Week Five: Globalisation v Localisation OR Globalisation ~ Localisation

One of the main points I have picked up on during my three-year Communication degree at University is that the journalism world is changing. If you went into this degree wanting a job in traditional media…. Well, best of luck to you. With each journalism subject we have been told that what we have come to know as journalism is changing. Twenty years ago journalism graduates would go out into the ‘real world’ and get a job at their local newspaper; today we’re more likely to get a job in the online version of the paper, if we’re lucky enough to get a job at all.

New technology has had a tremendous impact on the journalism world, but not just in the way news is transmitted. It has also impacted where we source our news and news content. Technology is giving the news media a worldwide audience and stories that were once limited to the local can now be broadcast to the other side of the world, increasing global awareness and the interconnectedness of the world.

While this may sound like a wonderful thing, globalisation also has its downfalls. A loss of indigenous culture and language, culture gaps, a lack of privacy and a concentration of media leading to an ‘Americanised’ society can all result from globalisation. With media moguls like Rupert Murdoch as the CEO, chairman and founder of News Corporation, controlling a huge amount of global media, does globalisation mean an increased voice to corporation and the silencing of the local?

Professor Alan Knight, with Central Queensland University, found that after a 1993 trip to Cambodia, globalisation was very apparent. He found the Cambodian locals “were watching Hong Kong quiz shows, American sitcoms, and models in sports cars” (2003, p. 2). He found that Western journalists who were covering the news in Cambodia only covered stories that would directly appeal to their Western audience. With local perspectives ignored, the voice supposedly given to remote areas courtesy of globalisation was lost.

Meanwhile, Len Downie, the Vice President at Large of The Washington Post, can be seen speaking of the future of journalism:

He states that news-reporting staff at some papers has been reduced between 30 to 50 per cent, or more, with many papers not having foreign correspondents.

If globalisation fulfills its duties in the ‘advantages’ column, it can be a great thing. However, as Knight (2003, p. 3) found, things are not always that clean-cut. Ultimately it is up to what the audience wants. In the Cambodia example, Australian correspondents cited many reasons for their choice of coverage, eg. “lack of resources… editors’ ignorance of, or ‘indifference’ to real Asian issues.” However, editors blamed “audience disinterest in certain types of Asian news” as one excuse of the chosen coverage. Which leaves me to conclude, once again, that is ultimately the audience who holds the power.

Globalisation will not be the death of the local, as long as audiences still have the desire for it.

Bibliography:

Josephi, B. (2005). Journalism in the Global Age: Between Normative and Empirical. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies, 67 (6), pp. 575 – 590. 

Knight, A. (2003). Globalised Journalism in the Internet Age. Retrieved 25 August 2910, <http://ejournalist.com.au/v3n2/knightr.pdf>

YouTube – The Future of Journalism. (2009). Retrieved 25 August 2010, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYtOKnk5fiw&feature=search>

Week Four: Would you pay to consume online news?

The traditional perspective of a middle-aged man, smoking a cigarette while furiously typing away on a typewriter in a mad bid to have his story submitted by a deadline is what some people may think of when they hear the word ‘journalist’. However this view of journalism has become seriously outdated. Yes, the tight deadlines remain, but due to evolving technologies the profession of journalism has also developed. The journalist is now tech-savvy, with many incorporating various forms of media such as video, pictures, text and audio into a compilation of news, presented through the internet, the format that has changed journalism forever.

While the internet has changed the profession of journalism, so did television. Television was thought to be the death of radio, however both media forms survive to this day. While the internet will not be the death of traditional media outlets, it will indeed change them forever, with the possibility of audiences having to pay to view content that would normally be for free. (However my optimistic view of traditional journalism medias is not shared by all, with Roy Greenslade, one of Britain’s leading media commentators declaring at the Future of Journalism Summit, “Popular newspapers, the mass newspapers, are dying and will die. They have no future whatsoever” (2008).

