Government Over Taking the Media

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Australian Press Council is butting heads with its government over print media. Before September 14 the press was funded independently. The government took action and stepped in to take over but not just because of the decrease of funding. They also want to regulate the media.

This action that the government is taking reminds one of the Egypt government back in January of 2011. Recalling the events they shut down the internet to block social media sites so that the people could not get together for more protesting.

Media should not be controlled by the government because like the Egyptian people, societies will get upset on what they are blocking and not showing what is in the news.

Rupert Murdoch is an important figure in Australia media because he owns 70 percent of there newspapers. The big scandal with him hacking phone lines is also causing government to step in and make sure that does not happen again.

Even though Murdoch was in the wrong he was just trying to get the news out faster to the people because they have the right to know.

The government is acting out of being scared. They are worried that something is going to go wrong and make them look bad.

The Australian Press Council has to accept the government regulating because that is where all the funding is coming from. Government controlling the media, is that bad? Or against our moral rights?


How Twitter has Changed Campaign Coverage

More and more people are getting their news, including political news, from social media. This offers a quicker and more up to date way to see the latest news about political candidates. But does quicker mean better? Or are reporters these days just worried about the quantity and speed of their reports, and not the quality?

Jodi Edna said in his report, Campaign Coverage in the Time of Twitter, from the American Journalism Review."No longer do reporters slog elbow to elbow with presidential contenders vying for votes in Iowa and New Hampshire. No longer do they get to know the candidates in a way that voters do not – up close and personal, with their feet up, their guard down and, perhaps, a drink at the ready. No longer do they have the luxury of weeks or days or even hours to gather string and dig deep and analyze before they write a story."

Edna continues on say that many reporters today don't have enough time to write what reporters 10 years ago would consider a story since they are so busy with Twitter, blogging, or shooting a video clip.

Reporters these days are no longer following candidates around and getting to know them,"There are fewer people observing these candidates up close and more people writing about them from afar. There are a lot more people opining, blogging, tweeting, but not out there looking at candidates face to face," says Zeleny of the New York Times. Is this a good thing? Are we getting the best, most accurate stories from these reporters? Or is this just the fastest way to get out information?

The new way of reporting has both its positives and negatives. People are definitely getting their news faster and more often by using social media. Also they have the options of seeing pictures of the candidate, clicking on a link to view a video that the reporter shot with his/her phone, or hear an audio recording captured by the reporter. And nothing is better than hearing from the candidates themselves.

But the negatives are clear as well. Continuing in his report Edna says this referring to today's reporters, "Almost to a person, they bemoan the loss of time to engage in in-depth reporting, to go beyond the story of the day to unearth the insightful gems that really tell us something instructive, something fundamentally important, about the men and women who would be president." Reporters today are sacrificing their time to do deep research on candidates so that they can keep getting the latest, newer news.

Everyone is a potential journalist today. What is considered news today only remains news for a little while, until something new has to be blogged about. Is the new form of reporting on campaigns (little amounts of data but constantly updated) better for the voter than the old form of reporting, where we received in-depth stories about the candidate but not as often? Whatever way is better, campaigns are being covered more and more by people on sites like twitter, and less and less by reporters who do in-depth reporting.

Photo from


Media Bias....Helpful?

Bias seems to be a term met with much negativity in the journalism world. As budding journalists we strive to keep our stories right in the middle of the political spectrum.

How boring is that though? This is the idea that Jack Shafer implanted in my head with his recent blog, Media Bias? Give me more Please!

Bias keeps us guessing and if you think about it it is one of the few things keeping the news honest. Without opposition in the journalistic world, people would never question anything.

It must be true if it's unbiased. Is that a positive mindset? No, I want to be told if I'm wrong or right just.

Why shouldn't we enjoy a little bias when it comes to our news? There are always two sides to every story and they most certainly will be told.

Blaming bad news on a biased opinion is lazy. If you hold strong opinions on a topic and upon investigation you find out you're wrong, well that would be the time to change your opinion.

As journalists we should be filters. We should be able to screen our news and be able to tell what is right and wrong. Simple reasoning should allow us to find the middle ground between two bias stories.

In the end journalism needs bias. It is the want to be right that is associated with bias that keeps people asking questions in the pursuit of the truth.


  © Blogger template On The Road by 2009

Back to TOP