Journalism and Social Media

Journalism, often regarded as the 4th Estate, has been greatly affected by social media.  However, despite there being a number of technological determinists who believe that the internet and social media will save journalism, those who study the theory of political economy are far less sanguine. 

Journalism is currently subject to a number of pressures.  The most severe of these are political and economic, with journalists being paid very little and journalists having very little time due to staff cuts and increased workload.

As news has become corporatized, news corporations have made every effort to minimize costs and maximise profit (the Mini-Max approach) and this has meant that assignments and investigations that are long-winded and costly are no longer undertaken.

To step into this gap, governments and corporations assemble press releases that are ready for time-poor journalists to cut and paste into newspaper articles.  Unfortunately it appears that journalists are often too hard pressed to fact check these press releases, and as such a constant stream of unchecked PR flows straight into the mainstream media.  This does not just happen in ‘low quality’ tabloid newspapers, but also in the supposedly ‘higher class’ broadsheets.

It also seems the case that there is less room on news desks for reporters who have specialised knowledge of a subject.  As such, reports on complex issues such as science or economics are often over-simplified or sometimes factually incorrect.  With no knowledge within the news desk to spot and correct such issues, unless knowledgeable readers spot errors and a correction is issued, mis-information is fed into the public domain and never corrected.  This leads the public to be slightly less well-informed than they were previously.  Especially now the internet means that articles are archived and available almost permanently.

There have been efforts to blame the current state of news on lazy journalists.  However, this has been likened to blaming production line workers for the design of the cars that roll off the production line.  

Political Economists such as Chomsky argue that the hierarchical nature of the status quo, whereby news corporations have their own agendas that are often set by pragmatic business decision-making requirements and political pressures will determine which stories the journalists are permitted to focus on and publish.

As such, far from its traditional image of lengthy investigations taking journalists out of the office, modern journalism is a desk bound job, that has been significantly de-skilled.

The way in which the internet and social media has assisted journalism is in the availability of user generated content.  It is not possible for journalists to predict where a news event may occur, but with the advent of video-capable mobile phones, it is possible for public ‘on the ground’ at an event to submit footage to mainstream news channels and have their footage assimilated into professional broadcasts.  This has proven hugely useful for existing media conglomerates, as they gain key footage at no cost, but still retain control of the news agenda.  

Sadly, it has not proven the case that the media has been revolutionised by the internet however.  In large part, this is because individuals have built up trust relationships with existing networks, and still visit (for example) the BBC or CNN website for their news, rather than selecting a new, less established news source.

A review of 'First As Tragedy, Then As Farce'

In this piece, Zizek discusses the changes that have taken place in the nature of capitalism over the course of the last hundred years or so.  He references Boltanski and Chiapello’s The New Spirit of Capitalism (focused primarily on France) which suggests that during this period there have been three distinct styles of capitalism.

First was the entrepreneurial spirit, which survived until the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Second was the rigid organisation of the large corporation, which survived until the 1970s.

From the 1970s on, business began the slow process of abandoning such strict hierarchies, and began to move to a ‘network’ based model, giving more autonomy to individuals and encouraging smaller, more fluid, project-focused teams.

Zizek argues that this move away from strict hierarchy to a more flexible, de-centralised approach, was capitalism's response to the rise of socialism that occurred at this time.  Marginalising ‘true’ socialism by making it seem conservative and unexciting, while promoting the idea that ‘cultural capitalism’ was a force for good.  Zizek draws a link between this new method of approaching consumption, and Jacques Lacan’s theory of RSI, arguing that in purchasing an item, the consumer considers the Reality (the functional purpose), the Symbolism (e.g. Audi driver = wealthy, independent thinker) and the Imaginary (I can picture myself driving along beautiful, well-surfaced, empty roads).

Zizek believes that this cultural shift can be identified as an element of Post-Modernism, as defined by Jean-Francois Lyotard.  The link between personal identity and product choice has become ever more closely intertwined.

