Monster in social media

In the end of 2010, there was a wave of demonstration revolution, protests, riots and civil wars occurred in West Asia, Middle East and North Africa. Those actions have been named as “Arab Spring”. Some new technologies have been using in organized and operating those activities. For example, FackBook, Twitter and Youtube played important roles in Egypt riots, Anti-government persons have used those social media to organize and disseminate their activities. BBC even made a documentary film to state their opinion: How social media change the world.

To be honesty, I can’t see any apparent developments in those areas since the revolutions; actually those regions are now in chaos. But let us look back to the very beginning of those riots, those actions were organized and launched by several organizer. In the video “The Egyptian revolution on Twitter” we can easily recognized some most linked Twitter account affect a majority of Twitter users. In another word several social media users push the revolutions in Egypt.

It is a very horrible phenomenon; few invisible people could trigger a large revolution in reality. We could say that is the power of social media, and because the users are invisible, it is very hard to locate and control that power.

Maybe we could explain those revolutions and riots by using the spiral of silence theory. The theory said: the closer a person believes the opinion held is similar to the prevailing public opinion, the more they are willing to share that opinion in public. Therefore, if major trend changes, the person will recognize that the opinion is less in favor and will be less willing to express that opinion to the public. As the distance between public opinion and a person’s personal opinion grows, the more unlikely the person is to express their opinion.

We could replay the process in the Twitter. At beginning, some opinions about Egypt appeared online, they may suggested to held some procession to protest the government, than some Twitter users, who have considerable numbers of followers, forwarded those opinions, therefore, those Twitter users’ followers may think those opinions about the Egypt were the dominate awareness, because some famous Twitter users have forwarded it. As consequence of that, increasing numbers of users agreed those opinions; meanwhile others who do not agreed have decreased or kept in silence. Finally, when the volume of approvers reached the critical value, the procession will be organized and implemented. And that was happened in Egypt during the “Arab Spring”.

In that process, we can easily figure out that, the whole process were affected by those Twitter users who have large number of followers. According to the spiral of silence theory I’ve mentioned before, we can define if those idol users changed their opinion, their followers may possibly changed. In some certain condition, that means the whole social media system were controlled by a small group of persons, and they can easily release the “monster” in social media users.

There is a case to proof my point. In the end of July, Orlando Bloom allegedly tried to punch Justin Bieber after a scuffle in a restaurant in Ibiza. After that both Orlando Bloom and Justin Bieber’s followers quarreled in Twitter, they actually create some meme for both of them, there are thousands replies under the each post. If two celebrities could trigger monster within the Twitter users, you could image how effective it could be during the “Arab Spring”.

The reason why social media could have such considerable power depends on the social media platform. There are several ways to control it; however they are double edged methods.

In China, the government blocks the access of some social media, such as Youtube, Twitter and FaceBook. In some certain condition, it jail the “monster” in the very basic level, however it also barrier the in formations for Chinese.

标准

Hero or coward?

In 2013, there was magnificent news which struck the whole world. A former system administrator, named Edward Snowden, revealed a massive surveillance program which conducted by the USA since 2006.

 

The entire program is a so called “anti-terrorism” program which ran by the NSA (National Security agency). It is named “PRISM”. Edward Snowden said the program was totally illegal and offended human rights, consequently, he leaked classified information form NSA, and most of them were coming form the PRISM program. (http://www.c-span.org/video/?313429-1/nsa-chief-testifies-damage-surveillance-leaks)

 

Until recent time, Snowden are constantly releasing information, and it is hardly to judge the creditability within them. Furthermore, those information, which released by Edward Snowden, have triggered large scale of debates in public. Snowden disseminate that information by internet, and Julian Assange defined him as a “journalist” and “hero”. As a result, and there are many proponents who considering Snowden as a hero. They have been motivated by the reports and comments form social media and mainstream media report, however, on the contrary, many opponents are thinking he is a traitor. In my own point of view, the quality of news is the main evaluation standard for online and traditional journalism.

As Snowden has become a media participates, the content which he has been released should be considering as news, meanwhile, according to the O’Donnell, McKnight, and Estes in early 2014, they claimed that “ethics, newsworthiness, and public benefit” should be the top three evaluations standards of assessing the “excellent in journalism” (http://www.thefutureofjournalism.org.au). That means we should analyze the content those three angles in Snowden’s content to evaluate the news quality.

