I had trouble seeing the difference between journalism ethics and online journalism ethics. For the most part, it seems to me, there is no difference between good journalism online or good journalism in older media.
However, the ethics of archiving is a different sort of problem. Ethically, the original stories could be clean, perfectly well-researched and attributed stories. But when the story dies and is lost in time, something that happens more quickly online, it remains online forever. Centuries from now people will be able to call up stories about indictments and crimes that have been cleaned up and paid for with time or money or whatever penal code was imposed. But when these stories reappear, it is generally unclear that these happened in the past. Worse yet, a man could be charged and reported on, then acquitted without being reported on, and the first story will stay online for eternity without being updated. People will forever be remembered in a bad light.
As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a big deal. Assuming a story is accurately reported and written correctly there is no fault on the journalist's part. The reader needs to be sure of the date of publication for whatever they are reading, and if a story leaves questions, an active reader needs to keep digging to find the answers. Good reporting and follow-ups can help limit this issue, but in the end, there is little anyone can do for now. Archives exist and will exist forever.
At the end of the day, reporters publish police reports, they publish convictions, indictments, acquittals and arrests, all without apology. And if they have reported accurately, there really is little else they can do.
First draft - Nov 30, 2007
ReplyDeleteA Thousand Words About the Writer's Strike.
The strike may be in full force but great writing never stops. If given an outlet, great writing and creative ideas will enter the public stream of consciousness and will inevitably be paid for. Currently, television writers are working for a broken economic system, where traditional networks sign talent and broadcast creative entertainment. Recently, technological barriers have been lowered and sources of personal media have changed. Just as a friend now has the ability to rip a song onto their idevice*, a writer's craft can be passed quite effectively through the same channel. Years ago, phones turned into phonebooks, and now they are becoming a person's interface with their ilife**; their music, their preferences, and their people. A person's phonebook now encompasses information from around the globe, and efficient access has become more important than control over traditional mediums.
In short, writers should not be asking the production studios for funding, they should be asking companies like Google. If youtube can deliver media on anything from a television to next year's idevice, youtube becomes a more effective medium than traditional television. It is by design on demand, and free to the end user (data subscriptions are considered mandatory for the purposes of this argument). Cloud computing allows the owner of the cloud infrastructure to provide access and distribution to budding entertainment prospects. Enhanced computing power and smart software design allow powerful services to work in poorly-connected areas as well as well-connected ones. A universal dock would allow the user to buy an input device made by any number of manufacturers that would interface with existing household display sources. Writers and producers that want to make entertainment should use the strike as a run at free agency, an opportunity to see what the market thinks they're worth. Optimize their products for youtube and pay the artist contracts with ad generated revenue. For Google, it is a no profit venture, but it strengthens their Intellectual Property case against media organizations like Viacom (supposing they allow their videos on other sites) while simultaneously improving their public image by solving a problem facing consumers (new shows at no additional cost to them). It also offers a solution to the thousands of talented people who are out of work. Writers who aren't satisfied with the negotiations may see value in having the alternative, and in short order professional quality programming will be available to anyone with a data connection. Programming could be offered through Google's software, rss updated, to the same effectiveness that Blackberrys manage email.
A writer deserves to be compensated fairly for their work, which means revenue must be generated in distribution. While web video has made major networks nervous about the viability of their business plan, the way that people find their information and entertainment on their new devices is still very much for sale. If a service is both entertaining and useful, the public would be more willing to tolerate creative and relevant ads. This development would both provide writers with a new source of income and take the field of marketing to new heights. Technical knowledge and creativity would create an exciting niche for new approaches to marketing.
*the term idevice is being used to describe a person's mobile communicator. It can be a music, phone, internet, or informational device of any kind, and is expected to evolve with available technology.
**modern social network; i.e. interpersonal communication, facebook, itunes, txt, phone calls, email, etc.
As a side note and a matter of practice, the ideas expressed in these thousand words come from a variety of influences. Things that people have said; in person, in lyrics, or in written word have most assuredly influenced personal perspective and no intention has been made to claim ownership of these ideas. That's what makes IP law so thought provoking and complicated; information will spread, no matter who gets paid. This is history making itself.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Yes. I know this was only 732 words.
First quick note. If Google started producing its own material its case against Viacom would weaken. Right now Google is a re-production company, therefore they could say it's exposure, not production. If they go into production, there is a problem.
ReplyDelete