An interesting blog post states ethics is dead. Media ethics is a widely debated topic and the level of success and failure generally depends on whom you ask. As the posting suggests ethics just died, it just happened. This mainly looks at journalism in the USA. The writer believes that this demise began in 1982. Describing also, that in this present time there are no limits, morals, or conscience in the mind of journalists. Bias is more in abundance than real facts.
This post does pose some interesting questions about the role of ethics today but saying ethics is dead might be a bit exaggerated. The USA does have one of the biggest media presence in the world and it does have its flaws. A journalist’s role is to report on issues and events for the benefit of the public. They have the responsibility to report these issues and events with accuracy, objectivity and relevance not betraying the trust and need of their readers. The reality is that with the advent of the new media, there are many diverse news sources that provide the information we desire. The rise in social media has created citizen reporters posting photos, videos and messages relating to world events, which can spread very fast. This creates strong competition for professional journalism.
Even with the rise of resources to find and report information, there are those that still adhere to ethical guidelines making good journalism survive. A case that has proved this is Fareed Zakaria and his recent plagiarism scandal. This shows that even a professional journalist has problems obeying the rules and these kinds of bad moves can destroy one's career forever.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Medium is the message
When Marshall McLuhan stated “the medium is the message” he was referring to how a message is perceived given new technologies that have created several different ways of releasing that same message. Long before the Information Age, knowledge was passed on through incomplex mediums such as the printing press, radio, telephone and so on. Given the new mediums such as colour television and the Internet, to name a few, the receiver will decode the content of a message through the appropriate medium that was used to send it. The message could be the same through each medium; however, it will be analyzed in a different way depending on the source that released it. This in turn is stating that “the medium is the message”.
McLuhan declared that “new technology creates new environments”, which is correct regarding messages that are passed through different mediums. In a sense, McLuhan states that these new technologies have given civilization a new way of expression and a different way of understanding and deciphering information. This is where the message begins to lose its meaning and the medium itself becomes that message.
This argument might seem evident looking at the 1960 Presidential debate between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy. McLuhan goes to explain the difference between hot and cool mediums. “Basically, a hot medium excludes and a cool medium includes; hot medium are low in participation, or completion, by the audience and cool medium are high in participation.” When the debate took place people were watching through the medium of television, a cool medium, it looked as if the debate has been won by Senator Kennedy. At the same time, the audience listening through the radio, a hot medium, had a much different view and regarded the debate to be won by Vice President Nixon.
In this example one can see how the medium itself becomes the message, while Kennedy was cool and had an “indifference to power, bred of personal wealth, which allowed him to adapt fully to TV… Nixon was essentially hot; he presented a high-definition, sharply-defined image and action on the TV screen that contributed to his reputation as a phony.” In regards to this, one can see that each medium can release the same message and it will be decoded different by the receiver.
This debate can be a prime example of how the medium can become the message, McLuhan said “The political candidate who understands TV can gain power unknown in history…the electronic media inexorably transform every sense ratio and thus recondition and restructure all our values and institutions.” The medium has come to play a large role in society and has shaped the way most receivers interpret messages and understand their meanings.
New mediums have created a different way for messages to be released and comprehended, placing more emphasis on the medium itself than the message being sent out. Television was used to manipulate the way Nixon was identified in 1968 “no longer the slick, glib, aggressive Nixon in 1960, he had been toned down, polished, programmed and packaged into the new Nixon we saw in 1968: earnest, modest, quietly sincere—in a word, cool.” It is evident that mediums are not only providing the message, but are the message themselves; people have been using them to brand themselves accordingly in the age of information.
Source: NextNature
McLuhan declared that “new technology creates new environments”, which is correct regarding messages that are passed through different mediums. In a sense, McLuhan states that these new technologies have given civilization a new way of expression and a different way of understanding and deciphering information. This is where the message begins to lose its meaning and the medium itself becomes that message.
This argument might seem evident looking at the 1960 Presidential debate between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy. McLuhan goes to explain the difference between hot and cool mediums. “Basically, a hot medium excludes and a cool medium includes; hot medium are low in participation, or completion, by the audience and cool medium are high in participation.” When the debate took place people were watching through the medium of television, a cool medium, it looked as if the debate has been won by Senator Kennedy. At the same time, the audience listening through the radio, a hot medium, had a much different view and regarded the debate to be won by Vice President Nixon.
In this example one can see how the medium itself becomes the message, while Kennedy was cool and had an “indifference to power, bred of personal wealth, which allowed him to adapt fully to TV… Nixon was essentially hot; he presented a high-definition, sharply-defined image and action on the TV screen that contributed to his reputation as a phony.” In regards to this, one can see that each medium can release the same message and it will be decoded different by the receiver.
This debate can be a prime example of how the medium can become the message, McLuhan said “The political candidate who understands TV can gain power unknown in history…the electronic media inexorably transform every sense ratio and thus recondition and restructure all our values and institutions.” The medium has come to play a large role in society and has shaped the way most receivers interpret messages and understand their meanings.
New mediums have created a different way for messages to be released and comprehended, placing more emphasis on the medium itself than the message being sent out. Television was used to manipulate the way Nixon was identified in 1968 “no longer the slick, glib, aggressive Nixon in 1960, he had been toned down, polished, programmed and packaged into the new Nixon we saw in 1968: earnest, modest, quietly sincere—in a word, cool.” It is evident that mediums are not only providing the message, but are the message themselves; people have been using them to brand themselves accordingly in the age of information.
Source: NextNature
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Tweet-dropping
I came across an article that brings up an interesting topic in regards to journalism. Social media has become a part of our daily lives and Twitter for example, is one of the greatest sources for journalists allowing them to post numerous posts a day and updating their followers on anything newsworthy.
This article, “Tweet-dropping: the ethics of live-tweeting overheard conversations” poses the question whether this act of tweeting live conversations is ethical. Can what we hear be posted on a site like Twitter? Can Twitter be classified as a broadcast medium?
Tweets are posted every second and if the information gained is from a famous politician, celebrity or person of interest, the number of tweets increase in outstanding amounts.
Social media websites are still in the process of creating tougher laws in regards to privacy and information. Twitter allows its users to post pictures and videos along with their tweets. We have seen the power of social media and how words have made citizens noticeable and trusted across the globe with the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street and London Riots. As a journalist there are standards that must be taken into account and this tweet-dropping scenario poses problems for verification, misinformation, and copyright. They are overheard and there is no method of confirming with Twitter and with many people having a huge number of followers, it can spread fast and create serious problems in the long run.
As Twitter continues to evolve, more new sources, organisations and citizen journalists continue to post news on a daily basis and with the features installed in the website, top news stories are picked up quite quickly.
This article, “Tweet-dropping: the ethics of live-tweeting overheard conversations” poses the question whether this act of tweeting live conversations is ethical. Can what we hear be posted on a site like Twitter? Can Twitter be classified as a broadcast medium?
Tweets are posted every second and if the information gained is from a famous politician, celebrity or person of interest, the number of tweets increase in outstanding amounts.
Social media websites are still in the process of creating tougher laws in regards to privacy and information. Twitter allows its users to post pictures and videos along with their tweets. We have seen the power of social media and how words have made citizens noticeable and trusted across the globe with the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street and London Riots. As a journalist there are standards that must be taken into account and this tweet-dropping scenario poses problems for verification, misinformation, and copyright. They are overheard and there is no method of confirming with Twitter and with many people having a huge number of followers, it can spread fast and create serious problems in the long run.
As Twitter continues to evolve, more new sources, organisations and citizen journalists continue to post news on a daily basis and with the features installed in the website, top news stories are picked up quite quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)