Localisation and Globalisation of the News

One of the key issues to arise in the contemporary global media framework is that of  concentration of media ownership. This is occurring at quite a rapid rate, with ten corporations dominating the industry in 2001 (Breit 2001, p.217), and this number reduced to six in 2010. These six organisations holding the media oligopoly are Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, General Electric (NBC), News Corp and CBS (Free Press 2010.)


This trend has serious ramifications on the integrity of journalism. It provides these media giants with the opportunity to spread their subjective standpoints through the news on a global basis. Democratic countries like Australia, need to encourage diversity in media ownership to minimise the risk that citizens information adversely affected by the interests of the media institution which provide it. Currently in Australia there is arguably a problem with a lack of media diversity. Competing media providers, Fairfax Publications and News Corp own over 90 per cent of Australia`s newspaper industry combined (Australian Collaboration 2010.) The graph below shows the trend of media ownership in an American context which mirrors the concentration taking place in Australia (and in all capitalist Western nations.) Therefore there is a potential for media owners to misuse their power in media reporting in ``agenda-setting.`` For example Rupert Murdoch is known for his right-wing political bias, which is believed to shine through in the content of News Corp`s news services. In 2007 he even admitted to attempts to shape public opinion in support of the Bush administration`s decision to initiate war in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Arguably the onset of online citizen journalism (which I have scrutinised in previous blog entries) provides an alternative to this concentrated media sphere. However the legitimacy of citizen journalism when compared with traditional media institutions held in lower esteem.



                                                                                                                         (Radio Liverpool 2010.)


Laws in Australia have even been changed to allow a greater level of media ownership. In 2007 the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) was amended to relax foreign-ownership and cross-media ownership laws, meaning that corporations have increased rights in owning two out of three media outlets (radio, newspapers, television) in a certain geographical area (Woolrich 2007.) According to a 2006 Roy Morgan poll, over 80 per cent of journalists opposed the new media laws on the grounds that it will lower the quality and diversity of news coverage (Australian Collaboration 2010.) Seventy-one per cent thought that the changes would give media owners too much influence over the political agenda (Australian Collaboration 2010.) Ironically, the purpose of the Act is to encourage diversity and quality of media services in Australia.  In the current framework, it is likely that media ownership continues in concentration and convergence in the future based on current trends.


References -
Australian Collaboration 2010, `Democracy in Australia - Media concentration and media laws,` Australian Collaboration, viewed 27 August 2010, http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/democracy/commentaries/Media_Laws.pdf.


Breit, R. 2001, `Journalism in the global village,` in Tapsall, S. &Varley, C. (eds), Journalism Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.


Free Press 2010, `Ownership Chart: The Big Six,` Free Press, viewed 27 August 2010, http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main.


Radio Liverpool 2010, 'Mind Control Theories and Techniques used by Mass Media,' Radio Liverpool, 12 May, viewed 27 August 2010, <http://www.radioliverpool.com/newsblog/files/a4d542f6bacc0789ba9484fc68e09e89-11.html>.


Woolrich, N. 2007, `First day of new media ownership laws,` ABC News, 4 April, viewed 27 August 2010, http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200704/s1890133.htm.

Week 4: Who Will Pay for Journalism in the Future??

Rupert Murdoch 2009: "Quality journalism is not cheap. The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites" (Clark 2009.)

Personally I am unsure whether the phenomenal growth of Internet news will see the death of newspapers and the printed press. Therefore the following blog deals not with any definite or final conclusions but rather a number of issues that may be raised surrounding this issue in the contemporary journalism sphere.

The issue of whether people will pay for  journalism in the future has been brought to light in recent times with Rupert Murdoch announcing the intention of News Corp to charge for online news content. The decision came after News Corp recorded a $3.4 billion net loss in the 2008/9 financial year (Clark 2009.)

