Week 11- Let's talk about me for a minute

After a few weeks of looking at the industry as students, we've been given the opportunity to put on our journalism hats to research and write our own piece (scary stuff).

Image Source: http://ninjasandrobots.com/you-need-some-experience

Being ambitious, I've decided to go for a topic that's a little sensitive and completely out of my comfort zone- Politics. I've decided to go for a written feature because, well, I have a face for radio and the voice for print. Just joking, although writing is what I would consider my greater asset.

So the story I'm working on stems from the idea of WikiLeaks, but looks at the phenomenon of mistrust in the government. I've decided to hone in on this idea and keep it local, looking at the politics in my area Port Stephens. As of late there has been a bit of an outcry from residents to have ICAC investigate the Port Stephens Council, well so I thought. 

My research is leading me down a path a little different to what I expected. In a bid to be objective and tell the whole story, I've been speaking to members of the Tomaree Rate Payers and Residents Association (TRRA), a local Port Stephens councillor, the Editor from local newspaper The Port Stephens Examiner, Council General Manager Wayne Wallis and a local resident who has lived in Port Stephens since birth (impressive!). 

From the research I've done prior to interviews, it seemed that the resignation of Newcastle Lord Mayor Jeff McCloy had put doubt into the minds of Port Stephens residents and there was now this mistrust rife in the community, calling for a corruption enquiry. In particular into the 2012 election campaign of now mayor Bruce MacKenzie, and the council relationship with development company Buildev- as we've all heard it's illegal for developers to fund electoral campaigns. 

I've posted below a few links to articles I've used as background research and to provide a little context on the issue I'm tackling:

Newcastle mayor Jeff McCloy quit before being pushed 

ICAC: Investigate Port Council: TRRA

Bruce Almighty

Without giving too much away, my interview with the TRRA went as expected- they are in fact the body who submit evidence to ICAC. This interview actually went for hours; they had a lot to say. It gave me the impression that all local residents had it in for the local council, but further interviews made me realise that this may not be exactly as I thought. It's fair to say my research and interviews have given me different answers that I thought i would find. Some of the other interviewees were more tight lipped- understandable as it's a sensitive topic- although happy to talk nonetheless. I also managed to have a brief chat with The Examiner editor Anna Wolf, who gave me a run down on political coverage in the publication. 

My feature is still a work in progress, although I'm looking forward to constructing the final product. One thing I've learnt is chasing interviews is time consuming! I refresh my email inbox more than my Facebook lately, but it's a learning curve and nice to work on my own project for once. 

Of Course when I'm finished within the next two weeks, I'll post my feature in my next blog. Until then, I'll be writing! 

Week 9- Would you like spin with that?

Journalism and PR:

Image Source: http://kylajanebanks.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/pr-and-journalism-friends-with-benefits.html

PR practitioners and journalists seem to have a love hate relationship. Described by scholars as a ‘tug of war’, or a ‘parent-child like relationship’, media scholars have long studied and tried to understand the way in which these two separate industries work together. In today’s modern news landscape, research outlined by Jane Johnston shows that a lot of our news comes from PR, be it media releases, press conferences, even tip offs. A study conducted by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism along with news media website www.crikey.com (source: Journalism research and investigation in a digital world) found that nearly 55% of news stories were driven by some form of public relations.

As journalists, or future journalists so to speak, we can establish that balance, the right to know, and reporting objectively are our main goals (unless you’re Rupert Murdoch). But for PR, all communication is strategic, designed to influence opinion, and make clear a certain point of view. Differing motivations is one aspect that can cause conflict between PR practitioners and journalists. The idea is not that all PR people are shady, untrustworthy spin-doctors. Most perform their job in an ethical manner. But journalists have to be aware that sometimes, the information we get from PR is worth a second look before we send it off to print (but shouldn’t we know this by now!).

For instance, astroturfing is one maneuver that falls under the unethical PR category. It generally involves faking public support at the grass roots level, hence the witty name.

Take tech giant and Apple rival Samsung. According to engadget.com, this company was fined nearly $340 000 Australian dollars by Taiwan’s Fair Trade Commission for faking online comments in an attempt to market their already successful smart phone the Samsung Galaxy. Even though it’s only loose change for a billion dollar company such as Samsung, it goes to show that there are indeed consequences for unethical PR tactics. It begs the question, if the product is already successful, why fake online comments to make it look as if the public are digging the latest Galaxy? Sick of always coming in second best? Inferior to the iPhone perhaps? They do say jealousy is a curse...

With that aside, it brings to light the importance of always double checking PR and keeping in mind the motivations of some practitioners. In this 24 hour news cycle we exist in where time is a factor, we can be guilty of not fact checking and hastily publishing. But with that being said, some PR can make for great news stories, so it is important to judge individually and not generalize patterns of behavior.

So not all PR is dark and covert. It would probably be more appropriate to say that most PR is ethical. It’s important to build relationships with public relations practitioners and forge a little bit of trust. As journalists, it can be more beneficial to attempt to work with PR practitioners rather than against them.

