Reflection and Process: Final Assignment (Post 3)

Last week, I've sent emails to The Straits Times and Temesak Review. Both parties did not reply to my emails.

Yesterday, I managed to catch hold of a contact,working in Mediacorp. This afternoon, I have sent an email of the questions for his reference and vetting. Hopefully it is related to his field of work and he accepts the interview. Since Temesak Review did not reply, I should send an email to The Online Citizen as a replacement interview. Hopefully I can retrieve an expert interviewee from the editorial board.

In addition, I've prepared some potential answers and case studies to illustrate certain points about citizen journalism. In the recent coming days, I should continue to pay attention to popular news stories featured on Temesak Review and The Online Citizen. That should help with some contextual knowledge, so I can fully understand my interviewee's answers.

Tomorrow I shall meet with my two minor interviewees for their opinions about citizen journalism, social media and trends amongst youth. Hopefully, I can meet with the deadlines and obtain the responses via email.

Reflection and Process: Final Assignment (Post 2)

It is time to decide on the interviewees of the feature story. In order to give it both sides of the story, it should focus an interview with an expert related to the mainstream media field as well as an expert who has knowledge and experience with citizen journalism in Singapore. It would also be interesting to include the current trend of citizen journalism and social media among youths. Having two minor interviewees to this story can add some personal touch and relay their experiences, views and opinions about citizen journalism. Preferably, including these experiences as short anecdotes and evidence to back up certain points.

To start the ball rolling and early preparation, I've sent emails to Temesak Review and the Straits Times Online. Hopefully, I'l receive an email soon.

Reflection and Process: Final Assignment

I've chosen the subject of Citizen Journalism as the main topic. Originally, I had decided to write a feature story comparing between Citizen Journalism and Mainstream Media. But was advised against it because it sounded like an essay than a feature. I had to re-angle and rethink about Citizen Journalism. Returning back to basics, I picked one the most pressing issues associated with Citizen Journalism, its reliability.

This is a draft of questions for the potential interviewees to answer:

1) Do you think Citizen Journalism is a reliable source of news? Why?

2) What is the role of the citizen in journalism with the advent of social platforms like Twitter, blogging, forums and websites?

3) Do you think Citizen Journalism is trying to compete or co-exist with mainstream? How?

4) What can be improved to further citizen journalism's reliability?

5) In your opinion, what is the state of mainstream journalism?

It would be better to consider the personal opinions of my interviewees, directing them with the open-ended approach - whether they supported citizen journalism or not. This concludes the first stage of planning for the final assignment.

Moral minefields: legal and ethical dilemma

This week's seminar seems more relevant in Singapore's context than any other Western countries in the world. Singapore remains to be conservative towards complete freedom of speech, aligning with strict defamatory and libel laws. Within the Singapore context, it serve to protect the government and key political leaders from slander and defamatory remarks. In other cases, it was used as a tool to bankrupt political opponents like Dr. Chee Soon Juan and the late Mr. J.B. Jeyaretnam. Nonetheless, Singapore has somewhat made history with its defamation and libel laws.

Hence, working with such strict constraints and margin of error, any negative remark or opinion has the potential of being a libelous or defamatory remark or words. Journalists have to equip themselves with the knowledge of media law. At the first stage and line of defense is to avoid defamation altogether, if it is not factual but opinionated, seeking to question the subject/subjects' reputation, it should not be published. If necessary, the second line of defense is to be equipped with legal defenses such as fair comment.

Similar to the previous week's subject about truth and objectivity, a journalist has to abide to ethics, as Keeble (2009) has explained, as a set of code of conduct and actions to guide a journalist. Ethics serve not only to protect journalists themselves from defamation and ill-conduct but most importantly, it takes into a further consideration for sources. Just like the medical profession and ethics: "Do no harm". Journalism also sought to keep their sources safe (anonymity against corporate/criminal illegal activities) and to protect those who are helpless (victims). Journalists must recognise there are potential moral minefields and ethics to uphold their professionalism.

References:

Keeble, R. (2009). Ethics for Journalists second edition. Routledge: New York.

Truth & objectivity: post modern casualties or victims of PR piracy?

Truth and objectivity should be the goal of every journalist, to ensure that credible, reliable news. Tickle (2001) elaborates that the role of the journalist is to perceive and interpret reality as truthful as possible for the intended audience. This week's topic is about reporting accurately in terms of facts and a news devoid of opinions and subjectivity.

Simply put, this is not an easy task for any journalist. As human beings, we are filled with opinions, ideas, perspectives and principles. This is attributed largely to our different backgrounds as people, our upbringing, our passion, knowledge and personality. Everyone is different, hence everyone has their own opinions. Although it is respectful to acknowledge differing views and ideas, a journalist has to break this acknowledgment for clear, factual, accurate reporting abiding by the journalistic ethics and practices.

There are several factors to list that impede a journalist's ability to remain objective and truthful. Journalists often have their own religious obligations, moral principles to live with. Others seek to protect their own reputation as top-notched journalists, some news are written to sensationalise, others are purely fictional and fabricated altogether.

