Construction in Xi’an

Beijing Women

Resting official

Resting below the Great Wall

The Great Wall

The Forbidden City

Delivery man

Fountain in the drum tower – Beijing

Beijing biker

Piggy back

The summer palace

Cruising the streets

The Lama Temple

The Bird’s Nest at dusk

Close up

Inside the Watercube

Detail of a terracotta warrior – Xi’an

Lovers behind lavender

Sleeping on the job

Inside the Forbidden City

Beijing park

Beijing Fence-sitter

Going to university in an age where people are focused on careers rather than learning and money rather than making a difference, it is easy to lose faith in the purpose of journalism. Throughout this semester I have read and heard so many things which suggest journalism is no longer a noble profession with the aim of educating and informing society. More and more media outlets are shifting their focus to entertainment and advertising and steering clear of hard-hitting news stories. So do the words ‘journalism’ and ‘ethics’ fit together any more? An article by Lee Wilkins and Renita Coleman called ‘Ethical Journalism is not an Oxymoron” says that the bad decisions which become prominent in society and give journalists are more than counterweighted by all the good decisions made by less well-known journalists and editors. They say: “After testing a national sample of journalists we found that those who do this work are both able and subtle moral thinkers.” You can find this article at: www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/05-2NRsummer/52-53V59N2.pdf

I read through several articles on line and each one I found seemed to emphasise the existing ethics embedded in journalists. Many stories focused on the moral values of journalists and the way they are often given a bad name by the few bad journalists. I actually found it hard to find a negative story on journalists, despite the common belief that the public and other businesses have a general dislike of the profession. The few articles I did find such as ‘Journalists are Bad for Your Health’ explored the way in which journalist exaggerate things creating disillusionment in the reader. But it is common knowledge that sometimes stories need a little exaggeration to keep them from being boring, and I believe the average reader is smart enough not to swallow everything they read.

There will always be the odd response to stories and articles which represent a bitter reader who has vowed to hate all journalists due to past experience. But overall my research made me feel a lot more positive about the direction and role of journalism. I also found this clip which I think was a nice bit of inspiration, there are still people out there who believe in the impact of journalism.

1. I would go and meet the source. Again I don’t really have enough experience to understand the consequences of these actions. Would it be seen as bribery so that the source gets ‘their version’ of the story published? Or would it be seen as unprofessional to meet sources in such a informal environment? The fact that the newspaper will not reimburse my costs doesn’t tell me much except maybe they’re stingy. But the most important thing is that as a journalist I would need to get information. If that was the way to get a good story and all the information I needed to write it including impulsive quotes, I would do it.

2. If it was the worst trip of my life, I would write about it. The public have a right to know and it would definitely be a better story than a puff piece. Writing a story to protect commercial concerns would be unethical and would make the publication seem less credible and more concerned with advertising. The company gave me the trip for free, but did so knowing the state of their airline and without expressing any commitments required on my behalf. It is their own fault that the resulting story would be negative and they would not have a very strong case if they decided to take it any further.

3. Being the first-year student that I am, full of morals and ethical values, I would probably run the correction. I don’t know if it would be the right thing to do, but it would sit better in my conscience and probably with the public. In terms of money we have already heard all about a journalists measly pay check and any pay rise would make little difference. I am not naïve enough to believe I will make lots of money out of journalism and I think it is obvious that in an incident like this money would be in the back of my mind. I also think it would be terrible to allow yourself to be manipulated by sources. It would mean your writing and the way you approach stories would be false and artificial.

4. This question is very severe, it is a matter of emotion and of weighing up the concerns. I think the only way to really decide what to do in an instance such as this would be to ask your senior, weigh up the consequences and go with your gut feeling. My first instinct would be to check the facts. The girls story is very exaggerated and I would be reluctant to believe it until I had proof. If it was true I would probably be very sympathetic towards the girl and I would be reluctant to disrupt so many lives for a story which no-one really needs to know about.

http://www.youare.tv/watch.php?id=2591

There will always be slip ups such as these by all media organisations, it is human to make mistakes and we should not be punished for it. On the other hand it would be wise for journalists and editors to develop a keen eye for problems in their reports and advertising. It is important to try not to offend audiences and this means that obvious bad taste should not be overlooked. This may mean simply putting an ad on another page in a newspaper or making sure TV reports do not offend or precede ad which offend.

