Ladyblossom’s Blog

In this video we hear citizen journalists described as ‘People who are not journalists committing random acts of journalism’. It continues to ask questions of the implications of citizen journalism with a general sense of positivity. It is stated by Chris Daly, Professor of Journalism in Boston University that this is of significant importance because ‘it is in the hands of ordinary people’. Yet what about all the journalist who now blog, is this an attempt to be show more of their personality and so be a more ‘interesting’ reporter? We just have to look at Irish Journalists who blog and twitter to see that this is very popular. It could be seen that journalists who constantly do so are simply in a bid to remain popular with the public rather than actually wanting to do extra work! Yet this is not how blogging should be treated and as such could potentially be seen to take away from journalistic ethics.

While citizen journalism can be seen to take jobs away from trained journalists it can be argued that this will bring an extra strength to journalism. Journalists hold a power to inform the public and so potentially shape and form opinions. Yet simply because a person holds a Journalism degree does not necessarily make them the best equipped for the job. Journalism requires a person to be fair, impartial, objective and truthful yet these are personal characteristics that cannot always be thought!

As the pros and cons of online news are put up to speculation, one of the advantages of online news tends to be the ability of its news reporting to be instant. However, while this has tremendous potential to be used to inform on constant updates and breakthroughs it also holds with it a greater dimension to approaching news. This form of instant news does not allow for journalists to check and re-check their work as often as they like and so can lead to incorrect material being sent out.

Read the rest of this entry »

In a class today the students of JR2 were told that online news was too vertical…meaning it doesn’t give certain stories a chance to be seen. It was explained as so …if you put a certain story or issue into a search engine you will find hundreds maybe thousands of replies but that usually the reader is content with this, they take from it what they want and so do not read the stories surrounding the topic they are searching.

So the point was made that if you buy a daily paper you will more than likely skim through articles during rest periods in your day that wouldn’t usually interest you. Yet if you go online you are not as susceptible to random news as you have greater power in what is put in front of you!

Is this a positive or a negative? News sites such as the irishindependent.ie or the irishtimes.com have a clear list of stories and make it easy for the reader to get what they want and go. Yet newspapers also offer structure in terms of layout according to news, features, world news, letters, sport, e.g.

As a result it could be argued that newspapers allow readers to get what they want and tune out . . .it just takes more practise. Yet it could be suggested that although the papers ability to creep other stories into readers attention may be fickle. It is still a reality that gives readers a broader news focus and more importantly it may be a characteristic that online news cannot grasp.

This blog has mainly dealt with traditional newspaper production and content in contrast to online news. But what about radio and the effects that online news has brought to it? In a blog by Ruth Hogan, ‘Radio Journalism Online’ she brings to attention how the internet has been extremely useful to most radio stations and that people now have the option of listening in live from their laptops. This is an extremely valid point when we take into consideration the amount of workers and even students who carry laptops with them daily. While most people simply tune into their favourite station it is important to note that this may not be possible for Irish people who have emigrated or even people who wish to stay ‘in the know’ by catching up with their local radio station if they are a few counties away and it is no longer in their frequency! Could this type of local news demand flourish if the recession continues and forces people to leave their home areas?

This is also relevant to online news sites. From living up in Dublin during the week I would often log onto sites such as the ‘Drogheda Independent.ie’ to update myself on news from home. The paper can be bought in the main Easons on O’Connell St. but the convenience of checking it online is far outweighed.

The relationship between radio and the internet can be seen as extremely strong if we look close to home in the form of DCUFM where the station solely transmits through the internet!

Helen Doyle’s Blog, ‘Is this the week citizen journalism came of age?’ pointed out some recent stories that were captured thanks to online journalism and the power of the public to rise in occasions where it is important that footage is shown.

The G20 summit is an example of such. Helen describes how ‘These incidents were caught by citizen journalists a long time before the thousands of actual journalists who were there, got wind of them.’

When thinking of citizen journalism, it is fair to suggest that most would consider it a new practise. Yet when reading through Helens blog it was interesting to discover how the Monica Lewinsky story was broken by a citizen journalist in America in the Drudge Report.

