Student Post about News routines

From Elli in J561:
In "What Makes News News?" by Schudson, he discusses the social-action perspective of analyzing news content. He argues that many news stories turn out the way they do because journalists want to keep news understandable and organized. Schudson writes:

"In covering a presidential campaign, most reporters come up with the same 'lead' for their stories...[Political reporters] know or fear that their editors will doubt them if their stories differ sharply from the wires. So they adopt the simple procedure of following the leader...They have to avoid errors and fend off criticism of the innumerable decisions they must make daily. Coping with this uncertainty is difficult, so newspapers establish routines which, though they may distort or arbitrarily simplify the world of events, succeed at least in clarifying the work of reporting...The basic form of the news story itself...may arise from this same need of reporters and editors to reduce uncertainty" (Schudson, 118-119).

I found this very interesting and thought it may fit with our discussions on interpreting and framing the news. I'm curious what you and others think about this idea of shaping news stories in order to provide personal organization and to avoid uncertainty. How much does conforming to a supposedly journalistically correct lead or a story pattern affect the coverage of an event and the content of an article?

Student Post about PC in the newsroom

FROM Niki in my J800 Class (she works for On Wisconsin):

I have a real-life situation that came up with On Wisconsin, the alumni magazine. We
have an alumni news section in the magazine, and we usually run two
short profiles on alums (about 500-700 words) , along with the short
items that mention people's promotions, new jobs, new books etc.

An alum contacted me and wondered if we wanted to write about his
latest career change. He was an attorney for a while, and before that
something else, and now he has switched directions again and started
a business designing Christmas ornaments. He first worked with a
pretty high-end ornament design company (I need to check on the
name), and is now branching off on his own. Since we needed another
sidebar for our Winter issue, I suggested that we do one on him,
based on the quirkiness of his career path, the prestige of the
former design company, and the timeliness, with the holidays coming
up. Of course, it would be free advertising for him, but we have
highlighted other alums who have started businesses in the past if
they seemed interesting enough.

One of our writers objects to doing the mini-profile on him because,
as she put it, it would be politically incorrect, since his business
designs Christmas ornaments. I should add that he sent photos of the
ornaments, and they are all secular things like snowmen and so on --
nothing religious.

I should also add that On Wisconsin is sort of a hybrid between a
straight news magazine, and a PR publication, since it exists, of
course, to promote the university. We've managed to cover a number
of controversial issues, however, and have developed a reputation for
being able to avoid the puff-piece trap that some alumni magazines
fall into on account of micromanaging from timid administrators.

Net Neutrality and Text Messaging

This week Verizon has been getting into some hot water for its refusal to relay pro-choice text messages from an abortion-rights group. What a new world where we have information transporters who traditionally have had no real interaction with content (i.e. telephone companies, cable companies like Charter) suddenly deciding to mess with the digital messages and the information hierarchy to boot. In part this is a result of the lack of laws regulating such interference in these new technologies. But what else about this kind of technology has these companies electing to mess with content all of a sudden? Is this just a sharing of the information wealth? How do we think about this -- is it giving still more control to corporations, or is it redistributing that power of data, or is it servicing audiences? Does this indicate a cultural shift in terms of digital information control? What will the implications be for media production and advertising and public relations strategies?
While we're at it, let's talk about this buzz concept, net neutrality, which is the idea that the Internet will remain a place of free-flowing content without real institutional controls for the sake of control:

The dispute over the Naral messages was a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of “net neutrality” — whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.

