I have to agree with Dean Wright, Reuters Global Editor for Ethics, Innovation and News Standards when he says that the journalist should do their jobs in a way that earns the thrust of our customers and audience. The trust of the audience and the public is essential in the field of journalism, the thrust in journalists, their stories and sources they have. But how do the journalists gain that thrust, what principle should they follow?
They should follow the principles of a good, critical journalism, but mostly they should follow the ethical standards. If I use the Wright’s words, those principles of good journalist work should be honesty, fairness, transparency, freedom from bias, pursuit of a truth, and an aggressive embrace of innovative ways of storytelling and delivery of information.
Here I want you to present the Code of Ethics of Slovene Journalists, which was adopted by the Slovene Association of Journalist in October 2002. There are several points that needed to be mentioned but I will highlight those that I find the most important – the whole Code of Ethics is available here.
“The journalist should respect the individual's right to privacy and avoid sensationalistic and unjustified disclosure to the public of anyone's privacy. Intrusion into an individual's privacy is only permissible if there is an overriding public interest. With public officials and others seeking power, influence and attention the public's right to be informed is greater.”
“Reporting on judicial matters, the journalist should take into consideration that no one is guilty until legally found so.”
“The journalist should be tactful when gathering and reporting information, publishing photographs and transmitting statements on children and minors, those affected by misfortune or family tragedy, the physically or mentally disabled and others having severe handicaps or illnesses.”
“The journalist should avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance and social status.”
“The journalist should verify the accuracy of information gathered and exercise care to avoid mistakes.”
“When publishing information involving serious allegations, the journalist should try to receive a response from those affected.”
“The journalist should identify the source whenever feasible. The public is entitled to know the source if it is to appraise the significance and credibility of information. The journalist may consent to the anonymity of the source if information cannot be otherwise acquired.”
“The journalist should avoid paying for information and be wary of sources expecting money or any special privilege in exchange for information.”
“The journalist should not conceal essential information he/she has gathered or falsify documents.”
“Plagiarism is not permissible.”
These are only some of the principles of journalistic work that should be taken into consideration, but I think that mostly, fairness, accurateness, honesty, reliability, authority and responsibility should be taken into account. Journalist should not forget that they are working for people, for public interest and not for owners, editors or politician interest and goals. He has to distinguish between the information, advertise and promotion material and also commentary. He has to gather information but should in the same time be free from bias, has to have the ability to report both side of the story (2 or more) and to find reliable sources or documents. Journalistic work is not easy, but if you follow some basic principles you will be successful.
Here you can watch the short video of Dean Wright talking about online journalism ethics.
sreda, 21. april 2010
nedelja, 18. april 2010
The future of online learning - The virtual learning environments
Reading and reviewing several essays and articles concerning the Second Life as a learning environment, me and Marko (my faculty colleague) came across several authors that had really different positions about the use of Second Life in education purposes. I’m convinced that virtual 3-dimensional learning environments are a future of online learning and teaching, so I want to present you the point of view of Alexandra Petrakou from the School of Communication and Design – University of Kalmar, Sweden. She has different point of view that I do, and she explained it in an article – “Interacting through avatars: Virtual worlds as a context for online education”.
There she begins with an explanation that online education is gradually becoming a viable alternative to traditional campus education due to the rapid development of information technology. She confirms that with the fact that the number of students enrolling in the online courses is increasing and many universities are, in fact, trying to develop e-learning systems. (Petrakou 2010, 1020) The most important fact that she highlights is that the learning environment is not only restricted to the virtual campus, but includes a diversity of activities, experiences and interactions that are a part of the virtual world that exist outside the virtual campus area. At this point she cites Lombardi and McCahill who stated that the real world university campus is a much broader social space that reaches outside the classroom and that learning takes place in the common university areas where learners may have less structured, but equally valuable, opportunity to interact with others – interaction in the virtual world can be just as valuable. (Petrakou 2010, 1026)
She is therefore convinced that the key element of collaboration certainly is social interaction, but at the same time we have to be aware that if there is no social interaction there is also no real collaboration. In addition to this, the virtual world increases the probability that social interaction between students occurs, which in turn my foster collaborative learning. (Petrakou 2010, 1026) At this point I have to say, that the asynchronous interaction is also very important - because allows to stay connected in between the sessions and facilitates critical thinking since students have the opportunity to reflect on and revise their work (Barab et al. in Petrakou 2010, 1026).