In order to counter this, the journalist has to recognise and practice the code of conduct, ethics set out by fellow journalists to ensure the survival and continuity of journalism as a profession. Without carrying the traits of impartiality, accuracy, discovering the truth and both sides of a story: one can never be considered a journalist. Cliche as it sounds, a journalist is a noble profession - since it seeks to inform, it must accurately inform the public and never for other personal or corporate reasons.

References:

Tickle, S 2001, The Truth, the whole truth and nothing but... in Journalism Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne

Privacy: Where do you get it? “I’m a celebrity too…”

This man: ex-President Bill Clinton is a public figure. Does he have rights to privacy?

The answer is no. (It will be explained later).

This week's seminar is about public figures, privacy, right to know. A case study was presented about the biggest health insurance company in America, WellPoint which invaded insurance holders' personal information especially with health reports. Typically if a policy-holder is diagnose with an illness, the company seeks to find loopholes in agreements and contractual expressions to drop the insurance coverage. This came other national spectacle and the Obama Administration had to step in to prevent such frauds and exploiting personal information.

Rights to privacy is a problematic concept in America. According to Wisegeek (2011), the First Amendment looks to protect the freedom of speech of the media, while American laws do accept rights for privacy, the statements made must not be facts. As a loophole, under the pretext of speculation and assumption, media outlets can indeed release personal information.

In 1998, ex-President Bill Clinton came under fire after a scandal outbroke with Monica Lewinsky. He was scrutinised by the public and the press to release details and confession of having any intimate and sexual relations with a White House intern. If the President then did have his rights to privacy, he need not answer those questions that could potentially embarrass him or be marked for life.

It should be noted that public figures or celebrities cannot have rights to privacy. This is because they willingly accept to trade their private lives for fame and reputation, to be recognised. Fame for one, could be exchanged for fortune because they have a reputation for being good in their trade (acting for celebrities, persuasion and capabilities as a politician).

It is indeed a difficult situation for journalists to follow to report on news that has a thin line between the public's right to know and need to know. It should be understood that if it is a worthy cause to expose ill-practices or illegality like WikiLeak has done, it is justifiable for a news report.

References:

Wisegeek 2011, What is Invasion of Privacy, Wisegeek.com, viewed 25 June 2011, <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-invasion-of-privacy.htm>

We’re All a Twitter! Journalism and its negotiation of online, the blogosphere and social media.

With an instant click of a button, a piece of information or source of news is transmitted to the world. Allan (2006) describes this practice made possible by the advent of digital technologies. The platforms of social media like blogging, Twitter, Facebook has brought the world closer together. This week's seminar was relative interesting about the world of social media and its influence and impact.

In Singapore, STOMP and RazorTV has come into prominence to introduce citizen journalism. However, over the course of time, it proved to be lacking in standards compared to international counterparts. STOMP was plagued with trivialities, personal opinions directed at that small issues. While RazorTV covered soft news compared to the mainstream's focus on hard, factual news. However, both platforms have shown interactivity - allowing users to post and choose what news they want to read and feedback they want to post. The mainstream is slowly absorbing social media to attract more users to select news from their associated newspaper brand. Some examples are Ng Tze Yong and Jessica Cheam social media correspondent for The Straits Times in Singapore.

The influences of social media cannot be ignored. It allows mainstream to cut cost and utilise social media as a channel of feedback for readers. It provides almost instantaneous broadcast of news - disaster news or important events are reported faster on social media compared to mainstream. However, social media sometimes lack credibility and there were numerous accounts of a mix-up between personal and corporate social-media accounts.

In my personal opinion, this is what the journalistic world required. It was not possible before and has taken reporters and journalists by storm. In the 1990's when the Internet proliferated, analysts speculated the drop in readership and circulation of newspapers as there was an Internet-craze to digitalise everything onto the online domain. This also includes news reporting, with a laptop at hand and internet connection at home, there was no real need to listen to the radio, read the newspapers or watch the television for primetime broadcasts. As an upgrade to the social-media platforms, journalists are closer to their readers. It is no longer a one-way communication. Journalists can better understand their target readers and pressing issues and problems. At the end of the day, journalism is not just reporting but generating news content for people to discuss and be informed. With channels of feedback and discussion provided by social media, journalists should take advantage of technology to not only allow readers follow them, but to follow readers as well.

References:

Allan, S 2006, Online News: Journalism and the Internet, Open University Press, Maidenhead.

Globalisation vs. Localisation

Globalisation is it a bad thing? For many years, critics are concerned and focused on that negative effects of globalisation on journalism. This seminar is not an exception.

I certainly agree with the group with the balanced viewpoint about this topic. They have shown both sides of the coin about the impact of globalisation on journalism. The group has pointed out several important concepts of globalisation and its potential benefits - namely bringing the entire world closer together creating an informational global village and transfer of intangible cultural values. On the other hand, limitations are highlighted to be dominance of a few Transnational Companies (TNCs) resulting in homogenisation of media messages and affecting the quality of journalism.

