To What Degree Does Journalism Have a Duty to Represent Diversity in Society?

As stated in an earlier article, Milica Pesic of the Media Diversity Institute suggested that journalism should be: balanced, fair, accurate, sensitive [link] and inclusive. Do journalists really have a duty to be inclusive? If so, how inclusive does it have to be? Multiculturalism is a part of modern Britain, but it is difficult to strike a journalistic balance that pleases everyone. Different cultures, classes, ethnic groups, and religions, and they all have different ideas of what is newsworthy. There is a need for popular media to cater for as many different people as possible, but there is a limit to what they can achieve. Who decides how far it goes? Does it go far enough?

What’s Wrong with Non-Diverse Journalism?

As Milica mentioned, British society is not homogenous. It contains a vast array of different cultures. In many urbanised parts of the country, they are concentrated into unique melting pots of diversity.  If journalism is meant to be a reflection of this, it needs to acknowledge the social landscape, and present news that suits this. Media that fails to cater for all pockets of society excludes minority individuals from public debates on what is happening. They are unable to engage in this discourse properly, as it may not be communicated to them in a suitable manner. It is the duty of the news organisations to make sure that they adapt to rectify this.

These people have different backgrounds, go through different experiences and often have different lifestyles to the ‘average’ person in the UK. By only consuming news which doesn’t include them, they may not be able to engage in the same way that others can.

Journalism that isn’t inclusive to a range of cultures can misrepresent these other groups, or exclude them from media altogether. Ethically, this is wrong. On a large scale, this can have massive implications, as Stuart Hall’s “Mugging, the State and Law & Order” showed. Part of this comes down to the individuals presenting the news. In 2013, 94% of British journalists were white, compared to 91% of the population. The source of the information doesn’t disclose how many of these take up more senior roles. If they are even less represented at these higher levels, it adds to the issues holding minority groups back in the media. Whether this is a conscious decision or not, this will reduce the likelihood of other voices being presented in popular media.

All of this comes down to the question of newsworthiness. An essential story to some people will be of limited, niche interest to others. Anything that favours the ‘norm’ will always be swayed in that direction and that is no different with journalism. It means that the concept of ‘newsworthiness’ is biased against diverse cultures in society, and these people will be marginalised further, until there is a significant shift. This is a problem across many industries in the UK, but is a particular problem when the media has such an influence over society.

What is the Best Solution?  

The best solution is for journalism to embrace diversity in a balanced, natural and proportional way. Trying to reach a ‘quota’ of news stories that represent diversity can be considered both forced and condescending. Instead, news publishers need to employ journalists (and senior editorial staff) who reflect the society they are representing. They, in theory, should be able to bring out the diversity of the group they are serving. It goes all the way back to the purpose of journalism: to reflect what is happening in society. Despite efforts to encourage people of minority background to get into journalism, the overriding trend still lacks suitable diversity.

Diversity doesn’t just involve people with different skin colours, religions, mother tongues and so on, but also age. The news is changing to offer on-the-go news for younger generations, to suit the way that they consume news. It is only right that the same happens for the other facets of diversity. Everyone needs to have a voice and although there are specialist publications to cater for certain pockets of it, they should all be able to rely on popular media to represent them proportionally too.

 

News Production and Consumption in an Age of Social Media and Google News

We all know how much the news has evolved since the rise of the internet. It is ever-changing, as the audience demands more, while paying less. Some have got to grips with it, others aren’t doing as well, but it’s up to the news outlets to navigate this era as best they can. The following will analyse how news production and consumption have moved on in this time, and whether or not it actually benefits modern journalism.

News Production

Online journalism goes hand-in hand with social media, from which a significant proportion of people find their news. This doesn’t just go for the public, but for journalists too. According to a 2014 Cision study, 42% of UK journalists depend on social media so much that they “would not be able to carry out their work without” it. The nature of Twitter means that a single message can be amplified to thousands of people in minutes. If this message was newsworthy, such as the Hudson River plane landing, it doesn’t take long before it reaches the eyes of a journalist, who can then get in contact with that person for further details.

