Week 10

Online: a 'new' journalism - content and the rule of the search engine

As this week was my presentation I feel as though i have a good understanding of online journalism and the opportunities it can offer not only the media but also the public. I have also learnt about the concerns of online journalism, such as a reduction in quality. The following is some of the main points from my presentation as well a general discussion of the topic.

Online Journalism is most simply defined as journalism in the online environment. The primary role of online journalism is to report and analyse immediate facts and events, using the unparalleled technological abilities of the Internet. As Tapsell & Varley explain in this weeks reading, “ On-line journalism combines some elements of all its predecessors forms of news. On-line journalism can be immediate, providing frequently updated stories of news events” (2001, p.248). On-line journalism merges the power of pictures, graphics, audio, text, and interactivity and is available to millions of people. The internet has created a new platform in which all other forms of media can converge. From one perspective, the Internet can be seen as the whole package and thus requires journalists who have the skills to provide this package.

Online journalism began in the 1990's after the introduction of the internet which was arguably the most the most significant change in mass communication since television. Never before has any one medium been able to offer such informational, recreational and commercial diversity to such a vast network of connected users. In Australia, more than 1.5 million households were connected to the Internet by May 1999 (Conley & Lamble 2006) and for this reason, journalists, whose profession centres on the distribution of the news to the general population, quickly took advantage of the countless possibilities the Internet provided them with.

So what are the main reasons newspaper corporations now use on-line journalism?

After doing some research for my presentation, I found that the most important thing on-line journalism offers is immediacy. The immediacy of the news has always been the most important aspect of journalism. Traditionally, print journalism was not very immediate; readers would have to wait an entire day before the next paper was published with updated local news and they would have to wait even longer for national and world news, as it took longer to transport information across large distances.Television and Radio Journalism were more immediate, with several broadcasts throughout the day highlighting major news stories. If a really important story came up, regular broadcasts could be interrupted and the breaking news would be aired.However, online journalism has taken the next step; providing it users with the most immediate source of news. Online news sites are updated hourly, providing their users with instant access to local, national, and international news.

The next reason is that is that online journalism offers its users interactivity unlike any of its predecessors. As Meakin (2004) explains, online journalism offers two styles of interactivity. One dimension can be identified as interpersonal interactivity, or the extent to which audiences can have computer-mediated conversations in the spaces created for them by journalists. The other dimension can be defined as content interactivity in which journalists technologically empower consumers over content.In one way, online journalism offers users interactivity by allowing them to respond to articles, give feedback on the services provided, email journalists and hold discussion forums on topics of interest. However, it also allows the user interactivity with the online news site itself. This is known as content interactivity and allows users the power to interact with the content they choose to, ie, browsing local stories only, or getting the most up to date information on special topics such as the War in Iraq.

The advances in technology have also enabled online journalists to offer multimediality to their readers. Multimediality is the use of multimedia in the telling of the news. No longer are journalists restricted to telling the news in one format; they have the opportunity to let the story unfold throughout the use of a variety of mediums, giving the user the power to determine for themselves which medium tells the story in the best way. In the online news environment, video, audio, print and interactive software have converged, allowing the user the ability to choose which medium they would have their news served in.

Online Journalism also provides it users with hypertextuality, that is, the option to link to related articles, forums, websites etc with the click of a button. Hypertextuality essentially links one internet page to another. This new feature offered on news sites acts as a gateway to information, not only empowering the user to follow up stories if they choose, but to search for related material on the Internet.

Next I just wanted to talk about another form of on-line journalism. This refers to journalism not presented on newspaper and magazine websites. This is citizen journalism online. The internet has created a realm where people can take on their own initiative to be the journalist rather than let others provide it for them. We are seeing this through the use of blogging, commenting on/correcting articles on online media forms, letters to the editor, YouTube and more. On-line citizen journalism allows the public greater voice in expressing their interests, ideas, concerns, and desires, and allowing these to set the agenda for public debate through surveys, public forums, blogs etc (Tapsell & Varley 2001). The internet has given citizens a way to communicate the news themselves. It allows them to not only tell their stories but also publish them the way they want.

