Journalism of Verification
As the journalism is developed, it seems that the role of it comes to be ambiguous, partly because of the change in the media platform. The authors of the article, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel describe what journalists have to make sure to write significant article.
First, they argue that “the discipline of verification is what separates journalism from entertainment, propaganda, fiction, or art.” When I read the sentence, I came up with Ulmer’s theory I wrote about on the previous post. According to him, media today has been changing to a more entertain one, and he insists that that is the way the media have to pursue. So, then what two scholars argue earlier seems to be challenging because journalism no longer dismisses the digital media with the development of the Internet today. I understand what they want to talk and I agree with them, but now that the Internet is an integral part of the media industry, it is difficult to separate journalism from entertainment.
So, here is my first discussion question.
It seems that the importance of the Internet is not as low as when Kovach and Rosenstiel wrote their book. So, when you think of the problem again today, do you think that journalism is necessarily separated from entertainment?
The another thing they recount in the chapter is the lost meaning of objectivity in journalism. Although the discipline of verification is so personal, it is also one of the great confusion of journalism. The term didn’t mean that journalists were free of bias when the concept originally involved. Journalists wrote articles objective so that they made their work clear and transparent despite with personal and cultural biases. Then, after the emergence of the term, “realism,” journalism came to separate from political parties and become more accurate. It sought to help audiences understand things naturally and easily. However, with the rise of propaganda and the role of press agents, the trend changed to make journalism more neutral. And it leads the content more ambiguous and they come to avoid affirmation. Although journalism has been developed in many way for sure, it has done less to develop in terms of the reliability. Personally, I don’t make journalistic information big deal in everyday life. I’m sure that as people pick just a few column they really want to know, more and more journalism will shrink in the existence.
I read the article about the virologist, Emerson Spartz, too. And I found the video that he’s appearing so watch it if you’re interested in it.
My second question from the article and the video is whether the Spartz’s idea, “to make the site so ‘sticky,'” really helps us or not. I don’t think it is good way for our future. What do you think about it?