Blogging vs Journalism

The Information age has brought with it both advantages and disadvantages. Many critics believe that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages in terms of the stress created by the sheer volume of information, much of which cannot be verified. However, there are also marked advantages for the world and time in which we live today. One phenomenon that is for example changing the face of journalism is known as citizen journalism in the form of online media outlets.

Increasingly, both professionals and amateurs in any field can use the Internet as an outlet for their products and ideas. This has resulted in a remarkable change in journalism, which spurred the debate over whether blogging can truly be seen on the same level as professional journalism. Even the debate is changing, as it is becoming clear that the Internet is increasingly integrated in all areas of life. Instead of debating the merits of journalism vs. blogging, researchers are now considering the integration between the two forms of news outlet, and their influence upon each other. This is a good thing, according to writers such as Jay Rosen.

One important factor that Rosen points out is that online journalism in the form of blogging, which is open to all citizens and all professionals, is also free from the ethical obligations of traditional journalism. This means that the traditional press was often subject to manipulation by powerful interest parties, which by definition made reporting inaccurate. Hence citizens were beginning to substantially lose their trust in the press. According to Rosen, this trust is to be reestablished by citizen journalism, not least because it is a much more interactive phenomenon than the traditional press. Online journalists can build their reputation by means of networking with their colleagues and their readership. As such, the value as well as validity of blogging is established by its readership. Most importantly, this also influences the way in which traditional journalism will operate in the future if it is to remain competitive.

The Importance of Ombudsmen

In addition to having a comprehensive (and enforceable) code of ethics and strong institutional knowledge and oversight, major media outlets benefit tremendously by having an Ombudsman. This person is charged with being a sort of spokesman/reporter for the reader. I wind up reading those for the New York Times and ESPN more than anyone else, but I am sure there are numerous other engaging ones.

Clark Hoyt of the Times is excellent at what he does. But Gawker Media wonders is he isn't getting a little soft in light of the newspaper's continued financial struggles. There's a lot of inside baseball contained therein, but basically they are contending that he was too soft on some major ethical breaches and too hard on ultimately inconsequential ones. And, the argument goes, he let a star columnist (Maureen Dowd) off easy, which is suspect.

While I agree with some of the minutia, for the most part I'm not buying Gawker's argument. First of all, for me it is not an Ombudsman's job to be a constant source of criticism and a thorn in the paper's side. He or she should be that, but they should also be a champion and cheerleader of great reportage. They should never be an apologist, but at the same time they should write with an understanding of the challenges journalists face -- now more than ever. Most importantly, an Ombudsman should be independent. That means they need not backhand slap every minor transgretion or always take the side of the critics. Not every mistake need result in a crisis of confidence. At the same time, Gawker is providing one more layer of oversight and analysis -- this time of the oversee and analyst -- and that's never a bad thing.

The chasm between

Excessive exposure on things like the affairs of Tiger Woods are completely over the top and not at all in sync with what is on the minds of citizens. Gossip is gossip and people chat about it as conversation filler - it moves us off the weather and the weekend stories.

But it's not real and the impact to our life is zero.

There is a tremendous chasm between information being provided by the media and what is on Mr. Citizen's mind.

The media does very well in coming together in times of strife. Reporting on large events gives a sense of purpose that is often absent in the day to day reporting of issues.

We need journalists that go after the daily issues of our society. Farming, education, and housing are just a few of the issues that get short shrift while party crashers and celebrity affairs are the main staple.

Dumbing down has became popular. It's like watching your child not achieve their full potential because they are lazy. You want to shake them because you know they can do better and you look forward to them realizing that and putting forth a better effort.

Innacuracy is a Concern even in Weather Reporting!

It is amazing how negligence  day-to -day reporting affects readers. The readers depend on and trust their favorite news media to give them accurate information even when it comes to weather. One may wonder, why should that be a big concern that the weather forecast in a given newspaper is accurate? Afterall, there are alot of other weather report options that can be refered to for  better weather report information and comparison.   In this New York Times article, (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/complaint-box-weather-forecasts/?scp=2&sq=NYT%20accuracy%20and%20credibility&st=cse ) a concerned reader is not bothered by the forecast being a forecast, but he is bothered by the fact that unlike in the past when weather reporters were referred to as forecasters, today they are referred to as meteologists which raises his expectations of their expertise. He also critique's the diction used in these weather reports and argues that some words and terms are increasingly being misused leading to misleading interpretation of the weather updates.

