The Associated Press is considering trying to track down every use of its material online, according to a Huffington Post report. AP Chairman Dean Singleton announced that the AP "would pursue legal and legislative actions” against those who don’t “properly license” AP content.
It’s certainly understandable that any media organization would try to protect their work. Everyone in the news industry is seating bullets trying to predict the future and to hang on to the present by whatever little thread they have now. However. Singleton reminds me a little of the small neighbor kid who nobody really wanted to play with. Like the kid down the street, Singleton wants to take his ball and go home. The likely response? "Go ahead—we’ll just move on without you."
The AP has always been a media powerhouse-prestige and access has been theirs. Singleton is afraid of the future-just as most players in the industry. Everything is uncertain. The problem is though, that you can’t just run willy-nilly and start talking shit. The AP doesn’t have the staff, time, or money to track down all of the misuse of their material. They know it and so does everyone else.
There is a code of ethics in journalism. Some will follow that code and some will not. Singleton should focus on what’s going to keep the AP going strong and maintain its role in the industry. He'd be better off using his time and resources to figure out what that industry needs to do in order to survive. That won’t happen if he takes his ball, runs home and slam the door behind him.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
When I was a little girl I would grab the Sunday Newsday and run to the living room in my house. I opened the drapes to the giant window at the back of the house and curl up in the warm sun. I loved to spread out the sections of the paper and pour over them for hours-devouring each one. It breaks my heart to think that future generations might not wash their hands on Sunday mornings and watch the ink go down the drain.
Newspapers offer their content online and allow users to comment on stories. Have you read these comments? They are snarky! Take a look at the Boulder Daily Camera sometime soon. The DC has a skeleton staff and relies quite a bit on interns. Subscriptions are down and advertising is not what it once was. Boulderites are a pretty smart group. They want to read their news online but they aren't taking into account the DC's lack of staff and money.
I agree with Clay Sharky when he talks about our need for journalism. It scares me to think about the future of the industry. I don't think about it in a "yipes-where can I get a job?" kind of way. I think of it as an "oh no-will kids ever get the chance to curl up in the sun to read the paper?" kind of way.
I have no answers about the future of journalism. In my classes, Journalism profs joke that journalists don't typically have math skills. It's likely that we've found ourselves in this situation partially because of that.
Journalists didn't predict the downfall of the industry. If they knew, they all would have planned ahead and charged online readers. My grandma always said "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?" She was a pretty smart lady. Not in the "college-educated Boulder" kind of way-but in the "you've got to think one step ahead" kind of way.
Journalists are in the present, not two steps ahead. To save the industry we'll need to be flexible. We'll also need to think like my grandma always did. We'll need to plan ahead and not give the milk for free.
Newspapers offer their content online and allow users to comment on stories. Have you read these comments? They are snarky! Take a look at the Boulder Daily Camera sometime soon. The DC has a skeleton staff and relies quite a bit on interns. Subscriptions are down and advertising is not what it once was. Boulderites are a pretty smart group. They want to read their news online but they aren't taking into account the DC's lack of staff and money.
I agree with Clay Sharky when he talks about our need for journalism. It scares me to think about the future of the industry. I don't think about it in a "yipes-where can I get a job?" kind of way. I think of it as an "oh no-will kids ever get the chance to curl up in the sun to read the paper?" kind of way.
I have no answers about the future of journalism. In my classes, Journalism profs joke that journalists don't typically have math skills. It's likely that we've found ourselves in this situation partially because of that.
Journalists didn't predict the downfall of the industry. If they knew, they all would have planned ahead and charged online readers. My grandma always said "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?" She was a pretty smart lady. Not in the "college-educated Boulder" kind of way-but in the "you've got to think one step ahead" kind of way.
Journalists are in the present, not two steps ahead. To save the industry we'll need to be flexible. We'll also need to think like my grandma always did. We'll need to plan ahead and not give the milk for free.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I was at work this past Tuesday and had student after student in my office so I COMPLETELY missed Obama’s inauguration and still haven’t seen it. Don’t worry for me too much though—my husband DVR’d it. (I’m declaring DVR’d as officially having “verb” status.) I was relieved to hear that I’d be able to still watch the entire event since I missed the live streaming coverage on my computer at work. Thank goodness for modern technology.
