One excellent source of interactive online journalism is the Star Tribune's coverage of the I-35W bridge collapse on August 1st, 2007 in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota. Almost 200 people were on the bridge when it collapsed, 13 of them died. I watched the news reports when it happened but was not aware of this website until recently. The interactive web page does a fine job of telling the stories of the many people whose lives were forever changed that day by a very traumatic experience.
link: http://www.startribune.com/local/12166286.html
The first page of the website strings together audio, video, and photos to create a moving scene as an introduction to what follows. Then the site opens up to an interactive aerial photo of the bridge which has a circled number for each vehicle that was on the bridge when it collapsed. When you click on the circles the screen to the right shows information regarding the person or persons who were on the bridge that day.
Through text, photos, a photo gallery, or video there is a short narrative of what happened to the survivor, or the deceased. Some of the narratives only include text, some text and a photo; others add a photo gallery and the best ones have a video. In the video the person describes the events of the day and how it has affected their life. One particularly moving video is of a woman who lost her husband that day. In some cases the journalists have no information, so they request for anyone who has information to contact them. And some of the circles are in yellow, meaning the information has been updated. In this way the website becomes an ongoing story that may help people to not forget.
As a whole, I thought the website was an excellent tribute to the people who were part of such a traumatic experience. The interactive feature made it interesting as I scrolled through and discovered the thoughts, feelings and descriptions, from a personal perspective, of what happened that day. It would have been nice to have had even more information, but what was done was concise and respectful, a moving experience.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Going Mobile
The following is an overview and critique of Chapter 5 of the book Journalism Next by Mark Briggs:
Briggs states that mobile phones are like a swiss army knife that is changing the way journalism is done. They can take photos, video, audio, text, and connect to the internet. They can receive, display and publish all of these various forms of media. The best part is they fit in your pocket. There's no need for a journalist to carry around a laptop, video camera or digital still camera. Reporter don't have to wait for a photographer or camera crew to arrive on a newsworthy scene.
Briggs points out how mobile journalists can write and update constantly from the field. They can take and transmit videos directly to their audience. They can report any medium, from anywhere, at any time.
However, there could be come potential drawbacks. More and more major news stories are reported by citizen (amateurs) who are on the scene by coincidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing. A bad example of this would be the recent incident where the NFL Dallas Cowboy's owner Jerry Jones was recently caught on video, probably having had too much to drink, with foul language criticizing Bill Parcells and Tim Tebow. The grainy cell phone video appeared online. Though Jone's comments were ill-advised, should just anyone have the right to secretly record another person with their cell phone and publish it online?
According to Briggs, true journalists should change their tactics (by utilizing the new equipment available to mobile journalists) without lowering their standards.
The only potential criticism I see with mobile journalism is the focus seems to be on speed rather than quality. The motivation seems to be how quickly can I get my content online rather than ensuring the quality of the product being placed online. Cell phone videos and photo do not have the quality of digital cameras or video cameras. But, they do enable journalists to post their media much faster. This emphasis on speed could undermine true journalism, in my opinion.
Briggs states that mobile phones are like a swiss army knife that is changing the way journalism is done. They can take photos, video, audio, text, and connect to the internet. They can receive, display and publish all of these various forms of media. The best part is they fit in your pocket. There's no need for a journalist to carry around a laptop, video camera or digital still camera. Reporter don't have to wait for a photographer or camera crew to arrive on a newsworthy scene.
Briggs points out how mobile journalists can write and update constantly from the field. They can take and transmit videos directly to their audience. They can report any medium, from anywhere, at any time.
However, there could be come potential drawbacks. More and more major news stories are reported by citizen (amateurs) who are on the scene by coincidence. That's not necessarily a bad thing. A bad example of this would be the recent incident where the NFL Dallas Cowboy's owner Jerry Jones was recently caught on video, probably having had too much to drink, with foul language criticizing Bill Parcells and Tim Tebow. The grainy cell phone video appeared online. Though Jone's comments were ill-advised, should just anyone have the right to secretly record another person with their cell phone and publish it online?
According to Briggs, true journalists should change their tactics (by utilizing the new equipment available to mobile journalists) without lowering their standards.
