February (first posting)
Web. 2.0 refers to sites where consumers can upload and thus disseminate photos, videos, audio and narrative text to the world. In addition to blogs and sites like MySpace and Facebook, some media companies are adding components to their mainstream sites allowing readers to write news stories or post videos or photos. Is this a good idea? Why, or why not?
13 comments:
Is it a good idea? My first instinct is to say yes. I feel like I am a part of this generation that has come accustom to sharing our ideas in a public fashion. Facebook and Twitter accounts allow you to tell the world what you are feeling, thinking or doing. At the same time, Web sites that allow people to post news stories is a bit disturbing to me. The media is scrutinized enough, and the validity of facts presented by journalists is always being called in for questioning. If a news site boasts that a new story has been posted, the public might assume that all statements made by that contributor are valid.
With that said, I think videos or pictures posted to news sites could be helpful. First, take the example of the earthquake in Haiti. Without the vivid photos and videos by those who were actually there, we might not have understood the severity of the situation. This allows the public to show what they are seeing in accordance to a news story. However, with every person having the ability to post their media and information, the necessity for professional journalists does not exist.
Overall, I believe the public should be able to comment on what media professionals present. Related photos and videos should be welcomed, but should be screened by employees of that company. Anybody should not be allowed to preset information that is labeled “news,” but instead should be encouraged to suggest ideas for news stories. I think people can find a medium in which journalists and contributors can both share ideas with one another.
As most people know, user-submitted content is 99 percent un-newsworthy. But that other 1 percent is pretty good. For example, when the Wings of Wind balloon crashed at last year's Fiesta, we had some amazing photos and video of the event. Another example: in the far off reaches of the state, we always relied on viewers to send in photos of brush fires, tornadoes, etc.
The downside is that you have to put some resources into moderating the content. The same goes for user comments. Sometimes a person will say something interesting or funny and it will add value to your site. But most of the time, a moderator will have to comb through a lot of crap.
Having community members post videos, photos and write stories is a great first step in the right direction. By companies doing this, it shows others how they are involved in the community and that they even are involved in this community. Many times media outlets only report information to community members instead of being out in the community and talking and listening to those voices. It also shows that they care and want to hear from the public, which could encourage news tips.
It’s kind of like Ashley Biggers said, you can’t just sit there and yell at your readers to listen, you have to create a connection with them and build a relationship. By media companies creating these applications for readers to use, it shows that they really are listening to them. Who knows? Maybe something a reader writes will end up on the next day’s front page.
The only problem I could see with this opportunity is that other media outlets or community members could try passing posted ideas as their own. Also, what about libel laws? If it’s published on their Web site and the reader’s story says something defamatory, couldn’t the media outlet get into trouble?
I don't understand the business model behind this. If media companies are trying to procure more readers and trying to get them more involved, can they really start charging people for subscriptions?
I think adding web components that allow readers to take photos and videos represent the track that media has been rolling toward, a free, all-access, mobile venue.
Media companies should roll with the times, but they must consider the consequences (financially) before offering such components on their website. Potential problems with offering an interactive component for readers include journalistic ethics and law (Is a story/photo/video ethical, appropriate or libelous?) as well as financial viability (Should they take content for free from readers or hire trained journalists?)
I think the more media companies lean toward accepting free content the further away they should lean from subscription fees because if the readers are generating the majority of the content, then in a sense they are just a glorified blog. Why should readers pay for that?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fun little photo/video contests to get readership up, but readers publishing stories for free seems a little unfair to local, unemployed journalists. Media companies need new talent, and they could bypass a recently-graduated journalist for this kind of free content. What's to stop our generation of journalist from just working for a blog?
It seems that as print media try to make themselves more technologically accessible, the more they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot financially.
I don’t think it’s such a great idea that readers are allowed to write news stories because it takes away from what certain people (like us in this class and/or previous journalism students) went to school for and probably do for or will do for a living.
Posting videos and photos are just part of the new way to do things. The Internet and the World Wide Web are now the most influential things ⎯ and fairly new technology ⎯ with how people in today’s modern world get 99.9 percent of our information, news and/or work done today.
The only thing about Web sites, like Facebook and MySpace, is that it just allows people to look an ass in front of the rest of the world. For example by posting drunken pictures on the Web site or posting stupid statuses.
Just keep your stories legit. Don't overemphazise the natural wonders of your nephew's briss, don't celebrate the removal of your 13-year-old neice's braces, or your grandpa's hip replacement as newsworthy. Do the print, feed, and photos of the before and after to keep your senses on point. Don't distract me unless it's bloody, or has a hot swimsuit model in your storyline. Hey, just being real, don't get all Days of Our Lives dramatic.