It is also important not to come across as bias. The textbook talked about innuendos and the way in which journalists attempt to work around an issue, asserting their opinion or influence through placement and framing. The public is made up of intelligent and discerning individuals, they should be given information not opinion. What they make of that information is up to them. Journalists should try not to let their own judgement cloud a story, that is not their job and using their position to assert opinions is not their purpose.

1. I am really unsure about some of these questions. I believe the answers would only come with experience, gut instinct and time on the job. Of the top of my head I would say that I would not publish the story as it would go against the companies policies and reduce credibility. But it would also depend on what the consequences of suing would be and how good our case was. If we had a good case I would not publish it and deal with the consequences.

2. I think that everyone should have the same rights when it comes to the media. Everyone has a right to a level of privacy and everyone must respect the medias right to inform the public of important matters. If public figures are in the spotlight because of something negative they did then they should deal with the consequences. On the other hand if they are a victim they should be treated with the same respect as any other individual. For these reason I don’t think I would support a defence for the media which would limit the rights of public figures.

3. Yes I would reveal the persons identity in court because despite my low level of understanding when it comes to the legal system I am fairly sure there are laws against withholding information. This means by holding back the name in court we would be in more trouble. If the information given was false and the woman had disappeared perhaps there was a reason, in which case it should be dealt with out in the open. Revealing the name would also take a lot of pressure of the company and strengthen my case.

First I looked at the Sydney Morning Herald website which can be found here:

http://www.smh.com.au/

My first reaction to this site was that is was overwhelming. It is jam-packed full of pictures and text, links and ads. It is interesting because I am one of the people who complain about the fact that the paper is a broadsheet and that makes it nigh-on impossible to read. I think accessibility is very important, if someone is frustrated with the size of a newspaper they won’t buy it, just as if someone doesn’t like the clutter of a website they will quickly navigate away. I thought Fairfax were trying to fit to much in to small a space and this resulted in skim-reading and a headache. I liked the search engine and the fact that I could get any story I needed relatively quickly. But when I entered the article more clutter and ads quickly made me lose interest.

Next I looked at The Australian website which can be found here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/

My reaction to this site was similar to the SMH website, it was cluttered and difficult to read. With small print and lots of distracting flashing animations it was hard to concentrate. I liked the video on the main page which made the site seem more interactive, along with the weather map. Entering an article revealed more of the same and I was not very impressed. Advantages included being able to print and quickly find related articles but in terms of actually reading in-depth stories I would find it impossible.

Lastly I looked at the Newcastle Herald website which can be found here:

http://www.theherald.com.au/

I found this site a lot simpler and easier on the eyes which is what I would expect from a newspaper website. Few colours and flashing images made for an easier read and bigger print with more spacing made navigation a lot easier. The Herald almost looked like a winner until I found out there was a fee for articles, not a happy site for a poor uni student.

1. I think media companies will lose out by encouraging convergence, as will journalists. The more pressure and the more different duties put on each individual the worse each article will become. In terms of what media companies have to do before journalists can converge effectively, I think a lot of preparation would be required. Journalists would have to be taught a wider range of skills and ultimately these would be taught in a more superficial manner. This would result in more staff being hired anyway which would take the companies back to square one.

2. It is a ridiculous idea to force people into mediums in which they are uncomfortable. People choose carriers because that is what they are interested in and comfortable with. When people are at ease in a job they become good at what they do and even make it into an art form. Taking people out of these areas to dump them in other mediums would only serve to waste resources and reduce the quality of the second medium.

3. I don’t think media convergence is just a fad, yet I also don’t believe it will ever fully take off. I believe it will take of for a while and companies will be happy because they are saving money. Yet the discontent of journalists who are being over worked and not being allowed to develop in their own field, will soon change this. With the diminishing quality of each medium audience will begin to lose interest or respect and companies will lose their credibility. Eventually companies will not be able to ignore the public and their own staff and things will soon go back to normal.

