Use And Misuse Of Journalism In George Orwell's '1984'
Introduction
George Orwell’s ‘1984’ provides a minute account of the sophisticated relation between the media and society. One of Orwell’s astute observations regarding the two is that they simultaneously influence each other, up to point of symbiosis. The use and misuse of journalism is one of the central motifs in Orwell’s novel and, even though it was written in 1949, its actuality is overwhelming. Following his line of reasoning, this paper is based on the hypothesis that the modern media news, as the most influential contemporary type of text, should be given special consideration, as it affects views and perspectives worldwide.
At the heart of understanding the media and its influence on society, one must set out to investigate the …show more content…
nature of paradigms employed in news selection. This paper will provide a discursive examination of the governing practices in the process of selecting and making news in the UK, while focusing on Wikileaks as the case study.
The backlash to public manipulation through the media has resulted in a strong call for stories to be presented in an impersonal, objective manner. Central to this paper also is the notion of objectivity and, more precisely, its means of application as far as our subject is concerned. To date there has been little agreement on how to define this term. In spite of their efforts, theorists cannot seem to find a common ground and, as such, the semantics of ‘objectivity’ is still causing polemics. For example, Rothenberg (1999) argues that the role of journalism is to inform citizens of the facts. Croteau (2006), on the other hand, warns us that theoretical analyses show that the media is not neutral. In order to illustrate this, Wikileaks was taken as the case study due to a variety of characteristics that help to better illuminate its importance. The effects Wikileaks has had over the media have become increasingly obvious. One of the frequent questions concerns the very existence of this media outlet. The reason behind it is that if the media is transparent, as the contemporary journalistic discourse goes, then why does Wikileaks exist?
The paper will also provide an analytic discourse around other critical concepts such as time, one of the most influential parameters in news making, and media corporations as commercial entities.
The literature review section introduces a selection of concepts, definitions and hypothesis relevant to the topic chose. It also explains and justifies the chosen research methods. A presentation and analysis of their consequences follows.
Literature Review
One of the enduring questions media analysts have been asking for years is ‘how do news become news? What is the process that an event must undergo in order to become news?
As the starting point for writing any story, sources establish themselves as the first key element in news making. Therefore, their quality as participants and disseminators influence the quality of the report itself. Along with the development of the public relations sector, sourcing has become a central issue for media theorists. In observing this growth Lippmann (1965, cited in Tumber 1999) states that the ever-expanding power of the press agents are legitimatized by the increasing exercise of discretion exerted in the production of news. In other words, that which is not to be publicly known must be concealed in a secure way. This indicates a new potential role that the press agent, as the new authoritative, reliable news source, may undertake at any time. He is the middle man between the reporter and the original source itself, cutting access to the raw material. Consequently, all material that has its provenience in someone other than the original source can be considered altered, even to the slightest degree.
Lippmann (1965, cited in Tumber 1999, p. 7) describes the publicity man as the “censor and propagandist, responsible only to his employers, and to the whole truth responsible only as it accords with the employer’s conception of his own interests.” He argues that it is merely in exceptional circumstances that the reporter delivers a first-hand report; most often, his contribution consists of shaping the given raw material to fit the newspaper’s style and appeal to its readership.
In a world of abundant information ‘objectivity’ is often cited as the most valuable criteria in selecting and reporting quality news. In this regard, the media has always claimed an epistemological status, arguing that any material that is published should be objective, unbiased and factual. In spite of its relevancy, never-ending polemics over this term have made it a rather ambiguous territory. This lack of consent allows ‘objectivity’ to be used in numerous ways, some of which are unfavourable or could lead to censorship at times. Park (1940, cited in Tumber 1999) questions media objectivity and supports the idea that it is, ultimately, culturally defined. He argues that the intrinsic importance of an event is rarely considered. What matters, and what must be met, is a set of commonplace features that make an event newsworthy. If an event lacks currency, hence interest to the audience, it is not worth publishing. This is understandable when viewing the media as a commercial entity. In order to better understand how ‘objectivity’ is employed, one must acknowledge that the media, largely based on economic functions and striving towards financial goals, is, consequently, a product that needs to provide a return of cost that was utilised to produce it. In order to do so, newspapers need to provide their readership with material that will satisfy both their needs and expectations. This process represents the commercial function of media outlets, an important addition to that of providing facts and entertainment. Abu-Jamal (2000, p. 49) states that “in a state that exists to service the mercenary instincts of capital, there can be no true democracy.”
What was ultimately a simple process a decade ago has now turned into an acerb competition for survival and longevity in the market. Nowadays, audiences have, arguably, too many choices of newspapers, magazines, television or radio stations, and their versions online. Massive audiences no longer exist, even in the case of big media outlets. Therefore, the smaller division of audiences must be kept by providing tailor made products that keep their interest. Boorstin (1973, cited in Tumber 1999, p. 18) argues that one often employed strategy of attracting audiences is by resourcing to ‘pseudo-events’. The concept of ‘free speech’, as we have assimilated it in democratic societies, provides an opportunity for creating so called ‘pseudo-events’, which are, as described by the author, communication commodities. They are created as ‘dramatic’, ‘sociable’, ‘conversable’ events with the ultimate scope of dissemination. The author provides a very interesting and compelling insight into one of the media’s greatest selling assets:
“Pseudo-events do, of course, increase our illusion of grasp on the world, what some have called the American illusion of omnipotence. Perhaps, we come to think, the world’s problems can really be settled by ‘statements’, by ‘summit’ meetings, by a competition of ‘prestige’, by overshadowing images, and by political quiz shows.” (Boorstin 1973, cited in Tumber 1999, p. 20) Any action undertaken by a media company must be profitable. A venture that lacks financial rewards is not worth taking (Herman and Chomsky, 1994). Hence, everything must be profitable and all publishing companies, regardless of the ethos they may adhere to, must obey the capitalist norm for survival.
Another aspect of the media worth inspecting is that of the large quantities it produces due to technological advancements. Technology has not affected the intrinsic values employed in news publishing but it has made a larger amount of news, selected through the same criteria, available. Consequently, this has made it hard, at times, impossible to keep vigilance over the nature and ways in which events become news. Moreover, it is claimed (Kung, Picard and Towse, 2008) that due to its high level of interactivity, the internet empowers the reader, thus becoming a highly utilised tool for obtaining information.
Assange (2010, AlJazeeraEnglish) argues that the most relevant question concerning the media regards(IS?) “what sort of information is important in the world? [...] Information on which organizations are spending economic effort into concealing. That’s a really good signal that when the information goes out there’s some hope of it doing some good, because the organizations who know it best, who know it inside out are spending work to conceal it.”
