Week 9: Moral Minefields.

I should think that this is an important chapter since we’re almost reaching the end of our journey as students and literally leaping into the front yard of Mr. Ethics.

Readers are getting greedy.

After the retirement of Old Media, New Media has been working so hard to please us that our appetites for news have grown and changed tremendously.

Once a huge grey area reserved for ethical considerations of journalism, is now public domain due to the self-sacrificing, albeit nosy characteristics of new media tools. The public has grown so accustomed to the rhythm of sensational reports that they see only the manufactured glamour of “truth” and none of the real adversity of maintaining one’s “objectivity” and “privacy”.

For that reason, it weighed on the journalist to decide on what best serves the public interest, in the face of a volatile moral minefield.

Should journalists hold their ground and only write and publish “in the public interest” or should they submit to sensationalism by writing what’s “interesting to the public”?

The examples illustrated in Klara’s presentation were both intriguing and soul cringing.

Butt naked shots of actor Bosco Wong walking around in his home are causing a media privacy storm. Two Hong Kong weeklies published the sensational shots, claiming he was stoked up waiting for his actress girlfriend Myolie Wu  to “extinguish his passion.”

 500 miles away, a moral minefield just exploded.

To what extent do these pictures serve a public interest? Are naked celebrities a part of public domain now?

On a side note, is it even humanly possible for the photographers to obtain these pictures? Climbing trees and sneaking around the bushes are still part of reporters’ job, it seems.

Even as we sympathize with these celebrities, part of myself is controlling the urge to crack a smile of amusement at the ridiculousness of the situation.

It is no question that flexibility and agility (no pun intended) would be a great asset to journalism. But the spy-journalist’s style of news gathering sure raise quite a number of ethical questions.

Bibliography

Maydaily. 2011. Bosco Wong’s bottom line violated [Online]. Available at: http://www.maydaily.com/2011/06/17/bosco-wongs-bottom-line-violated/ [Accessed 20 July 2011].

Week 8: Truth and Objectivity.

This week’s theme centers around integrity, which advocates for the foundation of truth to stem from transparency, a condition that repulse all acts of secrecy and at times, hard to define.

In fact, the definition of objectivity and truth is often ambiguous and confused with the terms “balance” and “neutrality”. Chasing the truth might be journalists’ aim, but the means and actions to which truth is obtained, are not always objective.

Balance implies that journalists should give equal amount of coverage to both conflicting sides of a story, but this does not necessarily make the report objective. Similarly, neutrality is often put to the test when morality is considered as part of the function of journalism (Tumber & Webster 2006).

As Nivi mentioned in the seminar, journalists are tasked with the responsibility to provide fair, accurate and upbiased opinions in major events and situations. Truth, in this sense, becomes the ultimate aspiration for front-line correspondents to stay objective.

Billions of people are seeking truth for good reason. Since the dawn of the decade, it is increasingly plain that politicians are not saints. Above all, the WikiLeaks’ documents is a painful lesson on the need for truth behind the deceptions and actions of world governments.

As such, I do believe that integrity falls heavily on investigative reporting.

This is journalists’ cue to step in.

References

Kalderon, M.E. (1997) The Transparency of Truth. Mind. Vol. 106. July. UK: Oxford University Press.

Tumber, H. & Webster, F. 2006. Journalists under fire: information war and journalistic practices. UK: Sage Publications.

Week 7: Privacy, where do you get it?

In this digital era, the term “privacy” is a mix of contradictions between the need for seclusion and transparency.

With camera phones and the likes of new media tools entering mainstream, it is increasingly common for a stranger to encourage this voyeurism where privacy is thrown out of the window into a hypercritical environment where the world is now a stage, and we are all actors in a reality television show called life.

In particular, the practice of citizen journalism raises interesting privacy issues. Online video footage, photographs or even blog critics can feel extremely invasive of one’s privacy. Stomp is the perfect poster boy for this scenario.

Where should the line be drawn?

As brought up in the seminar, this underlying issue was exemplified in the way convicts and ex-convicts are treated by the media. Ethical decisions, on the part of journalists, must be made in two areas: the content and images used in the news stories and the way the content and research gathered (Bok 1980).

Article 8, the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”

Article 10, the Right to Freedom of Expression, states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

In truth, public figures, pertaining to those who regular sit on the tabloid magazine stands, are selling an image of themselves and getting paid for that. So, if that image is a false representation, surely it is in the public interest to reveal as such?

References

Bok, S. 1980. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. Quartet: London.

Hagerty, B. 2003. How do we balance privacy with freedom?. British Journalism Review. Vol. 14(1), pp. 3-6.

Week 6: We’re all a Twitter

Finally.

Vanessa and I took the stage this week for the topic on Journalism and its negotiation of online, the blogosphere and social media.

