I attended the New Media vs. Traditional Journalism and Political New Media panels. It provided me more inspiration than I’ve managed to cling to in a while. Both sessions were thought provoking and brought me to an epiphany that could become into an in-depth research topic.
In the second session, Albert May, associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, discussed his book, Campaign 2008: It's On You Tube. The power of social networks (bloggers included) and video sharing became even clearer to me with examples from the 2008 election. Bloggers usually parrot the media and ride the waves of agendas put forth by traditional gatekeepers. However, within this complex network of contributors is a hegemony that set its own agendas and steers the collective voice. There’s an apparent hegemony in the blogosphere that obviously affects even the news agendas of traditional media outlets.
I’ve learned that bloggers carry a “gate watching” role, but I think there’s a rigid, and ever-undulating, structure that has perhaps not taken power away from traditional media outlets, but transferred some of the power from old, affluent, white gatekeepers to young, affluent, white gatekeepers. This theory is based on the anecdotes and statistics from the sessions and several Pew studies. For my thesis, I’d perhaps like to examine the gatekeeping process in the blogosphere. Additionally, I would like to examine the working of this blogosphere upper crust in relation to the lower class of bloggers.
It's amazing social structure that has the potential to make things happen.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Social Change and New Technology in Journalism
I was able to make it to most of the 9 a.m. panel and the two keynote speakers yesterday, and I came away with some half-baked ideas that I think are worth considering:
1.) How can the immediate and sometimes viral tendencies of online content affect social/political/etc. change? I’ll give you an example: Goodman talked about when she was arrested at the Republican Party’s most recent presidential convention in St. Paul. She said that she was arrested while covering a protest that was happening on the streets of the city, despite the fact that she had her press credentials dangling from her neck in clear view. Luckily her arrest was videotaped and posted on the Internet. Within days, she said, the video had spread across the Web at an astonishing pace, and because of that she and rest of her crew, who had also been arrested, were released. Interesting story. Interesting topic as well.
2.) An idea that I got from the first panel was the use of portable equipment to transfer content from one place to another while a reporter/photog is abroad. I was specifically thinking about solo journalism, in this case. With the increased need to cut costs at media outlets, some journalists have decided to become not only reporters, but videographers and photojournalists as well. These solo journalists go out on their own and cover a story by writing about it, taking some still photographs and shooting some video and/or sound and wrapping it all into one nice package to be published on the Web. Now to do this, they obviously have to use equipment that is small and light enough to be carried long distances. They also have to have specialized equipment so that they can transfer massive amount of info over satellite Internet connections, like in the case of a foreign correspondent who needs to send his or her content stateside from wherever they are in the world.
Now the debate over solo journalism is a contentious one. Some believe that this is just a way to cut out photographers and only pay one person to do multiple people’s jobs, therefore cutting costs while diminishing the quality of content. This is a valid argument, I think, but I am hoping to keep that debate out of this idea. I think that if I were to do this as my project, I would simply present this as another way to gather information, and leave the debate up to the audience.
This is all I have now, but I’m sure more will come to me once I fully digest what I heard during the symposium.
A blend of journalism and social networking....
Here is yet another model of journalism forging the online sphere: True/Slant.com. As Mossberg's review of the site (for the Wall Street Journal) points out, one of the unique features is that news contributors are required to engage with readers of the site and with other contributors as well: A blend of journalism and social networking.
It is definitely worth checking out.
--Jen Lovejoy
Web leading to lower standards?
Yesterday’s early session at the Schuneman Symposium was full of hilarious photographs and war stories from the panelist’s pasts.
And that’s a great panel for anyone to watch, but it’s also a little defeatist to the idea of progress as it relates to new media. As journalists, we cannot focus on past glory days, but instead need to look to the future.
After wading through the fun, the panelists hit the problem on the head: we’re just not sure what works on the Web yet. Matthew Craig, a photographer for the Memphis Commercial Appeal, talked about how companies had invested lots of time and resources into doing video, but then realized that video didn’t draw as much traffic as clickable slideshows.
His statement is a real testament to both how quickly things can change on the Web and how little we know. I had a professor last year who was so convinced about the pervasiveness of video that he believed we would eventually wear video screens on our clothes.
The panel discussion really fed my insecurity about whether the ship would right itself soon, but I did come away with a vague research idea. Craig talked about feeding the monster, or posting sometimes innocuous information to the Web as quickly as possible.
I wonder if many media companies have changed editing policies to post content to the Web quickly. It’s entirely possible that in some places they’ve eliminated editing for a Web update altogether just to get the story first. For all the doom and gloom that the Web has pushed on our industry, it’s certainly fostered greater competition.