The only potential criticism I see with mobile journalism is the focus seems to be on speed rather than quality. The motivation seems to be how quickly can I get my content online rather than ensuring the quality of the product being placed online. Cell phone videos and photo do not have the quality of digital cameras or video cameras. But, they do enable journalists to post their media much faster. This emphasis on speed could undermine true journalism, in my opinion.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Last Decade: How Technology has Changed Journalism
A Ten-year retrospective: Canada and the United States in the age of digital journalism
Article by Ross Perigoe. Concordia University Canada
Summary/Comments by Jon Greig, University of North Texas Student
In his article, Ross Perigoe reviews the elements that have changed journalism in the last decade. Interestingly, he points out that what constitutes news has NOT changed. What has changed is the elements of how news is delivered to audiences.
Among these elements, Perigoe notes, are 1) the development of competing news 2) the availability of visuals from amateur journalists armed with videophones and camcorders 3) reliance on many different types of information platforms on the internet.
Among these changing elements has emerged the “backpack journalist”. Their ammunition is a camcorder, laptop computer, and a satellite phone. They are “free to travel the world, looking for stories to tell.” However, the material they create news organizations have no obligation to air.
Another element of change, obviously, is the internet. Perigoe points out how people are bombarded daily with blogs, Flickr, wikis, Facebook, podcasts, vidcasts, RSS, Twitter, iPhones, Skype, Digg, blog rolls, avatars, VoIP, YouTube, etc. Only a few of these present “pure” journalism.
Of the new on-line elements, Perigoe says the podcast is the most important, simply because it allows consumers to download and consume material whenever they want to. This points to one of the most significant developments over the last decade: “The Consumer assumes greater control of the subject matter to be consumed”
Perigoe points out how news corporations have purchased competing types of media, and experimented with developing synergies. However, though advertising sales forces have been successfully combined, news coverage has not. The reason for the lack of success is based on a false assumption that every labor-saving tool allows for greater leisure time and greater productivity from journalists. Perigoe says the false assumption led to false expectations that are a “recipe for nervous breakdowns” for journalists.
Perigoe also notes, in pointing to the Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal and Bush’s “War on Terror”, that in the last decade investigative journalism has practically disappeared. He also notes how technology has also impacted how journalists cover elections.
And finally, changing technologies have also changed the realm of journalism education. Perigoe lists a number of ways in which journalism education has been challenged:
1. Students prefer to consume their news from screens (computer screens, iPhone screens, etc.)
2. Students are not loyal to one source of format
3. Journalism departments struggle to keep up with both the technology and adaptability of students
4. Is it realistic to expect students to be competent to function as text, audio and visual producers?
5. Students “rip” music, “burn” CD’s, “sample” music, take as fact stories they hear as rumors on e-mail or blogs, but are not expected to “sample” available term papers and must have 2 corroborative sources to write stories for courses
Needless to say, the last decade has made for challenging times for the world of journalism.
Link to Perigoe Article
“‘Comment is Free, but Facts Are Sacred’: User-generated Content and Ethical Constructs at the Guardian”
Article by Singer and Ashman
Summary by Jon Greig
Singer & Ashman performed a case study with the journalists at the Guardian, a British newspaper and its affiliated website. Their concern was in how Guardian’s journalists incorporated and assessed user-generated content in their practice as well as how they handled personal and social ethics in the digital network.
Clearly, digital media has transformed the world of journalism in the last ten or so years and has consequently created a number of challenges for journalists. Ethical concerns have arisen as journalist more frequently interact with the public through digital and on-line mediums.
Case Study:
Journalists at the Guardian responded to in-depth interviews and questionnaires, responding with key words and phrases regarding what they considered “good” journalism. They also responded to questions regarding key ethical issues related to user-generated content. The following is a report of findings:
Key Traits of “Good” Journalism:
Accuracy – most often mentioned in connection to credibility, responsibility, and overall competence.
Honesty/Balance/Fairness – associated with credibility, responsibility, thoroughness, expertise, and notions of authority in connection with credibility and competence
Autonomy – respondents specified freedom from commercial, political, managerial, and government pressures, as well as free speech and the ability to develop as personal voice.
