Here’s an article worth reading, which relates in a peripheral manner to our recent discussion about definitions of ‘news media’ vis-à-vis bloggers.
I Was Arrested at Occupy Bronx—for Writing About It
– Carla Murphy, The Daily Beast 10 Dec
…While the four protesters left, I stayed behind to complain to Captain Garcia. His flank, as always, stood close. I made some good points but so did he. Unless I carried a press pass from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Public Information—which I didn’t and which no officer had asked to see, either—then I’d be treated like a protester, he said.
“You don’t say who or who isn’t a journalist,” I said. He seemed to concede the point but also fell back on the policeman’s answer, “It’s the law.” Our “discourse”—his word, not mine—was over. I was way too angry anyway, both at being treated like a criminal and at myself for feeling afraid, to remain professional. …
Is that it? Hmm.
Carla Murphy’s article reminds me of some of my Wellington experiences.
‘It’s all just writing’
I spotted this recently, and concurred in large part:
I still shun the term Blogging just as I shun the term Tweeting. It’s all just writing. It’s like trying to subdivide Novelist, Columnist, Blogger, Tweeter. Words are words. It’s not really interesting to keep slicing and dicing and sub-categorizing to me. I just write some stuff or share some stuff. Distinguishing between ‘Journalist’ and ‘Blogger’ is a waste of time. I’m all of those things and none of them.
— Rob Malda Founder of slashdot — interviewed by Matt Haughey
The distinction I can’t let go of, for now, is the accountability for the accuracy of one’s words, if they can be seen to purport to be ‘factual’. Or if you claim, even implicitly, or by context, that what you say is ‘true‘. That’s what caught out self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ Crystal Cox. It’s what catches out partisan attack bloggers.
As I said (whoop, whoop, self-quote alert!) in Storm the barricades, brothers and sisters!
I think the distinctions between ‘new media’ and whatever you want to call what existed before, are transitory. All-encompassing MEDIA will roll over and absorb it all. The divisions and barricades on which people in both ‘camps’ are spilling blood (metaphorically) will be a fly-spot on the wallpaper that is the history of civilization.
– P
Welcome back, Peter! And I agree re journalists being those willing to fact-check and be accountable, not to mention paid 😉
Hi Graeme.
It’s interesting that investigations/studies/inquiries are being carried out on both sides of the Tasman and in the UK about media behaviour and accountability.
The NZ Law Commission is on the verge of reporting its findings and recommendations in response to Simon Power’s direction to address the ‘Wild West’ of new media.
The point is being made that legislated Broadcasting Standards grow out of the licensing requirement for broadcasters. The Press Council has no such legislation … you don’t need a licence to publish a newspaper — the Press Council is a self-governing effort.
Will blogs and bloggers be ‘caught’? I don’t see how.
My point about being accountable for our words is true of rags, scandal sheets, posters, billboards (remember the billboard campaign smearing receiver Michael Stiassny?) as much as online or social media and the ‘quality dailies’ and magazines.
UPDATE: Publish at your peril.
NZ’s defamation laws are tragic, but liars eventually get labelled as such.
-P
Peter,
All modern philosophers face the issue that whilst science has demonsratably improved technology in the past few thousand years, philosophy has arguably not advanced much at all since the famous Greek philosophers (eg. Socrates, Aristotle and Plato).
Wittgenstein addressed this question. His answer was that humanity is essentially destined to play meanigless linguistic riddles or word games. Instead of a continual search for meaning, Wittgenstein urged us to look for use.
On some occasions, applying this perspective can be a rather useful approach.
If we apply this methodology to your analysis above, and look for what is the use rather than supposed meaning of the distinctions you wish to propose, perhaps this will help me understand what you are trying to argue.
Is your point that that journalists must follow the set of rules you list, to improve standards? Would sanctions apply if they don’t? Should bloggers have to follow the same rules? Or are you saying that the two are fundamentally different, and as such the regulatory rules governing behaviour (if any) should be different? Or are you just saying that tradtional journalism is more to your taste than bloggers?
