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!

Week four- So who's paying for all this free content?

Australian journalism in the 21^st century has undergone change; the kind of change that flips the industry on its head. New technology has really shaken things up. News media has an increasing level of convergence and an ever-shrinking workforce. Traditional journalism methods are struggling financially with so much free content available via the Internet. There’s news on our twitter feeds, Facebook updates, apps on our IPhones, not to mention almost every news publication hosts a website full of their content in digital form. For the most part, this information comes to no cost for the consumer, but in the midst of the digital age, this is undermining the financial security of the journalism industry. Like the uncomfortable moment at the end of a first date, who pays?

With writing as my strongest self-proclaimed talent, the death of the humble newspaper is an area I find fascinating. Newspaper circulations are in a steady state of decline, with online versions stepping in to take their place. Online papers are easily accessed, don’t blow around in the wind and, [for the most part] free, hence the massive public appeal. There have been numerous experiments to see how creating a successful business model for online journalism in the developed world pay (Blackhurst 2014). Pay walls, subscription models and paying for apps on tablets have all been trialed but we are yet to find a truly successful business model to capitalize on the popularity of online news (Blackhurst 2014). The problem lies with the fact that online content has always traditionally been free, and consumers are simply not prepared to pay for it.

As a result of all this, “budgets for high quality news have been slashed” (Blackhurst 2014, p. 55).  According to Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) report ‘Life in the Clickstream’ (2008) over 70% of Australian print news journalists surveyed by Essential Media reported an increased workload due to the cutting of staff in their place of work. Because of this, almost 40% of these workers agreed that the quality of their journalism had suffered due to an increased workload (MEAA 2008, p, 12-13). So we are seeing less writers writing more. Jobs are harder to come by, and those journalists who are employed are burdened with massive workloads. No longer are you simply a writer, but an editor, reporter, photographer, social media expert and a whiz with technology to publish your story digitally. Online content is on the up but the financial security of the journalism industry is going down, and this has caused many institutions to consider making news consumers pay for online content.

But should consumers pay? Should journalists pay in terms of their jobs and workloads? Or should the quality of content pay? This is the age-old question facing journalism in the digital age. Personally, I believe that consumers should pay as journalists provide a service. Whether paying for a printed newspaper or a digital one, in order for news to be of high quality and serve its purpose (to inform the people of the people), the industry needs to run as a successful business. In retrospect, the cost of news for consumers is minimal anyway, as advertisements pay the bulk of production costs.

As students, the future of journalism is a scary thought. Jobs are scarce and journalism as we traditionally know it is changing. Whether the web will see the demise of newspapers or not is up in the air. To finish, here’s a quote from The Age journalist Adam Carey, who is witnessing the changes first-hand (as cited in Lamble, 2011): “Journalism is going through an enormous metamorphosis due to innovations in online communication, and I don’t think anybody knows what it will ultimately look like when it’s over. Newspapers… are feeling the pressure as much as any. Already there are fewer journalists here than there was three years ago when I arrived. Despite this, I still feel confident newspapers will continue to exist as long as they can give readers a high quality product. But they may become smaller and more specialized.”

References:

Blackhurst, C. (2014). Finding Viable Business Models for Developed World Print and Online Newspaper Sectors. In P. J. Anderson, M. Williams & G. Ogola (Eds.), The Future of Quality News Journalism: A Cross-Continental Analysis (pp. 55-66). New York: Routledge.

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. (2008).  Life in the Clickstream: The Future of Journalism. Retrieved 20 August 2014, from https://uonline.newcastle.edu.au/courses/1/CRS.110356.2014.S2/content/_2378386_1/foj_report_final.pdf

Lamble, S. (2011). News as it happens. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Week Three- Investigating the (Journalism) Issue

Investigative journalism fosters a corny, clichéd view of the field: Hours of late night research, undisclosed documents, uncovering secrets of fraud and corruption, exchanging covert information in the shadows of an underground car park (literally). But in the modern day and age our news is increasingly digitized, instant, and confined to 140 character tweets. So where does investigative journalism fit?

