I'm two decades removed from journalism school and interviews for jobs that, had I accepted, would've required my eating Ramen noodles until I could convince the Chicago Tribune or Sun-Times to take me on, so I may not be the most astute observer of trends within the fourth estate. However, three journalism-related stories popped up the past few weeks that I think provide a window into the evolving nature of what we commonly refer to as "journalism."
... how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? Are there other problems that The Times would face that I haven’t mentioned here?The post reflects what seems to be a genuine dilemma about basic journalism practice at the most respected major daily in the country. Perhaps the Gray Lady should aim a little lower, something closer to truthiness. Or maybe the Times is just a victim of the nature of today's discourse, in which calling for a nominal tax rise on billionaires makes one a socialist.
The Media Guy at Ad Age highlights the loosey goosey game of "telephone" that occurs as online news outlets avoid being the last to report on the latest celebrity drug bust, extramarital shenanigans or outright fakery. So-and-so reports that so-and-so reports and so on:
The source of the story about Ad Age's non-existent sexy ad poll was the Daily Mail, the second-biggest newspaper in Britain, which got punk'd by an enterprising publicist. A ripple effect ensued, with news outlets around the world quoting from the Daily Mail's false report.High-minded social media experts call this content curation.
Meanwhile, protest around the world has gotten the Economist to think about the ubiquity of live video and how it's shaking up the news business:
Technology turns anyone with a modern mobile phone into a cameraman—and international broadcaster. This is shaking up newsgathering. During the protests against election fraud in Iran in 2009, Access Now, a human-rights group that is adept with technology, received videos that showed many thousands on the streets, whereas CNN, wary of “unofficial” sources, used government-approved footage that made the protests seem far smaller. Now CNN’s “iReport” web page features viewers’ pictures alongside the network’s own; other news channels also often use amateur footage in their reports.The piece goes on to provide some sage advice from human rights workers on the ground who've used video as part of their organizing efforts, but it also points out the dangers inherent in rising use of mobile video: "When all citizens are potential reporters, they risk being treated as journalists."