Audio Reel, October 2009.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
So far...
The past couple of months have proved challenging as a prospective journalist about to embark on 'the real world'. However, rather than turning me off the profession, it has highlighted the challenging but integral role Journalists do play within society. I do not think the newspaper is dying - at least not in my career span. I also think the role of the journalist won't be undervalued- at least not in the industry.
The most important thing I will take away from this course is to simply be aware. Most of the issues we have been presented with will not disappear, if anything they will only get more difficult to deal with. This means that as Journalists it is not up to us to change these trends but to achieve quality journalism despite their existence.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Some interesting articles
Google's vision of the future of journalism
Josh Cohen outlines the problems with Google owning the news. (The Guardian)
Why journalism needs PR
An interesting article by Julia Hobsbawm about our, somewhat unfortunate, dependence on PR. (The Guardian)
Amateur Hour
Journalism without Journalists? By Nicholas Lemann. (The New Yorker)
Josh Cohen outlines the problems with Google owning the news. (The Guardian)
Why journalism needs PR
An interesting article by Julia Hobsbawm about our, somewhat unfortunate, dependence on PR. (The Guardian)
Amateur Hour
Journalism without Journalists? By Nicholas Lemann. (The New Yorker)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The juggling act
How funny, the above cartoon depicts the level of multi tasking required by modern journalists but it also depicts exactly how I feel coming into the final weeks of my degree!
Time in class this week was used to work on and brainstorm our ideas for our major projects. I have decided, surprise surprise, to go with an audio piece. I am planning to interview Verity Webb, former editor of ABC radio in Sydney and Melanie James- our very own PR expert along with a journalism student being challenged by the ideas I will present.
The idea so far is to do a radio feature piece on the coexistence of Journalists and PR in modern news rooms. I will first gain the Journalist's perspective, followed by the PR - questions for this interview will be shaped by the comments of the journalist- then how our future news producers see the modern journalistic world. I will also include some news music to liven the piece up.
So far the piece hasn't taken off yet. I plan to conduct my interviews next week and edit it by week 12. With two 3000 word essays, a 1000 word media audit, ten minute interview and 2500 word internship report also due I'd prefer to get it out of the way! A such is the life of a modern journalist... student.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Journalism, the law and you
IF ONLY!
As aspiring journalists nothing is more scary than the prospect of being sued! The main issue dealt with in today's seminar was defamation. Wikipedia defines defamation as 'the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.' (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation)
For journalists attempting to 'uncover the truth' defamation is something that must always be at the forefront of our minds- for one person's 'truth' is certainly not another's.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/04/2208010.htm
Above is the case of the Australian Olympic Committee head John Coates against serial offender 2GB's Alan Jones. It is reported that 'Mr Jones was discussing the collapse of the Olympic rower, Sally Robbins, in the women's eight final in Athens that year. The jury found he implied Mr Coates ordered a cover-up, bullied the crew and was a poor leader. Justice Michael Adams has found the remarks were not true.'
Now Mr Coates walked away with $360 000 in damages from those remarks. $360 000! All from something said on radio - from someone who is paid to express opinions.
Now Jones is a special case, he is not likely to lose his job over something like this. For a young journalist, however, this could be a career killing situation.
It highlights the importance of verification. It also highlights why we are taught to go over every word and sentence before submitting work. Wording a sentence in the wrong way could land you in hot water very quickly- particularly if you are lucky enough to be picked up by a large news organisation, where messy journalism is highly penalised, let alone illegal journalism!
John spoke in his presentation and then later in discussion the way the internet is creating more room for error in this situation. Once again the concept of immediate news and incredibly tight deadlines in light of the technological age made an appearance in class discussion- highlighting the increasing difficulty of carrying out qulaity investigative journalism. Legally this has much more serious personal consequences for the journalist than any of the other issues faced in class.
Each week I seem to return to the importance of that V word... verification! But the more we go on the more class discussion is beginning to convince me that I may have to accept that due to the tech age high quality journalism is just about out of our reach.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Week 8 Article
Blog altered for report...
Information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people, Tom Stott said today.
Stott, a journalism student from the University of Newcastle, today discussed with his fellow students an issue that effects modern journalism: To write or not to write? Should Journalists risk stepping over the line of privacy in the name of public interest? And how do we draw this line?
Writers Glenda Cooper and Stephen Whittle (2008) say 'There is currently a battle around the point at which freedom of expression and the public interest meet the right to privacy.’