Social media also helps to highlight stories which may not be as prominent in mainstream news sources, as the Black Lives Matter campaign has proven. Masses of people can clump together to push something into the news, by making it a ‘Trending Topic’ on Twitter. In the past, the news could censor or ignore this, but it becomes unavoidable if it’s being forced into the public’s consciousness in this way. It has changed the face of news production, and has made parts of the process a lot more convenient, and interactive.

Google News Consumption

Processing 3.5 billion searches a day, Google is one of the many destinations where the public access their news. As it prioritises the news sources that you are most likely to engage with, some (such as Milica Pesic) have criticised it for acting favourably to certain newspapers over others. However, it actually gives you more choice. If you search for a particular news story, Google will offer you a list of the sources that have covered it. This will range from traditional newspapers (domestic and abroad) to new media sources, such as Huffington Post, BuzzFeed and Mashable. It mimics the process of walking into a newsagents. You would typically choose the same one every day. Google knows this, so remembers your favourites and pushes it to the top of the search results, but still offers other options to scroll through too.

Social Media Consumption

Generally, social media makes it easier for people to engage with news, as they can cater their consumption to their tastes by following the accounts of news organisations and journalists of their choosing. They have more options than ever (much like with Google News) as the only cost is an internet connection (unless they are Times or Sun readers). In the UK, over 40% now claim to regularly access the news online, with 28% of 16-34-year-olds relying on social media for this. It shows that there has been a shift, and it is likely to keep growing.

In light of this, it is worth mentioning one of the negative aspects of social media, particularly in a time when untrained journalist and bloggers can publish misinformation and satire that looks like news, is that some can be misled. Literally Unbelievable documents those who believe The Onion’s output is true. This is a matter more for the audience to be aware of than news organisations, but is still worth considering.

Is the New Technology a Positive for the Industry?

News is being increasingly personalised, and it is something that we just have to accept. All-in-all, the rise of the Google News and social media, enabling this new depth of personalisation, has to be considered a benefit for journalism. For news production, the benefits are obvious. It keeps things more interesting, as the process of generating user-generated content has been simplified, there are new channels to share the news, and there’s much more to engage with.

For news consumption, the same should be said. Although it may mean that people might not choose to read from the perspective of other news sources as much, it’s easier for them if they wanted to. In the past, choosing Channel 4 News over the BBC News, and The Guardian over The Times may have been the only real news decisions you made. Today, there are many more layers to it, and it is more convenient than ever.

 

Do Journalists Have a Duty to be Sensitive in Their Reporting?

Milica Pesic of the Media Diversity Institute has suggested that individual journalists have a number of core duties. Included among these are the conventional ones of being: balanced, fair and accurate. These are unlikely to be contested, as any journalism that doesn’t do these things interferes with its objectivity and undermines its purpose: to inform the public. However, she went on to add that two other factors should be taken into consideration. She suggested that journalists should also be inclusive and sensitive in their reportage. Inclusivity will be covered in another post, but do journalists really have a duty to be sensitive?

To some, the thought of being “sensitive” may evoke ideas of being “politically-correct” and trying not to step on any toes when presenting a story. It may be interpreted as the manifestation of multiculturalism and increased diversity meaning that we have to be more careful about the things we say; for fear that we may offend. To what degree is this correct?

Sensitivity is tricky, because it poses a question regarding whether we have a duty to be sensitive to the subject of the story, or the public is meant to serve. If all journalists were sensitive about a person at the heart of a story may feel about it, would anything ever get published? Probably not. I’ve already stated that journalism’s role is “to document and inform people about the world around them,” and that it is “there to give them an objective perspective on the noteworthy happenings that occur”. The public needs to be put first, if the story is newsworthy.

The savviest journalists will be able to leave their emotions aside to delve into a story, gather the facts and present them to the public in a balanced manner. This, in turn, means that they must prioritise the accuracy of what they write over any other factors. They would have to be aware of how sensitive a topic may be, as this will equip them the knowledge needed when interviewing people, and gathering insight.