Another great question is “have the standards of ‘news’ changed with the proliferation of news on the Internet?” That same competition that drives us to want the story first also pokes at an editor’s greatest insecurity: not having a potentially big story that everyone else has. Such insecurity can very easily lead to a less selective attitude when posting content to the Web.
And that’s a great panel for anyone to watch, but it’s also a little defeatist to the idea of progress as it relates to new media. As journalists, we cannot focus on past glory days, but instead need to look to the future.
After wading through the fun, the panelists hit the problem on the head: we’re just not sure what works on the Web yet. Matthew Craig, a photographer for the Memphis Commercial Appeal, talked about how companies had invested lots of time and resources into doing video, but then realized that video didn’t draw as much traffic as clickable slideshows.
His statement is a real testament to both how quickly things can change on the Web and how little we know. I had a professor last year who was so convinced about the pervasiveness of video that he believed we would eventually wear video screens on our clothes.
The panel discussion really fed my insecurity about whether the ship would right itself soon, but I did come away with a vague research idea. Craig talked about feeding the monster, or posting sometimes innocuous information to the Web as quickly as possible.
I wonder if many media companies have changed editing policies to post content to the Web quickly. It’s entirely possible that in some places they’ve eliminated editing for a Web update altogether just to get the story first. For all the doom and gloom that the Web has pushed on our industry, it’s certainly fostered greater competition.
Another great question is “have the standards of ‘news’ changed with the proliferation of news on the Internet?” That same competition that drives us to want the story first also pokes at an editor’s greatest insecurity: not having a potentially big story that everyone else has. Such insecurity can very easily lead to a less selective attitude when posting content to the Web.
Making online journalism and new technology accessible to all?
I went to the Political-New Media and Company symposium from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. and it only got interesting to me when it was almost over, during the question and answer session. At this seminar people asked about the ramifications of new technology on people with limited or no access to the technology. No real answer to this question was provided. Faculty at Scripps push podcasting, blogging and using twitter; however, many students in the journalism school struggle with these inventions. How can we expect low income or ill-informed people in inner cities and rural areas to know what these technologies are and how to use them if students don’t know about them? I know the question was asked towards the end of the Q and A session so the panelist really didn’t have time to get into the issue of journalism being "elitist."
I feel that journalism is not elitist however faculty and students at Scripps sometimes forget about how blessed/ privileged we are to have the knowledge that we do. The student panelist answered the question by saying that anyone can find access to new technologies if they want. I agree there are always libraries that provide free access to the internet. However, how will anyone know about "Youtube," "Twitter," "blogger/blogspot," "Linked In" and other resources if no one tells them that they exist? The internet is so vast that one must tell someone what to look for on the internet in order for the internet to be effective.
To me, this would have been an innovative topic for a whole panel discussion. I would have liked to see a dialogue on how Scripps and the panelist plan to introduce new technology to everyone. This could be a good topic for me; not new technology in online journalism, but the accessibility of online journalism and the technology we already have to different segments of the population. If people can't access new technology or don’t know what to do with new technology when they can access it: what good is new technology?
Don Jason
dj320306@ohio.edu
I feel that journalism is not elitist however faculty and students at Scripps sometimes forget about how blessed/ privileged we are to have the knowledge that we do. The student panelist answered the question by saying that anyone can find access to new technologies if they want. I agree there are always libraries that provide free access to the internet. However, how will anyone know about "Youtube," "Twitter," "blogger/blogspot," "Linked In" and other resources if no one tells them that they exist? The internet is so vast that one must tell someone what to look for on the internet in order for the internet to be effective.
To me, this would have been an innovative topic for a whole panel discussion. I would have liked to see a dialogue on how Scripps and the panelist plan to introduce new technology to everyone. This could be a good topic for me; not new technology in online journalism, but the accessibility of online journalism and the technology we already have to different segments of the population. If people can't access new technology or don’t know what to do with new technology when they can access it: what good is new technology?
Don Jason
dj320306@ohio.edu
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Schuneman Symposium
After attending both morning discussions, I can't help but feel a little more stressed out about finding a job after I graduate. It feels like there is a race going on to find out what is going to work in the communications industry. Although it is nerve-wracking to think about, the seminar made it apparent that this is something that we, journalism students and professionals, need to wrap our heads around. It makes me want to do my research project on something that is really useful.
