Entries Tagged 'Sources for News' ↓

Recorded at the U.S. State Department, Clay Shirky talks in this TED Talk about how technology becomes phenomenal, or its uses become broader and more important (or more socially interesting), once that particular technology becomes technically boring and “everybody takes them for granted.” He used the example of the monitoring of elections via SMS in Nigeria in 2007, followed by the 2008 U.S. election and how we monitored our votes using cameras and phones. In other words, a first world country followed the example of a third world country not because the technology was new or revolutionary, but because the technology had become so common that it was part of the social landscape and therefore seen purely as a tool for everyday use.

Shirky goes on to explain how the media landscape has changed forever. Some of this is new, most of it isn’t, but Shirky’s analysis and explanation of the current and future state of media is well worth the time to watch. In particular, how we create environments for discussion and shape that conversation, has become the ONLY effective way of delivering a message and defining that message as “news” or anything else is getting harder and harder to do. I think one of the most important changes that has occurred is that today, we learn more from the discussion of the news than we do from the initial delivery of that news. ‘Twitter, Facebook, and cellphones can now make history.’

In my opinion, one of the most important jobs in this world is held by those who report from the parts of the world ‘less traveled by’. My favorite poem, by Robert Frost, finishes like this:

“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.”

Today’s New York Times prominently features a story on the inherent dangers associated with reporting from places often forgotten about. Sometimes the reasons for the inattention are due to the country’s lack of resources, failing public infrastructure or disassociated importance from the rest of the world. But often such places are not read about because of political pressure keeping such things unsaid. But ask any foreign correspondent about his or her sense of accomplishment and the answer will revolve around traveling the road less traveled. They have, putting their own lives in danger, impacted change throughout history in the most important way; telling stories.

Now, with the fractured media landscape and cost-cutting, these stories are not being told in the same fashion. First, we are seeing an increased bias towards “American” coverage, as opposed to news from the rest of the world, as I wrote about in April. But what international stories are being told, are being reported by different people or at least backed by different and less powerful organizations than the BBC and CNN. This has a very dramatic effect on the coverage or lack there of…

Back in March I asked my readers the following question after journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee were detained by the North Korean government:

“However, my more pressing question is whether or not the North Koreans would have detained the two for more than a few hours or days had they been on assignment for a large news organization. My guess is no; the larger organization would have worked to arrange their release sooner than Current TV is doing. Of course, it doesn’t even appear that Al Gore, the Chairman of Current TV and one of its primary investors, has had any affect on the situation (either out of choice or not). I’m sure the diplomatic back channels are buzzing because of Gore’s connection, but take a circumstance where the independent journalists don’t have the backing of a former Vice President. Do you think the same thing would be playing out? There are examples of this out there for sure. In Russian it doesn’t matter how big or small your backing is, but in African countries or other locales where the central government isn’t as powerful as in Moscow or Pyongyang, would it make a difference? What about in China where economic policy seems to trump all? When NBC has the backing of GE, does that matter? What do you think? Are small and independent news organizations more susceptible to political pressure with diminished resources for negotiation and the inability to apply appropriate political pressure?”

Apparently the mainstream media has caught wind of this precarious situation with today’s Times’ article. But if Al Gore’s journalists can be sentenced to 12 years in a labor camp, where does this leave us? Where does this leave those brave journalists willing to travel the road less traveled by, in order to make what difference they can?

Just a quick note to point readers to the great work FAIR does every day in its fight for “Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.” I have been a fan of FAIR for quite some time and enjoy its podcasts in particular. I have added, for the time being at least, an RSS feed to the group’s latest reports, podcasts and blog posts which can be found along the right side of this page. Please let me know what you think and thanks for reading.

The bumper sticker I read on every Volvo I saw during my childhood in Vermont read, “Act Globally, Shop Locally.” A worthy message indeed and more relevant than ever with the growing concern about over-processed food (i.e. peanut butter, spinach, etc.), as well as the various chemicals that can be found in our food containers these days, but unfortunately this message cannot apply to the news we receive. The growing trend seems to be that local is better when it comes to news coverage. Independent sites, as well as those backed by mainstream media, are popping up all over the country. Mark Glaser, of PBS’ MediaShift, just posted the following on Twitter: “Putting together guide to local watchdog news sites for MediaShift, including VoiceOfSanDiego, MinnPost, StL Beacon, others.” I couldn’t help but think of David Simon’s comment on how newspapers must be the counterweight to bullshit and without them, local corruption will run rampant. Simon has often stated how it would be nice to be in local politics over the next decade, as the unchecked opportunities will be numerous while a new model for local news coverage is discovered. Watch a great interview that Bill Moyers conducted with Simon here.

