I recently read a pretty one sided story on Fox News' website titled '9/11 Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crime Trials.' When i first read some of the networks stories it didn't seem like they'd done a whole lot of balanced reporting. They tend to stay one sided despite their slogan "Fair and Balanced." Maybe Fox News is a bad example to point out where beat reporting could have worked to further a story but in this particular article about shutting down Guantanamo Bay and moving some terrorists to prisons in the U.S. while expediting others, I can't help but wonder if Fox reporters even took the time to investigate the other side. They do mention humanitarian groups that approve Obamas decision as "a move in the right direction" but aside from that its a very one sided article. The article preceding it is titled "You decide: Do you want terrorist in your back yard."
I think Fox could make a much better argument if they included other sides of the argument in their articles. Also, spending time with left wing groups as well as right wing groups might fill them in on the bigger picture. If they really do have correspondents out their on both sides of the spectrum asking the right questions, then they've clearly made a decision not to use all of them.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Pay for News Media?
The overwhelming switch from print media to online media has taken some of us by surprise. But for others, mainly those who use it regularly, it has come as no surprise at all. Getting the news online is easy and convenient and with the exception of a few sites, it won't cost you a dime.
Its not just the users that are experiencing greater efficiency in news media. Its also the news media companies that are drawn to the new online medium. Despite inevitable layoffs in the short term picture, it is essential for all the major media companies to make the switch.
While newspapers have historically been a main outlet for advertisers, their business model differs greatly from that of a news website. As David Carr wrote for the New York Times in October of 2005, "If a Web site achieves a growing audience, it simply beefs up servers and serves up more ads. If a free print product catches on, its publisher has to deal with beefy union delivery drivers and serving up more expensively milled dead trees." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/business/24carr.html?ei=5088&en=9e06049dbd12a91d&ex=1287806400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1130155683-O/Tu/SEnR1kvOnSdsrhRJw)
And its not just hard print news that is suffering. Sites such as Craigslist.org have nearly replaced the classified section of newspapers, allowing users to hone their online search rather than browsing through numerous tangible pages.
The main question is should we have to pay for what we read online? Many would argue that we already do in some form with the prevalence of advertising sometimes reaching the point of near annoyance. We often can't watch a news feed without first watching a 30 second commercial.
TV and radio have made copious amounts of money without charging their consumers anything. Why can't it work for online media.
Its not just the users that are experiencing greater efficiency in news media. Its also the news media companies that are drawn to the new online medium. Despite inevitable layoffs in the short term picture, it is essential for all the major media companies to make the switch.
While newspapers have historically been a main outlet for advertisers, their business model differs greatly from that of a news website. As David Carr wrote for the New York Times in October of 2005, "If a Web site achieves a growing audience, it simply beefs up servers and serves up more ads. If a free print product catches on, its publisher has to deal with beefy union delivery drivers and serving up more expensively milled dead trees." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/business/24carr.html?ei=5088&en=9e06049dbd12a91d&ex=1287806400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1130155683-O/Tu/SEnR1kvOnSdsrhRJw)
And its not just hard print news that is suffering. Sites such as Craigslist.org have nearly replaced the classified section of newspapers, allowing users to hone their online search rather than browsing through numerous tangible pages.
The main question is should we have to pay for what we read online? Many would argue that we already do in some form with the prevalence of advertising sometimes reaching the point of near annoyance. We often can't watch a news feed without first watching a 30 second commercial.
TV and radio have made copious amounts of money without charging their consumers anything. Why can't it work for online media.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Accuracy Over Timeliness
In recent months, with the move to online journalism becoming more and more prevalent, the discussion of accuracy and ethics has become increasingly important.
It is now easier than ever for someone to voice their opinion to the public via blogging. Reader feedback is no longer restricted to the traditional letter to the editor. Comment boxes allow quick and easy responses to be sent to the author. The internet has acted as a catalyst for the exchange of ideas.
But with all this new chatter, one has to wonder how much we read online is true. Even the mainstream news sites like CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/) or the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/) can make the mistake of not reporting the correct information. The speed at which news can now be reported is putting pressure on everyone to get the story out as quickly as possible, sometimes resulting in mistakes being made.
As readers, what kind of expectations should we have of the online content we read. Should we hold online journalism under the same scrutiny we give to print? I think that while many of us have learned that it is common to find some sort form of bad reporting in online journalism today, we should all expect online editors to get it pass up the desire to be the first news source to get the story out and lean more towards being the first to get the right story out.
It is now easier than ever for someone to voice their opinion to the public via blogging. Reader feedback is no longer restricted to the traditional letter to the editor. Comment boxes allow quick and easy responses to be sent to the author. The internet has acted as a catalyst for the exchange of ideas.
But with all this new chatter, one has to wonder how much we read online is true. Even the mainstream news sites like CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/) or the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/) can make the mistake of not reporting the correct information. The speed at which news can now be reported is putting pressure on everyone to get the story out as quickly as possible, sometimes resulting in mistakes being made.
As readers, what kind of expectations should we have of the online content we read. Should we hold online journalism under the same scrutiny we give to print? I think that while many of us have learned that it is common to find some sort form of bad reporting in online journalism today, we should all expect online editors to get it pass up the desire to be the first news source to get the story out and lean more towards being the first to get the right story out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)