The dark art

Picking up the theme of Tom’s post further down and my section in our presentation I thought this could be very interesting. Too bad we didn’t come across this before our presentation. The article covers the intersection between journalism and the dark art of Public Relations. Governments have begun feeding the news industry with press releases covering everything from troop deployments to environmental policy. With the news cycles becoming shorter and shorter there is an increased temptation for journalists to just bash these released into their publications without correcting for the agendas behind them.

The propadanga we pass off as news around the world

 

Cabling Khartoum

Last week I interviewed Jennie Matthew. She’s the Khartoum correspondent and stringer for Agence France Presse. In that function she covers current events in central Africa, liaising with the head office in Paris and other stringers scattered throughout the area. I spoke to her because she had been one of the first people to gather on the ground information about a bizarre incident that had taken place on the border between Chad and Sudan. Two French soldiers serving with the EUFOR peace keeping mission in Chad had gotten lost along the border and had accidentally strayed into Sudanese territory. Without realising it they had come very close to a group of Sudanese soldiers. There had been a fire fight during which one of the French soldiers was badly insured. The other one managed to escape and get back over the border.

 

The Khartoum office of AFP is pretty cramped. To be honest it’s not so much an office as Matthew’s apartment. While we were speaking about the incident and it’s aftermath I also asked her how working in Khartoum compared to working in a western newsroom. One of the first things Mathews said was that she was severely constrained through her lack of a DSL line. While this was supposed to be taken care of soon it meant that she had to rely on a modem to hook into the agency’s servers.

 

Matthew has worked in occupied Jerusalem, Gaza and Iraq, a remarkable achievement for someone who has only been in the industry for some four years. She linked Khartoum. It seemed that she had come to embrace the slower news cycle of her new home. Matthew is working on a one year contract. The differences she described seemed to stem as much from cultural as they did from technological differences: ”It can take a lot of travelling in the hot weather and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and lots of cups of tea before you get where you need to be and meet the right kind of people.”

 

As a stringer Matthew relies on locals to provide her with news stories and background information. But to get this information she has to go out and meet them. It might be enough to call people that you know but for every new story you also have to go out there and do the ‘grunt work’.

 

It seemed that while her ability to communicate with other parts of the world had been enhanced greatly by digital technology, the quality of her journalism still depended on her walking the walk and talking the talk.

These are some of Matthew’s articles on the issue:

French peacekeeper missing amid Sudan-Chad clashes

‘Nomads found soldier alive’

EG

Conclusion?

 I think this project has been well worth it. It’s definitely a good way to learn about something and a really effective way to work as a group. I think we’ve all had something to offer and with that, created a degree of discussion. I know that if I ever want to get something quick on digital technology (DT) I’ll come here and use what we’ve done.

I think we’ve covered quite a wide range of aspects of the topic, from the obvious practical benefits to the political effects and to what degree DT is an emancipator. All very useful in view of the modern workplace that I think we all want to enter.As far as individual efforts go I think Lora has been the star of the blog. Lots of good, worthy content and interesting comments. Well done there. 

Peter ‘obviously’ did his share to provoke discussion and debate and that’s one of the things we wanted. Eric and I seem to have done our fair share too.

I think we covered evaluation of the presentation at the time so no need to readdress that. Overall I’ve enjoyed it and may well be unable to resist posting new things if ever I come across something that may be of interest, and I’m sure Lora, unless her hands fall off, will keep a steady flow of DT info flowing.

I think what I’ve found most interesting is the political affect that DT has. Especially as described in one of the lasts posts I did about repressive governments. I like the subtle, interwoven, loop-holes that new things like this create and how they are dealt with.

I think that ultimately DT has enhanced media freedom. There is a wider audience for journalists as well as a bigger pool of critical feedback. More people can create news themselves, and although there are regulation and quality issues I think it is still good to promote citizen participation and keep official journalists on their toes. The fact that we can present and speak from anywhere on the planet is a development bordering on unbelievable. Imagine what people would have said even a hundred years ago if you showed them that. Amazing.

Anyway, enough rambling for now, it’s been a pleasure, well done guys.

T.I

Digital Deadline Junkie

I know it’s unhealthy. I know it’s just an excuse for being unorganized…but I just can’t help it: I’m a deadline junkie. It’s one of those truths I’ve just had to own up to like the fact that life is better caffinated and that I’ll probably never learn to play piano. Ever since High School I have had to make supreme efforts not to leave everything to the last minute. In the run up to my Bachelor’s dissertation I hardly slept at all. Not because I particularly wanted to find out what it felt like but because I had no choice. I’d simply left too much too late.