Another import part of online journalism is the introduction of a multi-skilled journalist. As the internet encompasses print, images, sound and video, there is a greater need for a journalist to have the skills to produce all of these formats. This will make a journalists job quite challenging in the future due to funding reduction that will mean less jobs avaliable and more work for those who do have jobs. The future journalist will be expected to do the work of four people instead of one.

Concerns of online journalism

The Internet challenges traditional news organizations in several ways. One in particular is that Newspapers may lose classified advertising to websites, which are often targeted by interest instead of geography. These organisations are concerned about real and perceived loss of viewers and circulation to the Internet and the revenue gained with advertising on news websites is sometimes too small to support the site. Other issues include lack of protections of intellectual property, anonymity (lack of credibility), lack of consistency, graphic manipulation, increased confusion between editorial and advertisement, loss of objectivity and loss of the tiered structure (the roles like editor may disappear which in turn may mean tasks such as source checking and sub editing may be skipped altogether). Many argue that the increasing amount of information that the internet provides, the decline in newspaper circulation, the significant number of internet users in Australia and the increasing use of citizen journalism online will mean the end for journalism in the future.

I found this quote while I was researching for my presentation:

“Journalism and journalists won’t disappear. As purveyors of meaning and context amidst all the noise, they could become more essential than ever.”
(Fulton 2000, p.2)

I personally agree with it. The internet contains so much information and I would much prefer to read a news story published by a journalist who has atleast done some sort of research into the facts, then reading about an event on someone's blog or in results from a search engine. Anyone with the internet can publish information as I find this very concerning. There will always be a need for professional journalism but the issue of funding it will need to be addressed!

What do you think about this and what are your reasons?

Here is a great website that explains online journalism in detail. It was written by journalist Doug Millison-

http://home.comcast.net/~dougmillison/faq.html

Sources:
Conley & Lamble, 2006,The Daily Miracle: An Introduction to Journalism, Third Ed. Oxford University Press.

Fulton, K, 2008, “News isn’t always journalism”, Columbia Journalism Review,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_/ai_n8911982

Meakin, G,. 2004, M/Cyclopedia of New Media Online
http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Online_Journalism_-_News

Nguyen, D. A., Ferrier, E. F., Western, M. C. and Mckay, S. B. (2005) Online news in Australia: Patterns of use and gratification. Australian Studies in Journalism, 15 : 5-34.

Tapsall & Varley, 2008, Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press

Week 9

Moral Minefields: Legal and Ethical Dilemma

A journalist's relationship with the law has been a topic of discussion by both the public and the media itself for a long time. We also see the debate over journalists ethics come up quite often and as communications students, it is important for us to be aware of the issues that we will face as working journalists. I feel as though it is important for there to be a balance between the rights and the responsibilities of a journalist. While it is important to have media laws in place (to assist in making the public more comfortable going about their everyday lives and feel confident that the media can be held accountable for their actions) this can sometimes limit a journalist's ability to fulfil their responsibility to the public. In many cases, 'the public interest' argument is insufficient in the courtroom and hence there is a clash between the legal system and a journalists ethical beliefs regarding the publics right to know.

As Pearson notes in this weeks reading, "journalism law" includes those relating to defamation, court reporting, contempt of court, obscenity, media regulation, freedom of information legislation, intellectual property, trespass and breach of confidence. It is interesting that even with such laws, the public still find it hard to trust the media. This may be because the media can be seen to push the boundaries of the law when acquiring or reporting stories or this may even be because there are few laws that apply exclusively to journalists (usually they apply to all citizens). On another note, journalist's also aim to follow the Journalistic Code of Ethics. Under this code, journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information; minimise harm; act independently; and be accountable -as cited on The Society of Professional Journalists website - http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

I was surprised to learn journalists have no rights beyond those of an ordinary citizen but it was comforting to know that they may be given some special privileges such as in the court room (note-taking and access to court documents) or being able to withhold a name of a source in a court case (this privilege is very rare however). Some laws such as FOI aim to assist journalists to facilitate their role in bringing information to the public.