One documented feature of news making, and perhaps the most relevant to our study, is time. In newsrooms, time is a fundamental and complex aspect that is broken down to precise seconds. It is the factor that most influences whether an item of news will be selected for publishing. Moreover, it establishes the currency of an event and whether that can be translated into capital or not. Its complexity and effects branch out onto the minutest details of news making. The quantity of news produced daily in the world requires a large amount of time, time that is afterwards no longer available for a vigilant observation of the product itself. Moreover, the internet’s emergence into the biggest information storage the world has seen so far, translates into the shift from paper to the virtual. As a medium, the world wide web provides endless opportunities for global knowledge. Doyle (2002, p.3) describes the globalization of information on the internet as the emergence of a ‘borderless economy’.
One interesting, yet contradictory fact is that the core of everything it publishes rests on anonymous sources. It could be argued that, in spite of providing stories from unknown sources, Wikileaks always publishes the raw, original material. This ensures the public that no alterations have been made and that what they receive are indeed the facts.
In spite of its role as an ideal in news making, the notion of objectivity suffers from a major drawback. While audiences may complain about the quality of the overall journalism, figures support the idea that most people prefer tabloids. Masters (2002, p.3) states that “people say they hate sensationalism and trial by media, but journalists insert reason, balance and fairness at peril.”
From Orwell to Lippman and to modern day theorists of the media, the debate over news making seems like a never-ending elaborate compromise. This essay seeks to address some of the issues in debate over the next pages by focusing on Wikileaks and the organisation’s impact.
Research Method
In the first stage, secondary research was employed. This involved a closer look at summaries, other researches, and synthesis of information, which was necessary in order to get an overview of the topic. The following approach consisted of a primary research, during which an online survey was conducted on a small sample of media students and graduates. Interviews with Leo Whitlock, Kentish Gazette editor and Philip Knightley, journalist and author, were also a part of this research. The survey consisted of a short set of five questions considered relevant to this study. These related to the benefits of Wikileaks, ownership and transparency of the press. Qualitative research was also employed by looking at different editions of various newspapers and their coverage of Wikileaks. Wikileaks’ approach to the media was also observed.
The secondary research revealed the gross of the content, also emphasising on the importance and need to debate the subject. The publishing of over 250,000 classified cables, as a case study event, is relevant to highlighting the issues discussed in the literature review.
On the 29th of November 2010 The Guardian published classified cables pertaining to US embassies across the world. The information leaked originated from 250 embassies, leading Washington to face a world diplomatic crisis. Wikileaks provided the cables to three newspapers in advance on the understanding that they would be published simultaneously on the Monday edition of the same date. These were: The Guardian in London, Der Spiegel in Germany and The New York Times in the US.
The leaked content revealed high security diplomatic secrets and showed various diplomatic personalities engaging in unethical political conduct. Amongst the revelations they showed Geoffrey Adams, Britain’s ambassador in Iran, advising the US on how to negotiate with Iran to their advantage, European Union ambassadors agreeing to boycott elections in Iran, security services in Israel encouraging Washington to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb and attack them, offensives by US government officials. Cables also revealed US diplomats spying on UN leaders, with a classified directive signed by Hillary Clinton in which diplomats were asked to collect personal information such as passwords or even DNA from UN leaders (Democracy Now!, 2010)
These were just some of the most important cables revealed, mentioned in order to better illustrate the importance and complexity of the event.
The Wikileaks case, although recent and still ambiguous in certain areas, is a good example of the fact that the media shapes its audience in terms of the various ways it presents the world. The organisation provided information that would not have otherwise been made available, hence, it changed the public’s socio-political values.
As Chomsky (1994) states, the concept of ‘objectivity’ in the news that many editors proclaim to be concerned about, is based on the fact that news dispensers, the actual sources, are most often officials. Quoting an authoritative personality, with legitimacy and expertise in the area, not only preserves the image of ‘objectivity’ of a newspaper but protects the publication from libel suits and provides credibility as far as readership is concerned.
In the case of the Wikileaks cables, Chomsky (Chomsky Info, 2010) stated that “one of the major reasons for government secrecy is to protect the government from its own population.”
Herman and Chomsky (1994) state that time has an intrinsic importance in the process of news selecting. Whereas governmental bodies, for example, may have the time and resources to invest in keeping their most important information in official secrecy, newspapers cannot afford ongoing investments in investigative missions. These are most often the exception made when a story is attributed a high currency and an investigative process is thought to give more insight and weight to the story.
Findings and analysis
The survey was conducted on a small sample of media graduates. When asked whether the media needs Wikileaks an overwhelming majority of 84.2 % answered ‘yes’. A minority of 5.3 % stated that they were not interested, while 10.5 % were not sure. The figures indicate that, while readers get their main information from newspapers (print or online), they still regard “journalistic discourse with suspicion, as often inaccurate, commercialised, sensationalist and biased” (Ventola 2000, p. 379). The numbers, therefore, suggest an inherent audience need for informative, accurate facts.
When asked why other media outlets do not publish articles similar to those of Wikileaks, provided they have access to the information, 11.1 % believed that the media is biased. A majority of 72.2 % answered that the media cannot publish content that goes against its ownership, while 11.1 % believed that Wikileaks is not a reliable source. This time figures indicated a unanimous consent over the fact that no media would take objectivity as far as its ownership goes.
The UK media transparency was appreciated by 36.8 % of the sample surveyed, with a 57.9 % strongly disagreeing over the transparency in the British media.
When asked about what the most relevant criteria in news selection in the UK newspapers is, the majority (78.9 %) agreed that ‘satisfying the audience’ is the key criteria. ‘Quality based on information’ came second with a 21.1 %.
Paradoxically, in spite of the fact that the majority of the sample agreed that a media outlet would not report a story that counters its ownership, the factor was not acknowledged as a criterion in news selection. Neither were the notions of time and available publishing space in a newspaper.
Over half of the surveyed sample (57.9 %) agreed that the information published in newspapers across the UK is of interest and beneficial to them. Results emphasise on the previous question where the satisfaction of audience was the most important criterion in what is published. The majority of the same sample appears to be satisfied in its quality of audience as it agreed that the information is of interest to them.
Even though the Wikileaks US cables leak provided The Guardian with a running story worthy of making history, the National Readership Survey shows that the newspaper is close to last in terms of audience preference.
The survey, conducted from January to December 2010, reveals that The Sun is the number one newspaper in the UK, followed by The Daily Mail and The Daily Mirror. The Guardian stands is the near to last read newspaper, and The Independent has the least readers.
Whitlock (Whitlock, 2011), Kentish Gazette editor states that “resource issues” represent an important constraint on what a newspaper can publish.
“I might have all the freedom in the world to publish whatever material I wished but without the people to put that material together, it is a wasted freedom. In terms of the newspaper, I am also constrained by the amount of space we have. No point having the freedom to express ideas if there is no room to publish it.” (Whitlock, leo@whitlock.com, 2011)
The Wikileaks case illustrates, once again, an example of available information that cannot be published for lack of commercial interest. Amidst the storm of strong reactions caused by the disclosure of the US cables other stories could not find their way into the British, or for that matter, any other nation’s front news pages. One case is that of the atrocities caused by the US military interventions in Fellujah, a village in Iraq, where US forces had been using banned weapons – white phosphorus, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium – committing great atrocities against civilians living there. Doctors revealed levels of cancer and leukaemia greater than the ones found in Hiroshima.
