During our Wednesday meeting we talked about my previous blog post “What is the future of journalism” where I pointed out the rules of production that Nick Davies stressed in his book. And then I was not really prepared to answer the question what is my opinion about the statement “the death of journalism”. That is why I want to present you my view on the situation of journalism.
The main problem in journalism is that the profession (I think of journalism as a profession but I’m aware that some do not think that way) adopted the capitalistic values. Journalism, media, news, journalists have become products ready to sale, buy and the most important, replace. The power is now in the hands of those who have money, because money can buy and money can replace. Several journalists (in Slovenia) have low salaries, are not employed full time, and if they do not support the policy of the media they work for, are replaceable and in short time also replaced.
The second problem is that graduated journalists have less opportunity to be employed, because they cannot be that easily guided as those that are not educated, that don’t have the media knowledge.
The media economy is also problematic, because the owners of the media are only concerned about the profit, making money, and produce more and more goods (news) that sell the media. They bring pressure on the editors, they pressure the journalists and journalists can no longer write a quality articles. Because of time limitations they copy the agency news, and by now, if we look at 6 Slovene media, we can see the same news, in some media restructured, but still the same. It is very similar with the sources of information; nowadays almost all the journalist in our country calls and cites the same sources. That means that we can have only one side of the story (or one side of one side), but we don’t have the diversity of facts, thoughts, opinion.
Here I have to point out, that in the journalistic field there is way too much rivalship, jealousy and envy. Several journalists would, just to have the top news first and only, lie or mislead other partners in this field – even if one of them works on the internet and other for the newspaper. And this is problematic; I just think about lawyers and doctors profession that has a high level of solidarity. They stick together to protect their profession and they act together towards others.
Until journalist will not recognize that beside other enemies, that are outside their profession (politicians, economists, owners of the media, PR, marketing workers), their worst enemy is that inside their field, they would not be able to step together and resist those who keep the profession of journalism at such a low level.
ponedeljek, 22. marec 2010
sobota, 13. marec 2010
What is the future of journalism?
These days we heard a lot talking about “death of journalism” and how the traditional, objective and critical journalism is being replaced by commercial and profitable one. That is why I want to point out some rules of journalistic production.
Nick Davies is The Guardian journalist and also the author of the book Flat earth news, in which he stressed the rules of so called »churnalism«. As he pointed out, these rules of production are of course unwritten and unstated and broken by a considerable number of able journalist that for that reason repeatedly run into trouble with media managers. All this rules flow from the two guiding principles in commerce: to cut the costs of production and to increase the flow of revenue.
First five rules that he highlights are set for the purpose of first guiding principle – cutting the costs. The first rule – “Run cheap stories” – simply requires the selection of stories which are quick to cover and safe to publish. Next rule – “Select safe facts” – encourages journalists to favor factual statements which are safe (can be attributed to official sources and for that safe). Third rule suggests to “Avoid the electric fence”, that means to stay in the safe territory and to avoid any problems with those who can endanger news organization. The author points out that the oldest electric fence is media law, nowadays this role is played by lobbying groups. Fourth rule is to “Select the safe ideas” and requires moral and political values to be safe. This means that moral and political ideas generally should not be expressed overtly in the story and they should reflect the surrounding consensus. The last rule in this first group is the rule to “Always give both sides of the story”, which author calls the safety net rule.
Next five rules are set for the purpose of increasing the revenue. So the rule six suggests to “Give them what they want”, which means that stories should increase readership and audience. The seventh rule is “The bias against truth”, which is now entrenched by the news factory’s move towards shoving its stories into smaller packages, stories that should be told fast or the punters will lose interest. “Give them what they want to believe in” is rule eight, which requires that ideas and facts should be selected with commerce in mind. The journalist should be aware, Davies says, that reader is never wrong, and regardless of editorial judgment about what was wrong or right, the paper should feed the values of its consumers. The rule nine is to “Go with the moral panic”, which is to be followed only at times of perceived crisis. The last rule is “Ninja turtle syndrome”, that means media should run stories which are being widely published elsewhere, even if those stories clearly lack merit.
