PDF Version available below:
Abstract
Responding to the debate of autonomy versus ownership, this paper will explore politics of traditional journalism and principles of digital interaction with news, in attempt to deconstruct how the condition of autonomy, challenges standardised notions of truth associated with mainstream media. Informed by shifts in personalised frames of action accommodated through Web 2.0, this paper will begin by examining journalism as a professional identity ‘under surveillance’ by avenues of ownership and production. Taking material from readings that encompass discussion of socio-cultural-influenced question and challenge, the text will then make mention of regulatory systems and information subsidies, to hypothesize increasing conflicts of debate surrounding the dynamic between freedom and control in journalism. To conclude, reference to citizen journalism will invite into the argument, an interdisciplinary emphasis on social media channels. As the catalyst for change in the way news story telling is enacted to public exposure, the text will make final suggestion of Web 2.0 as shifting the identity of journalism to a more ambiguous network of public and authorial participation.
Keywords: Ownership, media, independence, journalism, internet, identity, media, participation
Introduction
Ideological thought of the public has long been accommodated by familiar dispersal of autonomous news reporting and concentrated mainstream media ownership in traditional forms of journalism. While progressive digital technologies have given rise to citizen journalism as the cutting-edge demonstration of advanced engagement with news story telling, editorial decision-making remains the centralised space for mass communicative correspondence in journalism. Linguistically centralised ideology encapsulates such analysis of journalistic integrity as multi-dimensional and ambiguous in its politics of mass communication (Dahlberg, 2015). Dependable on the audience context, this relationship between exposure and response informs debate of autonomy versus ownership, that subsequently constitutes to the public, notions of credibility and truth (Cary, 2016). Standardisation, within this complex, socio-cultural and political entity, begins to occur through coordination of properties, governed by development of communicative technologies and participatory culture (Dahlberg, 2015). By examining the identity/occupation of journalists, mass media ownership and digital social networks, this paper will attempt to argue patriarchal shifts of expansion and exposure in participatory culture, as contributing towards a greater understanding of the journalistic identity.
Mass Communication
Mass Communicative practices of representational exposure have long contributed to complexities in the notion of truth and credibility in Journalism (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). What is demonstrated on screen as coming from legitimate sources of relevant information, occurs through awareness and participation of the audience context. Development of such implications as the productive to receptive dependency of mediums such as television and radio, invites within its accessibility realm, a community ideal that is constituted by values of sociability and identification (McKee, 2005; Langlois, 2013). Noted by Aguiton & Cardon in their 2007 piece “The Strength of Weak Cooperation”, this environment encapsulates two dominant identities embodying construction and application of value/desire by definition of modality exchange. On one hand, “Utilitarian agents” concerned with “maximisation of personal interest”, are directed by information, economic intention and/or status seeking behaviour (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). P
Journalism under this value is typically traditionalised in mass communication by authorial and objective perspective. Juxtaposed to pragmatic audience agency, is a motivation by collective action frames, typically enabled through “altruist individuals” (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). Influenced as a community, by notions of belonging, presence, knowledge sharing and public interest, choice of representation for this audience agency is the internet (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). Utilisation of virtual arenas helps shift exposure and response of news story telling toward personalised frames of participation, that Benkler (2006) describes as a reflection on the overemphasis of user participation as “explicit” (as cited in Aguiton & Cardn, 2007). Such conflicting applications of value becoming distributed through different authorised and autonomous mass communication channels, brings an ambiguously fluid undertone to the way truth in news is represented/responded to, especially with the inevitable influence of audience context.
Preffered, Negociated and Oppositional Reading
Beginning with centralised focus of news reporting as an occupational ideology, is the way public spaces address the identity of journalism. Operating consistently upon three separate, textual readings, is the public’s ability to enquire different extents of truth and credibility under individualistic criterial of journalistic integrity (Hall,2012). The basis for which such examination and response transpires, is not only personalised upon objective connotations but also marred by an awareness of the media as being a constructed reality (Reich, 2011). Preferred readings, the surface value of perceived journalism, positions the identity of a reporter in televisual communications, as a two-dimensional space of information exchange (Hall, 2012). News, under this perceptual assumption of truth, is 3demonstrated by professional identities that contain within their environment, hegemonic structures of cultural authorisation. From this production-driven viewpoint, audiences begin to establish the requirement of transparency, immediacy and trust in order to build upon satisfaction of the content they are exposed to as being ‘the absolute’ (McKee, 2005). This awareness, as a textual reading, refers to a negotiation between questionable and accepted ideologies surrounding the relationship between media and authentic news reporting (Reich, 2011). Oppositional reading occurs when the element of trust, governing the relationship between these spaces, is intersected with the assumed notion of selective representation (Hall, 2012). As consumers of news, the audience context understands traditional reporting to act as the 4thestate to larger accessibility of information (Adorno, 1989).
