Has mainstream media caught on to the effects of YouTube and other video sharing platforms on the way news stories develop? The answer is yes. The Los Angeles Times and other media outlets (blogs included) have written stories (or posts) discussing the effects of YouTube, blogs, and the emergence of so-called “citizen journalists.”
In a Los Angeles Times article written in December 2006 titled “YouTube Journalism," the author illustrates a changing form of the way receive and evaluate information:
‘“Welcome to the "YouTube effect." It is the phenomenon whereby video clips, often produced by individuals acting on their own, are rapidly disseminated worldwide on websites such as YouTube and Google Video. YouTube has 34 million monthly visitors, and 65,000 new videos are posted every day. Most are frivolous, produced by and for the teenagers who make up the majority of the site's visitors. But some are serious…Some videos reveal truths. Others spread propaganda and outright lies.”’
The observation that some videos actually reveal “truth” is the start of a trend that is changing the way journalists approach stories. Yes, a journalist might have a great clip for a story from YouTube. But the question remains: Is the story legitimate? Even though a video poster has uploaded his or her video for the world to see, the journalists still have to sift through the fact and fiction. They still have to make the phone calls and set up interviews to confirm information.
The author of the L.A. Times article also points out how the internet has made it possible for many people to evaluate, critique and confirm the information in a story:
“The good news is that the YouTube effect is already creating a strong demand for reliable guides — individuals, institutions and technologies — that we can trust to help us sort facts from lies online. The millions of bloggers who are constantly watching, fact-checking and exposing mistakes are a powerful example of "the wisdom of crowds" being assisted by a technology that is as open and omnipresent as we are."
The bloggers who “expose mistakes” and write about it are actually keeping the reporters honest. Granted, the blogs themselves should be checked for credibility before they are used to either back up a story or spark a new one. The Internet has changed the way we can comment on a news story. No longer are the “Letters to the Editor” limited to a hand-selected bunch. Any person can now comment and have a voice on what they hear or read in the news.
The website “Online Journalism News” suggests that blogs can provide a new outlet for professional journalists to express their thoughts as well:
“Then blogging went mainstream. Established print journalists from outlets such as MSNBC and Guardian Unlimited started to create their own weblogs to sit alongside news and features, blurring the distinction between journalism and blogging still further.”
In these blogs, the journalists could perhaps add some insight that was not printed in the original story. They could provide more opinion aspects to the story as opposed just straight reporting.
When discussing bloggers and video posting, a person must also bring into question the reason for a person to post a video. Are most people who participate doing this because they want to bring an issue into the mainstream, or are they simply posting a “cool video” that they want people to watch? Did they intend for it to become a story or could it be staged? The author of the L.A. Times article suggests, “YouTube is a mixed blessing…How do we know that what we see in a video clip posted by a "citizen journalist" is not a manipulated montage? How do we know, for example, that the YouTube video of terrorized American soldiers crying and praying while under fire was filmed in Iraq and not staged somewhere else to manipulate public opinion? The more than 86,000 people who viewed it in the first 10 days of its posting will never know.”
If the “citizen journalist” is truly trying to report something and a major network picks up the video and airs it, should that person in some way be compensated for his or her contribution to the story. As one writer from NewAssignmnet.net points out, the rise of the “citizen journalist” could benefit a professional in their reporting:
“But as we’ve already seen with photography, citizen journalists can produce compelling and immediate content that the professionals can’t always get…Nor would citizen produced videos mean a reporter is out of a job – if anything it would add to the pro-am style that rounds coverage out – giving the journalist more time to do ground level reporting.”
A citizen journalist and his or her video clips gives professional reporters more time to focus on gathering information for the story. They are not bogged down with having to film shots for the story. They can go deeper into the subject and then write based on the clips.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Duke Lacrosse
The Duke Lacrosse case provides an excellent example of the power of the media in shaping a person's perception about a story. I don’t know which media outlets could issue an apology for the somewhat skewed coverage at the beginning of case. As so often happens when something of this magnitude surfaces, every major media outlet is trying to be the first to break the story and acquire the “latest” details. In the scramble, sometimes the great reporting goes out the window and it replaced with people looking for a great sound bite or something that will stir things up. They seemed to jump at any opportunity for an “exclusive” interview.
The media painted a picture of naturally aggressive lacrosse players and focused on the racism that still exists in the south. When you discuss racism and that the victim happened to be African American, it makes it seem more likely that something like this would happen.
