Webster’s dictionary defines the word “journalism” as: “the profession of reporting or photographing or editing news stories for one of the media.” The interesting thing about this description is that it does not specify any one type of media. And that is perfectly suitable to our world of journalism today. People have several different outlets in which to gain their information. Not only is news prevalent in traditional forms of journalism, such as print and broadcast, but it is also becoming more and more mainstream in the world of online journalism. Still the question remains, which form is better? Is online journalism as credible as traditional journalism or not? Let’s explore this question more by taking a closer look at the ways each of these mediums are written and the affect they have on their most important aspect: their readers.
When discussing online journalism, it is important to realize just how significant of a role it plays in our society today. The most common form of online journalism is probably reflected in the “Blogosphere”—a world of several different news stories, graphics, and links, all compiled into what is known as a “Weblog,” or, what it’s come to be known as, a “blog.” Such a seemingly informal style of writing may not appear to be all that appealing to the general public. Why would someone spend their time going online and searching for different news stories when they could gain the same type of information simply by opening their morning newspaper or turning on the local television news station? However, the world of blogging is actually a lot more popular than one might think. In the year 2000, when The National Catholic Reporter surveyed a group of journalists about their use of the blogosphere, the results were fairly impressive: At least seventy-three of the respondents were reported to go online at least once a day to research the news. And where did they visit to find that news? Blogs. Yet even though people are showing a keen interest in blogs, that still does not answer the question of how trustworthy such blogs are.
Although many people find blogs interesting and even amusing to read, not everyone finds them as credible as traditional forms of journalism. There are a few reasons for this. Perhaps the most significant reason would be that many people simply don’t trust the actual content found in online journalism. The National Catholic Reporter goes on to say that even though several journalists often look online for their news stories, they sometimes lose a degree of originality from doing so. It states: “They (journalists) count on the Web sites of newspapers and blogs around the world, and Web sites organize and condense those other Web sites, but they flesh out their own stories.”
Aside from lack of originality, an even bigger concern is the issue of the credibility of the content itself. When you read a story in the newspaper or watch it on television, the information you see and hear is usually very accurate. However, when you obtain your news through online journalism, can the same be said for its trustworthiness? Many people do not think so. One reason for this is that with online journalism, practically anyone can author a so-called “news” story. In this form of journalism, you don’t have the reassurance that a well-known newspaper reporter or broadcast journalist is relaying you factual, reliable information. You have to determine if the person writing the blog is deemed a credible author or not. If you think about it, pretty much anyone could be writing it. In as issue of The Economist, it says:
“As more and more of life moves on to the Internet, so the difficulty of distinguishing fact from fiction on it becomes more and more of a worry. This problem springs from the Internet’s central virtue: low barriers to entry. In the real world, being a publisher costs a great deal of money. You have to have manufacturing facilities and distribution networks. So real-world publishers have a great deal invested in their reputations and consequently need to be careful about what they print. On the Internet, being a publisher costs next to nothing…there is little to lose from printing untruths and plenty to gain in notoriety…Faking a real-world newspaper, which has to be both manufactured and distributed, would be next to impossible; faking an Internet page is dead easy.”
The issue of the rate at which online information is posted is a legitimate concern. In many cases, often the author is so rushed to get the information out there first, they lose credibility in the accuracy of the information they report. There seems to be a continual conflict between the choice of publishing information immediately or waiting a longer amount of time in order to verify facts and ensure accuracy of the material. In addition, there is also the concern of the ethical aspect of online journalism. As an article in the Australian Journalism Review points out, the way that information and pictures online can be archived indefinitely as well as their accessibility from virtually anywhere around the world could potentially prove to be an ethical dilemma, if said content was objectionable or offensive to the reader. And since the degree of offensiveness could obviously vary for each person, it is difficult to say what is ‘right’ to print, and what is not.
On the other hand, several people find online journalism to be a very credible form of information. A large reason for this is that many people simply trust the sense of personal communication that comes from the online world. When you read a blog, it is often much more subjective and descriptive than a standard news story found in the paper. Writers are freer to express their opinion in the online world, and they don’t hold back nearly as much. When the USC Annenberg: Online Journalism Review surveyed a group of people about why they trusted the information found in blogs, one respondent replied:
“I have learned to trust the voice and judgement of my fellow citizens. Bloggers are more trusted, because they are human and too often news organizations are not. Readers can judge them and their material and engage with them on a personal level. News organizations are big and often monolithic and are reluctant to admit let alone share perspective or agendas.”
There just seems to be more of a sense of community to online journalism. Think about it. When you read an article in the newspaper that you disagree with, the fastest (and basically only) way to get your voice heard is to write a letter to the editor in response to what you have read. There is no telling how long this may take to reach that reporter’s desk, and on top of that, there is no guarantee that your response will even be read, let alone published for other people to read. With online journalism, if you read a blog that you find interesting, or something that you disagree with, all your need to do is type a comment in response to what you’ve read, and almost immediately your thoughts are posted and available for the entire world to see. There just seems to be a certain degree of immediacy in online journalism that brings more satisfaction to the interested reader than the traditional form ever could.