Week eight: Safety in numbers

Crunching numbers is a scary thought for most journalists. We are not typically the data calculating type. We tell our story and find our answers through words and description, both spoken and visual, painting an image through language. Whether it is a hard news story or an elaborate feature, letters, not numbers, lend themselves to us. But in a world of computers where our meticulously thought out words are reduced to mere zeroes and ones, these “numbers” may have a place in journalism after all.

Not everyone has the ability to remember what they read, and of course there’s the skeptics who may not believe everything they read, even when it comes from the trusty mouth of a journalist [not one of those blogger types, but not this blog of course!].  Numbers, i.e. statistics and figures, can really help with this in relation to journalism.  We call this data journalism, and we can discover that it is not necessarily something to be afraid of.

Stats in fact add value to journalistic stories; they even form the basis of financial, political and sport journalism (political polls for example- two party preferred, Tony Abbott down a few points from last week as preferred PM and that kind of stuff). It has the ability to enhance existing stories, or give journalists the ability to take raw data and find a story within it; this is where the true expertise of a journalist comes into play.

Database journalism and the like have the ability to enhance a journalist’s capability to identify and add credibility to news. It can identify social, economic and political trends that impact on society. A great example of database journalism outlined by journalist Kerry Green is that of The Guardian. They took a database containing information about expense claims made by British MPs. They then used a form of crowdsourcing as readers reviewed the data and closely inspected anything suspicious. Combined with the wondrous power of computers, The Guardian was able to source out suspicious information from the raw data and then turn this into a story. This collaborative power along with the concept of data journalism, as Green puts it: enhances the role of journalists as the fourth estate.

This quick audio clip from the ABC explores the secrets hidden in numbers and looks at the scary black hole that is data journalism. 

Displaying data is another skill for journalists. According to Fernanda Viages from IBM, half of our brain is hard wired for vision; we are programmed to understand the world around us in terms of what we see. This is why the visualization of data is important and goes a little further in scope than the humble pie graph. There are many fancy ways to show these stats, with sites like IBM offering professional services to take this data and turn it into something beautiful that our readers can understand.  

So even though we are wordsmiths, figures aren’t necessarily the enemy. We can still play the numbers game.  As journalism scholar Stephen K. Doig explains, while data journalism does require journalists to be comfortable with basic math, the most important skill is the ability to see the possibility of a story. 

Week seven- Time to put the indigenous stereotype to rest

Indigenous voices in Australian media struggle to be heard, and struggle to have certain issues fairly represented. It has always been a challenge of journalists to represent cultural diversity, and nowhere is it more obvious than indigenous representation in the media. There is a lack of knowledge on the behalf on journalists, and a very limited number of indigenous Australians, be it Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders, work within the media themselves.

For the most part, the Australian media do their journalistic best to represent all issues fairly, objectively, and as accurately as possible, but the overall framing of indigenous issues lends itself to a seemingly negative connotation. Stereotyping and skewed angles are all too common.

Some of the below headlines are just snippets of poor indigenous journalism in Australian media:

Image source:http://blogs.crikey.com.au/fullysic/2012/02/02/why-muriel-heslop-is-not-as-dumb-as-the-australian-financial-review/

Image source: http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/racism-in-aboriginal-australia

This article by Indigenous site ‘Creative Spirit’ has a look at some of the reasons as to why there is such a discrepancy in media representation:

Media Coverage of Indigenous Issues

It goes on too fault the lack of diversity in the Australian media landscape to limit the diversity and shape the tone of indigenous affairs. Ray Jackson, president of the Indigenous Social Justice Association exclaims that the “media tend to make “our” issues only front page news when it can be spun into a report whereby lazy, drunken so and so are to blame for the mistakes of government and their departments.”

There have been previous cases of racial descrimination that have even seen some journalists in trouble legally. In 2011 Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt wrote several articles about how some indigenous Australians "selected" part of their Aboriginal heritage over the rest and used this on order to receive government benefits.  One of the women Bolt targeted took offence to these allegations and took him to court. It was eventually confirmed that Bolt's journalism had breached the Racial Discrimination Act [47] (www.cretivespirits.info). 

So what can journalists do to help eradicate what still remains of indigenous stereotyping? Be sure to obtain background knowledge, be careful with word choice, get all sides of the story or speak to an indigenous person, not to mention weigh up what part of the news story is essentially important. Is t an Indigenous issue, or perhaps just an issue? A lot of journalists get stuck in this idea. Always ask yourself the most professional way to approach the story and obtain unbiased information.

Foreign Correspondent and Journalist Jeff McMullen puts it like this: “The media has a responsibility to tell the country what is happening in a way that connects Australians. If you see that people are not listening to the truth, find another way to tell the story.”

Sourced from Media Coverage of Indigenous Issues article accessed on September 10, 2014, fromhttp://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/media-coverage-of-aboriginal-issues

Week Six- How much is too much?

