Sept. 23, 2009
PART ONE: MEDIA REVOLUTION
What Does the Future Hold For Mainstream, On Line, Bloggers, and Citizen Journalists? What Are the First Amendment Implications As the Number of Journalists/Publishers Increase?
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – A panel discussion at Marshall University on “Blogging and the Potential Limits of the First Amendment” turned into an experts projections as to how we get information will continue to be redefined in future years.
Conducted as part of Constitution Week, WV Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Benjamin moderated. The panel included: Howard Bashman, a Philadelphia appellate lawyer who writes for The Legal Intelligencer, edits “Legal Affairs” magazine, and blogs, “How Appealing;” Lucy Daiglish, executive director of Washington, D.C.’s Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press; Gene Policinski, executive director of The First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tenn. and Washington, D.C.; Kevin Qualls, an assistant professor of Journalism and Mass Communications at Murray State University; and, Dr. Corley Dennison, dean of MU’s W. Page Pitt School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
As a brief background, the World Wide Web have expanded local and community media outlets to the world stage. Their sites can be accessed by all. However, newspapers, in particular, rely upon reporters who gather news , analyze it, and write the facts, which then goes to copy editors and managing editors. While the internet gains exposure for the “local” media outlets, their news stories have been viewed at no cost. They have relied on web advertising. Unfortunately, now, a large percentage of people read neither newspaper nor watch TV, they obtain all their information from the net.
As Chief Justice Benjamin reiterated, “We are in a digital age and it’s here to stay.”
However, one of the main adjustments to the media organization comes from the rapid recession that has redefined the economy. Some lawmakers in D.C. have even championed a “bail out” for broke newspapers, similar to that given the banks and auto industry. The most leaked proposal is to allow newspapers to qualify for non-profit status, which would place them on the same plateau as public broadcasting.
Since the start up costs are low for an internet blog in comparison to a daily paper or radio and television outlet, the marketplace has widened to allow for news sources that gather news for a specific agenda (i.e. conservatives, religion, environmentalist, etc.). Few cities have more than one newspaper.
As Lucy Daiglish described, “When you go to New York very few people read all three [dailies, The NY Times, NY Daily News, NY Post]. “We are reverting to multiple news organizations,” Daiglish opined. Those were so-called wild west days when cities had multiple papers which held specific viewpoints (in WV, papers were generally Democratic or Republican), but competition reduced most cities to one newspaper and multiple radio and television stations. The broadcast media began with local roots, but costs factors have seen mergers creating vast media empires composes of radio/television/newspaper/magazine holdings.
Kevin Qualls emphasized that “more speech is better,” and Gene Policinski agreed that we have transitioned from a limited number of sources to an infinite number.
“We [used to] surf to see what we could find, now we go to places [sites] we can trust,” The First Amendment Center director said.
Daiglish conjectured that the person who can “put value” on internet distributed journalism “will be the next Bill Gates.” Currently, mainstream news organizations face quandaries of how to “charge” for their previously free stories in order to survive in the new economy which has meant less advertising and ad dollars expended to more forms of media.
As the director of the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press explained, “Initially, websites drove readers” to the in-print copy of a newspaper or magazine. “No one has figured out a way to monetize newspaper delivery on the web,” Ms. Daiglish said.
Policinski believes “there’s still money to be made” and that “news organizations will survive and prosper.” But, adapting to the new world wide information environment will determine those who survive and those who fail.
Dr. Corley Dennison recalled local over the air broadcast stations fighting cable and satellite reception of so-called out of market distant signals (i.e. a Chicago or Los Angeles station seen in WV), fearing that viewers would abandon the home town station in favor of the larger cities offering. Congress stepped in to require that all local stations be available via satellite in their markets. A bar still exists on subscribing to a Miami station in, for example, WV.
Dr. Dennison explained that the varied news content was not the significant issue, rather, contractual agreements granting stations in specific markets access to particular syndicated programs or movies. The distant signal rules remain in place, but Dennison acknowledged that with the internet you can overcome the restriction by watching out of the area news on the internet, often, as it happens, from a station in the city where the news breaks.
However, he foresees local stations reverting to the roots of localism for which they obtained a license from the FCC to operate in the public service. “Television station will create their own original programs,” Dr. Dennison conjectured, “as networks (such as NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX) broadcast without [local] affiliates.”
Should that occur, it would be the most significant media upheaval since television forced radio to abandon comedy and drama shows and since cable/satellite forced over the air broadcasters to reexamine their faulty ‘exclusivity’ claims to eyes in particular markets.
Dennison forecast a period of some media “looking more like blogs,” but, “once the economy model re-establishes itself, television and journalism will survive.”
Referring to the opening doors of First Amendment commentary and news, Dennison looked to history, suggesting, “Walter Cronkite had half an hour. Now each [network] covers their own side of the political spectrum.”
However, the surging popularity of internet information gathering sites has made it more practical and inexpensive for citizens to express their opinions.
