Home 禄 Opinion 禄 Opinion Columns
Real information gap between careless, careful news consumers
By Wan Lixin |
February 28, 2011, Monday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
AS a journalist who has been working in Shanghai for more than 10 years, I must own that the qualifier "in Shanghai" by no means accords the practitioner of journalism any special prestige.
Those who survey China's media scene would sometimes recommend a newspaper or magazine published in Guangzhou, Chengdu, or even Beijing, but rarely, if ever, Shanghai.
One reason, I guess, is the lack of dedicated reporters fired with a sense of mission in a city wallowing in luxury.
It's no news that traditional journalists have fallen on hard times, but when journalism is practiced by idealistic professionals, the way they go about their job is still quite valuable in this age of information overload.
According to "Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload" by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, given the multiplicity of news resources today, journalists' role as "gatekeepers" is diminishing.
"Journalism used to be whatever journalists decided it was. Today, consumers have a greater role in the decision," the book asserts.
In what is called citizen (or participatory, democratic, or street) journalism, a growing number of ordinary people contribute to the dissemination of news or views by making use of modern technology.
Some blog writers enjoy such a following that they can create an instant sensation.
In a sense, real-time live broadcast and the Internet have added a self-service element to the consumption of news.
But as we watch the daily "breaking news" purveyed by a 24/7 cable network, we sometimes wonder: Are this breaking news really relevant to us? Are we better off without knowing about it?
In addition to "serious" news, we are also exposed to a massive supply of trivial news, gossip, scandals, and personal messages.
"As we pick and choose from what is available on cable, online, in our e-mail in-boxes and elsewhere, we are each creating our own news package," the authors observe.
This development has important implications for media practitioners and consumers.
News is increasingly gathered by untrained citizens who often do not know or follow professional guidelines, but find it very tempting to spread news.
Traditional media operators too are increasingly working under competitive pressure to be the first to publish, leaving them very little time to check for accuracy.
There is even less time to provide the relevant context and analysis that would make the news revelatory and meaningful.
The implications are many.
At the beginning of the so-called information revolution, there were worries that an "information gap" would benefit people with online access and disadvantage those without it.
The real gap we are seeing occurs between careful and careless consumers of news, with the latter often overwhelmed by too much information.
There has also emerged a new generation of readers who prefer to gorge themselves on news that is nothing more than diversion and amusement.
Hence the challenge of how to make average citizens better judges of the quality of the news reports, by using some techniques used by professional journalists.
This involves the use of disciplined procedures to identify the sources and the intention of the reports.
According to this book authored by media veterans, some simple steps could help readers identify reliable journalists and news organizations.
The best journalists constantly question what others tell them. They rely more on firsthand information than hearsay. They are enterprising professionals who vet the facts they publish.
A bewildering phenomenon is that some newspapers, out of questionable motivations, increasingly choose to play on popular sentiments.
For instance, some Shanghai residents recently suspected they might have been overcharged in their electricity bills for January, which was considerably higher than usual.
Could such complaints be published without solid investigation, which is not so difficult?
By the way, we had experienced unprecedented harsh weather in January.
This report - without proper investigation - did harness pervasive public discontent with China's monopoly companies, but in doing so journalism degenerated into selectively conveying facts to suggest what the audience believes.
These reporters are not focused not on reporting, but on fueling their audience's suspicions.
This intention may be self-defeating.
"Ironically, as the press began to worry more about how to please its audience, the audience began to have doubts about the professionalism of the press," the book says.
Whether for professionals or news consumers, this is an instructive book that helps people stay informed in information age.
Those who survey China's media scene would sometimes recommend a newspaper or magazine published in Guangzhou, Chengdu, or even Beijing, but rarely, if ever, Shanghai.
One reason, I guess, is the lack of dedicated reporters fired with a sense of mission in a city wallowing in luxury.
It's no news that traditional journalists have fallen on hard times, but when journalism is practiced by idealistic professionals, the way they go about their job is still quite valuable in this age of information overload.
According to "Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload" by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, given the multiplicity of news resources today, journalists' role as "gatekeepers" is diminishing.
"Journalism used to be whatever journalists decided it was. Today, consumers have a greater role in the decision," the book asserts.
In what is called citizen (or participatory, democratic, or street) journalism, a growing number of ordinary people contribute to the dissemination of news or views by making use of modern technology.
Some blog writers enjoy such a following that they can create an instant sensation.
In a sense, real-time live broadcast and the Internet have added a self-service element to the consumption of news.
But as we watch the daily "breaking news" purveyed by a 24/7 cable network, we sometimes wonder: Are this breaking news really relevant to us? Are we better off without knowing about it?
In addition to "serious" news, we are also exposed to a massive supply of trivial news, gossip, scandals, and personal messages.
"As we pick and choose from what is available on cable, online, in our e-mail in-boxes and elsewhere, we are each creating our own news package," the authors observe.
This development has important implications for media practitioners and consumers.
News is increasingly gathered by untrained citizens who often do not know or follow professional guidelines, but find it very tempting to spread news.
Traditional media operators too are increasingly working under competitive pressure to be the first to publish, leaving them very little time to check for accuracy.
There is even less time to provide the relevant context and analysis that would make the news revelatory and meaningful.
The implications are many.
At the beginning of the so-called information revolution, there were worries that an "information gap" would benefit people with online access and disadvantage those without it.
The real gap we are seeing occurs between careful and careless consumers of news, with the latter often overwhelmed by too much information.
There has also emerged a new generation of readers who prefer to gorge themselves on news that is nothing more than diversion and amusement.
Hence the challenge of how to make average citizens better judges of the quality of the news reports, by using some techniques used by professional journalists.
This involves the use of disciplined procedures to identify the sources and the intention of the reports.
According to this book authored by media veterans, some simple steps could help readers identify reliable journalists and news organizations.
The best journalists constantly question what others tell them. They rely more on firsthand information than hearsay. They are enterprising professionals who vet the facts they publish.
A bewildering phenomenon is that some newspapers, out of questionable motivations, increasingly choose to play on popular sentiments.
For instance, some Shanghai residents recently suspected they might have been overcharged in their electricity bills for January, which was considerably higher than usual.
Could such complaints be published without solid investigation, which is not so difficult?
By the way, we had experienced unprecedented harsh weather in January.
This report - without proper investigation - did harness pervasive public discontent with China's monopoly companies, but in doing so journalism degenerated into selectively conveying facts to suggest what the audience believes.
These reporters are not focused not on reporting, but on fueling their audience's suspicions.
This intention may be self-defeating.
"Ironically, as the press began to worry more about how to please its audience, the audience began to have doubts about the professionalism of the press," the book says.
Whether for professionals or news consumers, this is an instructive book that helps people stay informed in information age.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 娌狪CP璇侊細娌狪CP澶05050403鍙-1
- |
- 浜掕仈缃戞柊闂讳俊鎭湇鍔¤鍙瘉锛31120180004
- |
- 缃戠粶瑙嗗惉璁稿彲璇侊細0909346
- |
- 骞挎挱鐢佃鑺傜洰鍒朵綔璁稿彲璇侊細娌瓧绗354鍙
- |
- 澧炲肩數淇′笟鍔＄粡钀ヨ鍙瘉锛氭勃B2-20120012
Copyright 漏 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
