Journalism as a Public Forum
Public criticism and compromise. These are a few words that help define Journalism in a public forum setting. However, sometimes, the line between truth and opinion are thin. For example, blogs. Blogs are a great way for a journalist to express their views and opinions, but a blog may help or hinder a journalists credibility. Some citizens could take the blog in the wrong light, and automatically some people will believe that whatever is said in the blog is truth, because they trust that a journalist will tell the truth, and both sides of a story. Business journalist, Dana Blakenhorn once wrote, "All blogging does is hide the complexity of the underlying Web format from the page creator. The software can let you eliminate gatekeepers -- Web designers, editors, publishers -- but if you like you can still have them". (see: "Is Blogging Journalism?"). Because blogs eliminate gatekeepers, journalists can be more open of what they say online on their blogs.
Citizens watching over citizens, that is what Wikipedia prides itself off of. An online encyclopedia that is edited by citizens. A question is brought up, "Should Wikipedia be traditional sources of reference for news stories in journalism?". In the American Journalism Review, it says that, "It's unclear if many newsrooms have formal policies banning Wikipedia attribution in their stories, but many have informal ones". Some newspapers are very adamant about not having their workers use Wikipedia as a source to augment to stories, or to double check information. "The primary knock against Wikipedia is that its authors and editors are also its users — an unpaid, partially anonymous army, some of whom insert jokes, exaggeration and even outright lies in their material". (see: "Wikipedia in the Newsroom"). That is why as a reporter, one must be very careful to what they use to help back up information in their stories.
All and all, journalists should be able to be open to their audiences, but also be wise enough not to override their neutrality with things like blogs or sometimes unreliable sites such as wikipedia.
Stephen Tanner
Citizens watching over citizens, that is what Wikipedia prides itself off of. An online encyclopedia that is edited by citizens. A question is brought up, "Should Wikipedia be traditional sources of reference for news stories in journalism?". In the American Journalism Review, it says that, "It's unclear if many newsrooms have formal policies banning Wikipedia attribution in their stories, but many have informal ones". Some newspapers are very adamant about not having their workers use Wikipedia as a source to augment to stories, or to double check information. "The primary knock against Wikipedia is that its authors and editors are also its users — an unpaid, partially anonymous army, some of whom insert jokes, exaggeration and even outright lies in their material". (see: "Wikipedia in the Newsroom"). That is why as a reporter, one must be very careful to what they use to help back up information in their stories.
All and all, journalists should be able to be open to their audiences, but also be wise enough not to override their neutrality with things like blogs or sometimes unreliable sites such as wikipedia.
Stephen Tanner
Comments
Post a Comment