Public Response to the Journalistic Identity
Performing as an enabler of social and cultural discussion, the journalist bridges this gap between constitutionalised news telling and more fluid expression of curiosity in analysis and presentation of news telling, by embodying the means of comparison to do so. Where people see the 4thestate as a landscape of editorial choices, an enveloping of what the public comes to understand as’ objective news’, remains as a site for challenge and expansion of narrative frames, in which this content is distributed (Ward & Wasserman, 2010). As a professional identity, exclusivity dictates a social pressure traditional journalism must adhere to. This expected frame of reference particularly engages the angles they take in reporting the story, and sources they select to inform their work (Rosen, 2012). As progressive distributors of information exchange enter the debate of journalism ethics, different dimensions of communication allow for new media technologies to transition exposure and accessibility of news from such professionalism to participatory culture (Ward & Wasserman, 2010). Traditional journalism as holding highest credibility, comes under conflict of social online communities as they introduce into journalism, an observation of individualistic expression and personal communication. “Open- correspondence”, breaking hierarchical boundaries of ‘ethical practice’, compensates for neglected subsets of stories commercialisation fails to account for, by accurately accommodating challenge against figures of authorisation (McKee, 2005). Developing into what is known as the 5thestate, this expansion upon spaces of representation, enacts through impact of “open media”, to bring alternative value to the identity of a journalist (Dahlberg, 2015). Historical implications of ownership and objectivity, typically negotiated under institutionalised and commercialised contexts, cannot limit such identification to sole, homogenous entities of microphones on camera. Instead, it must accept the public sphere in fluidity of digital communication, as inclusive of constructions in truth and the way it is presented, through ambiguous perception of what it means to be a journalist. As progressive distributors of information exchange enter the debate of journalism ethics, different dimensions of communication allow for new media technologies to transition exposure and accessibility of news from such professionalism to participatory culture (Ward & Wasserman, 2010). Traditional journalism as holding highest credibility, comes under conflict of social online communities as they introduce into journalism, an observation of individualistic expression and personal communication. “Open- correspondence”, breaking hierarchical boundaries of ‘ethical practice’, compensates for neglected subsets of stories commercialisation fails to account for, by accurately accommodating challenge against figures of authorisation (McKee, 2005). Developing into what is known as the 5thestate, this expansion upon spaces of representation, enacts through impact of “open media”, to bring alternative value to the identity of a journalist (Dahlberg, 2015). Historical implications of ownership and objectivity, typically negotiated under institutionalised and commercialised contexts, cannot limit such identification to sole, homogenous entities of microphones on camera. Instead, it must accept the public sphere in fluidity of digital communication, as inclusive of constructions in truth and the way it is presented, through ambiguous perception of what it means to be a journalist.
The Context of Production
Further examining the cornerstone of journalistic identity as multidimensional, are limitations imposed on moral independence by concentrated mainstream media ownership (Cary, 2016; Rosen, 2012; McKee, 2005). The debate between such editorial practices and autonomous avenues of reporting, long plagues the foundations of broadcast and information exposure, by calling to question, who really has the integrity of authentic content construction. Dictated by support, and occasional subversion, of national political systems, traditional journalism introduces objectivity through inimical impact on constraints of corporate and commercialised interest (Cary, 2016). Operating upon somewhat of an economic agenda, news organisations are responsible for what traditional mass communication techniques are utilised in the construction and exposure of a news story. This editorial decision-making process of the production context in traditional journalism, becomes a public liability due to subsequent reaction and response, of mass communication audiences, to what is put within their immediate awareness. Corporate media itself, acts as a system of mass media exposure, comprising of four dominant departments: production, distribution, ownership and funding (Adorno, 1989; Cary, 2016). It is within the entirety, and subset of these administrative assignments, where ideologies are selected as connotational intention for specific representation. In deciding which communities, characters, events and ideals are to be emphasised or marginalised, a certain unpredictability must be navigated alongside numerous other financial and organisational factors that could impact legal and income-based streams of the organisation (Cary, 2016; Rosen, 2012).
