Comments on Online Media lecture 4

The digital stories lecture gave an interesting perspective on the role of journalists in citizen journalism. Daniel Meadows seemed to suggest that in future the journalist might have a better role as a facilitator to improve the quality of citizen journalism. Some of Daniel’s own digital stories can be viewed on his website. Daniel’s main reference point for this was his role in the production of the BBC’s digital stories. He was of the view that “human beings are naturally creative and have stories in them.” He thinks journalists are probably best suited to almost train the average citizen so that what they produce is of a higher, more professional quality than the stereotypical shaky video image, or ill-considered blog rant. If this takes place then it follows that what the citizen journalist produces will be more fitting to replace traditional journalism. But can this really be the case?

While I feel that some elements of this argument certainly have a great deal of merit to them, I think there are certainly limitations. A simple logistical issue is that it would rely on the provision of equipment to allow the widespread uptake of citizen journalism in the image that Daniel seemed to suggest.

A further issue is that all news would become local news, which would generally be in the rather limited form of human-interest stories. In my view this would see news being flooded with personal vanity projects that are not really of interest to the wider populace. The citizen journalist has already proven that they can splash some important stories, but I wonder if wider uptake would lead to more of these stories, or mean that finding these stories meant sifting through a greater amount of useless stories.

There are certain fields that would certainly suffer if the journalist’s role became the facilitator. High quality investigative journalism, which requires a great deal of skill and a great investment of resources, is certainly not suited to the citizen journalist taking up the role. It could prove incredibly dangerous for the average citizen to try and take up investigative reporting, and arguably it would be completely irresponsible of media companies to encourage them to do so. It is also unlikely that an average person would be interested enough in issues such as fraud to dedicate the time required to such investigations.

I suspect this is not the only field that would suffer if the journalist became the facilitator. Serious news reporting political issues would not be maintained in the same way without professional journalists reporting, as most of those who would care enough about politics to spend their own time on it are likely to have an agenda or a strong bias.

These are definite issues and it seems clear that there is no one model that can easily be subscribed to at this point. But there are definitely elements of traditional journalism that need to be kept in tact, and trying to generalise such issues as saying the journalist of the future should merely be the facilitator is not really adequate.

Comments on Online Media lecture 3

What really interested me with the last online media lecture was the comparisons made between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. (Although increasingly what interests me almost as much is why it’s called 2.0 rather than merely 2, are we really going to have 2.1 and 2.2 and 2.3 updates? Have these stages already come and gone and we are now onto 3.0? Also I couldn’t make my mind up if Web deserved a capital W in the context of Web 2.0? I suspect I have gone off the point somewhat).

So what I was really going to talk about was the differences between Web 1(.0?) and 2.0. There is a general understanding that web 1 was essentially un-responsive, in a similar way to print newspapers. This was because content could be published and read but those that read it couldn’t really respond.

Web 2.0 allows much more exciting prospects for journalism. Although the ‘excitement’ of Web 2.0 could be seen as a scary thing to many journalists, if journalists do embrace this change then it is potentially a very exciting thing. Modern journalists should realise that rather than being fearful of the consumers increased ability to respond them, it can be of great benefit to their stories. The conversation and the creation of the ‘prosumer’ means that journalists have greater access to new sources and potentially more ‘experts’ than ever before. These are available through all manners of different methods, many of which are yet to be explored fully, with some suggesting ideas such as posting draft versions of articles on blogs, allowing readers to have an input on the creative process. Here are some other examples of what the Liverpool Post is experimenting with

Those who have read previous blog entries may be wondering where my critical tone has gone, and fear not it is about to arrive. There are obviously some great limitations to the concept of Web 2.0.

The first point is that perhaps all this talk of what Web 2.0 can bring to modern journalism is just a bit hopeful? Sure journalists could put a draft version up and allow reader input, sure they could respond to online criticism on their articles, they could do many of the things that Web 2.0 offers. Here is the big BUT though, journalists are increasingly seeing resources cut back as advertising revenues drop and a recession hits in resulting in many job cut backs. How are journalists expected to find the time to do all these extra things when they are being increasingly stretched? There isn’t really time for journalists to engage with readers about stories they have already written as they are generally working on the next story.

The sum of what I am trying to suggest is that if journalists were to use all these great perks of Web 2.0 then it would mean that they potentially have to spend an infinite amount of time on just one story. They would have to keep coming back to the story, grinding their current work to a halt. There are surely some great benefits to be found from Web 2.0 but personally I question whether it is possible for all areas of the media to make full use of these benefits, and I certainly question the bleak vision some provide of the newspaper industry.