This allows us to consider the weight that citizen journalism can have. While this was not a particularly hard line news story it was certainly controversial and would have been extremely sought after by journalists. This is echoed but with stronger news values when considering the recent G20 images of police brutality.

In a blog by Sam Mathews on the 10^th of April, ‘Comment is perhaps not so free’

The boundaries of free speech are examined in relation to online news and opinion sections. Sam outlines a story in which Guardian journalist Emma Brockes was commented on negatively by Media Lens. We hear how this was treated when the comment was deleted and sited as ‘off-topic’. Eventually the discussion was shut down when comments came in protesting how the original comment was actually on-topic and relevant. Sam summed up by stating how the censorship is never far away.

This was an extremely insightful piece that allows people to see through the pretence often showcased by news sites that aim to be pro free-speech. It was an excellent example of censorship occurring when it was quite unnecessary, there were no aspects of inaccuracy or indecency or even bad taste and so the deletion of the comment must be questioned. The Community Moderator which shut down the discussion should be made explain its choices in detail. After reading the article it seems clear that this act was done purely because Emma Brockes happened to be a Guardian journalist and if this discussion was taking place regarding another papers journalists the Guardian would act far more ‘freely’ in its ‘Comment is free’ site.

The Reuters website allows for readers to make corrections on its stories. The importance of spelling and especially structure in news is sometimes overlooked as an online problem. However, on this site it was extremely interesting to examine the corrections by readers, sometimes simply spelling mistakes ‘It’s spelled Broccoli, not brocolli’ but sometimes far more significant points were made, such as the implied propaganda in one story.

The title of the story was ‘Praising Islam?’ and the reader argued how this was ‘a bit of manipulative propaganda’. The story was a summary of U.S. President Obama’s trip to Muslim Turkey. The reader/corrector ended by asking for Reuters to ‘Pleas stop doing this! Let people speak for themselves, and stick to reporting! Especially our leaders.’ This site brought to consideration the potential for numerous mistakes in both punctuation and structure and it must be noted that if these inaccuracies can be produced within Reuters, what type of errors will seep into our new news sites and blogs?

Interactivity is seen by many as a huge benefit that the internet has to offer. This ideology has been echoed many times in the journalism class in different discussions and arguments. I can clearly see where the advantage is held when personal sites and social networking sites are considered. It can even be shown to promote knowledge in information sites such as Wikipedia. However, is there not a huge difference when dealing with news? News is there to inform and educate, yet the constant ‘interactivity’ that now surges in every news site can sometimes take away from the key message and cause readers to evaluate the story in a more personal or confrontational manner. This is particularly relevant when dealing with politics and new policies introduced, this was seen regularly during the budget. See Here! While the importance for a public voice in a news context is a serious matter, could it be suggested that ‘interactivity’ can, at times, just lead to a certain amount of unnecessary ranting?

The Newspaper Association held a conference in San Diego last week to discuss the future of the newspaper industry. Some of the facts that emerged were very interesting. Particularly in reference to figures of video production and its rise on news websites. One blogger describes how ‘newsrooms are training their staff in vieotography’ and ‘hiring ex-television producers to boost the value of their video products’.  He also gave figures suggesting that uploaded videos have increased from an average 186 per month in 2007 to an average of 638 in 2008. Is this a positive move towards stronger news coverage or will the audience now expect video coverage even when it is not there and as such, deter the reader from certain stories merely down to what it can, or cannot, offer visually?

This point can be seen especially when dealing with stories that are visually entertaining such as the ‘The Bull in the Ballinrobe Supervalue‘ that was broadcast on RTE News.

It is unarguable that newspaper circulation has decreased. In fact, since 1990 daily US newspaper circulation has gone down 19%! Now with the recession also facing potential buyers . . . it seems that the newspaper industry is facing further danger. While online journalism can claim many readers from the papers target market, this is generally the younger generations. It is interesting to note how papers that fail to continue in print are transferring into online news, one such example is: The Christian Science Monitor. From examining this site, it is clear that it offers the readers a huge variety of news, with stories from Africa, America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.  It also holds a dedicated section to blogs. The online space allows for this much news to be submitted and so recognition of the possibilities of such space is important.