WikiLeaks vs. the New York Times

Truthfully, I should probably state that until today I had yet to visit the WikiLeaks site. Even during the days when Julian Assange was receiving daily coverage, I didn’t feel the need to go to WikiLeaks. Everyone around me was discussing what was contained in the diplomatic cables, so I didn’t feel it was necessary to go to WikiLeaks and read the reports. After visiting the site today, I must admit that overall I was a bit disappointed. With all the talk surrounding WikiLeaks I expected more than a typical news website, which is what WikiLeaks felt like to me.

Maybe I felt this way because I agreed with what Aaron Bady said regarding WikiLeaks and the New York Times. Bady’s point was that WikiLeaks is essentially performing the same functions as a traditional news publication that receives protection under the First Amendment. Bady states, “…it’s difficult to criminalize what WikiLeaks has done without also making a criminal out of the New York Times.”

As Ingram points out, “WikiLeaks’ stated intention is to bring transparency to the political process and expose wrongdoing. Isn’t that the same thing that the Times does?” While one organization, the Times, is a reputable news organization and the other, WikiLeakes, is an organization with little to no history, their respective purposes are similar. The difference between these two organizations lies in their methodologies for obtaining data and ability to act as a source for news.

Perhaps WikiLeakes is performing one component of an emerging new media ecosystem. Ingram makes an interesting argument when he states that, “media – a broad term that includes what we think of as journalism – has been dis-aggreated or atomized; in other words, split into its component parts…” WikiLeaks serves the role of uber-watchdog by providing complete transparently and acting as a news source when it comes to government processes. Ingram hypothesizes that this role is typically bundled with other functions of journalism, such as civic responsibility, and as part of its bundle may not be as visible.

As the role WikiLeaks serves is a component of journalism, it is hard not to see WikiLeaks as journalistic in some way. Watchdog or investigative journalism serves the purpose of highlighting or uncovering wrongdoing by public figures and usually leaves its readers with less than favorable feelings. In the case of WikiLeaks, they don’t fulfill another role within journalism, and as such may be exclusively associated with the unsavory role of watchdog. But, does this make them any less journalistic than the other five newspapers (i.e., El Pais, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and the New York Times) that released the cables in a redacted format on Nov. 28, 2010?

 

Self-Actualizing Citizenship: A Model For All?

One specific type of citizen identity that Bennett discusses is Emerging Youth Experience of Self-Actualizing Citizenship (AC). The characteristics of the AC model, as described by Bennett includes: “diminished sense of government obligation — higher sense of individual purpose; voting is less meaningful than other, more personally defined acts such as consumerism, community volunteering, or transnational activism; mistrust of media and politicians is reinforced by negative mass media environment; favors loose networks of community action — often established or sustained through friendships and peer relations and thin social ties maintained by interactive information technologies.” Using this model of citizenship, there may be implications regarding the future of news.

The AC model depicts a media consumer who is more individualistic in nature. This type of individual thrives in the digital media environment, which has been “unbundled” and offers readers the option to actively select the topics they wish to consume. Combining this nature with a predisposition toward personally meaningful actions and a distrust of the media could create a type of media consumer who prefers to generate their own news

In our class discussions on news media innovations and the development of social capital, the concept of consumer-generated news was a topic that prompted some debate. It seems that Bennett’s AC model that is more prevalent among today’s youth would align with the production of consumer-generated news. If the youth of today prefer to be more individualistic in their news consumption, then the news of the future may have a more consumer-generated approach. Additionally, this philosophy would align more with Dewey’s outlook on journalism, which involves audience participation in news.

While I feel this outlook may provide an idealistic view of journalism in the future, I can’t argue that there are elements of the AC model that apply to my news consumption. Specifically, there is an element of mistrust of some media and politicians that leads to selective news consumption patterns in my everyday life. For example, I read the New York Times online, and go to CNN.com and MSNBC.com for my everyday news. I visit these sites not because I feel they agree with my political views, but because other news sources such as Fox News are so counter-intuitive to my views that I can’t go to their sites. Where I may differ from the AC model is that while my citizen identity may influence how I consume the news, it doesn’t motivate me to produce my own news, through a consumer-driven program such as CNN’s iReport.

These shifts in citizen identity may result in a more fractured media environment than that which currently exists today, which would impact the future of news. What will be interesting to see is whether it moves the model of news more toward Dewey’s outlook or Lippmann. Perhaps the reality will lie somewhere in the middle.