The Context of Reception
Language encapsulating these media systems turn to a tone of concern by the public, due to potential bias that forms in negotiation of these circumstances. Such linguistic denotations of an environment like the public sphere against traditional journalism include accusations of political favouring, content manipulation and the presumption of news organisations as holding a lack of public interest (Rosen, 2012; Langlois, 2013). Exhibited inclusion of regulatory systems makes the weight of such economic pressure, heavier in overlaps and gaps of original research, by calling into play, an assumed necessity to retain public trust through familiarity (Porter, 2015). What is left at the opportunity cost of this decision, is accountability in autonomous news reporting for common forms of journalism. Informed by attempt of reduction costs through remediation of news with similar perspectives, news organisations also rely on governmental effect and content intervention by utilisation of political adjustment to broadcast (McKee, 2005). Video news releases often mimic well recognised TV news formats, so an immediate accessibility lends a helping hand to useable footage for television in case of a political party desiring more customised representation (Langlois, 2013). The final limitation, concentrated media ownership imposes on autonomous journalism is in reference to criminal law. Cost of litigation when sued for defamation, breach of privacy or factual errors, highlights difficult values to embody by code in avoidance of such situation (Adorno, 1989; Langlois, 2013). In order to gather as far into the objective truth as a news organisation can, several occupations and identities must overlap in exposure and representation, particularly when dealing with criminal behaviour and undertone. The cost associated with such application of self involves costly ventures into records and interviews that all eventually add up into the questioning of regulation by virtue and integrity as mirroring that of fairness (Reich, 2011; Porter, 2015). Due to historical foundations of journalism rooted in authorial perspective, corporate ownership attempts manipulation of challenge against it by guidelines of appropriate consideration. Factors such as truth, profit, law and public response, all centralised towards limitations imposed on autonomous news reporting, informs of a new dynamic entering the chain of alternative reporting: citizen journalism.
Internet as a Tool for Open Correspondance
Within a world, thriving on alternative ways to address notions of truth and transparency, social media and the internet are steadily becoming the new characterisation of participatory production. Requiring an awareness of socio-cultural frameworks dictating presumed trustworthiness in traditional media, engagers of online social platforms bring into the public sphere, a resource of immediate challenge and contestation through sites such as Twitter and Facebook (Grudz, Wellman, & Takhteyev, 2011). Having an openness of identity afforded by statuses and hyperlinks, social media provides an accountability and transparency of time that is not only relevant to the lives of everyday citizens but one that is interactive to the way they want to respond and engage with the news (Dahlberg, 2015; Grudz et. Al, 2011). The internet is available to discuss things, as they happen, which helps to bridge the gap between productive and receptive contexts, as news organisations can too, track data and patterns of digital behaviour surrounding the way they broadcast. Such capacity for information to be stored under immediate and continual contexts, suggests this collective exhibition of communicative technologies also gives citizen journalism the opportunity to challenge, rather than just expand, news conversation. Television print and radio journalists must now consider and negotiate their position amongst a landscape of participatory culture, that observes role and collaboration with notions of truth to better inform personal analysis and extension of communication (Filchy, 2001, cited in Aguiton & Cardon, 2007; Rosen, 2012).
Participatory Culture
Information technology, now more than ever, provides an avenue of liberalisation in the expansiveness of networked communicators by allowing ordinary citizens to participate in this relationship between facts and expression in a virtual domain (Langlois, 2013). Under continually complex and immersive sociological perspective, traditional journalism is challenged by contemporary obtainment and distribution of information in these realms, by linguistic avenues of community and academic analysis. These two fields of examination regarding digital journalism, takes into consideration, a self-contradiction on its own reliability of gathering authentic content, by questioning the space in which exchanging of words occur. Governed by the value of autonomy, absence of institutionalised/commercialised contexts, removes the necessity of considering organisational and financial constraints, during questioning of authorisation and political principal (Dahlberg, 2015; Gruz, Wellman & Takhteyev, 2011). Instead, norms are consulted amongst other users and it is these communities that exceed prevailing power relations through the eventual challenge against dominant, socio-cultural hierarchies. Familiar forms of journalism, such as television reporting, withstand their own performance as cultural authorisation but fails to completely manipulate public awareness by not accommodating for this audience agency in digital environments (Rosen, 2012; Porter, 2015). Consumption of journalistic implications looks to a construction of action frames, personalised to an audience that uses emotive response to exceed upon an exposed subject matter. It these mechanisms for coordination of information that bring citizen journalism to the forefront of alternative news correspondence.