Sensitivity certainly has a place in the presentation of a news piece. The NUJ offers guidelines for this very reason. Particular terminology is encouraged when speaking on mental health, as it may be more accurate to use. Journalists are told to divert from mentioning the ethnicity of people in a story, unless vital to it, so not to perpetuate racial tensions. They are also guided on the best ways to report suicides. All of these things are in place to serve the public, without jeopardising the accuracy, balance and fairness of the material, or needing to sensationalise what has happened.

The content of some journalism will be upsetting. It will offend. It will repulse. It isn’t intentionally insensitive, but sometimes it needs to encroach upon some peoples’ sensitivity, in order to do its job properly. Ultimately, it is up to the journalist to present these things without sensationalising them, so they don’t cause further harm. It is their duty to thoroughly research a topic they will write about, so they are aware of the damage a non-neutral position could implicate them in. It could even be argued that journalists can sometimes find ways to quell the polarising tensions, by informing each side what the opposing perspective is.

Is De Botton’s Vision of the News Feasible?

Alain De Botton’s 2014 publication “News: A User’s Manual” had the papers talking. Discussing the way that the news had become disengaged with the public it serves, he offers an alternative way to present the latest happenings. As you can expect, his ideas have faced opposition, but have nonetheless posed interesting perspectives on the composition, content and impact of the news.

Although vague in some areas, De Botton’s work questions newsworthiness, application of creativity and more. It is suggested that the news should be in the hands of creatives: artists, novelists and philosophers, who would be able to reinterpret what is seen to be a rigid and unquestioned norm. From this point, it appears as though he is disengaged with modern society, as news is often questioned. Twitter, particularly in the past five years, has enabled the voices of ordinary people to be amplified. Whether it’s to challenge the content of news, or to establish what the public should be aware of, they show aspects of society that De Botton has completely overlooked.

De Botton criticises the decontextualized presentation of the news, but he himself undermines his argument by refusing to fully acknowledge the conventions of modern media, its consumption and the business end of the industry. As The Guardian suggests, the author misinterprets the aggressive reactionary comments with online journalism to be “a hitherto unimaginable level of anger in the population” (rather than something ubiquitous with online content).

Alain De Botton creates a romanticised version of what he wishes news to be. This very subjective take on something which has long been presented from an objective angle would completely uproot the conventions of what British news is. Of course, this is what De Botton’s vision would aim to achieve anyway, but it seems like a mammoth task. Could we get to the point where “stories about welfare payments would be (almost) as exciting as those about incestuous Antipodean cannibals” without such a reform? Perhaps not, but in a world where the news is commoditized, few would be willing to make such a drastic leap away from the traditional methods.

 

Foreign Journalism: A Blip in Media Representation and Objectivity

Objectivity is at the heart of all good journalism. It forms the basis of presenting stories to the audience in a fair and balanced manner. News journalism relies on it, in order to best reflect reality, and to prevent any distortions of the truth. However, some British foreign journalism puts into question whether this is always the case. Lara Pawson, a former BBC journalist based in Angola, saw first-hand why this should be questioned, and offered nuggets of knowledge about ‘the system’ can fail objectivity, and media representation.

As far as foreign affairs goes, a lack of knowledge or obliviousness could lead to a lax in representation; it isn’t necessarily intentional. The British perspective of some regions is informed by what is expected, and historic ideas, rather than a contemporary understanding. The British portrayal of Africa, for instance, has been considered to be old-fashioned, and fails to reflect modern realities. The fact that these representations continue means that things like Band Aid 30 can go ahead, without being challenged by the public. In this case, it wasn’t until its condescending presentation of Ebola victims was criticised by a high-profile individual of West African descent that it faced public backlash. This shows the impact that an accumulation of media that lacks objectivity can have on public perception of some issues.