 

First is the news worthy, Lamble figure out the six areas which should be take into account in news worthy part, they are “significance”, “proximity”, “conflict”, “novelty”, “human interest” and “prominence”. It is easy to figure out that the content which released by Snowden are entirely suitable for those six parts. Those information are about the surveillance program, which are closely relevance for all the residents in the world, they could be defined as “significance” and “proximity”. In addition, those information were leaked by a former employee of NSA, the leak process itself could be a novel, that process made content “conflict” and “novelty”, of course it satisfied “human interest”. Moreover, because of those leaks information are closely relevance for the whole world, which means prominence. As the result, the content which released by Snowden was entirely satisfied news worthy part.

 

Second, the public benefit part. In some certain condition, the surveillance program is collecting personal information and data form private archive online. Consequently, those actions conducted by Snowden had some positive effects in protecting the benefits of public. In my own point of view, although those actions have some positive effects for public benefits, the purpose of those actions should be considered. Edward Snowden release those information just for the public benefits, or in another words, he is a traitor and try to use those data to extort some country?

 

In the last part, for the ethical issues, I strongly believe Snowden do not follow any ethical principals in his reports. Snowden could access those classified information because he used to working for NSA. Apparently, he couldn’t get those information normally, possibly some illegal methods have been involved in getting access to the classified documents. I think he disseminate those data for human rights, however, the actions were really harmful for his own country. As consequent, those ethical issues are the real problems which faced by Snowden.

 

May be we can define Snowden as an unprofessional journalist. He understanding the inside of newsworthiness and public benefits, however, it seems he know nothing about journalism ethics. So we may say “Yes he is a good man but far more away from a hero”.

 

Same comments made by one of my friend, he is working for government, maybe his opinion could be considered as another idea for Snowden. When I ask his opinion for Snowden, he said directly, “he is a cowered.” In his point of view, rather than using that information to protect “public benefits”, Snowden are using those information as a shield to protect himself. And I also ask him, if he is Snowden what he will do. He said to me “I will release everything I know on the internet, and suicide, because for public benefit and human benefit, I should tell them the truth, but in same certain condition, I betray my country, as a patriot I will end my life.” I think this may illustrate another idea of the consideration about Edward Snowden.

 

标准

Ethical or money…..

On August 31, a collection of about 200 private images of various female celebrities, and most of them containing nudity, were posted on the imageboard 4chan, and later appeared on other websites and social networks (August 2014 celebrity photo leaks, wiki). The Guardian criticized this action as an “invasion of privacy for their subjects” (If you click on Jennifer Lawrence’s naked pictures, you’re perpetuating her abuse, The Guardian, 1 Sep).

Apparently, this leaks case has illustrated the crisis in online privacy protection; however, ethical issues should also be taken into account. Those private images was released and reposted by online participators. In the online media forms, media participants could receive and disseminate the information simultaneously (Hill,S and Lashmar,P, 2014, p7 ), consequently, those contents which disseminated by online participants could be defined as online journalism. Although in this particular case, those contents were distributed by non-professional online journalism participators, it also provides some issues which should be concentrated by professionals who specialized in online journalism.

 

 

Online journalism

In this specific case, those images triggered larger scale of debate in public. Cherwell seriously criticize those contents and journalism, they assert that all the contents are focusing on “how to make money”, and there are no ethical codes have been followed in those contents. (Money or Morality – what really motivates the media, Meaney, S, Cherwell, 2014). It seems that ethical issues are very important in journalism.

In the early 2014, O’Donnell, McKnight and Este argued that ‘ethics’, ‘news worthiness’ and ‘public benefit’ as the top three points in criteria of assessing ‘excellence in journalism’ (O’Donnell P, McKnight, D. & Este J. 2014, p38). “Ethics” is one important part to evaluate the quality of the journalism, not only mainstream media, but also online journalism.

In addition, not only mainstream journalism, but also online journalism is seeking for monetary profit. (O’Donnell P, McKnight, D. & Este J. 2014, p41) As a result, the news producers will generate contents which could attract audience. The case entirely illuminates this point, they using celebrities’ privacy to attract financial support, because the “private lives will attract great public interest”. (Turner, 2014, p305)

 

Ethical challenges

It has been mentioned that the three top points in evaluating the quality of journalism. They are “news worthiness”, “ethic” and “public benefit” (O’Donnell P, McKnight, D & Este J. 2014, p38). The “celebrity photo leaks” case could be analyzed in those angles.