As Petrakou concluded in her study, using a virtual world as a context of online education has both advantages and its drawbacks. As explained before, the virtual world provides enhanced interactivity because it allows synchronous communication in combination with spatial dimension, plus includes a diversity of activities, experience and interactions (and not only the virtual campus). But nevertheless she is convinced that the virtual world is currently not adequate as a learning environment on its own. There should be constructed an additional information space in order to gather all information regarding the course and to display this information outside the rather distracting, graphically rich and socially dynamic virtual environment. She also highlights the need to support asynchronous interactivity, which during her study course, was not embedded in the virtual world. (Petrakou 2010, 1027)
At this point I want to conclude, that I'm still convinced that the virtual learning environments are one step ahead the classical online collaboratories - they do not give the opportunity to interact with others outside the learning area, and the students or collaborators are not aware of the presence of the other - they can see their names listed but they do not see what if they are active for sure.
Petrakou, Alexandra. 2010. "Computers & Education Interacting through avatars : Virtual worlds as a context for online education." Computers & Education 54(4): 1020-1027. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.007.
There she begins with an explanation that online education is gradually becoming a viable alternative to traditional campus education due to the rapid development of information technology. She confirms that with the fact that the number of students enrolling in the online courses is increasing and many universities are, in fact, trying to develop e-learning systems. (Petrakou 2010, 1020) The most important fact that she highlights is that the learning environment is not only restricted to the virtual campus, but includes a diversity of activities, experiences and interactions that are a part of the virtual world that exist outside the virtual campus area. At this point she cites Lombardi and McCahill who stated that the real world university campus is a much broader social space that reaches outside the classroom and that learning takes place in the common university areas where learners may have less structured, but equally valuable, opportunity to interact with others – interaction in the virtual world can be just as valuable. (Petrakou 2010, 1026)
She is therefore convinced that the key element of collaboration certainly is social interaction, but at the same time we have to be aware that if there is no social interaction there is also no real collaboration. In addition to this, the virtual world increases the probability that social interaction between students occurs, which in turn my foster collaborative learning. (Petrakou 2010, 1026) At this point I have to say, that the asynchronous interaction is also very important - because allows to stay connected in between the sessions and facilitates critical thinking since students have the opportunity to reflect on and revise their work (Barab et al. in Petrakou 2010, 1026).
As Petrakou concluded in her study, using a virtual world as a context of online education has both advantages and its drawbacks. As explained before, the virtual world provides enhanced interactivity because it allows synchronous communication in combination with spatial dimension, plus includes a diversity of activities, experience and interactions (and not only the virtual campus). But nevertheless she is convinced that the virtual world is currently not adequate as a learning environment on its own. There should be constructed an additional information space in order to gather all information regarding the course and to display this information outside the rather distracting, graphically rich and socially dynamic virtual environment. She also highlights the need to support asynchronous interactivity, which during her study course, was not embedded in the virtual world. (Petrakou 2010, 1027)
At this point I want to conclude, that I'm still convinced that the virtual learning environments are one step ahead the classical online collaboratories - they do not give the opportunity to interact with others outside the learning area, and the students or collaborators are not aware of the presence of the other - they can see their names listed but they do not see what if they are active for sure.
Petrakou, Alexandra. 2010. "Computers & Education Interacting through avatars : Virtual worlds as a context for online education." Computers & Education 54(4): 1020-1027. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.007.
"Friending: experience of Facebook"
A lot it was written about Facebook, but let me add something more. I came across interesting article of two writers – Jane Lewis and Anne West with a title “Friending : London-based undergraduates’ experience of Facebook”. They conducted exploratory, qualitative research to look at the nature of “friending” that takes place and the extent to which students are able to manage their interactions in the public space of social networking site – Facebook.
