“Fluid Content”- Content that flows… good
The nature of t’internet means that there are new possibilities and challenges for journalism- how a story is told will change- not just slightly change- but actually cross mediums and boundaries that are currently in the way of taking a story to its maximum potential. Video, audio and print will combine to tell a story better than any could do individually. This is only made possible by the technology provided by the internet- to provide the viewer with content that flows between mediums that work together to create the story. Instead of having to read about a speech, you can actually watch it. This is still a new concept, but one that will certainly shape journalistic practices in the future. Perhaps no longer will there be specialised journalisrts in certain fields, as each medium may require a bit of another to tell thge story visually or in some other way.
What has interactivity ever done for us?
“Style used to be an interaction between the human soul and tools that were limiting. In the digital era, it will have to come from the soul alone.”
This quote means nothing, but perhaps says a lot. New media is limitless in its potential, so no longer can tools be blamed as a reason why we have not progressed to a certain place. ‘Interaction’ in digital terms, and more specifically in the medium of online news, means viewers comments, interaction and opinions. This, of course, is liberating for the previously gagged public, at last being able to share their opinions on a subject on the very forum where it began- the news story. News sites often have sections below stories for comments and this influence has moved on to other, more traditional forums.
The concept of 24-hour news has taken on the mantle of being the local soapbox for any person wishing to get their opinion across on a straight news site (i believe Liveline does not qualify as such) and this can, at least, partly be attributed to the influence of new media (leaving aside the obvious cost benifits of reading out an e-mail sent in by a viewer rather than have a reporter do a story. ”Cost benifits”=costs absolutely nothing- of course).
How has this ‘interactivity’ actually affected online journalism sites- and how much should it have? This pandering to the public by giving them an opportunity to voice their opinions on hard news stories (most of which is ill-informed and with a slightly jaded world-view). Does this mean that opinion is relevant to the concept of hard news, when all wisdom says that the two are seperate and distinct? Liberating as comment is, surely a qualified person might be more, eh, qualified- but maybe more expensive.
Ethical Watch media analysis
Firstly, I looked at the layout of the most commonly used and popular news site for me personally- www.bbc.co.uk. The absolute lack of advertising did not come as any great surprise as the nature of PSB (Public Service Broadcasting) has denied the BBC any advertising on it’s more traditional broadcasting mediums- and to finds that this has translated entirely to their website was expected. To stick to the principles laid down by the established mediums of television and radio is a rarity in the world of online media, and to find the BBC doing so was quite refreshing and certainly applies to the analysis of ethics in online news. To cover the aspect of transparency within their work, the concept of ‘context’ I feel is very important. Links to relative stories can be found right beside the article that you are reading and are easily accessible through hyperlinks. Their position at the top of the page shows the emphasis that the BBC places on transparency in their journalists work- constantly being re-evaluated against factual evidence from others to give the reader a more rounded and unbiased view of an issue or story.
Moving on to a website with which to contrast the approach of the BBC, I have chosen the New York Times website (www.nytimes.com) as a relevant Western media comparision. Despite a haphazard and opposite to user-friendly layout (perhaps attributable to the fact that they are primarily a newspaper and not solely an online medium), the website does have some flaws relevant to the issues discussed with regard the BBC. On the homepage advertising is prominent enough (not as prominent as I would have expected however), and this is to be expected from a commercial organisation. I certainly do not feel the level of advertising takes away from the news element of the site (the poor mapping of the site does that for itself). As for transparency, there are related topics near the top of the articles, which as mentioned earlier is certainly a positive aspect of any online piece. The NY Times does have a reputuaion as a trusted outlet and this has been built up over the years with their newspaper. The transfer of the brand name itself shows they are relying on this aspect with their online work, and with this accountability there comes transparency.
