Privacy vs. Public Interest

Privacy is still a major concern for the journalism profession today. With technology advancing everyday, it is becoming easier for journalists to gain information in order to report on the personal lives of both celebrities and members of the general public.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) state that “respect for the truth and the public’s right to information are fundamental principles of journalism,” (MEAA Code of Ethics).

With this being said, what can be defined as public interest, and, even if it is released on the grounds that the public wants to know, does it make it ethical?

One such instance was the report on former Transport Minister David Campbell. Video footage and still images were displayed showing the Minister leaving a gay club in a Government vehicle.

Campbell chose to present himself as a family man due to the Government job he was placed in. However, this was proven to be a misrepresentation of himself to the public. According to Peter Meakin, his secret gay lifestyle was “at odds with his persona,” and evidently if he lied about his personal life, what else may he have lied about.

This was shown to the public and was later said to have been released to the public on the grounds that it was in the “public’s interest” to know. However, it is hard to draw the line in cases like this between what is publicly relevant and what is purely an invasion of privacy.

I guess when it comes to making decisions on what is published, journalists need to really consider what is public interest and what could and should remain private.

Freedom of the press.

Between 2005 and 2011, News of the World has been a part of a phone hacking scandal which ultimately bought to question the freedom of the press. It was discovered that private phone conversations and messages between members or the royal family, celebrities and members of the general public were being hacked by the organisation in order for them to gain news stories.

As a result, the publication was shut down and the case brought about many implications for journalists across the globe. However, when it comes to the freedom of the press, there are more factors to consider aside from phone hacking. There is the issue of content being influenced advertisers. There is always the issue that those companies who contribute money to publications will have an influence on the content produced by said publications.

However, with the advancement in technology, it has become far harder to keep personal information private. With satellite TV, newspapers, internet based blogs and social networking sites, more and more private information is being made public. So the question on everyone’s lips is, if twitter and facebook users are publishing personal information on their own sites, is it ethical for that information to be used by journalists? 

Wikileaks: good or bad?

Wikileaks was created on the notion that people have the right to know information and express their own opinions. Wikileaks provides people with a forum that allows them to seek information that is otherwise unavailable to be accessed through traditional media sources.

They state that they have “sustained and triumphed aginst legal and political attacks designed to silence our publishing organisation, our journalists and our anonymous sources. The broader principles on which our work is based are the defence of freedom speech and media publishing, the improvement of our common historical record and the support of the rights of all people to create new history.” (Wikileaks, 2011).

As Wikileaks is a not for profit organisation, this means that they are the more objective news forum, as opposed to some mainstream forums that often publish news that satisfies their financial backers. Documents published from Wikileaks contain links to the original source, thus allowing the audience to analyse and come to their own conclusions regarding the topic in question. However, the organisation does have a ‘harm minimisation procedure’, which means that any information that could put people at risk can be hidden from the public or removed entirely from the site. Thus the question remains; can Wikileaks truly be labelled a transparent publication when they possess the ability to alter their information?

This video gives some insight into transparency and trust issues when it comes to Wikileaks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J32DWlI6keI

In conclusion, it is safe to say that there are some news stories posted by Wikileaks that are relevant and that society should know about, however, it is necessary that the public knows that Wikileaks should not be a replacement for mainstream media and the matter of their transparency is still in question.

References:

Wikileaks. (2011). Wikileaks. Retrieved September 8, 2011 from http://wikileaks.org/

Journalism: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

“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.

(Roy Greenslade, Future of Journalism summit, Sydney, May 2008)

Once able to lead – indeed, to form – public opinion, papers such as The Australian now appear hardly able to follow or comprehend it. Those whom Jay Rosen has referred to as “the people formerly known as the audience” (2006) have begun to look elsewhere for news and informed opinion, or have begun to create and publish their own reports, commentaries, debates, and deliberations on news and current affairs, especially in the online environment.

To some extent, this shift is one of journalism’s own making, as the industry’s failure to update its products for a new, Internet- and convergence-driven environment has alienated younger audiences. Journalists’ inability to remain politically and commercially independent has been highlighted by the utter failure of mainstream journalism in the United States, Australia, and elsewhere, to debunk the unsubstantiated Weapons of Mass Destruction claims. These claims were used as a pretext to start the war in Iraq, by cases of preferential treatment for major advertisers, and by the growing conflation of news and entertainment content especially in television broadcasts (Lowrey and Anderson, 2005).

Newspaper readership and credibility has fallen to record lows. Newspapers started Australia’s major commercial news organizations and the culture of these companies are continually influenced by the press’ ethos, as they become unmistakably entertainment driven, continually investigating new technologies, means and methods of communication. The fact that the majority of today’s society is fairly technologically advanced has heavily impacted the consumption of the traditional newspaper. News Corporation chairman and chief executive Rupert Murdoch, states that in regards to new technologies and the newspaper, journalists “are too busy writing their own obituary to be excited by the opportunity” (Murdoch, 2008, Lecture 3).

Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corporation, confessed that his giant media conglomerate were slow when it came to recognizing the importance of the internet. He now states that even with the internet, newspapers will still survive, “unlike the doom and gloomers, I believe that newspapers will reach new heights. In the 21st century, people are hungrier for information than ever before. And they have more sources of information than ever before” (Murdoch, 2008, Lecture 3).

