Yes. Yes it is.

WikiLeaks is absolutely part of the journalistic cannon. I need only point to the first lines of its About section: “WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public.” See? It’s right there in the intro.

As easy as it would be for me to just end my blog post there (and believe me the time would be very beneficial to my ECA project), I apparently have to defend this argument.

The importance of WikiLeaks lies in its operations. Its team breaks stories that would never make it to the public eye, and they are able to provide every extra source to further prove the validity of their content. In many ways, their method is the most absolute form of journalism; how can anyone deny the blatant murders of several innocent people when the video shows it so clearly? Furthermore, is highly unlikely that the torturing of prisoners would have been a huge, blown out story without the coverage that WikiLeaks provided. These injustices to humanity must be brought to the public’s attention, and this typically causes reform.

WikiLeak’s opponents come from the same principles as every other news organizations’ problems. If that’s not the kind of news you’re interested in, then don’t watch it. The same thing happens to obviously conservative Fox News and its liberal counterparts. There are some things that possibly shouldn’t be reported (unless you’re James Bond, secret agents need that kind of protection), but the majority of the content seems to act as a solid way to keep the government on its toes.

Furthermore, the fact that WikiLeaks actually saves articles that have been censored is an incredible feature of true journalism that cannot be ignored. By getting around the censors, WikiLeaks has discovered a loophole to get the truth to the masses. The world is not a pretty place, and it’s good that there’s an unabashed news source that is willing to prove that.

 

More like, “Citizen LAME,” am I right?

I feel that citizenship has little to do with the future of news. Aside from keeping the public informed about the issues at hand (a very important role, but not truly vital), journalists write for a very select crowd. Namely, a crowd that cares.

The three authors seem to be extremely concerned with the rising youth not caring about the news simply because it is “important but boring.” Which, to be fair, it really is. Young people are up in arms over large events: 9/11 and the death of Osama Bin Laden showed an just how much people are invested in the world around them. Granted, these two events were separated by a decade, but how many other events really rock the common citizen’s world?

In fact, I would argue that people that will truly make a difference will search out the news on their own terms and find their own voices through discovery. Assuming that every person must actively participate or be relatively informed should not govern whether or not someone is a citizen.

These authors fail to consider, however, the role of the “interesting” news. With Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert providing the roles of watchdogs to the watchdogs, younger people are still gathering the important facts of the day that will help them participate in future political endeavors. Colbert’s recent PAC conquest shows that people are willing to stay involved, especially to an incredibly charismatic, genuine, and entertaining political personality. Whether or not he is a “true” journalist is irrelevant; he is still providing and involving the public with the tools necessary to be a “citizen.”

The future of journalism must be entertaining and interactive, but not in a way that takes away the profession of journalists. The examples from Monday’s class show that yes, people do want to be part of the news, but only with things that interest. For example, the dog riding a motorcycle was incredibly adorable, but in no way would I consider that legitimate journalism. Furthermore,  the fact that it was on the front page and was the only example we clicked on should say something about the role of the pedestrian in journalism. iReport seems like it could help in the long run, but only when truly breaking news occurs.

I’m sure that all happened; Facebook told me it did

The social climate is evolving due to the growing presence of online interconnections. People are no longer bound by distance and terrain in order to interact with one another. For example, the recent Arab Spring revolutions were facilitated largely through Facebook, which eventually found its way to the U.S. via Twitter. Intercontinental relationships were strengthened an developed solely because of these new social mediums. The job of the journalist is to provide the people with the tools necessary for public discourse and to facilitate information to the masses. These social sites, however, add a very unique role to the everyday person, essentially involving them with the story directly. People are the start of a story. They can provide instant emotion and basic details. At the end of the day, journalism is about telling a story. These testimonials can greatly add depth and personality to a story. In terms of journalism, these networks turn the spectator into a participant; the journalist’s role is to fashion and report these accounts into an official transcript.

The social capital principle truly answers the “who cares?” question. Clearly, people are caring about each other and the lives of others if the social network spans beyond those that they would normally talk to. Facebook is the perfect example of expanding the international concepts of a community. People are now able to spread reports, photos and life stories instantly. Furthermore, this creates a completely different way to interact with a person’s life. There is almost too much information about your neighbors, and they are reduced to a simple avatar.

