Mediamum » journalism

Media innovation – a key to success?

mediamum — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:02:30 +0000

There are stacks of flaws in proposed business models for traditional journalism as it attempts to move into a new sphere. All of them are cloaked with a decent dose of assumptions – that people prefer traditional media, that people will pay for content, that they are the only entities producing good ‘quality’ journalism. So on and so forth. None of the models offer any kind of real innovation. A new approach.

But while I definitely hold this view, it’s interesting to look at how other areas of media are using innovation (or not).

It’s fantastic to see an extension of television shows beyond the traditional scope of merchandising. When stars and plot lines move into other media and other shows, it adds a layer of creativity that makes the show a little more punchy for the audience. These move beyond the unbelievable movements of characters between soap operas, and instead create unexpected and fun ties between shows you might watch and media you are involved with. Some examples:

Cougar Town and Community

A recent Community plotline featured Abed’s fascination with Cougar Town. The story was that he’d been taken out to be an extra on the show (nobody had seemed to notice his absence for a few days, which is not unusual). Well, a few weeks later, an episode of Cougar Town featured a scene with Abed in the background! (I’ve added it here…. but keep reading below for more)

Supernatural meets Twitter

On the episode of Supernatural which saw the Winchesters and Castiel appear in a tv show called Supernatural (confusing, I know, if you don’t follow the show), Castiel likes to tweet – and Misha Collins’ twitter stream that night included the tweets from the show! Talk about effective crossing over. Misha’s tweet stream then returned to normal.

Dr Kutner from House’s death on Facebook

When character Dr Lawrence Kutner from the popular House tv show killed himself, the show’s staff created a Facebook memorial page for him. Included on the page are farewell notes from the main characters in the show, and even a selection of informal photographs of the deceased – all in character.

Each of these actions by tv writers shows an innovation that is sadly lacking in most media – including the blogosphere. I’d love to see creative people behind media production of all types do more risky, inventive things which cross boundaries, and cross media.

When media do more harm than good

mediamum — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:26:41 +0000

The earthquake in Christchurch this week saw mass media pick apart a city like the vultures they have too often become.

The beautiful city and its people had suffered an incredible event, but they needed support to tell their stories – not “professional journalists” coming in to tell them with an extreme horror movie agenda, often using these people and their experience as an excuse to celebrate their own love of their own ‘my novel will be brilliant’ prose (I’m looking at you AAP).

Does the public need these type of headlines?

Headlines such as “Buried Alive” and comparisons to “Apocalypse Now” and “9/11″ are purely aimed at sensationalising something that does not call for it. It’s insulting to think that readers need this kind of verbage to get a sense of the devastation. It’s insulting to those in Christchurch to have their situation taken from them by drop-in visitors seeking to out-do each other with (often inaccurate) statistics of death and destruction. Layer that with journalists going into zones they know are unsafe and you’re impacting emergency services personnel and police having to deal with journalists instead of those who were doing nothing wrong. Oh journalists, you’re not the heroes here – you’re morons.

And then let’s consider for a second the graphic video. The film taken by camerapeople from mass media outlets, and fed live to a public who calls out “enough, already.” The woman who says “go away” and “don’t film me” to the cameraperson as she is carried from the collapsed building should have her wishes respected – but no, not if you’re from a mass media outlet who thinks they are above everyone’s wishes. Many people don’t like being on camera – it’s stressful and scary to most of us, especially when you think that the world could see you. And that doesn’t change just because you’ve been in a tragic emergency situation, with blood on you and dirty clothing. And it certainly doesn’t change for the families of victims pulled lifeless from buildings – people who are without defence from you. These are images nobody needs. (I am not going to link to any of this footage here simply because even though the mass media feel it’s okay to show and re-show and re-show again this footage, I do not.)

It definitely makes a pariah of the media who wait around for family members to be given the worst news, just so they can film the family’s ravaged faces when the pain becomes known. I’m guessing nobody wants to be on camera when told of a death of a family member – the excuse of a ‘news story’ is pathetic.

The old reasons for mass media performing any of this kind of coverage are long past. Today the subjects of the intrusive lens are equipped with their own tools of media. They can and do tell their own stories. They are online, not under a big masthead (that could be fixed, big obnoxious media, by the way), but their stories are there. They have all the emotion, but incredibly, they have more balance than the stories created by mass media. They are personal, and that’s what makes the resonant connection with the audience – not some overstated extreme emotional ploy.

Yes, I was a journalist for a long time. I then worked with journalists for a long time. I have a Masters degree in Journalism. I totally get it. I know it from the inside. “If it bleeds, it leads.” If you’re broadcast, asking people “how do you feel” is primarily the way you get them to display raw emotion for the camera or the microphone, and you get ready to do the close up – because that’s gold.

It makes me sick. Physically ill.

No wonder I jumped ship. No wonder, like a reformed smoker’s views of those who continue to light up, I am passionately opposed to what you do – especially when it could be so much better. You could be serving the people (both the victims and your audience) instead of toying with them. There are very few daily examples of good journalism. I would say more than 95% of existing news reporting is abysmal – inaccurate, narrow and lazy. If time is not on your side, then why not produce a quality weekly newspaper roundup instead? But no, that’s not going to happen.

You are doing a disgraceful job. In your efforts to one-up other networks and get stories done fast, you’ve forgotten what good reporting actually is. You’re not serving anyone. You’re intrusive, disrespectful, often incorrect, overstating of the facts and just plain rude. To say ‘this is a story that needs to be told and we are the ones to bring it to you’, yet come out with tales that are just horrific and unbalanced rather than factual is testament to the fact you are unfeeling pariahs waiting to re-victimise those who are already suffering. Then playing it on high rotation – the same horrid footage over and over again – shows you delight in the pain.

So I invite you, dear reader, to get the real story behind this tragic event instead of hitting the junk food aisle of mass media news reporting. Visit some blogs, vlogs and personal stories of the people of Christchurch, and watch as they demonstrate the courage and determination to come through this. Read as they remember those who did not survive. Understand it in the way they want to tell it. Give them the respect they deserve by hearing the story they want to tell. Give them more respect by leaving them a comment – even just a thank you for sharing. I guarantee some of these will hold your heart.

