Breit’s chapter ‘Journalism in the global village’ raises some interesting points, like how local laws regarding the media are open to being manipulated in today’s global corporate world. The example she gave of copyright laws, contrasting their original intent with how they are being manipulated by transnational corporations to suit their own interests today, was something I had never considered before.
The use of the One.Tel example (page 215) really showed how dated the article is. Given the collapse of One.Tel (was it six years ago?), using it as an example of News Ltd and PBL dominating internet and multi-media markets in Australia is completely invalid. It’s 2007, not 1997, and including this in a text that was reprinted in 2006 I think is really unacceptable.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Week 9 - Minefields and Legal landmarks
I think, in general terms, the law favours those who can afford the many legal expanses that come with pursuing a matter through the courts. As journalists are constrained by the law, I therefore also think it is important that they don’t, as Marcus Westbury once stated, be strong on the weak and weak on the strong.
I joined a petition a couple of years ago for two journalists who were in contempt of court for not naming their sources. They were facing jail time, not because their articles were untruthful, but precisely because they were truthful and embarrassing the government. I think it had to do with the Federal government and Indigenous affairs. The government wanted the journalists to reveal their sources so they could punish the whistleblowers. I think these journalists should be applauded for the integrity and highlighting the indiscrepancies that sometimes exist between the law and the liberal democratic society the law is supposed to be protecting.
On the other hand, and unfortunately probably more common, journalists instead of focusing on challenging or critiquing the social structures and culture we live in, they use their privileged position to exploit individuals, or the ‘common person’ so to speak. I had a placement this year at a local council, where there was a fair bit of clandestine tension between the then communications officer and the management above him. I was aware that the communications officer was intending to hand his notice in. A couple months after finishing my placement, I read in my local paper explicit personal details of how his employment was terminated. They gave his full name, position and the circumstances that lead to him being asked to leave the building. (He published a faux media release, for training purposes on the internet, stating that the mayor had been asked to resign after throwing a chair at a fellow councillor. This ruffled a few feathers.) I still have no idea what relevance the article had to the general public, other than a little bit of scandal and humour at council. But even then names and positions didn’t have to be given. I was especially disappointed with the paper because the reporters there had a working relationship with the communication officer for years, and then they did that too him. It is dirty, lazy journalism. I can’t imagine the humiliation it would have caused the communications officer.
Journalism can be used for tremendous good, even when that includes breaking existing laws, or can lawfully wreck unnecessary havoc on the personal lives of individuals.
I joined a petition a couple of years ago for two journalists who were in contempt of court for not naming their sources. They were facing jail time, not because their articles were untruthful, but precisely because they were truthful and embarrassing the government. I think it had to do with the Federal government and Indigenous affairs. The government wanted the journalists to reveal their sources so they could punish the whistleblowers. I think these journalists should be applauded for the integrity and highlighting the indiscrepancies that sometimes exist between the law and the liberal democratic society the law is supposed to be protecting.
On the other hand, and unfortunately probably more common, journalists instead of focusing on challenging or critiquing the social structures and culture we live in, they use their privileged position to exploit individuals, or the ‘common person’ so to speak. I had a placement this year at a local council, where there was a fair bit of clandestine tension between the then communications officer and the management above him. I was aware that the communications officer was intending to hand his notice in. A couple months after finishing my placement, I read in my local paper explicit personal details of how his employment was terminated. They gave his full name, position and the circumstances that lead to him being asked to leave the building. (He published a faux media release, for training purposes on the internet, stating that the mayor had been asked to resign after throwing a chair at a fellow councillor. This ruffled a few feathers.) I still have no idea what relevance the article had to the general public, other than a little bit of scandal and humour at council. But even then names and positions didn’t have to be given. I was especially disappointed with the paper because the reporters there had a working relationship with the communication officer for years, and then they did that too him. It is dirty, lazy journalism. I can’t imagine the humiliation it would have caused the communications officer.
Journalism can be used for tremendous good, even when that includes breaking existing laws, or can lawfully wreck unnecessary havoc on the personal lives of individuals.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Week 4 – Journalism as a public conversation
This post takes us back to week 4, which I had forgot!
I found Romano & Hippocrates discussion on Public Journalism strong in some areas and weak in others. I found that their chapter was helpful in describing public journalism but some of their augments in favour of it where not as convincing as they made them out to be.
In particular they raise the fact that audiences consume news in a sporadic way, often reading only what suits their world view, which is fair enough. But exactly how public journalism addresses this matter over traditional journalism is not clearly stated. Instead, they go onto argue that news involving deeper social/cultural issues need background and context worked into the articles, which is also fair enough but how does that solve their fist assertion that people read news sporadically? Surely longer articles that require more of a commitment on behalf of an already superficial audience isn’t the solution.
