The merging of new and old journalism

So.

All this time, our journalism class (and major newspapers and a plethora of websites) has been predicting the end of traditional journalism. We recognize the fact that "New Media," aka the online community of bloggers, reporters, and citizens who feed off one another and report news (and rumors) at startling speeds, is more convenient, faster, and, best of all, free.

The response to the crisis in Mumbai is an excellent example of citizen journalism taken to a whole new level, thanks to the instant connection the internet provides.

And while I'm fascinated and generally enthralled by this new media, I admit that I've been sad to see traditional print journalism begin to fade. Of course newspapers are far from eradicated, and I don't know that they will ever be so. But I do know that nearly all I hear about newspapers these days is that profits are falling, advertisements are falling, layoffs are rising, etc.

However, a recent article by redOrbit has made me think that perhaps the situation doesn't have to be this drastic. Perhaps our changing news media isn't all about the new, technologically advanced, interactive media versus the tried-and-true, honest and verified traditional print media.

Maybe the two complement each other.

RedOrbit reports that Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post (a website with the byword, "The Internet Newspaper: News Blogs Video Community) believes that new media brings out the best in traditional journalism.

Huffington claims that the transparency and proximity is what new media brings to the table of traditional journalism.

“The new cannot entirely replace the old nor produce the results of time-honored investigative journalism,” Huffington said.

She also said that bloggers who take to heart the tradition of fact-checking and having multiple sources are the ones who rise to the top in the online world.

And of course bloggers and 'citizen journalists' can (and often do) get the facts wrong, it is still true that the best ones, the ones who get the facts right, are the bloggers that everyone listens to.

So what does everyone think? Is this just a bunch of hopeful drivel, meant to placate old world journalists? Or could this combination of new media and traditional journalism work to form a type of journalism that is both transparent and accurate, both proximate and insightful, both interactive and resourceful?

Mumbai and Citizen Journalism

I'm sure that everyone knows what's happened in Mumbai by now. If you don't, or you somehow managed to miss the 195 and counting casualties, as usual, Wikipedia has all the answers. Go educate yourself.

But for those of you who know about the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, I'd like to discuss the role the web played in the reporting the attacks. I was struck as I went to website after website, blog after blog, as I received tweet after tweet, about the attacks. I could see pictures, watch video feed from cell phones, and I knew about every casualty or grenade before CNN reported it.

It was terrifying and strangely fantastical. To be able to see every picture, to hear every report of terror (no matter if it was real or imagined), it was almost as though I was there. I was too frozen myself to tweet, and even if I wasn't, there was nothing I could have added to the thousands and thousands of reports pouring in every five seconds.

CNN.com has an article that discusses the impact tweeting and blogging and the internet in general had on the attacks and the world's reaction to them. It was interesting to read, but it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

Citizen journalism led the reports of the Mumbai attacks. Some sources say that it was helpful, other say it helped the terrorists, and still others say that the rumors and incorrect reports caused more panic than there would have been otherwise. Of course, there were thousands of inaccuracies and exaggerations. But there was also real, honest information that kept me more informed than any news website.

I am frankly shocked by the online community's cooperation and impact. Some blogs posted about hospitals that needed blood, other were there so people could ask after missing family members. Someone even managed to capture a picture of one of the terrorists.

I know that some people are derisive or even angry about the online response. But I am just enthralled by how quickly and decisively the information came to me. As soon as I wanted something, it was there, just a click or a Google search away.

I know that I normally ask questions at the end of my blogs, but I only wanted to discuss how fascinating the web response to the attacks were.

Freedom of Speech

I have another question for everyone.

It was sparked by this article, in Times-Standard. Apparently, The Bark, the Eureka High School newspaper, had all of its issues pulled from newstands after some students and parents protested the nude drawing in the paper.

Student journalists complain that they were very mature in the article and the discussion of the art. Parents and a few other students wonder if this really belongs in a high school paper.

The problem, of course, is not that they were censored (since school papers are all the time). It is that the student journalists received permission to print the article and art, and then once protests arose, the principal ordered a recall.

There were several other issues discussed as well, such as autonomous papers vs. administration-reviewed, and whether or not it's legal for the principal to censor.

But as I read this article, my concern was with the application of freedom of speech. I understand, of course, that there are a few instances where absolute freedom of speech is something we give up in exchange for a more ordered, peaceful existence. Racial slurs, false accusations, and profanity are just a few example of free speech that we censor for the 'greater good'.

I know that we need these restrictions, or speech would equal chaos.

And as I read the article, I wondered how early freedom of speech starts. Obviously, different environments call for different behavior. At home, at school, at work, around relatives, around friends--each environment calls for different restrictions.

And it's all very complicated.

