Future, Funding and Finances

We all know that journalism is changing. The traditional methods of journalism are becoming obsolete, and with them, the traditional avenues for revenue. Although Life in the Clickstream survey shows that Australia has faired significantly better than other countries, we are not exempt from the issues that we will have to face in the near future.

As news increasingly adopts and adapts to the digital era, the question becomes, who will pay for the news? Traditionally, news was funded by advertising in the papers. Newspapers were printed and sold at a loss, which was counteracted by advertising sales.

But who pays for news that is online?

Companies are now realising if they put their content online for free, they are relying on advertising to pay their way. Online advertising still "represents only a small proportion of the total advertising revenue flowing into the media" (Life in the Clickstream). Online news sites are now attempting to introduce pay walls, where customers must subscribe or pay to view certain content.

The problem with pay walls? Well, we in this new digital society have become accustomed to accessing our information online for FREE. Journalist for CBC News, Don Pittis, notes the issue with pay walls - "the problem with asking readers to pay is that there is so much free and good quality competition". And that's just it. Why should I pay for information, that I can more than definitely get from another media source that isn't going to charge me?

Pay walls can't be the answer. Newspapers aren't sold for $1.20 for the cost it takes to make them. Online advertising is still finding it's feet, and once it does, I believe free will flow on. I agree with Pittis who believes that the pay wall may be of negative effect, in the long run, for media organisations - "It may be that by driving away the mass traffic of free, pay walls are cutting news organizations off from a very lucrative future. It is well known that advertisers are willing to pay well for the right kind of audience especially if it is big".

It's all or nothing with pay walls, and you're never going to get all.

Protect or Condemn?

Whistle-blowing is defined when “a member of an organisation discloses ‘illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices (including omissions) under the control of their employers, to persons or organisations who may be able to effect action”. (In Richardson textbook)

I don’t know about you but I instantly jump to ideas of Julian Assange holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Has he tarnished the reputation of the whistle-blower? Should we be protecting those who spill the dirty laundry of their organisation?

Assange has made a name for himself, through his leaking of high profile and secretive documents of the US government. Now, is he a hero, or is he a criminal? We all know the high-profiles in the US aren’t a fan, but hasn’t Assange done the public a favour?

Many companies are now encouraging whistle blowing. And really, shouldn’t we all? There may be better ways to go about putting secretive information online for the world to see, but if it is in the best interest of the public to know (to be a whistle-blower the information you are leaking is defined as being this), these people should be able to tell their information.

 Whistleblowers Australia has been established to support and help protect those who have secretive information to share. Organisations like this would be beneficial for cases such as Gillian Sneddon's, in which she lost her job and was subsequently unemployed for several years after whistle-blowing about Milton Orkopoulous’s illegal behaviours. She reported legitimate misdemeanours and was punished for doing so.

 

Although I think we need to remember that  there is a big difference between whistle-blowing and leaking information (where it is deemed the information was not in the best interest of the public), there needs to be more laws to protect people who are doing the right thing by uncovering the wrong doings of companies, organisations or people.

 

 

                                     

Social media: Can't stop it, so make it the new way forward!

There is no way you can stop social media forcing its way into our profession. It’s here now and it’s staying, and I don’t particularly feel it’s a bad thing.

Social media sites have ridiculous amounts of users. Millions. When you put the rest of your journalistic training in place (think SEO optimisation), you have the potential to reach numbers beyond that of the population of your country.

Journalists don’t just write anymore. They aren’t the nameless, faceless person behind a story in the paper. Increasingly, journalists are becoming a brand, a personality type figure within society. Posetti says “journalists are being re-cast as individual reporter-brands” (2013, p. 89) and this is coming about because of constant engagement with social media platforms.

This is different to how we have operated before. Some may think it is bad, others good. There isn’t much we can do about it. Since the birth of our race we have been putting foot in front of the other and changing the way we live. In with the new, out with the old. I think journalists will continue to gain personality and prominence in this new media atmosphere.

Social media doesn’t only offer a new and exciting platform for the journalists, the news itself is changing form. Posetti outlines the benefits that micro-blogging sites like Twitter are having, as “challenging the notions of objectivity through the convergence of personal and professional lives; propelling the mainstreaming of ‘open journalism’ models, which promote collaborative research and reportage; and even upending established verification processes” (2013, p. 88).

Sites like Twitter get a bad rap when something untruthful unfolds through its channels. Like I mentioned in my debate during class however, it is the result of poor reporting, not the site that is to blame. Journalist and social media specialist, Neil Varcoe, details some of the solutions presented during a conference on ways to stop misinformation through Twitter, “One conference goer swaggered brassily to the microphone and declared: “Don’t tweet unless you have something to say.” This was accompanied by silence, then another elegant solution: “Don’t report rumour or speculation.” (Varcoe, 2013).

 I think we need to remember the benefits that Posetti outlines and remember that we need to harness the power of social media in the journalism industry. Once we invented paper we stopped carving into rocks.