Accuracy or innacuracy in one section of a newspaper could affect the credibility of the entire newspaper. Hence, the importance of verification of data and diction before publishing even the "taken for granted" sections of the paper like the weather report.

Undercover work and "citizen journalists"

We all know the story by now. The pimp and the prostitute infiltrate ACORN and expose their shady practices, becoming heroes to the Right in the process. To some, they are doing the Lord's work; to others they are crossing a line and setting dangerous precedent when they call themselves journalists.

(Let it be known, first and foremost, that I think James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have essentially put one over on people. No one in their right mind would ever believe that O'Keefe's fur coat was anything but a costume. My firm belief is that the ACORN employees caught on tape, corrupt as they may be, did not believe the premise for a second. But that's not the point of this post.)

Traditional journalism has long frowned upon undercover work that relies on deception and misrepresentation. It's OK to get into the nitty gritty; it's not OK to lie about it. Even local TV news, hardly a bastion of ethical cleanliness, generally relied on hidden cameras but not outright deception in its "investigative" reports.

What O'Keefe and Giles did was very different. As Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute points out in this Politico article, "It can be very problematic if your first value as a reporter is to tell the truth, and the first thing you do is deceive. It’s very hard for the public to figure out when to trust you.”

O'Keefe, who is 25 and actually thinks he played a convincing pimp, begs to differ. He likens their work to the entrapment party "How to Catch a Predator," and I think that's a reasonable comparison. It's good entertainment. It's arguably important work. But it ain't journalism. Any story you have to lie to get is a story of dubious value.

The Less, the Better

One of the possible ways to improve journalism is to reduce the number of news organizations and collect the limited resources to produce better news.

The lack of resources is one of the main reasons for poor quality journalism. Seeking profit makes the owners of the news media cut cost; cutting cost makes the news organization become under-funded and under-staffed. Many news organizations can not afford to hire good journalists; journalists are busily working on using quick and easy stories to fill the newspaper space or TV airtime, instead of producing high quality news. Some newspapers publish stories without any editor even reading them in entirety. If the situation continues, the news media will further lose their respect and attraction for the public.

A possible solution is to reduce the number of news organizations, especially the small and local newspapers and TV stations, and concentrate the financial and staff resources to do better journalism. So many TV stations and newspapers report the same events and interview the same persons again and again. It is very common to see several local stations repeat the same traffic accident in their evening news. The low quality of news and the repeatability not only waste audiences’ time but also waste the society’s resources at large. Yes, we need more than one news organization in a certain region, so the media can compete with each other. But generally speaking, for a medium size city, two or three news organizations are sufficient. Theoretically, if ten small news organizations were consolidated into two organizations, each of them would have five times more money and staffers to work on the same amount of newspaper space or TV airtime. We can expect that, under that circumstance, the quality of report would be greatly improved. I hope that the media completion or a new model of news business can help merge the low quality small organizations into relatively big and better media.

FTC rule and blogs

The FTC's new rule on blogger disclosure of gifts unfairly targets bloggers, and is impossible to enforce uniformly.

If bloggers are going to be required to put readers on notice of every gift that makes it on to their sites, why not newspaper and magazine writers? Beauty and fashion writers squeal (double entendre?) through their pages about the stacks of samples their offices receive. We readers can only assume that these gifts are from which the lists of "Must Haves," "Must Buys," "Hot Trends," and "Editor's Picks" are plucked. In fact, I can't remember the last time a publication that derives revenue from advertiser content told me not to buy something. By comparison, a blogger's endorsement of a kitchen mixer is chump change.

