I think the debate on WikiLeak's affect on journalism is very interesting, as being a member of the industry.
First of all, when it comes to looking for government documents as sources, it's a significant resource. Again, as discussed in class, the legitimacy of the documents might have to be taken into question. That is especially essential in traditional journalism. Lovink and Riemens define old fashioned journalism as unearthing facts, crosschecking these and backgrounding them into an understandable discourse.
So if the "old" style of journalism wants to use the "new" style as a source, they better make sure it's accurate.
Of course, traditional journalism is criticized for gate-keeping, and keeping stories private due to influence from outside sources. WikiLeaks helps ease this, as it is a flaw in a true democratic process. On the other side of the argument, news organizations may need to withhold information when it comes to a matter of national security or international diplomacy.
Some argue that the decline in investigative journalism due to budget cuts is what makes WikiLeaks important. Where WikiLeaks fails is putting it into context when presented to the public. It is important that the public knows why something is important or what it means, and WikiLeaks does not do that.
WikiLeaks also has the benefit of no moral code or journalistic policy, so it does not have to consider ramifications of the what it presents. That easily makes them at risk for inaccurate information.
Of course, I am a proponent of traditional journalism, so I am working hard to see both parts.
No comments:
Post a Comment