As long as the area for viewers' content is clearly marked, there doesn't seem to be a problem with viewers uploading their own news.
Viewers and average citizens are always calling into news sites to give tips and leads for potential stories. This would be yet another avenue to do that. The majority of images of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center came from home movies. The Pictures from Abu Ghraib didn't come from journalists. They came from soldiers. Just recently, the first ever home video of the space shuttle, Challenger, was obtained from an old VHS. And yes, even the undercover ACORN stories were broken by citizens (no matter how questionable their subsiquent actions have been).
Of course, these examples are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to viewer related news. Most of it will probably be drivel. But there needs to be an avenue to get these jems out, and a viewer content page could improve that avenue.
I think it is a good idea the way fire is a good idea. It no doubt will propel ideas, conversation and therefore society forward, but their are still arsonists in society too. It can and should be used especially for the benefit of so many people, but must also be treated with the respect that any dangerous tool requires.
Being able to post nearly anything, completely anonymously in most cases, is an open door to some very discouraging things.
The threat is greater because most people posting to sites like blogs, or threads and forums did nothing to earn the right or privilege, which can often blind a person to the consequences.
On the flip side though, user-generated content is the reason for such compelling pictures and videos. The London Subway bombings are a perfect example. The BBC or any other major news outlet could never have told the story so well if it weren't for people taking videos on their cell phones. So used correctly, like fire, the ability for people to post as they see fit is a huge advantage that today's journalists and other entities can tap into to make their profession better.
While I want to say yes, I have to say that it all depends on the execution. Opening up the floodgates to anyone that wants to write a story is fine, granted that they're subject to strict editing and fact-checking. We all know the story of Stephan Glass and other reporters that have fabricated material, so it's not like I'm saying once you earn a journalism degree you're the golden truth teller, but that's why we have editors. It's important to fact check and require sources from everyone that submits to a media site, degree-holding reporter or not.
Things like this bring balance to the media and can be very beneficial. More reporters=more news. But it is important to keep a very close check on things like this.
I think it’s has its place. I feel in this world of social media and journalism we are starting to blur the lines. When you add this kind of elements to an web site its gives people a voice that sometimes they should not have. People are real quick to show the media that it’s “easy” to do journalism.
Soon we are going to get stories that might be one side or not full of facts. When you give a random person off the street a pad and pen you are just watering down what we built over the years.
I think it’s important to give people the right to talked about the stories that are going on around us. So letting people comment, tweet and facebook a story is a different story. I love when you get no twitter and see what people are tweeting about a. If its a story and how its makes them feel. It’s hard to watch other people who don’t understand journalism try and do it.
Soliciting public input for regular news fare brings blessings and potential curses to the news industry and the viewing public, both in America and abroad.
First, the blessings I foresee:
- an active, involved community is a potentially more-aware community. If people have a platform for their own voice and perspective, they can become larger stakeholders in the issues at hand (anyone remember Media Ethics?)
- new perspective and insight can lead to fresh news and deeper understanding of issues. However, this assumes that community journalists will demonstrate a certain credibility in reporting.
Now, a couple of potential curses.
- the deluge of information/articles/opinions/video/audio/aaaauugh! may become completely overwhelming. Instead of drawing people in, it could turn people away.
- there's no guarantee the sources or their information will be at all credible or verifiable. Fluff journalism may completely overtake the news industry. Heck, the fluff already has a large market share.
I really like Mario's suggestion - allow community news articles, but clearly delineate between the professional journalism and the amateur. That way, the audience will know the source of every perspective. This empowers people to make their own decisions and arrive at their own conclusions - the essence of ethical journalism.
Well, it seems there are two schools of thought regarding sharing information on the internet through such sites as blogs, etc. The idea of news sites allowing the public to put their stories or thought on their website really bothers me. When I read something on a news site, I know it has already been verified and is probably pretty reliable. To think I may be reading something that is an unrealiable source is very upsetting. Why would I waste my time on something I will have to search and verify myself. The reason I go to a news site is to save time and to get just the facts. There is a point that allowing the public to post unreliable and unverified stories is diluting my legitimate news source.
Well, it seems there are two schools of thought regarding sharing information on the internet through such sites as blogs, etc. The idea of news sites allowing the public to put their stories or thought on their website really bothers me. When I read something on a news site, I know it has already been verified and is probably pretty reliable. To think I may be reading something that is an unrealiable source is very upsetting. Why would I waste my time on something I will have to search and verify myself. The reason I go to a news site is to save time and to get just the facts. There is a point that allowing the public to post unreliable and unverified stories is diluting my legitimate news source.
Post a Comment