Globalisation and the Media

Here is a video I found on globalisation and the media.



It mainly focuses on new technology and its impact on the media.
Towards the beginning you'll see Chris Cramer, the president of CNN International News. He says, 'There are only two broadcasters who now have a large spread of international bureaus. One is BBC, primarily public funded, one is CNN, business, commercially funded. And they're too different types of organisations but they share a common goal, and that is to try and make the world a smaller place."

However, as the narrator points out, many argue that in fact these companies are not fulfilling their roles. That is, the world is becoming a smaller place but for all the wrong reasons - view points are narrowing. It's a really hard problem to comprehend, as how can we possibly hear everyone's view? Journalists aren't super heroes and can only act within the boundaries of which ever company they are working for, and then there's economic factors. As yet, I don't have an answer for all of these questions but I guess the main thing is to be as open minded as we possibly can. Baby steps!

Who will pay for journalism?

As touched on in my previous blog, it cannot be denied that journalism as a profession has undergone many changes to date and is experiencing some of its biggest changes at present.

The future of journalism is uncertain, as outlined recently at the Future of Journalism Summit. Roy Greenslade, speaker at the summit, emphasised what we have been hearing for some time now, that the newspaper will soon be dead.

We are already seeing a great deal of convergence with the internet playing a pivotal role. If the newspaper 'dies' we can only assume this will be as a result of the move from print to online. But has this resulted in a loss of 'quality' journalism, and if so, will anybody continue to pay for 'quality' journalism into the future?

As Greenslade says, "All of us here believe in quality journalism, wish to see it sustained, wish to see it improve or whatever, but the truth is, can we fund it? That's the essential question."

How do we draw the line between what is quality and what is not? Campbell Reid proposes that quality journalism is journalism that meets the needs of what the particular audience on that platform wants. But does this necessarily make it good journalism? That is, in my opinion, journalism that's free from any kind of outside influence, bias, misrepresentation etc.

This is why the idea of increased advertising to keep the traditional news platforms alive is concerning, as it is often a compromise to quality editorial content.
However, it seems inevitable. Why would the modern day consumer choose to pay extra for a newspaper that they can so easily view online?

It is safe to say that traditional forms of media will continue to change. As discussed at the summit, newspaper companies such as News Limited are changing with the times and adopting means such as video for their online counterparts.

Whether the traditional means will survive is hard to say, but what's certain is that upon entering the journalism profession, my fellow University students and I will be faced with a much different landscape than generations before us and the importance of adopting new skills such as the ability to write for online is high.

Citizen vs Professional Journalism

The advent of citizen journalism has posed many questions for journalists and citizens alike. From blogging to Twitter and the use of modern day technology such as camera phones and portable video recorders, your Average Joe, anywhere, anytime, can be responsible for the dissemination of information, images and footage. Citizens all over the world are now playing the role of communicator to the masses, a job formally and solely carried out by our professionally trained media practitioners.

Where do we draw the line? We live in a time of technological dependency and have become accustomed to receiving information at a rapid rate, the faster the better. You could say that we crave it. We want to be the first to know, but are we losing the ability to determine fact from opinion when new information is exported so frequently from anyone regardless of professional qualifications?

Just one example of citizen journalism was seen when tweets were made about the London Earthquake before any news company had reported it themselves. On this occasion it was evident that the event had actually occurred, no one could deny that nor the importance of the world being aware of the disaster as soon as possible. But can we really label the thousands of blogs posted each day without any formal editing process, covering Britney's Spears latest underwear exposure and the like as a subset of the journalist?

It is more important than ever for professional journalists to maintain credibility and accuracy in their reporting, whether it be online, print or broadcast, to ensure that the death of the journalist as a result of the spread of 'citizen journalism' is not imminent.