UGC Ethical Concerns:
Regarding key ethical issues of user-generated content, respondents did value the providing space for debate but expressed concern about the abuse of privilege.
Quote: “The platform gives credibility to people whose comments may be completely inaccurate, offensive, or without foundation in fact.”
However, respondents felt that UGC was linked to the values of universal free speech. People have the right to have their voice heard without intimidation.
Exploring Ethical Constructs:
Further ethical issues were explored in the case study under the headings of 2 research questions. They explored how journalists perceive and enact Authenticity & Credibility, Freedom and Autonomy, Responsibility & Accountability, and how they negotiate new relationships with users. I will briefly summarize the findings under each subheading of the research questions.
Authenticity & Credibility
The extent to which UGC challenges or undermines personal and institutional credibility at the Guardian was a major concern with respondents. The challenge lies in how to assess or improve the credibility of UGC. Many respondents value UGC discourse but were concerned about undermining the brand, especially as it relates to personal attacks and nasty comments.
The simple matter pointed out was the time it takes to respond to users who challenge facts, make personal attacks, or simply have disagreements of opinion. On the other hand, having opinions challenged encourages journalists to put extra effort into getting their facts right in the first place.
Freedom & Autonomy
Another concern that arose in the research was that UGC had the potential to erode profession autonomy. Journalists want to maintain their freedom to write and print what they like. They are concerned about “dumbing down” content and posting content simply to attract more on-line hits.
Responsibility & Accountability
Respondents felt a responsibility to uphold the values of the Guardian and editors felt a “duty of care” to their writers. Also expressed was an obligation to the reader, to provide quality content and discourse, as well as maintaining a civilized discourse.
One respondent said, “With citizen journalists, it’s all rights and no responsibilities.” The concern here is that discourse becomes uncivil because UGC users are anonymous and don’t have to take any real responsibility in what they write.
Negotiating New Relationships
A major theme from respondents was the complexity of negotiating new and closer forms of interaction with the audience. However, their comfort levels varied. One editor said, despite the drawbacks of UGC, “It’s made it a much more balanced site.” Others have been taken back by the rude, almost abusive, confrontational discourse.
A few suggestions were provided for negotiating new relationships:
1. Thanks users who correct errors
2. Engage users who raise interesting points
3. Ignore the obnoxious
Overall, UGC has spurred reconsideration of what the relationship between journalists and the public has been and might become.
Conclusion:
The evidence suggests that journalists are struggling with how to ethically accommodate opportunities for free dialogue presented by UGC while also safeguarding their credibility and sense of responsibility. The internet affords individuals much freedom for expression, but the responsibility in expressing that freedom lies solely with the user. Profound challenges for journalists in dealing with UGC continue to exist.
Quote: “…journalists face challenges in a network that they did not confront when the product they alone produced was one they alone controlled.”
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Journalism Next - Introduction
Mark Briggs writes, “To survive and thrive in the digital age….journalists must adopt a new way of thinking and approaching their craft.”
What I gathered from the introduction to Journalism Next is that the world of journalism is and has been in a state of transition from traditional newspapers to on-line digital media. This requires a change in thinking for traditional journalists. It requires them to learn new skills for their craft. It also provides exciting new opportunities in the field of journalism. The remainder of my blog will be broken down by the sections of the introduction to Journalism Next, with a few points concerning each.
Image Courtesy of www.southcountymuseum.org
Newspapers Are Dying. Why Should I Go Into Journalism?
Good question. Briggs refers to the 1890’s and early 1900’s as a time of significant change in journalism. He says that telephone service revolutionized reporting. According to the Encyclopedia of American Journalism one linotype operator could do the work of 5 men. This led to a dramatic increase in the number of newspapers being printed, similar to what is happening today with on-line journalism. In other words, journalism is NOT dying, the method of communication is changing.
What Job Can I Get In Journalism?
The future of journalism will most likely look differently. Briggs states that innovation, evolution, hustle and experimentation are required. He writes that the daily newspaper of a mid-sized city with 50 journalists may be replaced by 10 digital news operations with 5 journalists each. He believes that journalism will “diversify” Image Courtesy of www.southcountymuseum.organd “emerge” with many different job descriptions and business models. In other words, jobs in the field will be available.