Here are two to kick you off, but please feel free to add more in the comments below:

Nathanael Boehm at Pure Caffeine talks about how he survived, and what he did immediately after the quake. He’s been interviewed by mass media, but I believe him telling his own story is far more powerful and real.

Ruth Gardner at Real Ruth is updating regularly as she navigates life after the quake. Her sentence about feeling strange having traffic going the ‘wrong way’ up what she knows is a one-way street is something we can all feel the impetus of. Of course, now just seeing traffic go that direction must simply be a reminder of the reality of life following the quake.

The one where I’m saving the print newspaper industry

mediamum — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:44:34 +0000

The web is all about transparency (dirty secrets), so here you go. I’m standing up.

“My name is Jo.” (Now you say, “Hi Jo.”)

“On Sunday I signed up for a subscription to the print version of The Denver Post.”

I’ll wait if you need to read that again, because I realise that coming from me … it’s hard to comprehend.

Background (excuse): I was at my local fine grocery outlet, King Soopers, and as usual on Sundays, there was a guy giving out free papers and asking people if they’d like to subscribe to a masthead on a dead tree. I usually ignore this guy, because the only value in a tangible paper-based newspaper is the coupons, and one of my friends religiously saves her coupons from her newspaper because she doesn’t use them, and gives them to me. Ergo no need for coupons, no need for the newspaper. Usually.

Occasionally I’ll buy the Sunday paper if there are a good number of coupons that week, so I can double up. I figure it’s worth the $1.50 to get over $300 of coupons. (Of which I’d use at least $20 or $30 worth.) I also do electronic coupons, but they are usually different.

Because of social media, I knew there were quite a few great coupons in Sunday’s paper – so on the spot I decided to put up with the guy’s spiel, so I could get a free paper rather than fork out the $1.50.

Local news is really important

He started with a pitch on a full subscription. I dodged that by telling him I never read the paper during the week (which is true – I read it online because I feel an obligation to. It’s kind of like maybe they’ll throw me out of Colorado if I don’t read their local news. Oh and there’s that whole j-school factor where they bring up something in the news in classes and I’m all, ‘well in Australia we’re worried about the internet being filtered – is that what you mean?’ I realise I kinda need to know that Governor Ritter can’t ride a bike without breaking a few ribs but it’s all okay because he’s getting better. That seems to be key here.).

The subscription pusher instantly changed to the pitch for weekends only. I was ready to throw in another excuse as soon as he took breath. “You can get home delivery of the Saturday and Sunday Denver Post, for just $3 a month.”

Three bucks. A month. (My mouth fell open but words did not come out. Which is kind of epic.)

A month-to-month subscription, cancelling at any time.

Here’s the sweetener

Not only that, he was giving away a $5 King Soopers card “if you do it right now.”

So I signed up. I really did. I made a committment to killing more trees in the name of (coupons) old school news formats. And hereby I am a proud linchpin to saving newspapers in print. All you traditional print journalists can add me to your Christmas card list.

My oath

As long as they keep having coupons, and the price stays the same, I’ll keep my subscription. A cynic would say that’s not a long-term commitment. But I have faith (stop snorting).

So that’s how I’m saving the print newspaper industry. You have my $3 a month. Retire well.

Pew Report dispels the Digital Native myth

mediamum — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:18:01 +0000

While many people align technology adoption and use with age, the facts show it’s not all that easy to stereotype the creators of content in the online media.

Today’s Pew Report on Teens and Social Media amplifies a very real issue in the US. Our teens and young adults are engaging in “new” media, but on a very limited level.

The majority of them are not creating new content.

In fact, the number of them who blog themselves (just 14%) or even who comment on blogs, is dropping.

Many of us celebrate the new democracy offered by the Web. However, when so few of our young people are engaging beyond watching viral YouTube videos or speaking within a small realm of personal IRL friends (or believing that’s who they’re talking to) on the small stage of their individual Facebook accounts, we have a problem. Democracy isn’t served unless people use their voices.

Picture Credit: Creative Commons cartoon by @gapingvoid.

Access is one thing. Content creation intended for a public audience is entirely another.

I’m around a lot of students every day. When they’re asked who has a blog, from a room of 150-200 students, only a handful of hands go up. In a Journalism class.

What are they waiting for?

We need courses that teach young people (and everyone else) that they don’t need a university degree to have a voice. And that every voice deserves to be heard. We need to show young people how to use the simplest of tools – the mobile phones and cameras they all hold – as citizen journalists, not just for sexting (they figured that one out all on their own). We need to show them how easy it is to set up a blog, and just as importantly, how to get people to read it.

Our young people need to be encouraged to be brave, honest, and opinionated – in a public forum. We need to respect their right to speak, and engage with them when they are used.

Until then, democracy is not being served.

Unmoderated reader comments are a news fail

mediamum — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:44:27 +0000

Some mainstream media have incorporated the fantastic ability of the web to allow reader comments to stream live.

Apparently, the misguided professional believes this is a wonderful way of operating public journalism, which seems to be so popular right now. Really, we’re demonstrating our real connections with our audience.

Unfortunately, when reader comments are opened on every story, and allowed to run rampant, your brand (yes, journalists, you’re running a business which means you have to market yourselves) is ready to be decimated.

Reader comments can turn a decent 300-word professional piece into a free-for-all featuring the most unbalanced, extremist morons in the universe whose opinions get quoted and requoted across those pages of reader comment and through wider social media, completely dissolving any semblance of decent journalism.

Including reader comments is simply not necessary on many stories, especially as the stories are developing. They should not be included on stories that obviously invite the freaks of society to come out of the woodwork. Those people who use every opportunity to make accusations that are political or racial and have no relationship to the story. You know, the freaks that are on talk-back radio (and who should stay there).

Nor should reader comments be on stories that include painful information relating to families who not only have to live with their tragedies, but also have to suffer the narrow-minded opinions of people who treat them as fair game – in media they are ALL going to read.

Professionals – if you wouldn’t include it in the copy because it’s conjecture, non-factual or simply not a good reflection of your masthead’s position in the market, then don’t give it voice anywhere else – including in the reader comments.

Just to finish (and to act as proof), here are some stellar reader contributions live from today’s online press:

“i hope this guy fries…put a bullet in his head and save us some money and rid us of this moron…shame on him…and hope he goes to hell;” (Denver Post)

From Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, on a story about a ghostly picture taken in a cemetary, “It shows how labor has continually been re-elected for 12 years, because half of Sydney are truly gullible fools who will believe anything.”

