online-only papers, niche marketing, stand alone journalists and funded newsrooms. I feel these last two options are actually the best for journalists, allowing them to stand on their own two feet and produce quality work. However it is not easy to move into the online world of journalism, particularly for those used to traditional mediums. The barrier of entry in this online world is finding an audience and attracting users. As a result, journalists will need to develop business skills, and skills across more than one medium if they are to avoid further wage reductions. Check out the Press Think blog for more info on stand alone journalism. I find this blog very useful as a lot of credible journalists utilise it to express their ideas, many of which are unique and revolutionary when we think of the notion of traditional journalism, but I believe they useful for the future of journalism. http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/04/21/nol_stnd.html

• So which option do you guys think will be most useful and sustainable for journalists in the future?
• How do you feel personally about going it alone?

VOTE IN MY POLL!!!

Hi everyone,

This is just a reminder to anyone visiting to please vote on my poll at the bottom of my blog. It's a fun way of seeing what everyone thinks, so please participate.

When this one runs out I will put up another, so go for it!!