Meikle reading and response

I think there are a set of conventions which tend to be adhered to by news sites on the web. Both Marshall and Burnett say that news tends to be "informational", cast in terms of "reception and consumption." News online is not as direct and 'in your face' in terms of how you consume it. You have a choice of what news you read and research, what articles you search for and what news corporation you obtain this from. Marshall and Burnett state that news is based far more around research and such like when online. I think this is very true. When you turn on the tv, you may be a secondary viewer or tertiary viewer, and not want to watch the news. In this sense, the news comes to you. Online, you are in control of this, and can research the news at your own leisure, showing how you go and find the news. News has virtually re-invented intself and placed itself back into the cultural norm.



I think that there are new kinds of journalists in today's world. In days gone by, the role of a journalist was to gather news and publish it through the night and even by the week. This convention is still used by newspapers and magazines. But the role of a journalist has had to adapt with the prominence of the internet. Meikle says how there is n ongoing "shift in the boundary of what constitutes newsmakers." This is because of sites like Wikipedia. As mentioned in this weeks lecture, 'Wiki' stands for a gathering of people, so Wikipedia is a site where the public are the authors and journalists. Anyone is able to post an article and information, with approval from the sites maintenance people. This is revolutionary, as it allows us as consumers and users to become the informers and the journalists. As Meikle states; "The Indymedia movement offers clear examples...in its spectacular growth and in its promotion of open publishing models. As a forum for non-professional journalists of all stripes, Indymedia’s development is a vivid example of the shifting boundary around who gets to make the news." Journalists are renowned for investigating and researching items. In terms of internet news, we act as journalists as we chose where we go to obtain information, and process it ourselves. The problems with this have been evident however. Saddam Hussein's execution was broadcast live on some news sites, and when the 9/11 attacks broke out, people were writing all sorts of reasonings and explanations online, until the bigger news corporations could confirm. This shows that there is a new culture of journalist online, but the old trusted techniques and conventions are still required, and we still trust in the long-standing news corporations.



News can never be truly open! Fact. It will always be written in a certain way, spun in a specific manner, put into a soundbite, or made into a dramatised spectacle. It may be 'open', it may be subject to personal opinion, but within the construction of News, comes a perspective or outlook which denies it of truly being open. For example, Indymedia leads you towards a specific opinion and perspective, even though it describes itself as being "a network of activists who provide an open publishing platform." www.indymedia.org.uk

People still write and produce things in a way they want you to intepret them. This shows how society has changed in terms of technology, but the debates surrounding Murdoch's empire and how he leads people to a certain political perspective and leaning are still ever present in this so called 'open news.' In the 80's he had a conservative leaning, which changed to labour in the 90's in his papers and sky news. I still think he spun people to voting labour in the 1997 and 2001 elections.

So, yes, we do live in an age where it is possible to write news 'openly', but it will always be tainted with bias, opinion or wont allows others to view that news as open.