Globalisation at its worse creates a negative domino effect on journalism, the wide expansion of TNCs allows only several large and privately funded media organisations to enter the niche industry. It creates a natural barrier - media in itself is expensive to maintain and establish. Thus, enforcing its power across the globe as long as there is satellite coverage of the news channel, most of the local media platforms are not spared from the international competition. With that being said, the large companies are able to control media messages through framing. Combine it altogether, stifling competition and corporate power may silence alternate voices with only profits in mind, at the expense of quality of reporting and journalism.

The seminar ends off with globalisation being potentially useful and detrimental depending on how it is being used, viewed and perceived. It may not necessarily be entirely bad.

My opinion is that both globalisation and localisation is essential for journalism to benefit in a global village setting. Take the unrest in Tibet as a case study, CNN was banned in China for reporting the alternative viewpoint - citing a breach of human rights recognised internationally through the declarations of United Nations. CNN China also did a wide coverage on the violence and beatings of protesting monks and Tibetan citizens. While local news broadcasts like CCTV remain silent about the unjust and supporting the Chinese government. In this case, the quality of journalism has increased not because of competition but because international news organisations believe that there is news worthiness and a second opinion on a certain issue that creates a different news story from locally produced news.

What is the role of the citizen in 21st Century Journalism?

The role of the citizen does not simply stop at the traditional role - the receiver of news. Rather, the new age of Information Technology has vastly altered the face of journalistic practices, extending to common people like you and I, to become journalists our own way. This is referred as 'Citizen Journalism'. As society becomes more resourceful and intelligence (due to rising literacy rate and e-literacy), computers and the Internet can easily become the pen and paper for a writer. A citizen's role becomes enhanced, with the ability to produce news, not only possessing the right to know but the right to compose.

Contemporary, the rise of alternative media alongside with mainstream media platforms in its rightful place, can be largely attributed to the disconnection between journalists and citizens. This separation can be traced all the way back into the 19th century period when printing presses were invented. Newspapers, pamphlets and posters were printed by common people to disseminate information to their neighbours, townsfolk, mostly everyone in the city or within reach. There were no artisans of printing nor ethics - it wasn't a profession, everyone could print whatever they wanted.

Today, journalists remain stoic about their stand regarding codes of ethics, forming an independent occupation with professionalism like doctors, lawyers and engineers. Because of this, the media claims to be the '4th estate' - a watchdog group to keep check of the government and powerful organisations, holding them accountable to the public and citizens.

But are we overlooking something?

Media conglomerates controls the flow of information to the public. Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS are a few major players to name in the news corporations dominating American news. While it is not strange some of these media conglomerates have satellites to transmit news globally, they in turn create American values as hegemony through news.

Since the 21st Century, mainstream journalism has come under fire, sparked off by the World Trade Organisation protests in Seattle. TV programmes and newspapers coverage consisted of sensationalised 'violence' in its front pages and prime time news. In effect, violence was splashed all over mainstream media but no reasons were given to justify what actually happened. It was then people started blogging and providing alternative source of news to the citizens.

Citizen journalism cannot be the answer to the failings of mainstream media. As long as it does not replace the conventional role of media, citizen journalism will only serve as an additional source of information for citizens.

The role of the citizen in the 21st century is no longer the meek and the receiver of news traditionally. With a touch of the keyboard be it on a cellphone or computer, a citizen can deliver news, anywhere, at any time.

Who will pay for journalism? Is it just about money?

In the first round of seminars, it was primarily about the sustainability of journalism - money and revenue for news reporting. A comparison was made between NewsCorp. and Mediacorp, analysing the annual revenue and newspaper circulation. At the end, the audience was reminded that journalism in essence has a cause to fulfill people's right to know but ultimately is still constrained by monetary terms, just like any other profession out there in the world.

It is without a doubt that journalism in this day and age is losing money and revenue than before. Taking into consideration there will be a minority that does not subscribe to any form of mainstream media publications like magazines and newspapers and rely solely on a new generation of online media platforms - blogs and online news websites. News online in essence is free of charge, it strikes the common people - why pay a dollar or more for a newspaper? Social media and alternative media has disrupted journalism's profitability and thereby affecting its existence in the future.

So ultimately, who will pay for journalism?

Personally, I feel that the pros and cons of private and public journalism can be merged and co-exist to sustain journalism. Take Australia for example, the Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) is doing well to maintain transparency, media independence from organisations or government (despite being government funded) and still maintains a high freedom of press. The model works, taxpayers money are pooled into national media but yet does not promote any form of propagandistic works or being a mouthpiece of the government or any influential organisations. Journalism is certainly not just about money, media conglomerates are losing revenue and profits over the years, merely shrinking their business model but chose to pit their horns against economic odds. But why? Simply put, journalism will never die off as more people choose to read what they want, journalists and editors have to provide and cater to a wider scope of audiences and readers in order to keep the money rolling for journalism to sustain.

For 200 years, journalism has come forth to a stand still in profits. Media companies need to rethink their strategy to further integrate online platforms to serve as contributory roles to their mainstream counter parts - to attract more readers and audiences to pick up mainstream media again. To create a more lucrative reading/viewing experience for a large mass of audience. By increasing the number of pages on a newspaper is simply not enough, it definitely has to provide more quality over quantity to win back the hearts and minds of the people.