Privacy

Today’s presentation was on privacy and how much is too much. Shasi and Gwen did a short and simple presentation providing adequate examples. Gwen’s youtube video depicted a couple assaulting an investigative journalist which was entertaining and also made us wonder if the journalists did indeed cross boundaries to invade the couples’ privacy. Shasi’s example on the news where the mother accidentally ran over her child created a long and pondering discussion in class that we started to question how far we ourselves as individuals will go to publish this story and where would we draw the invisible line?

There are 4 areas in which privacy can be categorized. They are, intrusion, publication of embarrassing private facts, publication of information that places one in false light and appropriation which is using an individual’s name and photographs without their knowledge (Richards, 2001). However, there are times in which journalists has gone overboard and have violated these area of privacy before. So when is it considered ok to go overboard? Well, clearly, the public always love to know or have more scoops about gossips on issues such as celebrities. If your next door neighbor had a new haircut would you even care? But somehow when it comes to celebrities or high profile people such as politicians, this is huge news and people want to know about it. Aren’t these celebrities also considered people? But journalists are allowed to breech their privacy? Take famous twilight actor for example. Robert Pattinson himself says that he is really shy to the media and he would really like to have some time alone without having to worry what the media has to say about him or the media following him around (Hollywoodgo, 2010). These people do not want the public to know about their personal lives, but somehow, journalists are allowed to breech their privacy. However, there are times where certain issues need to be brought to light especially if these celebrities or politicians are seen as role models to the public. I especially think this is true for politicians as if they have criminal records or other things that may not be very ethical, the public has a right to know. This is because he is running a country and he cannot afford to be corrupted when running a country.

But what about normal people then? Are we allowed to intrude in their privacy? Let me use the same example that we discussed in class of the mother reversing the car and accidentally killing her son. The Newpaper portrayed the story in a completely different light by making it a front page story showing a picture of the mother looking agonized and crying. Clearly The Newpaper did this to sensationalise the story as it is common knowledge in Singapore that The Newpaper is a tabloid paper. When people see the face of the agonizing woman on the front page together with the headlines, they are bound to buy the paper. Then we ask ourselves, hasn’t the woman and her family gone through enough that we have to publish this story? In my opinion, I think it is alright publishing the story but it was not necessary to use images of this woman to boost sales.

In conclusion, I ask back the question when do journalist have to draw a line? Certainly, journalism is a sticky area to work in. I guess it depends on the person’s ethics and sometimes the company’s ethics as well. This is because sometimes, journalists are forced to do things they do not want to. Well, I must start asking myself if I really want to enter this competitive and sticky field again. I still think I might to get my adrenaline pumping though! ;)

Reference

1) Hollywoodgo, 2010. Robert Pattison Debuts Short Hair On Ellen [Online]. Available from: http://www.hollywoodgo.com/celebrity-gossip/robert-pattison-debuts-short-hair-on-ellen-15735/ (Accessed 24^th June 2011).

2) Richards, I., 2001. ‘Public Interest, Private Lives’, Journalism Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.

Journalism and its negotiation of online, the blogosphere and social media

Or is it not?

Twitter, Facebook, blogger, youtube, well, you name it! It’s the era where social media platforms are booming currently. This is probably the reason why I decided to report on this week’s seminar and I definitely paid extra attention to the seminar as well. Vanessa and Roslyn did a great job with the presentation highlighting all aspects of the journalism industry and not just about social media platforms. Great video too guys!

Like I mentioned earlier, social media platforms are becoming more and more prominent in practically everyone’s daily lives. Take me for example, I did not have Facebook until about a year ago which was not even created by me but a friend of mine. Anyway, the point is, now I am hooked to it that I have to check my Facebook page every day. In fact, an average user spends more than 55 minutes per day on Facebook itself (aguntuk, 2010). Thus, it makes more sense for news to appear online or via these social media sites first before it appears on traditional media. This is also because these websites are mobile that when someone is at a spot where important information or events take place, they can immediately tweet or post in on their page for their friends to see it. It may not be the full story, but at least the summary of it appears first before the detailed report which will appear in the traditional media later or the next day. I guess this is why we have twitter and Facebook pages for The Straits Times as well.