Despite the vast number of media outlets, Chief Justice Benjamin pointed to an internet fueled crusade concerning remarks made by Sonia Sotomayor, nominated to the court by President Barack Obama following Justice David Souter’s retirement. Blogs and the internet relies on pithy sound bytes --- as does radio and television --- which allowed an eleven second clip of her speech about Latin American women to spread nationwide.
Although the major media outlets carried the clip dug from the net, “they didn’t show the context; they just showed the clip,” Benjamin said.
Policinski retorted that “it’s up to the citizens to sort out information from misinformation,” in which he referred to sites now establishing credibility, just the same as do news organizations. He preferred to call sites such as Twitter and You Tube as “alert” mechanism , rather than sources for in depth reporting by educated and trained journalists. Absent so far have been “self correcting mechanisms” for discrediting out of context clips, that is, unless , for example, the major news organizations scrutinize the sources from which they obtain their stories. Currently, the 24/7 news channels force organizations to race to get the story on first and later determine it’s accuracy.
After the 9/11 attacks, media shriveled by finding themselves in an awkward position of non-patriotic branding if they questioned the government too strongly. The attacks made the nation fearful and paranoid; suddenly, a person next door could be a home-grown terrorists akin to the 50s Red Scare when those with liberal opinions were labeled communists.
Ms. Daiglish worried that “offensive speech” could lead to punishments akin to the exception for shouting fire in a crowded theatre or other fighting words.
Her associate, Policinski agreed, noting that what is “protest speech” in one time period often turns out to be “heroic speech” in looking back on the era when it was spoken.
For instance, in the colonies of America, printers such as Benjamin Franklin had to be accountable for what came off their printing presses. This led him and others to write under pseudonyms or anonymously . “Speaking out via the printing press could get you in a world of hurt,” Daiglish recalled, adding that “truthful, independently gathered information” cannot just be discriminated by the government, to rely on solely official sources endangers the essence of democracy. “Writing anonymously is not a new thing,” she said referring to Franklin and other founding fathers.
What redefined “news” reporting and led to the proliferation of such terms as ‘blogging,’ ‘citizen journalist’ or an ‘I reporter,” came after , in Dr. Dennison’s words, the world learned that someone writing from their computer in the basement of their parents house could make as much grassroots discourse as the major media players.
IN PART TWO, THE PANEL DISCUSSES THE DEFINITION OF A JOURNALIST, THE PRIVILIGES , ETHICS AND RESPONSIBILIES THAT GO WITH THE JOB, AND HOW THE INTERPRETATION OF FREE SPEECH SWINGS FROM RESTRICTED TO BROAD.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
PART ONE: MEDIA REVOLUTION
What Does the Future Hold For Mainstream, On Line, Bloggers, and Citizen Journalists? What Are the First Amendment Implications As the Number of Journalists/Publishers Increase?
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – A panel discussion at Marshall University on “Blogging and the Potential Limits of the First Amendment” turned into an experts projections as to how we get information will continue to be redefined in future years.
Conducted as part of Constitution Week, WV Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Benjamin moderated. The panel included: Howard Bashman, a Philadelphia appellate lawyer who writes for The Legal Intelligencer, edits “Legal Affairs” magazine, and blogs, “How Appealing;” Lucy Daiglish, executive director of Washington, D.C.’s Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press; Gene Policinski, executive director of The First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tenn. and Washington, D.C.; Kevin Qualls, an assistant professor of Journalism and Mass Communications at Murray State University; and, Dr. Corley Dennison, dean of MU’s W. Page Pitt School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
As a brief background, the World Wide Web have expanded local and community media outlets to the world stage. Their sites can be accessed by all. However, newspapers, in particular, rely upon reporters who gather news , analyze it, and write the facts, which then goes to copy editors and managing editors. While the internet gains exposure for the “local” media outlets, their news stories have been viewed at no cost. They have relied on web advertising. Unfortunately, now, a large percentage of people read neither newspaper nor watch TV, they obtain all their information from the net.
As Chief Justice Benjamin reiterated, “We are in a digital age and it’s here to stay.”
However, one of the main adjustments to the media organization comes from the rapid recession that has redefined the economy. Some lawmakers in D.C. have even championed a “bail out” for broke newspapers, similar to that given the banks and auto industry. The most leaked proposal is to allow newspapers to qualify for non-profit status, which would place them on the same plateau as public broadcasting.
Since the start up costs are low for an internet blog in comparison to a daily paper or radio and television outlet, the marketplace has widened to allow for news sources that gather news for a specific agenda (i.e. conservatives, religion, environmentalist, etc.). Few cities have more than one newspaper.
As Lucy Daiglish described, “When you go to New York very few people read all three [dailies, The NY Times, NY Daily News, NY Post]. “We are reverting to multiple news organizations,” Daiglish opined. Those were so-called wild west days when cities had multiple papers which held specific viewpoints (in WV, papers were generally Democratic or Republican), but competition reduced most cities to one newspaper and multiple radio and television stations. The broadcast media began with local roots, but costs factors have seen mergers creating vast media empires composes of radio/television/newspaper/magazine holdings.
