Feature article research.

For our upcoming feature article assignment, I have decided to focus on WikiLeaks as my main point of interest. More specifically, I’ve been examining the relationship between journalists and WikiLeaks. Also, I’ve recently started to focus on the differing perceptions between whistleblowers who directly approach journalists and whistleblowers who provide their information through organisations such asWikiLeaks. I’ve been very interested in where this new lead has taken me.

 So, considering that this is a rather dense subject, how have I been conducting my research? Initially, I started with some Internet research on WikiLeaks; looking into its origins and role within the Australian and international media landscape. I also conducted the same initial research with whistleblowers and how they have influenced and affected the Australian media.

I then decided to read up on archival news stories that dealt with similar issues that I was seeking to address. All of these were accessible via the websites of a number of different newspaper’s websites and they provided a good insight into the previous work conducted on this topic.

Above: Image sourced from Google.

I also watched a couple of documentaries about WikiLeaks, which proved useful in providing in-depth information about the organisation and it’s head, Julian Assange. One documentary was obviously more prejudiced against WikiLeaks, while the other seemed to provide a pretty equal representation of points for and against the website. I made sure to take into account this bias, including the bias within other sources that I used and even my own personal bias.

From this background research, I started to get an idea as to the major key players involved in my research topic. After a discussion in class, I decided to begin researching for Australian whistleblowers and well known figures who have supported the journalistic use of WikilLeaks. They included Andrew Wilkie and and Laurie Oakes. After some further research, I decided that they were appropriated interviewees for my article and I therefore made preparations to request interviews.

Currently, I am working on my draft of my article, which I hope to bring the final draft into class next to have it checked over. 

A moral minefield - the public’s right to know vs. the individual’s right to privacy.

We live in a society that thrives on publicity. We have magazines, websites and television shows all dedicated to the cult of celebrity. We follow their every movement, whether they’re walking the red carpet at a movie premiere or simply walking to the shops. But what gives us the right to pry into the lives of the famous? The justification has been made that, by placing themselves in the public eye, individuals surrender any claim to personal privacy. What’s in the publics interest is fair game for journalists and yet, should this same justification also apply to those individuals who are thrust into the public eye? Victims of disasters or relatives of the deceased? When does the individual’s right to privacy surpass the public’s right to know?

According to the Media Arts and Entertainment Alliance (MEAA 2011), respect for the truth and catering to the public’s interest and right to know are all key principles of professional journalism.  Public interest, however, means more than what the public finds to be interesting. Indeed, something that is in the public interest may be of no interest to them whatsoever. For something to be in the public interest, therefore, it must be something that will increase the knowledge, welfare or wellbeing of the public. Similarly, it may be an issue that directly affects the welfare of the public, like the knowledge that the Prime Minister may no longer be capable of adequately fulfilling their duty. From this, we can see that public interest must be driven by more than mere curiosity.

This mantra of ‘the public’s right to know’ has often been used to justify the breach of an individual’s privacy. Indeed, it may often be the case that the public did need to be informed of certain events or information that had an affect on their own lives. Conversely, the opposite of this may also be the case, where privacy was breached merely to entertain the public, not to cater to the public interest. So, where should the line be drawn between the public’s right to know and an individual’s right to privacy? Before we delve attempt to draw any conclusions, let’s first examine what is meant by the term ‘privacy’.

Essentially, privacy is the right to keep personal information undisclosed (Archard 1998). This personal information, which includes photos, sounds recordings, written statements etc., is protected in Australia by the Privacy Act of 1988. Publishing private information can cause significant harm to an individual and thus, the media must not seek to publish personal information unless a justification exists (Australian Privacy Foundation 2009). That is, the information must be in the public interest and not what the public is interested in.

Campbell's right to privacy was breached.

However, this hasn’t stopped some media outlets using the excuse of public interest to expose the private information of certain individuals. Think of the David Campbell scandal. Campbell, former minister for transport, was exposed by Channel Seven after attending an after-hours gay sauna. Was this story in the public interest, or merely of interest to the public? There was no evidence to suggest that his actions were negatively affecting his ability to carry out his role as minister for transport. Despite the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) justifying the breach of privacy as in the public interest, “most of the media world, and most journalists…think there was zero public interest in Channel Seven's broadcast” (Ackland 2011).