Stott introduced to his listeners an example of this battle with Hollywood columnist Perez Hilton and his coverage of a car accident involving celebrity Lindsay Lohan, who was found to be under the influence of drugs whilst driving.
Hilton made speculation that the cocaine, which was found in the vehicle at the time of the accident, could have been owned by passenger of the car Samantha Ronson.
Following Stott's example the audience divided.
Many students began advocating the right to privacy- stating that this incident shouldn't have been reported – and the remaining half declared the actions of a public figure or celebrity should be public knowledge due to their public status.
'To apply Tom's [initial] statement to celebrity their private lives aren't at all in the public interest,' student Brooke Lees said.
'Then why do these stories remain at the forefront of the news,' asked Lecturer in Journalism Christina Koutsoukos.
According to Stott this is because the public is interested - they want to know. They do not, however, have the right to know - and this is where the difference lies.
Information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people, Tom Stott said today.
Stott, a journalism student from the University of Newcastle, today discussed with his fellow students an issue that effects modern journalism: To write or not to write? Should Journalists risk stepping over the line of privacy in the name of public interest? And how do we draw this line?
Writers Glenda Cooper and Stephen Whittle (2008) say 'There is currently a battle around the point at which freedom of expression and the public interest meet the right to privacy.’
Stott introduced to his listeners an example of this battle with Hollywood columnist Perez Hilton and his coverage of a car accident involving celebrity Lindsay Lohan, who was found to be under the influence of drugs whilst driving.
Hilton made speculation that the cocaine, which was found in the vehicle at the time of the accident, could have been owned by passenger of the car Samantha Ronson.
Following Stott's example the audience divided.
Many students began advocating the right to privacy- stating that this incident shouldn't have been reported – and the remaining half declared the actions of a public figure or celebrity should be public knowledge due to their public status.
'To apply Tom's [initial] statement to celebrity their private lives aren't at all in the public interest,' student Brooke Lees said.
'Then why do these stories remain at the forefront of the news,' asked Lecturer in Journalism Christina Koutsoukos.
According to Stott this is because the public is interested - they want to know. They do not, however, have the right to know - and this is where the difference lies.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Privacy and the Public Interest
The issue discussed in class this week is one that all Journalists will encounter at some point in their career. To write or not to write? Do we risk stepping over the line of privacy in the name of public interest? And how do we draw this line?
'There is currently a battle around the point at which freedom of expression and the public interest meet the right to privacy,' writers Glenda Cooper and Stephen Wittle said.
As an example of this battle Tom Stott discussed hollywood columnist Perez Hilton and his coverage of a car accident involving Lindsay Lohan, who was found to be under the influence of drugs whilst driving.
Hilton made speculation that the cocaine, which was found in the vehicle at the time of the accident, could have been owned by passenger of the car Samantha Ronson.
Heated discussion followed this example, with half the class advocating the right to privacy- stating that this incident shouldn't have been reported - and half the class declaring the actions of a public figure or celebrity should be public knowledge due to their status.
Stott stated that 'Information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people'
Applying this statement to celebrity it would appear that their private lives are, in fact, not at all in the public interest. However they will remain at the forefront of the news whether quality journalists approve or not. This is because the public is interested - they want to know. They do not, however, have the right to know - and this is where the difference lies.
'There is currently a battle around the point at which freedom of expression and the public interest meet the right to privacy,' writers Glenda Cooper and Stephen Wittle said.
As an example of this battle Tom Stott discussed hollywood columnist Perez Hilton and his coverage of a car accident involving Lindsay Lohan, who was found to be under the influence of drugs whilst driving.
Hilton made speculation that the cocaine, which was found in the vehicle at the time of the accident, could have been owned by passenger of the car Samantha Ronson.
Heated discussion followed this example, with half the class advocating the right to privacy- stating that this incident shouldn't have been reported - and half the class declaring the actions of a public figure or celebrity should be public knowledge due to their status.
Stott stated that 'Information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people'
Applying this statement to celebrity it would appear that their private lives are, in fact, not at all in the public interest. However they will remain at the forefront of the news whether quality journalists approve or not. This is because the public is interested - they want to know. They do not, however, have the right to know - and this is where the difference lies.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Truth and objectivity
Like it or not, PR officers and Journalists must work together- despite the various implications of this fact. Jo Bowman states that ‘The relationship between journalists and PR practitioners is not usually a happy one. There is mutual distrust, neither has a good word for the other, yet they are forced to work with each other’ (Bowman 2002)
When two professionals with such contradictory roles are forced to work together there is no doubt that ethical workplace issues will occur.