Until the FTC puts the onus on the givers such gifts to document and report, the new regulation will not be evenly enforced. The sheer abundance of blogs versus the limited regulatory resources, and the ease of ignoring the rule, as well as plain old lying, are ingredients for the kind of spotty enforcement. A low risk of being caught means that bloggers will take their chances on a relatively higher reward, and apathy toward regulation will follow. For the music blogger in the Globe's article, it already has. If the gift-givers were instead required to report the goodies to the IRS, the incentive of a tax deduction would go further to ensure compliance.

Another note:
The class' discussion of the regulation's constitutionality didn't touch on the Supreme Court's treatment of commercial speech, but I think this aspect is worth mention. I would think that, while dependent upon how "commercial" a compensated blogger's message about a product turned out to be, the Court's position on commercial speech would uphold the regulation. The Court has held that otherwise educational messages are not automatically transformed to commercial ones simply because the speaker is economically motivated. However, if a blog could be shown to essentially be a commercial for a gift product, I think the Court would agree that the government has a substantial interest in regulating that type of a commercial speech, and that the rule was not overly broad.

Mountains or Molehills?

There exists a terrific graphic illustration of the global media scares during the past decade, called Mountains Out of Molehills. I originally saw this graphic a couple of months ago, so I don't know updated the H1N1 flu numbers are, but you can see from the image the relative number of stories about the swine flu as well as other media scares (such as avian flu, Y2k, SARS, etc.) in addition to the number of reported deaths related to each scare. All of this information is plotted along a timeline from 2000 to 2009, and the graphic elicits quite an impact on the viewer.

While it's impossible to verify some of the numbers used here, this image got me thinking: should we hold the media to be ethically responsible for some of these public scares? After all, they are the ones who publish these stories time and time again, keeping these topics in the public consciousness. How could any of us NOT be paranoid about the H1N1 virus lately when it is constantly in the news? I find it difficult to ascertain just how worried I should be, if the flu warnings are legit or if they have been blown completely out of proportion.

I think the media is at least partly responsible. I don't think it's fair to lay the whole thing on journalists, because this kind of information originates from scientists, doctors, and other public health officials. But the preponderance of not just unbiased information but fear-based warnings surely warrant some journalistic blame. Stories about H1N1 and the like feed off of each other; the media preys on the worrying public to devour any new information they have to offer. This stuff sells papers, or garners website hits, so it keeps getting published.

The Tiger Woods Drama

When I first read about Tiger Woods’ auto accident I really didn't think much of it. Like most I just thought it was a minor car crash and that's that. However the story continued to unfold and went from a simple car accident to a major scandal involving adultery. As I write this post the number of women Woods has been linked to is up to six.
Woods's original message on his website mentioned the crash and that any publication that his wife abused him was false and malicious. Fair enough I thought. More importantly he insisted it was a private matter and in the beginning. I agreed 100%. Then as the story continued to unfold I quickly changed my mind on the matter. I have great respect for Tiger Woods as a golfer and as a philanthropist. He has incredible work ethic and has done great things for charity. He has also been looked upon as a role model for many and a deity for what is great about golf itself as a sport. In other words many fans believe golfers are moral upstanding people who don't get into trouble like other professional athletes. That is what bothers me, and I believe many other fans of Tiger Woods.

Woods has made hundreds of millions of dollars in endorsement money not only for his golfing skills, but for his picture-perfect image as a moral dedicated family man. The fact that Woods has made so much money on his image I believe is why there are so many people displeased with his actions. It is also why his wall of privacy has imploded. Loyal fans that have purchased products from his endorser's are feeling cheated themselves along with his spouse. Woods has tarnished the image of golf and what it represents. It’s popularity has been dented and quite possibly irreparably damaged from this incident. Unfortunately for those fans this scandal could quite possibly make Woods more popular and watched by people than ever before.

Examiners

Real journalists objectively report stories of interest, and are not paid by the "click".  But examiner.com  pays its reporters, called "Examiners", one cent  for every unique page view.

The examiner.com derives from a newspaper, The San Francisco Examiner.  The Denver-based company has actively recruited many writers through viral networking by paying referral fees.

If a newspaper paid reporters based on advertising revenue generated by their stories,  would mainstream journalists cry foul?