“This is right at the heart of the problem,” said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. “The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling.” (From the NYT article linked above)

The issue has gotten some early attention in the presidential campaign. Some panelists at a conference this summer from the Heritage Foundation pointed out that nobody can come out against net neutrality. It would be a little like coming out against democracy. A Wall Street Journal columnist called the net neutrality advocacy by "liberals" scare-mongering. But what does it mean exactly? I have a lot of questions about it: why is this a political issue instead of an institutional power issue? Shouldn't private companies like Verizon or Internet Service Providers have some control over the messages that go through their proprietary systems? Is there a consumer rights argument here regarding the desirability for tiered pricing systems, for example? What kinds of subcultures would be curtailed should net neutrality fail? What would it do to the nature of our existing media system's information flow?

usa today

Twenty-five years ago, Gannett launched USAToday, which was widely derided by journalists for its fluffy bulk, its short articles, and its broadcast-like model. It lost a ton of money at first. Today, the paper holds the largest circulation in the nation, and it makes a tidy profit for the chain -- the main goal Al Neuharth sought to achieve. It still hasn't won a Pulitzer, but the paper now publishes some pretty good journalism (as contended in a recent New York Times piece). In addition, the chain is becoming a pioneer in the online world as well (according to a recent BusinessWeek magazine). Can we go back to the original call by the Hutchins Commission in appealing to the conglomerates to provide us with socially responsible journalism? Considering McChesney's and Bagdikian's recent writings, is USAToday, the Nation's Newspaper, still so bad for America? Or, is all of this just more window dressing by Gannett? Still another thought: maybe USAToday is merely representing a new cultural sensibility of America?

A question about information control...

This is a post from a friend (a Massachusetts journalist, artist, and art critic):

Here's a question for your new media blog...
When a semi-institutional blog recklessly reports an unconfirmed
rumor that someone has died -- an elderly local bigwig -- what happens?
Who should call them on it? How? Who polices the internet?
The post is from the new blog of a local online arts journal, which has been
publishing for something like three years.

NYT Select

A few years ago Len Apcar, then the leader of NYtimes.com, stood up at an online journalism conference and asked researchers to find a viable business model for newspapers online. He hinted that his paper would be unveiling one attempt to gain revenue and protect content. A few months later, NY Times introduced TimesSelect, hiding its op-ed content from non-subscribers and angering those who believe the Web needs to nurture, not curtail, its culture of free information. This morning I got this email:

Dear Home Delivery Subscriber,

We are ending TimesSelect, effective today. This will not affect any services you are already receiving as a home delivery customer.

The Times's Op-Ed and news columns are now available to everyone free of charge, along with Times File and News Tracker. In addition, The New York Times online Archive is now free back to 1987 for all of our readers.

Why the change?

Since we launched TimesSelect, the Web has evolved into an increasingly open environment. Readers find more news in a greater number of places and interact with it in more meaningful ways. This decision enhances the free flow of New York Times reporting and analysis around the world. It will enable everyone, everywhere to read our news and opinion - as well as to share it, link to it and comment on it.

The bloggers are having a field day with this. I think it highlights an interesting tension point between old-world notions of news as a commodity to be bought and sold and the new information culture on the Internet. I was interested in seeing which was going to win out when TimesSelect appeared. In many ways, media companies are making great strides in 'normalizing' the Internet, and taking advantage of its technological attributes in such a way that the status quo of capitalism is not threatened. Now even Murdoch is hinting that the Wall Street Journal might turn into a free site.
What is going on? Why didn't this work? Also, would it have worked better has the Times made all of its content subscription online (rather than just op-ed)? Are these an indication that culture (and the people) has trumped economics?

A student post about Second Life

From AMY in 561:

There is something I would like to get opinions from the class on and the topic may be appropriate for the blog. The question stems from self-interest -it has to do with a project I am currently working on- but it also relates to the readings.

My question relates to the Wright chapter. Beginning on page 7 of the chapter, Wright outlines characteristics of mass communication. I would like to use Wright's description (and maybe other definitions too) to determine if Second Life counts as mass communication.