Another reason online journalism is favored by people is that the content it reports often goes beyond the mainstream expectations. Whereas one news story may be too long, “politically incorrect,” or seemingly insignificant to report in the paper or on the television, in online journalism, there is no limit. People are not afraid to think outside the box. As reported in an online survey by the Associated Press Managing Editor’s National Credibility Roundtables Project (Poynter.org), many readers like the fact that online writers tend to discuss stories that mainstream journalists ignore. And although they recognize that there are possible “fallibilities” with blogging, they believe those drawbacks are balanced out by an “openness, interactivity, and a communal nature that helps honesty rise to the top.”
Online journalism not only reports stories in a more original matter, but also in a more thorough and continual one. How many times have you watched or read a “breaking news” story one day and then found that it has fizzled out as quickly as over the next few days? In order to find information regarding what happened with the rest of the story, as well as gain more recent updates about its development, many readers will turn online to find such answers. Harvard University’s Nieman Reports supports this notion by pointing out that the mainstream media often tends to dispose of stories in an overly fast-paced news style. Even important news events seem to disappear after a few days. Online journalism offers a more continual following of such stories: “Blogs keep stories alive by recirculating them with new angles, insights, and even newsworthy revelations.” It is no wonder that readers would prefer the online world’s affinity for news that is both interesting and up to date.
In conclusion, it remains to be seen just how exactly the rising ‘competition’ between online journalism and traditional journalism will play out. Both are unique and credible in their own way, yet it is the degree of that credibility that determines whether or not their message is trustworthy. And in the end, that question is left to be answered by the aspect of journalism that is most important of all: the reader.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
Music Websites: Christian vs. Secular
Music and the Internet: What do these two things have in common? People. That may seem like a simple answer, but when you think about it; both of these mediums play an integral role in all of our lives. They can inform and entertain, amuse or displease, and, most of all, they both communicate a distinctive message to us as the consumer. And the manner in which that message is conveyed is often just as important as the message itself. When the worlds of music and the Web combine, they create an entire new medium of online journalism. There are countless websites online dedicated to musical artists and bands all over the world, and from all kinds of music. However, the two most distinctive types we tend to notice are the Christian ones, and the non-Christian, or secular kind. Each of these websites poses unique quality to the viewer, and it is their differences in content that inspire people to favor one over the other.
Unless you are a fellow Christian who is “in the know” about the latest, hippest ‘Christian’ bands on the scene, the odds are you won’t be extremely interested in those particular bands—or their websites. If the general public does not show a large interest in the music itself, the odds are that they will show an even lesser interest in the websites dedicated to those artists. And when a website is not successful in the commercial market, it does not help its team—or the artist it represents. Mike Ward reiterates this point in his book, Online Journalism, when he states: “…making web journalism work may have commercial potential as well. And yet, there is no viable revenue model for web publishing. One reason for this may be that too many people do it badly” (6).
The premise that too many people are creating a website, as Ward said, “badly” is an obvious reason one would not show much interest in the band or the content. But then the question is to be asked, what exactly constitutes a “bad” webpage? That question is one that could have several answers. However, I think the main point to make would be that many Christian artists’ websites just don’t seem to have the same level or depth and complexity of content that secular ones do. One would probably question why this is so. I think the simplest answer is that unfortunately, it seems that such websites simply aren’t as dedicated in keeping their content and news updated. In other words, their webmasters are lacking qualifications as a true “autodidact.” And what in the world is an autodidact, you ask? Chip Scanlan explains this on PoynterOnline in his article, Online Journalism:Autodidacts Needed. He defines as autodidact as one who “is self taught, has a passion to learn, much patience, and has credible learning resources.” He also gives explanation as to why there aren’t more qualified autodidacts out there: “…because online skills require an enormous investment of time. More time than is available in a seminar or a workshop. Depending on the skill, mastery can take hundreds of solitary hours in front of a computer, or out in the field.” Therefore, if this kind of time and dedication is not reflected in the updated content—or lack thereof—often found on Christian artist’s websites, it is understandable how one may find them less useful than those of a band of a secular nature.
On the other hand, there are also those who see the other side of the coin. Some people believe that Christian websites actually are a more useful source of information and functionality than secular bands. One reason for this is that many people feel a more “personal” sense of interactivity when navigating Christian websites. Often secular sites will display the basic content and ‘must-know’ information of the band or artist, but they do not offer as much of an appeal to the individual as a person. If someone feels like the artist cares about them personally, they are more likely to support them and share that support with other fans and viewers alike. The value of this kind of interactivity is very important. As Ward says: “…the consumer interacts with the consumer, for example, the use of message boards in websites allows readers to exchange views and information. This can provide different textures and perspective" (24).