In our most basic form a Journalist exists to communicate the truth - or as close to the truth as possible- to the community. A PR professional exists to promote. Whether it be a product, celebrity, company or football team they will continually skew the truth to suit their purpose.
The main way PR professionals promote is to communicate with the media, that's why News Rooms will see several media releases faxed and emailed through to their offices on any given day.
With the rise of the internet and the economic downturn news rooms are getting smaller while dealines are getting tighter. This results in Journalists coming to all but rely on media releases, written by PR companies and professionals, for part of their daily news service. The issue here is clear- how can one attempt to communicate the truth when the news sources being used exist to distort the truth?
There is no simple answer here. We cannot go without the presence of PR, nor would we want to, when their job is done properly they can be an asset to your news service- by providing contacts, media conference information and general story verification. However I believe as Journalists we must push through the initial PR barrier to get at the guts of a story. We need to be constantly aware of the position PR plays in your news service- and play that card accordingly, never settling for a press release before making verifiying the story from as many angles as possible. It all comes down to our number one priority- maintaining objectivity.
When two professionals with such contradictory roles are forced to work together there is no doubt that ethical workplace issues will occur.
In our most basic form a Journalist exists to communicate the truth - or as close to the truth as possible- to the community. A PR professional exists to promote. Whether it be a product, celebrity, company or football team they will continually skew the truth to suit their purpose.
The main way PR professionals promote is to communicate with the media, that's why News Rooms will see several media releases faxed and emailed through to their offices on any given day.
With the rise of the internet and the economic downturn news rooms are getting smaller while dealines are getting tighter. This results in Journalists coming to all but rely on media releases, written by PR companies and professionals, for part of their daily news service. The issue here is clear- how can one attempt to communicate the truth when the news sources being used exist to distort the truth?
There is no simple answer here. We cannot go without the presence of PR, nor would we want to, when their job is done properly they can be an asset to your news service- by providing contacts, media conference information and general story verification. However I believe as Journalists we must push through the initial PR barrier to get at the guts of a story. We need to be constantly aware of the position PR plays in your news service- and play that card accordingly, never settling for a press release before making verifiying the story from as many angles as possible. It all comes down to our number one priority- maintaining objectivity.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Globalisation and Localisation
Once again we looked at an issue affecting all of us as future Journalists: The effect of Globalisation. Gone are the days of a local Journalist providing the news for his town. Living in an age where I can find out what my favourite celebrity had for breakfast on twitter or a free lance Journalist's opinion on the war in Iraq the role of quality journalism is dropping in significance, whilst growing in need.
When one can access to the miute news from around the world- and are seemingly more than willing to trust feelance websites and citizen Journalists- the quest for the truth and the harder task of attracting readers or listeners becomes more and more difficult.
To tackle this issue I think it is of upmost importance to go back to the main principles of good reporting- Follow Kipling's men (Who, What, Why , Where and Who) and verify our sources. As one must realise, with Globalisation comes technologies which make our source acquisition easier to execute, as well as giving us the luxury of reporting on a range of national, international and local issues from the comfort of our own offices.
When one can access to the miute news from around the world- and are seemingly more than willing to trust feelance websites and citizen Journalists- the quest for the truth and the harder task of attracting readers or listeners becomes more and more difficult.
To tackle this issue I think it is of upmost importance to go back to the main principles of good reporting- Follow Kipling's men (Who, What, Why , Where and Who) and verify our sources. As one must realise, with Globalisation comes technologies which make our source acquisition easier to execute, as well as giving us the luxury of reporting on a range of national, international and local issues from the comfort of our own offices.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Who will pay for Journalism?
This week another alarming issue for budding journalists: The dying Newspaper industry. Rupert Murdoch has announced in the past few weeks that '...contrary to popular reports, information does not want to be free; it actually wants to be paid for.' (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/business/media/10carr.html)
He has in his sights the introduction of an oline pay wall, where people must pay to access newspaper articles online. But, well, who would do that? Take for example, my writing this blog. I needed a quick article about Murdoch's plan so I googled it, picked the most reputable source from the results provided- The New York Times- and tra la!...I have what I need, without moving from my chair, without spending a cent.
Now why, when it is this easy to access news, would people go out of their way to purchase a newspaper? I know the argument stands that the newspaper remains a tradition in people's lives- on the train to work, with their Sunday coffee- but what for the new generation? The generation that have grown up accustomed to free information at their fingertips?