Paying writers more if they trump-up facts proposes more ethical dilemmas. 


http://www.writersweekly.com/the_latest_from_angelahoycom/005364_05132009.html
 

A Death In Tehran

I watched a Frontline episode that showed a video of a woman protester being shot in the back. Her name was Neda Agha Soltan.

During the July 2009 presidential elections state media announced an early result of the election in Ahmadinejad’s favor. Later the media confirmed that Ahmadinejad did win the election by a record breaking 63% margin. This election result caused many of Iran’s citizens to take to the streets in protest.

Immediately government riot police on motorcycles tried to take back the streets by the use of violence. All the while people using camera phones recorded the events as they took place. Frontline commented that this was a new form of resistance used by the protesters. A new way of immediately showing the world what was happening to the Iranian citizens and how they were being treated by their government.

Neta was part of the protesters and understood the dangers of taking to the streets but decided to join the crowds. As she walked with her music teacher she was shot in the back by a member of the Bisiji, a private so-called “paramilitary” hired by the Iranian government to suppress protesters. While she lay bleeding it was all captured on a camera phone and ultimately uploaded to the Internet. The first news agency to show the clip was CNN. CNN showed the clip while blocking out Neta’s face in order to show her respect. However Frontlines episode showed the same clip without blocking out her face.

The clip showing this woman dying in the street was difficult to watch however it was released with good justification. Showing her face was significant because it seemed as if she was looking at the person filming and saying to them “keep filming don't stop”. In other words in a way it seemed as if she knew that she was a martyr. Neta was a part of a major demonstration and she was a willing participant of the uprising. Neta knew that the supreme leader of Iran essentially gave the green light to the Bisiji members to open fire on citizens participating in protests.

Frontline says this was the most-watched video making it outside of Iran. The power of the video shows how Iran could not hide or spin this particular incident. Its power was so overwhelming that it shows in a brief instant the type of suppression the people of Iran must live with.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/deathintehran/view/

The sorry state of medical news reporting

While we often give great attention to the way journalists report about politics and major issues of the day, there is a topic that often seems to fly under the radar - health & medical news. I'm referring to the many stories about possible new cures or treatments for various bodily ailments such as cancer, back pain, or heart disease. Frequent watchers of the network morning news shows, like "Today" or "Good Morning America" would probably notice that at least once a week, they will discuss a supposed miracle cure, promising new pill, or apparent breakthrough medical treatment.

I've often sensed that the quality and tone of these stories leaves a lot to be desired. The network morning shows, and often major newspapers also, run stories that seem to promise sudden alleviation of suffering through a wonder-drug or surgical procedure. While it's understandable to want to give hope to people dealing with chronic pain or serious disease, more often than not, the reported story over-emphasizes the apparent benefits of the new treatment and underplays the real risks, costs, and uncertainty about efficacy.

A recent segment in NPR's "On The Media" looked at this issue and discussed the rather shoddy state of medical reporting (at this link). They spoke with a journalism professor at the University of Minnesota who has been tracking and evaluating health/medical stories for several years, rating them on how well they meet some basic criteria for reliable reporting. This professor, Gary Schwitzer, publishes a website that is very worth reading - HealthNewsReview.org and writes a related blog that analyzes the quality of medical stories from several major news outlets. Giving each story a rating (1-5 stars), his reviews give a long-term average rating of roughly 2 stars, essentially considering the state of medical journalism as generally disappointing (roughly equivalent to C-minus for a school grade).

While the "ethics" of this situation are not obvious, it seems to me that it's another instance where the American news media is letting us down through their bad habits and loose standards. Rather than giving accurate and objective analysis of new medical findings and treatment options, they pander to our fears and hopes by suggesting great promise where little is warranted. It's especially disconcerting because of the importance of our being well-informed citizens during the health-care overhaul debate currently raging.

It is easier to claim not having received free stuff than to disclose having received them

It may be more practical for FTC to encourage bloggers to claim not having received free products or payment instead of asking them to disclose having received free things.

