I think the most important media function depends on the type of media and the purpose of that particular medium.
For example, readers of the Sydney Morning Herald broadsheet would probably rate Willey's functions of news, backgrounding and encyclopaedic, therefore educating, higher than entertainment.
On the other hand, readers of gossip magazines such as Cleo, Cosmo, Who Weekly etc value entertainment and advertising above the encyclopaedic function.
Personally, I prefer to read accurate and honest news stories. But like many women, I love a bit of entertainment and gossip in the 'trashy' mags.
Above all, the main aim of newspapers/magazines is to sell as many copies as possible and they will do whatever it takes to fulfil that purpose.
2. To what degree should journalists be concerned about their employer's profitability and readership/viewership figures? If it is considered the profitability of a journalist's employer in turn ensures the continued employment for the journalist, readership/viewership figures should be a top priority of the journalist.
However, I think it could be a catch 22 situation. If the journalist reports interesting, informative and accurate stories, which are of course appropriate for the publication's readers, readership figures and eventually profitability will result accordingly.
So I think if the journalist respects their position and produces quality work, profitability will result.
3. Is it reasonable for the owner of a media outlet to direct editorial policy and to make editorial decisions on political and other issuesTo a certain extent, I do think it is reasonable. However I do not think owners should completely dictate what is written.
Media owners have the right to provide a broad outline of their story requirements and trust the journalist to report accordingly.
Ultimately, it would be the responsibility of the media owner if information is mis-reported or inaccurate, which justifies why I believe the media owner has the right to make certain decisions.
4. Does investigative journalism really matter? Does it sell newspapers or increase ratings? In today's society, I think accurate and honest journalism is more credible than investigative journalism. A journalist could spend ample time investigating information for a story, but it would not be credible if it was communicated dishonestly or inaccurately to an audience.
Therefore, in my opinion I do not think investigative journalism would necessarily sell newspapers or increase ratings.
5. Dilemma: You are the editor of a newspaper that is losing money. The biggest advertiser has been convicted of drink-driving. Your newspaper has a policy of recording all such convictions. Even your own son's conviction has been published. The newspaper's general manager - your boss- tells you the advertiser will no longer advertise with the newspaper if you publish the report. The decision is yours alone, but you are told the loss of advertising could mean the paper's closure, or at least the retrenchment of several editorial and print-room staff. What do you do?
Policy is policy, no matter who is involved. Rules are rules and must be adhered to. Therefore, I'd publish the story.
Here's why:
I think there is more credibility in being honest. In doing so, I think it would only be a matter of time before a replacement advertiser is found, an advertiser who appreciates the honesty of the editor and the morals of the newspaper.
If something was leaked to the media further down the track about a cover-up, the newspaper in question would lose not only their credibility, but their business.
KELL'S ISSUE
I quite liked Fuller's quote, which explained how marketing has taken over journalism. Fuller said journalists of yesteryeard "did not feel inhibited by somebody's opinion survey telling them what people want to see in their newspaper. They did what they pleased, what they thought was right" (pg.43).
If only journalism was still the same and journalists did continue writing/printing what they liked as opposed to being influenced by other peoples' opinions.
Today, journalism is a business and politics. In saying that, I think this refers more to newspaper journalism, which is also now available on the web. I don't have a lot of knowledge of magazine journalism, but because magazines exist for entertainment, I don't think they are as politically influenced as newspapers.
The part of Fuller's quote I liked most was the last five words - "what they thought was right".
Slightly off track a little, but Veronica Guerin came to mind in this regard.
Despite people telling her to stop her crusade against Irish drug barons because of the danger she could bring to herself and her family, Veronica continued her campaign because it was what she thought was the right thing to do.
That decision ultimately cost her her life.
And I understand it's a little bit more involved than just publishing a story because you think it was "right" to publish it, but I think it draws a definite parallel.
I doubt many journalists, although i'm sure there are some, who would risk their life and the life of their family, to expose criminals.
The link below is from the BBC website explains how journalism has been changed in Ireland because of Guerin.
Today, Irish journalists are more protected in terms of crime reporting.
So perhaps reporting "what is right" might ultimately be beneficial, but in a dangerous situation it might ultimately cost a life..as in this case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/86191.stm
No comments:
Post a Comment