Conclusion
The landscape of traditional journalism as it is, remains ambiguous and fluid to the nature of work required. What drives the participation of news reporting to the wider awareness of the public sphere, however, is dictated by dynamics of ownership and autonomy that correspond to how news organisations can manipulate the reality depicted on screen. By examination of traditional journalism, ownership vs. autonomy and digitisation of citizen participation, this piece attempted to contextualise the ethics of debate into communicative awareness of how cultural authorisation in opposing influence, shapes the way we view the identity of “the journalist”.
References
Adorno, T. (1989). Culture Industry Revisited. Study of Popular Fiction: A source book, 52-59, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Retrieved from https://link.library.curtin.edu.au/ereserve/DC60262324/0?display=1
Langlois, G. (2013). Participatory culture and the new governance of communication: The Paradox of participatory media. Television & New Media, 14(2), 91-105. doi: 10.1177/1527476411433519
Dahlberg, L. (2015). Expanding Digital Divides Research: A Critical Political Economy of Social Media. The Communication Review, 18 (1), pp 271-293. doi:10.1080/10714421.2015.1085777
Rosen, J. (2012). The People Formerly Known as the Audience. The Social Media Reader, 1, pp 13-16. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/reader.action?docID=865738&ppg=24
McKee, A. (2005). Introduction. The Public Sphere: An Introduction, 64-104. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/reader.action?docID=220448&ppg=15
Reich, Z. (2011). SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND JOURNALISM. Journalism Practice, 5(1). 51-67. doi: 10.1080/17512781003760519
Ward, S.J.A, & Wasserman, H. (2010). Towards and Open Ethics: Implications of New Media Platforms for Global Ethics Discourse. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Exploring Questions of Media Morality, 25(4), 275-292. doi: 10.1080/08900523.2010.512825
Cary, S.A. (2016). How media ownership affects community journalism: A case study of the grand forks herald (Masters’ thesis). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1830772018/fulltextPDF/551AF66873714B47PQ/1?accountid=10382
Hall, S. (2012). Preferred/ Negotiated/ Oppositional Readings. Retrieved https://documentaryprojectdp.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/preferrednegotiatedoppositional-readings-stuart-hall/
Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni and J.A Danowski, (Eds). Communication and Technology. Berlin: De Gruyter. Pp. 161-179. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AhxpCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA161&ots=bZIat75i-L&dq=online%20virtual%20communities%202015&lr&pg=PA161#v=onepage&q&f=false
Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An attempt to understand the meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 51-65. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070
Grudz, A., Wellman, B., and Takhteyev. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined community. American Behavioural Scientist, 55(10), 1294- 1318. doi: 10.1177/0002764211409378
Hi there!
Firstly, I really loved how you separated your paper with headings. It made it much easier to read and follow on a screen.
Overall, your paper was very well researched and touched on a variety of aspects around online journalism, including participatory culture. It can be really hard to fit all of that into the word limit, so well done.
Although, it would’ve been great to gain more insight into exactly who was participating in creating this digital content. While many have the option to participate, I do have to wonder who does and why? Again, there’s only so much you can discuss in the paper.
Enjoy the rest of the conference!
Alison
Hi Alison!
Thank you so much for taking the time to read my paper and offer your insight into different points of interest and where you believe the discussion had room to expand. I’m glad to hear my decision to further isolate sub topics in paragraph/subheading structure allowed for you to follow on with my paper as I believed having the online conference follow my PDF paragraphing style would have been too textually congested.