In the case of the BBC, for example, their efforts to show the reality of contemporary life can be found on their World Service. However, isolating this to a niche platform means that it’s easy for the masses to ignore it. The overriding theme shown in their representation of the continent is in an impoverished state, or the source of exotic wildlife that would be spoiled in the context of its native human population.

At the BBC, two sources are required to substantiate a story. They deem it to be ‘objective’, objective’ if two those points of view oppose one another. However, in some contexts, the system can be gamed. Lara Pawson made it clear that this has happened in the past, implying that it may be more widespread than she could fathom. Functional objectivity is taking place here, rather than the true thing. In countries which are not particularly in the UK public’s day-to-day consciousness, the BBC will have a sparing number of correspondents. They may work freelance for other organisations (classed as another source), which could mean that they become the other source to their own story.

In cases where there is a lack of objectivity, it is because there are not enough people with enough of an influence to publicly criticise the media for this. Why is it like this? Because there isn’t enough media coverage of these places. And why is that? Because it isn’t considered newsworthy? Why? Because the public isn’t exposed to current affairs in these parts of the world often. It’s a cycle that continues to isolate certain parts of the world, until a disaster strikes.

Newsworthiness initially depends on the public’s awareness of the context. In many countries, British media lacks coverage of their current affairs, because it has to prioritise ones that the audience have some initial understanding of. Pawson herself has gone out of her way to express her annoyance at the British media for ignoring what goes on in Angola, in spite of its newsworthiness. John Conroy, an investigative reporter, went out of his way to retell the story of the Rwandan genocide of 1994 in a BBC documentary. Things like this spark interest and knowledge about what is happening in the country, and how it got to this point. More of this needs to occur, to fix these blips in journalistic objectivity.

 

 

 

Is Thorough PR Compromising Journalistic Autonomy?

The pressure for journalists to churn out articles at a high rate has been exacerbated by the ever-increasing expansion of online journalism. More readers, more time zones to cater for, and more varied audiences all contribute to these strains. The public relations industry recognises this urgent need for a constant stream of stories, and is there to assist. In the US, PRs now outnumber journalists 4.6 to 1. The World PR Report indicated an 11% growth in the sector from 2013 to 2014. These agencies and in-house teams are tasked with the duty to push something into public’s awareness. It is up to journalists to manage this in a way that works for all – the news organisation, the PR people and their audience. However, there can be an argument that PR is compromising journalistic autonomy in some scenarios.

If It Is For a Good Cause, Is it an Issue?

While public relations professionals may attempt to drive the news in certain directions, not all sectors will be as successful at it as others will. When it comes to charities, for example, their ability to dictate the news stands out, for its unique ability to push its own agenda almost without challenge.

Charities such as the British Red Cross have a number of objectives: they want to improve lives, help disaster recovery efforts and generally fill in the gaps caused by capitalist market failures. All of this relies upon their ability to gain the trust of the public enough for them to want to donate to their cause. Henry Makiwa, who acts as the British Red Cross’ Senior Media Relations Officer, described this process for both short-term and longer-term campaigns, citing the recent West African Ebola outbreak and the Haitian earthquake in 2010 as examples of where they have been active.

Charities do good deeds, and help those most in need, so it makes for good news. It fills up column space without effort. News articles describing triumph over adversity are unanimously loved, and as organisations such as the British Red Cross are there on the front line, they are able to use their press teams to capture these unique stories, for the use of news organisations. They have the statistics, images, access to people there. It works in the favour of the newspapers and broadcasters, as it means that they don’t have to use as many resources (money, time, staff, etc.) to cover this news. For the charity, it means that they can show the work that they have done, and how it is benefitting those who have been impacted; building trust in the process.

If it means that less of the legwork is being done by the journalists, it is theoretically easy for the charities to manipulate this influence for their own good. News organisations are taking them at their word, while they may be being given sensationalised stories. Shady charities could even give distorted statistics. If no one else is there to report it, who knows? Without donations from the public, none of what they do is possible, so they need to be able to tap into the emotions of the audience, to get them to support what they do.