 

 

 

From One Community to Another

Putnam states that, “social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” Traditional news media such as newspapers or television connected individuals on a local or regional level by providing news that pertained to their specific geographic location, thus facilitating the creation of social networks within a local community.

One primary feature of the Internet is that it assists in disseminating information across geographic boundaries through various channels (e.g., online news content, blogs, message boards, and social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook). Although this moves the sharing of information outside of the local community, it still facilities the building of communities; however, they reside in a digital environment.

Digital communities are where mainstream news is contributing to developing a new type of community. Perhaps instead of connecting individuals in local area by providing news that pertains only to their local interests, the role of the mainstream news is now to connect individuals and form global communities through shared interests in particular topics. This new role has it positives and negatives when addressing the formation of community.

One positive is that in a digital media environment, as news organizations can now connect individuals across geographic boundaries they can increase their network of influence. Although increased network size is a positive aspect, the fact that it doesn’t reside in one specific area limits the network’s impact in their local environment. This is illustrated by one particular form of news media technology that supports community, which are message boards.

There have been numerous academic studies on the subject of community formation on message boards (e.g., Burnett, 2009; Cobb, Graham, Abrams, 2010; Cousineau, Rancourt, & Green, 2006). For example, message boards centered on health care issues have been found to support a large and highly connected community within a digital environment. These individuals turn to each other, not only for information, but also for support. They’re looking for other individuals experiencing the same things they are. The question then becomes how do you take a community that exists in a digital environment and connect it to a local community so that it has an impact on a local level?

Drawing from the level of commitment found on message boards, maybe local news organizations could increase their interactivity on message boards, Twitter feeds, or Facebook pages. Combining the features of geographic reach, with local news information pertaining to a community could facilitate an increase in the formation of community on both a digital and local level.

ECA: A Different Approach

Altheide provides a definition of ethnography to “refer to the description of people and their culture” (Schwartz & Jacobs, 1979). This can also describe, “human beings engaged in meaningful behavior” according to Altheide. Ethnography helps facilitate understanding the communication of meaning. Various forms of media such as television, newspapers, or even Internet coverage of events lend themselves to Ethnographic Content Analysis (ECA) as they illustrate the communication of meaning through the depth of analysis these mediums enable. For example, one media context that would lend itself to ECA is TV news coverage of an event.

Recent media events receiving large amounts of coverage could include the uprisings in Egypt and Libya, the coverage of the death of Osama Bin Laden, or even the deaths at the Indiana State Fair. As these events received widespread coverage, large amounts of data (i.e., the various television news broadcasts) could be examined in great depth from a number of perspectives. A study could examine TV coverage of the recent tragedy at the Indiana State Fair to determine if the media was framing the tragedy as a “freak accident” or the result of improper planning on the part of the State Fair officials, for example.

For similar reasons, any medium such as newspapers, magazines, movies, or books that provide large amounts of coverage lends themselves to ECA. Additionally, this is also why single, major events such as the September 11 terrorist attacks as examined by Altheide (2004), lend themselves to ECA. Their significance and importance generates coverage, which is beneficial to the depth of analysis provide by ECA.

Due to its focus on documenting and understanding communication, on discovery, depth of analysis is a major strength of ECA. Traditionally, QCA focuses on examining numerous cases within a sample, so the results of the study can be generalized to a population. One drawback of examining a number of cases is that depth of analysis isn’t as feasible due to the time required to analyze all of the data. This is where ECA takes a different approach in that reducing the number of cases examined emphasizes depth of analysis. While providing a greater understating of an event, this does allow for weaknesses with the approach.

Specifically related to utilizing a smaller sample is that while the level of understanding is greater, the results are not generalizable, and can only represent the cases examined. Even when utilizing a smaller sample size, the depth of analysis required for ECA’s may result in the study taking more time to complete than QCAs. Time need to complete analysis may be compounded by the fact that a researcher may choose to act as the only coder, which contributes to another possible weakness – subjectivity. In QCA, the protocol is the instrument, and it is typically outlined in detail to facility the reliability of the results. In ECA; however, the instrument used in analysis is the researcher. As the researcher is essentially interpreting the data, the results of the analysis are somewhat subjective. Again, this means that the results are only applicable to the ECA study and it’s respective sample, and cannot be generalized to a larger population.

A System of Analysis

I should probably begin this post by saying that I’m a methodology geek. To be more specific, I’m a quantitative, content analysis methodology geek. Thus, when I see the word systematic I think protocol, variables, and codesheets. It may be dull to some, but I love it. As such, I decided to take a methodological approach when describing systematic analysis.