They found out that FB was felt to be a socially necessary tool and a part of increasingly wide range of communication systems. It was valued for the way it enabled broad, low pressure and low commitment communication with acquaintances. The surprising for me was the fact that much time on FB was spend stalking – in other words browsing the users profiles, and the fact that communicating was regarded as fun and not serious. On the other hand it was expected – I make conclusions from my own experiences – that the communication on FB is seen as a supplement to other forms of communication, especially between close friends and a mean to stay in touch with others.
It was also considered to offer a very informal means of communication and maintained mostly very weak and loose ties. These ties seemed, as writers claimed, to act as a security blanket for some students – it was always a possibility of checking to see that they were not missing something.
Here I have to mention that the research findings showed that users tended to perceive the flattened friendship. If we go further the respondents in the study expressed also some anxiety about privacy. The exchanges could be read by different groups of “friends” and there exist a possibility that these exchanges can be broadcasted to the whole network.
The authors explained also that the architecture of the site worked to encourage a particular form of communication between friends, based in the main on banter and gossip, often gleaned from social browsing. The problematic is also the fact that the site requires both the presentation of the self and a process of “friending”. There is a degree of incompatibility between these two imperatives, they claimed.
I have to say that I have a profile on FB for about 2 years now. I have several friends that are my friend also in real life, and I use FB for staying in touch with them. This way of communication for me is a supplement to other forms of communication – the face to face and communication via mobile phones and emails. I do not use FB for stalking purposes but I’m aware that many users do. Fortunately the new FB gives us more privacy, because you can arrange who can see your profile, posts, wall, photos, profile information and other.
Lewis, Jane and Anne West. 2009. "Friending": London-based undergraduates' experience of Facebook. New Media Society 11, 1209. Available at: http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/7/1209.
They found out that FB was felt to be a socially necessary tool and a part of increasingly wide range of communication systems. It was valued for the way it enabled broad, low pressure and low commitment communication with acquaintances. The surprising for me was the fact that much time on FB was spend stalking – in other words browsing the users profiles, and the fact that communicating was regarded as fun and not serious. On the other hand it was expected – I make conclusions from my own experiences – that the communication on FB is seen as a supplement to other forms of communication, especially between close friends and a mean to stay in touch with others.
It was also considered to offer a very informal means of communication and maintained mostly very weak and loose ties. These ties seemed, as writers claimed, to act as a security blanket for some students – it was always a possibility of checking to see that they were not missing something.
Here I have to mention that the research findings showed that users tended to perceive the flattened friendship. If we go further the respondents in the study expressed also some anxiety about privacy. The exchanges could be read by different groups of “friends” and there exist a possibility that these exchanges can be broadcasted to the whole network.
The authors explained also that the architecture of the site worked to encourage a particular form of communication between friends, based in the main on banter and gossip, often gleaned from social browsing. The problematic is also the fact that the site requires both the presentation of the self and a process of “friending”. There is a degree of incompatibility between these two imperatives, they claimed.
I have to say that I have a profile on FB for about 2 years now. I have several friends that are my friend also in real life, and I use FB for staying in touch with them. This way of communication for me is a supplement to other forms of communication – the face to face and communication via mobile phones and emails. I do not use FB for stalking purposes but I’m aware that many users do. Fortunately the new FB gives us more privacy, because you can arrange who can see your profile, posts, wall, photos, profile information and other.
Lewis, Jane and Anne West. 2009. "Friending": London-based undergraduates' experience of Facebook. New Media Society 11, 1209. Available at: http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/7/1209.
ponedeljek, 5. april 2010
Could Wall save the professional journalism?
As I pointed out many times by now, I am really concerned about the future of journalism – but today I want to present you some different point of view. Surely you are all familiar with the Rupert Murdoch idea of walling off the content available on the internet. There are several theories (claims) about this subject, some are concerned “what if he really builds the wall and allows only to subscribers to access the information and news available online” others are very optimistic and don’t believe this could really happen.
Here I want to present you the David Simon’s point of view in his article “Build the Wall” that I found really interesting. For Simon the power to save as he called the “high end journalism” is in the hand of two paper executives (Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Katharine Weymouth the publishers of The New York Times and The Washington Post), who can, as he claims, rescue an imploding industry and thereby achieve an essential civic goo for the nation.