E.g. Believe in collaboration and trying to build a better world?   Why not buy an Android phone?  The software is open-source and anyone can build an application for it.  Or if aesthetics are everything, and having the slickest user interface is what matters (regardless of Apple's restrictive licensing policies) why not buy an iPhone?  Che Guevara vs Nietzsche anybody?

Zizek argues that another achievement of the current form of capitalism is in how it succeeded in appropriating the slogans and methods of the counter-culture for its own ends, rather than continuing attempts to violently and publicly repress it.

Zizek references Jean-Claude Milner, who argues that the state, in granting ‘permissions’ to the general population, such as allowing divorce or abortions to be more easily available, can be perceived as ‘loosening the chains’ sufficiently to prevent widespread protest, without relinquishing one iota of their control.  Zizek points out that as much as these greater civil freedoms are, in themselves, good things, they have absolutely no effect on the distribution of power.

Zizek also illustrates the difference between genuine radical emancipatory politics, and populist politics.  He argues that the fundamental cornerstone of populism is ignorance, a people's refusal to engage with and understand the complexities of the situation that they find themselves in.  He suggests that a populist outcry is effectively a shout of ‘I don’t really know what’s happening, but I want it to stop!’  Zizek argues that it is a politics that requires a scapegoat, something or someone that can be identified and blamed.

Zizek argues that truly radical emancipatory politics are active, imposing and enforcing a vision, while populist politics are reactive, a politics of fear.

Bibliography
Zizek, Slavoj. "The New Spirit Of Capitalism." In First As Tragedy, Then As Farce, by Slavoj Zizek, 51-64. London: Verso, 2009.

Is your writing your 'letter to the world'? How? Why?

In short, no.

Personally, I take responsibility for my own decisions and the way I live my life, but I have no interest in trying to push my views onto other people.  I would prefer to be proved wrong in an argument and learn something, than stick doggedly to my point of view in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I have no respect for anybody, be they politician, religious leader or author who believes that they not only know how they should live, but they also know how I should live.

When I write, I am trying to create something that is an engaging mixture of art and entertainment, not get on my soapbox.

I believe it is impossible to completely remove myself from things that I create, but I do work hard to not make my creative work about me.  I frequently write from viewpoints that are not my own, and try to ensure that any character I create has their own voice, not just an echo of mine.


I believe that for Emily Dickinson, her poetry was her letter to the world.  I believe that the social norms of the place and time that she was born into prevented her from speaking plainly to her family and friends about the hypocrisies she observed.  I suspect her poetry gave her comfort in a world where she must have felt stifled by social convention.

For John Cheever, I believe that while morals could be drawn from many of his stories, this was not his primary concern.  John Cheever depended on the income from his writing in order to feed his family.  As such, his main interest was in matching the style of the magazine he worked for and getting paid.  Everything else was secondary.

'What influences and inspires you as a writer?'

As a writer I find it almost impossible to provide a neat list of influences and inspirations.  Without wanting to get too philosophical, I am somebody who believes that each individual, as a person, is formed from a mixture of everything that they've ever experienced.  I have taken in so much (fact and fiction) over the years, that I can't (and wouldn't want to) try to isolate or glorify some of the elements that make up 'me' to the detriment of others.

For me, anything that creates a self-contained world and is able to immerse me in that world, inspires me to try and create something that could have a similar effect on the reader.

My main interest at present is in the creation of pieces where the world that is presented seems familiar to the reader, but is actually subtly different to reality.  I don’t want to write horror, but I do particularly enjoy reading stories where the world in which the story is set has something slightly discordant and unexplained in its workings.

Some of Cheever’s stories exhibit this quality.  ‘The Enormous Radio’ is an obvious example, where the radio does not work in the manner that the reader would expect a radio to operate.

However, ‘The Swimmer’ plays with the notion of time itself in order to make the story work.  I would argue that playing with the reader’s notion of time, a fundamental building block of our perception, will always have a more dramatic effect on the reader than a malfunctioning appliance.

'A protagonist that embodies the flaws and weaknesses of the writer distracts the reader from the narrative itself.'

This week's lecture was about conflict, both the external type of conflict such as war, and internal conflicts such as self-interest vs. the desire to do the right thing.