With the help of technology, those in the public eye are under more scrutiny than ever before. A contradiction seemingly exists between our infatuation with the lives of public figures and our own concern for personal privacy. We want our own privacy respected but also like to indulge in the private lives of others. Can we effectively balance this contradiction? The line between privacy and public interest has always been blurry. However, we should remember that, while scandals may be juicy, their consequences can be more far-reaching than we realise. How did Campbell’s family feel after their private information was exposed for the world to see? Privacy should be treated with respect. An individual should not have to sacrifice their privacy only in order to entertain the public. Only when public interest is a stake should individual privacy be breached.




References:

Ackland, R. (2011), ‘Muddle-headed watchdog leaves the privacy door ajar’, SMH, 18 Feb. Viewed September 23 2011 <http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/muddleheaded-watchdog-leaves-the-privacy-door-ajar-20110217-1ay3h.html>

Archard, D. (1998), ‘Privacy, the public interest, and a prurient public’, in Kieran, M (ed), Media Ethics, Routledge, pp 82-96.

Australian Communication and Media Authority (2009), ‘Privacy Guidelines for Broadcasters’. Viewed 22 September 2011 <http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib100084/privacy_guidelines.pdf>

Australian Privacy Foundation (2009), ‘AFP Policy Statement re Privacy and the Media’. Viewed September 23 2011 <http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/Media-0903.html>

Freedom of the press - how free is free?

In the aftermath of the News of the World hacking scandal, it seems that the notion of press freedom has become more pertinent than ever. 

It cannot be denied that a free press plays an intrinsic role in upholding the democratic values of a society. Indeed, freedom of the press has been championed as the very foundation of democratic societies. As former Prime Minister John Howard stated, “The best safeguards we have for our democracy are a robust parliamentary process, a free press, and an incorruptible judiciary. If you’ve got those three things, you’ve got a free country” (Marr 2005). What do we mean by freedom of the press? Essentially, the freedom of the press implies a press separated from any institutional influences, which ultimately allows for the free speech of the people within society. The press, therefore, acts as a democratic vehicle for the citizens it represents. This separation from institutional influences is imperative. In order to uphold its important role as the Fourth Estate [vital to the checks and balances of a healthy democracy], the journalism industry must always remain free any government control or censorship. Censorship is detrimental to journalism, where any political interferences or pressures may limit a citizen’s input in the running of their government. 

And yet, can there be such thing as too much freedom when it comes to journalism? Who watches the watch dog? Indeed, the notion of press freedom has come under intense scrutiny in the past. Let’s take, for example, the recent News of the World hacking scandal.

Above: Image taken from Google. 

  After operating for nearly 170 years, the News of the World published its final edition on the 10^th July 2011. And the reason for its demise? A series of scandals revealed a deep-seated culture of unethical journalistic practices within the newspaper. The scandals involved a number of allegations that the News of the World hired private investigators to hack into the voicemail of numerous individuals, including actress Sienna Miller, Gordon Brown and Prince William (The Telegraph 2011). Apart from the sundry of high-profile actors and politicians, the paper is also accused of hacking the voicemail of 9/11 victims and their families and the voicemail of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. In January 2011, the British police opened an official investigation (Operation Weeting) into the hacking allegations. After a series of arrests and the announcement of two government inquiries, the News of the World said its final goodbyes.

   So what does this scandal mean for the journalism industry? According to Laurie Oakes, journalist and Walkley Foundation Advisory Board Chair, the major fallout affects of the scandal will be a decline in public trust of what journalists do and the way they do it (Walkleys 2011). From this issue of trust, journalists will no doubt be under increasing scrutiny. And, if there’s no trust, how is journalism expected carry out its important role as a vehicle of free speech. However, instead of viewing the scandal and its after effects as the end of news as we know it, journalists should instead view it as a wake up call. The scandal should act as a form of warning, signalling a change in journalistic values and practices is perhaps required. Ethics play an intrinsic role in journalism, thus journalists should learn and adopt the correct ethical practices. They must, in sum, be accountable.

Upholding the freedom of the press is vital. A free press is an essential element of democracy, creating well-informed citizens who are able to actively participate in and understand the running of their government and society. Journalists should learn from the past and strive to earn back the trust of the public whose interests they were created to serve.

For a complete timeline of the hacking scandal, visit The Telegraph here. 

References:

ABC (2011). Key plays in News of the World scandal. ABC News. Accessed 15/9/11 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-06/key-players-in-news-of-the-world-scandal/2784372>

Chandrasekhar, I (2011). Phone hacking: timeline of the scandal. The Telegraph. Accessed 15/9/11 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8634176/Phone-hacking-timeline-of-a-scandal.html>

Marr, D (2005). And to crown it all. SMH. Accessed 15/9/11 <http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/and-to-crown-it-all/2005/11/04/1130823397723.html>

Walkleys (2011). Where to from here? Accessed 15/9/11 <http://www.walkleys.com/features/2457/>

WikiLeaks- friend or foe?

