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!!

Globalisation

I would say my understanding of this topic is quite good, as I have examined the issue in another subject, and have read Breit's work before. I feel the personal values and ethics of journalists play a key factor as to whether the effects of globalisation will be positive or detrimental to future society.

One of the best books I have come across that deals with this topic is Mc Nair, B, 2006, Cultural Chaos- Journalism, news and power in a globalised world, Routledge, New York and I would recommend it to anyone interested in further reading on globalisation.

Mc Nair (2006) argues globalisation has permitted diversification, decentralisation and democratisation within the international media sphere as we are no longer limited to information within our own country or cultural space. Mc Nair (2006) also believes this diversity of media will reduce notions of Western cultural imperialism, because it has allowed groups such as Al-Jazeera to voice their opinion online, regardless of the wishes of the West. However I tend to agree more with the readings, that media globalisation is threatening journalism and local laws. The more technology expands, the harder it will be to regulate, and as Breit (pg 213) says "while freedom of speech may flourish in this environment, other rights such as personal privacy are suffering." Similarly, the concentration of ownership is clearly dominating the market, so even if other voices are out there they are being drowned out, and have less chance of widespread success and expansion as the TNC's. I also believe that ultimately, media giants spread their interpretation of world events. Already sites like You Tube, which gives ordinary people a voice, have now been taken over by strong commercial interests, and this is bound to have an effect on the way the site's are run. So I think news and information has indeed become a commodity, and this relates to the idea of why there is little practice of public journalism.

The emergence of new technology that can communicate across time and geographical boundaries has produced uncertainty for journalists, and requires them to re-evaluate their role and responsibilities on a global scale, something which can be detrimental to the local media landscape. There is much debate as to whether globalisation is a positive force, demolishing censorship regimes and allowing the free-flow of information, or whether it is fostering cultural imperialism (where the market of ideas is dominated by the hegemonic views of the West and its media organisations). Indeed, if we are solely exposed to global news we will inevitably become unaware of events within our own community, and this absence of local stories will affect identity. Although local adaptations and news stories still exist, syndication and globalisation increase the risk that one message will be sent to all audiences. Therefore, the journalist’s role as watchdog will be threatened, as will their ethics and accuracy, with increased pressures for speed and reliance on secondary sources. However we must not loose faith in the role of journalism, rather individual values of journalists will determine the extent to which globalisation emerges as a positive or negative force.

So what do you guys think? Has new technology really helped us learn more about global events? For example look at the lack of context provided regarding the conflict in Georgia.

Other useful sources include-

1) Lull, J, 2000, Media, Communication, Culture- A Global Approach, 2nd edn, Polity Press, Great Britain

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

3) Tomlinson, J, 1997, ‘Cultural Globalisation and Cultural Imperialism’, in A Mohammadi (ed), International Communication and Globalisation, Sage, London, pp. 170-190

4) Barker, C, 2000, ‘Alternatives: Channels of Resistance?’, in J Beynon & D Dunkerley (eds), Globalisation- The Reader, The Athlone Press, London, pp. 193-195

5) Flew, T, 2008, New Media- An Introduction, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, Australia

Public Journalism

Just before I say anything else, these are a couple of images I found on Poynter Online. They compare the way news was once gathered, and the way it is gathered in 2008. I thought it was just worth noting the increased role of the public in news, not only in the form of bloggers but the increasing conversation and value network between journalists and the community in general. Now not everyone may agree with these diagrams, and Poynter online are heavy advocates of public journalism, but I still think they are an interesting comparison, perhaps hinting at the future of journalism, even if we aren't quite there yet.

I have to admit that I wasn't all that familiar with the concept of public journalism before I did these readings, so I have greatly expanded my knowledge of this issue. Public journalism is closely linked to the discussion last week about who constitutes a journalist, because if we accept bloggers as journalists then we are already practicing public journalism.


From my understanding (and summed up in Perry's (2003) book The Roots of Civic Journalism) public journalism-

• Attempts to situate journalists as active participants in community life, rather than as detached spectators
• Makes news a forum for discussion of community issues (journalists should be catalysts- not simply recorders of public debate)
• Favours the issues, events and problems important to ordinary people
• Considers diverse public opinion through the process of discussion and debate among community members
• Treats the public as citizens with the responsibilities of self-government, rather than as consumers to whom goods and services are sold.