This has been troubling for me. Of course the internet is mass communication. But when it comes to Second Life it gets sticky for me. Especially when studying certain spaces of Second Life- such as a store. The stores are businesses with actual customers. When moving through SL, a store seems to be more like a place than a medium of mass communication. But, the owner of the store does not interact with everyone who consumes their "messages", the recipients are largely unknown and heterogeneous, and the audience could be potentially very large. The store is public, but it is not rapid or transient (but much of the internet is not transient). And it may be easy to answer the question by equating Second Life to video and computer games, but Second Life is so much more than a game. Real life businesses and governmental organizations are using SL to communicate with their consumers and citizens!

So, could Second Life be considered mass communication? What about specific places within Second Life? Where should the line be drawn?

Public vs Private

I had a conversation with a student who was doing a story about journalistic ethics and standards for ASNE the other day. We talked at length about reporter responsibility, editorial decision-making, and audience expectations during this evolutionary change for journalism. Indeed, the profession has also been deeply concerned about these issues. But the interview also involved a discussion about how the Internet is melding private and public worlds, and what that means on a very practical level for journalists in the newsroom. Journalists want to have standards that guide the industry across media platforms, though their working ethics guidelines have also started to specify linking issues, for example. So much work has already been done, including by Poynter and cyberjournalist.net as well as individual media companies. Many of these standards have borrowed heavily from existing print guidelines. However, we cannot assume that our traditional notions of sensationalism, privacy, even ethics itself have remained intact as new media have developed.
An example of what I mean: today's editors routinely point readers to victims' Facebook sites, or download photos/material from these pages to include in news stories. Aren't there privacy issues here? Under traditional understandings of privacy (is there a reasonable expectation of privacy, is it in a public space), the answer is no. The Web is public. Period. But the reality is much different. A friend told me she wanted to publish her highly personal memoir on her MySpace page. I asked her if she had thought about the implications. Anyone she had ever known, or would ever know would read it. It would be there decades from now in some form. Today's co-workers would read it. Future employers would find it. Was she prepared for that? She's thinking about it. We all need to be thinking about this. Is the Facebook page now equivalent to someone's front yard? I'm not saying journalists shouldn't glean information in this manner. I'm just saying they shouldn't do it without a conversation. And citizens need to be involved in that discussion of audience expectations. We need to develop and expand on our media literacy teachings in junior high schools, when people start creating MySpace and other social networking pages in earnest.
But journalists also need to be thinking on a meta-conceptual level about all of this. These online guidelines emphasize transparency, and often publication on the Web of certain material is done under this standard. Yet just because we have access to certain information, and we can publish it under the guise of providing transparency, doesn't mean we should. These days -- at least in my sphere -- the word gatekeeping harbors negative connotations sometimes. In fact, there are people who would like to do away with the concept entirely, change it to 'gatewatchers' or 'networked journalism' or 'information facilitators'. But there is something to be said for information synthesis and thoughtful presentation -- accomplished with a holistic view of the cultural and social implications of publication.
But there are counter arguments to this way of thinking as well. What are they? What do others think?

Perpetuating democracy?

Consider this (press-release) story in Monday's Cap Times, "Fair trade shop offers new items."
Here is a portion:

"MIDDLETON -- Fair Indigo, a fair trade apparel and accessories company with a store in the Hilldale Mall, has introduced two new products aimed at the socially conscious consumer.

Fair Trade Organic Cotton Denim for Fall 2007 is made in a fair trade factory in San Jose, Costa Rica using 100 percent organic cotton grown in the U.S. and woven in North Carolina. The collection features "sleek, slim-fit jeans, fitted hip-length jackets and long, easy skirts" for women, and jeans and a jean jacket in "classic, easy-fitting styles" for men. The jeans will sell for $69."