As the Internet is heralded as the champion of the information age, it seems that there may be such thing as too much information.

Since it’s formation in 2007, WikiLeaks, a database for untraceable mass document leaking, has continued to make headlines across the world. With the release of numerous sensitive government and military documents, WikiLeaks has lead to many red-faced politicians condemning the site as contemptible (think Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Julia Gillard). So, is the only objection to WikiLeaks its tendency to injure the pride of those who have something to hide? As the power and prominence of the site continues to grow, there can be no doubt that WikiLeaks is encouraging a long-needed shake up of the system.

According to WikiLeaks, its “primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes…[and] to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations” (WikiLeaks). To achieve these goals, WikiLeaks states that it utilises journalistic and ethical principles and practices when researching and releasing leaked documents. In keeping a watchful eye on the governments of the world, it appears that WikiLeaks is taking on journalism’s traditional role as the Fourth Estate.

WikiLeaks believes that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and opinion. To them, the traditional media was not stepping up to the mark when it came to informing society. According to WikiLeaks:

“We observed the world’s publishing media becoming less independent and far less willing to ask the hard questions of government, corporations and other institutions. We believed this needed to change” (WikiLeaks 2011).

In order to enable society to better inform themselves of the innate goings-on of those in power, WikiLeaks has opted for the model of transparency. To them, “transparency creates a better society for all people” (WikiLeaks 2011). Aligning themselves as part of the media, WikiLeaks is effectively replacing journalism’s old model of objectivity with what they claim is a new model of journalism. This new transparency model allows the public to view an original source without a journalist’s own particular bias obscuring or colouring the facts. Similarly, within this model, WikiLeaks is not for profit, works with rather than competing against other media organisations and does not have to answer to advertisers or shareholders.

Above: Image taken from Google.

Should journalists be feeling the threat from this technology-savvy site? With its goals to keep democracy in balance through use of transparency, will WikiLeaks ultimately replace the traditional media? According to some, this is a change that needs to happen. David Weinberger believes that the problem with journalism’s model of objectivity “ is that it tries to show what the world looks like from no particular point of view, which is like wondering what something looks like in the dark” (Silverman 2009). Alan Mutter supports this, agreeing that journalism should replace this “threadbare notion [of objectivity] with a realistic and credible standard of transparency that requires journalists to forthrightly declare their personal predilections…so the public can evaluate the quality of information it is getting” (Sambrook 2010).

And yet, despite this support, WikiLeaks says that they aren’t out to replace journalists in their role of informing the public. Journalism and WikiLeaks can, in fact, work in harmony. WikiLeaks state that they “believe the world’s media should work together as much as possible to bring stories to a broad international readership” (WikiLeaks 2011). WikiLeaks has already allowed journalists to access information that would ordinarily be out of their reach. As Time Magazine believes, WikiLeaks “could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act”.  

WikiLeaks has its critics and, more than likely, it always will. The whistleblower believes that what they’re doing is right and, what is right is not always popular with those who are exposed as being in the wrong. However, simply vilifying or even shutting down WikiLeaks is no longer enough to curb this newfound transparency. WikiLeaks is not an isolated case in the information revolution; it’s now simply one of many whistle-blowing websites.

References:

Sambrook, R (2010) The World at Large. Available: http://blogs.edelman.co.uk/richardsambrook/2010/12/05/the-state-of-american-journalism/

Silverman, H. (2009). David Weinberger: Transparency Subsumes Objectivity. Available: http://www.peopleandplace.net/on_the_wire/2009/12/29/david_weinberger_transparency_subsumes_objectivity__kmworld.

Out with the old and in with the new - the rise of social media.

As we have previously seen, the rise of technology in the 21^st century has forced the journalism industry to embrace a new business model, adapting the ways in which journalists source and disseminate news in order to survive. Arguably, the most significant catalyst for this change in the news making process has been the rise of social networking sites. Social media is constantly challenging and redefining traditional journalistic practices and, as more and more people are becoming technologically savvy, social networking sites are experiencing an increasing boom in popularity. This raises the question: are these social networking sites a wealth of valuable information for journalists? Or are they a hindrance?