FTC’s new disclosure rule tries to educate and protect consumers. It requires bloggers who endorse certain merchandise or services to disclose when they receive free product or payment from the related company. But the rule is difficult to implement because it is impossible to oversee millions of bloggers. FTC also faces possible lawsuits, as Professor Ryan mentioned in class. Since the First Amendment protects individuals’ freedom of speech, FTC may be challenged by whether or not it can force bloggers to make the disclosure.

A possible solution is to do the opposite. Instead of asking bloggers to disclose when they have received free product and/or financial payment, FTC should encourage bloggers who are not sponsored or paid by anyone to claim they are independent. The latter approach, I called “the positive approach”, has several advantages:

First, it is almost always easier for people to announce the things they feel proud of rather than to disclose the things they don’t feel proud of. The best ethical rules are the ones which approach the positive side of human nature.

Second, in making the “positive approach”, the FTC can avoid possible lawsuits relating to freedom of speech.

Lastly, when bloggers state that they are not sponsored by any corporations or advertisers, it reminds naïve readers like me that other bloggers who do not make similar claims may be endorsed by their sponsors. Regardless, it is still possible to believe a blogger’s reviews or recommendations even though we know he/she receives free things from the related companies. For example, even though I am aware that Oprah Winfrey may receive free product samples from many companies, I still trust her judgment and objectivity when she recommends “Oprah’s favorite things” in her show, magazine and website. However, generally speaking, readers will be more skeptical when they know that a blogger has received free product and/or payment from the related company.

In what ever form the newspaper is way ahead of the alternatives

I decided to take this past week and change the way I got my information on the world around me. I only read newspapers both in their original form and online.

I did not listen to the radio on the way to work, watch television news or opinion shows at any point, follow blog accounts and, of course, there was not one moment of "social networking". I choose my national paper the Globe and Mail, an American paper The New York Times, and three other papers from different countries depending on my mood.

http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/

From different world news organizations, I followed four main news items to get a benchmark. Two were political. The trip of my Prime Minister to Asia and President Obama's Afghan strategy. The other two were new reports of the (un)employment numbers in all countries and climate issues relating to the upcoming Copenhagen summit.

Here are some of my observations.

It was quieter. No one was grand standing on the TV in loud tones to try to show that their opinion was better. I didn't wade through blogs where the writers rely on ALL CAPS to emphasize their point nor did I waste my time on sarcastic opinions of someone I don't know.

Marshall McLuhan was accurate. "The medium is the message."

The news was laid out in a way that the editor of the particular paper felt reflected the urgency of story. When you read accounts of the stories, different countries took angels that were missed when you limited yourself to one location.

Reading only newspapers also reduced words that have value judgements affixed to them. Certainly not all, but most articles were written without the hot button and teaser syndrome that so plagues the television media. It's a layer of human drama that isn't real yet it is added to the story as if it were.

I understand the instant gratification scenario. The sound bite or 140 character "tweet" has filled that desire to a T. But is it really gratifying to waste time and thought on a story when the information is in its infancy and is partial truth and/or innuendo?

I have no problem paying for online newspaper services when that day comes to pass. It was a great exercise and I highly recommend it.

Tech Blogosphere Strike Again

I have had my to do's with tech blogs and the bloggers that support them. It seems that in a world of one million and one blogs there is an ever increasing pressure to garner attention by breaking a big story at any cost. With the latest launch of a new microsoft product there was much to do about this black screen death sentence that was a factory defect. It seems that Prevx posted in a blog that there was a "big" problem with this black screen phenomena and put out the buyer beware. Prevx has since come out and claimed that maybe some information was "taken out of context" in there blog and claim to have apologized to microsoft. This is just another example where basic fact checking and diligent journalism would have prevented a stain on Prevx's reputation. There has has has to be a push for more clarity and ethics in these blogs.

http://www.tgdaily.com/software-features/44918-black-screen-of-death-outfit-slammed-by-users

Tiger Woods and Media Ethics

Are we now living in a world where big stories will more often than not be misreported by media outlets before being corrected? That's the contention of Eric Deggans of the National Sports Journalism Center, and there are several ethics matters to consider that relate to issues we've discussed all semester.

