Category Archives: journalism

nancy fraser – rethinking the public sphere

Posted on July 24, 2008 by | Comments Off

I’m reading Fraser and it’s really good. Quote on page 64:

Subordinate groups sometimes cannot find the right voice or words to express their thoughts, and when they do, they discover they are not heard. [They] are silenced, encouraged to keep their wants inchoate, and heard to say ‘yes’ when what they have said is ‘no.’ [..] many of these feminist insights into ways in which deliberation can serve as a mask for domination extend beyond gender to other kinds of unequal relations, like those based on class or ethnicity. They alert us to the ways in which social inequalities can infect deliberation, even in the absence of any formal exclusions.

In: Nancy Fraser, Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy, Social Text, No. 25/26 (1990), pp. 56-80.

Reading her quote reminds us how access alone often is not enough for equal communication. Access, of course, is a first prerequisite that is a necessary but not sufficient condition. In this light, one can think about to what degree citizen media empowers or emancipates; that is to say, how being able to blog alone is not enough, one also has to be heard in a voice that does justice to the speaker – a proper voice. This problem gets only more challenging in a global context, where not just social inequalities but also linguistic and cultural, not to mention basic human rights to freedom of speech, are often an immense barrier to any remote possibility for a healthy conversation between different people, groups, cultures in an age of growing interdependence.

Comments Off

Posted in bridgeblog, censorship, communication, culture, emancipation, international-global, journalism

Tagged ,

Global Voices Summit 2008 – day 1

Posted on June 27, 2008 by | Comments Off

Currently attending the Global Voices Summit 2008 held in Budapest, Hungary. It’s an amazing happening so far, with over 200 bloggers all sitting in one room (scarcity of power strips!). The first day so far has been focusing on all the different kinds of problems bloggers worldwide face, an issue the Economist also recently wrote about. It’s a bit overwhelming, imagine hearing all the different forms of censorship practices worldwide in one day and it only reinforces the importance of open spaces online. Sometimes the discussion about censorship can become quite abstract – but the discussions today ground us back into reality again.

Follow the Summit on twitter, irc (#globalvoices on freenode), liveblog, video stream, facebook, flickr, and slideshare (I am sure I am still missing some!).

Comments Off

Posted in bridgeblog, censorship, conference, international-global, journalism

Tagged , ,

why study the news?

Posted on May 26, 2008 by | Comments Off

why do i study what i study? the video tells you why.

Comments Off

Posted in bridgeblog, culture, international-global, journalism, news

citizen journalism in the global context

Posted on May 22, 2008 by | Comments Off

citizen journalism has gotten most of its attention in how it can make a difference for (hyper)local content. less attention, however, has been paid to how citizen journalism can make a difference in the global context. this is unfortunate for at least three reasons.

first, because of the dichotomy we subconsciously create between the local and the global, we forget to consider how the global is often intertwined with the local, or how the boundaries between the two are blurring. while the world is not yet quite the global village as McLuhan has envisioned it to be, and I am not quite ready to argue that the local is the global, examples such as the images from the Burmese monks uploaded by cameraphones suggest that the global, while perhaps not the same, is often only one step away from the local.

second, citizen journalism needs to be considered in the global context because of our moral duty to listen to the other. the media is often the only way we learn about the rest of the world. where else would most of us learn about Burmese monks except through the media? but how many other voices have we and are we still ignoring at the same time? roger silverstone has referred to this as a notion of hospitality, understanding the media as a space (a polis in its ideal form) where certain actors (us) are more powerful than others (them), which gives us the obligation to at least listen. to take hospitality and thus the other seriously means that we need a better understanding of the dynamics of how geographically but also socio-cultural distant events are brought to our attention. citizen journalism in the global context gives the other the rather unique capacity to bring matters to our attention on their own terms, rather than ours.

third, to raise the issue of citizen journalism in the global context is to problematize the classic notion of citizenship as tied to the nation-state and suggests the possibility of practicing citizenship in a global civil society. it is an invitation to examine globalization from the bottom up. citizenship in a global civil society should not be confused with global or cosmopolitan citizenship. a large group of people might participate in global civil society with strong and explicit ties to the nation-state. a strong national identity does not preclude, and might even be a prerequisite, in order to participate in global civil society. examining citizen journalism in the global context will provide us with clues to the changing meaning of citizenship and participation.

