Churnalism or Journalism?

The word ‘churnalism’ is a term used which derived from author Nick Davies and if you haven’t heard of the expression, it simply describes the poor practices of modern day journalists who "churn" or recycle news stories off the wire, Internet and media releases without appropriate critical investigation.

Unfortunately Journalists no longer have the time to go out and investigate stories because it is more important to break a story first. This is why the use of the word ‘churnalism’ is increasingly being used, so how does society feel about ‘churnalism’ are they even aware that is occurring?

The creator of the word ‘churnalism' is very aware of what is occurring and he is passionate about spreading the word. Mr Davies is frustrated by how journalists are churning out media releases as how he describes ‘like sheep’ just because it is convenient.

"In this commercialised world, you have journalists who instead of being active gatherers of news - going out and finding stories and making contacts and doing funny old-fashioned things like checking facts, they've become instead passive processors of second-hand information." he said

Journalist Roy Greenslade believes that journalists have always seen themselves as superior to PR professionals, when really they equally rely on each other.

“Journalists have always felt superior to PRs. They like to see themselves as servants of the public holding aloft the banner of freedom and regard PRs as the servants of vested interests who deny the people their right to know”

In this era, with the rise of a so-called spin-doctoring class, journalists have been even more critical of their public relations counterparts.” Mr. Greeslade said

It is very common for media releases to be published almost identically in the news without any further investigation. This is due to the continual push to deliver instant news, but also due to the decreasing workforce. The role of the journalist has increased and they are required to carry out numerous jobs at a time, including; interviewing, taking photo’s, writing the story, and finally uploading to a number of mediums.

So the moral to this story is to not always trust the source you are viewing, there are always ulterior motives and you will find that some journalists won’t have time or are too lazy to carrying out the appropriate research.

However whether it be 'churnalism' or journalism, there is quality out there. Quality journalists investigate and verify their stories and as Oscar Wiled said:

“By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.”

― Oscar Wilde

Finding the stories behind the stories

The rewards of digging deeper and using the correct investigative skills to find hidden stories are evident in Sheila Coronel's book.

To correctly outline the purpose of the text Sheila states:

"Journalists’ articles, coupled with interesting advice, skills, investigative stories, databases, tips and techniques, will inspire readers to take up the challenge of a career in investigative journalism".

Andrew D. Kaplan wrote the 2008 book ‘Investigating the Investigators: Examining the Attitudes, Perceptions, and Experiences of Investigative Journalists in the Internet Age’

The book outlines the history of investigative journalism over the past 20 years. It shows that 20 years ago investigative journalists were very idealistic and highly motivated by revealing wrongdoing, and apparently today's journalists are very similar.

Andrew D. Kaplan revealed the following:

“given that nearly 20 years have passed and the news industry has changed dramatically, the rewards that investigative journalists most value I the Internet age agree nearly identical to those from an earlier era in journalism”

Below is a graph which outlines journalists views on how the Internet has impacted investigative journalism.

The Internet has allowed more critical data to be revealed, however the Internets resources should not be solely trusted. All sources should be backed up with further evidence. Digging deeper into stories does provide great rewards for not only the journalists but also their audience. The Internets impact on investigative journalists is evident, however whether it is a positive impact is a debated topic.

To blow the whistle or not to blow the whistle, that is the question?

To blow the whistle or not to blow the whistle that is the question? A question which whistleblowers may find themselves asking more often in the digital age, especially after the hefty 25 year sentence that newly turned female Chelsea Manning coped. Journalists are also finding themselves posing very similar questions, as they too are increasingly being prosecuted for not revealing their sources.

New York Times Editor Bill Keller describes how technology has made it easy to illegally tap into private information:

“The digital age has changed the dynamics of disobedience in at least one respect. It used to be that someone who wanted to cheat on his vow of secrecy had to work at it. Daniel Ellsberg tried for a year to make the Pentagon Papers public. There was a lot of time to have second thoughts or to get caught. It is now at least theoretically possible for a whistle-blower or a traitor to act almost immediately and anonymously. Click on a Web site, upload a file, go home and wait.”

The Internet has brought about many pros and cons for whistleblowers. However as Bill Keller outlines, there is very little time for second thoughts. Whistleblowers need to be much more conscious and careful, yes information can be dispersed anonymously, however that can also back fire and the original source could be located.

Laurie Oakes made a really important point about those in society that leak information to the public.

“Leakers, whatever their motivation, serve the public interest, simply because of their importance to free journalism: being first with important news is, in essence, what being a reporter is all about,” He said.

Whistleblowers do not withhold the same responsibility that journalists do. It is the journalist’s role to decide whether or not the information is in the public’s interests and identify the whistleblowers motives.

Wikileaks – Angel or Devil in disguise?

Founded in late 2006 wikikeaks has revolutionised the concept of whistle-blowers, the organisation has caused controversy and shocked the world more times than I can remember.

The question which really needs to be answered is whether Wikileaks has done more harm than good or whether it is a necessary source for society. Wikileaks is a source that keeps people informed, in the loop and educated, yet a source that must not always be trusted.

Wikileaks says their goal is to: "bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists"

When private information has been revealed governments often justify their actions by simply stating that the reason why the information has not been revealed is because it is a ‘national security’ threat!

However citizens seem to hold a different point of view to the government, as Dreyfus et al said in 2011:

“nothing in government should be kept secret from the citizenry unless there is a real reason for doing so”

So what are the positives behind wikileaks? It empowers citizens in corrupt countries and most importantly Wikileaks reveals wrongdoing that would most likely be left undiscovered.

One of the most famous reveals Wikileaks carried out was the ‘Collateral Murder’ whereby US soldier were captured indiscriminately firing on civilians. The Collateral Murder was disjointedly covered up by the pentagon and it poses the question as to how much more information is being with held from world.

How much is too much information and does going forward as a society require transparency? These are all questions, which result in a variety of answers and opinions. The increased use of computerization has resulted in instant information, leaving less time for people to react. If society embraces transparency then maybe people will be more prepared for shocking information such as crashing of the financial market.

There is no denying that Wikileaks has proved to be a beneficial source however that is not always the case. Wikileaks is not always viewed as the knight in shining armor and the information revealed really should come down to whether or not the information is in the public’s interest.