I’m looking forward to the collection Glaser comes up with to see if there are any sources that I’m missing, but I couldn’t help but think about what we’re all missing with this increasing “local centric” mentality of news coverage. I have written before about the growing trend of hyper-local sites, but the void in our collective knowledge of the world is of far greater concern as news organizations continue to whittle away at their foreign news bureaus. This leaves us with a collection of independent journalists filing the void, often valiantly doing great work, but I worry how effective they are all the time and how safe? Start-ups such as Global Post have put together some great, experienced foreign correspondents, but while still in its infancy, there are bound to be gaps in coverage.

On Tuesday, Andrew Stroehlein, journalist and Communications Director for the International Crisis Group, expressed his worries about “a world without foreign correspondents.” He isn’t the first person to express concern about this growing trend to cut costs by bringing the bureaus home, but his post is worth a read for its unique perspective. Stroehlein gives two examples, in Somalia and Sri Lanka, of how news coverage is lacking. His logic is a bit flawed (which he seems to recognize and acknowledge), in that he discusses the cost-cutting measures being taken and that this has had an effect on the diminished coverage. However, in both scenarios the almost complete press blackout is due to security on the ground or government interference with the press.

“The first is Somalia, where the utter inanity of foreign news coverage in the West, particularly in the US, knows no bounds. Amid deafening hero-worship and chest-thumping, the US media machine was so proud that a new president with the world’s largest military at his disposal can kill a couple lightly armed thugs that few seemed even able to grasp the most basic fact of the situation: piracy is symptom, not the disease (NOTE: I wrote about this yesterday in urging people to focus on the solution, rather than just trumpeting the problem), and lawlessness off the coast of Somalia will continue as long as anarchy is allowed to continue on land. If only a tiny fraction of the Western media ruckus of recent weeks could be dedicated to Somalia itself, then international political attention might start focusing on the roots of the problem.”

Stroehlein continues,

“The other example of a crisis unfolding mostly not before our eyes is Sri Lanka, where over the past few months the situation in the north east has become incredibly desperate for some 150,000 civilians trapped in an ever-shrinking “safe zone” between their government that is shelling them and the cult-like LTTE rebels who shoot them if they try to escape. Today, as my colleague writes, “A mass slaughter of civilians will take place Tuesday at noon. And everyone knows it.” Once again, foreign correspondents are unable to cover the story, this time because the government is not allowing them in to the region.”

I would have included the genocide in Darfur along with these two examples as well, but Stroehlein has done a valiant job of describing the press’ failure to properly report as he has written it. The comments are also well worth reading.

Alisa Miller, the head of Public Radio International (PRI), explained in a TED Talk in 2008 why, although we (Americans) want to know more about the world now than ever before, the US media is actually showing us less. She walks us through the graphs and stats in great detail below and I have also included the map she references in her talk about news coverage in February of 2007.

A print journalist I know recently brought up the following argument, in response to the ongoing debate about the future of news. He said he is still unclear as to why newspapers are the only businesses in the world that are expected to provide their content for free… I thought to myself, you know? This is actually a very good point. Why are our expectations of newspapers different from any other content-providing industry? He continued with his argument:

“Perhaps they need to adopt the television business model on their Web sites. You click on a link to a news article, but before the article appears, a well-produced, high-resolution, high-quality commercial appears that DOESN’T have a little “X” in the corner to click on to get rid of it. These commercials can be sold for big bucks (or at least bigger bucks than newspapers currently can get from advertisers). If it’s a long story, another commercial appears before you can continue reading.

This model works for TV — otherwise, how else could CBS pay trillions for the so-called “March Madness” rights, etc., etc., etc. Why would this model not work for newspaper Web sites? Because other Web sites would just pirate (i.e. steal) the content and post it without the commercials?

Why is it that Web sites can steal newspaper articles but have to pay for songs? Does the latest unintellible hip-hop diatribe by L’il Whoever have more intrinsic social value than an investigative series that uncovers public corruption, grisly conditions for wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the like? I guess so, because that’s what society has decided should be paid for and what should be free.”

What do you think? Would readers accept ads on their screens before they are able to read the contents of an article? Would this be a profitable business model for newspapers? How would this type of setup work with news aggregators such as Newser or Google News? Would it put them on the street or force them to rewrite the news?