Kevin Qualls emphasized that “more speech is better,” and Gene Policinski agreed that we have transitioned from a limited number of sources to an infinite number.
“We [used to] surf to see what we could find, now we go to places [sites] we can trust,” The First Amendment Center director said.
Daiglish conjectured that the person who can “put value” on internet distributed journalism “will be the next Bill Gates.” Currently, mainstream news organizations face quandaries of how to “charge” for their previously free stories in order to survive in the new economy which has meant less advertising and ad dollars expended to more forms of media.
As the director of the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press explained, “Initially, websites drove readers” to the in-print copy of a newspaper or magazine. “No one has figured out a way to monetize newspaper delivery on the web,” Ms. Daiglish said.
Policinski believes “there’s still money to be made” and that “news organizations will survive and prosper.” But, adapting to the new world wide information environment will determine those who survive and those who fail.
Dr. Corley Dennison recalled local over the air broadcast stations fighting cable and satellite reception of so-called out of market distant signals (i.e. a Chicago or Los Angeles station seen in WV), fearing that viewers would abandon the home town station in favor of the larger cities offering. Congress stepped in to require that all local stations be available via satellite in their markets. A bar still exists on subscribing to a Miami station in, for example, WV.
Dr. Dennison explained that the varied news content was not the significant issue, rather, contractual agreements granting stations in specific markets access to particular syndicated programs or movies. The distant signal rules remain in place, but Dennison acknowledged that with the internet you can overcome the restriction by watching out of the area news on the internet, often, as it happens, from a station in the city where the news breaks.
However, he foresees local stations reverting to the roots of localism for which they obtained a license from the FCC to operate in the public service. “Television station will create their own original programs,” Dr. Dennison conjectured, “as networks (such as NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX) broadcast without [local] affiliates.”
Should that occur, it would be the most significant media upheaval since television forced radio to abandon comedy and drama shows and since cable/satellite forced over the air broadcasters to reexamine their faulty ‘exclusivity’ claims to eyes in particular markets.
Dennison forecast a period of some media “looking more like blogs,” but, “once the economy model re-establishes itself, television and journalism will survive.”
Referring to the opening doors of First Amendment commentary and news, Dennison looked to history, suggesting, “Walter Cronkite had half an hour. Now each [network] covers their own side of the political spectrum.”
However, the surging popularity of internet information gathering sites has made it more practical and inexpensive for citizens to express their opinions.
Despite the vast number of media outlets, Chief Justice Benjamin pointed to an internet fueled crusade concerning remarks made by Sonia Sotomayor, nominated to the court by President Barack Obama following Justice David Souter’s retirement. Blogs and the internet relies on pithy sound bytes --- as does radio and television --- which allowed an eleven second clip of her speech about Latin American women to spread nationwide.
Although the major media outlets carried the clip dug from the net, “they didn’t show the context; they just showed the clip,” Benjamin said.
Policinski retorted that “it’s up to the citizens to sort out information from misinformation,” in which he referred to sites now establishing credibility, just the same as do news organizations. He preferred to call sites such as Twitter and You Tube as “alert” mechanism , rather than sources for in depth reporting by educated and trained journalists. Absent so far have been “self correcting mechanisms” for discrediting out of context clips, that is, unless , for example, the major news organizations scrutinize the sources from which they obtain their stories. Currently, the 24/7 news channels force organizations to race to get the story on first and later determine it’s accuracy.
After the 9/11 attacks, media shriveled by finding themselves in an awkward position of non-patriotic branding if they questioned the government too strongly. The attacks made the nation fearful and paranoid; suddenly, a person next door could be a home-grown terrorists akin to the 50s Red Scare when those with liberal opinions were labeled communists.
Ms. Daiglish worried that “offensive speech” could lead to punishments akin to the exception for shouting fire in a crowded theatre or other fighting words.
Her associate, Policinski agreed, noting that what is “protest speech” in one time period often turns out to be “heroic speech” in looking back on the era when it was spoken.
For instance, in the colonies of America, printers such as Benjamin Franklin had to be accountable for what came off their printing presses. This led him and others to write under pseudonyms or anonymously . “Speaking out via the printing press could get you in a world of hurt,” Daiglish recalled, adding that “truthful, independently gathered information” cannot just be discriminated by the government, to rely on solely official sources endangers the essence of democracy. “Writing anonymously is not a new thing,” she said referring to Franklin and other founding fathers.
What redefined “news” reporting and led to the proliferation of such terms as ‘blogging,’ ‘citizen journalist’ or an ‘I reporter,” came after , in Dr. Dennison’s words, the world learned that someone writing from their computer in the basement of their parents house could make as much grassroots discourse as the major media players.
IN PART TWO, THE PANEL DISCUSSES THE DEFINITION OF A JOURNALIST, THE PRIVILIGES , ETHICS AND RESPONSIBILIES THAT GO WITH THE JOB, AND HOW THE INTERPRETATION OF FREE SPEECH SWINGS FROM RESTRICTED TO BROAD.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