One of the first, and in my opinion essential components of a systematic content analysis is the development of a protocol and problem identification from pertinent literature. Research is typically performed within an area, such as gender or sports, and over time as the literature grows researchers can examine the literature to determine if gaps exist. This provides researchers with a systematic way to determine future research studies that will examine problems not currently being addressed.

Additionally, by examining the literature researchers can also be provided with the various ways past researchers conducted a study and the variables they examined. A research protocol outlines the variables to be examined, and addresses each variable to outline how it should be examined. Anecdotal research can employ a variety of methods, but these methods are typically employed for the express purpose of the study, and may not be appropriate for other studies.

Also developed from an examination of literature are the hypotheses to be tested. The various research in an area produces results that when examined together can be used to form a hypothesis for future research. Again, while anecdotal research can include hypotheses that have been developed from a review of literature, they can also employ hypotheses that are specific for that particular study. Lastly, an element that differentiates a systematic content analysis from an anecdotal work is the testing or methodology.

Systematic analysis includes a methodology that outlines all the elements of data analysis and includes variables to analyze the data. Conversely, anecdotal work can employ a process of data analysis conducted by the researcher where they analyze the text to determine themes within the data. This data would be analyzed again to determine codes within the data. Where this differs from systematic analysis is that the researcher develops these themes and codes and as such a different researcher could come up with different themes from the data.

These elements all contribute to another hallmark of systematic analysis, in my opinion, which is that it should be replicable. Essentially, following the guidelines of a systematic analysis and researcher should be able to hand their protocol, codesheet with variables, and methodology to another researcher, and they should be able to conduct the same study and produce the same results. This is what allows for the generalizability of results from a sample to a population. With an anecdotal analysis, as the researcher has so much input into the interpretation and coding of the data, the likelihood that another researcher would be able to use the study’s design and produce the same results is low. Thus, that is why anecdotal analysis, while excellent at providing depth of analysis, are not generalizable.

My Worldview and Me

A worldview, as defined by Creswell is “a general orientation about the world and the nature of research that a researcher holds.” Using this definition, I can say that my research has been influenced by my worldview. As a former female athlete, one that played what is considered either the masculine or gender-neutral sport of softball, my experiences shaped my worldview of athletics so that I now research the portrayals of athletes in the media.

Specifically, it was through my experiences as a female athlete and a lack of receiving coverage that lead me to research media effects such as agenda-setting and framing within sport media.

The first research study I conceptualized and designed was for a doctoral seminar in my first semester of the Ph.D. program. With my worldview as a female athlete in mind, I designed a quantitative content analysis to analyze if differences existed in the amount and type of  online coverage female Olympic athletes when compared to their male counterparts during the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. What I found was that although the spatial limitations of online media allowed for an increased amount of coverage for female athletes, the type of coverage they received was still emphasizing sports that were considered gender appropriate.

My second research study was again influenced by my worldview, but not necessarily gender related. This study was related to my worldview regarding a lack of coverage for certain athletes. This links to the concept of agenda-setting, which tells people not what to think, but what to think about (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).

As a soccer fan, I designed another quantitative content analysis to examine how corporate media organizations, such as ESPN.com, used their blogs during the 2010 World Cup. Specifically, I wanted to examine if ESPN.com provided increased coverage to teams and players who played in MLS and England’s Premier League, which are the two leagues ESPN possesses the domestic media rights to broadcast. We found when compared to independent bloggers, ESPN.com did employ agenda-setting to increase the coverage to teams and players who played in the MLS and Premier League. This increased coverage raised the salience and importance of these players, and could increase US domestic audience interest in these players.

This worldview has contributed to the development of a third research study, as yet to be designed, which again will be a content analysis examining the self-portrayal of athletes on Twitter. I feel this is a study of importance as the media has historically had considerable power in shaping the images and portrayals of athletes. Twitter allows athletes to bypass the media and deliver a message directly to their audience. Therefore, it is important to ask how athletes are portraying themselves, and if these portrayals are similar or different from what has been portrayed in the media previously.

My worldview had been beneficial is shaping my research focus thus far in my academic career. Even if I didn’t go into these studies actively considering my worldview, it definitely shaped by interests. But this also presents some drawbacks. Although it allows me to construct studies that contribute to the larger body of knowledge pertaining to media studies in sports, it could also limit my research by constraining it to one particular area – sport communication.