The weaknesses of social media, however, stem from the commentary-style nature of multiple users. At some point, the validity of a user becomes compromised, especially when the user contributes nothing new or valuable to the discourse. There’s a large difference between professionalism and a person’s opinion. Journalists have to and do retain control over the news they distribute, adding a strong sense of truth to what they write.  They are the channel through which news is processed, packaged and distributed.

Personal contact is extremely important for it should keep a community strong. Instead of reducing a person to a picture, personal interaction truly invests a person into something real. Knowing, seeing, feeling, and interacting with someone who is involved develops a much stronger connection than a collection of words and photos ever could. Technology is able to spread that contact to a vast amount of diverse people. This should not govern a local communities, but inform them quicker.

 

Evaluating Ethnography

Ethnographic Content Analysis is the numeric and narrative data of people and their culture. It naturally lends itself to an interpretive discovery of a topic. For example, a look at the way fictional female reporters are portrayed in television would require multiple angles. One would have to create a scale of positive and negative attributes to apply to both actual and fictional female reporters. After cross-referencing the two interpretations, an investigator could then draw conclusions from both worlds.

Similar to anecdotal research, it would be very easy to let personal bias and opinion seep into the analysis. During the early stages of research, a completely firm grasp of a culture must be understood. Without this, any interpretation could be wildly unfounded and wholly incorrect.

Furthermore, the author’s intent may shine through due to the anecdotal components of ECA. This, however, can be avoided with strong numerical evidence. Unlike quantitative research, which relies solely on numerical verification, ECA is able to mix the two forms of research to produce a more universal explanation. Surveys are essential to setting a solid foundation that can be hard to refute. Any inferring done by the author suddenly becomes much more valid and acceptable.

Understanding a culture is vital to the study of a certain group. Not only does it create a backbone for research of a topic, but it also pushes a researcher towards new topics. An additional narrative or a more concrete approach may arise to the initial methodology. This qualitative creativity can definitely push an analysis to new heights or to a firmer grasp of a concept.

This somewhat unstructured method can also cause a researcher to fall short. Instead of meeting and completing a preset list of categories to accomplish, an analyst may end up wandering aimlessly, hoping to fall into a theoretical goldmine. For instance, a look at the portrayal of shamans in the media may focus heavily on only one aspect that the writer finds particularly interesting instead of searching for a more complete story.

Analyzing anecdotal approaches with a systematic style

Systematic  analysis stems from a step by step method to reach a conclusion. Instead of merely observing and drawing one’s own conclusion solely from the texts, the systematic approach takes a more experimental approach.  This approach empirical validity to a study by offering relatively concrete evidence to an analysis. 

An important aspect of a systematic is the ability to replicate findings. Not only does this strengthen the results, but it also makes the anecdotal aspects much more legitimate. 

Anecdotal analysis relies heavily on the researcher’s own impressions and conclusions of the information.  Since it can be highly objective, anecdotal research must be coupled with a systematic approach in order to create a thorough argument. This can also be a part of a trial and error style approach, in which initial hypotheses are tested and thrown out. 

There is still room for misinterpretation with a systematic approach. Any symbols and numbers that are given a subjective weight may create a problem in subsequent recreations. It becomes a matter of opinion of the analyst conducting the research. 

My research will definitely require a mixture of anecdotal and systematic approaches. Comic books are a loose variant of literature, which will make my initial impressions heavily theoretical and anecdotal. Testing each approach in a methodical manner and eliminating or tweaking them, however, will help make the study more systematic. 

Look, up in the sky! It’s research!

My research will focus on the way fictional journalists are portrayed in the comic book and graphic novel industry. There are a number of prominent superheroes in the journalism profession (Clark Kent and Peter Parker to name a few), but also a noticeable amount of female companions in the industry as well.

