As I see
it, weblogs have a big influence on the media. Thats why I chose this paper.
Its a research to the future of journalism. The main subject is the importance
of weblogs to journalism.
Thanks to
the Internet, media became a network of communication. Nowadays the public
isnt only receiver from the news, but also the sender. The old media was a
one-way communication. They sent the news from a few central points, to the
big, passive public. After the invention of the Internet, there was a fear that
the old media would be replaced by networks of communication. But this didnt
happen. Those networks became important, but also the old media still is.
The paper
also gives characters of weblogs. One of the most important elements is that
people can react on a blog, so that debates can start. This is the biggest
difference with traditional media.
Today, a
lot of people own a blog. At one hand you have citizen blogs. Those are blogs
published by a person outside media companies. In the past they already showed
their big influence. For instance, they publish photos you wont see on
television. But you have to be careful with the accuracy of those blogs. Thats
why they will never replace the media.
At the
other hand you have media blogs. Those blogs are produced by professional
staff journalists within media institutions. Sometimes comments are not
allowed. But the accuracy is bigger.
Jolien
Coopman
Domingo D.,
Heinonen A., 2008, Weblogs and journalism, Nordicom
Review 29, 3-15
Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond
In this
paper, the authors developed a model to analyse the audience opportunities participation
in journalism. They discovered the basic principles of all types of public
communication (also journalism). But because of the technical evolutions
(computers and the Internet), there is a new model of journalism:
participatory journalism.
How did the
study work? The authors selected sixteen online newspapers in eight European
countries and the United States. They evaluated their websites, the
opportunities and the rules for the public to participate and their incentives.
(For Belgium they evaluated De Standaard en Gazet van Antwerpen). They gave every website a score in
openness in every stage of the process: access and observation,
selection/filtering, processing/editing, distribution, interpretation.
Belgium
didnt do very well, just like most others. The websites didnt use every
option to encourage public participation. Examples are: people can give ideas,
send feedback when they noticed an error, sending in texts, photos, audiovisual
material or links to weblogs that will be published, allow comments below the
article, forums, rankings,
An
important remark is that the study was in 2007. It has changed since then,
websites became a lot more open. Another important element is that they didnt
interview the journalists.
Jolien Coopman
Domingo D.,
Quandt T., Heinonen A., Paulussen S., Singer J, Vujnovic M., 2008,
Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond, Journalism Practice, 2
New Moral Dilemmas in Online Journalism' is the title of the paper that I read. I chose
that article because its a topic that has a growing importance.
The main idea is that online journalism is not a whole new kind of journalism,
but only a new way of communication between the publisher and reader of the
article. In my opinion thats a positive aspect of online journalism because,
the persons who read the news on the web give their opinions and comments. That
way, writers get feedback and know what kind of topics interest people the
most. Thats the difference with the persons who read the newspaper, they cant
give their opinion.
A negative aspect of this
new model of journalism is that journalists have to find their way in this new
method of reporting news.
An example of a site
where we post online news is RTE.ie, thats the site of the national
broadcaster RTE. We can see that traditional media are still important, because
journalists post their news first on the television or radio then on the
internet. Najoua Adahchour
The Active Recipient: Participatory Journalism Through the Lens of the Dewey-Lippmann Debate
I read a paper about
participatory journalism. It is a report of the debate between Walter Lippmann
and John Dewey. On some points both writers share the same opinion, they both
think that the press is important in a democracy. But they have different opinions
on many other aspects.
Dewey thinks that
conversation is the best method for sharing news and information, while
Lippmann says that journalists are the teachers of the public. He believes that
people are not in state to decide whats good or bad for a policy. I agree with
Deweys opinion because we can always learn from each other and participatory
journalism contributes to a democratic society. The public does more than only
reading the article; they post their comments or recommend to their friends.
We live in a society
where its easy and possible to share news with family and friends. However,
there are a lot of persons who just read the articles but never comment or even
distribute. I think sharing news is a positive thing, but we should examine the
credibility of those articles.
Najoua Adahchour
Alfred Hermida, David Domingo; P. 2011; The Active Recepient: Participatory Journalism Trough the Lens of the Dewey-Lippmann Debate; Participatory Journalism in online newspapers: Guarding the Internet's Open Gates, 22 pages https://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=1202278
