I shall be participating in a seminar later today about the changing face of journalism as social media becomes increasing popular.
The seminar topic is Citizen or Consumer – the politics of online journalism, organised by POLIS, the journalism and society think-tank at the London School of Economics.
Here are some of the questions which will be raised:
1. How much does the nature of journalism change when it goes online?
2. Does the growth of public interaction with the news media and the breaking down of roles herald a new dawn for a more “democratic� news media?
3. Are we witnessing the dilution of journalism, the erosion of ethical boundaries and codes and the undermining of trust?
4. In the face of unprecedented choice, is the real outcome likely to be fragmentation, commercialisation and trivialisation?
5. And is there anything that media organisations or government can do to sustain ‘good’ journalism online?
I wonder if Melissa Kite is attending…
Which national newspapers / media outlets published the Mohammed cartoons so readers could judge for themselves whether they were offensive or not?
Excellent questions Ellee. Especially #3. With the style becomming ever more chatty and casual, I wonder if “ethical boundaries and codes and the undermining of trust” are becomming eroded. This goes for the protection of information, for a persons privacy, as much as it goes for topical content.
Also, in terms of style, I have disliked some columnists personal sarcasm, ie. making sarcastic comments of a personal nature, as they do not further the story but merely ‘score points’ on the authors personal prejudice scale. I’m happy to say that I cannot recall any such incidence of this with the ‘big’ columnists and trust they remain employed to set the standard.
It is worrying that the Mail was reported to have established columnists in their sights in a recent cost cutting exercise. I cannot imagine the Guardian getting rid of Polly Toynbee any time soon. And I hope in supporting (cheap) young blood, the large media groups do not, as so many companies have done, throw out the standard of journalism they should be striving to achieve. Melissa Kite notwithstanding.
I’ve just had some info from the Society of Editors and they are going to be touching similar issues.
“Credibility and trust are essential for any media organisation to prosper. How will traditional print or broadcasting organisations maintain that trust? How will new websites, digital channels, blogs or podcasts earn it? How do relationships with government, other organisations and, most important, readers, listeners and viewers need to change? We will look at the political, legal and training implications behind A Matter of Trust.�
JUst found this on Timesonline and will copy it in full as it is so interesting:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1820507.ece
A herd of libel actions is fast approaching
Despite the myths, bloggers are just as vulnerable as conventional publishers to legal action – if not more so
Niri Shan and Timothy Pinto
BabyBarista, Alpha Mummy – the proliferation of weblogs on this and other news websites recently has given publishers another potential defamation headache. And they are more vulnerable to a claim than many realise.
Blogs come in all shapes and sizes, ranging from personal diaries to political analysis by professional journalists, enabling their authors to communicate their thoughts spontaneously and easily. But the immediacy and informality that makes blogs so attractive also makes them risky from a libel perspective.
Generally, journalists and authors take a great deal of care in the articles they prepare for newspapers or news websites. Their work is checked over by an editorial team, and then, if there are any legal doubts, run past an inhouse media lawyer before publication. In contrast, bloggers typically work alone, writing as fast as they think. A posting is seldom checked before it goes online. Yet bloggers are subject to the same English libel laws: the burden of proof, if a claim is brought, is on the blogger to prove what he has written is true. If he can’t justify his allegations, he could be in trouble.
Bloggers have developed a reputation for addressing controversial topics head-on with a frankness that the traditional press can rarely match. But it is a myth that they can get away with more controversial content than “normal” journalists. The truth is, they are in no better a legal position than journalists, publishers and broadcasters of the old-fashioned variety. It may be true that some bloggers get away with not being sued because they have no money, but libel cases are rarely about money. They are about vindication. If an impecunious blogger was successfully sued, they could be destroyed financially.
Websites are no different to conventional publishers, says the lawyer who won a libel victory for Gina Ford
No only are individual bloggers at risk but, under English law, so is any other person involved in the dissemination of the blog to a public audience. Website publishers are liable for content posted to their site whether by a blogger they commissioned or an unknown third party leaving a comment on a message board or at the end of a story.