Note the socially responsible nature of this particular company. Now think about if you are reporter in the newsroom and a marketer of another for-profit company calls you up about their new product. They want you to write about their new hat, retailing for $125 -- or at least reprint their press release too. And they are socially resp. too! They give $500,000 to United Way every year! What do you say? One of the disturbing trends I see in journalism is this conflation of capitalism and democracy, combined with the desire to fill the news pages or airtime with 'bulk'. What are the pros and cons of writing a story like this in this way? What other options did the reporter have if he wanted to showcase the social responsibility of this particular company? Is part of the responsibility of journalists to promote companies in this manner? But journalists are also the gatekeepers and have this option to write about some companies and not others, right? And consumerism is the business of America, which allows us to be a democracy (some might argue). Isn't it a business reporter's duty to write about such things? And then there is another consideration: Are we glad we know this information? Is it 'news we can use'?
(And we could have a whole other post about the use of press releases being passed off as news, especially a story that has zero original reporting. Here is the company's original press release. Is this journalism now?)

A citizen's responsibility

My newswriting class is reading Kovach & Rosenstiel's revised Elements of Journalism, which contains an addition to the original nine components for good journalism in America. This tenth element? "Citizens too have rights and responsibilities when it comes to the news." On one level, this is a fairly obvious addition, given the new abilities to interact and monitor journalism with agency because of new technologies (and the ways we are using those new technologies). But on a deeper level, this adds a layer to that enduring ideal of Social Responsibility. Not only should we expect media companies to inform publics in a truthful, significant, relevant, balanced and fair manner, but we must also look to citizens to use the same communicative tools to check their journalism and counter it when warranted. This too seemed reasonable... until I started talking to a couple friends -- friends whose days involve diapers and car pools, who get to check their email about once a week, and who thought the Daily Kos was a new cereal. They recognize their democratic responsibilities (to vote, to be involved in their communities, to be informed) but now we want them to also act as a watchdog of the watchdogs? Where does it end, they asked, rather exasperated. Are K&R asking too much?

Agent Society

A comment was made in my media and society class yesterday that has gotten me thinking about social institutionalization vs. agents of socialization. We were having an introductory discussion about social institutions such as the Church, Family, School, Press... etc. And the distinction was made that perhaps we should consider these agents of socialization rather than domineering entities. I find this thought intriguing. I think the distinction matters when we think about information production and processing, when we think about communicative agency, when we think about meaning and causality. In this post I pose some questions for my 561 students (and for anyone else who'd like to wrestle with this rather narrow conceptual work).
How is an agent different from an institution? I give you a definition from Tim Cook: .An institution includes “taken-for-granted social patterns of behavior valued in and of themselves [that] encompass procedures, routines, assumptions, which extend over space and endure over time, in order to preside over a societal sector” (Cook, 1998, p. 84). An agent, presumably, would exercise those procedures and routines. I'm wondering if we can't consider, say School, both the institution and the agent, depending on the context.

Another, sort of related, question: Are we at the point where we can start considering Society (and normally a pet peeve of mine is when people randomly capitalize nouns, but here a capital S, I think, is warranted, considering my point) an institution, given its enhanced powers in mass dissemination of information and mass communicative control and influence?

Book authors and readers

Consider the following two articles from the NYT:
"A space for us"
And
"The author will take Q.'s Now"

Both consider how digital technology is changing the dissemination and consumption process of books. What kind of implications do you think these changes have for the basic functions of books?

News we are using

In his recent book Tuned Out, David Mindich suggests that society is in crisis because people your age refuse to be informed about the events and issues going on around you. You get your news from Jon Stewart and late-night comedy. This has implications for your collective national identity, he says -- meaning, you've got none.
Ok, let's hear it: What do you think? Where are you guys getting your news? Be honest now. What do you think of the news today? What parts of it interest you? What do you hate? Where have you found journalistic sanctuary? Do you find yourself having conversations about the news ever? What kinds of journalism ekes into your conversations?
And here is a big questions: What is news to you?

Fall 2007

Welcome to my new blog, media students! For the time being, I am going to post interesting tidbits and big questions to get you guys talking. I will try to post a journalism-oriented topic and a media topic each week. Please bring your current readings and theory into the discussion.
Shall we begin?