From researching this topic I have gained a greater understanding of why we have media laws in place and how important it is for journalists to be fully aware of these. I have also learnt a great deal about the ways in which the media industry encourages self-regulation and how they try to show the public and government that the current laws are sufficient. A great example is the journalism code of ethics in which I pasted a link to above.

After this weeks presentations and from the readings, I personally feel as though there needs to be a greater legal platform for journalists to stand on in order to protect themselves while undertaking their job as information providers. I feel as though the law works against them rather then with them especially in cases such as access to FOI legislation which is actually meant to help provide access to information. In many cases, ministers and departments in which documents are held by, find exemptions under the law and access is denied. In addition to this, the time and costs involved in accessing information under FOI mean that FOI legislation is rarely used as a news gathering tool by journalists. This is just one example of the difficulty for journalists to fulfil their responsibilities because of the law.

It may be argued however that journalists do have ways of getting around the law. Journalists can be entitled to special privileges and have access to a range of defences in court, especially in the case of defamation. A journalist can use two types of defences – Absolute privilege (legal and judicial proceedings, communications concerning matters of the state and public document defence) and Qualified privilege (duty or interest to publish). Of course these defences are not guaranteed to be accepted and quite often aren’t.

I was very interested in the legal side of journalism and I found this book very helpful in developing a greater understanding of media law. I recommend reading it if you haven’t already:

R.Breit, 2007, Law & Ethics for Professional Communicators, LexisNexis Butterworths Australia

Week 8

In the Public Interest- Public v Private

(John Della Bosca and Belinda Neal at their home in Woy Woy)

This weeks topic was somewhat daunting for a future journalist such as myself. I learnt alot about the media industry from the presentations and reading this week. I know that by saying this I may seem very ignorant however prior to this topic I hadn't really thought hard about the legal and ethical concerns of being a journalist. I knew that they existed, but it just become so much more real when we began discussion about how we would handle particular ethical situations. This topic highlighted for me the battle I will have to face in the future between complying with Australian Law and fulfilling a commitment to the public as an information provider that will 'tell all'. I guess I never realised how intense the lifestyle of a journalist may actually be. We will have to be so careful when selecting facts and will have to consider how publishing private information about someone may effect their friends and families lives. In my first year of Communications I learnt about the role of a journalist and the expectations the public have. Journalist's have a duty to the public to provide them with news and information as it is in the public interest. I personally believe the public has a right to know private information about people if it is for the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, however there has to be a limit on what information the public has access to and there has to be a means of determining what is classed as in the public's interest or not.

The media report on people everyday but it's the private information that is published about someone and particularly the photo's that are released, that become a legal or ethical issue here. I believe everyone has a right to privacy as well. This debate is so hard to argue because there are so many reasons to support each side. In cases such as corruption and criminal matters like child-sex offences it can be argued that the public deserve to be informed and told information like names and offence details. Another example is releasing private information of someone who is deceased. A journalist has to determine what is in the public interest and if the story is published, it will be justified to remove someone's right to privacy. If a wrong decision is made, they have to suffer the legal ramifications but also the criticisms from their peers and the public. This is what I found to be most daunting.

In the presentations this week some good arguements were made to support both sides of whose right is more important, the publics right to know or a persons right to privacy? An area that Sarah Sneeden chose to focus on in her presentation was Journalism and privacy within Australian law. She identified that there is no legal definition of journalism in Australia, which I thought, was very interesting, yet concerning. She also discussed the Australian Law Reform Commission’s recent interests in restricting a journalist’s capacity to report on private matters in the media and expressed her concerns about law reform giving authorities the power to determine what is classed as being in the public interest and what is not. It is a debate over whether it is important to protect citizen’s privacy or if it is more important to have ‘good’ journalism in place in which private information should legally be allowed to be published, as it would be the public interest. I do agree with her argument that only private matters reported on in the ‘news, current affairs and documentaries’ are in the public interest. The idea is that Journalists should be allowed to intrude in someone’s private life, but only if it occurs in the course of investigative journalism.