And finally, from the UK’s Daily Mail, on a story about a swimming pool banning nudity in its showers: “any child that hasn’t seen a male naked, has been let down by their parents.”

Classy.

Why save the Denver Post?

mediamum — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:26:16 +0000

As I predicted right here on Mediamum.net in March 2009 when the Rocky Mountain News folded, Colorado’s the Denver Post is now also in trouble. Its owners are asking for bankruptcy protection.

They’re still not humble.

I’m hearing professional journalists and academics in journalism blame all sorts of things for this situation:

1. Falling ad revenues (you know, that’s a failure of the business model that the traditional media organizations have held onto like a liferaft with a hole in it). The Washington Times reports advertising revenue has fallen 40% since 2005, according to the Newspaper Association. It’s the advertisers’ fault.

2. Reader ADHD. People just aren’t interested in “real” news any more. They’d rather read about Ashton and Demi than Haiti. It’s the reader’s fault.

3. Too many people don’t respect the value of newsprint. Everyone is too ready to go online for a format of news that suits them. It’s the internet’s fault.

I’ve heard it all. Except for the truth. It’s the newspapers’ fault.

When the Denver Post runs stories that are simply repetitious of ones posted days earlier, like this one on skiing and helmets, it’s not professional.

When the Denver Post lets its reader comments run along with no moderation on the LEAD story yesterday (I’m not kidding) about a Colorado evangelist’s wife who is trying to forgive him over various indescretions, it’s not professional. (That’s right, The Denver Post thinks you should be happy to pay for this crap.)

My point is, that unless newspapers wake up, get humble, and realise they are creating content for an audience that has a discretionary choice across many formats, they will continue to close – and until professional journalists and editors start creating and moderating content worth paying for across these formats, they deserve to close.

The bells have been tolling for a long time. Take your fingers out of your ears.

Islam and the media – without media.

mediamum — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:24:02 +0000

The Islam and the Media conference, held by the Center for Media, Religion and Culture at the University of Colorado at Boulder (January 7-10) was a huge success in bringing together leaders in thought and practise on religion and media. But you wouldn’t know it if you’d been watching mainstream media.
At a time in our history that international front pages and lead stories are obsessively dealing with some aspect of Islam, it’s interesting that of all the mainstream media reporters on religion who were invited to attend the conference or interview any of the delegates decided it was not enough of a priority. Surprising when the topic is hot, and when local media simply had to come to campus on any one of three days (including the weekend) to talk with any of the world leading scholars (including Elizabeth Poole) on Islam and its representation in popular and digital media.
If I were a reporter with a beat, I’d not only be sure to be on top of the content, but the least I’d be doing is reporting on key influencers in my area.
Perhaps if there had been some events at the conference that reinforced the moral panics international media have aligned with Islam, we would have seen a greater presence of professional reporters – but they would have been reporting after the fact, by their own choice.
Should religion reporters have reported on this conference? Attended it to find out how their media is conveying ideas and representations of Islam?

Image courtesy Library of Congress

Unveiling the panic of Islamaphobia? Or does it serve traditional media to maintain and pander to the ignorance of the people who pay for what might or might not be newsworthy?

Were the Christmas miracle mother and baby "saved" from epidural?

mediamum — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000

Ah the miracle of medicine, look how much you’ve done for women and babies. Birthing in the Western World is no longer fraught with danger, thanks to your hand.

Or is it?

Image: renjith krishnan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The oh-so convenient Christmas miracle story splashed internationally across mass media headlines of a Coloradan woman and her baby dying through childbirth and then “inexplicably” being revived held readers spellbound. It was the perfect gift for editors – as a front page, it sold papers.

But media did not report the facts – they just told a good story.

In birth, medicine has moved beyond monitoring women and fixing stuff that goes wrong to getting in there and making birth a “medical procedure.” Whether a woman is likely to birth successfully without intervention or not is not considered when offering everything from epidurals to c-sections to “patients” who are armed with the gift of choice, but not the gift of a full education about the side-effects each of these interventions carry.

Do they know that as soon as you introduce one intervention, the likelihood of more being required is exponentially higher? Epidurals lead, often, to more intervention. Why? Because blind freddy can tell that if you can’t feel your body, if you muck around with its ability to do the work it was naturally trying to do, then it’s going to be more likely to repay you in kind. Epidurals are not headache tablets for birthing. Too many women believe they are. Too many women give their birthing up to medicine with no reasonable or rational cause. They’re missing out on the most powerful experience of their lives – and often recovering from major abdominal surgery. Society is also paying through the nose for these unnecessary surgeries. Over 30% of American women now have c-sections. Before long it will be the “normal” way to birth.

Media did not question the fact that Tracy and Mike Hermanstorfer were being “prepped for childbirth” in a medicalized setting with pitocin delivered and an epidural being inserted, and that apparently coincidentally Tracy’s heart stopped after the epidural. (There is real research into the side-effects of epidurals… this link to the American Pregnancy Association states more than 50% of American women have epidurals – but if you read to the end, the very real possibility of cascades of intervention and medical trauma directly related to the epidural, including severely lowering heart rates of both mother and baby are basically outlined. And that’s if they put it in correctly.)

Henci Goer reported on this story yesterday, for Lamaze International. She outlines the details of potential medical responsibility in the trauma endured by this family. Additionally, in ABC News’s video interview with the doctor and Hermanstorfers, the cascade of intervention is described – but the reporting does absolutely nothing to question further about those interventions.

Traditional media are failing us in reporting on birth. We are so accepting of medicalised birth that media do not question medical responsibility in this family’s trauma. Instead, it celebrates the “Christmas miracle” that sells its papers – and the UK’s Daily Mail even went so far as to credit the doctor for bringing back lifeless Tracy. Again, the business model gets in the way of good journalism. Find the quickest story that sells the paper and pulls a heartstring, not the story that takes research and investigation.

I know many religious people have already adopted this story, calling it God’s hand at work. Others will say “thank goodness she was in a hospital (where our human-made gods are) – what would have happened if she were at home?”

What indeed.