The biggest mistake was allowing the district attorney have huge amounts of airtime, while the defense was not given as much. I think the district attorney was looking for something to gain in this case. Now that the facts have surfaced, he has left the case and should probably lose his license to practice law.
The news media was not at fault for extensive coverage of the case, but needed to be more responsible with gathering information. It is an incredibly powerful tool of manipulation, and it influenced people to feel a certain way toward the lacrosse players. Their lives will be forever tainted by what did or didn’t happen that night at the party.
The media painted a picture of naturally aggressive lacrosse players and focused on the racism that still exists in the south. When you discuss racism and that the victim happened to be African American, it makes it seem more likely that something like this would happen.
The biggest mistake was allowing the district attorney have huge amounts of airtime, while the defense was not given as much. I think the district attorney was looking for something to gain in this case. Now that the facts have surfaced, he has left the case and should probably lose his license to practice law.
The news media was not at fault for extensive coverage of the case, but needed to be more responsible with gathering information. It is an incredibly powerful tool of manipulation, and it influenced people to feel a certain way toward the lacrosse players. Their lives will be forever tainted by what did or didn’t happen that night at the party.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Comments on other Blogs
From Los Angeles Times- See Resource List
"YouTube is a mixed blessing: It is now harder to know what to believe. How do we know that what we see in a video clip posted by a "citizen journalist" is not a manipulated montage? How do we know, for example, that the YouTube video of terrorized American soldiers crying and praying while under fire was filmed in Iraq and not staged somewhere else to manipulate public opinion? The more than 86,000 people who viewed it in the first 10 days of its posting will never know."
"YouTube is a mixed blessing: It is now harder to know what to believe. How do we know that what we see in a video clip posted by a "citizen journalist" is not a manipulated montage? How do we know, for example, that the YouTube video of terrorized American soldiers crying and praying while under fire was filmed in Iraq and not staged somewhere else to manipulate public opinion? The more than 86,000 people who viewed it in the first 10 days of its posting will never know."
"The good news is that the YouTube effect is already creating a strong demand for reliable guides — individuals, institutions and technologies — that we can trust to help us sort facts from lies online. The millions of bloggers who are constantly watching, fact-checking and exposing mistakes are a powerful example of "the wisdom of crowds" being assisted by a technology that is as open and omnipresent as we are."
- This is an interesting opinion. The fact that someone could actually use YouTube as a manipulatory device is something that I haven't thought out but I guess it is certainly possible.
- It's good to hear that the author says that people are relying on bloggers to sift between the fact and fiction of the YouTube posts. That really suggest that everyone now can participate in some sort of journalism.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Profile of "Blogscapes" (2)
Profile of “Blogscapes: Blogging about Blogging and New Media”
The blog is about the use of new media and the role of “citizen journalists” and bloggers in society. It is unclear who writes the blog, but it seems to be a compilation of blogs based on a set keywords related to "new media" It doesn’t say which exact sites the posts come from. There have been two recent posts and the site archives back to October 2006. Based on a search on Technorati, not many blog link here.
The blog posts also relate to the use of "new media" and its direct effect on society. One post discusses the need for responsibility when people post sometime on YouTube:
"Don’t they ever learn? A British supermarket chain has started investigations into the posting of video clips on Youtube showing people perfomring stunts while wearing the company’s uniforms. The staff were shown to be fooling around and skiving from work. They were also reportedly shown giving management “the finger”. Not a smart move. Now, it seems that cyberspace is also used for cyber-bullying. In the past, bullies were more or less confined to a particular space, like school or work, but now, it’s taken on a new global spin, with cyber bullies taunting their victims 24/7, transcending time and also space!"
This relates to the topic of my blog and raises similar questions. Are people posting violent videos an the internet because they want their viewers to realize that the violence happened, possibly spurring a bigger story (investigation)? Or are they simply posting them because they think it is a “cool” video? Could it even be like this author suggests--Is there a certain "mocking or bullying" involved in the posting of violent videos.
In another post titled "Using New Media Responsibly" the author brings up yet another instance of violence on YouTube and once again questions the poster's motive for shooting the clip:
"In a separate incident overseas, a beating of a girl was posted online. It’s not sure if this is another case of happy slapping. Or if the person who caught it on camera simply wanted to show it to the world instead of helping the victim. Or is this a new form of citizen journalism where the citizen journalist goes round looking for a story, not unlike traditional journalists. And not unlike traditional journalists, they face the dilemma: do they interfere or intervene in an event, or do they simply act as the recorders of the event?"