If the statistics are to be believed, there’s a high probability that you’re a regular user of Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, or perhaps all of these social networking sites. Social media offers individuals an opportunity to connect with others, to join a digital community where they can talk, participate and share information. The terms ‘Facebook me’ and ‘retweet’ have become common vernacular, normalising and integrating these social media sites into our everyday lives. Indeed, checking your Facebook newsfeed or seeing what’s trending on Twitter has become part of many people's daily routines. The popularity of these sites cannot be disputed, with Facebook alone boasting over 750 million users worldwide. With access to millions of users from across the globe, Facebook has the potential to be a valuable source for journalists. Similarly, Twitter, which has over 200 million users, “is an extremely useful journalistic resource: reporters can use it to watch for breaking news, follow sources and search for information” (Heald, 2009). What’s trending on Twitter tells us what’s happening around the world and the journalist then seeks to expand on and contextualise this information.

And yet, despite the growing power and prominence of social media, these sites have often been approached with trepidation by the journalism industry. The beauty of social media is that anyone can post anything. However, this is also its downside. It is a basic journalistic principle that news should be factual and ethical and, in the fast paced world of social media, it can often be hard to establish whether the information you’re reading is truth, rumour or a blatant fib. As Posetti states, “the biggest issue with social media is verification” (Posetti 2011). Social media may be valuable sources of information, but it’s when journalists take what they’re reading as credible and factual events (sometimes even recirculating it as news) without checking the facts that they can become an issue. Take for instance Brian Stelter, journalist for the New York Times, who retweeted an image that claimed to depict a tiger roaming the streets of London during the recent London riots. The photo was, in fact, taken in Italy in 2008. It’s somewhat worrying that a journalist working for a credible news organisation republished an image found on Twitter without any attempt at checking their facts and verifying sources.

Look familiar?
Above: Image taken from Google.

So, should social media play an intrinsic role in the way journalists source information? As these sites continue to grow, it seems like a wasted opportunity to neglect the potential benefits they have to offer for the modern journalist. However, it is essential that, when taking information from sites such as Twitter, a journalist must “proceed with extreme caution and request evidence to support the claim” (Hill 2011). Fact checking is a fundamental aspect of journalism and, despite the ‘newness’ of social media, some traditional journalistic practices must still be adhered to. 

References:

Heald, E 2009, Twitter for Journalists and Newsrooms: Sourcing, Publishing, Connecting. Accessed 1/9/11 2011, <http://www.editorsweblog.org/analysis/2009/06/twitter_for_journalists_and_newsrooms_so.php>

Hill, J 2011, ‘Go Forth and Verify’, The Walkley Magazine, vol. 67, p. 13.

Posetti, J 2011, ‘BBC Social Media Summit Fixates on Creating Open Media’, MediaShift, 7 June. Accessed 1/9/11 <http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/06/bbc-social-media-summit-fixates-on-creating-open-media158.html>

On death dow - The end of news as we know it?

 As the 21^st century powers on, it seems that those who fail to adapt to the rapid advances of technology are being left behind. Indeed, the rising star of the Internet may spell the end for journalism as we know it. 

Above: Image sourced from Google Images.

The changing face of journalism in the 21^st century has seen some interesting developments. We have seen the continual rise of online as a news medium and the fall of some traditional news forms, including the humble newspaper. With newspaper readership in Australia falling to record lows in recent years, some individuals, like Roy Greenslade, have predicted the eventual demise of print journalism. Greenslade states, “Popular newspapers, the mass newspapers, are dying and will die. They have no future whatsoever” (ABC 2008).  Print journalism’s former audience is now embracing new technologies to source their news, determining what content they want, how they want it and when they want it. Has our favour for online content ultimately been to the detriment of print journalism? Partly. However, online is not, perhaps, the sole cause of print’s dwindling audience. Indeed, society is more information hungry than ever before, yet the journalism industry has failed to adapt to their audiences’ increasing demand for online content. Some media groups have approached the rise of the online ‘news sphere’ with trepidation. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch confessed that his own media conglomerate, News Corp, was too slow when it came to recognising the power of the Internet (Doran, Holland and West 2011). The journalism industry is operating under a business that no longer reflects the needs of its users.

Is it all doom and gloom when it comes to the relationship between journalism and the online world? Can journalism and online ever really get along? Kim Porteous, multimedia editor for The Sydney Morning Herald, believes that newspapers and online news can successfully coexist. Porteous offers this advice for modern journalists: “The web has changed the way we read and the way we consume news. Tailor your journalism to it. Explore the new ways of producing serious…journalism” (Porteous 2010). The media should realise that new technologies like the iPad have dramatically affected the way that news is consumed. Therefore, news should be adapted to suit these new technologies, rather than simply taking articles written for a newspaper and placing it online in the same format. Journalists should “tailor their reporting to capitalise on the web medium” (Porteous 2010).  Technology should be used to journalism’s advantage, not to its detriment.