I appreciate your acknowledgement for the research I have conducted in the formation of this paper, as I hoped to homogenise different perspectives into the sole, centralised importance of ownership and autonomy in Journalism. I also agree with your recognition of limitations set by the word limit in accounting for the vast implications of participatory culture. Upon retrospection, the topic I chose held an opportunity to channel specific frameworks of citizen journalism that I may have failed to completely utilise. However, my attempt to discuss a generalisation in the transition of journalism, hopefully led to a clarity in autonomous undertone and identity politics as being defined upon by mass response to journalism.
Questioning the audience context, specific to the discussion of participatory culture, was something that I had stumbled across several times throughout the construction of this piece. Reflecting upon the core conflict of the paper, I was at a crossroads of whether I should focus the tone on the paper in generalist or specialised connotations regarding the audience context. On one hand, I personally understood the idea journalism to be mass-communicated and therefor inevitably exposed to majority of the public. I mentally categorized this space of examination under “the public sphere” and it was a term I was familiar with. Additional to this I personally determined the concept of a “generalist” audience, to be complimentary to the conversation of occupational identification as the role of a “Journalist” was to keep the public informed, regardless of whether the majority of the audiences themselves take attentive notice of what the news really stood for and was attempting to communicate. On the other hand, I also recognised a containment of cultural/social ideologies, expressed by the news, that not everyone engages with outside of televisual viewing or internet search/news trends. In establishing a relatability, I wanted my text to possess for the reader, I decided to address the receptive space of journalism as a general audience exposed to such identities of journalism through mass media television. Looking into historical transitions of news and information exchange, I was made aware of digitisation, primarily through different Jenkins readings in the past. This previous awareness of participatory culture, now informed by textual readings into credibility and open correspondence, honed “journalism “as accounting for a dynamic between technological evolution and the context of reception. I began to view participatory culture as an extension of the mass-communication circuit, rather than a space for context-specific contributions made by particular communities engaged with journalism. In hindsight, this paper may have had analytical space to dive into specific participants of this “online digital creation” in terms of citizen journalism and in this case, has deterred away from that opportunity to instead focus on the public sphere as a whole. I agree with your suggestion of how I could have expanded, or more so, specialised the topic to directly address what the “participatory culture” refers to. I also agree, questioning their reasons “why” would have given this paper more depth into the different avenues of contribution made in the relationship between ownership and autonomy, particularly surrounding areas of motivation and expansion of information exchange and ethics of debate in journalism.
To answer your questions/ implications regarding the audience context, I believe anyone within exposure to journalism and an established/active presence on social media, contributes to the discussion. Participatory culture utilises the affordances of the internet, which is not only immediate but essentially infinite in where opinions can be formed. More often than not, I believe when the general public comes across ideologies expressed in this digital realm, by nature of conversation and speech, we internally answer the question ourselves. In cases where we do not care about topics we come across, put forward by a journalist, the detachment we display is too, a response and occurs in social media/ the internet through absence. Journalism online is created with the reputation it beholds, due to its ability to extend information beyond the occupational role of the “reporter”. News occurring digitally in this space becomes transcending of editorial limitations and is put to the determination of the public as the “cultural/social” authority dictating information flows. Where there is fluidity in how one is able to contribute, there is also an ambiguity in how one chooses to participate. If put to the audiences’ exposure through concentrated mainstream media on television, without the chance of response through the vastness of internet social media sites/blogging platforms, the only way to question credibility is to physically ask it. One would have to remove themselves from their immediate context and really “make noise” to other people, hoping to begin a movement of sorts, that acts as reaction to news they see or else that journalistic expression made through the television by news channels goes essentially unchallenged. Absence of participation against traditional journalism accounts for boredom and disinterest in the news by existing as it is, regardless. While consequences may exist in ratings or defamation cases, traditional journalism external to the internet is able to establish at least the core foundation of its history as being the “ultimate truth”. Absence on the internet, in some cases, can be a measure of disinterest or an indication that the news presented is irrelevant/ lacks emotional value. I say this with noted recognition to practical uses of the internet where one may not have the time or productive space to stop, read and respond to an article; some not even reading the article at all. But the absence of contribution in citizen journalism online, is a participation in the wider discussion of credibility and truth as their lack of contribution contains within it, the possibility of challenge, necessary for the truth to stand on the surface in entirety. Being at an event, but not sharing their perspective online, while a personal choice, does leave behind a point of view vital to the wider picture being documented.