I think these are a fair set of principles, and they are lacking in the majority of current journalism coverage. Journalists also seem to think they will loose their credibility and objectivity if they try to present the public agenda, and while this may be a danger, I feel journalists can still remain objective. All journalism tends to gravitate towards experts and official sources, such as politicians, for the perspective on issues, and this no doubt contributes to the idea that there is a disconnect between journalists and the public. I don't see anything wrong with asking the public, they can still be credible news sources. However from what I have read, the practice of public journalism still seems to be highly experimental, and the larger the media audience the more difficult it becomes.

However I believe elections are one area where improvements can definitely be made on a large scale. As the readings state, election coverage rarely helps the public make any sort of informed decision, rather it is reduced to a horse race between candidates, and conflict is emphasised over political policy comparisons. However Venables (2001, Australian Journalism Review) argues that it is easy enough to practice public journalism in regards to elections. Journalists need to-

• Avoid refering to the ‘voters’ or ‘the public’ as though they were someone other than the readers.
• Conduct public polls to determine the chief concerns of voters
• Address each of these concerns in turn through lengthy background articles
• Offer equal column space for each local candidate to discuss these issues
• Avoid horse-race style polls

This could be achieved all over Australia, with each seat considered in this way, so that each local public can voice their concerns, and in turn the whole of Australia will have experienced public journalism.

I have found an interesting example on the web where Barack Obama talks to BlogHer. This blog has an audience of around 9 million American women, and Obama is the first politician to accept an invite to talk on the show. The agenda was set by the public, and Obama was asked questions posed by the bloggers themselves, which I believe very much focuses around some of these aforementioned public journalism principles.

So what does everyone else think? Are we scared to venture into this area of public/professional collaboration?

Why don't we practice more public journalism? (why not answer my poll below?)

Can it realistically happen when the media audience can consist of an entire nation?

Also, here are some further sources on this subject in case anyone is interested.

1) Bentley, C,.H, 2008, Citizen Journalism- Back to the Future?, speech prepared for the Carnegie-Knight Conference on the Future of Journalism, Cambridge, retrieved 10 Aug 2008 from Poynter Online, http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=122

2) Forde, S, 1999, ‘Journalistic practices and newsroom organisation in the Australian independent and alternative press’, Australian Journalism Review, vol.21, no.3, accessed online at Informit database

3) Mc Knight, D, 1997, ‘Public journalism, citizenship and strategies for change’, Australian Journalism Review, vol.8, no. 2, accessed online at Informit database

4) Perry, D.K, 2003, Roots of Civic Journalism, Rowman and Littlefield, America

5) Ramirez, P, 1999, ‘About expanding our vision’, in Civic Journalism is…Pew Centre for Civic Journalism, online, http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/pubs/cjis/index.html

6) Romano, A, 2001, ‘Inculcating public journalism philosophies into newsroom culture’, Australian Journalism Review, vol.23, no.2, pp. 43-62, accessed online at Informit database

7) Venables, D, 2001, ‘City voice: a community newspaper does public journalism’, Australian Journalism Review, vol. 23, no.2, accessed online at Informit database

8) Poynter Online- www.poynter.org

9) Pew Centre for Civic Journalism- www.pewcenter.org

10) New Assignment- www.newassignment.net/

11) Public Journalism Network www.pjnet.org

What is a Journalist?

This week we discussed the notion of who constitutes a journalist. Does 'journalist' mean you are paid for your work, or should the notion of journalist be based on your skills, qualifications, duty to the public, accuracy or something entirely different? Ultimately there is no simple definition of a journalist, particularly as new technology increasingly gives ordinary people access to the tools of the journalism trade. The stereotype Garfield is presenting on the left is no longer the only way to think of a journalist.

I think this is an interesting concept and it will have implications for all future topics. For example, next weeks topic on public journalism will somewhat depend on this definition. Whether or not we can define bloggers as journalists is important to determining how effectively journalists are collaborating with the public. If bloggers can be called journalists this has different implications for the public than if we say they are not.

Personally I don't believe you need to be paid to be a journalist, and you don't need formal training, as there are many people out there with the skills of paid journalists. I think the main issues that surrounds this topic are ethics and accuracy. It is perceived that paid journalists possess more of these qualities, and this is what tends to elevate their status as a journalist. However as it has been seen on numerous occasions, professional journalists cannot always be assumed to have this integrity.