I'll pay for content when there's Twitter with penguins

mediamum — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:57:27 +0000

Usually, I don’t consciously pay for content. I say ‘consciously’ because if I click on a link and there’s a paywall, I won’t do it. I also don’t subscribe to any newspapers or magazines (online or in ‘dead tree’ format). Basically, the quality of the content I’m seeing doesn’t make me want to pay for more of it.

Mr Murdoch does have the right idea. Getting people to pay for content is definitely a way forward. But News Corp. is missing the biggest opportunity they have. It’s a global organization, and while about 1% of their content producers are the best in the world, they are still.. the best. Why doesn’t News identify that globally based 1%, and put it in a paid-for format? At a really, really high price?

If Mr Murdoch thinks that I, or anyone else, will pay for the other 99% of his writers who are complete crap, then he’s mistaken. I’d rather read the far more professional blogs, with the diversity of opinions and transparency News cannot offer.

After freelancing, creating content for a few different publishers it also appears that organizations don’t like to pay their contributors. Waiting six months for a payment on any work done is not a viable business model. I don’t know why some people think it’s all hunky dory. And it’s been this way for many years.

So I don’t pay for content, and I’m wary of accepting any freelance job at all these days. Because I simply don’t like waiting to be paid when my time is better spent on more pressing things.

But my kids? That’s another thing entirely. I currently pay for three social network memberships. And while I’m a member of about 15 social networks, none of these payments are for me. They’re for my kids. My kids totally expect to pay to get access to information, community and technology. They’re growing up with a pay-for-it frame of mind. At the moment it’s a mum-pay-for-it model, and I’m fine with that because the quality of content accessed by my kids on networks like Club Penguin is really worth $5.95 a month. It’s a vibrant community, with great quality stuff. If organizations continue to treat them this way, by the time they’re my age they’ll be paying for content, and believing they should.

But a key part will be getting rid of the 99% of crap for adults and creating something worth subscribing to. We need a Club Penguin for grown ups.

Sidebar: For the “something shiny” HCI people: Twitter with penguins. Now we’re talking.

Disrupting the barriers of media in the 21st Century

mediamum — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:38:21 +0000

This pre-internet installation was and remains a vital consideration in the future of media. It has been supposed for a long time that communication and media technologies allowed people who already knew each other to improve existing relationships. Alternatively, broadcast media were used to send corporate-owned messages to the ‘masses’. There has been very little in the understanding of communities and how they are built and morph through media. To date, due to the expense of entry to creating content for media communication technology, most middle class people have been limited to the telephone – and that form is one-to-one rather than the one-to-many formats offered by social media. This installation’s first day shows how people who did not know each other were able to create conversations and relationships – even for a short time.

People in the video respond a certain way because they realize people in the other location can actually see them. This created an ‘event’. In the 21^st Century, when everything that happens in public locations could readily and easily be posted to the web, are we seeing a change in everyday public behaviors due to the fact that we are aware, more than ever before, that someone might be posting our actions? From music concerts to classrooms, from traffic accidents to natural environments, people are creating ‘events’. The greater questions are how have we as a community become the public entity we are creating, and what impact does this have on how we relate to each other. What has made people immediately reach for their cell phone to take a picture when something happens? This is a stage of history we’ve never faced before.

While we have come through an era where “the medium is the message,” we have moved on from this. The medium is still the technology. The message today is found in the resonance of community. One is not the other. In fact, the irony as stated by Steve Harrison in his essay on this particular video (found in HCI Remixed), is key. Separation does in fact, invite a connection. If we believe that human beings seek resonance with each other, eliminating some of the barriers to finding that resonance through disrupting the accepted norms of relationships and community will in fact deliver us to new ways of ‘seeing’ each other. Through these new ways of discovering resonance we will be able to grow an international array of communities. The international would relate not just to geographical space, but also class space. We have a media which will offer everyone an opportunity to find resonance of community with the homeless, the traditional-media famous, and their neighbor.

Don't think influence, think resonance

mediamum — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:08:36 +0000

The new buzzword in social media appears to be Influence. According to conferences, some marketers it’s what people want. To influence others.

This is a mistake. It demonstrates a very shallow, one-sided view.

(cartoon from xkcd.com)

Talk to most people in social media for example, and they’ll tell you the truth. What they’re doing is looking for, and responding to resonance, not influence.

What all of us seek in social media is Resonance.

The influence part happens afterwards.

In social media, you can’t influence someone unless they want to be influenced.

Guess what… if traditional media had understood the need to find real resonance with its market, it wouldn’t be in the situation it is today.

Resonance. It’s what creates meaning. Just like the rice here.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO0bSSXmr1A&feature=related#watch-main-area]

More than deputies: A definition of journalism for the 21st Century

mediamum — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:44:50 +0000

Let’s confirm who professional journalists are: People (trained or not), paid to produce content under the mastheads of traditional news outlets.

Let’s confirm what they’re supposed to do: This is a tricky one. No matter how many times I have asked, and how many people, across Australia, the USA and the UK, nobody can give me a core definition of journalism. Maybe it’s a secret. A magician’s code. Part of the smoke and mirrors used to convince everyone they’re worth being paid for over anyone without a mogul. Professional journalists promote their work as a noble art, one that demands a rigor most can not attain. With prompting, a professional journalist will usually agree you need training, you need balance, fairness, fact collection and analysis.
In a conversation I had on Twitter with people in Australia following the Twitter’s Impact on Media and Journalism mini-conference (actually a 2-hour seminar of sorts), Brad Howarth, a professional journalist who was attending says journalism will not be “harmed or replaced by Twitter.” Another Australian, Renai Lemay, followed his presentation at the same conference with a post for ZDNet where he likens his role as a professional journalist to a knight, protecting the honour of a “great lady of noble birth” and describes Twitter as a “playground for pleasure of journalists.” Somewhere to reconnect with the audience. While Renai seeks to support Twitter’s role, he demonstrates a very Lipmann-esque view – it’s still them and us, and being able to play amongst the great unwashed is a novel way of “cutting the fat out of journalism.”