In answering the other side of who actively participates, the short answer is: anyone. Consistency in citizen “news reporting” is not the key determinant in participatory culture as one could post facts, opinions and evidence once every few weeks and still be contributing to spaces the general public believe mainstream journalism neglects. Those who do it on a regular basis tend to be of political mind, seeking justice and, underlyingly governed by a moral stance on truth and accountability. Like traditional journalists, citizen journalists believe In the expression of facts, evidence and truth but since operating in an autonomous space of ambiguity, they also driven by subjectivity. Most of the time, a sense of injustice informs their perspective of a narrative angle in traditional journalism as “leaving out” or failing to accommodate for perspectives the ‘citizen journalist’ then provides through questioning and possibly their own ‘sourced’ facts and figures.
Your comment and contribution under my paper has given me a greater depth of analysis into where this paper could of taken the discussion of citizen journalism and I appreciate the questions and compliments you have provided.
I hope you have enjoyed the conference, thank you!
Renae
Hey,
Very interesting topic to write about. I liked how you broke down each section, allowing for the reader to move flawlessly through your conference paper.
Do you think that ownership of social media platforms impacts the reach of news reporting? If so, how and why do you think its impacted?
Cheers,
Aleighsha
Hi Aleighsha,
Thank you! I found the topic to be quite heavy in content, expansive and personally stimulating to explore so I’m glad you found interest in what it attempts to communicate about autonomy and ownership in journalism. The term “flawlessly” you used to describe readability when addressing the visual composition of my paper is a huge compliment as I wanted ease of access to the topic without overloading the audience to a more congested structure of a piece without subheadings. I hope you found the paper to be much more specialised and easier to understand by use of the subheadings and complimentary to the section of text that precedes each paragraph you read.
Thank you for your questions. The first is particularly interesting as I haven’t put much thought to the administrative side of social media but in answering your question, I do believe it impacts the reach of news reporting. All social media sites are essentially founded by, ran and distributed by human beings and by nature, humans are preferential. Where we are impartial to spaces, we are opinionated in others and it is this dynamic between desire and disinterest, that social media sites act as mass-communicative exposure to opportunistic conversation. Facebook engages with stock and subsidiaries so participation on the platform is integral to its success. As a result, factors such as political neutrality bring together, the public to a central space and bias generates the tension necessary for opinions (and participation) to be exemplified. At times, this may backfire in negative publicity of accused favouring but in other cases, this conflict can bring more opinions to the threshold of citizen journalism, all questioning authority and upholding the notion of truth. In spaces of conflict, the public is able to engage in challenge of perceived dishonesty, however social media still exercises editorial control of the company’s administration. News reporters (both traditional and citizen journalists) must navigate a space of commercialised interest and algorithms which can instigate or subvert attention towards their journalistic contributions.
Other results of social media platform ownership tend to revolve around grassroots activism which is a whole other discussion on its own but to coincide with the end of the social media conference, I will refrain from diving deeper into this point.
I greatly appreciate your comment and the questions you have asked. They really expand the discussion to so many other areas involved with citizen journalism and I hope you enjoyed my paper.
Thanks,
Renae
Hi RCarey, Your paper raises some really important topics that are relevant today.
I agree that new technologies and social networking platforms can provide liberation from traditional forms of media journalism but do you think they also serve to perpetuate the ideologies of traditional news?
I currently have a big problem with mainstream news media outlets insofar as they seem, to me, to perpetuate some really nasty ideologies and when you consider that in Australia our news and mainstream media come from only a few main companies it goes without saying that the general public are being ‘fed’ stylised accounts of events and are only being ‘shown’ what the news companies and producers want us to see. There are very few unbiased and humane news outlets on mainstream media.
And for this reason I have cause for concern for journalists output of the news. For example, if they’re only getting paid for the articles that support a certain political party, or articles that make a group of people appear a certain way then how are we ever going to get fair news? And how will they ever make a living?
Great article, it really got me thinking.
Cheers,
Ces
Hi Cesarina,
Thank you for your contribution to my paper and I appreciate you identifying my piece to relevancy with the modern world. External to the objectivity of this social media conference, I absolutely share your views. Firstly, your agreeance to the way I addressed the technological implications in conjunction with identity politics was complimentary as was identifying the association to liberalisation of traditional journalism so thank you for taking the time to read my paper and finding those to be particular points of interest.