While the first panel was very interesting, I found the second to be more helpful with getting some thoughts about my project down on paper. Peter Shaplen asked the room several questions about where they find information. I was one of those people who admitted to only going to a single online publication for an overall sweep of
information. I was also amazed to see how many people use Twitter as their main news source, as I do not even have a Twitter account. I think an interesting research topic would be to investigate more specifically how normal people (not fellow journalists or journalism students) get their information. What do people care about? Who do people trust to be their reporters? Maybe it is a network of Twitterers, bloggers and social media junkies. But what about the idea of how entertainment is blurred with actual news content? Do people see these shows as news? Are publications such as The Onion, for example, some people's primary source? I think this topic needs polishing, so I would love to hear any other thoughts on it. This could be too general of an idea, but I am really interested in looking at what viewers and readers trustsocial media, traditional networks, bloggers or even
entertainment talk shows.
It may be too broad, but I think it's an idea that is worth considering. Any thoughts? I may have some more to add after I attend the next speaker.
While the first panel was very interesting, I found the second to be more helpful with getting some thoughts about my project down on paper. Peter Shaplen asked the room several questions about where they find information. I was one of those people who admitted to only going to a single online publication for an overall sweep of
information. I was also amazed to see how many people use Twitter as their main news source, as I do not even have a Twitter account. I think an interesting research topic would be to investigate more specifically how normal people (not fellow journalists or journalism students) get their information. What do people care about? Who do people trust to be their reporters? Maybe it is a network of Twitterers, bloggers and social media junkies. But what about the idea of how entertainment is blurred with actual news content? Do people see these shows as news? Are publications such as The Onion, for example, some people's primary source? I think this topic needs polishing, so I would love to hear any other thoughts on it. This could be too general of an idea, but I am really interested in looking at what viewers and readers trustsocial media, traditional networks, bloggers or even
entertainment talk shows.
It may be too broad, but I think it's an idea that is worth considering. Any thoughts? I may have some more to add after I attend the next speaker.
Politics and New Media Ideas
I attended the Politics and New Media panel, which largely focused on the Internet as it was used in the 2008 presidential election campaign.
One of the recurring, though underlying, themes of the discussion was the blurring of the lines between professional and amateur journalists. One panelist mentioned that it is increasingly difficult for the public to tell the difference between blogs and news sites, while a student in attendance asked how journalists could maintain a gate keeping function on the Internet with so many bloggers disseminating their version of the news. This is certainly something that could merit further research.
Confusion over who is considered a journalist can be viewed as both a positive and negative aspect of the Internet. Citizen journalism can have its benefits and was encouraged by Janelle Huelsman, director of public relations for Scoop08. Scoop08 was a news site that covered the 2008 elections through articles submitted by (mainly) college students across the country. (It has since become Scoop44, a site dedicated to reporting on the Obama administration.) The good thing about sites like these is that they allow anyone who witnesses or researches news to report it.
The downside to everyone essentially being a journalist is a lack of professionalism and accountability. Some bloggers are committed to presenting the truth of a situation, but it is often difficult to distinguish these from people simply spreading rumor.
Another subject discussed by the panel (that I'll admit I haven't heard much about) was the digital divide. This is the gap between people with and without access to the Internet. With an upcoming switch to digital television and so many cities losing their newspapers, Cary Frith expressed concern that some people may be left without an adequate method of informing themselves. Among the many ways to go about researching this issue, one could look into what other countries have done to combat the problem (a subject mentioned by one of the panelists).
-Annie Elliott
One of the recurring, though underlying, themes of the discussion was the blurring of the lines between professional and amateur journalists. One panelist mentioned that it is increasingly difficult for the public to tell the difference between blogs and news sites, while a student in attendance asked how journalists could maintain a gate keeping function on the Internet with so many bloggers disseminating their version of the news. This is certainly something that could merit further research.
Confusion over who is considered a journalist can be viewed as both a positive and negative aspect of the Internet. Citizen journalism can have its benefits and was encouraged by Janelle Huelsman, director of public relations for Scoop08. Scoop08 was a news site that covered the 2008 elections through articles submitted by (mainly) college students across the country. (It has since become Scoop44, a site dedicated to reporting on the Obama administration.) The good thing about sites like these is that they allow anyone who witnesses or researches news to report it.
The downside to everyone essentially being a journalist is a lack of professionalism and accountability. Some bloggers are committed to presenting the truth of a situation, but it is often difficult to distinguish these from people simply spreading rumor.
Another subject discussed by the panel (that I'll admit I haven't heard much about) was the digital divide. This is the gap between people with and without access to the Internet. With an upcoming switch to digital television and so many cities losing their newspapers, Cary Frith expressed concern that some people may be left without an adequate method of informing themselves. Among the many ways to go about researching this issue, one could look into what other countries have done to combat the problem (a subject mentioned by one of the panelists).
-Annie Elliott
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)