While my worldview has made me an inquisitive researcher, I need to be aware that there are areas outside my selected area that should be studied. Keeping an open mind and being willing to conduct research into new areas will only help further my growth as a scholar.

Journalism (noun): Definition…

Defining journalism may be a difficult task. Based upon the various readings, there may not be one, coherent definition as all authors provide a different perspective on what constitutes journalism.

Kovach and Rosenstiel never really provide a concrete definition of journalism. Instead, the authors choose to present the idea of communication, which could be loosely defined as the process of sharing information or knowledge.

By taking this position, Kovack and Rosenstiel can present an argument that if journalism is viewed as communication, than journalism is a byproduct of the various technologies that allow for communication. This analysis provides the context for an interesting explanation of the various transformations communication has experienced, and how communication is again changing with the move toward the digital dissemination of information.

Zelizer’s definition of journalism is more sociological in nature, and describes the various social norms that are associated with journalism. This presents a definition that encompasses a wider range of conceptualizations for journalism.

Zelizer defines journalism as, “a phenomenon that can be seen in many ways – as a sixth sense, a container, a mirror, a story, a child, a service, a profession, an institution, a text, people, a set of practices.” By doing this, Zelizer extend the definition of journalism beyond that of an “information provider,” into one that is a broad reflection of the various roles journalism can fulfill in society.

Schudson offers perhaps the most concrete and rigid definition of journalism when he states that, “Journalism is the business or practice of producing and disseminating information about contemporary affairs of general public interest and importance. It is the business of a set of institutions that publicizes periodically (usually daily) information and commentary on contemporary affairs, normally presented as true and sincere, to a dispersed and anonymous audience so as to publicly include the audience in a discourse taken to be publicly important.”  While encompassing journalism’s role as information provider, Schudson’s definition is the only definition to explicitly mention business as part of journalism; however, the business element of journalism cannot be underestimated.

As Kovach and Rosenstiel mentioned, it was the bundling of advertising into journalism that allowed for the subsidization of civic journalism. Thus, by incorporating business into his definition, Schudson highlights the contemporary aspects of journalism that are drawing perhaps the most attention in today’s digital media environment.

Although Kovach and Rosenstiel, Zelizer, and Schudson offer definitions that revolve around the process of communication, they each take a different approach to defining journalism. Each author, or authors, makes a strong case for their respective definition, and by doing so, illustrates that there really is no right or wrong definition of journalism. Where the definition of journalism can play a larger, more significant role, is when it is linked to the concept of democracy.

The issue of everyone being a journalist in a democracy is a contentious one. Using Zelizer’s definition of journalism as “a profession, or an institution” as a guide, then perhaps everyone is not a journalist in a democracy. If viewing journalism as “a service, people, or set of practices” then everyone could potentially be a journalist in a democracy.

When I think of a journalist, I think of someone who possesses an inherent amount of credibility from earning a degree and having the title of “journalist.” This perception would be more in line with the “profession or institution” definition of journalism provided by Zelizer. Although a blogger may have the same skill set as a reporter, there is a perceived credibility for the journalist that a blogger may have to earn.

One interesting concept relating to everyone being a journalist in a democracy is the idea of Twitter and citizen journalism. If citizen journalism is a concept where everyone plays a role in disseminating information, then has Twitter made everyone a citizen journalist? And does the concept of Twitter and citizen journalism extend beyond a democracy?

Outlook Not So Good: The Summer 2010 Nieman Reports on the Digital Landscape

The overall picture these essays depicted for me is one of digital chaos. Elements of these essays, such as Fuller’s essay on emotional arousal and the media environment, describe the current state of media as that of information overload. Wolf goes further in her essay on “deep reading” to illustrate how digital media may end up harming the cognitive ability of the brain to form critical thoughts as the immediacy at which we read digital media does not promote deep, intellectual thought development. As someone who is pursing a career in academics this thought is frightening. And the more essays I read, the more the outlook seemed quite grim. These essays depicted a fractured media environment that produced a generation who’s attention span and ability to think critically may have been harmed by the same technology that placed more information at their fingertips than they knew what to do with. For journalism, and the journalists trying to provide the news and inform people, navigating the digital media environment may require an increased understating into areas unrelated to journalism all together, such as neuroscience and brain functioning.