Should We Split the News-PR Marriage?

PR is nothing new, and the growth in the sector cannot be tamed, so the only solution is to create content that is thoroughly researched, and is kept as impartial as possible. As long as there is news, there will always be PR there to support it. It would be impractical to sever their public relations connections. They often have knowledge, expertise and the experience to gain stories that the journalists may not, especially when it comes to charities like the British Red Cross. It is ultimately up to news organisations to establish editorial control over their output, do independent research (as suggested by Nick Davies) more often, and to be open about their sources.

 

Could Press Regulation and Privacy Hinder the News-Gathering Process?

“Press freedom is a responsibility exercised by journalists on behalf of the public” serves as MediaWise’s motto. The statement infers that as power journalists hold can be misused, it’s up to the individual journalist to make ethical judgments and actions, as their output is “on behalf of the public”. It could be said to mean that their freedom goes as far as their willingness to act reasonably to unearth a particular story, or to present a topic in an objective manner. The Leveson Inquiry led to a new body overseeing the UK press – the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Although it is there to protect people both sides of the media, do regulators such as this set back the news-gathering process?

 

A myriad of examples can be used to show where this ‘freedom’ is taken too far (pre-Leveson). Most will be well aware of the British phone hacking scandal, and its impact. However, instances such as these are exceptions to the majority of what we read, watch and consume from our core media outlets. Of course, in instances where the content of a story may require journalists to use imaginative ways to gain information, they may be forced to cross the line of what’s usually considered acceptable. It happens. However, when the reward for such action is to uncover something truly newsworthy and in the public’s interest, it justifies this ‘freedom’.

 

The IPSO editor’s code states: “Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge… can generally be justified only in the public interest… when the material cannot be obtained by other means.” This serves a practical purpose, but some journalists may feel that these guidelines make things more difficult to them, especially when in the early research stages of discovering a story. Now that ‘privacy is the new libel’ in the British press by many active journalists and commentators, it puts further strains on the ability of journalists to even get started with these trickier stories, where its subject wouldn’t want the information in the public domain.

 

Bill Coles, former journalist at The Sun, spoke on the uncertain ground which must be entered in order to discover stories. “Legislation is not the way forward for newspapers, because it’s such a grey area,” he explained, before going into examples where he couldn’t possibly have gained insight without bending the truth, and assuming different identities. If the story is of significant public interest, there should be leeway for journalists to do whatever is ethically reasonable to get that information. Even when reporters are weary of the IPSO’s advisory comments on misrepresentation, they still tread a fine line, as far as privacy is concerned.

 

Forcing journalism into a more self-aware state will undoubtedly stifle creativity and reduce the numbers of those willing to take risks. For example, if journalists feel as though they could potentially become the subject of a lawsuit for invading someone’s privacy, it is unlikely that they will go as far as they would have done, to investigate that individual.

 

If people in a position of power have something to cover up, and they do a good job at hiding it from the public, who will be there to challenge them? MPs already doubt whether self-regulation is enough. Not being able to get into these positions means that, once again, it effectively takes things back to a state-controlled press. Coupling this with the advised Royal Charter on press regulators adds to these concerns. Does it mean that untrained citizen journalists and bloggers will be left to uncover the biggest scandals, or will this ISPO become the happy, self-regulating medium the industry needs?

 

Journalism is there to find out and present the happenings in society. Journalists are seemingly being denied the necessary channels to facilitate this. If they aren’t able to do it, who else will? As Daniel Ben-Ami mentioned “It’s important [in journalism] for the right questions to be answered, so there can be a critical culture of debate”. In a state where journalists are left in the dark, they don’t even have the knowledge to ask the right questions, never mind probing for the right answers. Of course, there needs to be repercussions to those who go beyond ethical boundaries and use criminal acts (such as phone hacking), but self-regulation through IPSO acts as the best solution to maintain the industry’s role: to gather and present pertinent news stories effectively.

 

If Content is King, When Will It Pay?

