Media freedom now has extended meaning

[Lite Beer]

EDITORIAL
Media freedom now has extended meaning
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- In this era, state control may be the lesser problem

If today's dizzying technological developments pose a threat to the business aspects of journalism, the ethical danger in the career remains related to human flaws. Both issues were discussed at a recent seminar on "Revolution of News People, Revolution of the Media", held by the Thai Journalists Association ahead of its anniversary next year.

The two problems are connected because, as business hardships resulting from advanced technology grow, the struggles to survive can easily get more unethical.

Participants at the seminar addressed the clear advantages of mainstream journalism. The social media might be quicker and "juicier" in spreading breaking stories, while people's need to "know first" has become outdated, reviving professional journalism's importance as the "last line of defence". Fact-checks and access to authoritative news sources, as of now, are still the conventional media's greatest points of leverage. But that's about all it offers. Having such advantages doesn't mean more people will buy newspapers or subscribe to legitimate news websites.

In other words, the public craving for being "the first to know" has given way to the need to "know best", but the shift is unlikely to halt the declines in circulation and ad revenues. If a news site limits free access and introduces an online subscription system, Web browsers will simply go somewhere else to get the same information for free. This somehow has contributed to the migration of print and online journalists to the new "promised land" of digital TV. "Migration" isn't quite the right word, since many news-outlet owners are there already waiting, having anticipated business opportunities that could offset losses in print operations.

Everyone knows that ethical risks are abundant in TV journalism, but reporters have few choices, or so it seems. In order to beat Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, both print and TV journalists need to present something "different", and how can that be done without adequate funding? And how could there be enough funds if every word in the ethical code is followed strictly?

At the TJA seminar, words like "accountability" and "transparency" received added importance. The speakers all knew well what lies in wait. Since the birth of journalism, financing has always been the most troublesome issue. And the problem is not getting any less acute. The more competition the journalism industry has, the greater the ethical danger. The fiercer the struggles for funding, the more likely questionable professional practices will occur.

What needs to be done, then? Human "flaws" threatening journalists' ethical standards are not limited to just the journalists themselves. Advertisers or sponsors need to understand not only how reporters work but also how important "free" journalism is to society in the long run. Those giving the money must understand that "free" journalism is not just about being free from state control but also about "free" to gather and report the "real", necessary stories.

In the past the biggest issue had to do with the suppression of the "right" to report. Today "free" journalism is also about being free to devote enough time to the real issues. If a journalist has to be occupied with "returning the favour", it doesn't bode well professionally. Therefore it is safe to say that the danger to journalism looms on two fronts - one involving the increasingly likely possibility of news being written by robots, and the other showcasing the human tendency to lurch out of the frying pan and right into the fire.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Media-freedom-now-has-extended-meaning-30245694.html

-- The Nation 2014-10-18

[zaphod reborn]

The Nation is trying to redefine itself as a fact finder?

[chainarong]

Media freedom in Thailand is a myth , like China it has turned like the worm and everyone just sat back and watched , I see plenty of International press about Thailand , not all flattering and no mention of it in the media within Thailand, the press council, its members, have no guts to stand up to the governments of the day nor has its citizens, you deserve what you get , what ye shall sow so ye shall reap.

[northernjohn]

The two problems are connected because, as business hardships resulting from advanced technology grow, the struggles to survive can easily get more unethical.

It is unethical now to the point where if you read a headline you still don't know what the article is about. Facts are not of primary importance. What is their primary purpose is to sell the paper and get your money.

[noitom]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The two problems are connected because, as business hardships resulting from advanced technology grow, the struggles to survive can easily get more unethical.

It is unethical now to the point where if you read a headline you still don't know what the article is about. Facts are not of primary importance. What is their primary purpose is to sell the paper and get your money.

And don't forget to shill for the elite.

[rickirs]

I think there is a typographical error in the seminar title - should be "Revulsion of News People, Revulsion of the Media".

Brought to you by the abolishment of Article 45, Part 7, "Freedom of Expression of Individual and the Press" of the 2007 Constitution. The "extended" meaning now might be, "If you don't have something nice to say about the Junta, don't say it."

[rubl]

I think there is a typographical error in the seminar title - should be "Revulsion of News People, Revulsion of the Media".

Brought to you by the abolishment of Article 45, Part 7, "Freedom of Expression of Individual and the Press" of the 2007 Constitution. The "extended" meaning now might be, "If you don't have something nice to say about the Junta, don't say it."

Can't be too bad considering what you are 'stating' here frequently

[Ozziepat]

Pretty much all journalists want to believe that personally they are:

1. Objective, while at the same time determined to "make a difference" and

2. Capable of becoming experts on any subject, no matter how complex, in a very short time and then writing incisively about it.

They are wrong, of course, but no one inside the "news"/entertainment/advertising/ political-propaganda word-merchant bubble is likely to ever tell them so.

[KhnomKhnom]

Ethical journalism, meaning real journalism, is dead. It died soon after Watergate when people in the biz found out they had clout to threaten folks, then get paid off to shut up, and go at another "story'. Remember the NY Times guy who faked his stories for yrs?

That idea is over, folks.