Comments Off

Posted in bridgeblog, international-global, journalism

Tagged , , , ,

unbundling and rebundling the newspaper

Posted on April 28, 2008 by | Comments Off

In an interesting forum on the future of newspapers and the net, hosted by the Britannica that (admittedly, in a to me a bit of a strange twist) picked up blogging, Nick Carr is arguing that the new economics of culture have led to a decline of newspapers.

In quite-to-the-point style, he asks: are newspapers doomed? He points to the newspapers’ continuing decline of circulation and advertising revenue and argues that one phenomenon, among many others, is a driving force: the unbundling of the newspaper. In other words, whereas the newspaper in the past was a collection, a package of content sold to you – a set of daily comics, weather forecasts, classifieds, domestic news, foreign news, sports news, book reviews etc – the newspaper is now being disassembled and sold as separate parts. Think of a stolen car – instead of being sold as a whole – it is often worth more to sell the parts separately. This trend of unbundling has caused advertising revenues to drop – as the audience scatter around the different disassembled, unbundled parts, so do the advertisers.

Unbundling also gives rise to another concern that Carr does not mention: the public no longer is served what I call ‘serendipitous’ content – content that you don’t know you would want or could not know in advance that you find interesting. We should not overstate this – many people selectively skim the newspapers or only turn to the sections that they are interested in (sports section ..). But still, if you were bored or had more time, it was only a page turn away to see what the rest of the newspaper had to say. Related, reading the frontpage and other sections of the newspaper often fueled the so-called water cooler conversations – those conversations you have when you run into someone and that creates what Putnam has called social capital.

Carr’s story pretty much ends here and it is a stark and dreadful story. But does the story really ends with the unbundling of the newspaper? I suggest that we should consider the many ways a trend of re-bundling is taking place. We can ask on what principles these acts of re-bundling are taking place. Personal interest is one of them – and it is this principle of self-interest that most people turn to when selecting blogs and other online feeds for their RSS reader. Serendipity can be another principle – and this is the principle that guides Global Voices – how it selects the news it produces. It is trying to give you a story you would not have heard about, or a perspective you would not have considered. In many ways, it is that foreign news section in the newspaper – but instead of a page turn away, it is now a click away. While Carr is painting a depressing picture, the good news is that the potential for serendipity is certainly not much worse off than in the past – is it less effort to click than to turn a page? The bad news is that even that one click might be too much – how do we get people to click? What drives serendipity? Is this something public policy should be involved with and/or be concerned about (one can think of public media taking an active role in this, a la BBC)? One thing for sure is, the story does not end here. Exciting times ahead.

Comments Off

Posted in journalism, new media, news

Tagged , , , , ,

peer production, hybridity and journalism

Posted on March 9, 2008 by | Comments Off

It is not yet 9am, Sunday morning. Early sunlight shines through the window – it’s too fierce and I have to actually dim it with the curtains. Last night I ended up writing about Benkler’s three modes of production: the market, the firm and peer production. They all have different answers to the question: “how is decided who does what?” Under the market, the price mechanism determines supply and demand. Under the firm, hierarchy (in other words, your boss) tells you what you need to do. Under peer production, we decide for ourselves what we are interested in doing. It depends on transaction costs what mode makes most sense to employ. For example, if the market is not transparent and search costs are high, it makes sense to produce under the firm (employ personnel, pay wages) rather than leave it to the market. Advances in technology can change the dynamics of transaction costs – in theory they should lower transaction costs, for example, by making it easier to search. Often we overlook how technology increases transaction costs, for example, by overloading us with information. What Benkler argues, and illustrates with examples such as Wikipedia and Linux, is that the internet is able to lower transaction costs so drastically that a third mode of production is possible: peer production. Instead of relying on price or hierarchy to coordinate activities, people effectively self-sort and self-identify the things they want to do. People essentially do something they care about intrinsically, and this is often a pretty good indicator that they are good at it as well, although this is not necessarily the case. How do we check for quality? Under the market, theory goes that inferior products will be priced away. Under the firm, the boss will go after you. But what about the quality of work under peer production? Who checks, monitors and enforces sanctions when something is bad, unreliable, etc? The answer is: we all do. The process of quality control, of accreditation itself can also be peer produced. That’s what happens with Slashdot (karma points), Wikipedia (anyone can edit).