Bringing it to the US, last night, on Lou Dobbs’ show on CNN, the Face Off segment featured a rather strange topical area of ‘Social Networks & Journalism: Is traditional media obsolete?’, Professor Robert Thompson of Syracuse University held the same line as Renai. He described citizen journalists as “acting like deputies … it’s just like we used to use eyewitnesses.” In what was supposedly a debate (which Dobbs pointedly remarked at the start he hoped would be won by Professor Thompson), Micah Sifryn, co-founder of the Personal Democracy Forum began well by saying “anyone can commit and act of journalism.” However he followed that up by agreeing with Lou Dobbs that it “takes more than just holding up your mobile phone and filming stuff and then putting it online to be a journalist.”

Oh really?

My issue is that all of this is either a. focused on the media used for journalism rather than what journalism actually is, or b. garbled propaganda nonsense.

Let me be clear. For those who don’t know me, I was a traditional, paid journalist for 15 years. I then moved to Public Relations, and then into teaching journalism, marketing, PR, event management and advertising at college. Happily, I’m back in traditional professional journalism myself, as the Boulder Startup Examiner for Examiner.com. (I make enough for a cup of coffee a week). I’m even currently undertaking graduate research in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at CU in Boulder (on social media communities), and I TA on the Intro to Journalism and Intro to Advertising classes. I’m a co-founder of a startup which will enable people to create more content and make better connections online. I’m pretty well engaged on all fronts.

And my question is thus: If traditional, professional journalists (those I’ve identified above) want to say what they do is different to what is able to be done by anyone else, I believe they have to say what makes it so, in order to be understood. So let me help you professionals out. The book, Elements of Journalism, authored by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentiel, provides 10 elements of journalism. They are:

1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to the citizens.
3. Its essence is discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting, and relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
10. The rights and responsibilities of citizens to be media literate.

But I’m questioning these traditional elements. While the 10th Element only appeared in this text in 2007 as a direct response to the power of Web 1.0, I believe it’s time to entirely redefine the concept of journalism. To strip it back and challenge the notion of what it is – a notion that has root in the medium, not the craft. All of the above elements of journalism reflect a somewhat Lipmann-esque attitude. But at last in the 21st Century, John Dewey really gets a turn. At journalism’s very core is one thing – communication. So I’ve developed a new definition of what journalism is:

Journalism is communication through any means that enables two things – a. the transmission of factual information about all factors that make up society, and b. validation, authentication and discussion of opinions, beliefs and commentary.

In the past, given the limited and expensive range of tools open to people, journalists were defined as a separate group of people. Training in the media they worked in, and how best to ‘do’ journalism to communicate messages were the focus. But those constraints have left us. The best journalism does not rely on the old elements – nor the old media. It doesn’t rely on training, or a paypacket.

Will journalism still exist when the moguls move onto more profitable ventures? Yes. Is it noble and necessary for democracy? Yes. Does it need defending? No (from what?). Is it the realm of the few? No, not any more. It’s not Twitter that is changing it. It’s Web 2.0. All social media. It’s going to be even greater when even more people are creating the content. That’s democracy.

How to create a stir – write about women in startups

mediamum — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:10:24 +0000

I’m writing for the online news site, Examiner.com as the Boulder Startup Examiner.

Why? Am I insane? Don’t I have enough to do?

I felt compelled to do it. Boulder is a wonderful town, with a fantastic tech community of people. It’s a really big community, for a small town. It’s exciting, vibrant and smart. It’s full of incredible people. And they’re all doing their own thing.

We’re all working with a similar environment. We see lots of familiar people every week, and there are lots of tech events focused on the community. But we have different lives, experiences and industries. There are lots of people here I’ve never met – and when many of those people are ones I’ve heard of and I know have heard of me in our ‘small’ community, that’s disappointing. We have a wealth of things to draw on that don’t get any focus, simply because there’s no professional journalism covering it.

So that’s what I’m trying to do with my Examiner role. I’m treating it as I would a professional journalistic venture. It’s not personal (that’s what my blog’s for). It’s actual journalism. The way I used to do it. It’s amazing how you never forget. And I’m really enjoying it.

I’m putting together a plan of writing one article a week on five different topic areas. (Let’s see how my time management works with that!) Today’s topic area was Women in Tech. I’ll be writing on that once a week. And today’s story relates to how women who work in Boulder startups simply don’t seem to have the same networking opportunities the men of Boulder do. A pretty self-evident post, I thought. I got to interview some wonderful women (another bonus of working on Examiner is chatting with local startups I’ve never run across, or have only met briefly!). I said to Tara and Grace I wanted to focus on women in Boulder startups. It wasn’t their idea, it was mine. And they came to the party. We had a lovely chat over coffee last week. I recorded the chat, and I wrote the piece.

It seems to have hit a bit of a nerve with some people in various elements of social media, and I couldn’t be happier. I believe the article is respectful of Boulder, the community and both men and women. If you read beyond the headline (as any journalism school will explain, the headline is just the foothold into the story) you get a balanced view of women in startups here in Boulder.

I invite you to read the article yourself, and leave a comment. I now know I’ll definitely be covering women in startups in Boulder every week. Because it’s a great topic, obviously close to my heart. And nobody else covers it.

A completely new form and hope for democracy

mediamum — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:04:22 +0000

I do wish people would stop analysing the ‘death of print’ and focus on the future of journalism. There are so many traditional media with stories like the nicely titled “Is democracy written in disappearing ink” which attempt to say journalism will die along with the traditional formats. While I like the title, the answer if obviously “only if you guys want it to!”

Suck it up people. Democracy is alive and well, and professional journalists have never had a better opportunity to tell all the stories they need to tell. The web gets rid of all your publishers, advertisers… financial concerns which could be seen to impact on your ‘professionalism’. If your primary focus is to make money, then I’m putting it to you that democracy doesn’t sit well with that.

If the key to democracy is myriad voices gaining exposure, then democracy has never been better served.

Who's talking about whom?

mediamum — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:41:25 +0000

In discussions with people who view the media climate as being a binary between big media and bloggers, many times the exclamation rises, “Well, if MSM didn’t exist what would bloggers talk about? All they do is talk about ‘real media’ stories.”

But how the tables have turned.

The last couple of weeks across the US and Australia has seen a great rise in MSM’s coverage of ‘normal’ citizens production of content on new media channels. Blogs, yes. But beyond that, social media is rising to take over. There seems to be stories in MSM covering content produced on Twitter, Ustream, 12seconds every single day.