First is Deggans' feeling that the story "feels like a bit of a turning point; the moment when we accept that today’s sped-up, always-on media environment virtually guarantees that controversial, confusing stories like Woods’ car accident will be misreported in the early hours and corrected as time goes on."

I am hopeful that this won't always be the case, but it certainly seems to be the way things are going. One version of a story breaks, more facts come out, some of which contradict the early version, the story is revised and so forth. It's hard to know who this serves. Certainly not the players in the story. Not the reader, apart from perhaps titillating them. And ultimately not most media outlets themselves, aside from perhaps getting some web hits and being able to say they were on top of it.

I say most because clearly outfits like TMZ exist solely for this purpose. And that's the second question. Should national outlets like USA Today and The New York Times even be trying to compete with the Enquirer on stories like this? This one is a little more complicated because the initial reports implied Woods had been seriously hurt. But if we knew from the jump this was ultimately about an affair and a woman scorned, is that something really worth the attention of the Gray Lady? Conversely, I suppose, with gossip the only thing you can sell nowadays, can they afford to ignore it?

The whole thing seems like such a strange exercise. Yet, I'm not sure how it's to be avoided entirely. A story breaks. People are Twittering. How long can your paper wait to publish what it knows, even if all it knows amounts to little more than rumor? It depends on the nature of the publication of course, but even for the so-called Mainstream Media generally, it's hard to ignore the early rumblings entirely, wrongheaded though they may be. But the question of who that policy ultimately serves remains.

The newest media crashers

White House Crashers or not, the Salahis have certainly made their appearance known in the media during the past week. I hate to draw even more attention to them, but why are these folks getting interviews? And why are the media outlets lobbing them softballs?

The couple was on the Today Show this morning, and Matt Lauer pointedly asked who invited them, and they tap-danced around their answer. I didn't see the show, but read the NYT article, and this line of questioning doesn't appear to go much further.

Shouldn't it be fairly easy to determine if a couple was invited to the White House? This is getting drawn out to balloon-boy proportions, and I am frustrated to see more reality show hopefuls provoke the media into dragging the public's attention away from more important stories.

What Happens When the Truth Becomes Privatized

This week we are confronted with the frightening prospect that Comcast may take ownership of NBC. Of course, such events do not occur instantaneously, but the fact that this deal is in the works should alarm anybody who cares about diversity and the value of news as a public good. In less than three decades, we have seen media ownership consolidate from fifty corporations down to about six. One of those six is Comcast and it is truly gargantuan. We have grown complacent in America as we have watched our major industries transform into oligopolies. Even the most aggressive application of anti-trust laws seems to yield disappointing results. When I think about the breaking up of the Bell System (that used to be the phone company for all you youngsters out there), I am reminded of a scene in the movie, Terminator II, when the newer terminator is frozen with liquid nitrogen and shatters into tiny fragments only to reconverge back into its original condition. AT&T represents the corporate version of that phenomenon. More and more, our vital systems are falling into the hands of conglomerates so big that their failure, whether it's financial or fiduciary, would have catastrophic consequences.

My main interest here is the fiduciary part. As a society, we are dependent on news organizations to provide us with the information we need to exercise our responsibilities as free citizens. We have to be able to trust them. In recent years, we have seen a shift in priorities from providing information towards providing entertainment. If this trend continues, and there is little reason to expect it will not, our legacy media sources will not be able to perform their fiduciary responsibilities, at least not to the consumers. In fact, the consumers will cease to be consumers and instead will become product to be sold to advertisers. If you think the internet will come to the rescue, think again. Comcast is a major provider of internet service. With the acquisition of NBC, they will have additional muscle with which to fight against net neutrality. Some might recall that Comcast ran afoul of the FCC back in 2008 when they tried to block file sharing.

The world we live in today is a complicated one in which events happen very quickly. Globalization has created a set of conditions that require us to care about what is happening in the most remote places. That means that we need news which provides us with quality context and analysis. How can we control our own destiny if we are merely products?

It seems that every time there is a major development in technology, there is a process of corporate growth that results in a condition in which the harm that large enterprises cause out weigh the goods they provide. The Reform Era addressed the excesses of the industrial revolution. One hundred years later, we need to come to terms with the information age.