How transparent should you be to call yourself an objective journalist? This is one of those confusing journalism questions with no real definitive answer. Its always been assumed that journalists write as truthfully and transparently as possible right? Right?? In a perfect world why yes, of course they do! But in an age of information overload, how much is too much?

The conception of Wikileaks has brought this issue to the forefront of journalism. Wikileaks is essentially a whistle-blowing site that makes classified, secret or confidential leaks globally public. Created in 2006 by Australian man Julian Assange, it correlates with his concept of radical transparency. Scholars Dreyfus and Hranfnsson (2013) explain this concept as challenging political power in an age of ICT’s and computer technology. Assange strived for an era where there are no secrets.

It wasn’t until 2010 that Wikileaks gained the infamous reputation it has now. The release of the Collateral Murder video make Wikileaks one of the most talked about topics of the year. This particular video showed U.S soldiers in Baghdad shooting civilians. This entailed children and two Reuters staff. Of course this didn’t sit well with the American Government after they had stated all those killed were anti-Iraq forces. The Pentagon tried their best to cover this up by claiming the soldiers thought the cameras carried by the media workers were guns, but after watching the video, this seems like one of the poorest excuses used ever. (It happens around the 9-11 minute mark).

Video Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

2010 then saw a myriad of leaks published via Wikileaks including the infamous Cablegate scandal. This huge influx of information led to journalists finding themselves in the midst of a professional dilemma. Media workers were asked by Wikileaks to sort through the various confidential documents and then use their expertise to choose which stories to run and what information should be redacted. This is much like when you see a document with sections blacked out; this is the really secret and potentially dangerous information, for instance putting innocent people at risk.

So like we asked earlier, how much is too much? Journalists are sometimes labeled “the fourth estate” using their publishing power to keep the powerful in check. Many would argue that this is a hugely important role in society, me included, but we need to look at the idea of public interest and what it entails. Is it in the public interest, or merely interesting to the public? It seems ideal that whistleblowers, Wikileaks included, and journalists work to expose wrong-doing, but we need to ask ourselves what we need to know versus what we want to know. Does this concept of radical transparency make us wiser or just more informed? I would argue that for the most part, embarrassment is not reason enough to keep information such as the Collateral Murder video under wraps. But there is a fine line between transparency and national security. Is the government holding information from us or for us? It’s really something to think about.

Week five- Twitter Takeover

The twitterisation of news is one of those new-age, digital concepts. Social media in general has left a lasting impact on journalism, but the twitter movement has been significant. Not only do news outlets post breaking stories, but crowd source information, research investigative pieces and sell themselves as professionals through personal accounts.

Described by journalist Julie Posetti (2013) as “public text messaging on steroids”, twitter provides a platform where news can be delivered instantly to the world in 140 characters or less. Almost every news organization and journalist has (or should have) an existence in the twittersphere.

It compliments the instantaneous nature of journalism and reaches out to a mass audience. And in true journalism fashion the news is short, sharp and bite (or should I say byte) sized.

Guardian Media Group CEO Andrew Miller gives us the low down on the ways in which twitter has benefitted his news organization. He explains that twitter has helped The Guardian in an enormous way, with over 10% of the newspapers traffic coming from social media. He explains that the heart of journalism is in breaking news, and “twitter is the fastest way to do this.”

Take the story of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden for instance. This story “really broke for us on twitter” Miller explains. It took over an hour for this story to reach other breaking news stations.

This video gives Mr Millers’ overview on just how important twitter is for news media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Llz7qncpn4

Basically, if you’re not on twitter, you’re doing it wrong!

One effect of this ‘twitterisation’ is an increase of a concept aptly titled co-creation. While co-creation sounds like a wonderful, happy concept, as a future journalist, I’m a little skeptical. While twitter acts as a fantastic resource to increase a journalists network, it has lead to a rise in citizen journalism. I’m not totally against citizen journalism; there lies great opportunity for journalists and citizen journalists to create beautiful news together. But seeing as the future of the industry is already a little problematic, I can’t help but wonder if sites such as twitter rule out the need for journalists?

Take the Hudson River plane crash for example. This was one of the biggest news stories of 2009. The pilot declared an emergency after a bird strike, (this is apparently where birds fly into ones plane) but continued to successfully land the plane into the Hudson River, saving all 155 passengers.

This story was broken on twitter by John Citizen, or in this case, Janis Krums, a witness who was travelling on a nearby ferry.

Image source: http://www.fundraisingcounsel.com/fundraising-blog/fundraising-social-media/five-social-media-tips-for-nonprofits/

Of course it was picked up by news organisations within minutes and retweeted by millions, but one of the biggest stories of the year was published not by a journalist but a citizen. Obviously this is because due to the nature of the event there was no journalist at the site to provide coverage, and the accounts and photos supplied by witnesses were used to piece together the story. But it really leaves you wondering, where do journalists stand? Will micro-blogs such as twitter leave us redundant as ‘professionals’ or will we always need journalists to verify stories and give that sense of authority that the public trust? For my sake I hope so!