We have also been asked to consider whether a protagonist that embodies the flaws and weaknesses of the writer distracts from the narrative itself?

My answer, predictably, is 'It depends.'

I would suggest that for somebody to be a recognised author, they would need to have written a number of successful books.  It is unlikely that anybody will have written a biography/autobiography of a young author who has just released their first novel.  As such, what information is out in the public domain about such an author?  Often very little.  Nobody will know if the heroin addict or high-flying executive in the novel is based on personal experience, or drawn from imagination.

Very often it is not realised which of an author's characters are drawn from life until much later in their careers.  Those who only achieve success posthumously may never have a biography written about them during their lifetime, and therefore never have a chance to dispute the accuracy of a biography published later.

As such, tempting as it is for academics to read meaning into similarities between a character and the author, I hesitate to draw those connections, as there is a risk of twisting the facts to fit the theory, rather than the other way around.  There are obviously many instances of authors using their demons to assist their careers, but it is important to differentiate between the factually provable instances, and unproven theories posited by critics.

Fiction in a 'New Yorker' style

I'm afraid I've just been too busy to type up and edit the piece I wrote in the lecture last week, so I'm going to cheat and point you at a piece I'd already written that is tucked away on the Flashnificent7 website.  It (completely accidentally) does follow the majority of the New Yorker style guide.  However it is an entire 500 words long.

Do feel free to investigate the rest of the site if time allows.  If you like short fiction, there's bound to be a few stories that you'll enjoy.

Review of 'Living and Learning with New Media'

As part of my social media module I'm reviewing a paper published by the Macarthur Foundation that aims to examine the way that youth interact with new media.  In particular the paper aims to answer two key questions:

How are new media becoming integrated into youth practices and agendas?  How do these practices change the dynamics of youth-adult negotiations over literacy, learning, and authoritative knowledge? (Bittani et al. 2008, p1)

The conclusions that they reach are broadly:

• That to truly participate in what’s happening, young people need more than access to “serious” online information.
• That there are many potential barriers to somebody’s ability to participate, including economic, social, institutional and cultural barriers.
• That participating with peers in the world of new media allows youth to negotiate a set of online social norms.
• Youth are developing new forms of media literacy that are designed solely around youth-centred social ‘worlds’.  (excluding authority)
• That young people are able to learn about and participate in online activities with their peers, without requiring formal instruction from an ‘authority figure’ such as a parent or teacher.

To put this paper in context, it should be noted that it was first published in 2008, indicating that its information was gathered some time beforehand.  As such, it has to be assumed that the data used is approximately four years old.  This places it at a time when the original iPhone was new technology and smart-phones had not reached the mainstream in the way that they have now.  Even services such as Twitter were only just beginning to be recognised by the mainstream.

Nevertheless, this study does answer the two main questions that it set out to answer.  My two main observations regarding the report are as follows:

That due to the point in time at which the data was collected, it does not take into account the ‘mobile revolution’ that has occurred in some western societies.  A large proportion of the nation (44% of U.S. mobile subscribers – up from 18% two years ago) have smartphone's that remove the requirement for fixed-line broadband and a PC.  In particular, the number of 13-17 year olds that have a smartphone has jumped from 16% in 2009, to 40% in Q3 2011.  (Nielsen, 2011, p2)  I would only expect that number to grow over the coming years, as it gets harder to find a phone that isn't a smartphone, and greater acceptance of this technology filters through.

In addition, the report does not seem to engage those in authority as to their feelings regarding these technologies.  Do the youth feel that their parents and teachers are in favour of them spending time online?  Do the parents and teachers feel supportive towards those wanting to spend time online, or frustrated?  How do those in authority deal with those who are using technology in a manner that is disruptive?  Is there consistency in the policies of schools and other educational establishments?  I would have liked to see more information on how parents and educational establishments in particular approached these changes in how youth interact with new technology in general, and new media in particular.



Bibliography
Bittanti, M et al., 2008. Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project. The MacArthur Foundation Reports

. 2012. . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2011-Reports/state-of-mobile-Q3-2011.pdf. [Accessed 03 February 2012].