Emerging values in digital journalism

The speed of digital media compels news outlets to publish faster than ever, often skipping verification of material. It doesn't need to be the new mainstream reality as the concept of "scooping" a rival organization is outdated. In terms of speed-driven journalism, getting the scoop and publishing first may mean beating the competition by seconds. Being first simply isn't relevant anymore due to the speed digital media transmits. It's a holdover to the days of analog news (traditional print and broadcast). Old habits die hard, which possibly explains why news professionals have a hard time integrating Twitter and other social media.
Reporters climb corporate ladders like in any other industry. The managerial staff and editors of prominent outlets typically come from within the industry's ranks. They've worked in the industry a long time, establishing habits from when news was a one-way communication from publisher to consumer. Teaching journalists how to use social media is like the stereotype of trying to teach the elderly how to use computers, difficult but not impossible.
There is something to be said for reporter's preferences for public affairs stories. If they only reported what consumers wanted, I imagine there'd be a lot more stories about the Kardashians than the new laws enacted by legislatures. Like medicines, public affairs coverage may not always taste good but is often necessary.
Why do journalists predominantly Tweet with other journalists? I don't think that question is hard to answer. Like all SMS, communities form around people with similar interests. Why not create a study looking into why consumers don't interact with the news outlets? It's a two-way street. Dismissal audience desires can't be entirely journalism's fault.

The bulk of this weeks reading concerns ethical practices within digital journalism. The U.S. Constitution is a living document designed to allow changes as times dictate, but not without thorough examination. Journalism ethical codes should be looked at the same way. The Society of Professional Journalists recently published revised ethics codes. The revision process began in 2013, fairly late considering how much has changed in the past 20 years.
New SPJ Code of Ethics
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode-revision.asp

As stated above, speed-driven journalism still needs to verify sources. Getting the scoop is an obsolete practice. As the "This is not an interview with Bansky" illustrates, verification remains extremely relevant. It's a misconception that speed and accuracy are mutually exclusive. It's possible to verify digital sources quickly and cheaply.

TED Talk - Markham Nolan: How to separate fact and fiction onlinehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNV4yIyXXX0

International Journalists' Network - 11 Tools for verification and fact checking in 2016
https://ijnet.org/en/blog/11-tools-verification-and-fact-checking-2016

The ease of manipulating digital media creates many credibility issues. Brian Walski, the LA Times photographer mentioned in the NY Times article "Ease of alteration creates woes for picture editors" ruined his career by altering his Iraq photo. Good. He deserved to be fired for deceiving the public. After the scandal, Walski moved to Colorado and started a commercial/wedding photography business.
The problem with this kind of deception is first impressions. Even if a correction is made, people remember their first impression more than the subsequent correction, if they even know of the correction. Walski and Paul Horner dangerously influence public opinion with mis-information. The motive is irrelevant in this case. The outcome takes precedence. Remember the controversy over "native-advertising" in digital news? If consumers become upset of dirty advertising practices, why not become outraged by actions taken by Walski and Horner? Remember the two-way street of audience interaction?
John Oliver Clip - Native Advertising
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc

The project outlined in "You can now search through more than 400 media ethics codes" is interesting. I'm glad they point out it's a work-in-progress. As more content appears on the site, I think it will grow in value. In the past, understanding foreign journalism standards didn't matter much for the general American consumer. But we now live in a global digitized world. The need for global ethics standards continuously grows because U.S. consumers access news from around the world. Of course, it's difficult enough for us to agree to ethics within our own country. Quick searching "United States" under codes of ethics on the Accountable Journalism
website returns 30 matches. Only three directly relate to the U.S. One is a pdf of "The Bill of Rights," the second lists the Media Council's code of ethics (which ends with respecting Zambian society specifically for some reason) and the 1962 Standards of Practice from the American Association of Advertising Agencies. Why so little information on ethics at home?

I completely agree with Mark Joyella's piece on Canada's CBC broadcast. Our news broadcasters should do more reporting like this, but don't. Why is that? Is it consumer demand that turned news into entertainment or is infotainment the norm because of assumptions made by producers? Is it advertising pressure or political zealots like Roger Ailes? Is everyone to blame, or does that matter? The real question is how do we identify and then fix the problem. I realize funding is a major problem for news producers, but it's not the only problem. What else can be done?

In closing, watch this clip from the film Good Night and Good Luck. Actor David Strathairn performs a 1958 speech by Edward R. Murrow for the film's opening. Believe me, the entire film is worth viewing if time permits.
Good Night and Good Luck - Lights in a box speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cfwsfGqgPM