I do believe there is a dual dynamic that exists in spaces of conversational conflict where one opinion is governed by a space of challenge that can only exist by opposition of another. With this said, citizen journalism still remains an extension and a response to traditional forms of news reporting and by that default I would say new technologies and social media do serve to “perpetuate ideologies of traditional news”. Under historical perspective, truth and credibility remain in the identity of occupational authority – media companies, reporters, editors etc. The thought of the “television telling the truth” has since been challenged by concept of constructed realities. But with expressions and representations of truth, come opinion and more often than our generation tend to realise, a lot of what traditional journalism implies as the truth, the public in agreeance and satisfaction. Companies who are aware of citizen journalism will also hold teams or figures with a grasp on information flows online and attempt to accommodate for this space of challenge and immediacy by directly associating themselves with news trends, algorithms, pages, blogs, tweets, statuses and comments. Additional to this is a point I mentioned on another comment, about commercialisation and the “need” for companies to satisfy shareholders. If a social media site begins to purposely corrupt traditional journalism practices, the consequences are ambiguous to how the public sphere responds.
I can see your point of view on mainstream media outlets, particularly Australia, as I have been in a position to witness how reporters are encouraged to speak and produce their work. With traditional journalism, additional to the notion of truth and credibility reporters must hold themselves accountable to as a professional identity, they must also navigate organisational factors, legal implications and editorial control from companies. More often than not, these companies operate under commercialised, profit—making interest, so not only must their content by relatable to the public but of interest and intrigue. I personally have noticed a few puns and rhythmic sentence structures/word choices on news reports which, while possibly used for easier comprehension, does come across as very constructed and almost superficial to the seriousness of what they are reporting. Your thoughts open a much larger discussion around determination of what is appropriate and the frameworks surrounding narrative/ story angle that relate back to my paper of autonomy and ownership as well as the notion of constructed reality on a much larger scale than what I have addressed. Regarding Australia in particular, the media here is very concentrated to both figures and companies: Rupert Murdoch and Seven West Media. To really contextualise that situation, Seven West Media’s acquisition of the Sunday Times newspaper, saw both major state newspapers under the same centralised control additional to digital news website ‘Perth Now’ also falling into ownership by Seven West Media. Cases like this demonstrate the news as being an economic project with cultural resources that both the public engage with, and commercialisation holds major influence over. Viewers of journalism as active consumers of information that seek, explore and examine power relations most equate to trusted authorisation, especially in representation of content, production and technology. With concentrated media ownership such as Seven West Media in Western Australia, depictions of news and events fall under a sole corporation with an ability to influence and manipulate public perception. Since Seven West Media also hold the television station, Channel 7, a lot of televised broadcasting of sporting events also provide a gateway for dominant media companies to further integrate into the forces of economy. Majority broadcast rights are already under Channel 7 and heavily stylised beyond game day with the addition of Cricket (both test and big bash) since the sandpaper incident in test cricket garnished heavy media exposure and subsequent ratings.
Through such acquisition comes the consequences on public exposure to news reporting as a concept in general. Media, information and economic distribution, dominated by such power forces, welcome the ethics of law and business by creating a governance of mass media, relative to commercialisation. Mass media companies, also being business conglomerates, could leave a lack of diversity in the media market by intensifying the workload of journalists who remain selected after sales of companies and avenues of information exchange in Australia and other countries. The role of the journalist as the 4th estate becomes threatened by limitations on diversity, the added marginalised representation of cultural/social groups and a reduction in competition which unfortunately, as you mentioned Cesarina, results in the public being “fed stylised” content.
Your cause of concern for journalism is valid in this current climate and introduces important points of saturation to the conversation. Your mentioning of economic principals juxtaposed against the public’s right to truth is also a great point to expand upon there is a fine line between objectivity and subjectivity in news reporting.
Your contribution to my paper is much appreciated.
Thank you,
Renae
Hi there RCarey,
A very interesting topic choice and I think you covered the wide range of issues of journalism identity very well.