In the digital age, the media cycle is “fast, and focused on breaking news” (Carson, 2013 p. 18). Time, cost and commitment to authenticating a story all pose a huge threat to the area of investigative journalism (Carson, 2013 p. 18). We read our news stories on our iPhones and tablets; breaking updates come from twitter; the industry is in a constant state of change resulting in a decline of more traditional news practice.

So what about the importance of investigative journalism? Can the industry survive without it or is it necessary to serve as the fourth estate? “At its best, investigative journalism provides transparency and accountability of public figures and institutions. It shines light where cover-ups and corruption prosper” (Carson, 2013 p. 15). While not every lead is validated, investigative journalism has exposed the wrongdoing of those in positions of power, from the recent ICAC enquiry of the Australian Labor Party, to more high profile cases, the most infamous perhaps the Watergate Scandal leading to the resignation of former U.S. president Richard Nixon. 

This particular piece epitomized the role of investigative journalism as a public watchdog. Compiled from the work of American journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (Wall Street Journal, 2012), the work revealed corruption in the Republican government in relation to the burglary of the Watergate Hotel in 1972 (The Washington Post, 2014). As the story would have it, an informant who went by the alias ‘Deep Throat,’ later revealed as FBI associate director Mark Felt, leaked the information to Woodward and Bernstein (Wall Street Journal, 2012). This work came to be after months of research and verifying said research. It was two years from the breaking of the story that President Nixon ultimately resigned (The Washington Post, 2014). Today’s journalism landscape hardly affords the time, resources and commitment to this kind of in-depth story. 

What would this story be like in the digital age? Mr. Woodward asked this exact question to a selection of tech- savvy journalism students, and the answer they gave he jokingly claimed, “was the closest I’ve ever come to having an aneurism” (The Wall Street Journal, 2012). “Oh you would use the internet” (The Wall Street Journal, 2012). But the net doesn’t offer this type of convoluted information; the answers aren’t hidden in the confines of a Google search. As Mr. Wooward puts it, “the truth resides with people” (cited in Wall Street Journal, 2012).

Image Source: http://techpresident.com/news/22031/watergate-and-internet-cautionary-tale-bob-woodward

So it’s slightly uncertain whether the Internet is a friend or foe of investigative journalism in the digital age. While it can offer a publishing platform and act as an aggregated research tool, the so-called ‘twitterisation’ of news may see the end of costly investigative pieces in favor of short, continuous updates of breaking news (Posetti, 2013). All journalists work under certain constraints. Political and economic limitations as well as the working practice of a journalist to be “first with the facts” bind those in the industry to certain styles (Flemming cited by de Burgh, 2013 p. 169). In an industry that’s financially vulnerable, there is a move away from costly work such as investigative pieces and a focus on profit. The business model for the digital future doesn’t seem to leave much room (or funds) for old school journalism.

I’ve always thought of journalism as a somewhat public service, informing the public about the public. Investigative journalism seems like a necessity in performing this role. This article below explores some of the woes like funding, political boundaries, libel laws and a ‘lack of editorial nerve’ threatening the extinction of investigative journalism.

Leading panel discusses future of investigative journalism

Much like the car park Deep Throat and Woodward exchanged information, its shadowy where investigative journalism is heading. Many media critics would argue it’s crucial for the role of journalism, but in a changing industry, it’s more a matter of time and money as to whether investigative journalism can hang around.

References: 

Carson, A. (2013). History of Investigative Journalism in Australia. In N. Richardson & S. Tanner (Eds.), Journalism Research and Investigation in a Digital World (pp. 10-24). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 

Flemming, C. (2013). Journalism and New Technology. In H. de Burgh (Ed.), Investigative Journalism (pp. 169-185). London: Routledge. 

Posetti, J. (2013). The 'Twitterisation of Investigative Journalism. In N. Richardson & S. Tanner (Eds.), Journalism Research and Investigation in a Digital World (pp. 88-100). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 

Wall Street Journal. (2012). Before Watergate Could Be Googled. Retrieved 14 August, 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304356604577341883244096256?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304356604577341883244096256.html

The Washington Post. (2014). The Watergate Story. Retrieved 14 August, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/timeline.html