Increase in journalism students despite decrease in jobs for journalists

Keira Wilson’s blog shows the contradiction in the journalism industry – as the industry declines, the more people want to work within it. Keira says that despite an 11.3% reduction in American newspaper jobs, there has been a huge increase in the number of students trying to enrol in undergraduate journalism courses. The University of Georgia has seen a 41.6% increase in students since 1997 and the UW Madison Journalism School has had to turn down 55% of applicants over the past three years due to space limitations.

Keira also writes that some students are positive about the line of work they have chosen, while others are negative, one student saying “I think journalists are completely undervalued and work very hard for very little pay”. Keira seems to believe that journalism will always exist despite the problems it is currently facing, the form will simply change.

I would agree and would, unfortunately, say that the market will probably self regulate – meaning a lot of journalists will find that they aren’t able to make a living in such a crowded market place and will leave to do something else to pay the bills. As a journalism student it’s not a nice prospect, but then that’s life. I guess capitalism doesn’t value the role of the journalist as highly as I do.

Facts from facebook

Niamh Mongey’s blog highlights an alarming trend by news media – the practice of gathering information on individuals from social networking sites. Niamh gives the example of the Irish Times gathering information on Michael Dwyer, the Irishman murdered in Bolivia, from his facebook account. Niamh sees this as a complete loss of privacy in the internet age and laments the fact that anyone can log on, find out information about a person’s life and then print it in national (and now with online journalism international) media.

A problem I have with this journalistic fact-finding technique is that most people do not tell the truth on their facebook, bebo and myspace accounts. “Professional legend” is not really an occupation, people who are “122” years old generally don’t use the internet and it is probably illegal for people under the age of 16 to be married – yet all of these things are written by people about themselves. Hopefully journalists will return to a more organic form of finding out the facts, one with less chance of being entirely wrong.

Journalists against journalism degrees

Paula Lyne’s blog reporting on an Irish Times blog on whether journalism degrees are a waste of time struck a nerve, not only because as a journalism student I am constantly promised the prospect of no job, no money and a free pass to an industry apparently caving in on itself, but also because I’m sick and tired of justifying the degree course I chose as having merit.

It seems that old age hacks bemoan the very existence of journalism courses, citing the “they didn’t need that in my day” argument as they look at the new breed of third-level educated journos. They say the journalism courses are pointless and futile and laud the classical method of apprenticeship. Others, as Sinead O’Brien writes, say that technological advances will leave the academics stumped – the media industry is moving too fast for a degree course to keep up with. Why it is inconceivable to those critics of journalism degrees that if the industry changes quickly the courses will just change quickly too is beyond me. Also, certain aspects of journalism remain constant despite technology.

I would chalk a lot of this ill will towards journalism courses up to nothing more than a mixture of condescension and perhaps even fear by those in power.

The Great Firewall of China extends to Australia…

Censoring the internet has proved a difficult task for those in power, the entangled nature of the medium making it difficult to cut off access at any particular point. However this has not prevented certain governments from trying, many of whom have taken steps to prevent citizens from accessing or posting any unwanted material onto the internet. Probably the most famous of these is China, whose government has blocked access to many websites, including sites on “democracy”, “Taiwan” and “Tibet”.

The country has also set up a blacklist of domestic journalists who break government reporting rules.

According to CBS News:

Researchers at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society said Tuesday that other sites blocked included those on health, education, news, entertainment, religion and pornography… The top 10 Google results using the key words “Tibet,” “Taiwan China” and “equality” were all blocked, as were eight of the top 10 results using “democracy China” and “dissident China.”

In Saudi Arabia bloggers have been targeted for criticising the government. In early 2008 Fouad al-Farhan was arrested by the Saudi Interior Minister following an investigation into his blog, one of the most read in the country. Mr. al-Fahran is quoted in the New York Times as saying:

“The issue that caused all of this is because I wrote about the political prisoners here in Saudi Arabia, and they think I’m running an online campaign promoting their issue”

However it is not only the east that engages in censorship. The Australian government passed proposals in 2008 to broadly censor the internet, preventing access to what they have described as “pornography and inappropriate material”.

This law may prevent certain bloggers and journalists writing anything that the government deems “inappropriate”.