Content is king. It won’t be the first you’ve heard the phrase, nor will it be the last, but it’s causing more and more companies to find ways to get in on the action, via digital media. Whether it’s an established fashion brand wanting to create a blog to keep their customers engaged, or a local man and van firm creating videos about how to pack valuable item, the appetite for content is at an all-time high.

Journalism, by nature, is content. It’s what they do, and have always done. Journalists, in theory, should be better at creating it than anyone else. In a climate filled with this native content (funded by corporate bodies with deep pockets), where does traditional journalism fit in? Declining print circulation figures have forced some publications to cut staff, scale back operations and, in many cases, close altogether. Business models of the past no longer work, and the demand for free content has stunted any progress.

The marketers are coming into the game late, but are encroaching on the same territory with their non-branded articles, videos and infographics. In spite on the head start, a myriad of news outlets have struggled in this age, filled with an infinite supply of content ideas. As with anything, it comes down to the financial return on this content. If it is sustainable, great. If it is profitable, it is the secret everyone wants to discover.

Can Newcomers Compete with the Big Players?

Among the many things discussed at the recent News on the Move III conference (held by Press Gazette), were the ways in which some online news providers are monetising their content. The subscription model has been found to be effective for those who specialise in publishing to tablet and mobile-optimised devices, in a climate where print publications are plummeting in circulation numbers (due in part to free news content elsewhere). For example, the niche appeal of the mobile-only Electronic Sound Magazine means that it has been able to amass over 1,000 regular readers in eight months, despite its £2.49 monthly fee. It shows that if you supply a quality service and specialise that content to a specific audience, they will be willing to pay for it.

How Will Newspaper Make ‘Free’ Content Pay?

Much like progressive magazines, traditional news outlets have benefitted too. Mobile content is offering news websites the opportunity to explore new avenues that they couldn’t previously. The combination of larger handsets, improved connectivity and interactive interfaces, much more is possible that before. Guardian’s mobile editor Subhajit Banerjee spoke of their sizable tablet readership, collectively amounting to 20% of their overall website page views. Likewise, Metro has seen 350% year-on-year growth since 2013 thanks to their mobile-orientated website. As this content is “free” to consumers (not including the tablet editions of their respective print publications), they monetise it through online display advertising.

Is Online Display Advertising Working?

Although no publishers would speak on how much of their income depends on display advertising, Alex Kozloff of the Internet Advertising Bureaux mentioned that mobile digital advertising has grown from 0.8% of the overall share in 2008, to 20% in 2014. This suggests that online publishers are investing heavily in web interfaces that allow them to feature advertising, to fund the content that they host. The impressions, clicks and conversions from these adverts keep them afloat. The Daily Mail’s website features advertorial content ‘From the Web’ beneath its articles. Although frowned upon, each click pays. It works on a similar principal to display advertising, and has helped them to become the most popular English-language news website in the world.

What Other Methods are Publisher Using?

Away from traditional news outlets, the BuzzFeed model seems to be one of the most effective. They understand what makes the public want to share content, and if they are able to partner with brands to sponsor that content, it makes money. This sponsored content is said to “blend” in with the rest of the editorial seamlessly, which is where other advertising may be less effective. The combination of text, images and short videos make the content as rich as possible, so enhance the experience for the user. For news organisations to engage with the public more, these are some of the tactics they may have to employ to get the results they desire. If a user is engaged, they are more likely to share, thus more likely to get more eyes on their content, which is funded by a sponsor who may pay based on the views it gains. This is why investors are putting their money here, rather than in print.

What is the Future for Monetised News Content?

Bearing all of the above in-mind, news outlets need to continue to adapt to the ways in which its audiences like to consume news. If this is now on-the-go on mobile devices, they need to be able to exploit the technology that can monetise it. This will start with engaging, high-quality content, which is competitive. Depending on whether it suits them, they can then use display advertising, sponsored content, advertorials, and so on to make it pay. As user habits change, so will the news providers. No one has ‘the’ answer the problem, but these methods that are starting to pay off for publishers today.