Why It’s A Good Idea To Go Into Journalism
Briggs brings out 3 points in his book as to why journalism is still a good profession to pursue:
1. Journalism has a bright future because the demand for journalism from audiences has not decreased, only the models look different.
2. Journalism needs people with a fresh approach, who will put readers first and use new technology for better journalism.
3. Journalism will be better because tomorrow’s journalists understand the internet and technology.
What I gathered from the introduction to Journalism Next is that the world of journalism is and has been in a state of transition from traditional newspapers to on-line digital media. This requires a change in thinking for traditional journalists. It requires them to learn new skills for their craft. It also provides exciting new opportunities in the field of journalism. The remainder of my blog will be broken down by the sections of the introduction to Journalism Next, with a few points concerning each.
Image Courtesy of www.southcountymuseum.org Newspapers Are Dying. Why Should I Go Into Journalism?
Good question. Briggs refers to the 1890’s and early 1900’s as a time of significant change in journalism. He says that telephone service revolutionized reporting. According to the Encyclopedia of American Journalism one linotype operator could do the work of 5 men. This led to a dramatic increase in the number of newspapers being printed, similar to what is happening today with on-line journalism. In other words, journalism is NOT dying, the method of communication is changing.
What Job Can I Get In Journalism?
The future of journalism will most likely look differently. Briggs states that innovation, evolution, hustle and experimentation are required. He writes that the daily newspaper of a mid-sized city with 50 journalists may be replaced by 10 digital news operations with 5 journalists each. He believes that journalism will “diversify” Image Courtesy of www.southcountymuseum.organd “emerge” with many different job descriptions and business models. In other words, jobs in the field will be available.
Why It’s A Good Idea To Go Into Journalism
Briggs brings out 3 points in his book as to why journalism is still a good profession to pursue:
1. Journalism has a bright future because the demand for journalism from audiences has not decreased, only the models look different.
2. Journalism needs people with a fresh approach, who will put readers first and use new technology for better journalism.
3. Journalism will be better because tomorrow’s journalists understand the internet and technology.
In Response to Sixth Sense Technology
Video Link: Sixth Sense Technology
Wow! I think the possibilities of this kind of technology are very intriguing. Very interesting. I predict that by the year 2100 we will all be walking robots, like Darth Vader ("more machine now than man").
New technology always opens the doors for incredible advances in society. As a Christian, I see that mankind continues to tap into the wonder of God's creation. God created all these things for us to discover, dissect and maximize their potential. There are deep and hidden things God has created for us to discover. It's a wonderful thing.
I think the idea of sixth sense technology taps into how communication will take place in heaven. We all have the ability to sense things we do not see. For example, you may sense the presence of someone in the room even though you do not see or hear them walk in. The senses of blind people are typically much more acute than those who can see, because they've had to rely on them more. I heard that many of the animals moved to higher ground before the tsunami took place in the Indian Ocean back in 2004. They sensed something many humans did not, just like they did in Noah's Ark in the Bible.
Because mankind has been separated from close fellowship with our Creator because of sin, I think our senses have become dull, in many ways. We do not sense or hear things (things not spoken audibly) as acutely as we should because we are so earthly minded. In heaven, I think our senses of perception will be restored to the way we were created to be. The sixth sense technology perhaps scratches the surface of what will one day be in heaven.
Unfortunately, everything man creates or discovers ultimately becomes used for evil. I can see ways in which this technology could also be exploited by evil people for evil purposes. But, that doesn't mean it should not be used and the potentials of it fully realized. It can also be used for good. Once this technology becomes more mainstream I'm sure a number of ethical concerns will arise.
Wow! I think the possibilities of this kind of technology are very intriguing. Very interesting. I predict that by the year 2100 we will all be walking robots, like Darth Vader ("more machine now than man").
New technology always opens the doors for incredible advances in society. As a Christian, I see that mankind continues to tap into the wonder of God's creation. God created all these things for us to discover, dissect and maximize their potential. There are deep and hidden things God has created for us to discover. It's a wonderful thing.