As Duncan reily of Tech Crunch writes:

Worst still, bloggers or those (such as forum owners) who allow users to comment or post could find themselves blocked under this proposal should someone say or post the wrong thing. If there is one certainty in any country that implements broadscale censorship, once they start blocking content it doesn’t stop…

The internet may be said to still be in its infancy – it seems likely that in the future those in power will increasingly try to censor the medium. The ramifications of this will be felt most strongly by journalists and bloggers, two groups who the onus is on to fight back against censorship and bring the truth to the public despite all else.

The news now contains graphic images…

Modern news no longer operates in one medium – it operates in several. News websites deal in print, photography and moving pictures, blending the different mediums together to form an entirely new means of receiving information. Graphics are used with interactive links, maps are shown to recreate events, slide shows are displayed with music, and film and audio compliment text to fully recreate newsworthy happenings.

This demand for a constant stream of diverse media has resulted in journalists having to become adept with different forms of technology, a requirement which some would argue has had a direct impact on the quality and depth of their reporting. Others say the increase in technology has allowed for a greater level of explanation of events.

Even newspaper websites go far far beyond print now, offering a huge array of mediums, blurring the line between television, print and radio. For examples of new multimedia technology being used in clever and innovative ways to relay the news check out the Guardian’s interactive graphic and time line of the last moments of Ian Tomlinson, the New York Times’ video on  Afghanistan and the Wall Street Journal’s interactive map of Spain.

Is comment free because it’s not worth paying for?

For those who feel compelled to throw in their two cents worth on the issues of the day, but don’t want the rigours of writing a letter to the editor, many online news sites have created a “comment section” underneath articles. Websites such as the Guardian and the Irish Times are bringing the views of the people to the people directly underneath the (supposedly unbiased) views of the journalist. While you may not find the quality of the traditional letter to the editor, you will find a larger quantity of comment, ranging from the sublime to the asinine.

While some see this as a way to provoke healthy debate on important issues, as well as a means to gauge public reaction, others see this as free speech run amok. One needs no degree of knowledge on a topic to post a comment and many websites are unregulated, meaning bad language and adult themes are rife. People are free to post libelous defamation without a shred of evidence, and facts can be recast by the user in a biased light.

Still, if an article provokes outrage and disgust in you it’s nice to be able to scroll down and see that a whole host of other people feel the same, and perhaps even learn why some people don’t.

The resurrection of the pamphleteer

The work of the 18^th century “pamphleteer” is being resurrected on cyberspace, trading its archaic moniker for “citizen journalist” and printed paper for electronic blog. Yes a new form of journalism has arrived and it is carried out by people who are entirely unaccredited, unchecked and unsupervised by anyone. Citizen journalists are the antidote, proponents say, to modern corporate journalists who write the news with a strong vested interest. Citizen journalism allows all people to have their say on any topic they wish and get their views across, offering an alternative angle to traditional media. It also means that topics can be covered by those whom they directly affect, for example an Iraqi citizen journalist can give his experience of war directly to the people via the internet – there is no editor to spike the story or proprietor to object.

However there are serious drawbacks to this form of unaccredited journalism. There is no one to ensure that citizen journalist stories are veracious, no one to check facts. Citizen journalists can slander and demean without consequence. On a more basic level, without training citizen journalism may be technically poorer and fact finding techniques may be sub par.

It is fair to say that the popularity of blogging and citizen journalism may very well change journalism as we know it.

In my opinion however there will always be a need for journalistic institutions that the people can rely on to get factually correct news. Media outlets with the resources to gather this news are a necessity. In this regard citizen journalism and major media outlets should not be in competition, but rather can live in harmony.

For an insight into citizen journalism, see the video below:

US papers shoot themselves in the head, Irish papers shoot themselves in the foot

The Boston Globe, New England’s premiere broadsheet, is reported to be facing financial ruin and is already said to be losing $85 million this year. The broadsheet has laid off 50 full time employees in an effort to cut costs as well as slashed employee benefits. In 1993 the paper was purchased by The New York Times as one of America’s most respected and profitable papers. Today the NY Times acts as the Globe’s financial life support.