Okay, now that I'm done being really mature and sensitive about the exceptions, now I'll say what I really think.

Obviously, if the administrators had censored the drawing before the newspaper was printed, I wouldn't complain. It wouldn't even be a news story. But the art was approved, and then when a few people complained, it was yanked from publication.

The money had already been spent, the papers had already been printed. And while people are well within their rights to complain, if the article was tastefully done and it didn't disturb the learning environment unduly, then I don't think it should be an issue. If students don't like it, it's not like the artwork was on the front page. No one who doesn't want to look at it has to.

But that's just my opinion.

So what does everyone else think? And not just about this specific case, either. In general, in high school, in the adult world--where and when does censorship start and end?

Not who, not what. Why?

So what's a journalist?

Or should the question be who is a journalist?

Or should we ask what does a journalist do?

I say, Why journalists?

The obvious answer, ironically, isn't because people need to get their news from somewhere.

I decided to ask people (my two roommates) why they thought we need journalists.

Roommate number 1: We don't. Journalists were necessary fifty years ago, or a hundred years ago, when we needed someone to get us the information. We don't need the traditional journalists anymore. Just someone to update and run news websites.

Roommate number 2: I remember talking about Yellow Journalism in my history class. I guess we need them because they keep an eye on government and all the big businesses . . .

And then there's the school of thought that suggests that journalism is a fourth branch of government. I tend to agree with this one, although I suspect that it may be self-aggrandizement.

But as I listened to the answers my roommates gave, I wondered where the traditional idea of journalists had gone--where reporters wrote articles that were informative and interesting. News media selling people news appears to be an outdated idea.

But I think that, rather than asking all sorts of complicated questions that don't really have answers, just answer me this: Why do we have journalists? Once we have a solid answer for that question, we can answer what/who journalists are, since they will be the people who fulfill that role.

So, my question for everyone reading this is: why do we have journalists?

Palin Coverage

Now, all throughout the presidential race, I noticed that the media was a little . . . nicer to Obama than it was to McCain. And Joe Biden, despite his controversial (and hilarious, and questionable) past, remained unmentioned. But as old and doddering as the media portrayed McCain, it was nothing like what they did to Sarah Palin.

I realize that this is a sensitive issue. I realize that, when people read this, many of them will think that I'm just a whining, hyper-sensitive, Conservative sympathizer. None of that is true. Okay, sometimes I do whine. But not about this.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Seattle P-I has an article that discusses the bad press that Palin inspired:

"Whatever Sarah Palin's future in politics outside Alaska, she will go down as one of the most trashed and controversial vice presidential candidates in American history, a victim of some bad journalism, a negative atmosphere she helped create . . ."

Yeah, I agree. Of course, the media did not make up quotes like:

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." - explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

Or like this little gem:

"I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't."

But the media also didn't make up this, by Joe Biden:

"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."

Or this one, also spoken by Joe Biden:

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."

But I had to look up the Biden quotes. The ones from Palin flowed freely into my mind, placed there by the news anchors and papers that I read so often. Biden, on the other hand, was rarely discussed.

And while I love SNL more than almost anything, how many times did they spoof Obama or Biden? They did a couple of shorts about McCain (and how ancient he is), and of course everyone remembers this:



I love it too. Don't get me wrong.

But I do think that the media has a large influence on public opinion, and I think that their coverage of Palin was unfair, biased, and kind of . . . mean.

But what does everyone else think? I know that Palin brought much of it on herself, but all the candidates said really stupid things during the campaign. Why her? Why did the media choose her as their comedic relief? Or did they? Do you think their coverage was fair?

A few posts ago, I discussed the issue of going to jail for one's work as a journalist. I asked people if they would be willing to do so--if they would give up comfort and paychecks if it meant telling the truth.

I didn't even mention the possibility that journalists could die because of the articles they write.

In this article by Columbia Journalism Review, the editors of CJR discuss the state of journalism in Mexico, which has had twenty-two journalists killed since 2000, some of them directly because of what they had exposed.

The article was inspired by the speech that Alejandro Junco de la Vega, president of Grupo Reforma, which publishes seven daily papers in Mexico, gave. He said that,

"We find ourselves under the siege of drug lords, criminals; and the more we expose their activities, the harder they push back.

Life is cheap. They push hard."

I have a vested interest in Mexican journalism because I wanted to be a part of it. My dad's side of the family is from Mexico, and I love the language and th people. I want to be a part of the muckraking that is going on, especially since Mexico is mired in corruption.

But how can journalists publish the truth and expose corruption and serve its citizens if they are constantly fearing for their own lives? How can journalists do their job when all that leads to is more death, more fear, and more crime? And how can situations like the one in Mexico, and other nations like it, be remedied?