In the UK a single newspaper reported the story. Patrick Condon, of The Independent reported and encouraged the publishing of the story with little success despite his efforts. Newspapers were keen on publishing more on Wikileaks. The economy approach to media news selection justifies this behaviour through the fact that media companies, as any financial organisation, seek to increase the supply of valuable products their trade with others. Thus, a story with a high currency, such as that of the US cables, is likely to generate running stories that demand significant and relevant coverage in a newspaper.
Qualitative research shows that the story ran for 24 days with most of the print media intensely engaged in the subject. Wikileaks was the main headline for almost a month, with other stories seemingly floating around this central event.
Philip Knightley (2011), author and journalist, argues that one of the main filters in news selection is simply based on an editorial choice of what a good story is and is then, naturally, pursued.
“There are lots of filters applied by lots of people all of who ask themselves one important question: Is this a good story? If the answer is yes, then it is past the first hurdle. There may then be other hurdles to jump but this is the main one and decides whether the item makes the news or not. Don 't ask me what makes a good story. Journalists have been trying to define that for years and argue about it constantly. But they all know a good story when they see one.”
As far as Wikileaks coverage is concerned, the media has done, in a sense, what it has always done: it maximized profit by keeping its audience and staying in competition. This case illustrates that dissident material, in spite of its value or relevancy, is often marginalized in order to pursue either financial or power goals.
Even though relevant material, such as that of the atrocities in Fallujah, was available and known, its reporting was marginalized and only a few publishers brushed the issue. By the time the US cables story was no longer running other important events met their expiry date and were put out of the media debate.
Whitlock (Whitlock 2011) states that this is the case with smaller, regional newspapers as well.
“Freedom to express ideas is useless to me if my audience will not be interested in them. I am constrained by what my newspaper readers want to read as measured by my circulation figures (ABC), by what my online readers want to click on, by what our radio listeners want to listen to and by what is acceptable to our social media audience. The reaction of my audience is a massive factor in deciding on issues of taste, decency and other ethical dilemmas.
This week we published an inappropriate picture of the scene of a suicide which prompted a legitimate outcry from our readers. It was they who policed our content. I have already issued instructions to my team to censor such pictures in the future. Like it or not, publishing is a commercial activity which means pleasing our customers which in my case is my audience.”
Conclusion
The research in this paper suggests the existence of a dichotomy in terms of news coverage as well as audience opinion.
As the figures in the survey indicate, the majority holds strong opinions about newspapers in the UK which are somewhat contradictory. For example, the majority believed that the media is transparent and objective. Simultaneously, the same majority asserted that a newspaper would not publish a story that is not serviceable or counters its ownership. The later is a principle that counters the notion of objectivity. Yet, in the survey the two set of opinions were held with conviction in the same time. These findings are compatible with the ideas of Master (2000) in that the public’s behaviour is often contradictory. Another contradictory result is that while holding the belief that the media is objective, the majority also agreed on the fact that newspapers seek to publish material that satisfies its readership. This idea does not against the notion of objectivity, of publishing under the impersonal, but it enforces the fact that media outlets are commercial entities looking to gain and maximize profit. The results emphasise the arguments employed by Herman and Chomsky (1994) about media as commercial entities.
The survey results indicate that the rhetoric of news and the way they are presented can lead the audience to hold dichotomized opinions.
The interviews suggest that the idea of media outlets as commercial entities is applicable at any level – national or regional. The power structure governing publishing principles appears to work the same, regardless of the size of the company.
Whitlock (Whitlock 2011) emphasised on the commercial role of publishing, pointing out that the freedom to publish is not truly a freedom unless it meets audience expectations, hence, commercial goals. Thus, freedom in terms of choice of reports is measured by means of commercial profit return that the story is likely to bring. Failure to do so can lead to loss of audience and withdrawal of advertisers from investing in the newspaper, which can ultimately only lead to bankruptcy.
The print media’s loyalty to its audience, or to its revenue, is clearly illustrated in the numerous attempts to customise the reading experience for the reader. This is clear especially in the case of online newspapers where editors, together with their web designers, compete for the most interactive pages that give their readers the ultimate experiences.
Murdoch (Fora TV) states that “the point is that there is no magic bullet. No one size fits all solutions. To stay ahead of the competition a media company needs to diversify geographically so it can reach more people. It needs to diversify through platforms.” (Fora TV, 2008)
Yet, this brings us to a paradoxical point once more. In spite of not having customized their website or not trying to cater to a particular segment of the market, in spite of having one of the least interactive publishing websites, Wikileaks has managed to stay long ahead the competition and become a readership favourite over the time of a few year(S).
It could be argued that the nature of the content published by Wikileaks, data based journalism, is different from that of regular newspapers, as it has a slightly different political agenda as well. There is no general agreement about the topic, yet this phenomenon indicates a thirst for quality content on the side of the audience. Wikileaks does not try to attract audience, advertisers of gain a government’s consent. If anything, it has done the opposite. In spite of this readers value its content and its journalistic contribution to media worldwide. The research’s results indicate a concern with regard to the mainstream media, which is consistent with Abu-Jamal’s (2004) argument regarding media in the capitalist state, and that of Herman (1922, p.104) who clearly states that “every aspect of the culture is in the process of commodification and the linkage to the sale for goods.”
Perhaps the most revealing outcome comes from looking at the interviews and survey as well. The two complement each other; while the interviewees state that publishing is a commercial activity, the vast majority of the audience agrees on this fact. Rust and Eechambadi (1989) state that media success is measured in figures, not in quality. The number of viewers of a certain show, or the reader of a certain newspaper is indicative of the success and revenue. Quality is marginalised.
Bibliography
Abu-Jamal, Mumia (2000) All Things Censored, New York: Seven Stories Press
Chomsky, Noam , Herman, Edward S. (1988) Manufacturing Consent, London: Vintage
Croteau, David, Hoynes William (2006) The business of media: corporate media and the public interest, UK:Pine Forge Press
Doyle, Gillian (2002) Media ownership: the economics and politics of convergence and concentration in the UK and European media, California:Sage
Herman, Edward S. (1992) Beyond Hypocrisy, Boston: South End Press
Küng, Lucy, Picard, Robert G., Towse, Ruth (2008)The internet and the Mass Media, London: Sage Publications ltd.
Lewis, Justin, Inthorn, Sanna, Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin (2005) Citizens or Consumers? What the media tells us about political participation, England: Open University Press
Masters, Chris (2002) Not For Publication, Sydney: ABC Books.
