Week 6: Online: a New Journalism, Content and the Rule of the Search Engine

The topic in brief
The past few weeks have been about the the evolution of and shifts made by journalism. This week is about examining the position of journalism in its "new" abode online. The internet has provided a platform for journalists to equip themselves with tools and skills for online journalism. One of the tools which is the rage of online journalism is blogs. Blogs can be a newsgathering and reporting tool. They represent "unfiltered news available to a global audience" (Quinn & Lamble 2007). This means that journalists can monitor blogs to know what the global news readers are interested in knowing. Journalists can also find different angles to the stories in order to convey to the global news readers what they do not already know from those blogs.

The rapid updating of news online has made journalists realise that they have to be competitively skilled in online journalism and the pressure to differentiate themselves professionally from bloggers has increased. As a result, journalists cannot avoid multi-tasking today. Sales (1998 cited in Tapsall 2001, p. 251) foresees a future in which television journalists are equipped with many skills and where, within fifteen or twenty years, "journalists will be shooting and cutting their own stories".

In this week's seminar by Melissa, Gena, Amanda, and I
Since there were many presentations made for this week, the following are the highlights of what were shared:
Melissa talked about the question of "are blogs a threat to online journalism?" of which the reasons for its importance has already been discussed above. The most interesting point she made was "individual needs journalistic common sense". This works both ways for journalists and the audience. Journalists themselves have to ensure the credibility of information they have gathered from blogs or websites and whether the information is true or bogus. The audience is responsible for filtering the news soaked in from blogs and websites and the onus of finding the balance in views is on themselves. Blogs do not necessarily impose a threat on online journalism when they help to stimulate and retain interest on the issues pursued by online journalists.

Gena's take on online journalism is regarding its boundaries or lack thereof. She raised the concern of "overwhelming" freedom where too much freedom for both journalists and news consumers have often led to uncertainty in accuracy and credibility of news and information.

Amanda made us rethink whether online journalism is just another form of journalism by drawing our attention to the advantages and disadvantages offered by the different journalistic forms. Online journalism must be paid attention to because of the positive and negative effects it has to journalism on the whole. One of the concerns she raised was the desensitised citizens who have become addicted to rapid updating which mostly occured because of their fellow bloggers instead of the professional journalists. It is problematic if credibility is shifted from professional journalists to citizen journalists.

As for my presentation, I explored the wonders and shortcomings of the search engine which in my opinion is an important tool for newsgathering. Journalists need to know how news consumers search for information if they want to stay competitive online. By knowing how to search for information in both the mindset of a professional journalist and of a news consumer, online journalists will be able to achieve high accuracy and interest in their stories.

Conclusion
It is interesting to see non-journalists going through the same journalistic process as professional journalists when posting news online. It is even more interesting to see people "getting their news without really trying" (Quinn & Lamble 2007). What can be learnt from the two interesting points is that journalists might be robbed of their profession if they do not equip themselves with online journalistic skills which citizen journalists/bloggers possess.

Week 5: Globalisation VS Localisation

The topic in brief
The hype now is about globalisation because it is affecting many fields. Journalism is one of those areas which feel the direct impact of the collision between globalisation and localisation. Journalists are not the only people in question here. Once again, news consumers are in the picture and they can be held responsible for contributing to the negative effects of the collision. Plus, the collision has brought journalism's relation to other fields, especially law, into light. The bottom line for the concerns over globalisation is that there is increased uncertainty for journalists in the global environment (Breit 2001). Interestingly enough, whatever positive effects that can be gathered from globalisation may actually turn negative. For example, globalisation spurred the developments of affordable Information and Communication Technology (ICT) which "break[s] down borders to create a global media audience" (Breit 2001, p. 214). However, the developments of ICT has led to the rise of "super corporations" which have the desirable freedom to dominate the global media. As a result of high concentration of media ownership, it is highly likely that there would be less diversed opinions. Often, those opinions reflect the owner's opinion. For example, the FOX News Channel reflects Rupert Murdoch's support for the Republicans. On the other hand, it is also possible that there might be positive effects brought by high concentration of media ownership:

"Diversity of ownership and diversity of source has never guaranteed diversity of opinion, and ... independent ownership has never guaranteed quality, just as group ownership does not guarantee the absence of quality" (Harris n.d. cited in Grattan 1998, p.9)

However, the above optimistic view is idealistic in this global village because it is up to those "super corporations" to impose ethical values on itself to ensure the diversity of opinions and information. Naturally, where power is involved, "super corporations" are more likely to exploit their position to profit than to uphold its coporate social responsibility.