My focus for the seminar revolves around media sensationalism. Stories may differ across various media platforms and more importantly, the accessibility and speed of new media technologies have aid in conspiracy theorists and online pranksters’ need for a global audience.

As we rationalized this afternoon, news today have become a social and shared experience.

While most original reporting still comes from traditional journalists, technology makes it possible for citizens to influence a story’s total impact through various online platforms. Journalists are no longer the ones with the last word. Anyone, including that 16 year old kid across your street, can retweet a falsified rumor in a mere 2 seconds, long before the reporter can pick up his pen.

This phenomenon is witnessed in the news coverage of the speculations revolving the nuclear reactor meltdown issue in Japan.

Leading news media coverage of the nuclear crisis at Fukashima started with sensationalist flares, literally, as both CBS and CNN television networks gave updates on the status of the reactors with video images of a burning natural gas tank farm at the Chiba refinery in the background. As information was limited and the subject matter complicated, people used all manner of devices to educate their audience. Likewise, newspapers jump in the opportunity to generate more readership with dramatic headlines like “Melting Point” and “Are we safe?”.

It can thus be seen that as the Fukushima nuclear situation scale on the negative side, news organizations across the globe raced to explain what was happening. It makes one question if they are all talking about the same Japan.

Even so, it was noted that the stories and issues that gain attention in social media differs substantially from those that lead in the mainstream press. Apart from rearing in more perspectives, each social media platform seems to have its own personality and function.

Here’s an example of a widespread Facebook page that translated original accounts and heartfelt stories posted on Twitter by the people in Japan.

In essence, social media and blogs help document history. These stories help give hope to victims in the tragedy and for people to understand the situation from the eyes of those who are at the scene of the quake. The readers now feel a sense of connection to what’s happening outside the comforts of their homes as the voices evoke emotions and empathy for the victims as opposed to impassive and reserved accounts provided by news organizations.

As such, I feel that the “hey you’ve got to see this,” mentality rings strong across social media as user-generated content, in the form of real-time videos and images, goes beyond language barriers.

Bibliography

JapanProbe, (2011) Even After Level 7 Rating, Fukushima Is Not Another Chernobyl, April 13, retrieved 05 June 2011 via http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/04/13/even-after-level-7-rating-fukushima-is-not-another-chernobyl/

Matsumura, A. (2011) Japan criticizes foreign media’s Fukushima coverage, April 09, retrieved 04 June 2011 via http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201104080171.html

PewResearch (2010) “How Blogs and Social Media Agendas Relate and Differ from Traditional Press”, New Media, Old Media, May 23, retrieved 04 June 2011 via http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1602/new-media-review-differences-from-traditional-press

Spiegelhalter, D. (2011) Japan nuclear threat: The tsunami is the bigger tragedy, 21 March, retrieved 04 June 2011 via http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12785274

Yurman, D. (2011) Social Media, Old Media and Fukushima, March 23, retrieved 04 June 2011 via http://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/54183/news-media-and-fukushima

Zook, C. (2011) Journalists: Please don’t sensationalize, The Daily Collegian, April 14, retrieved 04 June 2011 via http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2011/04/14/journalists_please_dont_sensationalize.aspx

Week 5: Globalization Vs. Localization

On the surface, our world seems to be reaping the fruits of globalization. However, this worldwide trend also questions the collective interest of local communities to accommodate to their specific culture and preference. Should journalists standardized to a universal set of rules or adapt to each his own?

As Huda brought up in her presentation, the rise of technology has indeed allowed for a global audience. With transnational companies such as TimeWarner, Disney, NBC and News Corp acting as front liners in the field, media operators and owners in the industry are setting the news agenda. Commercial interest is now of utmost priority. Even so, a glaringly flawed issue remains neglected: does a diversity of ownership and of source really guarantee a diversity of opinion?

For instance, the United States fervently enforces diversity in media ownership because it minimises the risk of citizens receiving information and news that are adversely influenced by the interests of large media organizations. In fact, media organisations are more than corporations with relationships with customers and obligations to shareholders. They are organizations with influence over issues of democracy.

With the rise of new media technologies, it can thus be argued that the variety of news sources would break the concentration of ownership in traditional publications. Even so, I feel that this would not substantially change the media landscape in Singapore since, the majority of Singaporeans who are social networking regulars, still access their news from the same media organizations such as The Straits Times, Channel News Asia and Stomp. Of which, each news corporation has a different focus, be it heartland news or an extensive coverage of international news.

As noted earlier, a diversity of ownership does not guarantee diversity of opinion so much as having a limited pool of voices do not necessarily speak with the same voice. These arguments substantiate that behind every news story, there is bound to be editorial interference. As such, the best way to yield an accurate stand of an issue is to gather different sides of the same story from a variety of news sources. A broader range of perspectives is more likely to eliminate biasedness.