One of the main reasons for the fall in profit is the shift in advertising from print to online. As Boston Globe journalist Kevin Cullen said in an interview on RTE Radio:

The reality is the business model is broken. The business model was based largely on advertising, that advertising has shifted to the web. People that used to pay newspapers huge sums of money to advertise are now putting a lot of that advertising on the internet for free. The reality is that was the money that funded journalism. The… contradiction in all of this is that the Boston Globe has never had more readers. We still sell about 3 hundred and 20,000 or 30,00 papers a day in hard copy, but there’s something like 700,000 unique visitors to our website… the problem is we make no money from that.

(Listen to the entire interview with Kevin Cullen here: Problems confronting US newspaper business)

Many in the American print industry believe that this is a sign that no newspaper is safe from the financial difficulties posed by the fall in advertising revenue.

At home however the future looks somewhat brighter for the three major broadsheet newspapers (the Irish Independent, the Irish Times, the Irish Examiner). Although these papers do face difficulties, it is not yet up to the level of that of their US counterparts. DCU media professor Colum Kenny believes that this is due to the Irish public choosing print over online news:

One of the reasons it’s somewhat different [in Ireland] is, perhaps, in the United States people are more ready to rely on the internet as a source of information. I’m not sure we’ve quite reached that stage where there’s the same level of reliance and so we haven’t yet seen the decline in newspaper readership they have…

He goes on to say that by putting all content onto the internet for free Irish newspapers have however “shot themselves in the foot”.

Whether this is an injury that Irish newspapers can recover from, or whether it will prove to be fatal, remains to be seen.

(Listen to the interview with Colum Kenny here: Colum Kenny on Irish newspapers)

“The more ads that get thrown at us, the more we learn to ignore them.”

When the internet revolution finally hit the print media, many believed that the internet was a blessing – that advertising revenue would be as lucrative online as it was in print, if not more so. With no publishing costs for the producer and the inherent interactive benefits to advertisers of advertising online, moving all content on to the net for free looked to be the smart thing to do.

But now it seems, online advertising revenues are starting to fall. Statistics suggest that this is only the start and in 2010 and beyond things will dry up even more.

According to the Business Insider:

For a year, we’ve listened to analysts passionately explain how online ad spending will power through any broader economic and advertising weakness. Eyeballs are moving online, this story went (goes), ad dollars will follow. Online advertising is accountable. Online advertising is the future. Blah, blah, blah.

It’s time we woke up and faced reality. Online display-ad spending will fall in 2009, probably sharply. It will probably fall again in 2010. Hundreds of startups counting on advertising as a business model will be flattened.

The New York Times has already reported a 3.5% loss in online advertising revenue and is generally seen as being indicative of the industry.

It may seem that websites are saturated with clickable advertisements, but in actual fact the number of advertisements per average website now shows signs of decline. As the Washington Post states, one of the problems may be that “The more ads that get thrown at us, the more we learn to ignore them.” – a sentiment that may cause advertisers to lose faith in the power of the internet to push products.

As Yahoo and other internet based companies start to announce layoffs, one wonders how long it will be until the news media is forced to do the same. Journalists specialising in online reporting may soon feel the effects of this virtual advertising fallout.

Operating outside of the mainstream

For those who believe the mainstream news media outlets have bowed to corporate and political pressures and are no longer reliable to open the public’s eyes to the folly of those in power, the Internet has provided a host of different non-mainstream news providers. These largely left wing organisations report the stories that may not otherwise have gotten coverage and do so in a way that takes no prisoners. Unethical political and corporate practices are exposed, links between lobbyists and politicians are revealed and other transgressions of the powers that be are brought to light.

Before the advent of the Internet most of these websites could not have existed due to the prohibitively large cost of publishing. Freed from the financial burden of the printing press a  new type of “smart, fearless journalism”, as the Mother Jones websites says, was able to set up and reach a wide audience.

Websites, such as The Nation, the Huffington Post, Mother Jones and Salon to mention only a few, write almost entirely for a specific target audience and often have a quite radically different news agenda to those in the mainstream news. They are worth viewing even if it is just to see how little the traditional gatekeepers let through into the public arena.

If there is sufficent viewing figures these websites could alarm the mainstream journalism outlets, and maybe, just maybe, get them to change and once again hold those in power responsible for their actions.