We watched a Media Watch episode called ‘What price privacy’. This was interesting as it demonstrated the way journalists currently intrude on celebrity’s private lives particularly to sell magazines and create gossip. Some journalists take advantage of information they receive and consider what story will sell papers and magazines more important than if it is even in the public's interest to publish the story or if it will take away someone's right to privacy. On another tangent, is it ok for the media to publish information about a celebrity or politicians private life because they give up their right to privacy when they agree to be in the public eye? How far is too far when chasing a story about a public figure. An example shown was a photo taken in the backyard of a public figure who was talking with his wife. The story published with it was about how he had recently cheated on his wife. Some students asked whether a celebs family and friends should be left out of the spotlight and have a right to privacy just like any other person. I definately feel like the media go too far to get a 'good story'. Climbing up to take a photo in someone's backyard to sell a story is definately invading someone's privacy. Even public figures deserve the privacy of their own home. I personally wouldn't want to go that far but I guess that I would only know when I'm working as a real life journalist. I guess they have to put their own ethical beliefs aside sometimes in order to have and keep a job in the media industry.

Another key point raised in class was how do journalists decide what is in the public interest. Sarah showed a clip from an SBS series called ‘Fine Line’ which discussed journalism and ethics. The main idea from the clip is that every situation a journalist faces requires a consideration of the consequences and the impact a story would have on society and specific individuals. Sarah provided an example of a decision made by journalist, Darren Hinch to tell the public private information about a priest that had been charged with child-sex offences. Ultimately the information shared with the public hindered the priests trial and Hinch was charged with contempt of court. This example demonstrates the issue of whose right is more important. The right to privacy or the right for a journalist to report the news for the public interest?

In cases such as these I argue that it is in the public interest to publish or broadcast information. I feel as though the public deserve to know if there is a man charged with being a paedophile still on the streets working with children. I understand that the man accused has a right to privacy and not have this information shared with the public until after he has been convicted in court but on the other hand if I was a mother, I wouldn’t want my kids near someone who has even allegedly done something like that. I hope Hinch wasn’t just trying to get ratings and that he genuinely was concerned for the public because I support his reasoning for broadcasting that information. I would feel obligated to tell the public something that could affect a large number of people. Is it then a question of the greatest good for the greatest number?

I personally believe that journalists have a duty to convey information and animate democracy yet they have a duty to prevent harm as well. Journalists uphold the right to freedom of expression and they have significant power as well but they should be held accountable for the decisions they make in whether to share private information with the public or not.

Here is a GREAT website that EVERYONE should read on this topic. It is an essay on the Australia Press Council website and it covers many tangents of this topic. It has an interesting section on celebrity and on trauma and greif reporting.
http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/apcnews/nov98/prize.html

Here is an interesting insight from a real life journalist about how he feels about invading people's privacy:

http://blogs.smh.com.au/photographers/archives/2008/06/post_1.html

Week 7

Truth & Objectivity

I found this topic to be most interesting compared to previous weeks. Simply because these terms relate directly back to what a journalists job actually is. Truth and objectivity are the foundations of journalism. The public rely on the media to present ALL of the facts in an objective manner. Of course there is a significant amount of scepticism by the public. Most of us I'm sure would have heard the term "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story". But is this the case?? Many will argue yes because journalists are very selective in what facts they publish but is it because time pressures, market forces and work practices will limit a journalists ability to present ALL the facts truthfully and objectively?

I found it interesting that in our textbook, Tickle defends Australian journalists work practices by noting the Australian Journalists Association section of the MEAA Code of Ethics - It opens with 'Respect for the truth and the publics right to information are fundamental principles of journalism'. After reading through the start of chapter 6 of the text I felt as though there is definitely good intentions by those who work in the media to fulfil this duty of being impartial and to present the truth however in reality this doesn't always happen. I found this next table when I was having a look on the Internet to get a wider perspective on how journalism is perceived in regards to truth and objectivity:

The Elements of Journalism

Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth

Journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens

Journalism’s essence is a discipline of verification

Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover

It must serve as an independent monitor of power

It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise

It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant

It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional

Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
--Project for Excellence in Journalism

What do you guys think of this? Do you agree that these are all of the elements of journalism?