Rothenberg, Elliot C. (1999) The Taming of The Press: Cohen v. Cowles Media Company, USA:Greenwood Publishing Group
Taylor, Mark C. Saarinen, Esa (1994) Imagologies: Media philosophy, London: Routledge
Tumber, Howard (1999) News: A Reader, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ventola, Eija (2000) Discourse and community, doing functional linguistics, Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag
Journals in Online Periodicals
Rust ,Roland T. and Eechambadi ,Naras V. (1989)` Scheduling Network Television Programs: A Heuristic Audience Flow Approach to Maximizing Audience Share` JSTOR, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 11-18 [Online].
Available at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4188717 (Accessed: 18th April 2011)
WEB sites
Chomsky, Noam (2010) Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership". Available at: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20101130.htm
(Accessed : 10th May 2011)
Fora TV (2008) Rupert Murdoch - How technology has changed the world. Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQSKRWXyFw8. (Accessed 28 Apr 2011)
Information Clearing House (2011) Mainstream journalism is the voice of rampant power. Available at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11134.htm (Accessed: 7th May 2011)
National Readership Survey (2011) Readership and circulation trends. Available at: http://www.nrs.co.uk/choosetrends.html
(Accessed: 28th April 2011)
The Brussels Tribunal (2011) MEDIA ALERT: THE TRAGIC BLINDNESS OF THE EMBEDDED BBC. Available at: http://www.brussellstribunal.org/WMD.htm#medialens
(Accessed: 5th May 2011)
YouTube (2011) U S Faces Diplomatic Crisis Following Massive WikiLeaks Release of Secret Diplomatic Cables.
Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RiT4cdCJYs
(Accessed: 5th May 2011)
Wikileaks (2011). What is Wikileaks?. Available: http://wikileaks.ch/About.html. (Accessed: 7th May 2010)
Electronic Sources: emails
Leo Whitlock. lwhitlock@thekmgroup.co.uk. Interview. Mon, 28th February, 2011.
Leo Whitlock. lwhitlock@thekmgroup.co.uk. Interview. Mon, 9th May, 2011.
Philip Knightley. phillipgk@aol.com. Interview. Mon, 24 February, 2011
DVD
Weapons of mass deception (2004) [DVD] USA: Globalvision
Appendices
From:
Leo Whitlock lwhitlock@thekmgroup.co.uk
To:
Irina Sangeorzan <ditzu_2688@yahoo.com>
Irina
Quote is fine.
Our first criteria is: Is it local or concern someone who is local? Then we assess stories on their news value and how old they are. In terms of our content, most of the content on the news pages is written by my reporters. We buy some stories in from court reporting agencies. People write their own opinion pieces, we pay for some nostalgia content, the village correspondents write the village news and our sports desk is heavily reliant on reports of sports fixtures that are sent into them.
Cheers
Leo Leo Whitlock
Editor
of the Gazette and Faversham News
DDI : 01227 475901
Email : lwhitlock@thekmgroup.co.uk
From:
Leo Whitlock <lwhitlock@thekmgroup.co.uk>
To: Irina Sangeorzan ditzu_2688@yahoo.com
Cc:david.bradshaw@canterbury.ac.uk
Irina,
I meant to say that social media poses dilemmas for professional journalists in terms of censorship. My boss, the editorial director, had to send out an email warning journalists about some of their tweets because they had started to reflect on the company and their publication. The following is an edited excerpt: “I don’t want to discourage any of our journalists from using Twitter, but I am getting increasingly unhappy at some of the things certain reporters are posting. “Tweets along the lines of ‘I’m fed up with writing about cancer’ won’t exactly encourage people to come to us with their stories and doesn’t send out a very professional image. “Those are two of today’s examples, but there were far worse ones last week including tweets littered with four letter words. “Putting a disclaimer in their profile saying messages are their views rather than those of the KM is nowhere near good enough – our staff are obviously representing the company whether they like it or not if their tweets are publicly accessible.” “I know the vast majority of our reporters are using Twitter exactly as it should be used – there are some excellent examples of people using it as a news-gathering tool and giving a bit of insight into the newsroom at the same time, and we should be encouraging more of this.”
There has to be a degree of self censorship otherwise there is a danger that you bite the hand that feeds you. A wise journalist always self censors but where do you draw the line?
Where do you draw the line in the conflict between your professional reputation and brand, the KM Group’s reputation and brand and the personal sphere?
Leo
From: phillipgk@aol.com <phillipgk@aol.com>
To: ditzu_2688@yahoo.com
Dear Irina,
Here you go.
l. Censoring my own material. No. Why would I? It 's so hard to get it in the first place why would I voluntarily leave any of it out? But journalism differs from other writing in that a journalist usually writes to length--he or she is allocated so much space and has to stick to it or face someone else cutting it. I can 't emphasize how important this is. An academic writes until he finishes what he has to say. A journalist writes until he reaches 600 words or 2,000 or whatever. So I do have to decide what is important and what is less important and leave out the less important. I wouldn 't call this censoring my material. Others might.
2. I have always felt absolutely free to write an express any idea I liked. That was one of the reasons I worked for the Sunday Times in its glory days. I never felt that I ever wrote anything I did not absolutely believe in. Other journalists on other papers are not so fortunate.
3. Filtering. There are lots of filters applied by lots of people all of who ask themselves one important question: Is this a good story? If the answer is yes, then it is past the first hurdle. There may then be other hurdles to jump but this is the main one and decides whether the item makes the news or not. Don 't ask me what makes a good story? Journalists have been trying to define that for years and argue about it constantly. But they all know a good story when they see one.
4. Censored. Not that I can recall.
5. Self-censorship on a daily basis. I don 't believe so. But a reporter wants to keep his/her job. So a reporter is not about to write a story saying his proprietor is a tax dodger even if he has information that he is. Stands to reason.
Bestest,
Phillip Knightley
29th November 2010 – Wikileaks
Wikileaks (through The Guardian) releases the first batch of cables sent from US Embassy’s since 1966. This is a selection of front pages from the newspapers at the date.
The Guardian - 29th November 2010
The Times - 29th November 2010
The Independent - 29th November 2010
i - 29th November 2010
Daily Telegraph - 29th November 2010
Daily Express (Scottish) - 29th November 2010
Survey 1. Do you think the media needs Wikileaks? 1. Yes
2. No
3. I 'm not sure
4. I 'm not interested
5. What is Wikileaks?
2. Why do other media outlets do not include news that Wikileaks publish? 1. They are biased.
2. They can 't publish news that go against their ownership.
3. They didn 't have the information.
4. Wikileaks is not a reliable source
5. Other
3. Is the media in the UK transparent? 1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Don 't agree
4. Strongly disagree
5. Other
4. What do you think is the most important criteria in news selection employed by UK newspapers? 1. Quality based on information
2. Satisfying audience interest
3. Time and amount of space available in the paper
4. Ownership
5. Do you think that the information you get from newspapers is of interest and/or beneficial to you? 1. Agree
2.Strongly agree
3. Disagree
4. Strongly disagree
Powered by SurveyMonkey
George Orwell’s ‘1984’ provides a minute account of the sophisticated relation between the media and society. One of Orwell’s astute observations regarding the two is that they simultaneously influence each other, up to point of symbiosis. The use and misuse of journalism is one of the central motifs in Orwell’s novel and, even though it was written in 1949, its actuality is overwhelming. Following his line of reasoning, this paper is based on the hypothesis that the modern media news, as the most influential contemporary type of text, should be given special consideration, as it affects views and perspectives worldwide.