Rupert Murdoch famously has announced his plans to persuade newspaper readers to pay for online content, something that journalist Margret Simons from Crikey has acknowledged as the “media issue of the new decade” (2010). A survey from the international World Internet Project, in conjunction with Australian researchers, found that seven out of 10 Australians stated they would not be willing to pay for anything at all, an interesting finding for Mr Murdoch to consider. (However as Simons states, the survey involved a small number of respondents which should be taken into consideration.)

So I pose the questions… Would you pay for online news? How much? What type of news would you pay to consume? Isn’t it only fair that as you have to pay to consume news through newspapers, you should have to pay to consume news through the internet? 

To check out the views from one side of the argument, have a look at this YouTube clip where the author of Googled: The End of the World As We Know it, Ken Auletta, suggests that the culture of the internet suggests that “information should be free” and if we charge people to consume news, as Murdoch suggests, we would be changing the culture of the internet.

References:

Simons, M 2010, ‘Will Aussies pay for Murdoch’s news?’, Crikey, 13 January, accessed 18 August 2010, <http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/13/murdochs-grand-paywall-experiment-will-aussies-pay/>

The Future of Journalism: A joint initiative of the Media Alliance and the Walkley Foundation, 2010, accessed 18 August 2010, <http://www.thefutureofjournalism.org.au/>

YouTube – Would You Pay for Online News? Ken Auletta, 2009, online video, accessed 18 August 210, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC-FWdagpz8>

Week Three: Citizen Journalism - Move over journalist or move over Twitter?

That citizen journalism is rising in popularity is no question or assumption. It is a fact. In all forms of media, be it print, broadcast or online, citizens are standing up and having their voices heard. But what does that mean for the journalist? And what does that mean for the journalist's audience?

As Melissa, Shannon and Aaron illustrated in this week's seminar presentation, citizen journalism, or public journalism, has become increasingly popular since the advent of the internet and the growing accessibility to digital technology. Everyday people who are in the right place at the right time, and with the right technical equipment, have the ability to show the rest of the world their news. The best example of this, that I can personally think of, is the Hudson River plane crash in America. The first footage broadcast to the world of this extraordinary event was taken by nearby citizens who managed to capture the event on their phones/cameras.

* You can even see postings on sites such as Twitter:

http://twitpic.com/135xa

and Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregorylam/3200086900/

Such sites allow for the immediate dispersion of news and information to mass audiences, all thanks to the humble internet.

Other forms of media, such as broadcast and print, have also jumped on the citizen journalism bandwagon, asking audiences 'what they think' through polls. The popular press has accepted this form of citizen journalism wholeheartedly, with television programs such as Sunrise encouraging viewers to vote in their online or mobile polls and write in to the 'soap box'.

However, citizen journalism isn't always such a great thing. While I don't personally believe it will ever take over the role from of the journalist, it perhaps encourages lazy journalism. For instance, journalists can simply see a photo online, or read someone's Tweet and report the story. Journalists need to check, then double check, then triple check their information. Especially when it's from 'unreliable' sources such as social networking sites. If journalists check their information, this collaboration of knowledge will result in a better news-environment for the audience, with more sources and more outlets. However if the journalist doesn't check their information, audiences are left doubting both the journalist and the citizen journalist. And then where would that lead us?

Bibliography:

Cellan-Jones, R, 2009, Twitter and a classic picture, viewed 13 August 2010, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/01/twitter_and_a_classic_picture.html>

Huffington, A, 2009, Arianna Huffington on Citizen Journalism, viewed 13 August 2010, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJ0SVkuK44>

Krums, J, 2009, There's a plane crash in the Hudson. I'm on the ferry going to pick up people. Crazy., Twitpic, viewed 13 August 2010, <http://twitpic.com/photos/jkrums>

Lam Pak Ng, G, 2009, Plane crash into Hudson River, Flickr, viewed 13 August 2010, <http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregorylam/3200086900/>