Chapter 11 talks about all types of media professionals and the different struggles and sterotypes they face. I find it very interesting that that journalism is often questioned as a profession as stated on page 288. It is probably the only profession where it makes the journalist act in an irresponsible way in order to get the best story (Brodasson in McQuail, 288). However the most important section for me was when McQuail writes about online journalism. Nowadays almost all of our news as on the internet and at the tip of our fingers. This makes the online journalist more imporatant but at the same time they are usually held less accountable because of the freedom with the internet. Granted there are many high-profile news agencies that run online publications and hold their journalists to standards. But in this day of blogging and "rogue-reporting", it is impossible for the average person who posts something or "breaks a story" to be held accountable.
The following articles are an example of how the same story can be covered in slightly different ways. As Cohen writes in McQuail "an interesting feature of the critique of online journalism is the argument that it is on the whole even more 'market driven' and commerical than established newspaper journalism" (Cohen in McQuail 290). http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/03/04/us_forces_begin_sweep_of_sadr_city/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17450016/
Notice the difference between these two articles on the U.S. forces into Sadr City in Iraq. The story on MSNBC.com from the Associated Press mentions unrelated death in the second paragraph while the story from the Boston Globe (also from the AP) doesn't mention a U.S. death until many paragraphs down. Also, the Boston Globe story features a writer's name and provides accountablity while the other story just says AP.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I posted this blog.
I find it interesting that news is reported differently on the internet. I never really thought that the journalists online get more freedom because of the outlet they are using. I find that bloggers might give news, but it is never trustworthy. I always check with a credible source before believing what I read. I don't think that the online journalists deserve more freedom. This will open up opportunities for them to initiate trouble. I think there needs to be some code of ethics for online news.
I feel that not all people double check what they read online. If it is posted on the Internet, some people will believe it to be true. I also feel there is a constant competition between news organizations to “break” the story first, thus checking the facts or story later. Therefore the first draft of the story posted on the Internet will not always be completely accurate. This seems to be “ok” with the news organizations, as long as they get the story first. I cannot think of one other profession in which getting something first, but not accurate is highly valued.
With these two articles in particular, they are framed in such a way to make a certain impression on the reader. First of all, the pictures demonstrated above each article, give the article a different impression. The article found on displayed on MSNBC demonstrated a soldier with a gun. This gave me the feeling that the US was completely in control of the situation. However, the article, found on the website for the Boston Globe, portrays a picture that demonstrates devastation with a picture of a blown up car from a car bomb. The article on MSNBC does not give an author’s name at all. To me, I wonder, how was all this information obtained? Did any speak to these people? How were the quotes obtained? Did they merely rely on all the information obtained by the Associated Press?
I feel that MSNBC is trying to make the reader feel as if their story is more credible by leaving it authorless and merely saying AP. However, this makes me question the information. I want to know that a reporter followed up on the facts, spoke to people, gave the story a face.
Post a Comment