I could accept your distinction of accountabilty, which may or may not be meaningful, if it was shown to be useful. Perhaps it may be useful in terms of maintaining standards. Perhaps it could only be useful in a Dr Seuss star belly sneetch type of way (we are better than you), which could be useful for the neetches with more stars on their bellies.
Personally, my feelig is that these somewhat arbitrary distinctions are not particularly useful. A generalisation may be generally true, but often the exceptions to ay rule are more illuminating than the somewhat arbitrary itself? After all:
“Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made”. (Immanuel Kant)
Rgds,
*p*
ps. “Welcome back to the fight. This time, I know we will win.” (Victor Laslow, Casablanca)
How great to be reminded of the star bellied sneetches! Thanks! That’s a good point. If membership is merely a ‘status’ thing who gives a damn?
As it happens, the Law Commission has this morning released its issues paper on, in part, ‘regulation’ of media.
http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/review-regulatory-gaps-and-new-media?quicktabs_23=issues_paper#node-2212
Here’s their proposed definition: (emphasis added)
This bit: most significantly a commitment to truthfulness and accuracy is where I am at.
As an example, as we discussed here poormastery (http://www.thepaepae.com/feedback-from-cameron-slater-gay/18695/) I’ve noticed a certain blogger make false statements (e.g.’Pansy Wong cleared’) and even create fake/misleadingly edit video footage (JIm Anderton’s mythical ‘it would take an earthquake’ interview). Those don’t, in my view, demonstrate ‘a commitment to truthfulness and accuracy’.
But that’s just part of the picture.
Cheers, P
I will admit to not fully comprehending the purpose of the post. But i will make this comment with regard to media and so called new media – this last election has proved to me – how far populism has advanced with its pernicious gospel – into the ranks of politicians, media and the voting public. Some good results snuck through the muck – but not enough.
I have nothing “cleverer” “erudite” or indeed informed to offer.
Welcome to the mushroom growing facility that is New Zealand. The next 3 years will be fascinating.
Cheers Ivan. Thanks for your comment.
Purpose? Well, mainly just shootin’ the breeze, and thinking about the distinctions we draw (and in the case of the NYPD, someone else draws) about mee-de-yah … some justified, some less so. It’s a movable feast, I think, but one thing for sure is that the landscape will change.
The proliferation of commentary ‘outlets’ is so vast, and ‘gifted amateurs’ (I’m being polite) can and do pretend to BE ‘media’ while grinding their axes of different hue.
As for populism … well, yes. Audience/readership figures are hard to argue with.
Q: How do you see the difference, if you do, between reporting/commentary and propaganda?
For that, in my opinion, is the nub.
And, have you read any Hunter S. Thompson or Tom Wolfe?
(Not being a smart Alec, I promise.) – P
Peter – I havent read either or the people you refer to. I’ve barely graduated beyond Janet and John.
The gifted amateurs you refer to are i assume – the blogs etc and ‘new media’. Watching 3 news in particular – i would suggest that that there are more gifted amateurs drawing professionals salaries than one could possibly shake a stick at.
In answer to your question – posed as it is at the end of a very glib throwaway line … the difference lies in the delivery of the commentary, the gaps in the observations made (Gower is a master of the unsaid manipulative “suggestion”) and the personalisations of the coverage of “news and current affairs”. Propaganda these days seems to linked to income levels of the delivery mechanisms – and the social standing of those involved in the delivery mechanisms.
I dont think you are a smart alec – i think you are deliberately glib quite often.
You are a product of your chosen career – a construct if you will.
“Glib”? “Construct”? Me? Come on Ivan.
I think you’re reading me wrong. But I welcome your comments, of course.