This is the theory – simplified, admittedly, but hopefully sufficient for now and I urge you to read Benkler for the full version of his arguments. For my project, I have two questions: first, the three modes of production as Benkler outlines them are more or less ideal types. But how would hybrid models look like, and under what conditions would they arise? As peer production continues to grow in relevance, we need to understand not only how it functions in isolation but how it interacts or complements other modes of production and what implications these hybrid models have for quality and sustainability. Second, for the specific project I am working on, what does all this means for journalism as a form of cultural production? How does a peer produced journalism look like? How sustainable is journalism under peer production? If peer production is self-identified, what implications does this have for the quality, reliability and objectivity of news when people cover issues they have a self-interest in?

Comments Off

Posted in journalism, peer production

is everybody a journalist?

Posted on February 15, 2008 by | 3 Comments

Is everybody now a journalist? Some forcefully argue that everybody now indeed is a journalist, with the arrival of the internet, particularly with the ease of blogging. Is that really true?

Of course, we need not to equate blogging with journalism. Some blogs might be a form of journalism – indeed even newspapers increasingly experiment with blogs as a publishing platform – but most blogs are certainly not meant or seen as journalism.

Given that some blogs, however few, would arguably qualify as journalism, what makes them qualify and not others? Is it the quality of the content? Is it the intention of the author? The size of the audience? Or perhaps the distinction lies in the process of how the content is produced? In other words, what is journalism in the digital age?

Another question comes up: given that potentially anybody who can go online can publish a blog and practice journalism, why do only some people practice “journalism” and not others? Or if asked differently, if everybody can become a journalist, why doesn’t everybody do so? A starting point to consider this question is that technology is only one constraint to practice journalism – other constraints can be leisure time, literacy and education, a level of civic and political engagement. We can draw from existing political theory analyzing citizenship – why are some citizens more engaged than others – for relevant clues. We compare “journalistic” citizens with other citizens. But another starting point departs from the comparison between “journalistic” citizens and journalists. Why were “journalistic” citizens previously unable to join and participate in the journalistic field and what allows them to participate now? One answer is that there is no difference – it is the same old elite, e.g. – those who are the A-list bloggers are all male and highly educated. This arguments hits some, but misses most of the point, however. While it is true that it is a select few who gets most of the attention in the blogosphere – and you could consider them the elite – it would be wrong to think of them as the same old elite. They are elite, but a different elite. They bring a different expertise to the table.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in journalism

What is a Reporter? The Private Face of Public Journalism

Posted on April 2, 2007 by | Comments Off

Summary of Michael Schudson, “What Is a Reporter?” in Schudson, The Power of News (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995) 228:245.

Schudson is interested in the ontology of the reporter as an occupational type, in other words, ‘what is a reporter?’ He turns to the bibliographies of two exemplary reporters to find an answer to his question, to see what two reporters themselves, Lincoln Steffens (1866-1936) and Harrison Salisbury (1908-), had to say when they tried to make sense of who they were and what they did.

Schudson provides us several notions of what a reporter might be. He starts off with the idea that an important part of the answer to the question is that it depends in large part on the audience. Who does the reporter report to? Reading the bibliographies, he goes all the way back to when the reporters were still children, when they first realized their (future) role in society. By focusing on the genesis, he subsequently brings up the notion of reporting as craft and the importance of play and imagination, or as Schudson himself says: “making is not faking, not lying, but neither is it a passive mechanical recording. It cannot be done without play and imagination.” (230)

In contrast, for Benjamin Franklin, journalism was a trade. However, this was certainly not true for Steffens or Salisbury, for whom both reporting was a distinct way of experiencing the world. Steffens, on the one hand, was interested in the universal nature of human kind and looking for general laws, treating its subjects as instances, while Salisbury, on the other hand, resembled more the modern journalist who saw no general laws except perhaps in the instances themselves. For Steffens, reporting was a means to a greater goal, while for Salisbury the only aim was defined within reporting itself, to get better at it. Schudson had several explanations for these differences: first, Salisbury represented an increasing trend towards professionalism in reporting; second, Salisbury perhaps represented a kind of modesty in a world fragmented in more specialized roles; and third, he was part of a growing tradition, no longer a pioneer like Steffens and perhaps thus more modest ambitions. Together, they mark a shift from an individual with a mission, to an individual with a role within a profession that has a collective responsibility.