In today’s digital media environment, capturing someone’s attention and being able to retain it is critical. Therefore, the concepts and ideas relating to neuroscience were especially relevant when discussing the state of journalism as they illustrate how people process and retain information. First, as Wolf pointed out, individuals process information differently when they are forced to read at a quicker pace. How, taking this into consideration, do journalists construct a story that will hold the reader’s interest and allow them to retain the information when they face near constant distractions such as texting, YouTube videos, or email, as highlighted by Nass? Nass proposes that journalists will now have to begin performing tasks such as filtering information for the reader, constructing stories with a simple flow of information, and building in recaps into stories for readers who simply don’t have the time to perform these tasks for themselves. Just highlights that today’s digital media environment promotes multitasking, but there’s only so much information the brain can process. With readers being bombarded by several different forms of media at one time, should journalists now begin to write stories that require as little cognitive processing for the reader as possible? And if journalism takes this approach to digital media in the future, will we find later, as Wolf suggested, that this has effectively diminished our ability to “think deeply?” Turkle makes the argument that because technology enables multitasking, we as a society think it’s a good thing; however, she agrees with Wolf that it may decrease cognitive ability. Taking these arguments into consideration, even though the digital media environment may create a demand for journalism that enables quick reading and multitasking, should the individuals supplying the information, the journalists, alter what they produce if it may inevitably cause more harm than good?

Same Old Argument?

While both authors present valid arguments for and against the internet improving journalism, I agree with Mr. Rosen and feel that the internet is improving journalism. While the facts Mr. Carr uses in his argument cannot be refuted – the production of news on the internet has cost thousands of reporters their jobs – I believe the industry should take some responsibility for continuing to employ a business model that became unsustainable with the growing popularity of digital media. By using the “loss of trained staff” as the only point of support for his argument, Mr. Carr limits his discussion points. As Mr. Rosen rightly pointed out, the internet has improved journalism by, “driving towards zero the costs of getting it to people…” The internet virtually removes any overhead costs involved in the printing and distribution of news to an audience. Eliminating costs in a business model is a good thing; however, these cost decreases don’t offset the loss of revenue from, as Mr. Carr points out, “…advertising, subscriptions, and news-stand sales…” in the shift from print to digital news. The business model that supported this revenue structure in print doesn’t work in an online environment. When decreases to these revenue streams were becoming more apparent, the news industry should have discussed alternative revenue sources or the possibilities of different business models for the industry. Although lost revenue resulted in lost jobs, and the ability of reports to cover local material or as Hirschorn argues practice quality journalism, I believe the internet provides more benefits to journalism that outweigh the job loss within the industry.

The decreases in the overall cost of getting news to consumers has enabled more online news organizations to enter the market due to the decreased barriers to entry. This benefits consumers by providing them with increased options for content. An increased amount of content available to consumers also allows them to become more active in their media consumption. Active consumers tend to be more informed consumers, and this serves as an incentive to increase the quality of content produced. More news organizations, which allows for more news content, also enables individuals producing journalism in the age of the internet have the potential for their content to be consumed by a larger audience. These individuals will also be able to communicate to their readers through multiple mediums on an almost immediate basis. The internet isn’t bad for journalism, it has simply changed it. As long as people continue to consume online content, there will be a need for journalism, the question then becomes how do you pay for the production of content. Should you subsidize journalism as Shirky suggests? Make it a non-profit industry? These are the questions that journalism faces in the age of the internet.

A Brief Bio: Tales of a Doctoral Student

Lauren Burch is a second year Ph.D. student in the Sport Management program at Indiana University.  She graduated from Indiana University with a master’s degree in Sport Management in 2007 and a bachelor’s degree in Business Management in 2005.  Prior to beginning her doctoral studies, Burch worked for two years as a Business Development Analyst for the Department of the Navy at the Naval Surface Warfare Center – Crane Division.  Her job responsibilities included identifying areas for new business development, through the new application of engineering initiatives, within both the government and private sectors.  Additionally, she was responsible for developing short- and long-term strategic business objectives and the corresponding strategic marketing and communications plans necessary to achieve the desired business objectives.  She also worked in public relations at a full-service advertising and public relations firm, and was a member of the American Advertising Federation (AAF) Indianapolis.  Her responsibilities included assisting with two Indiana University service learning courses taught at the public relations firm and editing various forms of copy.  Her research interests focus on quantitative and qualitative analyses of athletes’ portrayals in all forms of media, with an emphasis on new media.  In her free time Burch enjoys playing various sports including soccer, softball, and tennis, spending time with friends and family, and watching a variety of professional and collegiate sporting events.