lr412312@ohio.edu
While print and digital journalism
typically follow the same pattern and have nearly the same set of rules and
codes, online journalism varies slightly form that of the traditional print or
broadcast platforms. The digital age has transformed journalism from an
individualized profession to an activity almost anyone can participate in. With
print or broadcast, the stories being told are going to be by people working
for that organization whether they are full-time, part-time or freelancing.
They are more than likely trained professionals who closely edit their work and
possibly have a lot of experience in the industry.
With online or digital journalism,
anyone can blog or write up an earth-shattering article. If they do not have
formal training, are they considered journalists? The issue of even simple
things like updating your Facebook status with a political statement could be
considered journalism. I think that anyone can consider themselves a journalist
if they would like to be referred to as that no matter they’re skill level. You
can be an awful, novice painter, but you would be an artist nonetheless. When
it comes to recreational social media use, it seems unnecessary to over analyze
what a journalist is. Maybe it technically is journalism, but there’s no real
issue here and most of these people would probably not refer to themselves as
journalists.
A real
problem with online journalism is the fact that news sources can instantly edit
an article and they often don’t bother to notify readers of any changes whether
it be an alert that something has changed or a footnote stating that
information was changed. Not only should editors notify the readers of changes,
but also explain why that certain part of the article was changed. It was
mentioned that editors should also explain how they came to write the incorrect
information in the first place. I think it would be an interesting piece of
information, but doesn’t seem completely necessary and it would also take up
space. I think that should be up to the individual editor whether or not they’d
like to include that information.
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/181508/how-journalists-can-do-a-better-job-of-correcting-errors-on-social-media/
“Errors are
inevitable, but transparency is not.” Errors are bound to happen but building
on to the issue above, why are so many changes needing to be made? The digital
age pushes for everything to be faster and instantaneous. This puts pressure on
the writers and editors to pump out stories without having been properly
fact-checked and read over. These apps that notify readers of changes are a
great idea and extremely helpful. If trusted news sources want to remain
trusted, they should consider adding in a markup area or a footnote that
changes have been made. It would improve their image and keep people from
sharing incorrect information online which could backfire for the individual
and possibly reach many others, who are now also misinformed. Even with the pressures
of the digital age, editors need to take the time to make sure they’re putting
out the correct information the first time around.
No comments:
Post a Comment