Thompson and Wolfe are examples of ‘new’ journalism (new in the 70s & 80s) … which is a type of reportage where the reporter/correspondent features as an *actor* in the drama — less of the big O objective, trying to be invisible, more room for responses as eyewitness.
I recently had reason to reflect on my reactions — professionally and ‘personally’ — to the event that was the ‘cup of tea’. As someone who observed first hand (i.e. eyewitness) the circus that it was, and given my background, I have a POV on the actions of that day and what they signify.
But depending on my role, my interpretation can be relevant or irrelevant, welcome or unwelcome. First things first: report the event, then say what it means…
re propaganda: I think for me the distinction is connected with the existence and impulsion of a conscious agenda. For instance, an anti-[insert hue of political spectrum here] agenda or a relentlessly pro-[insert hue of political spectrum here].
I don’t possess that, although, with respect Ivan, you seem to perceive that sort of ‘biased’ coverage in some avenues.
I don’t quite get what you mean about ‘income levels of the delivery mechanisms’ etc
– P
I can only speak as one of the great unwashed. I look at the current affairs coverage particularly of TV as i cannot abide commercial or “talkback – news” radio – and i see something that walks like a duck – quacks like a duck so i presume it is a duck. It sounds and looks partisan and biased.
The income of the mechanism – is the inflated salaries of the media individuals who invade our lives every day.
In a certain part of the North Island this weekend gone – i saw one of the reporters off Campbell Live – he is the one who tried to live on the minimum wage. Draped elegantly in the carpark (he admitted on the Campbell live item that he was on a six figure income) he was leaning on his Jet Black latest model Audi SUV. How quaint – and how easy it is for them to identify with others.
Most media Peter – sound and look glib, privileged and i swear you can tell how they vote.
One day – people are going to wake up to it.
Yes I know what you mean. But I think you may — possibly — be experiencing the effects of the partisan’s highly developed sense of … sensitivity. I know what that feels like in another, non-political context, defending a friend from reckless character assassination. One picks up on nuance and slights (the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune).
I’m not defending anyone from your scrutiny and criticism — why would I? How could I?
Remember our earlier discussion about my ‘non-monolithic’ model of media?
Sure, there’s evidence of groupthink at times (both extremes: clobbering machines & honeymoons) … but journalists display a sort of schizophrenia: At times they show an anti-establishment tendency (although as the fourth estate they’re charged with a watchdog role) … at others their reliance on elements of the establishment and god (government of the day) for access and information can suppress their feisty independence.
– P
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.” [Yeats]
http://www.online-literature.com/donne/780/
Ouch!
What about this? Pretty hard to see how a lack of conviction can help …:
41. JOURNALIST CODE OF ETHICS
Respect for truth and the public’s right to information are overriding principles for all journalists. In pursuance of these principles, journalists commit themselves to ethical and professional standards. All members of the Union engaged in gathering, transmitting, disseminating and commenting on news and information shall observe the following Code of Ethics in their professional activities:
(a) They shall report and interpret the news with scrupulous honesty by striving to disclose all essential facts and by not suppressing relevant, available facts or distorting by wrong or improper emphasis.
(b) They shall not place unnecessary emphasis on gender, race, sexual preference, religious belief, marital status or physical or mental disability.
(c) In all circumstances they shall respect all confidences received in the course of their occupation.
(d) They shall not allow personal interests to influence them in their professional duties.
(e) They shall not allow their professional duties to be influenced by any consideration, gift or advantage offered and, where appropriate, shall disclose any such offer.
(f) They shall not allow advertising or commercial considerations to influence them in their professional duties.
(g) They shall use fair and honest means to obtain news, pictures, films, tapes and documents.
(h) They shall identify themselves and their employers before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast.
(i) They shall respect private grief and personal privacy and shall have the right to resist compulsion to intrude on them.
(j) They shall do their utmost to correct any published or broadcast information found to be harmfully inaccurate.
http://www.epmu.org.nz/journalism-code-of-ethics/