The Sydney Morning Herald’s front page online today features a home invasion with details simply drawn from Twitter and UStream. Yes, when you open it you end up in the tech section – but it is firstly listed on the front page.

The New York Times had a great piece recently on how traditional media ‘personalities’ were taking up Twitter.

But all MSM reports have been very much along the lines of “we don’t know how this inane stuff involves so many people, but hey, it does.” MSM reporters are challenged by social media. They know it’s a space they need to be in, and report about, but they’re not really confident with doing either of those things.

Real life celebrities such as Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, Stephen Fry and (ex-model) Kathy Ireland are getting into Web 2.0 and actually talking directly to real, ordinary people. MSM is suddenly no longer needed to give a broadcast audience celebrity gossip. Why bother when I can watch Demi’s recent photo shoot for Helena Rubenstein courtesy of her husband’s Qik stream? It’s authentic. It’s credible. It’s straight from them!

So tell me again. Who’s talking about whom?

Getting beyond "Do you want fries with that?"

mediamum — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:11:12 +0000

So now the can of worms is opened. As expected, newspapers are closing. Many print journalists are inexplicably in shock. Their next paid employment may well include the words, “do you want fries with that?”

And that, truly, is devastating.

But we still have new people entering schools, wanting to be journalists. Play with me here:

Let’s say we have a new intake this year. They’ll be trusting us for the next four years to prepare them for employment. Beyond fast food. And so the question for educators is specific. What are the best journalism schools teaching now? What should they be teaching?

Be specific! I’m not interested in opinions that simply state “they need to be prepared for the web.”

Here’s a few of my views. We need to:

a. Teach the very real and vital aspects of the role of journalism, its values and role.

b. Equip students with these values as paramount, above and beyond the role of the media they work in. We need them to see the media they work within never compromises or changes their values as journalists.

c. Move away from teaching print media with a concentration on newspapers as the standard, and instead move towards the web as the standard media format.

d. Continue to teach content creation for broadcast and radio, and print magazines. And equip every student for a start in any of those formats.

e. In their first semester, teach students about the real possibilities of independent blogging, microblogging, podcasting and vlogging and insist they do all of them.

f. Instill in them all an awareness and practice of newsgathering and research in a new media environment.

What do you disagree with? What is missing?

An exciting time for journalism

mediamum — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:10:18 +0000

The print edition of the Rocky Mountain News has hit the newsstands for the last time. It’s no secret that I have little time for those who are crying over the death of print. In fact, I believe that journalism has never had better opportunities than right now.The money in media has not just ‘disappeared’. It’s still there. The only difference is that now the playing field is opened up and the best will get their hands on the dollars – instead of it being limited to the few who could afford the cushioning luxury of an established masthead.

If established mastheads had moved effectively online, then their brands would survive. I firmly believe that in any business if the market likes your product then you survive. And media are no different. Do a good job, meet market need, and you survive.

The Rocky tried to go online, but all they did was degrade the quality and credibility of their brand in the process. They did a Web 1.0 operation and faked a bit of Web 2.0 by including unmoderated reader comments on everything from murders to the weather. The Rocky added absolutely nothing to the print edition by going online. All they did was further deplete the paid for market.

And that’s not a bad thing. Print newspapers are about the most environmentally unsound yet ‘accepted’ standard thing here in Colorado. I find it completely ridiculous that there are environmental reporters who are crying over the death of the newspaper. But I digress… (as usual)

The Rocky Mountain News online masthead is still up for sale, along with its archives. And it’s the only thing that would be worth buying anyway. So if I had the money, this is what I’d do:

1. Spend money on a relaunch of the Rocky online. Brand it as the community news source it built its reputation on.

2a. Run a couple of workshops for the public on how to be a part of the new Rocky, including how to contribute stories (in either text, video, audio or all of them).

2b. Invite the community to contribute news stories to be edited and considered for publication.

3. Vet the contributions as they come in, and invite contributors to make adjustments as needed.

4. Invite the most vocal, opinionated people to write regular paid columns.

5. Trawl the web to add value to the articles posted (and aim to do it with every story) – by linking to relevant educational sites, background info, interactive elements, etc. This includes other newspapers/sources. It means journalism really gets to be transparent, credible, authentic. You know, all that stuff it should always have been.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it until I’m purple in the face – the future of journalism is social. And involving the community to contribute to their own news source means democracy and the essential recommendations of the Hutchins Commission in the 1940s will be enabled far better than it ever was before.

That’s why this is an exciting time for journalism. The only sobbing I’m doing is over the traditional journalists that don’t see it.

The future of print journalism is social

mediamum — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:25:11 +0000

Traditional print media’s attempts to embrace an online presence has been lacklustre, and in fact has helped kill their brands.

Most print MSM have incorporated blogs as part of their delivery mechanism. They have made their existing, print-trained reporters produce content for a medium they are not familiar with. It’s like having a trained print journalist produce television. There are differences. Traditional journalists who are already overworked due to company lay-offs have had varying degrees of ethics and purpose when producing content for their blogs. Most appear to not really know why they’re doing it other than ‘to show we’re in that space’. And because of the time involved, the overall quality of everything they do can suffer.

When blogs are put up by traditional media, the masthead appears as the banner to the blog. Anything produced under that masthead reflects on the brand. For a media brand, if it’s not journalism or well produced, that’s damaging. MSM has treated the internet as though it’s a massive printing press and anything and everything can run. At last, there’s no restrictions of cost of paper, distribution, etc. Stories which perhaps shouldn’t be written or run are given a second chance online.

Recognising the Web 2.0 social aspects, print media has incorporated Reader Comments sections in their online brands which allow all manner of diatribe, ill-informed opinion and complete drivel run for pages and pages – often longer than the stories themselves. Most of this ‘reader comment’ would never have seen the light of day if it were offered to print entities, but due to lack of staff, it runs away with itself unless flagged by another reader. I would suggest if it’s not fit for print under your masthead then it’s not fit for online publication under your masthead either – and as news organisations of many years’ standing, you have a responsibility to control these comments before your readers – particularly on hard news. By making the reader comments section open slather, it’s as if a peanut butter brand opened the lid and said “got anything you want to add? Sure thing, just chuck it in there.”