Murdoch's idea is that if one must pay for online news then they will either do that, or go out and buy the paper- whichever is cheaper for them to access the day's top stories.
Now that appears to be a fool proof idea. Enter our friend from last week- citizenship journalism. Even if the larger, more trusted, papers are charging online, free little freelance websites with articles written from Jim's neighbour or Sally's sister will remain.
How valued is quality Journalism? Well I think we can say we're safe for now, but will this always be the case? The younger generation are becoming skeptical of larger news media believing them to be driven by commercialism and ownership obligations - so what's to stop them from seeking out a citzen journalist that they 'trust' and boycotting the news that costs money to read?
As journalists it becomes up to us. Up to us to provide news that people cannot go without. Up to us to strive for ethical and objective reporting. Up to us to be the beating heart of the news and pray we can keep the blood flowing.
He has in his sights the introduction of an oline pay wall, where people must pay to access newspaper articles online. But, well, who would do that? Take for example, my writing this blog. I needed a quick article about Murdoch's plan so I googled it, picked the most reputable source from the results provided- The New York Times- and tra la!...I have what I need, without moving from my chair, without spending a cent.
Now why, when it is this easy to access news, would people go out of their way to purchase a newspaper? I know the argument stands that the newspaper remains a tradition in people's lives- on the train to work, with their Sunday coffee- but what for the new generation? The generation that have grown up accustomed to free information at their fingertips?
Murdoch's idea is that if one must pay for online news then they will either do that, or go out and buy the paper- whichever is cheaper for them to access the day's top stories.
Now that appears to be a fool proof idea. Enter our friend from last week- citizenship journalism. Even if the larger, more trusted, papers are charging online, free little freelance websites with articles written from Jim's neighbour or Sally's sister will remain.
How valued is quality Journalism? Well I think we can say we're safe for now, but will this always be the case? The younger generation are becoming skeptical of larger news media believing them to be driven by commercialism and ownership obligations - so what's to stop them from seeking out a citzen journalist that they 'trust' and boycotting the news that costs money to read?
As journalists it becomes up to us. Up to us to provide news that people cannot go without. Up to us to strive for ethical and objective reporting. Up to us to be the beating heart of the news and pray we can keep the blood flowing.
Citizenship Journalism
As I wasn't in class week 3 I decided to do a little digging to discover what people are saying about this phenomenon being dubbed 'citizenship journalism.'
www.responsiblecitizen.co.uk/citizenship-journalism outlines citizenship journalism from the perspective of the citizen- it lists advantages to media outlets claiming it allows for the media to have 'on the spot footage'. It lists the disadvantages as danger to the public and legal risks taken by these untrained journalists.
With the rise of the internet era it was only a matter of time before members of the public took to their computers to have a crack at wriritng articles or headed for their digital cameras to take weather and crime scene photographs however the encouragement this type of Journalism bothers me as a journo-in-training.
Prime weather has a mobile number and email address specifically for members of the public to send their weather photos- a job that once would have been given to a photographer within the station- a position that is no longer required.
With the number of positions for journalists declining this new type of FREE journalism is all too tempting for media outlets trying to save money. The issue that arises from this for Journalism in general is the question of quality. If a media outlet is relying on just anyone for news this can lead to not only legal issues but issues of quality. As a training Journalist where the idea of maintaining quality and ethical journalism is paramount I think using this type of Journalism is just wrong.
www.responsiblecitizen.co.uk/citizenship-journalism outlines citizenship journalism from the perspective of the citizen- it lists advantages to media outlets claiming it allows for the media to have 'on the spot footage'. It lists the disadvantages as danger to the public and legal risks taken by these untrained journalists.
With the rise of the internet era it was only a matter of time before members of the public took to their computers to have a crack at wriritng articles or headed for their digital cameras to take weather and crime scene photographs however the encouragement this type of Journalism bothers me as a journo-in-training.
Prime weather has a mobile number and email address specifically for members of the public to send their weather photos- a job that once would have been given to a photographer within the station- a position that is no longer required.
With the number of positions for journalists declining this new type of FREE journalism is all too tempting for media outlets trying to save money. The issue that arises from this for Journalism in general is the question of quality. If a media outlet is relying on just anyone for news this can lead to not only legal issues but issues of quality. As a training Journalist where the idea of maintaining quality and ethical journalism is paramount I think using this type of Journalism is just wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