If reporting is done for an audience, we can consider definitions of reporting by looking at what kind of categories of content were kept away from the audience. (1) The first category is withholding confidential information as noted by sources, what Schudson refers to as short term compromises for a long term commitment; (2) information the reporter simply could not believe it was true; (3) information the reporter knew would not be printed by the editor and (4) the idea that news is only news from a newspaper point of view, but not, for example, the news form the point of view from a sociologist or novelist. News does not offer a totality of view. Finally (5) news that is constrained by competition and camaraderie of other reports

So then, what is a reporter? According to Schudson, “a reporter is someone faithful to sources, attuned to the conventional wisdom, serving the political culture of media institutions, and committed to a narrow range of public, literary expression.” (239)

Comments Off

Posted in culture, journalism

towards an international history of journalism

Posted on February 18, 2007 by | Comments Off

Elliot King, Towards International History of Journalism,

In Journalism Studies, Volume 4, Number 1, 2003, pp.121-131.

 

This is a collection of essays and debate, discussing the idea that we should start considering developing an international history of journalism. It came forth out of a panel organized at a joint meeting of the American Journalism Historians Association and the History Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Three Canadian scholars presented their views on the issue of creating an international perspective on the history of journalism, followed by a roundtable including scholars from the United States (and one from Paraguay).

 

Why A Call for International History?

There is a growing realization of the limited scope of much work done in the field of journalism history. The limited scope is not just with regard to the (non-existing) international nature of journalism history, but even within US journalism history, it is a shame that much of the work is (unduly) New-York centric and print-centric.

 

Towards an International History: Strategies
Several strategies were mentioned that can help us overcome the nation-state framework most journalism history research is embedded in. These include:

 

  1. Comparative research – the best way to explain similarities and variations.

Taking my cue from Siebert et al.’s (1956) Four Theories of the Press:

    • “Why is journalism as it is?”
    • “Why does it apparently serve different purposes and appear in widely different forms in different countries?”

 

  1. Transnational research

Some suggestions include focusing on institutions or technologies that are “inherently” international, such as the news agency, the telegraph. Other suggestions included focusing on flows of people (diaspora, migration) and the flow of news as a commodity, in order to expand our inquiry.

 

  1. Subnational research

Being aware, and using different lenses to write the history of journalism, for example, the lens of feminism or subculture. Curran (2002) in Media and Power, for example, presents six different versions of media history, including a liberal, feminist, populist, libertarian, anthropological and radical version.

 

  1. Interdisciplinary research

The challenge is to work together with other disciplines, such as literature and history departments, in order to benefit from each other’s work.

 

Towards an International History: Challenges

Challenges to developing an international history of journalism history include:

 

  1. National histories of journalism are often lacking. How can we do comparative research if the building blocks are not there yet?

First, there is a problem of shallow research, there is simply not enough to work with. It highlights the importance of keeping good archives. One researcher cited the subsequent problem of the literature review being too shallow. However, this does raise the issue of how ‘marginal’ research is framed. Do we write for a niche audience or do we broaden it to a general level, making it relevant for the mainstream? But then, why does the mainstream (US?) have no interest for events taking place in other countries, “unless there is some direct impact on them or their nation”? (126).

 

  1. Knowledge of languages, cultures often lacking

Is this a cheap excuse? “I am never going to get to know French history as well as somebody who has gone to graduate school and studied it” (128). The challenge, I suggest, here is overcoming the idea that cultural proximity, through language and cultural knowledge, is necessary for research. How can we do this? First, I suggest you do know your ‘own’ culture and history and you can work with that. Second, there is a challenge for research, especially comparative research, to see cultural distance not as a deficiency but as an opportunity for (comparative) research.

 

  1. Turning the arrow of causality around

Instead of asking, how does society, whether it is the nation-state or another conceptualization of society, shape journalism and the news, we should start considering how does news shape society, especially on an international level?

 

  1. The ultimate challenge: Why should we care??

The challenge is there to think normatively about an international history of journalism.  Can we do better than justify it with “Gee, wouldn’t it be great if we could hear what everybody is doing?” (129).

 

Literature

Curran, J. 2002, Media and power, Routledge, London ; New York.

Siebert, F.S. 1956, Four theories of the press : the authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and Soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Comments Off

Posted in comparative, international-global, journalism