PDF Version available below: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u2018under surveillance\u2019 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keywords: Ownership, media, independence, journalism, internet, identity, media, participation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u201cThe Strength of Weak Cooperation\u201d, this environment encapsulates two dominant identities embodying construction and application of value\/desire by definition of modality exchange. On one hand, \u201cUtilitarian agents\u201d concerned with \u201cmaximisation of personal interest\u201d, are directed by information, economic intention and\/or status seeking behaviour (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). P<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201caltruist individuals\u201d (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 \u201cexplicit\u201d (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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s 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 \u2018the absolute\u2019 (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 4th<\/sup>estate to larger accessibility of information (Adorno, 1989).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 4th<\/sup>estate as a landscape of editorial choices, an enveloping of what the public comes to understand as\u2019 objective news\u2019, 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. \u201cOpen- correspondence\u201d, breaking hierarchical boundaries of \u2018ethical practice\u2019, 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 5th<\/sup>estate, this expansion upon spaces of representation, enacts through impact of \u201copen media\u201d, 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. \u201cOpen- correspondence\u201d, breaking hierarchical boundaries of \u2018ethical practice\u2019, 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 5th<\/sup>estate, this expansion upon spaces of representation, enacts through impact of \u201copen media\u201d, 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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). <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cthe journalist\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n References <\/p>\n\n\n\n Adorno, T. (1989). Culture Industry Revisited. Study of Popular Fiction: A source book<\/em>, 52-59, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Retrieved from https:\/\/link.library.curtin.edu.au\/ereserve\/DC60262324\/0?display=1<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Langlois, G. (2013). Participatory culture and the new governance of communication: The Paradox of participatory media. Television & New Media, 14<\/em>(2), 91-105. doi: 10.1177\/1527476411433519<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dahlberg, L. (2015). Expanding Digital Divides Research: A Critical Political Economy of Social Media. The Communication Review, 18 <\/em>(1), pp 271-293. doi:10.1080\/10714421.2015.1085777<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Rosen, J. (2012). The People Formerly Known as the Audience. The Social Media Reader, 1, <\/em>pp 13-16. Retrieved from https:\/\/ebookcentral.proquest.com\/lib\/curtin\/reader.action?docID=865738&ppg=24<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n McKee, A. (2005). Introduction. The Public Sphere: An Introduction, <\/em>64-104. Retrieved from https:\/\/ebookcentral.proquest.com\/lib\/curtin\/reader.action?docID=220448&ppg=15<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Reich, Z. (2011). SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND JOURNALISM. Journalism Practice, 5<\/em>(1). 51-67. doi: 10.1080\/17512781003760519<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/em>(4), 275-292. doi: 10.1080\/08900523.2010.512825<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Cary, S.A. (2016). How media ownership affects community journalism: A case study of the grand forks herald (Masters\u2019 thesis). Retrieved from https:\/\/search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/docview\/1830772018\/fulltextPDF\/551AF66873714B47PQ\/1?accountid=10382<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hall, S. (2012). Preferred\/ Negotiated\/ Oppositional Readings. Retrieved https:\/\/documentaryprojectdp.wordpress.com\/2012\/01\/19\/preferrednegotiatedoppositional-readings-stuart-hall\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni and J.A Danowski, (Eds). Communication and Technology<\/em>. 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<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An attempt to understand the meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65<\/em>(1), 51-65. Retrieved from https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Grudz, A., Wellman, B., and Takhteyev. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined community. American Behavioural Scientist, 55<\/em>(10), 1294- 1318. doi: 10.1177\/0002764211409378 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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… Continue reading How Ownership and Participatory Culture constructs the identity of Journalism<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":591,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[195,200,128,131,204,201,17,202,196,19,190,40,197,205,21,206],"class_list":["post-590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-identity","tag-journalism","tag-commercialisation","tag-community","tag-culture","tag-digital","tag-editor","tag-identity","tag-independence","tag-media","tag-network","tag-networks","tag-online","tag-ownership","tag-participatory","tag-social-media","tag-society"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=590"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":604,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590\/revisions\/604"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Preffered, Negociated and Oppositional Reading<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Public Response to the Journalistic Identity<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The Context of Production<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The Context of Reception <\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Internet as a Tool for Open Correspondance<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Participatory Culture<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion <\/h5>\n\n\n\n