I believe I will take more of a Social constructivist approach. there is little to survey and a lot to infer. As I look at these fictional journalists I must also look at the state of the media at the time. Was journalism highly trusted and respected? Or was America looking for something more sensational in the press? Based off of literature from the time, I can look at the evolution of America’s ethnography. 

In terms if quantitative research, I can map the frequency of journalism-related characters per decade. I am also looking into the way these characters are viewed in their worlds; Superman is a prized employee in the 1940’s, yet Ben Ulrich (Daredevil’s trusted confidante) is hated by his peers. This would require me to devise a scale of positive and negative attributes and apply them as they appear per issue. 

 As another form of media, comics demonstrate a varied form of social interaction. Constantly blurring the line between entertainment and literature, comics reflect the times they appear in. A qualitative approach is vital to this research since most of my information will come through an open interpretation

And Journalism Asked, “What Am I?”

Frankly, journalism is a terror to define. It has no definite or correct answer, yet there is still a sense of what it generally is. One word that seems to keep creeping up, however, is that on some level journalism is considered a service. Whether or not the content is a public record for an entire nation or just a family reunion, I would argue that anyone performing the collection of information for an audience is technically a “journalist.” Daniel Schorr’s quote in Zelizer’s book fits this best: journalism is “a frame of mind.” With this, it’s hard to deny that everyone has the capacity to be a journalist.

Other than that, there is no clear consensus as to what exactly a journalist is. The ability to report on an event seems to be the only agreeable fact, but this too is sketchy. There simply cannot be an absolute definition when there are so many variables within the term. Should an opinion pieces be considered journalism as well? Would this be simply because they are written within a news source and validated through a collection of facts? I feel an opinion should not warrant the title of journalist.

Furthermore, simply stating that an easily accessible forum for many people is at the core of journalism is a bit of a stretch. It is a very vital part of journalism, but the Internet takes the accessible forum to an entirely different level. Now that literally every opinion can be accessed, the need for a tighter definition of journalist has never been higher.

Jon Stewart is clearly not a conventional journalist by any means, but he still offers a wide variety of in-depth coverage on daily events. His methods of providing news should not limit him solely to the title of comedian. As the main provider of national and international information to a younger audience, one could argue that he is a journalist in the purest sense. Even comedic forums such as The Onion and The Colbert Report are variations of “pure” journalism, but they are still a record of a culture at a given time.

I too struggle with saying that democracy equates the title of a journalist. It certainly makes it a lot easier to report and express ideas, but the ability to provide a legitimate forum of information is not given to everyone. To become more than a simple chronicler, a journalist must have a motive (professional or otherwise) for providing the news. The democracy title insinuates that the freedom of the press and freedom of speech are the absolute qualifiers for anyone to become a journalist.

Even in the oppressive dictatorships, people try keep a record of their daily lives. Whether or not this is seen by anyone else should not determine the legitimacy of its journalistic intent.

Finally, I must harshly disagree with Schudson’s assertion that comics are not “publicly important.” I’ve always maintained that a picture says a thousand words, can capture an emotion, and is generally the most widely read aspect of the paper. These have just as much value as any other story, and often offer an entirely new way to view an event.

 

The Civilian and the Professional

Journalism is not dying, but instead entering a golden age. With multiple writers, photographers, and on-site “reporters,” there has never been an easier way to find out what is going on in the world. It is then up to the reader to thin out the herd and decide what content is worth reading. Jay Rosen’s remarks about shifting the power from the journalists to the users are his strongest. Regarding journalists as all-knowing “gatekeepers” means that someone is ultimately controlling information, which absolutely cannot happen. It simply defeats the whole purpose of providing news to the common person.

 As mentioned in the Tom Standage’s opening remarks, “…smartphones let people publish text, photos or video wherever they are. That is not to say that everyone is now a journalist, but it means that the chances of something important being captured by somebody at the scene are much higher. All these developments provide new ways to do journalism, and can also improve the practice of journalism by making the activities of its practitioners more transparent.”

 Clearly, the role of the user is taking a much stronger position against the once powerful journalist. Personally, I believe this to be a good thing. It is impractical to believe that a professional journalist will be at an event the moment it happens, especially if it is a natural disaster or riot. Only the civilian can break that kind of story immediately, which is the way the news world operates.

