Journalists are the audience formerly known as the media
Here are my notes from the Media 140 talk, the video should be available soon. I will post it, when it is.
It’s great to see so many journalists here who are on Twitter and I think if anything it’s provided a great forum for some robust debate about issues facing media.
Perhaps many journalist’s natural curiosity has been piqued by the fact that they are in danger of becoming largely irrelevant?
I’m not anti-journalist, I’m not pro-blogger, I’m pro-journalism and it’s core function to inform. I didn’t say inform the masses on purpose there. Who performs that function is less relevant to me.
The way I see it, and for the purposes of this discussion, there are two main issues that remain largely misunderstood by journalists working in news organisations when it comes to engaging in social media.
The first pertains to the issue of control, or loss of control and the second is around transparency.
I don’t talk about old media and new media – I think it’s unconstructive and divisive.
But there has been a shift and I’m not averse to calling it a revolution. The revolution in media has largely been about loss of control and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
I use the term ‘control media’ to describe the mindset we have had until the internet came along and disrupted that.
I think it’s an important part of understanding how things like Twitter have turned media-as-we-know-it on its head. It’s also important for journalists in social media communities to fully understand the enormity of this change.
Until recently we’ve lived in a control media environment – the ability to report and share information was limited to those that controlled the technology that made it possible – those who owned the printing presses, radio and TV licences. But more importantly news was controlled by those in charge of deciding who /what /why and when something was newsworthy.
Twitter is an example of almost the exact opposite of “control media” because journalists are not in control the flow of information anymore.
It wasn’t journalists who covered the recent Iran uprising.
It wasn’t journalists who broke the news of the last major earthquake in China. in fact the previous earthquake of a similar magnitude was reported three months after the event and the Chinese Government still tried to deny it ever happened.
It wasn’t a journalist’s twitpic – that’s a picture posted to Twitter – I saw 3 minutes after the cable snapped on the bay Bridge in San Francisco – just over a week ago.
Participatory media doesn’t mean you letting your audience participate in the creation of news, it about acknowledging that you participate in news creation along with your audience.
It still astounds me how many journalists on Twitter, many of whom have spoken here today (I know because I checked) only follow other journalists – and who are the first ones to complain that the internet is an echo chamber?
My second point about journalists using Twitter is the need for full transparency, which can run counter to the notion of objectivity.
How can you be honest and open about things – or have a personal opinion – when it might align you with one party in a story over another? It was something Mark Colvin and Leigh Sales touched on in their talks with regard to being cautious in letting their opinions on a subject known. I believe that if we knew where journalists stood on a matter, it would in fact increase their credibility and create a greater trust with their audiences.
As journalist Amy Gahran put it “when journos pretend to have NO opinions/biases, it *undermines* their credibility.”
The Washington Post recently published some guidelines for their journalists in using social networks like Twitter and Facebook, in which it said, and I quote:
All Washington Post journalists relinquish some of the personal privileges of private citizens. Post journalists must recognize that any content associated with them in an online social network is, for practical purposes, the equivalent of what appears beneath their bylines in the newspaper or on our website.
It’s quite alarming really. Instead of finding ways to encourage engagement, these guidelines are in fact doing just the opposite.
Its important in this time of change, that journalists are encouraged to have open conversations, not have restrictions placed on those.
Truth is, objectivity as an ideal was always somewhat flawed, and in part is responsible for the large cynicism that exists among audiences today.
I subscribe to the disclosure of personal views and opinions whenever and wherever possible, rather than a pretense that they don’t exist. And I encourage all journalists to do the same.
Can journalists do it better?
We’ve heard Jay Rosen’s quote here a few times today about “the people formerly known as the audience.” To which I’d like to add:
Journalists are the audience formerly known as the media.