The first element is new worthy. According to Lamble’s (2013, pp46-pp52) argument, news worthy has been defined into six areas: significance, proximity, conflict, novelty, human interest and prominence. The journalism contents for “celebrity photo leaks” case are entirely suitable for those parts. For one thing, Tumer argues that celebrities’ private lives have great attraction for audience (Turner, 2014, p305), those content seems to satisfied audiences’ interest. For another, those images contain celebrities’ private information, which are rare. Lamble asserts that “significance” is relevance to the scale of audience, who are attracted by the event, (Lamble, 2013, p46) he also claims that “proximity” relates to the news contents which are “close to us emotionally….and socially”, as consequence, the journalism could be defined as significance and proximity. In addition, those photos contain nudity fragments and it launched great debate through audience. Lamble also states that if the contents are “strange and bizarre”, it could be more attractive; as a result, those debate and unusual images could satisfy the novelty and conflict.

If the evaluation standards only focus on “news worthy” area, those journalism contents could be defined as “excellent news”. In fact, those news contents have receive large scale of criticism, because those contents only focus on “attracting audience and making money” (Money or Morality – what really motivates the media, Meaney, S, Cherwell, 2014) and ignoring the information acquirement methods which involved by those media and privacy issues inside. As a result, online media ethics tend to be the most important aspect in influence the quality of online journalism.

On the one hand, there are some proponent who support Catharine Lumby’s view, (2014, pp347-349) she arguers that the main aspects of media ethics problems are many media participants do not establish their awareness in media ethics (Lumby, 2014, p348), in addition “much media content is produced by amateurs and redistributed by professional media” (Lumby, 2014, p348), as a result, those unethical contents could appear in online media. On the other hand, O’Donnell, McKnight and Este have entirely different view about online media participants and contents; they declare that in “purely commercial terms” media participants are trying to “attract consumer and advertiser support for their websites” (O’Donnell P, McKnight, D. & Este J. 2014, p41). It seems that all online journalism participators are concentrating on monetary support, not only amateurs, but also professionals. Some facts in the celebrities leaks case may proof the point which made by O’Donnell, McKnight and Este. Those contents were generated by some media participants who were fully understand the “news worthy” and “public interest”, they are professionals in producing news contents. They understand the code of media ethics entirely; however, they broke the ethics deliberately to seek for financial profit.

Furthermore, other weaknesses in online journalism participants also have negative impacts on the ethical issues. First, in recent journalism phenomenon, there are rapid accelerations in online journalism(O’Donnell P, McKnight, D. & Este J. 2014, p41); however the regulations about media ethics are still focusing on “traditional journalistic ethics” (Lumby, 2014, p346). As a result of lacking regulations, Lumby asserts that “news production is largely driven by ratings and readership, not by…but by serving up material that interest the public” (Lumby, 2014, p347). It seems that shortage in media ethics regulations is one aspect which has negative effect in media ethics. Second, the self-regulations pattern in media has weak

标准

Personal media and mass media

 

On the March 2014, an American media participant Liz Wahl, who work for RT America channel in Russia, criticized the “Russia’s invasion to Ukraine” on one of her TV show and said she will quit her job after she finish her report. After she quit, the channel has published a statement on their website it said “When a journalist disagrees with the editorial position of his or her organization, the usual course of action is to address those grievances with the editor, and, if they cannot be resolved, to quit like a professional. But when someone makes a big public show of a personal decision, it is nothing more than a self-promotional stunt. We wish Liz the best of luck on her chosen path.”

The statement asserts her action as a “self-promotional stunt”, and mentioned that this kind of action was not suitable on a public show, same thing happened in the comments under the video, many YouTube user criticized her action, they said what she do is the “American propaganda”.

In my opinion if Liz Wahl posts this criticism on her own social media account, no one will blame her, but that action has been done on the public as a news report. The news report should be objective and fairness, and what she has done was entirely unsuitable for public show.

In addition, if she has post her comments on social media, in my consideration she would not in trouble, that is the gap between mass media and personal media. First, we should understand the different between mass media and social media.

Mass media; which has been defined as intend to use diversified media technologies to reach a large audience by mass communication. Roger Wimmer and Joseph Dominick assert such technologies include print, recordings, cinema, radio, television, internet and mobile phone. On the other hand, personal media is using for specific person and donate person-to-person communication; in addition, the advanced technologies like blogging, podcasting and internet video allow personal media users disseminate and gathering information.

Because there are huge audiences for mass media, a small mistake could cause serious misunderstandings. Obvious, Liz Wahl has presented that report for her own purpose, those information has disseminated in few seconds, no backup plan could be use to avoid that condition. On the contrary, the personal media is more private and emotion; every one could release their ideas and opinions. In my point of view, the different characters in mass media and personal media generate the different information.