But then again, with the rise in social media platforms, more and more people are able to post anything that credibility becomes a problem as well. People are doubtful about the credibility of certain news being spread by social media platforms but they are able to distinguish the real and the fake ones after some time (Catillo, et al, 2011). This is because, people do not simply believe what they read. They are bound to discuss it with their friends who will also probably help to validate if the information is true. Also, this could be a reason why people follow or like news web pages as they are able to receive information, credible information from these sites, even if it is a summarised version. Well, maybe it’s time for me to get twitter as well. What do you think?

References

1) Aguntuk, 2010. People Use Facebook 44% And Twitter 29% For Social Sharing [Online]. Available from: http://thetechjournal.com/internet/social-community/people-use-facebook-44-and-twitter-29-for-social-sharing.xhtml (Accessed 9th June 2011).

2) Castillo, C., et al., 2011. Information Credibility on Twitter [Online]. Available from: http://www.www2011india.com/proceeding/proceedings/p675.pdf (Accessed 9th June 2011).

Globalisation VS Localisation

Today's presentation was short and concise. Huda, explained about the Localisation of newspapers in the Singapore context and Anjana explained about Globalisation, specifically on freedom of speech in Singapore. Both of them addressed the topic well by providing relevant examples and they substantiated their facts with evidence.

Localisation is when the country thinks globally but acts locally (Hines, 2003). Using Localisation in the Singaporean context, a standardisation of news can be seen for majority of the newspapers. Taking The Straits Times and The Newpaper as an example, it can be noted that The Straits Times covers more extensive and serious content but The Newpaper is more of a tabloid paper. However, when a comparison of a prominent story is made in both newspapers, the content is almost similar. This shows that important news stories will not be altered even if they are owned by different corporation. This is because, the public has the rights to know the truth and there is no way that an important story will get manipulated by different corporations.

Moving on to Globalisation, technology has indeed made our world more interconnected and has also caused an increase in online and social media platforms. This has led to freedom of speech as well. However, is ANYBODY able to say ANYTHING they want online? Singapore indeed has freedom of speech but, of course, it comes with numerous restrictions as well (Singapore Statutes Online, 2011). Thus, the question of whether we are really a country that promotes free speech is one to ponder.

In conclusion, I think Singapore is still trying it’s best to attain a free speech society but we always have to be careful of how much free speech we want to have. We will definitely get there, slowly but surely – or atleast I hope so.

References

1) Hines, C., 2003. Understanding and explaining localisation [Online]. Available from: http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/footnmouth/local11.html (Accessed 31^st May 2011).

2) Singapore Statutes Online, 2011. PART IV: FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES [Online]. Available from: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1999-REVED-CONST&doctitle=CONSTITUTION%20OF%20THE%20REPUBLIC%20OF%20SINGAPORE%0A&date=latest&method=part&segid=931158659-000271 (Accessed 31^st May 2011).

Engaging the public and citizen journalism

Engaging the public and online citizenship

This week’s presentation is somewhat similar to last week’s presentation as both topics are inter-related by new media. From this we are able to see that new media is playing a prominent role in today’s society. Beng Wee and Nicole explained this topic well by tying it to Singapore’s context through the general elections 2011.

It is true that new media provides alternative views to be heard online especially if the citizens do not agree with the mainstream media. So does this mean that new media, with the help of citizen journalists, is becoming a watchdog to our society? Take the 2011 Singapore general elections for example. The new media played a huge role in the 2011 elections as parties were able to post their manifesto and speeches online or in their facebook page. This also allowed netizens to play the role of watchdogs as they were constantly updating one another about the current happenings of the elections even on cooling off day (Nie and Saad, 2011). In my opinion, this also cause the elections to be even exciting as parties have to constantly try to outdo each other through online media as they know that they are being judged by netizens.