As more and more citizens are turning to online to source their news, it has become clear that, in order to survive, the journalism industry must adapt a new business model; a model that understands the changing face of the media in the 21^st century. After all, isn’t it adapting to changing societies that has allowed journalism to survive thus far? By listening to its audience and embracing new technology, journalism may live to fight another day. 

References:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2008). Roy Greenslade in Conversation with Margaret Simons. Accessed 12/8/11 <http://fora.tv/2008/05/01/Roy_Greenslade_in_Conversation_with_Margaret_Simons#fullprogram>

Doran, Holland and West E (2011). Journalism: the good, the bad and the ugly. CMNS3420 presentation. Viewed 24/8/11.

Porteous, K (2010). Can newspapers and the internet get along? Accessed 25/8/11.
<http://www.walkleys.com/features/984>

I did it my way - Citizen Journalism.

As we discovered in my last blog, the 21^st century has marked a turning point in the nature of journalism. As technology continues to shift the boundaries of what journalism is and who does it, the role of the citizen in the disseminating of news has undergone some significant changes.

As Allan Stuart states, “the ‘news’ of some description has been in circulation since the earliest days of human communities” (Stuart 2010 pg. 1). As members of individual and collective communities, people have always wanted to know what’s going on in the world around them, to learn about the people and events that make their society tic. This desire for news seems to be an intrinsic human trait that has remained unchanged throughout the centuries. The news exists to inform society and the citizens within it, but who uncovers the news? From society’s need for information, there stems the need for those who are willing and able to discover, investigate and communicate newsworthy events.

Historically, journalists have been known for their ability to sniff out a story. I’m sure that we can all picture the Romantic image of a journalist; someone out on the beat interviewing, searching for leads and uncovering major scoops or scandals before they go public.  As Hamilton and Lawrence state, “professional journalism...is rooted in the concept of reporters going out into the world seeking information” (Hamilton and Lawrence 2010 pg. 1). And yet, there is more to journalism than the ability to interview and uncover stories. So, what really makes a journalist? According to the Media Arts and Entertainment Alliance’s (MEAA) code of ethics, a journalist adheres to the principles of honesty, fairness and independence. They “describe society to itself…convey information…inform citizens and animate democracy” (MEAA). So from this definition of a journalist, we can see that it is a journalist’s role to honestly uncover and convey information to inform citizens. 

And what is the role of the citizen in all of this? In the past, the citizen’s role was chiefly a one-way affair. That is, it was their role to purchase the newspaper, tune into a radio broadcast or turn on television news. They rarely, if ever, constructed and communicated their own news stories. However, with the emergence of new media and the rise of social networking sites such as Twitter, audiences no longer exist solely to be informed. Technology has allowed the citizen to play a participatory role in news, where publishing news is as simple as clicking a button.

The above video, taken of looters during the recent London riots, was filmed and uploaded to Youtube, not by professional journalists, but by everyday citizens. The footage may be amateur at best, filmed on a camera phone, yet it still provides us with images of the riots as they were happening. This type of footage is generally beyond the reach of the traditional media, who often take up these images and use them to form their own news of the event. For instance, I first saw this footage on Channel Ten news.

A tag on the video reads: “Share this around, someone [sic] people will know who these scum are and help them get caught!!” This action sees the citizen journalist informing the public, even motivating them into action. Is this not the role of the traditional journalist? The man in this video has since been caught  and, without this footage, the crime may have passed under the radar.

But is this really news? Many professional journalists often view citizen journalists with disdain, although there can be no denying that they can provide the world with powerful images of events that the traditional media may miss. Whether these citizen journalists are credible, ethical and accountable is another matter entirely. Similarly, whether this can be classed as journalism at all is a matter of intense debate.

Informing society is the bedrock of journalism and, historically, it has been the role of the citizen to be informed. Yet technology is transforming the symbiotic relationship between the journalist and the citizen, placing the power of news making and disseminating in the hands of the citizen. Whatever your stance on citizen journalism may be, there can be no doubting that the number of citizen journalists will continue to increase as more people embrace the freedom that technology has given them

References:

Hamilton, M (2010). Bridging Past and Future. Journalism Studies, vol. 1 no. 5. Accessed 15/8/11.

Media, Entertainment and Art Alliance (nd). Code of Ethics. Accessed 12/8/11 <http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html>

Stuart, A (2010). News Culture. OUP, London. Accessed 14/8/11.