Week 4: Online Citizenship

Iran Mobile Citizen

This week’s readings attempt to bring the word, “Public” back into Journalism.

The changing dynamics of New Media have nurtured a new generation of digital citizens who are seemingly more intellectual and engaged, both on a community and national scale.

We, as social citizens of our generation, have risen to greater positions of influence.

In his book, Duval had described social media citizens “not as a generation that just texts and tweets, but as one that has an incredible potential for “applying lessons from the world of Web 2.0 to the global challenges that now demand solving” (Lum, A., 2010). Leeching on the core principles of online transparency, the participatory culture and engagement on such websites inevitably helps to enact large-scale social change.

The digital revolution in Egypt resounded this point loud and clear.

Armed with only their passion and mobile phones, the youth activists conjured shared identities by contributing real-time updates, pictures and videos to both local and world communities. The unrestrained access and power of digital media tools further amplifies the objective of citizen journalism: to be heard.

In fact, the documentation of tweets, videos and photos from Egypt’s revolution had unconsciously turn social citizens into witnesses of political history.

As the chapter illustrated, citizen journalism is not a replacement of traditional media. As it happens, these first-hand accounts of ground-breaking events venture along the lines of “participatory” and “voluntary” journalism. They are amateurs, like you and I, who just “happened to be at the right place at the right time” (Quinn, S. & Lamble, S., 2007, p. 43).

References

Lum, A. (2010) “How can Millennials form the next generation of democracy?”, Civil Engagement, 10 November, retrieved 26 May 2011 via http://www.socialcitizens.org/category/social-citizen-terms/civic-engagement

Quinn, S. & Lamble, S. (2007) “Citizen Journalism and Audience-Generated Content”, Online Newsgathering; Research and Reporting for Journalism, Chapter 4, pp. 43-57.

Week 3: The Future of Journalism

The topic for debate this week revolves around modern journalism.

Are we pushing and inadvertently shaping public opinion as opposed to factual reporting?

In the past, the press and media professionals have been esteemed as gatekeepers of the public; these public conversations however, are bordering along the facets of story-telling in this era of new age technology.

As brought up in the text, “The membrane separating journalism and the novel and short story, fact and fiction, has been pierced, and these forms and many others flow into one another” (Carey, J., 1997, p. 329).

In contemporary journalism, photos and digitatized footages allow viewers to indulge in the raw emotions and aesthetic value of real-time events.

“…slow motion turns death into spectacle by magnifying every movement and ampli- fying every second of the act of dying: the slight jerk of the body, the cigarette falling out, the gentle sliding down the pole” (Chouliaraki, L., 2009, p. 524).

The tragedic footages of the recent tsunami in Japan have evoked the natural sentiment of emphathy among viewers. We were invited to feel and be virtually present at the scene, without overexposing ourselves to the horror of the situation.

As such, the line between professional communicators, the likes of reporters, artists and public relations practitioners, and sensational forms of writing has been erased.

New Media, a term which probably charted 2010’s “Word of the Year”, has brought forth so much change in the field of journalism that reporters and public relations professionals are adjusting their best finds and breaking news into 140 characters and less.

We, as foster children of generations X, Y and Zs, have re-create an era where journalists’ news values are inclined towards conversations with ordinary people, rather than butt-numbing news agendas from press conferences.

While it may seem heartening that ordinary people, like us, are given the chance to shine on online platforms (in persuasive Times New Roman, no less), it undeniably also present questionable issues regarding trust.

Phillip Pullman said it best, “There’s a hunger for stories in all of us, adults too. We need stories so much that we’re even willing to read bad books to get them, if the good books won’t supply them.”

This hunger for stories is readily supplied by the emergence of public and citizen journalism. But has it also fractured the building blocks of traditional journalism?

In essence, Chapter 11 effectively construed the art of journalism. Readers are often regularly serve with a helping of contradictory articles by journalists, who conveniently arrive at different conclusions based on rivaling, albeit relevant sources.

The key word is relevance.

Who are we to judge an absolute value and worth of “truth”?

We are often influenced by particular ideas and assumptions pitched by our surroundings. So much so that these stories reflect our values and idelogies.

Hence, Anderson’s concept of the nation as “an imagined community” rings truer than ever.

“It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (Anderson, B., 1984, p.15).

References

Anderson, B. (1984) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, pp. 5-7, retrieved 22 May 2011 via http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/anderson.htm.

Carey, J. (1997) The communications revolution and the porfessional communicator. In E. S. Muunson & C. A. Warren (Eds.), pp. 128-143, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Chouliaraki, L. (2009) Journalism and the visual politics of war and conflict. In: Allan, Stuart, (ed.) Routledge companion to news and journalism, pp. 520-533, Routledge, UK.