4. Australia’s relaxed cross-media laws will result in more companies trying to promote their publications online. I don’t agree with the suggestion that newspapers giving their information away for free on the net will cause a decline in sales. They are dealing with a completely different audience and many of those who read newspapers would not be as interested in online sites. Those who read both simply do so in order to get more information or to check facts. If anything online publications will get youth involved in news and more interested in buying print publications. Charging for online news is a bad idea, some publications already do so and it is frustrating and makes people lose interest.

5. I think radio, television and the web all have their place in society, they all serve a different purpose and for that reason they will all survive. Radio will most likely change its shape slightly with the introduction of digital radio and more focus on entertainment than news. Yet radio can be taken anywhere and can be listened to while doing other activities. TV and the web on the other hand require full attention. TV will survive as there is effort involved and news and entertainment are fed to the viewer in easily digestible packages. The web has been and will keep taking off, with endless information which is easy to access and a sense of instant gratification and an ability to satisfy curiosity.

6. I think it is important for universities to promote multi-skilling but only to a certain extent. Student should try everything but eventually it is important to focus on one area and become good at it. After they have specialised in one field then they can go into other fields and get better at more skills. But what would be the use of a generation of students who can do a bit of everything and a lot of nothing.

7. I think society is getting to a point where we are very reliant on the web. For that matter we are reliant on many technologies and many people would be lost without them. But it is an exaggeration to say we could not survive without them. Humans like most animals have a very basic survival instinct and we have already proved we can conquer what every life throws. Whether or not this is a positive fact is a matter of opinion, we are destructive and greedy and I would not be surprised if we turned out to be self-destructive. But the way we rely on technology today is unhealthy and it has terrible effects on our social interaction.

I read through some opinions from people on the ABC website and other sites about whether the ABC should be privatised. The main argument for privatisation seems to be the waste of tax-payers money. I may have only just started earning over the tax-free threshold this year but it seems to me some ‘tax-payers’ always seem to be whining. People complain incessantly about the state of our health system, the education our children are getting and almost every other issue imaginable. Which is fair enough seeing as we have a right to know about and play a part in the distribution of our money. Yet when money is spent on these issues, more complaints surface from people with different concerns. I don’t support our current government but I also realise that any government would face the same issues and no government can cater to everyone’s specific needs.

The ABC is one area which I think needs to be nurtured. It gives a voice to the people and gives a fairly accurate account of news which is free from commercial interests. I didn’t find many valid arguments for the privatisations of ABC. I did find this one on their site:

“Please someone,privatise the abc………..Let these chattering class fools pay their own way.The Canadian was the only voice of reason.Fair Dinkum, I would be on the other side of the barricade if the ‘academic’ mssss. smug leopard and her ‘intellectual’ chattering sidekick, mr. smug burnie, ever managed to free themselves from the long suffering taxpayer’s tit and ended up running the country. Truely scary people…….Truely frightning……Don’t think I will sleep well tonight.The show didn’t win the Paul Lynham Award tonight.More balance in the audience please Jeff.Tsk,Tsk….”

I don’t think I am alone when I say that is very hard to understand. It was actually followed by dozens of messages asking for an explanation or a more valid argument, which (surprise, surprise) was not forthcoming.

There were, however, arguments which suggested the ABC is bias, which may be true, yet the bias is clearly left-wing and we have a right-wing government, so those who believe it is government influence have some thinking to do. One person argued:

“The thing is that the ABC only promotes views that are on the left wing of the spectrum, Jeff McMullen is a nice guy and very articulate but is a raving leftie like 99 per cent of ABC staff. The ABC should be unbiased, that is a fact.”

This is an exaggeration but does have elements of truth.

Arguments against privatisation on the ABC message board included:

“Dear Smug Taxpayer,
I too pay my taxes and one of the few joys it gives me is that there is something like the ABC where opinions other than the kind of smug right wing prattle you have just given voice to can be answered in some small part.”

In my opinion the ABC acts as an anchor, the public trust them and they serve as an alternative to commercial stations, they should not be privatised.