Thus, with the rise in new media, citizen journalism arises as well. This is when anyone can write about anything online and this usually arises when the public does not trust the mainstream media or when they want to be heard without any editing done by professional journalists (Quinn and Lamble, 2007). This is of course done with regards to current happenings and issues as blogging about a person’s personal life is not considered citizen journalism. Personally, I feel that with the rise in citizen journalism, people especially the younger generation are more aware of the current happenings. This is because, statistics have shown that the younger generations are the ones who prefer using the online media. Thus, by allowing an increase in citizen journalism, youths are becoming more updated about what is going on around them.

However, one must be careful about what they post or read as not everything they read is true as it can be posted by anyone and also what people post online might not be substantiated with hard evidence. So who do you trust than? Online media which may provide shady evidence or traditional media which may not be full of transparency?

References

1) Nie, H.Y. and Saad, I., 2007. The impact of new media on GE 2011 [Online]. Singapore: Channel News Asia. Available from: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1128681/1/.html (Accessed 24^th May 2011).

2) Quinn, S., and Lamble, S., 2007. Online newsgathering: research and reporting for journalism. Focal Press.

Journalism: Who will pay for it?

Today’s seminar presentation covered all aspects of the readings. Jayne did a very good job in explaining the term journalism and the relationship between consumers and a journalist’s pay. Son provided an interactive presentation especially when he brought up the topic of Osama Bin Laden’s death and how majority of us heard the news through online media first rather than print media. This causes one to ponder on the survival of print media and of course, the influence of social and online media impacting print media.

As stated in the reading, there has been a decline in readership among people with regards to print media such as local newspapers. Using United States as an example, its newspaper market has dropped by 30percent and this is also caused due to the print newspaper readership by age cohort (Este, et al, 2010). It can be noted that the Gen Y contributes most to the decrease in print newspaper readership and this is particularly because of the evolution of media in the form of technology. Gen Y are the most exposed to online Medias and social Medias that they always turn to these platforms for their daily dosage of news. In fact, this was even proved in our class when all of us raised our hands to say we found out the death of Osama through online media.

Moving on to Singapore, according to the 2008 Nielsen Media Index, internet usage to access news increased by 5percent while newspaper and television showed a downtrend (Tan, 2008). This also shows that more and more Singaporeans prefer reading e-news rather than reading from the traditional media. Some reasons that people mentioned for preferring online news than buying newspaper is because it is free, ease of access and it is much more efficient as news will be updated on the go. So than how will traditional media such as newspaper survive and who will pay for journalism if everything is available for free? What will happen to journalists and how credible are sources online?

Despite the fact that anyone is able to publish anything online, people still consider online news more credible than print or television (Cassidy, 2007). This is because people tend to believe that traditional media is heavily influenced by the government and thus they are somewhat controlled in what they publish. As for the problem of who will pay for journalism, there are always the advertisers who are willing to pay for their advertisement to be published in newspapers. Citing Mr Jimmy, he mentioned how the New York Times announced paid subscription and they are able to argue that people who buy their papers are from the higher income groups or companies. Thus, they will be interested in the advertisements as well. Thus, consumers and journalists are interrelated as only when consumers pay for their news, journalists will get paid. Thus, as long as there are people who are willing to pay for traditional media, journalists would get paid, although their salaries could fluctuate from time to time.

Finally, in my own opinion, I feel that traditional media will not die. It will decrease but somehow, it was the one that created an epitome of news and there are still people who turn to traditional media for news. Even though internet news is on the rise, we have to remember that popularity does not mean that it pays for journalism as most internet news is free.

References

1) Cassidy, W. P. (2007). Online news credibility: An examination of the perceptions of newspaper journalists. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), article 7.Este, J., et al, 2010. Life in the clickstream: The future of Journalism. Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance.

2) Tan, L., 2008. Newspapers and television decline while internet use goes up [Online]. Singapore: Red Sports. Available from: http://redsports.sg/2008/10/19/newspapers-circulation-decline/ (Accessed 21^st May 2011).