Arguably newspapers do not have a viable business model. Traditionally newspapers have two sources of income: (1) sales from advertising and (2) advertising revenue. Currently with almost unchanged content being made available by newspapers on their websites, readers no longer feel the need to pay for content when they can access it free of charge on the Internet. Advertisers are becoming aware of this trend and diverting their limited advertising expenditure on online sources where advertising can prospectively be reached by a larger audience. Therefore newspapers are losing money from both sources of their traditional revenue income.

This is the reason why questions continue to be raised about the alleged need for newspapers to charge for their online content.


From one point of view a number of models exist in the mass media that are economically viable when there is a free alternative available. One clear example of this is subscription television (Pay TV.) Arguably this is a service that forces users to charge for content when a free alternative is available, in the form of free-to-air television. This is model clearly thriving, signalled by the phenomenal growth of Foxtel in particular, since its inception in Australia. Currently in Australia approximately 22 per cent of the population utilise a subscription TV service, and Foxtel have reported a 17.5 per cent growth in earnings to jump to a $477 million profit in the 2009/10 financial year (West Australian 2010.) This is indicative of a successful industry where free options are available. The variety of the free-to-air option is growing as well, with increased digital TV and multi-channeling options emerging. Another example is books and novels which continue to be productively sold. Giant bookstores like Angus & Robertson and Borders continue to spring up in suburban shopping centres despite the fact that these $20 books can be accessed by merely having a library card. Likewise the growth of EBook technology and accessing novels online is phenomenal. This is most likely linked to the kinesthetic nature of humans in holding a physical copy of a book, but fails to account for the decline of "physical" newspapers.

No doubt those newspapers which seem cater for highly specialised interests are those that are most likely going to survive in written form. One example of this is financial news. The Wall Street Journal is the biggest online publication to charge for online news. It has been doing this since it took its content online over a decade ago. Arguably the reason for the viability of the Wall Street Journal in charging online is that the paper is a key resource for business people and financial investors that provides specialised information about business and financial news. This specified knowledge is unattainable for citizen journalists and is typically overlooked in the general news.

References -
Clark, A. 2009, "Rupert Murdoch plans charge for all news websites by next summer," The Guardian, 6 August, viewed 26 August 2010, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/06/rupert-murdoch-website-charges>.


West Australian 2010, “Foxtel lifts earnings by 17.5pc to $477m,” Yahoo News, 12 August, viewed 17 August 2010, < http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/national/7751375/foxtel-lifts-earnings-by-17-5pc-to-477m/>.

Week 3 - Citizen Journalism: Is it News???

Discussion is class this week focused primarily on the nature of citizen journalism and its surrounding controversy. Citizen reporting is undoubtedly fostered by the growth of various technologies including fast Internet connections, social networking media (i.e. Twitter, Facebook) and improved camera and recording devices.


Conjecture surrounds the notion of whether journalism can continue to be defined as a profession in the contemporary framework. There is no doubt that there has been some shifting of the goalpost in terms of what can be defined as a journalist. Long gone are the days where journalism fits neatly into the category of "middle class professionalism" (Carey 1997, p.242,) with the likes of teachers, lawyers and doctors. That is not to say that journalism has lost some credibility as a legitimate occupation, just that the technical training and skill development has allowed anyone with an Internet connection or camera phone to contribute to the dissemination of the news. Most definitions of `profession` focus on the need ``specialised educational training`` with ``specified rules of conduct that members abide by`` (Australian Council of Professions 2004.)


In this sense, journalism is losing its title as a profession. Citizen reportage is not subjected to the editorial checks and balances of mainstream news rooms, and the anonymity that the Internet allows means there is no need for citizen journalists to abide by the ethical responsibilities typical of the journalism profession.


In fact, many traditionalists would argue that citizen journalism is not in fact news at all. Knight (2000, p.48) offers the following definition of journalism:


"Journalism could be said to be non-fiction writing which relies on identifiable sources." 