As I continued to read through the chapter I was very interested in the case studies (pg 95). The first one being about a photograph of Martin Bryant. It appeared differently in the publication in The Australian then in other publications. After being questioned, The Australian admitted to digitally enhancing an image to make it clearer. I personally was quite taken back to read about this in a Journalism textbook. I guess I always knew that this sort of thing happens but I never really stopped to think about it. This was something covered well by the presenters this week. It is interesting just how much it happens. It is sad that technology has taken away the things that we originally thought we could rely on for the complete and impartial truth (film and images). Just as the text notes, it is no longer rational to believe the camera doesn't lie. It has always been a tool that attempts to represent reality, but now media workers distort and edit photos and video to present something that will make $$ but something that's going to look after the interests of those who have power.

A perfect example of this is the media coverage of the war in Iraq and quite a few people have used this example. Western countries portrayed it as a stand against terrorists and that the US was helping stabilise the government there. Middle Eastern countries argue they were defending their people and protecting their countries resources (oil). The truth for us is only what the media has presented it as and I personally think that our government would have had a large influence on the way the war was perceived in the Australian media. The pictures used in the media from September 11 terrorist attacks is another example. The same picture was used in many newspapers but one showed the limbs and bodies on the ground and the other photo shopped them out. Censorship may be justified but how can we distinguish what is the truth. How can we determine how bad the impact was if the bodies were removed from the image?

An article written by David Brooks called ‘Objectivity in Journalism’ discusses the notion of media bias and politics. Brooks argues that it is not only important to tell the truth but to be fair about it but he questions whether objectivity can really exist. He further goes on to discuss the stages of getting to objectivity. The following is my interpretation of the stages he highlights.
Stage:

1. The first stage is ‘negative capacity’ — the ability to suspend judgment while you're looking at the facts. Sometimes when we look at a set of facts we like to choose the facts that make us feel good because it confirms our worldview. But if you're going to be objective — and this is for journalists or anybody else — surely the first stage is the ability to look at all the facts, whether they make you feel good or not.
2. The second stage is modesty. The example he uses is about Chief Justice John Roberts. He was asked by the Senators to emote. Senator Dianne Feinstein, for instance, asked him how he would react as a father to a certain case. It was as if she and other Senators wanted him to weep on camera. They wanted him to do the sentimental thing, in order to make them feel that he was one of them. But he absolutely refused, because his ethos as a lawyer and as a judge is not about self-exposure. It's about self-control. It's about playing a role in society — a socially useful role. Roberts kept explaining that judges wear black robes because it's not about them. It's about doing a job for society. Judges have to suppress some of themselves in order to read the law fairly and not prejudge cases. The same thing has to happen for journalists. We live in an age of self-exposure. But journalists have to suppress their egos so that they can see the whole truth, whether they like it or not.
3. The third stage of objectivity is the ability to process data — to take all the facts that you've accumulated and honestly process them into a pattern using judgment. How do you take all the facts that are in front of you and fit them into one pattern? Brooks example was if you pick up a cup of coffee, one part of your brain senses how heavy it is. Another part of your brain senses how hot it is. Another part of your brain senses the shape of the cup. Another part of your brain knows that you're shaking, which creates ripples across the surface of the coffee. All these parts are disconnected and we have no idea how the human brain processes that information. But some people are really good at connecting the dots and seeing the patterns and other people are not. And surely that's the third stage of objectivity, the ability to take all the data, not just the data you like, and form it into a whole.
4. The fourth stage of objectivity is the ability to betray friends. You need to distinguish between loyalty to the truth and loyalty to your team. The example Brooks gives for this is a politician in government who has loyalty to the party even if they know the truth. But for journalists and for most citizens, loyalty to the truth should dominate over loyalty to the team.
5. The fifth stage of objectivity is the ability to ignore stereotypes.
   And the last bit, the sixth stage is a willingness to be a little dull. It's easy to write an attack on someone to sell newspapers but that’s not fair.

I'm someone who fails every day at being objective but I thought this was an interesting perspective on how to achieve objectivity.