Online should be giving print media the opportunity to give readers a more in-depth experience with the type of quality reporting often limited by cost of paper and distribution. It should be expanding their brands. All stories should be including internal links to sources, further information, etc that are well researched and allow the reader a complete experience.

Print media believes writing for the web means writing all the information in a shorter way and presenting it well. Often simply repurposing content. For example, J-schools train up and coming reporters in how the eye looks at a screen, and gets them to rewrite a print story for the web. That’s kinda like getting a print reporter to rewrite their story for tv. It’s garbage. Great print media, in adopting an online presence should be all about giving extra information through the links they provide. It’s about being truly transparent. And in a Web 2.0 environment, it’s about being social.

Being a social media entity does enable everyone to be part of your efforts. Web 2.0 is community. But when you add that masthead to the top of your online efforts, then you have a responsibility to the survival of your professional brand as a business as well.

If you want to use Web 2.0, you need to do so responsibly to help your medium survive. Recognise that you have a community of readers who regularly want to respond. Why not approach those people to see if they’d like to have their own blogs rather than sullying up every story you run? Only add reader comments if you can moderate them, and only to particular stories. Invite people to provide additional links rather than simply their opinion! Identify exactly what it is that is driving you to make your print journalists write blogs too, when you have a whole community of people out there? There are plenty of ways to be effective in Web 2.0. It’s social. It’s about people you don’t employ. And they’re a community who could add value and credibility to your brand when you control the infrastructure within which they contribute.

If your masthead isn’t that important to you, then you deserve what’s happening to you.

A visit to the A pool

mediamum — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:32:45 +0000

Following my previous post about unhappily swimming in the B Pool, I’m pleased to have been able to scramble my way through to a bit of a splash in the A pool. You know, that place where the cool kids are?

My final paper for Media Ethics, Twittering a Funeral: Social media’s challenge to professional journalism received a final A grade. I think my professor was just as relieved and pleased about it as I am.

I’ll be working on the paper further to prepare it for possible conference/journal submission, under the intuitive guidance of Professor Mike McDevitt. Without his assistance in structuring my paper all the stuff in my head would still be struggling for a voice.

Anyway, I’ll happily send it along to anyone who’d like the long, academic version. Just email me or DM me on Twitter. But for those of you with lives not academically focused, here are the key points:

Statement of Purpose
This paper examines the impact on the professionalism of journalism as it integrates the social networking tool Twitter in traditional news reporting. The paper considers the use of Twitter by the Rocky Mountain News in which a child’s funeral was “live blogged,” as well as the ensuing outcry and response from the editor, John Temple. It identifies the particular characteristics of Twitter as a communication tool, and proposes an ethical model which supports the use of Twitter in professional journalism.

The paper then outlines the case study of the Rocky Mountain News’ reporting of a child’s funeral using Twitter, and identifies why this use was not only unethical but a case of unprofessional journalism. This is journalism which doesn’t address the recommendations of the Hutchins Commission, and puts the autonomy of American journalists, as well as their credibility, in the firing line. There is a desperate need for reporters to be trained in the functionality of Twitter and fully understand it as well as the community (not audience) which supports it.

I recommend a model which outlines three ways Twitter should not be used, as well as three ways in which it supports professional journalism.
NO:

1. When the use of Twitter (either through implementing the tool or the result) is perceived as a possible invasion of privacy.

2. When another journalistic tool would better serve the reporting need or the ability of the journalist.

3. When a journalist or media entity is unfamiliar with social media in its complete form, not just as a broadcast medium.

YES:

1. As a resource for newsgathering purposes, in preparing information for stories, getting leads, etc.

2. As a public journalism tool – where the journalist can attend an event and act as the mediator between the community and the event. Eg: a red carpet event, where the community can ask the journalist questions and she can filter them and respond accordingly (of course, this takes a different sort of journalistic training.)

3. For Amber Alerts (abducted children), especially when the child is suspected to have been abducted overseas; and for issues of imminent need or notice such as natural disasters, etc. The input would come from reliable sources, and media would then be able to aid in important efforts to communicate with the respectability of their professional branding adding weight to the message going out through the Twitter stream.

I hope the A pool welcomes me back a few more times. It’s really nice.

Why you shouldn't read print

mediamum — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:47:34 +0000

Since moving to Boulder I’ve actually started picking up the local free newspaper each day, but I’m over it. Why? I read it online and believe it’s the cheapest, easiest way of helping the environment – even easier than all that other recycling we do.

In Australia to get a paper you need to visit a newsagent, or the train station – basically have a human interaction. But here in the US, there are a plethora of newsboxes (I dunno what they’re actually called) all around the place – everywhere – carrying an assortment of daily newspapers, catalogues, classifieds. Almost anything! Many of them are free, and those that aren’t are cheap to buy. The Daily Camera is only 50c (the Sunday edition is $1). You put the money in the slot and it lets you pull the handle open to grab your paper. While in Sydney we have about 4 generally available mass media newspapers, here there are at least twice that.

This seems great – it’s so convenient, there’s never a line for the paper, and it’s so cheap it’s easy to pick it up to read on the bus or whatever. And on a Sunday morning, you don’t have to make conversation.

That’s the big difference. The quality of news in these papers is shocking. The Colorado Daily is really crap. The writing is complete drivel. The topics are ridiculous. There is no real news. The best part is the comics. And even then, whomever is editing it sometimes runs the same comic two days or more straight. The Boulder Weekly, another free paper, is a bit better, but really – it’s a good thing they’re free. Nobody in their right mind would pay for this crap. The writing is grammatically incorrect, badly edited – it looks like a 4th grade paper. It’s simply not professional in any sense of the word, let alone ‘journalism’. Sort of like a cut down, free version of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.

But that gets me on to ‘good quality’ print – you know, the stuff you expect to pay for. The real journalism.

The Daily Camera and The Rocky Mountain News, which are like Sydney’s Daily Telegraph in the ‘real’ sense, have been running subscription campaigns. Get it cheaper and you’ll save! Big frigging deal. I can read both of them online… for free!

And there’s nothing left of it when I’m done. No papers laying around to put in the recycling.

That’s the biggest deal of all – the environmental cost. The New York Times, one of the most respected newspapers in the world, is also available online. Consider this: 314 acres of trees are cut down for every single edition of the Sunday New York Times.