And at this point I cannot avoid thinking – is the same way as Davies describes also in Slovene media sphere? I have to agree and also disagree; some rules are surely followed in several Slovene media but not all. The rules select safe facts, run cheap stories, always give both sides of the story, select safe ideal, give them what they want, give them what they believe in and go with moral panic are rules that can be noticed in several newspapers, web sites , radio and TV stations. But there are also the rules such as avoid the electric fence, ninja turtle syndrome, the bias against truth that I have not come across in our media. Slovenia is too small to have such organizations or laws that build the electric fence that should not be crossed, even if there are some subjects that should be avoided – if you want to have tranquil and peaceful life. Also the ninja turtle syndrome is not all that “popular”, because every media runs the stories that fit its nature the most. For sure Delo, our daily newspaper will not publish the popular, tabloid story, even if all other media would.
However maybe I’m wrong, and the status of the Slovene and world journalism is not bad at all, maybe it is just a phase, and in some years we will see journalism as a profession emerge again.
Nick Davies is The Guardian journalist and also the author of the book Flat earth news, in which he stressed the rules of so called »churnalism«. As he pointed out, these rules of production are of course unwritten and unstated and broken by a considerable number of able journalist that for that reason repeatedly run into trouble with media managers. All this rules flow from the two guiding principles in commerce: to cut the costs of production and to increase the flow of revenue.
First five rules that he highlights are set for the purpose of first guiding principle – cutting the costs. The first rule – “Run cheap stories” – simply requires the selection of stories which are quick to cover and safe to publish. Next rule – “Select safe facts” – encourages journalists to favor factual statements which are safe (can be attributed to official sources and for that safe). Third rule suggests to “Avoid the electric fence”, that means to stay in the safe territory and to avoid any problems with those who can endanger news organization. The author points out that the oldest electric fence is media law, nowadays this role is played by lobbying groups. Fourth rule is to “Select the safe ideas” and requires moral and political values to be safe. This means that moral and political ideas generally should not be expressed overtly in the story and they should reflect the surrounding consensus. The last rule in this first group is the rule to “Always give both sides of the story”, which author calls the safety net rule.
Next five rules are set for the purpose of increasing the revenue. So the rule six suggests to “Give them what they want”, which means that stories should increase readership and audience. The seventh rule is “The bias against truth”, which is now entrenched by the news factory’s move towards shoving its stories into smaller packages, stories that should be told fast or the punters will lose interest. “Give them what they want to believe in” is rule eight, which requires that ideas and facts should be selected with commerce in mind. The journalist should be aware, Davies says, that reader is never wrong, and regardless of editorial judgment about what was wrong or right, the paper should feed the values of its consumers. The rule nine is to “Go with the moral panic”, which is to be followed only at times of perceived crisis. The last rule is “Ninja turtle syndrome”, that means media should run stories which are being widely published elsewhere, even if those stories clearly lack merit.
And at this point I cannot avoid thinking – is the same way as Davies describes also in Slovene media sphere? I have to agree and also disagree; some rules are surely followed in several Slovene media but not all. The rules select safe facts, run cheap stories, always give both sides of the story, select safe ideal, give them what they want, give them what they believe in and go with moral panic are rules that can be noticed in several newspapers, web sites , radio and TV stations. But there are also the rules such as avoid the electric fence, ninja turtle syndrome, the bias against truth that I have not come across in our media. Slovenia is too small to have such organizations or laws that build the electric fence that should not be crossed, even if there are some subjects that should be avoided – if you want to have tranquil and peaceful life. Also the ninja turtle syndrome is not all that “popular”, because every media runs the stories that fit its nature the most. For sure Delo, our daily newspaper will not publish the popular, tabloid story, even if all other media would.
However maybe I’m wrong, and the status of the Slovene and world journalism is not bad at all, maybe it is just a phase, and in some years we will see journalism as a profession emerge again.
nedelja, 7. marec 2010
The utopian idea: Independence of cyberspace
For the 3rd assignment for the course New media & Society I read Aimée Hope Morrison's article, with the topic An impossible future: John Perry Barlow's 'Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace'. Because I was not familiar with the Declaration I have decided to google it and find something more. I was pretty surprised I have to say and so I thought why not write some review and share my own opinion about this declaration and its main ideas. I extracted just few statements that were, by my opinion, utopian and unrealistic also for the time they were written and composed (in 1995).