Comments on Online Media lecture 2

It was an odd feeling to be asked not to publish the results of some recent research at the latest online media lecture as it had not yet been published in the wider world. This feeling was particularly emphasised by the fact that the lecture was on User Generated Content (UGC). This left me with an ironic dilemma given the content of the lecture. It picks up strongly on an issue that I discussed in my last blog entry- what ethics are at work for the citizen journalist?

If a room of 90 bloggers were asked not to disclose information, then there is a good chance that this would be the first thing that many would do on finding a computer. In fact many would be updating Twitter. This is not necessarily a poor reflection of the people that put the information into the public sphere, but rather a reflection that the nature of the beast that is the internet.

There isn’t really any ethical code on the internet, and many argue that the freedom to access and put almost anything on the internet is one of its greatest strengths. On top of this, any time that there is talk of enforcing some kind of ethical code, or code of conduct online, it is pretty much laughed down. It is also interesting that when some sites such as the BBC filter what they allow to be put up on their site they are often attacked for censorship, as evidenced by the recent blog entry on The Editors which received some fairly negative comments from readers.

The Editors blog was also of interest as it did demonstrate the increasing importance that the media is placing on UGC, especially in mentioning the two big scoops their new interactive reporter achieved in two weeks. Both stories were fairly important: the extreme initiation rites that some students had to go through, and the students who are yet to receive their educational maintenance allowances. To get two big stories in two weeks is quite an achievement for a journalist, and shows the real power of UGC when it is given the proper attention.

Despite this it still seems that for UGC to gain the attention then it does need to be filtered by a media institute, as there is a lot of fake or indecent material, and even more that is simply of limited interest for most people. While the UGC element of the BBC can be trusted as it has been verified by a strong team of journalists at the BBC and carries the BBC’s strong brand name, with standard UGC it is more difficult to have full faith in what you’re viewing. This has been demonstrated very well on CNN’s iReport, where un-checked UGC is allowed free rein, and has lead to some issues, particularly the example of the elk in the forest fire. An interesting point with iReport is that its un-moderated nature means that users must rely on each other to flag up a false story. This seems like the most interesting direction that UGC can take upon which a widespread user base moderate each others content through comment, however, given the small percentage of internet users who are regular contributors at present then in many ways this is just as bad as the BBC’s censorship.

Comments on Online Media lecture 1

The Internet is given great praise for allowing ordinary citizen to publish their views online, but there is a worrying lack of regard for the consequences of publishing these views. Putting aside the legal ramifications, which have become a serious matter for many bloggers, there are potentially greater ramifications for the Ethics of Journalism itself.

Journalism is famed for apparently being a ‘dirty’ trade, but it must be taken into account that many journalists have a professional ethical code which they take very seriously. An example of this can be seen in the PCC Code of Conduct. One key area of the document, which Editors themselves drew up, regards journalists deciding what things really are in the public interest and whether this overrides individuals rights to privacy.

This is in stark contrast to bloggers who have no real moral code on the internet. They do not feel, and aren’t really, bound by any concepts of privacy, let alone conversations being 'off the record'. An interesting example of this would be the American blogger Mayhill Fowler, who has dropped a couple of bombshells on her blog on the website of the Huffington Post.

The first was Barack Obama talking of Pennsylvanians who ‘cling to guns or religion’, and the second was the incident that became known as ‘Bittergate’, Bill Clinton's rant about the author of an unflattering article about him. For both of these incidents Obama and Clinton did not think they had any press around them, and almost certainly would have behaved very differently had they realised the publicity that their comments would have revealed.

Many would argue that for public figures such as Obama and Clinton, not realising the attention their comments would get is somewhat of a cop-out, and no public figure can expect anything to remain ‘private’ given the evolution of the internet. It would be interesting to find out what Mayhill Fowler's own views on such concepts of privacy are, given the manner in which she was swamped by the media once her initial story about Obama was reported on the Drudge Report.

Another real concern is that journalists should (in theory) be much more qualified to comment than many members of the publicas journalists have (or should have) researched their stories, uncovered the relevant facts and sought expert advise. The journalists findings should then be presented in the most impartial way possible. Put simply, journalists have researched their pieces and also attempt to keep their news stories separate from their editorial stories so as to keep an impartial stance.
With citizen journalism these boundaries are much more blurred (although arguably not for Mayhill Fowler, given she is a staunch Obama supporter). The internet has certainly made comment a lot easier but it must be noted that facts are still king, to coin a phrase by CP Scott: “Comment if free, but facts are sacred.”

Only those bloggers which are incredibly careful to check their facts or are an expert on the subject they coment on, can really present any kind of valuable opinion to the world. Realistically more often than not the bloggers that present