There is some leeway in the case of the latter: the law does offer an “innocent dissemination” defence. Provided the defamatory statement was not written, edited or published by one of the website’s employees or contributors, the website’s owners took care in relation to its publication and generally did not know about it, they may not be liable. In practice, that means a website could escape liability if it immediately removes the offending third party content as soon as it receives notice of a libel complaint.
By contrast, a website owner who commissions a blog is usually the publisher of the blog and cannot rely on innocent dissemination. If it does not provide sufficient pre-publication checks on what its bloggers are posting, it could get in serious trouble if there is a claim about the content.
This could extend even as far as private blogs maintained by its own journalists. If a reporter for The Times writes an article that is published on Times Online and then, unknown to the company, provides a follow up to the article or comments on the same subject on their own seperate weblog, readers may believe the private blog is endorsed by the company. The employee may even want readers to believe that in order to add credibility to the blog. If this occurs in the course of the employee’s employment contact, The Times could be vicariously liable for the content of the journalist’s private blog.
Blogs and message boards are flourishing, and every online publisher wants them. To a media lawyer, it smells like a herd of libel actions fast approaching.
The authors are media lawyers at the law firm Taylor Wessing
I have just emailed those five questions to my political journalist son!
I think Number 3:
3. Are we witnessing the dilution of journalism, the erosion of ethical boundaries and codes and the undermining of trust?
is an extremely important and unnerving question and I’d be thoroughly interested in how it’s addressed. But, I don’t think this just applies to online journalism, but also to the print media in which pap and opinion are published under the guise of objective journalism. A few weeks ago the major Vancouver daily turned the entire issue over to the editorial musings of biased environmentalist David Suzuki, offering no room whatsoever to counterpoint Suzuki’s view of the ensuing environmental holocaust. I was aghast.
Ian
…to sustain ‘good’ journalism online…
Just to back off and allow it to flourish.
Sounds interesting, Ellee. Do let us know some of the conclusions the participants come to.
Hi Ellee
Was meant to be attending this but got loads of work on 🙁
Look forward to reading your round-up.
The annoying thing (to me) about the press and media, especially news on tv – is that it brings into my living room ‘news’ which I often find not newsworthy. Do I need to or have to care about what CNN or the BBC want to put on tv, and what goes on in Lebanon or Palestine?
As for blogosphere news, at least we have the choice of ‘who’ or ‘what’ we read, and the chance to comment. Of course we can react either way to any topic. Yeah nuke Iran or not. Yeah to stem cell research or not. Yeah to yukkie tea or not. And often our reaction to a topic will depend on the day.
After all I’m not a Radical or Fanatic
I’m a vegetarian who ocassionally indulges in meat. I’m a serial monogamist. I’m a coffee drinker who enjoys a refreshing cup of tea. And I have no preference in any war, I’ll take sides not according to any ‘uniform’ or peer pressure, or racial or national ‘loyalty’
If it is wrong to do what the Nazis did, it is wrong whoever does what the Nazis did.
One man’s terrorist has always been another’s freedom fighter. What I do not subscribe to is hatred of another peoples or another tribe or another race or another ‘nation’ not per se, nor because it is the flavour of the day. After all people have killed each other over which football team they support, and people kill each other every day motivated by nothing more than simple jealousy or greed.
Having said that
Here’s wishing you a great day
I guess really there is much we can all say
some of us do it for free and others for pay
but there are no real guarantees either way
whether what is said is good, or chaff & hay
much can be well written or well said, today
and yet really be fit only for the trash tray
Most interesting response Ellee and I will, of course, be watching in anticipation of your ’round-up’.
I wish I could go to a seminar like this. I would love to hear the answers to the above questions.
Hi Ellee – looks really interesting, btw my daughter Melissa’s name was inspired by the lovely Miss Kite back in the day. 🙂
Sorry meant to add, pressed button too soon, story of my life, sort of…Melissa is an excellent journalist and I remember her as one of the hardest workers of our regional newsroom.
Still here, Ellee.
[…] The politics of online journalism […]