Week 5: Globalisation vs Localisation

Joel Qin and Erika Lim, exchange students from Singapore, this week gave the Journalism class some valuable insights into the way that foreign media operates. In their presentation, they pointed out that the internet and globalisation is threatening laws that Singapore has in place, and provided a statement by the Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, in which he accepted that "we cannot stop this. If we stop this, we stop the progress. We are marginalised".

Having conducted research into the current censoring of media, particularly global, in Fiji for a university project, I was not surprised to hear of Singapore's similar stance. As Joel stated, the reasons for their ranking of 133 in press freedom is due to their banning of foreign magazines (The Economist and the Far East Economic Review) and the fact that their two main media outlets (MediaCorp and Singapore Press Holdings) are government-owned.

Like Fiji, and even China to a lesser extent, the prominent role of citizen journalism in Singapore has been to provide the local community with access to information that they would otherwise be unable to obtain. An example provided in the presentation included the wrongful hanging of Vignes Mourthi in 2003, which only came to light courtesy of The Online Citizen. However, the conundrum is that whilst Singaporeans are gaining valuable knowledge on such issues through citizen journalism and the internet, their local media is suffering due to a lack of freedom.

Personally, I believe that Singapore should embrace globalisation, rather than maintaining their localised laws. As Joel and Erika stated, it is up to the Singaporean government to determine whether or not to "retain probably-soon-to-be-obsolete laws, or strive to find a social equilibrium for media freedom". This blogger believes that for the sake of local media in Singapore, the government does need to allow less restrictions on the media, but traditional laws should still be respected.

Why do I believe that there should not be mass changes of traditional localised laws? I discovered, during research on the censoring of Google in China for a recent assignment, that many locals did not find it to be a negative thing, as censorship of the media is a part of their culture. In the Western world we believe it to be denying basic human rights, but this is clearly a biased opinion based on a differing of cultural structures. As Joel and Erika put to the class, would we challenge Singapore's 'media freedom' if we had lived with it in Australia our whole lives. I would have to say the answer to such a question would be a definite no.

Week 4: Who Pays For Journalism? Is It All About Money?

It was my turn to present to the journalism class this week and, working alongside fellow students Nick Scully and Ben O'Neill, we focused our attention on the above topic, who pays for journalism? It has been determined that whilst different mediums, such as newspapers and the internet, are earning revenue through advertising and subscriptions, a lack of funding overall is causing problems for the industry.

As Nick Scully covered in his presentation, Christopher Warren, in his report on the Future of Journalism summit, pointed out that more than 12,000 journalists lost their jobs in 2008 alone. This is due to an increased workload on journalists, who are expected to write articles for both print and online versions. So, in a figurative sense, journalists are paying with their jobs and livelihoods through the lack of revenue being generated.

Although journalism is currently struggling, the industry is not all about making money. As I mentioned in my presentation, there are not-for-profit, foundation-funded, organisations being set up, such as ProPublica, who are supporting the investigative element of journalism. Their aim is give the general public information which would otherwise not be possible, due to a fixation with commercial incentives. Therefore, without these organisations working to keep investigative journalism, the general public would also pay through a lack of knowledge and information.

But what is a plausible solution to the current crisis in the journalism industry? My fellow presenter, Ben O'Neill, offered the suggestion of a niche model, with journalists attracting audiences, and advertisers, through the quality of their work, not the quantity. Even though internet users can discover news for free on blogs and twitter accounts, courtesy of citizen journalists, many still prefer their information to come from a reliable, trustworthy and trained source.

With the increasing decline of newspapers and the uncertainty lingering over full-time job prospects, the internet appears to be the best way for journalists to make a profit. I'll refer once again to Christopher Warren's statement, that media companies and journalists need to invest in quality and the future, whilst attempting to "adapt to the economic and technological landscape, as it will be those companies that remember and nurture their core business that will survive."

Personally, I would be willing to try any alternative option, such as a niche model, in order to try and make a respectable living. Journalism is not all about money, the not-for-profit organisations are examples of this, and writing articles initially for little to no money (before a decent sized audience is reached) needs to be expected. However, like any profession, a profit has to try and be made eventually for us to be able to live in comfort.

Week 3: Citizen Journalism

This week's seminar presentation focused on the issue of citizen journalism, and whether or not it is beginning to diminish the impact and influence of professional journalism. The Online Journalism Review (ORJ) defines it as, "the collecting and publication of timely, unique, nonfiction information by individuals without formal journalism training or public affiliation."

A fellow student argued, in the discussion which followed the presentation, that citizens will never replace the role of professional journalists because of their lack of credibility and training. However, as Jason Stverak points out in his article for the ORJ, the "traditional news media reporters and editors are being devastated by a financial crisis, not a journalism crisis...those of us who work with citizen journalists in online news ventures know better than anyone what a tough, disciplined calling it is. That is why we hire professionals and rigorously train citizens."

The seminar presentation provided the 2005 London Bombings as an effective example of the increasing popularity of citizen journalism. As Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post, states, "with the expansion of the Web and the ever-decreasing size and cost of cameraphones and video camera's, the ability to commit acts of journalism is spreading to everyone, including you." But is all this technology transforming ordinary members of the public into scavengers and citizen paparazzi? Mark Glazer, writing for the ORJ, cites the blog of a surviver of the London Bombings, who identified himself only as Justin. In his personal account of the tragedy, Justin recalls that "as I stepped out, people with cameraphones vied to try and take pictures of the worst victims. In crisis, some people are cruel." People were easily able, and encouraged, to then upload this insensitive material within a few seconds onto photo-sharing websites such as Flickr.

Following this week's presentation, I have begun to undertake some research on my own seminar topic, due next week, on "Who pays for Journalism? Is it just about money?" A definition of journalism is provided by James Poniewozik, who describes it as, "a full time job paid for by newsgathering entities through a combination of subscriptions and advertising."
Though people have been subscribing to newspapers for decades, whether they will pay for online content is an issue which has been keenly discussed. Rupert Murdoch's decision to introduce a subscription fee to his Times Newspapers in June has been met with contrasting opinions.

Jeff Jarvis, who claims he worked for Murdoch's TV Guide in America, comments that by building his paywall around the Times Newspapers, Murdoch has "said no to new ideas to build advertising...he has no new ideas to build deeper and more valuable relationships with readers and will send them away if they do not pay."
Jarvis continues by stating that, "Murdoch does not use the internet, let alone Google, so he cannot possibly understand the dynamics, demands and opportunities of our post-industrial, now digital-media economy." However, others, such as myself, believe that a pay wall is important as it offers a stable influx of money for the Times, at a fee which is unlikely to scare away loyal readers (1 pound per day, or 2 pounds per week).

Further research will be undertaken on the history of payments for journalism and the influential role of the topic discussed at the beginning of my entry, citizen journalism, before the presentation next week.