• »Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.«
• »We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.«
• »We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.«
• »Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.«
• »We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.«
Barlow was very optimistic, at some point really utopian. The cyberspace for him was a new space and opportunity for democratic and free civilization to form and shape. He was convinced that this new media – internet, will bring wind of changes in this government leaded world. He saw the cyberspace as the world where all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force or station of birth. He saw the possibility to create a civilization of Mind that may be more humane and fair than the real world we are living in.
But he was wrong. He forgot one little detail in this picture, and that is the fact that internet and with that cyberspace is not available to everyone. Several countries, such as African states, South American states and also some places in Asia are so poor that they cannot afford to have a computer and neither internet connection. Internet connection is not available everywhere and I have to say that most producers of the new technologies are from Western countries and those that have power and money are dictating the tempo of development of other countries – mostly countries from the third world, and with that also the access to new technologies.
He is also wrong that the government regulation did not affected the Internet and with that the cyberspace. Because Those in power again have enough capital to own internet sites, tools, programs and servers and are again those who have the power to regulate and restrict access of those revolutionary voices that can endanger their work and ideas. Also the cyberspace is not the place where all the voices are equal and everyone can express their opinion, because the Internet, sadly, approves only the ideas and beliefs that are mainstream, which correspond to the ideas of the government, politics and capitalist.
At this point I have to agree with several authors in the Morrison’s article that this declaration is far too much optimistic. The Barlow’s claim that “we will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace that may be more humane and fair than the world our governments have made before «is not correct. Cyberspace, I think, is another tool (mean) for those in power to spread their ideas and beliefs.
• »Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.«
• »We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.«
• »We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.«
• »Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.«
• »We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.«
Barlow was very optimistic, at some point really utopian. The cyberspace for him was a new space and opportunity for democratic and free civilization to form and shape. He was convinced that this new media – internet, will bring wind of changes in this government leaded world. He saw the cyberspace as the world where all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force or station of birth. He saw the possibility to create a civilization of Mind that may be more humane and fair than the real world we are living in.
But he was wrong. He forgot one little detail in this picture, and that is the fact that internet and with that cyberspace is not available to everyone. Several countries, such as African states, South American states and also some places in Asia are so poor that they cannot afford to have a computer and neither internet connection. Internet connection is not available everywhere and I have to say that most producers of the new technologies are from Western countries and those that have power and money are dictating the tempo of development of other countries – mostly countries from the third world, and with that also the access to new technologies.
He is also wrong that the government regulation did not affected the Internet and with that the cyberspace. Because Those in power again have enough capital to own internet sites, tools, programs and servers and are again those who have the power to regulate and restrict access of those revolutionary voices that can endanger their work and ideas. Also the cyberspace is not the place where all the voices are equal and everyone can express their opinion, because the Internet, sadly, approves only the ideas and beliefs that are mainstream, which correspond to the ideas of the government, politics and capitalist.
At this point I have to agree with several authors in the Morrison’s article that this declaration is far too much optimistic. The Barlow’s claim that “we will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace that may be more humane and fair than the world our governments have made before «is not correct. Cyberspace, I think, is another tool (mean) for those in power to spread their ideas and beliefs.
ponedeljek, 1. marec 2010
New media and society course - The reflection
I was given an assignment to write a blog, and it’s kind of weird, because I never thought that I would write one till now, for sure not in English. When I think about it, it’s somehow funny; I am a frequent user of several tools that are available via Internet – from simple e-mails, to Facebook, LinkedIn, forum sites, but blogging – not for me. Even if I am a journalist and I work for a local medium – doing online journalism, that includes videotaping and photographing. So here I am, trying to write something that will make sense. The first three meetings of the course of New media and society are behind us and I have to say, that if I thought myself as an frequent user of several Internet tools, now I know how wrong I was.
I’m looking forward to learn more about Internet, about tools and gadgets that can be found online and how is that affecting the society, audience and people’s everyday life. I’m interested also in online journalism and affect that it has on traditional journalism – at this point I have to say, that I graduated in journalism. I want to discover what is the future bringing to classical journalism and If the journalistic profession has any future at all. Several articles I read are not so optimistic about it and are talking about the end of journalism. Nevertheless during the course I would also like to learn something more about second life – the virtual society that I heard of but have no clue about it.
This is my reflection of the past week and I have to say that I’m interested in learning new things that will, so I hope, make my choice – what is going to be my thesis subject – easier. Who knows maybe I will be fascinated about certain theme that is going to be represented during this semester.
Naročite se na:
Objave (Atom)