He appeals to them the idea that content matters, and that they have to find a way to make people pay for that content. For him it is the only way to have a product, an industry, a calling and a career known as a professional journalism. “If the only way to read the Times is to buy the Times, online or off, then readers who clearly retains desire for that product will reach for their wallets,” is convinced Simon. For this purpose he stressed few possible outcomes (scenarios), if the Times and the Post go ahead and build that wall:
First scenario: “The Times and the Post survive, their revenue streams balanced by still consliderable print advertising, the bump in the price of home delivery and newsstand sales, and, finally, a new influx of cheap yet profitable online subscriptions.” Most metro dailies will follow suit, says Simon, when they will see the paid content formula can work. And as they do, they re-emphasize that which makes them unique – local coverage, local culture, local voices, all coupled with wire-service offerings from the national papers otherwise available only through paid sites.
Second scenario: “In those cities where regional papers collapse, the vacuum creates and opportunity for new, online subscription-based news organizations that cover state and local issues, sports and finance, generating enough revenue to maintain a slim – but paid – metro desk. The additional plus at this scenario should be, for Simon, that advertisers – now considering a paid circulation base rather than meaningless Web hits – might be willing to once again pay a meaningful rate.
Third scenario: Is the worst of three scenarios. The Times and the Post survive because of their coverage is unique and essential. At the same time regional dailies, too eviscerated to offer a credible local product, cannot get enough online subscriptions – so they wither and die. Here new online news ventures are stillborn because both national papers become national.
Simon concludes with the fact that longer it will take for the newspaper industry to act together, more likely it is that regional dailies will be too weak and hollow to step through the online-subscription portal.
I don’t know if the subscription model could save the critical and professional journalism, and if we are honest nobody knows that. But sure it is one try that is worth consideration and reflection.
Here I want to present you the David Simon’s point of view in his article “Build the Wall” that I found really interesting. For Simon the power to save as he called the “high end journalism” is in the hand of two paper executives (Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Katharine Weymouth the publishers of The New York Times and The Washington Post), who can, as he claims, rescue an imploding industry and thereby achieve an essential civic goo for the nation.
He appeals to them the idea that content matters, and that they have to find a way to make people pay for that content. For him it is the only way to have a product, an industry, a calling and a career known as a professional journalism. “If the only way to read the Times is to buy the Times, online or off, then readers who clearly retains desire for that product will reach for their wallets,” is convinced Simon. For this purpose he stressed few possible outcomes (scenarios), if the Times and the Post go ahead and build that wall:
First scenario: “The Times and the Post survive, their revenue streams balanced by still consliderable print advertising, the bump in the price of home delivery and newsstand sales, and, finally, a new influx of cheap yet profitable online subscriptions.” Most metro dailies will follow suit, says Simon, when they will see the paid content formula can work. And as they do, they re-emphasize that which makes them unique – local coverage, local culture, local voices, all coupled with wire-service offerings from the national papers otherwise available only through paid sites.
Second scenario: “In those cities where regional papers collapse, the vacuum creates and opportunity for new, online subscription-based news organizations that cover state and local issues, sports and finance, generating enough revenue to maintain a slim – but paid – metro desk. The additional plus at this scenario should be, for Simon, that advertisers – now considering a paid circulation base rather than meaningless Web hits – might be willing to once again pay a meaningful rate.
Third scenario: Is the worst of three scenarios. The Times and the Post survive because of their coverage is unique and essential. At the same time regional dailies, too eviscerated to offer a credible local product, cannot get enough online subscriptions – so they wither and die. Here new online news ventures are stillborn because both national papers become national.
Simon concludes with the fact that longer it will take for the newspaper industry to act together, more likely it is that regional dailies will be too weak and hollow to step through the online-subscription portal.
I don’t know if the subscription model could save the critical and professional journalism, and if we are honest nobody knows that. But sure it is one try that is worth consideration and reflection.
Naročite se na:
Objave (Atom)
