In H. Jenkins & D. Thorburn (Eds), Democracy and New Media (pp. 271-280). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
(In E-reserve)
Clear paper about how journalistic practices change with the internet. It is from 2003, takes a good look at “old media” journalism and continuity in the present.
Christopher Harper starts of by referring to the term “Defining moment” (a phrase meaning which a story / event has defined a specific medium or brand). He then compares defining moments for the other mediums such as television (John F. Kennedy), radio (Hindenburg), print (Vietnam War) and then the internet, in which Harper says Pundits have used a variety of defining moments (e.g. TWA Flight 800 crash, Princess Diana, the mars Probe and Monica Lewinsky case) regarding the web. However he is quickly to state that a defining moment doesn’t always mean that the internet and the WWW have obtained the power to establish a specific agenda for the test of the media and public. It is the media who sets the agenda “agenda setting” (i.e. what to think about…). According to Harper – 1970’s researchers, Max McCombs & Donald Shaw argue that it is not the individual media who determine what a reader thinks, but gives the reader something to think about. Moreover he says the media can produce stories in a certain light which may affect the reader’s interpretation of the news. He says - only the mars probe and Lewinsky case have come close to having a significant impact on the issues of the day by attracting mass interest online.
The 2003 paper says the web cannot set an agenda because the audience is relatively small when comparing with newspapers and televisions. However I no longer see this as the case in 2010 though I still agree that for the most part the broadcast outlets and newspapers still control the bulk of the “agenda setting” of journalistic agendas and public debate…
Harper says – “online journalism stands to alter dramatically the traditional role of the reporter and editor” – this is because it give heaps more power to the reader / user and allows them to challenge the traditional role of the publication as the gate-keeper of news and info. The user can either still depend on the gatekeeper to select and filter the news in the traditional sense or can take a more hands on approach by going to the basic documents of stories. This means the reader can check out the stories for them selves by comparing against other sources. Plus have access to archives, which weren’t so easily accessible using traditional sources.
Online journalism opens up new ways of presenting the story via utilizing a variety of online media-text such as - audio, video and images. It also gives the user the ability to search for data quick and easily. Online journalism also gives outlets for nontraditional means of transmitting news and info. Even back in 2003 online news had the ability to break news headlines faster then any other sources (i.e. TV, print or radio…) and provides more space giving journalist & editors less restrictions when choosing which stories to chose.
According to Harper researchers found that Gate-Keepers – may chose digital online stories based on ‘Intensity of the threshold value’ – ‘Unexpectedness’ – ‘Sociocultural values’ – ‘Continuity’ and ‘Cultural proximity or relevance.’ Compared to the Gate-keepers roles – which don’t apply to online – ‘Time span’ – ‘Clarity or lack of ambiguity’ – ‘consonance’ and ‘composition.’
Harper says – Computer consultant Leah Gentry argues that while there is much more options online in the way a story can be presented using links, blogs and often broken up stories into their component parts the same traditional Tenets will remain the same.
Another aspect Harper addresses is the structural design of online media. Tribune reporter Darnell Little creates storyboards for what the main pages showing how they’ll look and work, a process which has been used in film and TV for years. However with online media it’s different due to layout restriction i.e. computer screens tend to be smaller then the front newspaper page. So he uses a layering process, which utilizes images, text, headlines, navigation and highlighted links that flows and leads into other parts all of which he says makes the news easy to follow and read.
Harper continues by pointing out the different views amongst reporters regarding digital journalism and its future. He says researchers found reporters falling into three groups - ‘Benevolent revolutionaries’ (Enthusiastic ones about new technologies) – ‘nervous traditionalists’ (the ones that aren’t) and ‘serene separatists’’ (not scared by new technology but think its impact won’t make much difference). As this paper was written in 2003 it would be interesting what the views would be in 2010?
One of the final points Harper touches is - How will new media make its money…? This is a question that still today seems to be ambiguous according to Mignon Shardlow (Topic 3.1 lecture). Never-the-less in 2010 digital journalism continues to break the latest news faster then any other source and gives its readers more power to the user by allowing them to challenge the traditional role of the publication as the gate-keeper of news and information.