At the heart of understanding the media and its influence on society, one must set out to investigate the …show more content…
nature of paradigms employed in news selection. This paper will provide a discursive examination of the governing practices in the process of selecting and making news in the UK, while focusing on Wikileaks as the case study.
The backlash to public manipulation through the media has resulted in a strong call for stories to be presented in an impersonal, objective manner. Central to this paper also is the notion of objectivity and, more precisely, its means of application as far as our subject is concerned. To date there has been little agreement on how to define this term. In spite of their efforts, theorists cannot seem to find a common ground and, as such, the semantics of ‘objectivity’ is still causing polemics. For example, Rothenberg (1999) argues that the role of journalism is to inform citizens of the facts. Croteau (2006), on the other hand, warns us that theoretical analyses show that the media is not neutral. In order to illustrate this, Wikileaks was taken as the case study due to a variety of characteristics that help to better illuminate its importance. The effects Wikileaks has had over the media have become increasingly obvious. One of the frequent questions concerns the very existence of this media outlet. The reason behind it is that if the media is transparent, as the contemporary journalistic discourse goes, then why does Wikileaks exist?
The paper will also provide an analytic discourse around other critical concepts such as time, one of the most influential parameters in news making, and media corporations as commercial entities.
The literature review section introduces a selection of concepts, definitions and hypothesis relevant to the topic chose. It also explains and justifies the chosen research methods. A presentation and analysis of their consequences follows.
Literature Review
One of the enduring questions media analysts have been asking for years is ‘how do news become news? What is the process that an event must undergo in order to become news?
As the starting point for writing any story, sources establish themselves as the first key element in news making. Therefore, their quality as participants and disseminators influence the quality of the report itself. Along with the development of the public relations sector, sourcing has become a central issue for media theorists. In observing this growth Lippmann (1965, cited in Tumber 1999) states that the ever-expanding power of the press agents are legitimatized by the increasing exercise of discretion exerted in the production of news. In other words, that which is not to be publicly known must be concealed in a secure way. This indicates a new potential role that the press agent, as the new authoritative, reliable news source, may undertake at any time. He is the middle man between the reporter and the original source itself, cutting access to the raw material. Consequently, all material that has its provenience in someone other than the original source can be considered altered, even to the slightest degree.
Lippmann (1965, cited in Tumber 1999, p. 7) describes the publicity man as the “censor and propagandist, responsible only to his employers, and to the whole truth responsible only as it accords with the employer’s conception of his own interests.” He argues that it is merely in exceptional circumstances that the reporter delivers a first-hand report; most often, his contribution consists of shaping the given raw material to fit the newspaper’s style and appeal to its readership.
In a world of abundant information ‘objectivity’ is often cited as the most valuable criteria in selecting and reporting quality news. In this regard, the media has always claimed an epistemological status, arguing that any material that is published should be objective, unbiased and factual. In spite of its relevancy, never-ending polemics over this term have made it a rather ambiguous territory. This lack of consent allows ‘objectivity’ to be used in numerous ways, some of which are unfavourable or could lead to censorship at times. Park (1940, cited in Tumber 1999) questions media objectivity and supports the idea that it is, ultimately, culturally defined. He argues that the intrinsic importance of an event is rarely considered. What matters, and what must be met, is a set of commonplace features that make an event newsworthy. If an event lacks currency, hence interest to the audience, it is not worth publishing. This is understandable when viewing the media as a commercial entity. In order to better understand how ‘objectivity’ is employed, one must acknowledge that the media, largely based on economic functions and striving towards financial goals, is, consequently, a product that needs to provide a return of cost that was utilised to produce it. In order to do so, newspapers need to provide their readership with material that will satisfy both their needs and expectations. This process represents the commercial function of media outlets, an important addition to that of providing facts and entertainment. Abu-Jamal (2000, p. 49) states that “in a state that exists to service the mercenary instincts of capital, there can be no true democracy.”
What was ultimately a simple process a decade ago has now turned into an acerb competition for survival and longevity in the market. Nowadays, audiences have, arguably, too many choices of newspapers, magazines, television or radio stations, and their versions online. Massive audiences no longer exist, even in the case of big media outlets. Therefore, the smaller division of audiences must be kept by providing tailor made products that keep their interest. Boorstin (1973, cited in Tumber 1999, p. 18) argues that one often employed strategy of attracting audiences is by resourcing to ‘pseudo-events’. The concept of ‘free speech’, as we have assimilated it in democratic societies, provides an opportunity for creating so called ‘pseudo-events’, which are, as described by the author, communication commodities. They are created as ‘dramatic’, ‘sociable’, ‘conversable’ events with the ultimate scope of dissemination. The author provides a very interesting and compelling insight into one of the media’s greatest selling assets:
“Pseudo-events do, of course, increase our illusion of grasp on the world, what some have called the American illusion of omnipotence. Perhaps, we come to think, the world’s problems can really be settled by ‘statements’, by ‘summit’ meetings, by a competition of ‘prestige’, by overshadowing images, and by political quiz shows.” (Boorstin 1973, cited in Tumber 1999, p. 20) Any action undertaken by a media company must be profitable. A venture that lacks financial rewards is not worth taking (Herman and Chomsky, 1994). Hence, everything must be profitable and all publishing companies, regardless of the ethos they may adhere to, must obey the capitalist norm for survival.
Another aspect of the media worth inspecting is that of the large quantities it produces due to technological advancements. Technology has not affected the intrinsic values employed in news publishing but it has made a larger amount of news, selected through the same criteria, available. Consequently, this has made it hard, at times, impossible to keep vigilance over the nature and ways in which events become news. Moreover, it is claimed (Kung, Picard and Towse, 2008) that due to its high level of interactivity, the internet empowers the reader, thus becoming a highly utilised tool for obtaining information.
Assange (2010, AlJazeeraEnglish) argues that the most relevant question concerning the media regards(IS?) “what sort of information is important in the world? [...] Information on which organizations are spending economic effort into concealing. That’s a really good signal that when the information goes out there’s some hope of it doing some good, because the organizations who know it best, who know it inside out are spending work to conceal it.”