There is little indication that this trend in print and broadcast news is likely to be reversed any time soon. Like other informational industries from software to music, the news industry in print and broadcast is operating under a business model which no longer suits the emerging cultural and economic framework (Jenkins, 2006). Both print and broadcast proceed from an industrial logic which is founded on the twin assumptions that their means of production are expensive and concentrated in the hands of a small number of major operators, and that access to their channels of distribution is tightly policed and therefore scarce. Neither assumption, however, still holds true in a post-industrial, Internet age.

There is an overall shift from passive consumption to active participation in our societies (Jenkins, 2006; Benkler, 2006; von Hippel, 2005). This poses a key challenge to a journalism industry built traditionally on a conception of its audience as passive consumers, and – as The Australian’s editorial documents – most of the industry has yet to develop strategies for addressing this challenge effectively.

References:

Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York:

NYU Press.

Lowrey and Anderson. 2005. The Journalist Behind the Curtain: Participatory Functions on the Internet and their Impact on Perceptions of the Work of Journalism. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Comunication. 10(3).

Murdoch, Rupert. “Lecture 3: The future of newspapers: Moving beyond the dead trees.” ABC Radio National. 16 Nov. 2008. 7 April. 2011. <http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyerlectures/stories/2008/2397940.htm>.

Rosen, Jay. 2006, 27 June. The People Formerly Known as the Audience. PressThink: Ghost

of Democracy in the Media Machine. http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html (accessed 10 Aug. 2007).

Warren, C. (2010). Life In The Clickstream II: The Future Of Journalism. Redfern: Media Alliance.

Warren, C. (2008). Life In The Clickstream: The Future Of Journalism. Redfern: Media Alliance.

The Rise of the Citizen Journalist

As the trend of citizen journalism continues to rise, particularly with the ever-escalating popularity of Internet forums such as Facebook and Twitter, the jobs of hardworking journalists continue to be threatened.

According to Hamilton and Lawrence (2010, p.1) “professional journalism… is rooted in the concept of reporters going out into the world seeking information.” However, it turns out that you do not have to be a professional journalist to undertake this task. Although, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance defines a journalist as adhering to “the principles of honesty, fairness and independence.” This definition does not apply to citizen journalists.

An example of citizen journalist’s not adhering to the principle of honesty would be the recent and ongoing “Jackie Chan death” rumors. A recent article stated that “In March, news of his death spread virally on Twitter, and fans of the Rush Hour star poured out condolences until it became apparent Chan had not died of a heart attack as the rumor claimed.”

Historically, the citizen’s role was to be informed and the journalist’s role was to uncover and communicate newsworthy events to citizens. In the 21^st century however, the role of the citizen has changed. Citizens are now being informed by facilitating conversation and being an active and/or passive audience informing others.

However, according to Gilmor (2008, p.111) “that does not mean there isn’t a place for pro journalists, who will always be there.”

I put this question forward to fellow journalists, whether professional or citizen, “What does this mean for the future of journalism?”

Here is a short video about citizen vs. professional journalism.

References:

LaCapria, K. (2011). Jackie Chan Death Hoax Sweeps Social Media. http://www.inquisitr.com/135052/jackie-chan-dead-august-2011/ Accessed: 19.8.11

Youtube (June 11, 2008). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU5LonkXbCE Accessed: 19.8.11 

21st Century Journalism

The ever-evolving journalist.

As time has past, it has become somewhat more and more difficult to precisely define who a journalist is and the roles they play in society.

Due to the evolution of certain societal aspects such as technology, journalism as we know it has changed and will continue to change due to use of media convergence and of course social media.

Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have definitely had a major influence not only on journalism itself, but the hard working journalists.

Roy Greenslade stated that “while journalism does indeed matter, journalists do not.” In his next breath however he states that “proper journalism is worth fighting for.”

Thus this sparks the question, if proper journalism is important and journalists are not, where will the quality news come from?

According to Yoo, (2011, p.84) “Interactive features have allowed for a diverse range of online users to produce content as simple as a comment on a blog or uncovering local news stories.” However, the question still remains, is this quality journalism? Can the source be trusted to provide valid and correct information?

In order to keep up with today’s societal and ever-evolving technological changes, journalists have to be equipped with a broad range of skills and techniques in order to retain a job.

In order to keep up with today’s societal and ever-evolving technological changes, journalists have to be equipped with a broad range of skills and techniques in order to retain a job.

These skills include:

·      Researching

·      Interviewing

·      Gathering information

·      Using appropriate language

·      Using appropriate technology

·      Crossing media platforms

·      Recognising a good story

·      Interpreting meaning

·      Disseminating information  

·      Understanding the audience

·      Meeting limits and deadline

·      Committing to accuracy, fairness and ethics

However, despite possessing these skills, it is still unknown as to whether journalists are still needed.

With the rise of social media, anyone of us has the potential to be a journalist. If a natural disaster is occurring and you have possession of a camera phone, the video or picture you take or the tweet makes you, in some way, a journalist.

Here is a short video on blogging by Seth Godin and Tom Peters.

What does the future look like for journalism?

I’m afraid I do not have the answer.

References:

Seth Godin and Tom Peters on blogging. (April 18, 2009). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=livzJTIWlmY Accessed: 12.8.11

Yoo, C. (2011). Modeling Audience Interactivity as the Gratification-Seeking Process in Online Newspapers. Communication Theory (pages 67-89)