Another fundamental notion of public journalism that I’m yet to comprehend is this idea of subverting the news agenda set by those in power, i.e. politicians, big business etc to be set by the common person. Sure the news agenda is set by people with influence and power in society. But that’s exactly why it is news – they have power and influence over how everyone else lives their lives – that is therefore of direct interest to everybody. Having said that, we also don’t want to be dictated too – but that’s exactly why we have quotes from different institutions with different levels of interest in truth and levels of engagement with an issue to allow for different angles on the same issue. In reality, whether news organisations look to multiple sources for articles is up to them.
Also the fact that they say having an ‘open marketplace of ideas’, with a ‘mass of competing, conflicting views’ is ‘inappropriate’ (p: 168) really makes me worry about were the authors are coming from. John Stuart Mill argued centuries ago that, in theory, the only way to arrive at truth was for all views and opinions to be heard without censorship, so that everything could be in the open to be disproved or proved right.
I found Romano & Hippocrates discussion on Public Journalism strong in some areas and weak in others. I found that their chapter was helpful in describing public journalism but some of their augments in favour of it where not as convincing as they made them out to be.
In particular they raise the fact that audiences consume news in a sporadic way, often reading only what suits their world view, which is fair enough. But exactly how public journalism addresses this matter over traditional journalism is not clearly stated. Instead, they go onto argue that news involving deeper social/cultural issues need background and context worked into the articles, which is also fair enough but how does that solve their fist assertion that people read news sporadically? Surely longer articles that require more of a commitment on behalf of an already superficial audience isn’t the solution.
Another fundamental notion of public journalism that I’m yet to comprehend is this idea of subverting the news agenda set by those in power, i.e. politicians, big business etc to be set by the common person. Sure the news agenda is set by people with influence and power in society. But that’s exactly why it is news – they have power and influence over how everyone else lives their lives – that is therefore of direct interest to everybody. Having said that, we also don’t want to be dictated too – but that’s exactly why we have quotes from different institutions with different levels of interest in truth and levels of engagement with an issue to allow for different angles on the same issue. In reality, whether news organisations look to multiple sources for articles is up to them.
Also the fact that they say having an ‘open marketplace of ideas’, with a ‘mass of competing, conflicting views’ is ‘inappropriate’ (p: 168) really makes me worry about were the authors are coming from. John Stuart Mill argued centuries ago that, in theory, the only way to arrive at truth was for all views and opinions to be heard without censorship, so that everything could be in the open to be disproved or proved right.
Week 8 - Literary Journalism
I really admire the idea of literary journalism and its goal of seeking ‘underlying truth’. I can see that there is a need for a genre of writing that exists somewhere between fiction and journalism. At first it sounds incomprehensible that you could reach a greater truth by resorting to ‘fictional’ techniques but I think it satisfies our need to understand the world through narrative; I think we all understand reality by stories.
Literary Journalism, for all that it offers, obviously hasn’t become the be all and end all of reporting/writing. It has its problems – its particularly demanding on the author’s time and there remains a problem with the vagueness of its position between fiction and non-fiction. This leads to the question: is it trustworthy? Where does the non-fiction begin and fiction end? Is it enlightening or distorting actual events? Has the author’s level of engagement been so intense instead of informing it has narrowed the authors perception of events, leading to a conflict of interest? i.e. with Truman Capote’s novel.
Hopefully good Literary Journalism answers the above questions and provides us with greater insight into our world.
Literary Journalism, for all that it offers, obviously hasn’t become the be all and end all of reporting/writing. It has its problems – its particularly demanding on the author’s time and there remains a problem with the vagueness of its position between fiction and non-fiction. This leads to the question: is it trustworthy? Where does the non-fiction begin and fiction end? Is it enlightening or distorting actual events? Has the author’s level of engagement been so intense instead of informing it has narrowed the authors perception of events, leading to a conflict of interest? i.e. with Truman Capote’s novel.
Hopefully good Literary Journalism answers the above questions and provides us with greater insight into our world.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Week 7 - Journalism representation of others
For me, chapters 8-9 held the most pertinent discussion so far in the textbook. The history behind the Wik decision was all new to me and the critique of journalistic practice was insightful and really brought home how journalism is a cultural product.
Race relations highlight the importance of understanding your own subjectivity in journalism. It’s not the fact that journalists are subjective (In reality can anyone not be subjective), but the dangers in not acknowledging your subjectivity will always skew your ultimate aim for objectivity.
It also made me think about readership and the market of journalism. If journalism can dispel cultural prejudice and challenge accepted myths amongst its core readership than perhaps journalism can move from the realm of entertainment to the educational (I mean in a scientific way, not in a propaganda way), or at least have some of both.
Race relations highlight the importance of understanding your own subjectivity in journalism. It’s not the fact that journalists are subjective (In reality can anyone not be subjective), but the dangers in not acknowledging your subjectivity will always skew your ultimate aim for objectivity.
It also made me think about readership and the market of journalism. If journalism can dispel cultural prejudice and challenge accepted myths amongst its core readership than perhaps journalism can move from the realm of entertainment to the educational (I mean in a scientific way, not in a propaganda way), or at least have some of both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)