One documented feature of news making, and perhaps the most relevant to our study, is time. In newsrooms, time is a fundamental and complex aspect that is broken down to precise seconds. It is the factor that most influences whether an item of news will be selected for publishing. Moreover, it establishes the currency of an event and whether that can be translated into capital or not. Its complexity and effects branch out onto the minutest details of news making. The quantity of news produced daily in the world requires a large amount of time, time that is afterwards no longer available for a vigilant observation of the product itself. Moreover, the internet’s emergence into the biggest information storage the world has seen so far, translates into the shift from paper to the virtual. As a medium, the world wide web provides endless opportunities for global knowledge. Doyle (2002, p.3) describes the globalization of information on the internet as the emergence of a ‘borderless economy’.
One interesting, yet contradictory fact is that the core of everything it publishes rests on anonymous sources. It could be argued that, in spite of providing stories from unknown sources, Wikileaks always publishes the raw, original material. This ensures the public that no alterations have been made and that what they receive are indeed the facts.
In spite of its role as an ideal in news making, the notion of objectivity suffers from a major drawback. While audiences may complain about the quality of the overall journalism, figures support the idea that most people prefer tabloids. Masters (2002, p.3) states that “people say they hate sensationalism and trial by media, but journalists insert reason, balance and fairness at peril.”
From Orwell to Lippman and to modern day theorists of the media, the debate over news making seems like a never-ending elaborate compromise. This essay seeks to address some of the issues in debate over the next pages by focusing on Wikileaks and the organisation’s impact.
Research Method
In the first stage, secondary research was employed. This involved a closer look at summaries, other researches, and synthesis of information, which was necessary in order to get an overview of the topic. The following approach consisted of a primary research, during which an online survey was conducted on a small sample of media students and graduates. Interviews with Leo Whitlock, Kentish Gazette editor and Philip Knightley, journalist and author, were also a part of this research. The survey consisted of a short set of five questions considered relevant to this study. These related to the benefits of Wikileaks, ownership and transparency of the press. Qualitative research was also employed by looking at different editions of various newspapers and their coverage of Wikileaks. Wikileaks’ approach to the media was also observed.
The secondary research revealed the gross of the content, also emphasising on the importance and need to debate the subject. The publishing of over 250,000 classified cables, as a case study event, is relevant to highlighting the issues discussed in the literature review.
On the 29th of November 2010 The Guardian published classified cables pertaining to US embassies across the world. The information leaked originated from 250 embassies, leading Washington to face a world diplomatic crisis. Wikileaks provided the cables to three newspapers in advance on the understanding that they would be published simultaneously on the Monday edition of the same date. These were: The Guardian in London, Der Spiegel in Germany and The New York Times in the US.
The leaked content revealed high security diplomatic secrets and showed various diplomatic personalities engaging in unethical political conduct. Amongst the revelations they showed Geoffrey Adams, Britain’s ambassador in Iran, advising the US on how to negotiate with Iran to their advantage, European Union ambassadors agreeing to boycott elections in Iran, security services in Israel encouraging Washington to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb and attack them, offensives by US government officials. Cables also revealed US diplomats spying on UN leaders, with a classified directive signed by Hillary Clinton in which diplomats were asked to collect personal information such as passwords or even DNA from UN leaders (Democracy Now!, 2010)
These were just some of the most important cables revealed, mentioned in order to better illustrate the importance and complexity of the event.
The Wikileaks case, although recent and still ambiguous in certain areas, is a good example of the fact that the media shapes its audience in terms of the various ways it presents the world. The organisation provided information that would not have otherwise been made available, hence, it changed the public’s socio-political values.
As Chomsky (1994) states, the concept of ‘objectivity’ in the news that many editors proclaim to be concerned about, is based on the fact that news dispensers, the actual sources, are most often officials. Quoting an authoritative personality, with legitimacy and expertise in the area, not only preserves the image of ‘objectivity’ of a newspaper but protects the publication from libel suits and provides credibility as far as readership is concerned.
In the case of the Wikileaks cables, Chomsky (Chomsky Info, 2010) stated that “one of the major reasons for government secrecy is to protect the government from its own population.”
Herman and Chomsky (1994) state that time has an intrinsic importance in the process of news selecting. Whereas governmental bodies, for example, may have the time and resources to invest in keeping their most important information in official secrecy, newspapers cannot afford ongoing investments in investigative missions. These are most often the exception made when a story is attributed a high currency and an investigative process is thought to give more insight and weight to the story.
Findings and analysis
The survey was conducted on a small sample of media graduates. When asked whether the media needs Wikileaks an overwhelming majority of 84.2 % answered ‘yes’. A minority of 5.3 % stated that they were not interested, while 10.5 % were not sure. The figures indicate that, while readers get their main information from newspapers (print or online), they still regard “journalistic discourse with suspicion, as often inaccurate, commercialised, sensationalist and biased” (Ventola 2000, p. 379). The numbers, therefore, suggest an inherent audience need for informative, accurate facts.
When asked why other media outlets do not publish articles similar to those of Wikileaks, provided they have access to the information, 11.1 % believed that the media is biased. A majority of 72.2 % answered that the media cannot publish content that goes against its ownership, while 11.1 % believed that Wikileaks is not a reliable source. This time figures indicated a unanimous consent over the fact that no media would take objectivity as far as its ownership goes.
The UK media transparency was appreciated by 36.8 % of the sample surveyed, with a 57.9 % strongly disagreeing over the transparency in the British media.
When asked about what the most relevant criteria in news selection in the UK newspapers is, the majority (78.9 %) agreed that ‘satisfying the audience’ is the key criteria. ‘Quality based on information’ came second with a 21.1 %.
Paradoxically, in spite of the fact that the majority of the sample agreed that a media outlet would not report a story that counters its ownership, the factor was not acknowledged as a criterion in news selection. Neither were the notions of time and available publishing space in a newspaper.
Over half of the surveyed sample (57.9 %) agreed that the information published in newspapers across the UK is of interest and beneficial to them. Results emphasise on the previous question where the satisfaction of audience was the most important criterion in what is published. The majority of the same sample appears to be satisfied in its quality of audience as it agreed that the information is of interest to them.
Even though the Wikileaks US cables leak provided The Guardian with a running story worthy of making history, the National Readership Survey shows that the newspaper is close to last in terms of audience preference.
The survey, conducted from January to December 2010, reveals that The Sun is the number one newspaper in the UK, followed by The Daily Mail and The Daily Mirror. The Guardian stands is the near to last read newspaper, and The Independent has the least readers.
Whitlock (Whitlock, 2011), Kentish Gazette editor states that “resource issues” represent an important constraint on what a newspaper can publish.
“I might have all the freedom in the world to publish whatever material I wished but without the people to put that material together, it is a wasted freedom. In terms of the newspaper, I am also constrained by the amount of space we have. No point having the freedom to express ideas if there is no room to publish it.” (Whitlock, leo@whitlock.com, 2011)
The Wikileaks case illustrates, once again, an example of available information that cannot be published for lack of commercial interest. Amidst the storm of strong reactions caused by the disclosure of the US cables other stories could not find their way into the British, or for that matter, any other nation’s front news pages. One case is that of the atrocities caused by the US military interventions in Fellujah, a village in Iraq, where US forces had been using banned weapons – white phosphorus, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium – committing great atrocities against civilians living there. Doctors revealed levels of cancer and leukaemia greater than the ones found in Hiroshima.