(In E-reserve)
Clear paper about how journalistic practices change with the internet. It is from 2003, takes a good look at “old media” journalism and continuity in the present.
Christopher Harper starts of by referring to the term “Defining moment” (a phrase meaning which a story / event has defined a specific medium or brand). He then compares defining moments for the other mediums such as television (John F. Kennedy), radio (Hindenburg), print (Vietnam War) and then the internet, in which Harper says Pundits have used a variety of defining moments (e.g. TWA Flight 800 crash, Princess Diana, the mars Probe and Monica Lewinsky case) regarding the web. However he is quickly to state that a defining moment doesn’t always mean that the internet and the WWW have obtained the power to establish a specific agenda for the test of the media and public. It is the media who sets the agenda “agenda setting” (i.e. what to think about…). According to Harper – 1970’s researchers, Max McCombs & Donald Shaw argue that it is not the individual media who determine what a reader thinks, but gives the reader something to think about. Moreover he says the media can produce stories in a certain light which may affect the reader’s interpretation of the news. He says - only the mars probe and Lewinsky case have come close to having a significant impact on the issues of the day by attracting mass interest online.
The 2003 paper says the web cannot set an agenda because the audience is relatively small when comparing with newspapers and televisions. However I no longer see this as the case in 2010 though I still agree that for the most part the broadcast outlets and newspapers still control the bulk of the “agenda setting” of journalistic agendas and public debate…
Harper says – “online journalism stands to alter dramatically the traditional role of the reporter and editor” – this is because it give heaps more power to the reader / user and allows them to challenge the traditional role of the publication as the gate-keeper of news and info. The user can either still depend on the gatekeeper to select and filter the news in the traditional sense or can take a more hands on approach by going to the basic documents of stories. This means the reader can check out the stories for them selves by comparing against other sources. Plus have access to archives, which weren’t so easily accessible using traditional sources.
Online journalism opens up new ways of presenting the story via utilizing a variety of online media-text such as - audio, video and images. It also gives the user the ability to search for data quick and easily. Online journalism also gives outlets for nontraditional means of transmitting news and info. Even back in 2003 online news had the ability to break news headlines faster then any other sources (i.e. TV, print or radio…) and provides more space giving journalist & editors less restrictions when choosing which stories to chose.
According to Harper researchers found that Gate-Keepers – may chose digital online stories based on ‘Intensity of the threshold value’ – ‘Unexpectedness’ – ‘Sociocultural values’ – ‘Continuity’ and ‘Cultural proximity or relevance.’ Compared to the Gate-keepers roles – which don’t apply to online – ‘Time span’ – ‘Clarity or lack of ambiguity’ – ‘consonance’ and ‘composition.’
Harper says – Computer consultant Leah Gentry argues that while there is much more options online in the way a story can be presented using links, blogs and often broken up stories into their component parts the same traditional Tenets will remain the same.
Another aspect Harper addresses is the structural design of online media. Tribune reporter Darnell Little creates storyboards for what the main pages showing how they’ll look and work, a process which has been used in film and TV for years. However with online media it’s different due to layout restriction i.e. computer screens tend to be smaller then the front newspaper page. So he uses a layering process, which utilizes images, text, headlines, navigation and highlighted links that flows and leads into other parts all of which he says makes the news easy to follow and read.
Harper continues by pointing out the different views amongst reporters regarding digital journalism and its future. He says researchers found reporters falling into three groups - ‘Benevolent revolutionaries’ (Enthusiastic ones about new technologies) – ‘nervous traditionalists’ (the ones that aren’t) and ‘serene separatists’’ (not scared by new technology but think its impact won’t make much difference). As this paper was written in 2003 it would be interesting what the views would be in 2010?
One of the final points Harper touches is - How will new media make its money…? This is a question that still today seems to be ambiguous according to Mignon Shardlow (Topic 3.1 lecture). Never-the-less in 2010 digital journalism continues to break the latest news faster then any other source and gives its readers more power to the user by allowing them to challenge the traditional role of the publication as the gate-keeper of news and information.
No comments:
Post a Comment