Digital technology has made a lot of things simpler in journalism just as everywhere else. At the same time I can’t help but wonder what I would have done if I’d been forced to type out 15,000 words on a typewriter. Would I have been more organized or would I have given up on academia long ago and gone for something where I could actually start making money before hitting 30?

 

Truth be told sitting in front of my laptop at 6:34am, after spending a night writing a newspaper article I can’t help but feel that life might have been simpler then. Of course that’s one of the luxuries I accord myself, namely not dwelling of the moronic quality of my entirely pointless and almost painfully self indulgent fantasy.

 

Or maybe we should go even further back. How much last minute editing can you do when you’re chiselling letters into a marble slab worth twice as much as your life? My guess is; not much.

 

EG

Don’t shoot the messenger

I found an interesting article on the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists. It is by Zubeida Mustafa and talks about how governments of Asia are reacting to the freedom that digital technology has brought. It starts like this:

“At a time when communication technology has facilitated the flow of information and made it difficult for governments to suppress the dissemination of news, authorities in South Asia are moving against the tide.
They have stepped up their effort to curb access to knowledge and information in a desperate bid to keep the people in the dark. This is a paradox that is difficult to explain.
A recently released publication titled The Fight Goes On: Press Freedom in South Asia 2006-2007, prepared by the International Federation of Journalists, documents the challenges journalists in South Asia have faced. Although erroneously the sub-title speaks of press freedom, the report covers print journalists as well as those working for the electronic and virtual media.
While one can celebrate the fact that the authorities in the eight countries of this region have failed to stifle the press, despite their resort to brutal methods, the question to be asked is: how long can this go on? The IFJ report lists the names and particulars of 143 journalists who were threatened, harassed, kidnapped, physically assaulted or even killed (18 of them) in May 2006-April 2007. Besides many more suffered when their organisation was attacked or there was a clampdown on the media.”

It’s a shame we didn’t find this before the presentation as it goes on to talk about how these governments have targeted journalists. It also goes on to say that the International Federation of Journalists believes Pakistan is the third most dangerous place to be a journalist.
It also talks about the fact that, rather obviously, places of political instability are more dangerous to journalists. In effect, saying that dodgy governments can: “set things right by shooting the messenger so that the message does not reach the people.” This is a really interesting point as today, with technology it is really hard for any information to be stemmed. New technology gets info to the people quicker and easier than ever. The article goes on to say:
“But the media can only expose the wrongdoings of the rulers and inform the people. It cannot actually try the wrongdoer, as a court of law would. Neither can it punish the guilty or provide redress to the victim. These are the functions of a law court, the police and the administration. The fact is that the media can operate effectively only in a democratic milieu when all the institutions are functioning perfectly.”And:
“The IFJ has rightly observed that there can be no press freedom if journalists exist in conditions of corruption, poverty or fear. The IFJ no doubt provides security to the journalists by extending them international support when they are at risk. But it should also help in improving professionalism in the media, especially in countries where journalists are most threatened.” 

I wish we’d have said something about technology making it more difficult for governments to stifle the media. In a way it makes journalists safer because traditionally they would be killed before their stories were circulated. Now it is much more difficult to stop this.

T.I 

Digital Technology and traditional media

In the webchat that Eric has referred us to, one participant asks a really valid question:
 
“Q [Naimat Ullah Khan]: LC Karachi: How and to what extent, does traditional media remain effective despite the boom of digital Journalism?”

I’ve posted Butler’s response below, as I think it has huge relevance for us.

A [Patrick Butler]: I think that if the traditional media accept and embrace these changes, they can actually thrive in the era of digital journalism. Traditional media often have a trusted brand, so when you read something from a prestigious newspaper in your country on line you may trust it more than something that comes from a less well-known source. But traditional media have to become more relevant to people who prefer digital journalism — people who like blogs, multimedia content, etc. The traditional media that thrive will be those that embrace those new techniques without giving up the quality journalism they are known for.

So, what do we think? Can traditional media survive in an age of digital technology? I certainly don’t buy newspapers as regularly as I used to, as I get RSS feeds to my laptop, and breaking news to my mobile. I read my daily paper online, and use an RSS feed on facebook for financial news!

The BBC’s iPlayer is undergoing massive change at the moment. For the first week after a programme is broadcast, it’s free on  iPlayer. After that, we have to pay to download it (at just over £1 per download). Doesn’t this conflict with the BBC’s values? We pay the license fee, shouldn’t all programmes be paid for through that? Nope. After a week, the programme becomes part of the BBC’s money making arm, BBC World. Effectively, it’s like us going into HMV and buying a dvd of Pride and Prejudice.