314 acres. Gone. Because people like something tangible to hold with their coffee on Sundays; and then they chuck it out come Monday morning.

For a world of people who are becoming more aware of global warming and all the associated issues of environmental catastrophes, surely we owe ourselves and our kids those 314 acres.

Join me. Demand great journalism from your traditional mastheads, but demand it online. Leave the paper on the trees where it belongs.

MSM journalism and Twitter

mediamum — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:57:28 +0000

Moving online has caused Mainstream Media (MSM) quite a few headaches. I explored this a little during my Pubcamp presentation earlier this year.

Unlike many, I believe there is still life in MSM yet - they just have to learn to adapt to the new environment and, staying true to their code of ethics, make the most of new media in a way which better serves the audience.

Too many MSM consider they are making use of new media by simply having an online space. Quality of MSM journalism has taken a nose-dive as the stress of creating content (repurposed or not) on a continuing cycle for the online entities has reduced the time available for researching and fact checking. The seemingly limitless amounts of space online, and the audience demand for updated news combines with the advertisers’ demand for minute-by-minute hit ratios.

Any ethical news organisation would reasonably buckle under that pressure. And many have.

It’s time for MSM to look beyond coming up with new ’stories that aren’t' and flimsy angles on old agendas in order to maintain their readership. It’s time to revisit your mission, reconsider who you serve, and then integrate new media to that end.

The whole reader comment thing is really iffy for MSM. I believe in brands. Whether online or in print, MSM is professional and has a branding that reflects their years of commitment. A stamp of professionalism if you like. When you run a slurry of reader comments online under news stories you invite commentary that is neither professional nor reflects your branding. We are seeing stories that are 300 words long but which have 2000 words of reader comments, most of which is simply diatribe – or worse, just plain offensive bigotry.

Who does that serve?

Additionally, you have your reporters running their own blogs which are nothing more than a bit of fluff that nobody, not even your MSM journo’s themselves, take seriously. Honestly, you’re getting it wrong. If it’s not fit to print then why do you believe it’s fit for the web?

No wonder your sales continue to slide.

The Rocky Mountain News (RMN) and a few other organisations are to be congratulated for looking further into new media. The RMN is trying to use Twitter. But so far MSM hasn’t got its head around the possibilities of social networking tools, and it’s falling a bit short.

So if you’re listening, here’s what you need to do.

Train your journalists in social media and focus on the social aspect. Twitter can be used as a broadcast tool, sure, but that’s not its limitation. In fact, why not tell your audience that you’ll be at a certain event, and ask them to get online and use the journalist as their eyes and ears at that event? Yes, Twitter goes two ways!

I can see a really great potential here for MSM to make a mark using social media, and for the professionalism and integrity of journalism to get a real kick back on track. MSM can offer its very wide audience the opportunity to be part of the democratic, authentic, balanced journalism the public seeks. Sure you can use Twitter as an advertisement link to other news stories, but that’s simply advertising. Why not integrate the tool in your reporting and at the same time bond with your audience?

Now that’s something I’d love to see. That’s something that will get people believing in you again.

MSM forgets what sets it apart

mediamum — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:39:34 +0000

The Rocky Mountain News has taken a lot of my attention this week. Primarily because it is one of the first MSM outlets which I’ve come across attempting to incorporate a greater range of Web 2.0 usage as part of its general reporting effort.

Virtually all MSM now features online sites with reader polls and reader comments. Those have their own incredible issues which are related, but I won’t delve into here.

However, the RMN decided to incorporate a Twitter-feed as part of its news service, on the front page of its online issue wednesday this week. And the story they covered? The funeral of a 3-year old boy who was killed by accident while at an ice-cream store.

The result of running this piece was that the RMN was brought to task by The Poynter Institute, its own readers and other media over two things.

Firstly, the appropriateness of using the ‘tool’ of Twitter at a funeral. A child’s funeral. Well, you know what? They didn’t really use Twitter. They might as well have video taped it (oh, actually they did that too) because while Twitter is a social networking tool, the RMN (like all other MSM) only use it for broadcast purposes – there was no conversation going on. The RMN, like all other MSM, simply doesn’t ‘get’ Twitter. If you’d like a metaphor, it’s the same as if the telephone was invented and the RMN called you and said stuff, then hung up. No interaction. The RMN still sees the potential of Web 2.0 as tired old Web 1.0. MSM uses Web 2.0 with an ‘it doesn’t really count, it’s just a bit of fluff’ attitude. And that’s why the brains of MSM, with all its years of journalistic experience, is failing in the 21st century.

But the more important issue is the content.

The editor of the RMN responded to the outrage caused by his decision to run the Twitter feed. His excuse was basically “Well, we’re struggling with this new technology stuff, and we had permission.”

FAIL

‘Struggle’ away. However, I have listened to many MSM journalists describe the difference between them and bloggers. This usually comes down to ‘We are professionals’. Tack onto that other qualifiers like “We’ve been doing this for xx years” and “All bloggers do is write about us anyway, so if we disappeared then what would be left?”

Well apologies if this seems harsh, but guess what the bloggers are writing about? What a crap job you ‘professional’ journalists are doing. How unbalanced, biased, ignorant you have become.

And if you are ‘professional’, then how about reading through your Code of Ethics a few times? Hell, why not stick it up on the wall to remind yourselves what you’re trying to do? What it is that sets you apart from bloggers?

I sincerely believe that the Code of Ethics is the one thing – the touchstone – that journalists have to rely on.

In Australia we have a Code of Ethics which compels the professional journalist to “resist the compulsion to intrude.” (Let’s leave aside the fact that the Code isn’t found on the first page of the MEAA’s website… if fact, it involves lots of clicking to get to it.) Even though the RMN had permission to report the funeral, it wasn’t the right thing to do using the words, images and portrayal you did. It was incredibly biased and the resulting feeling in the audience was one where you grew a moral panic about the ‘illegal immigrant’ who caused the accident. (Demonstrated by the reader comments.)

The USA’s code as stated by the Society of Professional Journalists, is even more clear. It states, flat out “Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiousity.” The RMN didn’t do that. In the words of one reader’s response; ‘Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should’.

If you are to be professional journalists, behind every struggle, whether it is over the use of technology or the content you create on that technology, you should stand true to your professional Code of Ethics.

If not, a blog awaits.