Arguably citizen journalism fails to pass as "journalism" with this definition on the basis of its sources. The fact that a blogger/citizen journalist can protect their identity from public exposure, and distribute information globally without accountability for the transparency of their sources brings into question the legitimacy of the citizen journalism function.


Personally I feel that there is a place in the journalism sphere for citizen reporting, but on an editorial or opinion-based level, not as objective fact-reporters. Citizen journalists can be witnesses to the story, and crucial parts of a story, but the content they provide will inevitably be jaded by some subjective viewpoint. The checks and balances of the mainstream news to ensure professionalism and objectivity cannot be ensured by citizen reporting. One example that was talked about in this week's tutorial was a quote provided by a witness of the London Bombings in 2005 on their blog. The quote read as follows:


``My mouth was so dry. My lungs felt full of choking dirt and I became aware of a bleeding gash full of glass in my wrist and that I could see the bone in my arm, and then I felt sick`` (Rachel North London 2005.)


This is obviously an incredibly detailed first-hand account of the experiences of a survivor of the bombings. Without the growth of blogging technologies it is likely that this account would never have been disseminated by the traditional media. Such a story has merit in the journalism sphere. It specifically accounts for how the events unfolded from a primary source. However this should be regarded as an eye-witness report, rather than actual reporting. In no way am I accusing the victim blogger of lying about her harrowing experience, I am merely stating that her role in reporting this information should be considered to be as a ``victim`` or ``witness``, rather than as a ``journalist.``


One aspect that failed to be discussed in this week's tutorial is the role social media has to play in citizen journalism. Arguably users of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter do not intend to adopt the role of citizen journalists by using the media. However, the reporting by Iranian citizens of the civil unrest taking place through Twitter in 2009 is seen as a landmark for citizen reporting. Questions surround this: Did these people have the intention of having their stories told in the mainstream Western media? Alternatively, were they merely updating their Twitter followers of the going-ons of their lives. Much is to be said about a person's INTENTION to be a citizen journalist. Questions surround whether these people are in fact citizen journalists, or witnesses conveying their accounts to the mainstream media.  


There are now also numerous examples of when prominent media stories have been initiated by citizen journalists. One well-known example of this occurred in January 2009 when a passenger jet crash-landed into the Hudson River in New York. Photographer and social media user, Jamie Krums, captured the moment with his camera and reported it on Twitter (Ovide 2009.) 

In terms of analysing debate online about the validity and usefulness of citizen reporting, it is important to be aware that much of this content has been generated by citizen journalists themselves. Such people now have the means, and the drive to disseminate online content. They also have the means to justify their positions in the journalism sphere. Therefore as a user of such online content, it pays to be aware of the subjective factors influencing the writer's point of view, especially in online analysis of this debate.


Personally I am of the view that traditional journalism and citizen journalism can co-exist. However citizen journalism is not reliable enough to exist without the mainstream media. Readers and audiences have a responsibility to be discerning enough to approach blogging and citizen journalism with a degree of wariness about its truth and validity. This is because citizen reporting is not impeded by the checks and balances mechanisms imposed on traditional media such as the written press and broadcast reporting. 


References


Australian Council of Professions 2004, About Professions Australia : Definition of a Profession, accessed at 13 August 2010,  http://www.professions.com.au/defineprofession.html.


Stryker, E. and Warren, C.A (eds), James Carey: A Critical Reader, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 


Knight, A. 2000, ``Online investigative journalism,`` Australian Journalism Review, vol.22, no.2, December. 


Ovide, S. 2009, ``Twittering the USAirways plane crash,`` Wall Street Journal, 15 January, accessed 13 August 2010, http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/01/15/twittering-the-usairways-plane-crash/.


Rachel North London 2005, Kings Cross Bomb - my eyewitness account from the bombed carriage, 8  July, accessed 13 August 2010, http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2005/07/kings-cross-bomb-my-eyewitness-account.html.