In the UK a single newspaper reported the story. Patrick Condon, of The Independent reported and encouraged the publishing of the story with little success despite his efforts. Newspapers were keen on publishing more on Wikileaks. The economy approach to media news selection justifies this behaviour through the fact that media companies, as any financial organisation, seek to increase the supply of valuable products their trade with others. Thus, a story with a high currency, such as that of the US cables, is likely to generate running stories that demand significant and relevant coverage in a newspaper.
Qualitative research shows that the story ran for 24 days with most of the print media intensely engaged in the subject. Wikileaks was the main headline for almost a month, with other stories seemingly floating around this central event.
Philip Knightley (2011), author and journalist, argues that one of the main filters in news selection is simply based on an editorial choice of what a good story is and is then, naturally, pursued.
“There are lots of filters applied by lots of people all of who ask themselves one important question: Is this a good story? If the answer is yes, then it is past the first hurdle. There may then be other hurdles to jump but this is the main one and decides whether the item makes the news or not. Don 't ask me what makes a good story. Journalists have been trying to define that for years and argue about it constantly. But they all know a good story when they see one.”
As far as Wikileaks coverage is concerned, the media has done, in a sense, what it has always done: it maximized profit by keeping its audience and staying in competition. This case illustrates that dissident material, in spite of its value or relevancy, is often marginalized in order to pursue either financial or power goals.
Even though relevant material, such as that of the atrocities in Fallujah, was available and known, its reporting was marginalized and only a few publishers brushed the issue. By the time the US cables story was no longer running other important events met their expiry date and were put out of the media debate.
Whitlock (Whitlock 2011) states that this is the case with smaller, regional newspapers as well.
“Freedom to express ideas is useless to me if my audience will not be interested in them. I am constrained by what my newspaper readers want to read as measured by my circulation figures (ABC), by what my online readers want to click on, by what our radio listeners want to listen to and by what is acceptable to our social media audience. The reaction of my audience is a massive factor in deciding on issues of taste, decency and other ethical dilemmas.
This week we published an inappropriate picture of the scene of a suicide which prompted a legitimate outcry from our readers. It was they who policed our content. I have already issued instructions to my team to censor such pictures in the future. Like it or not, publishing is a commercial activity which means pleasing our customers which in my case is my audience.”
Conclusion
The research in this paper suggests the existence of a dichotomy in terms of news coverage as well as audience opinion.
As the figures in the survey indicate, the majority holds strong opinions about newspapers in the UK which are somewhat contradictory. For example, the majority believed that the media is transparent and objective. Simultaneously, the same majority asserted that a newspaper would not publish a story that is not serviceable or counters its ownership. The later is a principle that counters the notion of objectivity. Yet, in the survey the two set of opinions were held with conviction in the same time. These findings are compatible with the ideas of Master (2000) in that the public’s behaviour is often contradictory. Another contradictory result is that while holding the belief that the media is objective, the majority also agreed on the fact that newspapers seek to publish material that satisfies its readership. This idea does not against the notion of objectivity, of publishing under the impersonal, but it enforces the fact that media outlets are commercial entities looking to gain and maximize profit. The results emphasise the arguments employed by Herman and Chomsky (1994) about media as commercial entities.
The survey results indicate that the rhetoric of news and the way they are presented can lead the audience to hold dichotomized opinions.
The interviews suggest that the idea of media outlets as commercial entities is applicable at any level – national or regional. The power structure governing publishing principles appears to work the same, regardless of the size of the company.
Whitlock (Whitlock 2011) emphasised on the commercial role of publishing, pointing out that the freedom to publish is not truly a freedom unless it meets audience expectations, hence, commercial goals. Thus, freedom in terms of choice of reports is measured by means of commercial profit return that the story is likely to bring. Failure to do so can lead to loss of audience and withdrawal of advertisers from investing in the newspaper, which can ultimately only lead to bankruptcy.
The print media’s loyalty to its audience, or to its revenue, is clearly illustrated in the numerous attempts to customise the reading experience for the reader. This is clear especially in the case of online newspapers where editors, together with their web designers, compete for the most interactive pages that give their readers the ultimate experiences.
Murdoch (Fora TV) states that “the point is that there is no magic bullet. No one size fits all solutions. To stay ahead of the competition a media company needs to diversify geographically so it can reach more people. It needs to diversify through platforms.” (Fora TV, 2008)
Yet, this brings us to a paradoxical point once more. In spite of not having customized their website or not trying to cater to a particular segment of the market, in spite of having one of the least interactive publishing websites, Wikileaks has managed to stay long ahead the competition and become a readership favourite over the time of a few year(S).
It could be argued that the nature of the content published by Wikileaks, data based journalism, is different from that of regular newspapers, as it has a slightly different political agenda as well. There is no general agreement about the topic, yet this phenomenon indicates a thirst for quality content on the side of the audience. Wikileaks does not try to attract audience, advertisers of gain a government’s consent. If anything, it has done the opposite. In spite of this readers value its content and its journalistic contribution to media worldwide. The research’s results indicate a concern with regard to the mainstream media, which is consistent with Abu-Jamal’s (2004) argument regarding media in the capitalist state, and that of Herman (1922, p.104) who clearly states that “every aspect of the culture is in the process of commodification and the linkage to the sale for goods.”
Perhaps the most revealing outcome comes from looking at the interviews and survey as well. The two complement each other; while the interviewees state that publishing is a commercial activity, the vast majority of the audience agrees on this fact. Rust and Eechambadi (1989) state that media success is measured in figures, not in quality. The number of viewers of a certain show, or the reader of a certain newspaper is indicative of the success and revenue. Quality is marginalised.
Bibliography
Abu-Jamal, Mumia (2000) All Things Censored, New York: Seven Stories Press
Chomsky, Noam , Herman, Edward S. (1988) Manufacturing Consent, London: Vintage
Croteau, David, Hoynes William (2006) The business of media: corporate media and the public interest, UK:Pine Forge Press
Doyle, Gillian (2002) Media ownership: the economics and politics of convergence and concentration in the UK and European media, California:Sage
Herman, Edward S. (1992) Beyond Hypocrisy, Boston: South End Press
Küng, Lucy, Picard, Robert G., Towse, Ruth (2008)The internet and the Mass Media, London: Sage Publications ltd.
Lewis, Justin, Inthorn, Sanna, Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin (2005) Citizens or Consumers? What the media tells us about political participation, England: Open University Press
Masters, Chris (2002) Not For Publication, Sydney: ABC Books.