Apparently, the content in personal media is more casual and flexible than those in mass media. The example is easy to be found, like writing blog, FACEBOOK, and twitter post, if I am writing media release or piece of news for newspaper or TV channel, it will be done in a formal and objective style. In addition, the most important different of mass media and personal media is “the point of view”. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7bkHu27P5o) Professor Shigeru Miyagawa said in personal media the user could discover their own opinions, on the contrary, the mass media audience could only receive opinion form media outlet. Despite the argument on Liz Wahl, she was using mass media to accomplish her own personal media achievement, it is entirely unsuitable.

However, personal media itself could generate some problems, according to the characters of personal media. Users may hold their own point of view or believe idea which they preferred; consequently, arguments and debates may happen between those who held different opinions, insult, abuse, and libel could appear. There is an example shows that kind of phenomenon, the video has been post on YouTube, after Liz Wahl has claimed her decision on the show. There are many debate in the comments which made by audience who watch “her decision”.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h79v9uirLY)

Apparently, those strong words are prohibited in mass media, but it is ordinary in personal media. In my own point of view, debates could be allowed; those strong words and insulting may be prohibited. I think some censorships form could be established, to purify the personal media discussing environment.

.

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Media

http://www.globalization101.org/types-of-media-2/

 

标准

Censorship?!If it is necessary.

August 2nd, 2014, an ordinary day in the USA. The USA basketball team was playing showcase game in Las Vegas. Every thing seems right until that tragedy happened. After a failure defense, Paul George has fallen on to the floor; with a terrible sound, he injured his leg. Some horrible pictures could illuminate how serious it is, (Maybe I should say those pictures are very horrible, for some reasons, I strongly suggest do not open it) apparently, they are some censored versions online, in my own consideration, it is more friendly.

 

And here is the question, how could those horrible pictures appeared online? And why those pictures are so easy to be found? Some of my friends said 10 or 15 years ago, they could not saw many horrible pictures by using media, but it seems very easy to approach those horrible pictures in recent time. I think it is all about the developments in the communication technologies. Probably one decade ago, we could not easily get access into the internet, and we still focusing on mainstream media such as, TV, radio and newspapers, at that time it is easy to control the information. However, things got changed in recent time; thousands of online and social media have been established, and the advanced technologies have tighten the connection between audience and media. If something happened on the earth, the information could erupt online in few second, such as LeBron James and Kevin Love’s trade. It seems old media are outdated; meanwhile the old media regulations maybe outdated, either. Possibly, they can hardly satisfy the online media.

 

Some experts argued that the unethical contents are caused by two aspects. For one thing, unprofessional media participators have contribute in releasing lager numbers of unethical contents online. For another, the poor online media regulations have deteriorated the situation. In my point of view, maybe some suggestions could be helpful for online media regulations.

 

In the early 2014, Catharine Lumby asserts that lacking awareness in media ethic code and shortage in training are the main points in creating unethical journalism content online. Maybe, we could analyze it in another way; we assumed those new media participants have no idea about media ethic and regulations, and generate fake or unethical news. Before their contents could be released, they should be review and edit by the editor. After editing process, those contents could be disseminated, and reprint and reproduced by other online media.

 

For my own point of view, I can hardly imagine that those online media editors and leaders are also having no ideas about media ethic and regulations. As a consequent, I suppose, the reason why fake or unethical news could be disseminated in rapid speed is those editors and media leaders manipulating the contents. May be not all of them, but most of them know the code of ethic of online journalism. Online and social media are focusing on monetary purpose, those editors and leaders need to guarantee the operating process of the media groups, so they need to attract audience. In order to get the audience attraction the news contents should satisfy the audience, which means every element in evaluations standards of newsworthy need to be achieved; in addition, other parts, such as media ethic and public benefits could be abandoned.

In recent time some journalism experts said that ‘ethics’, ‘news worthiness’ and ‘public benefit’ as the top three emphases in criteria of assessing ‘excellence in journalism. In my opinion, online journalism should focus on these evaluation standards. In order to guarantee the quality of news, some certain extent censorship should be involved. In my point of view, apparently, media have the rights to supervise the government, on the contrary, government also have the rights to maintain the media stay in the right tracks. The censorship should only focus on the quality of news, in another word it means; the censorship will not change the news contents, but prohibit the fake and unethical news, guarantee the online news are focusing on public benefit rather than audience benefit.

In my own view, those regulations will be hard to be established, because it is hard to persuade citizen to accept censorship, but it is a good way to guarantee the quality of news, government should do some work to help media not only focusing on financial purpose. I think a case could illuminate my idea, although it is about traditional media, Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper has had launch a campaign during the 2013 Australian Federal Election, and some newspapers were seen to be running against one side of politics, some citizen were strongly criticized that actions. Maybe the censorship for media could limit those phenomenons, prohibit those “campaign news” occupying the headline and front pages.

