Sunday, January 31, 2016

Response to Readings for Week 4



Social Media and Journalism: 

After reading Dr. Lee’s paper on Social Media and Speed-driven Journalism, I found that her research seems to support my opinion that social media is not saving journalism in the way that it is hyped up to be.  As written in the paper, “the question that news organizations should center on is value creation, not mindless technology or social media adoption (232).” Especially on TV news, you see so much use of flashy graphics and dramatic music. It seems like network news, in some cases, is more concerned with using the latest technology than getting all the details right in their breaking stories. 

I have the same problem with the use of Twitter in some network news. While I suppose I see where the idea might have come from, I don’t think including random viewers’ opinions on the stories of the week (and the newscasters themselves) counts as newsworthy. It seems this functions almost more as a time filler than actual news. While it may engage the handful of users they whose tweets they choose to read, for the most part I think it is just wishful thinking on their part in terms of engaging the audience. Particularly because the newscasters don’t appear to take the segment seriously. They almost look as if they think it is a waste of time or a time filler as well. 

As for the respondents to the survey who used Twitter as a tool to do their job, I think this is the direction that journalism should be going in terms of how it uses social media. Some of the respondents talked about how they used social media as a resource to do research for their stories, like in the example of the murder cases involving local teenagers. In this case, Twitter helped lead journalists to students who knew the victim and alleged murderers and uncover sources and information which could then be verified with the police. This kind of use of social media, as a resource for resource and as a way of monitoring public opinion and developing stories for use in developing one’s own report, I think are valuable. Reading off inflammatory, ungrammatical tweets about the latest hot buttons issues, or worse, the newscaster’s personality, are, on the other hand, not. 

Thoughts on Canadian Reporting of Breaking News

Unfortunately, while there are certainly some journalists that are using social media in this way - in a way that is contributory and valuable - for the most part what we see is the other kind. The flashy, token kind of adaptation of social media.  I think that’s why the differences in Canadian reporting were so shocking to the writers of the article on Kractivism. Certainly there are plenty of journalists in the United States who are on par with Peter Mansbridge, but the fact is that we have become so used to the flashy, dramatic, self-promotion, say-it-now-and-check-the-facts-later approach used in one too many national mainstream media networks like FOX, CNN and NBC that his approach is shocking to us and that is just sad.  For example, I recently watched an interview on FOX with the men who were actually present in Benghazi in 2012 and on whose experience’s the movie 13 hours is based. Throughout the interview, I couldn’t help notice how often the interviewer kept drawing the attention back to herself and FOX news and promoting the network instead of keeping the focus on the story that they were reporting. Even simply as a viewer, this really bothered me.  Especially on a topic such as this, this seems like a time for Mansbridge’s quiet and somber tone. That would have seemed proper. This reporter instead seemed over-eager and almost shamelessly self-promotional.

No comments:

Post a Comment