I personally feel though that whatever the truth may be, journalists themselves are participants in the news. The watchdog function of the media means that journalists must impose their own points of view in events and provide interpretation to give these events meaning. After all their job is to represent events in words, numbers, sound and pictures. Yes they should do this truthfully but what one person thinks is the truth may not always be what another thinks. The hardest thing about presenting the news through the truth -seeking process and to give an objective view is that the new 'all-in-one digital journalist' lacks the time, funds and help than they had access to in the past. Breaking news deadlines make it difficult for journalists to fully evaluate the credibility and accuracy of what they are reporting. I am starting to learn that journalists jobs aren't as easy or fun as what it originally seemed. The legal and ethical mindfield is massive and I sympathise with journalists who are getting slammed by the public for not being truthful and accurate. I personally feel as though it is something every journalist strives for but it is becoming harder to deliver- Investigative journalism as a practice is diminishing and this is very daunting for a future journalist such as myself as I'm sure you will all agree.

Can we blame the journalist for not fulfilling their duty to the public to present the news truthfully and impartially or can we blame those media moguls and political pressures who make a journalists job harder with the lack of staff funding and with tighter deadlines? Who can we blame?

This is a very interesting Essay on truth and objectivity in the media, written by an Australian Communications student and I think it's worth a read. It covers the topic from a wide range of angles and highlights key issues in relation to truth, objectivity and the media:

http://nebuchadnezzarwoollyd.blogspot.com/2007/02/objectivity-and-journalism-essay.html

Week 6

Who will pay for Journalism???

This week’s presentations helped me to develop an understanding of the situation journalism is in today in regards to funding but also to understand the possibility of newspapers dying out in the future. This is a very serious issue because newspapers are providing the very jobs that I am completing a Uni degree for. For decades Journalism has been funded by advertising in newspapers and with globalisation and new technologies, the media is moving online. This creates a major problem as to how quality, investigative journalism will continue to be funded.

Mitchell used good quotes and examples in his presentation to help identify the ideas that newspapers are near an end. One was the Media Watch quote “The newspaper platform.. is a dead duck.” Another example was the Time Magazine feature on the ‘Information Age’ and the person of the year is ‘You’. This reignited the debate over citizen journalism and the use of the internet by the media to provide instant news headlines. I thought the use of a graph showing the evolution of news media was excellent. He had a good overview of the merge from print to online journalism through a technology savvy society. Mitchell sparked interesting discussion about the future of professional journalism in Australia.

An interesting term that I hadn’t previously heard was mentioned by a student. This being ‘rivers of gold’. This term is used to describe Murdoch’s classifieds in his newspapers. For decades journalism and newspaper production have been supported by the revenue that classified bring as well as advertisements. As we have learnt so far, this revenue is significantly declining as technology improves and commercial interests move online. The public are also using the internet to buy and sell online as it reaches a larger audience and can be less expensive then using the classifieds in the paper. There are numerous sites online dedicated to selling specific items eg.carsales.com or domain.com. Some people now use cross-media advertising to achieve a better result but ultimately this is having an effect on newspapers which are struggling to exist due to lack of funding. It is interesting that Murdoch has changed his tune about classifieds being ‘rivers of gold’ by saying "sometimes rivers dry up." For me this confirms the need to be concerned about the future of journalism and newspapers in Australia.

If ad revenue is declining publishers must look beyond advertising for revenue so that they can continue to both fund investigative journalism but also continue to print. But where is this revenue? I personally can't see a funding model for serious journalism in future, not one that will pay for large staffs with specialists, and foreign correspondents and stringers, everywhere. I can't see Ads paying for big operations that cost tens of millions of dollars. Websites can attract millions but not the necessary tens of millions.

Journalist Andrew Keen suggests that ‘Pay-per-page view’ is the future of journalism. Keen spoke at a Media Futures Conference in England earlier this year and explained the theory of the ‘Gawker model’, where contributors to the blog aggregator are paid in relation to the number of page views their copy generates. Keen believes that this will be ‘the new reality of journalism’ and that newspapers will inevitably adopt this model as online metrics become more sophisticated. Adopting this pay structure though could affect the quality of the journalism produced online. When you have more and more ability to define how many people are looking at your work, you'll be paid accordingly and it’ll result in writing becoming a popularity contest. This is definitely a worry. It is hard to say who will be pay for journalism in the future but many ideas are being considered and something like this could be possible.