When the author says that it is a "dilemma" whether to intervene or shoot the clip, it is completely true and something that I had not really considered before. A person is shooting a violent act, but perhaps they don't feel like they could possibly help stop the violence. They might feel that they are doing a service toward stopping future violence by posting the clip. There could be fear involved with not wanting to immediatety jump in and break up a fight. Should the journalist or the citizen journalist be an integral part in the story"
As noted above, this site raises many interesting questions. The site offers other perspectives and perhaps some of new topics that I, too, could discuss. My site will also focus on "new media" (YouTube, Blogs) and regular news media (broadcast, print) and the influence on a person's perception of a story.
The blog is about the use of new media and the role of “citizen journalists” and bloggers in society. It is unclear who writes the blog, but it seems to be a compilation of blogs based on a set keywords related to "new media" It doesn’t say which exact sites the posts come from. There have been two recent posts and the site archives back to October 2006. Based on a search on Technorati, not many blog link here.
The blog posts also relate to the use of "new media" and its direct effect on society. One post discusses the need for responsibility when people post sometime on YouTube:
"Don’t they ever learn? A British supermarket chain has started investigations into the posting of video clips on Youtube showing people perfomring stunts while wearing the company’s uniforms. The staff were shown to be fooling around and skiving from work. They were also reportedly shown giving management “the finger”. Not a smart move. Now, it seems that cyberspace is also used for cyber-bullying. In the past, bullies were more or less confined to a particular space, like school or work, but now, it’s taken on a new global spin, with cyber bullies taunting their victims 24/7, transcending time and also space!"
This relates to the topic of my blog and raises similar questions. Are people posting violent videos an the internet because they want their viewers to realize that the violence happened, possibly spurring a bigger story (investigation)? Or are they simply posting them because they think it is a “cool” video? Could it even be like this author suggests--Is there a certain "mocking or bullying" involved in the posting of violent videos.
In another post titled "Using New Media Responsibly" the author brings up yet another instance of violence on YouTube and once again questions the poster's motive for shooting the clip:
"In a separate incident overseas, a beating of a girl was posted online. It’s not sure if this is another case of happy slapping. Or if the person who caught it on camera simply wanted to show it to the world instead of helping the victim. Or is this a new form of citizen journalism where the citizen journalist goes round looking for a story, not unlike traditional journalists. And not unlike traditional journalists, they face the dilemma: do they interfere or intervene in an event, or do they simply act as the recorders of the event?"
When the author says that it is a "dilemma" whether to intervene or shoot the clip, it is completely true and something that I had not really considered before. A person is shooting a violent act, but perhaps they don't feel like they could possibly help stop the violence. They might feel that they are doing a service toward stopping future violence by posting the clip. There could be fear involved with not wanting to immediatety jump in and break up a fight. Should the journalist or the citizen journalist be an integral part in the story"
As noted above, this site raises many interesting questions. The site offers other perspectives and perhaps some of new topics that I, too, could discuss. My site will also focus on "new media" (YouTube, Blogs) and regular news media (broadcast, print) and the influence on a person's perception of a story.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Citizen Journalists
From NewAssignment.net
I completely agree with the growth of the so called "citizen journalist" contributing to some of the stories that professional journalists. Just today, a story came out that discussed three girls brutaly attacking another girl. The story came out of video that was posted on the Internet. and then an ABC journalist continued her own reporting, added a voiceover, and provided more depth to the story. CNN and Fox News are doing special segments on the story, and it will also be the main topic on Larry King Live tonight. This all started from a piece of Internet video.
I also agree with the writer's view that by using someone else's video, it gives the professional reporter more time to focus on gathering information for the story. They are not bogged down with having to film clips and putting them together. The clips are the story. Only one question remains-- should the person who posted the video be compensated? After all, he or she did have a major impact on final product.
Today journalists are expected to write, grab photos and shoot short video to create a complete package for a story. The art of SoJo (solo journalism) isn’t exactly new – but it has reached a new level with the rise of smaller, cheaper and better digital equipment.
According to Howard Weaver “in Fresno, they’ve had good success using little digital video cameras that sell for less than $200.”
But this raises a question. To what extent do newspapers need to rely on their reporters for video clips?
As CyberJournalist points out: “now, newspapers know that it is far cheaper to ask entry-level videographers to shoot digital video of a news event and post it on a Web site than to pay a TV reporter, video photographer and producer to create a three-minute news report for television.”
“Entry-level videographers” – why not just come out and say citizen journalists?
That’t not to say that there isn’t an advantage in having a seasoned journalist like Carr create his own videoblogs. But as we’ve already seen with photography, citizen journalists can produce compelling and immediate content that the professionals can’t always get.