In addition to the interactive component often found on Christian sites, many people simply respect and appreciate the fact that the site itself seems to hold somewhat of a higher moral quality and standard than one may find within a secular site. This can be reflected not only in the actual content found directly on the Christian site, but also to the external content it provides access to for its readers. For example, the links found on the main page: While a secular website would more likely have links leading to sites that could be both morally questionable and possibly offensive, a Christian website is guaranteed to provide access to content that is both acceptable and “family-friendly.” They realize that providing a link to an external source essentially has the same affect as posting the content directly on their website.
As Rick Edmonds states in his article Online Ethics, from PoynterOnline: “If you provide a link to an external source, what are you saying about its reliability, taste, and transparency?...if accuracy, transparency, and taste are ethical values of an organization, how should those values inform decisions about links? Isn’t linking to below-standard material just another way of publishing it?” This statement reiterates the fact that the content found on a website, in whatever shape or form it appears in, will be and is easily accessible to its audience. If this is the case, it would seem one would be more interested in perusing a site, such as a Christian one, that holds the same quality of standard to its content as the message it and its artist represent.
So in the end, no matter what website you visit, it all comes back to the message. Ask yourself, “What is this site trying to say? What does its artist want to tell me?” If the message the site conveys is communicated both clearly and in a manner that is both morally acceptable and intellectually sound, then the result should be music to your ears.
Unless you are a fellow Christian who is “in the know” about the latest, hippest ‘Christian’ bands on the scene, the odds are you won’t be extremely interested in those particular bands—or their websites. If the general public does not show a large interest in the music itself, the odds are that they will show an even lesser interest in the websites dedicated to those artists. And when a website is not successful in the commercial market, it does not help its team—or the artist it represents. Mike Ward reiterates this point in his book, Online Journalism, when he states: “…making web journalism work may have commercial potential as well. And yet, there is no viable revenue model for web publishing. One reason for this may be that too many people do it badly” (6).
The premise that too many people are creating a website, as Ward said, “badly” is an obvious reason one would not show much interest in the band or the content. But then the question is to be asked, what exactly constitutes a “bad” webpage? That question is one that could have several answers. However, I think the main point to make would be that many Christian artists’ websites just don’t seem to have the same level or depth and complexity of content that secular ones do. One would probably question why this is so. I think the simplest answer is that unfortunately, it seems that such websites simply aren’t as dedicated in keeping their content and news updated. In other words, their webmasters are lacking qualifications as a true “autodidact.” And what in the world is an autodidact, you ask? Chip Scanlan explains this on PoynterOnline in his article, Online Journalism:Autodidacts Needed. He defines as autodidact as one who “is self taught, has a passion to learn, much patience, and has credible learning resources.” He also gives explanation as to why there aren’t more qualified autodidacts out there: “…because online skills require an enormous investment of time. More time than is available in a seminar or a workshop. Depending on the skill, mastery can take hundreds of solitary hours in front of a computer, or out in the field.” Therefore, if this kind of time and dedication is not reflected in the updated content—or lack thereof—often found on Christian artist’s websites, it is understandable how one may find them less useful than those of a band of a secular nature.
On the other hand, there are also those who see the other side of the coin. Some people believe that Christian websites actually are a more useful source of information and functionality than secular bands. One reason for this is that many people feel a more “personal” sense of interactivity when navigating Christian websites. Often secular sites will display the basic content and ‘must-know’ information of the band or artist, but they do not offer as much of an appeal to the individual as a person. If someone feels like the artist cares about them personally, they are more likely to support them and share that support with other fans and viewers alike. The value of this kind of interactivity is very important. As Ward says: “…the consumer interacts with the consumer, for example, the use of message boards in websites allows readers to exchange views and information. This can provide different textures and perspective" (24).
In addition to the interactive component often found on Christian sites, many people simply respect and appreciate the fact that the site itself seems to hold somewhat of a higher moral quality and standard than one may find within a secular site. This can be reflected not only in the actual content found directly on the Christian site, but also to the external content it provides access to for its readers. For example, the links found on the main page: While a secular website would more likely have links leading to sites that could be both morally questionable and possibly offensive, a Christian website is guaranteed to provide access to content that is both acceptable and “family-friendly.” They realize that providing a link to an external source essentially has the same affect as posting the content directly on their website.
As Rick Edmonds states in his article Online Ethics, from PoynterOnline: “If you provide a link to an external source, what are you saying about its reliability, taste, and transparency?...if accuracy, transparency, and taste are ethical values of an organization, how should those values inform decisions about links? Isn’t linking to below-standard material just another way of publishing it?” This statement reiterates the fact that the content found on a website, in whatever shape or form it appears in, will be and is easily accessible to its audience. If this is the case, it would seem one would be more interested in perusing a site, such as a Christian one, that holds the same quality of standard to its content as the message it and its artist represent.
So in the end, no matter what website you visit, it all comes back to the message. Ask yourself, “What is this site trying to say? What does its artist want to tell me?” If the message the site conveys is communicated both clearly and in a manner that is both morally acceptable and intellectually sound, then the result should be music to your ears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)