I particularly enjoyed your point where you state that…
“social media provides an accountability and transparency of time that is not only relevant to the lives of everyday citizens but one that is interactive to the way they want to respond and engage with the news”
I think this is particularly true in the case of large protests and political activism, as the ability social media provides to participants to broadcast real time event from a number of viewpoints.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think this is an important form of new reporting? Or one that cannot be trusted?
Looking forward to your reply,
Sophie
Hi Sophie,
Thank you for your interest in my topic and for acknowledging the scope of journalism in which this paper touches base on. Your compliments are much appreciated.
To quote a part of my paper under a personal point of interest is a huge compliment and to expand upon my point of social media by introducing the topic of activism shows a great awareness of the spaces in which my topic exist, which is very humbling, thank you.
I agree with you, that social media can operate as a tool for political activism. The immediacy it accounts for, gives people the chance to participate in movements as they happen and to give voice to the marginalised against existing authority. Relative to this point is a section of my text where I deal with the 5th estate in the form of open correspondence. Social media opens doors for anger to come to the forefront of passion and in times where people feel extreme emotions, comes an internal necessity to do something about this and I believe media technologies these days, are quick to accommodate emotion, faster than fast most times. Due to this factor, it is quite easy to assume social media cannot be trusted as a legitimate avenue of political activism through citizen journalism, however truth itself exists under individualised contexts that contains within it, selection and influence. Where a red pen is a red pen to one person, it isn’t to the colourblind. Likewise, the cover of a book from the front (exposed to one person) and a different to the back (exposed to another). People engaging in social media tend to speak from a place they believe to be the truth and since it is the public sphere that journalism is influenced by, and operates within, I do believe political activism and/in citizen journalism is important to news reporting.
Thanks again for reading my paper and I hope you found my piece to be insightful and educational to the environment of journalistic identities in traditional and digitalised forms.
Thanks,
Renae
Hey Carey!
I have read your paper and found that is not only a good one but also well reference! The way you segregated the paper makes it straightforward to understand. While talking about journalism and participatory culture you could also discuss on how defamation might play a negative role. But I believed it is well written. I have done a conference paper on business and on presence you might read mine and see how journalism also linked to business. Here’s the link below :
https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2019Curtin/2019/05/06/online-identity-a-must-for-business-survival-in-the-digital-era/
Regards,
Shaf Sookharry
Hi Shaf,
Thank for reading my paper and for acknowledging the research put into it. The visual composition of my paper in this conference was done with the intention to make readability flow and for paragraphs and sections to be more personalised to a topic that could act in isolation as well as contribute in unison with the rest of the paper. I am glad to hear that has been achieved by your compliment to how “straight forward to understand” you found my paper to be. Your suggestion to include defamation is a strong one as I too believe the impact existent in the landscape would be important to note in differentiating and comparing the two forms of journalism. Its position would make heavy presence in the ownership side of the debate as it fits with legal and organisational procedures navigated by editorial control/ mainstream media ownership. I look forward to reading your paper and thank you for taking the time to contribute to mine.
Hope you enjoyed the conference!,
Renae
Hello there Carey,
Very nice read indeed! Ownership definitely affects publication of information these days, as much as the ongoing talks in the public sphere, hence participatory culture! Journalism identity is well affected by these ‘factors’.
At what extent do you think ownership affects the content published? Very much to be debated on this subject.
Regards,
Keshav
Do not hesitate to take a look at my paper on : https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2019Curtin/2019/05/09/social-media-influencers-defining-construction-of-identit/
Hi Keshav,
Thank you for taking the time to read and for your kind words about my paper. I agree ownership does hold much influence on “publication of information” and I believe it affects context to a huge extent as not only must journalists navigate this space under immediate context but the environment that surrounds it. Ownership brings with it, organisation factors and legal implications on top of financial constraints and it is all these factors that cluster a debate as to whether content published is true to the interest of the public or accomodating for economic gain.
Thank you also, for linking your paper,
Renae
Hello again Renae,
The debate between articles published for public interest and accommodating economic gain is ever-going. To my observation, this is common practice in media outlets these days, they try to balance the best of both worlds in their publications. The main reason to that is media outlets hold public interest at heart but the need of credits in makes that they need to make space for articles which generate funds and advertising. It’s a matter of survival and it is a business after all.
Cheers,
Keshav