Nor would citizen produced videos mean a reporter is out of a job – if anything it would add to the pro-am style that rounds coverage out – giving the journalist more time to do ground level reporting.
I completely agree with the growth of the so called "citizen journalist" contributing to some of the stories that professional journalists. Just today, a story came out that discussed three girls brutaly attacking another girl. The story came out of video that was posted on the Internet. and then an ABC journalist continued her own reporting, added a voiceover, and provided more depth to the story. CNN and Fox News are doing special segments on the story, and it will also be the main topic on Larry King Live tonight. This all started from a piece of Internet video.
I also agree with the writer's view that by using someone else's video, it gives the professional reporter more time to focus on gathering information for the story. They are not bogged down with having to film clips and putting them together. The clips are the story. Only one question remains-- should the person who posted the video be compensated? After all, he or she did have a major impact on final product.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
About the Site (3)
With more people with camera phones and DV cameras, anyone can film something, post it on the Internet, and networks can decide how to use it. I'm interested in journalism, but I have increasing questions about ethics. What is a story and how should it be covered? Is the role of journalism changing?
This website and blog is going to focus on the nature of journalism in the time of the Internet. What should or should not be shown on television or in newspapers? Are the types of the topics that are covered in the news legitimate? How are computers and the Internet changing the way we receive news and the types of clips that we can access?
After searching through some websites I came across the term “citizen journalist.” This person will venture into the world and film something that he or she might consider newsworthy. This raw footage might then be posted on YouTube and any news outlet could access it, stick it on the air and use it as a story. Maybe the person who filmed it never intended for it to become a full-blown news story and posted it on YouTube because he or she thought it was a “cool” video. While I would definitely not say that the news media relies on YouTube and other sites for its content, there has been an increase of Internet video used as the basis for a story. Is the need for trained journalists decreasing?
There is also constant discussion about the ethics of journalism. What pictures and clips should appear in print and broadcast media. I recently viewed the Saddam Hussein execution in a journalism class that was taken by a cell phone and then spread on the Internet. It has been viewed over 15 million times on Google Video.
It shows Hussein mocked with the noose around his neck and then falling through the trap door. The video then zooms in on his dead body. Should this clip be shown on mainstream news stations with a viewer discretion advisory? Should we even be allowed to see this? Should that person have been allowed to film it? The fact that one clip can be spread around the world so quickly is scary. Wouldn’t a simple report saying that Hussein was dead suffice or is human curiosity so powerful that we have to see events with our own eyes to confirm that they actually happened?
I will attempt to examine other controversial media choices in this blog as they relate to current stories and how these choices could influence a person's opinion on the subject.
I also have a strong interest in sports and will also examine how the news media can affect the world of professional sports. How does the media frame the way the public perceives athletes? How does the media influence the career of a professional athlete?
This website and blog is going to focus on the nature of journalism in the time of the Internet. What should or should not be shown on television or in newspapers? Are the types of the topics that are covered in the news legitimate? How are computers and the Internet changing the way we receive news and the types of clips that we can access?
After searching through some websites I came across the term “citizen journalist.” This person will venture into the world and film something that he or she might consider newsworthy. This raw footage might then be posted on YouTube and any news outlet could access it, stick it on the air and use it as a story. Maybe the person who filmed it never intended for it to become a full-blown news story and posted it on YouTube because he or she thought it was a “cool” video. While I would definitely not say that the news media relies on YouTube and other sites for its content, there has been an increase of Internet video used as the basis for a story. Is the need for trained journalists decreasing?
There is also constant discussion about the ethics of journalism. What pictures and clips should appear in print and broadcast media. I recently viewed the Saddam Hussein execution in a journalism class that was taken by a cell phone and then spread on the Internet. It has been viewed over 15 million times on Google Video.
It shows Hussein mocked with the noose around his neck and then falling through the trap door. The video then zooms in on his dead body. Should this clip be shown on mainstream news stations with a viewer discretion advisory? Should we even be allowed to see this? Should that person have been allowed to film it? The fact that one clip can be spread around the world so quickly is scary. Wouldn’t a simple report saying that Hussein was dead suffice or is human curiosity so powerful that we have to see events with our own eyes to confirm that they actually happened?
I will attempt to examine other controversial media choices in this blog as they relate to current stories and how these choices could influence a person's opinion on the subject.
I also have a strong interest in sports and will also examine how the news media can affect the world of professional sports. How does the media frame the way the public perceives athletes? How does the media influence the career of a professional athlete?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)