So that’s how the BBC is dealing with having to fund a whole new branch of media.

What about other channels? There’s been a huge amount of coverage of advertising revenues falling, and ITV feeling the strain. It was headline news last week that their annual profits fell 35%. So how will they pick up the slack? Executive chairman, Michael Grade, says he’s reversed the trend, but we’ll have to wait to see if improved viewing figures will really mean improved investment.

I’m inclined to agree with Butler, that traditional media can benefit from digital technology, but needs to stay relevant to feel the benefits. But I’m not convinced that newspapers will be able to keep their heads afloat with all the changes. Even massive publications like the NY Times are cutting down on staff.

From a personal stance, I know I changed my plans for a masters after seeing what was happening to the media world. A magazine journalism MA just wouldn’t have given me a career. I knew I’d need as many skills as possible just to get onto the lowest rung of the career ladder.

Fingers crossed for our futures…

Patrick Butler…listen to the man he has something to say

In a recent webchat hosted by the US Department of State, Patrick Butler, vice president for programs at the International Center for Journalists (ICJT), answered questions on the impact digital technology was having on journalism and press freedom world wide.

The transcript makes for very interesting reading since Butler addresses several of the issues which came up in our discussions leading up to the presentation. Specifically he addresses some of the ethical considerations which come into online journalism.

EG

Have phone will travel

I’d like to take a quick look at some of the negatives connected to digital technology.

Mobile phones, PDAs and Laptops make us increasingly vulnerable to spy ware and digital surveillance. Please don’t get me wrong I’m not suggesting we cower in the dresser with aluminium foil wrapped around our heads but it’s nonetheless something to be aware of.

The BBC World Service Program Digital Planet recently highlighted some of the dangers that can come from trusting standard encryption too much.

EG

Digital technology and the audience

Hello all. 

Something we’ve not discussed at all in our assessment of digital technology and press freedom is how a changing audience has factored in.It’s fairly well documented that audiences now have more choice in how they consume media, so companies have to try harder. Look at this e-book summary of Competitive Strategy for Media by Sylvia M. Chan-Olmsted. She reiterates what we’ve learnt over the course of the year.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VztR3g1e6ZwC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=changing+media+audience&source=web&ots=aB7N3QuJpp&sig=RdIYrbeKWQbwotHa-J_I5MRAlBA&hl=en#PPA9,M1

So how does this relate to digital technology? Obviously, there’s the internet. Blogging means that the audience can interact with a show. PM and the Today programme on Radio 4 have particularly good “interactivity.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/ 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/

Other programmes are catching up, but these two have been using blogging and websites for a long time. Impressive, especially as it’s Radio 4.

As Charlotte mentioned in our presentation q&a session, the BBC is special because it relies on the license, not on advertising revenues. (Other than the World Service.) So it should, in theory, listen more to the audience than, say Channel 4.

I get email feeds from Newsnight, who tell me what’s coming up in tonight’s show and ask me what I think, and from World Service Have Your Say. The latter is a very personable email from the editor of the programme. He even emailed me personally when I originally subscribed to ask where I listen from and what I thought of the show. The whole premise of WSHYS is interactive, so perhaps it’s unsurprising that they’re so good with “digital technology.”

Where else does digital technology affect audience, and how do audiences affect journalists use of digital technology?

If we look back to January, and the “battle of the bongs,” Huw and Trevor went head to head. The BBC used digital technology, and ITV an exclusive interview. The 10 o’clock news had John Simpson in Zimbabwe, broadcasting to London via satellite. The News at 10 had an exclusive with Hasnat Khan, Princess Diana’s former lover, and featured the “and finally” story.

The BBC “won” that night, their viewing figures were 4.9million, as opposed to ITV’s 3.8 million.

Does this prove that digital technology draws in more viewers? Not especially. The audience wouldn’t have known that there would be a special report on the BBC that night. In fact, security was incredibly tight due to the very nature of the broadcast. But, as audiences get more accustomed to better, more immediate broadcasts thanks to digital technology, it does show us up when we fall behind. The viewer expects more.

LC

Presentation Feedback

So, what do we all think? Was it a success? Obviously there were a few technical difficulties, but I quite liked the irony. It meant we didn’t have to labour the point that, while digital technology can be fantastic (see Tom’s post – the World Service agrees!) it can fail!

 Well done for Peter and his “digital” presentation. I think it made the presentation more varied.

 On reflection, anything you think we should have included that we didn’t? Or anything we did which could have been left out? I’m not convinced about the relevence of the Danish cartoons…

 LC