 Nicholas Carr focuses on the Internet’s crippling effect on the journalism community. It is understandable that this is a very major concern for professional journalists, especially as their livelihood is gradually overcome by civilian reporters. He seems more concerned at the prospect of traditional journalists being phased out for civilian reporters.

 I must strongly disagree with his assertion that the Internet has not provided an alternative to filling the gap of lost professionals. The role of the civilian is not to provide hard-hitting journalism (of which I assume very few truly care about), but to focus more on the event as it takes place. There can be no set standard for reporting in this age. A participant in a riot or witness to a crime cannot be held to the same objective reporting that was once so vital to the industry. They instead act as the catalyst that will eventually lead to a more advanced and in-depth story.

 The conundrum of making the news free and still driven by profit is practically impossible. It is the responsibility of journalists to get the information to the people, but they too have lives that apparently require money to exist.

 Overall, the availability strengthens the information system, but not the profit-driven system. It seems the biggest problem news organizations face is funding. Clearly, the advertising model that once existed cannot be applied to this new form of journalism.

 Other Article:

 The most interesting point mentioned was that we essentially paid for the advertising that paid for the paper, not that we were physically paying for the paper itself. This is a very roundabout and interesting way to say that we have never paid for the news, and we should never have to. Given the vast amount of free content on the Internet, it seems we have skipped the paying for advertising to pay for the paper step altogether.

 Death of print? This goes back to the point brought up in the video today. A new system must be created to replace the outdated one instead of improving it, as it can no longer succeed in this day and age.

 Clay Shirky says, “It isn’t newspapers we should be worrying about, but news, and there are many more ways of getting and reporting the news that we haven’t tried than that we have.” This is the most optimistic way to look at the future of reporting, since the whole model must change if traditional journalism is to keep any semblance of its past self.

Bio:

My interest in journalism stems from editorial cartoons. I’ve been doing cartoons since high school and recently appeared in Mitchell College of Law Journal. My work has also appeared on CollegeHumor.com multiple times. I was a freelance writer for Demand Media during the summer, which consisted mostly of “how to” articles for its website eHow.com. Hopefully, my general knowledge of journalism will become specialized into a certain area that I can excel at professionally during my tenure at IU.

What do people want? And how do I charge them for it?

The true key to the future world of journalism lies in charging for what people want to read, not investing in the belief that people want all news. In terms of content, this is a golden age for journalism, but a black hole for profits. There is still a very large audience that wants daily news, just not an audience that is willing to pay for it. Clearly, corporations such as Yahoo and AOL are still committed to providing clear coverage to a wide audience. The problem, however, is that there remains no clear model to charge for content. Those willing to pay for a news service are in a clear minority, especially when practically all news can be found through a free outlet. Ultimately, it seems that the average person only wants the information that is going to affect his or her daily life. Weather, sports, and major national news are the only heavy hitters online, which make it impractical to fully fund a staff that simply isn’t being read. While other news may be more important (such as local government and events), these simply do not have an obvious impact on a normal day and are much more likely to be ignored.

 The biggest concept to me is the professional notion that people don’t care about the news anymore. It seems that the weather is the most widely viewed portion of online content, and in my opinion, that hardly counts as journalism.  Corporations can’t flood this kind of content with advertisements either, since online advertising is generally annoying and disdained. This ties back into the “de-skilling” of professional journalists, in which there is little need to be highly trained when nobody really cares or reads what is written. The information may be everywhere, but truly great coverage and content must be charged somehow.

 When I think of paid content versus free news, I’m always reminded of how often teachers put the textbooks online. Students no longer have to spend the money on a book and carry it around; it’s a great mirror of the dying print industry. Why would anyone pay for something they can get for free? As the Nieman Reports states, 20 percent of students believe that e-books are, and should be, the future of reading. Furthermore, if the industry doesn’t figure out how to control the wild fire they’ve inadvertently created, there will soon be an illegal content downloading scheme similar to that of Napster and Limewire. Simply put, people just won’t pay for things if they can get around it.