Andrew Keen, Media Futures Conference:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/531797.php

Week 5

Globalisation v Localisation

What is globalisation?

When I first asked myself what it was, I realised I had no idea. After googling the net I discovered that there are many different definitions of globalisation. One definition that I did like was from Collins Dictionary Online:

Globalisation (n) is the "process enabling financial and investment markets to operate internationally, largely as a result of deregulation and improved communications"

The sociologist, Anthony Giddens, defines globalisation as a “decoupling of space and time” emphasising that with instantaneous communications, knowledge and culture can be shared around the world simultaneously."

A Dutch academic Rudd Lubbers, defines it as a process in which “geographic distance becomes a factor of diminishing importance in the establishment and maintenance of cross border economic, political and socio-cultural relations”.

Critics of globalisation define the word quite differently, presenting it as worldwide drive toward a globalised economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments.

From my understanding, the term basically means that we are moving towards living in a borderless world.

In this weeks workshop I saw this being applied to the media industry and journalists in particular. There has always been a sharing of goods, services, knowledge and cultures between people and countries, but in recent years improved technologies has allowed for a reduction of barriers (eg.space) and the speed of exchange is much faster. The introduction of new technologies has created this term of a 'global village' which acknowledges that humanity in all parts of the world are becoming linked because of the way we can now communicate. Global journalism today accesses instantaneous, multimedia communication networks, products and sources. However, these same technologies also remove journalists’ monopoly on international news, forcing a re-evaluation of who creates, transmits and ultimately owns the news.

I hadn't really thought about the role that transnational corporations play in globalisation prior to this weeks workshop where the presenters identified entities that have the power to dominate international media through technology. These powerful media giants include Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, Disney, Sony and even Kerry Packer's Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL). These super corporations understand that bigger markets can mean bigger profits. Journalists need to be careful working for such management whose eyes are fixed more on dollar signs $$ than on producing quality journalism to a global audience.

Daniel Hill's presentation supports this idea. He showed the class a YouTube clip of a news segment. Within this clip was an advertisement for Taco Bell fast food and it was 'disguised' as news. The new technologies can allow commercial material to dominate the media. Perhaps there may come a time where it will be difficult for journalists to decipherer what news is and what is advertising.

One issue which was discussed in presentations this week of particular interest to me, is that Australian journalists are producing media for 'global' audiences (that result from mainly the use of the internet) are regulated by local laws, the powers of which are limited to geographical borders. Here comes the discussion of internet content being difficult to regulate. At what point should a journalist’s work be subject to the law? If a journalist writes and publishes an article in Australia that abides by Australian legislation, then it gets published on the internet and is received in another country who has different legislation on the media industry, does this mean that the journalist can be hold accountable and have legal action brought about upon them from those who receive the published material in another country?

There needs to be an introduction of internationalised local laws that acknowledge the changing role of the global journalist. Just as it is discussed in this weeks reading, reforms need to occur for things such as cyber-jurisdiction.

One thing that I am concerned about is that if Australian media outlets move online, journalism will lose not only quality but also relevance to an Australian audience?

So i ask my fellow class mates:

Do the new globalised media technologies help or hinder good journalism?

On the plus side, globalisation of news helps pull down national censorship regimes which may have created state-constructed fantasies at odds with local realities. A free international market of ideas allows the participation of more sophisticated information vendors.

On the other hand, however, these same more sophisticated media handling techniques act to exclude journalists from directly witnessing the events they are supposed to report on. The pressures created by live global broadcasting force many to rely on accounts already prepared and approved by the authorities. And the Internet now allows news sources such as governments to distribute their own material directly to local news outlets. They bypass foreign correspondents and even international news wholesalers such as a news agencies.

I found a very interesting article called Globalised Journalism in the Internet age-It deserves a read!!! It is interesting and covers ideas and points raised in the tutorial:

http://www.ejournalism.au.com/ejournalist/knightr.pdf

I found another site that is also worth a read! Its called Globalisation of the Media Industry http://www.comminit.com/en/node/211942/36