Monday, May 14, 2007
YouTube - the right to reply.
Year 12 and 13 - this is worth looking at. Amazing footage of a BBC Panorama reporter loosing his cool with a representative of the Church of Scientology has been posted on YouTube. You can click on the link above to see the clip, together with how it was reported by BBC News 24. This raises the important point of how sites like YouTube offer those who are reported upon the opportunity of a more enhanced reaction to how they are represented in the media. The Church of Scientology filmed the reporter's interview and have now been able to show the world footage which may never have seen the light of day were it not for sights like YouTube. It is likely that the BBC would have edited out the angry reaction of its reporter. Because of such postings, the audience are now able to see much more of the "whole story" than previously, thereby empowering the audience in terms of deciding upon issues. It also diminishes traditional news media outlet's (like the BBC) role as gatekeeper to what we can and cannot see. It will be interesting to see if Panorama now includes this footage in its report (tonight 8.30 on BBC1). Look at the way BBC News 24 presents the story; it seems to try to excuse the behaviour of its reporter by discussing the pressures he was under at the time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is an example we can use on broacast news, right? It's probably really obvious but i don't completely understand how i would use it in that paper. Is it an example of is the news a window of the world or... I've forgottten the exact words now, but you get the idea.
Also is it likely we will get a question similar 16 on the OCR website about local newspapers versus local news and radio?
What exactly is infotainment, populism, media synergy and public service remit? They are part of broadcast questions. Please don't make your reply as long as Maiya's one!
It does feed into the whole "window on the world" debate in that sites like YouTube and blogs in general offer the public at large the chance to shine a light on subjects that the traditional "gatekeepers" like the BBC and Sky may not.
There will be a question like no.16 from the January paper but you will go nowhere near it because it is one of the two questions on Local Papers, which we haven't studied. The two questions you should look at within Press are only those related to the freedom and regulation of the press - I think on the paper from January that is on the OCR website they are question 17 and 18.
Infotaintment - news as entertainment (it's one of those neologisms)
populism - an attempt to appeal to popular tastes rather than the more old fashioned view of broadcasting what is in the public interest. Here the public interest is thought of as that which the elite (amongst them news editors) decide the public should know about for their own good. The anti-populist (public interest) view is often seen as a rather patronising one.
Media Synergy is much like any other type of synergy but in relation to media organisations and products. Synergies occur when combining forces creates a greater force than the was possible with the two forces workign independent of each other. Sky is a very synergistic company - it has a number of different divisions (news channel, satellite distribution network, phone and broadband netwrok) all of which have a much bigger impact on the market place because they are part of the Sky family - the ability to get Sky Sports for a free trial may drive the take-up of Sky's satellite service and vice versa.
Public Service remit - this is a huge issue in the world of Media. Where have you been? The BBC is a public service broadcaster. It's purpose is to serve the public. It cannot make a profit and is funded by the licence fee rather than advertising revenue. All the terrestial channels (ITV, Channel 4 and 5) also have a smaller public service remit (requirement to deliver some public service type programming). Each of them have to apply to the government for a licence to broadcast and in return for the licence the government requires them to broadcast a certain amount of programming that may not make great commercial sense (it won't get a lot of viewers) but is considered to be worthwhile and good for the public. So ITV has to show a certain amount of news in a 24 hour period. It also has to broadcast a certain number of hours of religious programming each year.
It's long, I know, but if you insist on asking such questions......
Who is this anyway? Why do you all have such an aversion to revealing your identity?
In response to where have i been about the public service remit, i knew what it was now i read what you said but it's always better to double check than get it worng is it not?
It's Brogan. I forgot to say when i posted it, i couldn't remember my password and didn't have time to waste so posted it anonymously. Don't worry it wasn't from fear of humliation of being seen on your blog.
I have A LOT more questions, especially on freedom of the press.
Thanks!
It is indeed better to check than get it wrong.
Better that you concentrate on your exams than waste time petty issues like personal identity.
If you have lots of questions re freedom of the press, why not jot them down and drop by after your next exam. Given your aversion to long postings, that may suit you better.
Post a Comment