I think the idea of sixth sense technology taps into how communication will take place in heaven. We all have the ability to sense things we do not see. For example, you may sense the presence of someone in the room even though you do not see or hear them walk in. The senses of blind people are typically much more acute than those who can see, because they've had to rely on them more. I heard that many of the animals moved to higher ground before the tsunami took place in the Indian Ocean back in 2004. They sensed something many humans did not, just like they did in Noah's Ark in the Bible.
Because mankind has been separated from close fellowship with our Creator because of sin, I think our senses have become dull, in many ways. We do not sense or hear things (things not spoken audibly) as acutely as we should because we are so earthly minded. In heaven, I think our senses of perception will be restored to the way we were created to be. The sixth sense technology perhaps scratches the surface of what will one day be in heaven.
Unfortunately, everything man creates or discovers ultimately becomes used for evil. I can see ways in which this technology could also be exploited by evil people for evil purposes. But, that doesn't mean it should not be used and the potentials of it fully realized. It can also be used for good. Once this technology becomes more mainstream I'm sure a number of ethical concerns will arise.
In response to blog post, The Future of Journalism Education, by Dan Gillmore
BLOG: The Future of Journalism Eduction
Gillmore lists a number of ideas, "If I ran a journalism school..." It appears to me, based on the reading, that the direction of journalism education is becoming a more holistic or comprehensive approach. There are so many aspects of journalism that go beyond simply reporting the news. I suppose that is true for any profession. There are jobs and careers that fall under the umbrella of "journalism". I like the more well-rounded approach.
One thing I would add, perhaps already eluded to in the post, is for the need of a more skills oriented education. Theory is fine, and important I suppose, but when we really get down to it we students need practical application for jobs in the real world. This is my first semester of grad school, pursuing a Master's in Journalism, and I'm not sure where exactly this is going to lead me. So, I'm probably not qualified at this stage to respond to Gillmores' post with anything of real value. I'm just trying to understand how all this works.
Gillmore lists the basic principles for creators of journalism. The standard principles are thoroughness, accuracy, fairness, independence and transparency. Gillmore mentioned that the fifth one, transparency, was rather new and somewhat controversial. I don't really understand why. To me that one should be listed at the top. Transparency, in my opinion, simply means a person or an organization can walk confidently in the world knowing they have nothing to hide. That doesn't mean we have to tell everyone everything all of the time (because some things are better left unsaid), but integrity and honesty produces confidence.
Gillmore lists 5 other basic principles for journalists:
1. Do your homework, and then do some more.
2. Get it right, every time.
3. Be fair to everyone.
4. Think independently, especially of your own biases.
5. Practice and demand transparency.
This list looks good to me. Along with fairness I might add the word "respect". Be fair and respectful to everyone.
Gillmore lists a number of ideas, "If I ran a journalism school..." It appears to me, based on the reading, that the direction of journalism education is becoming a more holistic or comprehensive approach. There are so many aspects of journalism that go beyond simply reporting the news. I suppose that is true for any profession. There are jobs and careers that fall under the umbrella of "journalism". I like the more well-rounded approach.
One thing I would add, perhaps already eluded to in the post, is for the need of a more skills oriented education. Theory is fine, and important I suppose, but when we really get down to it we students need practical application for jobs in the real world. This is my first semester of grad school, pursuing a Master's in Journalism, and I'm not sure where exactly this is going to lead me. So, I'm probably not qualified at this stage to respond to Gillmores' post with anything of real value. I'm just trying to understand how all this works.
Gillmore lists the basic principles for creators of journalism. The standard principles are thoroughness, accuracy, fairness, independence and transparency. Gillmore mentioned that the fifth one, transparency, was rather new and somewhat controversial. I don't really understand why. To me that one should be listed at the top. Transparency, in my opinion, simply means a person or an organization can walk confidently in the world knowing they have nothing to hide. That doesn't mean we have to tell everyone everything all of the time (because some things are better left unsaid), but integrity and honesty produces confidence.
Gillmore lists 5 other basic principles for journalists:
1. Do your homework, and then do some more.
2. Get it right, every time.
3. Be fair to everyone.
4. Think independently, especially of your own biases.
5. Practice and demand transparency.
This list looks good to me. Along with fairness I might add the word "respect". Be fair and respectful to everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)