 

Ps: You may feel interested about the links below, check them out to find out more.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-12/chen-media-influence-in-election-campaigns/4879730

http://espn.go.com/olympics/basketball/story/_/id/11298573/paul-george-suffers-apparent-serious-leg-injury-team-usa-showcase-game

标准

Should we trust social media?

 

There is a piece of news in recent time. It describes a basketball players’ trading in the USA, the National Basketball Associations; The Minnesota Timberwolves have reached an agreement in principle to trade All-Star forward Kevin Love to the Cleveland Cavaliers. This information has appeared in the early morning in August 8th 2014 (Sydney, Australia time), only few minutes after, that information was soon becoming the headline of sport website; however, it may take several hours to make that news appear on newspaper and TV Channels.

How could that information disseminate in a dramatic speed? It is all about social media. In the past decade, a larger numbers of social Medias have been produced for customers. Those new technologies and advanced electronic devise have contributed a great impact on the proliferation of social media; as consequence, those new technologies, such as tablet and smart phone, give audience easier access to the social media. Comparing with traditional media, social media could disseminate the information in dramatic speed. In some certain condition, social media is fast and instant; so that users are prefer them rather than tradition media, which could help them get information faster than before. If we looking around, it is easy to find that social Medias, such as facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have became parts of our life. Since now, increasingly people tend to become the users of social media. As a consequence, audience are increasingly participating into the social media, traditional media are constantly trying to adapting the new media conditions, many of them have already open their own websites and create online version.

However, problems are always appeared with progress. The information, which produced on social media, seems have low credibility. There are large numbers of fake news on the internet; many of them are released by social media, such news is including “Facbook are planning to shut down” and “Morgan Freeman death rumors”, the second one have appeared twice in the last few years. In my point of view, there are two main reasons why that fake and unethical news appeared.

One reason is the participators of social media are armatures. As the social media developed in a rapid speed, not only users, but also media participators are expanding. Such speed generate some serious problems, Catharine Lumby, who present her idea in early 2014, argues that the main aspects of unethical news are many media participators do not establish their awareness in media ethics. She said, in social media, news has been produced by armatures and distribute them in professional ways, in addition, the traditional self-regulation patterns in media have been weaken in social media. I am agreed with that point, and I think there are two main problems which low down the credibility of news on social media. Firstly, because of social media industry are developing in a rapid speed, social media needs more staffs to handle the information, which means they may not have enough time in training their new staffs. In my own view, media participants, without fully training, new media staffs could hardly handle their tasks when they first begin their work. Some phenomenons are quite common in the social media recruitment, higher degrees in journalism are not necessary; while, some relevance degrees could be accepted. Secondly, fast speed in social media news tends to be a double-edged sword, on the one hand, it accelerate the news dissemination process, on the other hand, because of the high speed in news dissemination process, news accuracy could not be guaranteed. In traditional media, they could have at least few hours to check their works, some errors could be corrected, but for social media, they may only have few minutes to finish their work and release them, some mistakes may be occurred, especially for those participants who are not skillful in journalism.

The other reason is the characteristics of social media. In recent time some journalism experts said that ‘ethics’, ‘news worthiness’ and ‘public benefit’ as the top three emphases in criteria of assessing ‘excellence in journalism, however, in many cases, online journalism and social media are overemphasis the news worthy, and weaken others. Social medias establish for monetary purpose, because of they could not receive funds form government, and they also need to maintain the media operation, attracting audience is the prior target., as a result, ethics and public benefits may be ignored, customers interests may be emphasis.

In my opinion, there are some implements to solve these problems: establishing new media regulations for social media is a good way to approach that problem; meanwhile government should invest some social media, in order to guarantee the quality of online news, in addition, enhancing the training process for new media participants. The operating frame of Australia Broadcasting Corporation could be regarded as a typical model in media patterns, although ABC is a traditional media,

 

 

 

statue_of_liberty

This is a famous Fake Hurricane Sandy picture of the Statue of Liberty being shared on social media. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/fake-photos-hurricane-sandy-flood-social-media-190021894.html

 

 

O’Donnell,   P, McKnight,       D    and Estes      J. (2012)       Journalism    at    the Speed     of    Bytes,    Sydney:       Walkley Foundation   for  Excellence    in    Journalism.

 

Lumby, C,(2014) Media Ethics; The Media & Communications in Australia(4th edition),Crows  Nest:      Allen     &       Unwin: pp346-pp349

 

标准