In this week's seminar by Cheryl, Nora, and Thaza
Their presentation basically covers what I have summarised above. The following are my personal responses to their discussion questions:

Is the Internet a reliable source of information? Does it provide a platform for diverse opinion?
I think the Internet does contain reliable sources of information but I would not call it a solely call it a reliable database. The Internet operates in a web-like manner where users are channelled to sources of information and it is up to users to verify the credibility of those sources. It does provide a platform for diverse opinion and in fact it allows more freedom to do so but where the Internet is regulated like in China, for example, it might not be so.

 

Do you think the “super corporations” and their influence will penetrate the Asian markets?

I think the "super corporations" have the capabilities to do so because countries like Japan and Korea have lucrative entertainment industries which make good business. Japan and Korea also offer high-end media technology which will allow "super corporations" to operate conducively.

 

Additional comments by Mr Jimmy Yap

 

"What's the problem with globalisation for journalists?"

Nora: Standardisation of news -- news are shaped in a cause-and-effect manner.

• Media has agendas -- shape worldviews
• Media ownership laws
• Attempts to create alternative channels for he state to counter global voices -- Al-Jazeera VS Fox
• Murdoch's use of newspapers to influence
• TNCs operate across jurisdiction thus are able to undermine local jurisdictions -- what's defamatory in Singapore is not defamatory in US
• We tend to congregate around people who are like-minded -- people are aware of the biases and consume news that reinforces their worldview.
• TNCs might dominate views but do not own them.

Conclusion
In conclusion, while technology provides the media a global audience and corporate partnerships provide the media power, there is no global voice (Breit 2001). The standardisation of news is exemplary of the homogeneity of information.

Week 4: Who will Pay for Journalism?

The topic in brief
The future of journalism has been much worried about especially by traditional journalists. The future of newspapers is smothered by so much pessimism that death seems imminent:

“Popular newspapers, the mass newspapers, are dying and will die. They have no future whatsoever. I’m sad to see newspapers go. I worked on them for 40 years” (Greenslade 2008).

The logic behind it seems simple enough to work out -- hello internet, goodbye newspapers. The internet offers news for free and instantaneously while newspapers are usually bought and contain reports on the previous day's events. There are instances where free newspapers are made available to the public and where newspapers come in morning and afternoon editions like the Today newspaper in Singapore. The question to be asked is how necessary is it then for news consumers to pay for journalism if it can be attained for free? It is only reasonable for news consumers to ask why they should pay for the exact news stories which are available for free online. It is partly the journalist's fault for thinking content syndication eases the burden of having to scope out for the latest news stories. While content syndication helps news publications to stay competitive by means of being in the know, it also puts them at a disadvantage by means of replicating a story from the same angle as many other publications. On the surface, competition between paid and unpaid newspapers/news looks like a good start to the investigation of a dying newspaper readership. Actually, it is the age old issue that needs to be reviewed again --  the quality of journalism.


In this week's seminar by Benjamin, Kelvin, and Wei Meng

"We expect the newspaper to serve us with truth however unprofitable the truth may be... He will pay a normal price when it suits him, will stop paying whenever it suits him, will turn to another paper when that suits him" (Lippman 1992).

The quote above was used to open the presentation. It depicts the behaviour of the news audience which is necessary to understand in order to tackle the question of who will pay for journalism. Where money is involved, it becomes a business. The business model for news was examined to look at the key players -- Media, Advertisers, and Audience. It operates in a dual mode: Media sells news to Audience and sells Audience to Advertisers. From there, they talked about how circulation affects revenue from advertising. There was a period of time in the USA where low newspaper circulation did not affect revenue adversely. It was interesting to see the increase in revenue during that time but from 2007 onwards, both circulation and revenue went into a decline. A speculation: Newspapers started to give more space to advertisements so they could sustain financially -- newspapers get thinner in content and thicker in advertisements. That seems to be true. Worse, newspapers now cost more than before, ironically with lesser news content. The conclusion drawn from the presentation is that there is a change in the way we consume news. Plus, journalism did not die out but moved onto the Internet domain.

"The present model - meaning print - isn't going to work" (Buffet n.d. cited in Gunther 2007).

Additional comments by Mr Jimmy Yap
"Newspapers came out post-industrial revolution. The logic suggests that the model that subsides predominates. Take a 50 cents newspaper against $10 newspaper. People would naturally buy the cheaper one despite the quality of the journalism.

"Newspapers online are trading analogue dollars for digital dimes."

The economics of journalism -- "The amount of money from subscribers will not replace amount of money from advertisers."

Conclusion
One of the possible ways for newspapers to survive is by having more focused and valuable demographics. This is easily achieved through a niche. After all, we willingly pay for what we read, especially what we want to read.