Rothenberg, Elliot C. (1999) The Taming of The Press: Cohen v. Cowles Media Company, USA:Greenwood Publishing Group
Taylor, Mark C. Saarinen, Esa (1994) Imagologies: Media philosophy, London: Routledge
Tumber, Howard (1999) News: A Reader, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ventola, Eija (2000) Discourse and community, doing functional linguistics, Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag
Journals in Online Periodicals
Rust ,Roland T. and Eechambadi ,Naras V. (1989)` Scheduling Network Television Programs: A Heuristic Audience Flow Approach to Maximizing Audience Share` JSTOR, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 11-18 [Online].
Available at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4188717 (Accessed: 18th April 2011)
WEB sites
Chomsky, Noam (2010) Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership". Available at: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20101130.htm
(Accessed : 10th May 2011)
Fora TV (2008) Rupert Murdoch - How technology has changed the world. Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQSKRWXyFw8. (Accessed 28 Apr 2011)
Information Clearing House (2011) Mainstream journalism is the voice of rampant power. Available at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11134.htm (Accessed: 7th May 2011)
National Readership Survey (2011) Readership and circulation trends. Available at: http://www.nrs.co.uk/choosetrends.html
(Accessed: 28th April 2011)
The Brussels Tribunal (2011) MEDIA ALERT: THE TRAGIC BLINDNESS OF THE EMBEDDED BBC. Available at: http://www.brussellstribunal.org/WMD.htm#medialens
(Accessed: 5th May 2011)
YouTube (2011) U S Faces Diplomatic Crisis Following Massive WikiLeaks Release of Secret Diplomatic Cables.
Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RiT4cdCJYs
(Accessed: 5th May 2011)
Wikileaks (2011). What is Wikileaks?. Available: http://wikileaks.ch/About.html. (Accessed: 7th May 2010)
Electronic Sources: emails
Leo Whitlock. lwhitlock@thekmgroup.co.uk. Interview. Mon, 28th February, 2011.
Leo Whitlock. lwhitlock@thekmgroup.co.uk. Interview. Mon, 9th May, 2011.
Philip Knightley. phillipgk@aol.com. Interview. Mon, 24 February, 2011
DVD
Weapons of mass deception (2004) [DVD] USA: Globalvision
Appendices
From:
Leo Whitlock lwhitlock@thekmgroup.co.uk
To:
Irina Sangeorzan <ditzu_2688@yahoo.com>
Irina
Quote is fine.
Our first criteria is: Is it local or concern someone who is local? Then we assess stories on their news value and how old they are. In terms of our content, most of the content on the news pages is written by my reporters. We buy some stories in from court reporting agencies. People write their own opinion pieces, we pay for some nostalgia content, the village correspondents write the village news and our sports desk is heavily reliant on reports of sports fixtures that are sent into them.
Cheers
Leo Leo Whitlock
Editor
of the Gazette and Faversham News
DDI : 01227 475901
Email : lwhitlock@thekmgroup.co.uk
From:
Leo Whitlock <lwhitlock@thekmgroup.co.uk>
To: Irina Sangeorzan ditzu_2688@yahoo.com
Cc:david.bradshaw@canterbury.ac.uk
Irina,
I meant to say that social media poses dilemmas for professional journalists in terms of censorship. My boss, the editorial director, had to send out an email warning journalists about some of their tweets because they had started to reflect on the company and their publication. The following is an edited excerpt: “I don’t want to discourage any of our journalists from using Twitter, but I am getting increasingly unhappy at some of the things certain reporters are posting. “Tweets along the lines of ‘I’m fed up with writing about cancer’ won’t exactly encourage people to come to us with their stories and doesn’t send out a very professional image. “Those are two of today’s examples, but there were far worse ones last week including tweets littered with four letter words. “Putting a disclaimer in their profile saying messages are their views rather than those of the KM is nowhere near good enough – our staff are obviously representing the company whether they like it or not if their tweets are publicly accessible.” “I know the vast majority of our reporters are using Twitter exactly as it should be used – there are some excellent examples of people using it as a news-gathering tool and giving a bit of insight into the newsroom at the same time, and we should be encouraging more of this.”
There has to be a degree of self censorship otherwise there is a danger that you bite the hand that feeds you. A wise journalist always self censors but where do you draw the line?
Where do you draw the line in the conflict between your professional reputation and brand, the KM Group’s reputation and brand and the personal sphere?
Leo
From: phillipgk@aol.com <phillipgk@aol.com>
To: ditzu_2688@yahoo.com
Dear Irina,
Here you go.
l. Censoring my own material. No. Why would I? It 's so hard to get it in the first place why would I voluntarily leave any of it out? But journalism differs from other writing in that a journalist usually writes to length--he or she is allocated so much space and has to stick to it or face someone else cutting it. I can 't emphasize how important this is. An academic writes until he finishes what he has to say. A journalist writes until he reaches 600 words or 2,000 or whatever. So I do have to decide what is important and what is less important and leave out the less important. I wouldn 't call this censoring my material. Others might.
2. I have always felt absolutely free to write an express any idea I liked. That was one of the reasons I worked for the Sunday Times in its glory days. I never felt that I ever wrote anything I did not absolutely believe in. Other journalists on other papers are not so fortunate.
3. Filtering. There are lots of filters applied by lots of people all of who ask themselves one important question: Is this a good story? If the answer is yes, then it is past the first hurdle. There may then be other hurdles to jump but this is the main one and decides whether the item makes the news or not. Don 't ask me what makes a good story? Journalists have been trying to define that for years and argue about it constantly. But they all know a good story when they see one.
4. Censored. Not that I can recall.
5. Self-censorship on a daily basis. I don 't believe so. But a reporter wants to keep his/her job. So a reporter is not about to write a story saying his proprietor is a tax dodger even if he has information that he is. Stands to reason.
Bestest,
Phillip Knightley
29th November 2010 – Wikileaks
Wikileaks (through The Guardian) releases the first batch of cables sent from US Embassy’s since 1966. This is a selection of front pages from the newspapers at the date.
The Guardian - 29th November 2010
The Times - 29th November 2010
The Independent - 29th November 2010
i - 29th November 2010
Daily Telegraph - 29th November 2010
Daily Express (Scottish) - 29th November 2010
Survey 1. Do you think the media needs Wikileaks? 1. Yes
2. No
3. I 'm not sure
4. I 'm not interested
5. What is Wikileaks?
2. Why do other media outlets do not include news that Wikileaks publish? 1. They are biased.
2. They can 't publish news that go against their ownership.
3. They didn 't have the information.
4. Wikileaks is not a reliable source
5. Other
3. Is the media in the UK transparent? 1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Don 't agree
4. Strongly disagree
5. Other
4. What do you think is the most important criteria in news selection employed by UK newspapers? 1. Quality based on information
2. Satisfying audience interest
3. Time and amount of space available in the paper
4. Ownership
5. Do you think that the information you get from newspapers is of interest and/or beneficial to you? 1. Agree
2.Strongly agree
3. Disagree
4. Strongly disagree
Powered by SurveyMonkey