As I read the conversation among journalists about Facebook being a place to practice journalism, held by Poynter, I saw two main points I found important that were discussed dispersedly throughout the conversation. The two points were that Facebook news sources would probably better serve a journalistic atmosphere by remaining a fan page instead of a personal page and the underlying issue facing new social networking sites being used by journalists—transparency. Briefly about the first topic, the idea of being a fan page is to keep journalistic integrity and assume the role of a journalist, which demands no personal relationships with the sources within your stories. Thus, the idea of maintaining the integrity of the SPJ ethical guidelines the decision becomes simple when a journalist takes the time to think about it (although I believe the conversation was more about news businesses it is still a safe way to practice journalism as an individual using social networking sites to promote coverage).
Onward. The idea of transparency is nothing new among the journalism world. However, the practice of trying to demand of those around news as a whole is a newer fashion in the world of journalism. I find it hard to place any real value on something unless I can gather where the information is coming from and the kind of source allowing me to see the knowledge online. Perhaps the school of journalism at the University of Oregon has forced such a pair of reading glasses on my eyes because since the gateway series (the info hell, viscom, writing for the media series) I have never looked at online sources the same. I spend a good 20-30 minutes every source reading into what others are saying about the source and where the financial support for a source is coming from. If no stipends are to be found and it seems to be independent of any contributors (like a citizen) I must then look into the published work/works of the author or the authors educational history to accommodate there words with a reason as to why they may be valuable or worthless. But that is me and not everyone is going to extensively look into sources every time they’re gathering information about an interest or want a piece of news. Therefore, the idea of asking the professional journalist to remain transparent is a very important issue because it may be the only way for a general quick reader with little time to assess the value of the writer as a professional. Yet, with no official set of guidelines as to how transparency is supposed to work altogether, it is really a community of journalists (like medical boards and psychology boards) who should really be deciding on issues as they arise and making sound decisions to stand a test of time. As with anything, variables will continue to play out and create a need for changes but I think making some landmarks to be seen from the open water would be a good idea to keep the professionalism of journalism afloat. Therefore, I think the best way to remain transparent is to hold live conversations like Poynter does and establish some chattering ideas from other journalists with experience in the workplace who can establish perhaps some common ground about transparency in the new media forms. Or old media forms for that matter, check out this article from Reuters about issues they faced based on transparency problems. I hope as time goes on the issue of transparency becomes clearer. Through more conversations among professional journalists perhaps decisions can be made to keep a clear path of decision making but until then I will just try to remain as transparent with my own work as possible. Proof that conversation is still needed is seen in articles talking about how journalists are asking for “too much transparency” like this AJR article. So what is too much and too little? No one really knows, which is why the experienced and new journalists should be talking about these kind of issues and how it relates to their current work.
No comments:
Post a Comment