We have such hunger these days for instant knowledge. We want information about an airplane landing in the Hudson immediately. We set up Google alerts so we don’t miss important information-we want to be the first to know. We carry I Phones and Blackberries so that we can check the web and send/receive emails at all times. We have our settings set so that as soon as our big 80s hair is tagged in a Facebook photo we know all about it.
Certainly there is a difference between Suzy’s status update saying “Go Steelers!” or “Suzy just put the kids to bed” and knowing about the Dow dropping hundreds of points or Caroline Kennedy withdrawing her Senate bid. But, still.
Back during the 2000 election, Fox News declared George W. Bush the winner in Florida at 2:16am the morning after polls closed. Four minutes later, the other networks had made the same call. Fox News wanted to be first and was using simple exit polls as their source of information. They did not base their claim on information from Voter News Service, (which provides the major stations with exit polls and voting returns) and as a result, two hours later, each network had withrawn their claim.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5599257810&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T5599257813&cisb=22_T5599257812&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8213&docNo=25
It certainly isn’t unethical to want all of this instant information, but to not verify the facts is lazy and inadequate journalism.
In this age of instant gratification, ethical journalism can get lost in the shuffle. It is an industry challenge to try to be the first on the scene and the first to report the details. With newspapers dying off each day, it is crucial to retain journalistic ethics and integrity as we move more and more towards providing news more immediately. After the networks embarrassment during the 2000 elections, CNN gathered a panel of independent scholars to review its election night coverage and to make recommendations to help the network deliver fair, accurate and responsible election reporting in the future.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/cnn.statement/
The only hope for the future of true ethical journalism is to follow CNN’s lead and take precautions to avoid similar rushed behavior in the future. There will always be unethical journalists and networks, but it is my hope that the most solid and reputable of those will retain their value by delivering the truth to the public as accurately and quickly as possible.
I have to believe that people get into the field of journalism with a thirst for the truth and that thirst cannot be quenched by rushed and shoddy work. In the end, however, will the demand for immediate news and information simply steamroll over the longstanding ethics of a true journalism? Only time will tell…
We have such hunger these days for instant knowledge. We want information about an airplane landing in the Hudson immediately. We set up Google alerts so we don’t miss important information-we want to be the first to know. We carry I Phones and Blackberries so that we can check the web and send/receive emails at all times. We have our settings set so that as soon as our big 80s hair is tagged in a Facebook photo we know all about it.
Certainly there is a difference between Suzy’s status update saying “Go Steelers!” or “Suzy just put the kids to bed” and knowing about the Dow dropping hundreds of points or Caroline Kennedy withdrawing her Senate bid. But, still.
Back during the 2000 election, Fox News declared George W. Bush the winner in Florida at 2:16am the morning after polls closed. Four minutes later, the other networks had made the same call. Fox News wanted to be first and was using simple exit polls as their source of information. They did not base their claim on information from Voter News Service, (which provides the major stations with exit polls and voting returns) and as a result, two hours later, each network had withrawn their claim.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5599257810&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T5599257813&cisb=22_T5599257812&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8213&docNo=25
It certainly isn’t unethical to want all of this instant information, but to not verify the facts is lazy and inadequate journalism.
In this age of instant gratification, ethical journalism can get lost in the shuffle. It is an industry challenge to try to be the first on the scene and the first to report the details. With newspapers dying off each day, it is crucial to retain journalistic ethics and integrity as we move more and more towards providing news more immediately. After the networks embarrassment during the 2000 elections, CNN gathered a panel of independent scholars to review its election night coverage and to make recommendations to help the network deliver fair, accurate and responsible election reporting in the future.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/cnn.statement/
The only hope for the future of true ethical journalism is to follow CNN’s lead and take precautions to avoid similar rushed behavior in the future. There will always be unethical journalists and networks, but it is my hope that the most solid and reputable of those will retain their value by delivering the truth to the public as accurately and quickly as possible.
I have to believe that people get into the field of journalism with a thirst for the truth and that thirst cannot be quenched by rushed and shoddy work. In the end, however, will the demand for immediate news and information simply steamroll over the longstanding ethics of a true journalism? Only time will tell…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)