As we mark World Press Freedom day, emphasis is being put on the need to ensure a free, diverse, pluralistic and vibrant media. The Media as discussed here refers to the channels of mass communication. Traditionally, newspapers and magazines (print), and Radio and Television (broadcast) have been the known and cited media. Today, New Media tools and platforms are increasingly being used by many people to access news and information.

Legacy Media Vs New Media

legacy media like newspapers now publish online

New Media are interactive digital forms of communication that use the internet, mobile phones and related devices to avail content to users[1]. Unlike legacy media, New Media makes it possible for anyone to create, modify and share content with others using relatively free tools that are often free or inexpensive. These tools help anyone interested to connect, collaborate and create content when they want to. They also allow people (audience members) more freedom to access the content they want, when they want it[2]. But they have also has resulted in several disruptions in the traditional media practice as many of the audiences legacy media targets find alternative platforms to get informed, educated and entertained[3].

 Media Vs Journalism

I should however clarify that this paper looks at New Media Versus Legacy Media, and not journalism as a practice. I have noted a lot of debates and analyses tend to treat media and journalism as one and the same.  Media are the channels of mass communication. Journalism on the other hand is the practice or craft of generating (following a set of principles that ensure public interest is served) and conveying news, descriptive material and comments on issues or events through a wide spectrum of media. From my own experience and analysis of the media or media houses to be precise, most of them have always carried little journalism compared to other content[4].
Next Page

Google who are the online kings have been watching facebook grow in membership and traffic and there has been no doubt the social network is the hottest item on the internet- well especially given that they had launched their own facebook search, meaning the over 6million facebook users do not need to go out of facebook if they want to find out about (search) anything online.

While facebook’s efforts at search can be described as a scratch on Google’s rock service, Google+ will no doubt unsettle the social networking environment with their extra features of circles, sparks, hangouts, huddle and easy mobile uploading and browsing.

Not everyone has been happy about facebook. Apart from those who refuse to join because of privacy and nature of open profile interaction presented in facebook, some users have long been concerned about the latter, with many desisting from the social network because wherever they are logged in, they are open for disturbance from everyone who they have accepted as friend, even when they might want to concentrate on a few issues with particular friends.

Google+ is capitalizing on this inadequacy and presents different circles where a user can organize their friends or join the circles whom they can decide to be available to at anyone particular time.

In a statement, Google said the new service is currently available on invitation only will avail a better social networking platform where one shares what they want with the people they want.

“Not all relationships are created equal. So in life we share one thing with college buddies, another with parents, and almost nothing with our boss. The problem is that today’s online services turn friendship into fast food—wrapping everyone in “friend” paper—and sharing really suffers,” Google said in their notes explaining the new service.

Google+ also provides a newsfeed-style stream of online content based on users’ interests that can be shared and discussed among contacts. Google’s social network also includes a feature that enables people to engage in multi-person video chats.

Google+ includes a number of mobile-specific features that allow people to share their location and photographs with contacts while they are out and about, and ‘Huddle’ – a group messaging service designed to help groups of friends coordinate their movements.

The battle lines have been drawn between Google and facebook as can been seen from much of the write up about the new Google+ service, which keeps alluding to inadequacies of current social interaction websites.

Publishers will have the extra advantage of installing the Google+ icon to enable their content to be shared in search results. Given that Google is the dominant search engine, this is a real plus for publishers.

This to me is more than enough to unsettle facebook as the google+ puts more value into an online social interaction platform, and of course Google already has a number of other services from google documents, search, adsense, analytics, youtube, google videos, google affiliates. Not that facebook is leeping and will take this lying down, as they have shown in launching into search, as well as incorporating Microsoft documents and their comprehensive social networking services of groups, forums/topics, events, and excellent notifications systems.

Online content consumers and those seeking to further their interactions online will be happy at the new option availed by Google+ but some will no doubt be concerned that another clouding service has come in to confuse online users the more on what is really a good or better service for social interactions.

The online interactions network is already overcrowded with providers and offers all beckoning for attention that it is a nightmare for an ordinary user to tell which are genuinely more helpful for their particular needs or interests.

Historical copies of the Kenya Gazette dating back to 1906 can now accessed online after the Kenyan Attorney General launched an intuitive with the National Council for Law Reporting (NCLR) to compile and have an online archive of the Gazette and other judicial notices.

Amos Wako, Kenya Attonney General

According to a statement from Google, over 190,000 pages of information, including notices about the Mau Mau, Migingo Island, and even precursors to the first state of emergency can now be accessed and perused by historians and students around the world. Google says future copies of the Gazette will now be available online as well.

Such joint efforts to bring rich historical information online for access of all who may want across the globe is very commendable. I just wish Uganda (and indeed other African countries) can emulate this feat.

The availability of relevant and useful information in easy to use and access formats is a win for all citizens. There is so much information needed by people in their everyday life but they cannot access that information which can help them make better decisions or secure their lives. There are also many government departments, companies and civil society organizations with information they want to reach to people.

While trying to inform people through traditional media is the major strategy for now, Digitalizing official records by government and indeed all official documents of companies and non-governmental organizations is the most important strategy to improve information and communication of key issues and messages to worldwide stakeholders.

Recently, someone from upcountry who won a Parliamentary seat called me to help him and go to Uganda Bookshop, purchase a copy of the Uganda Gazette and check whether his name is the one indicated as the winner for his constituency. This followed reports of a mistake in the Gazette filing when a candidate who had lost in Masaka was instead named as winner in the Gazette and was thus the official MP elect, until the gazette record is changed. I wished this record was available online, as I would check immediately and answer him.

Putting information online makes it available for anyone in any part of the world at any time when they want that information. Online information is easily searchable and viewable by different readers (web applications) and you can search for the exact information you want (that is if it is archived with the necessary keywords, tags, categories or sections).

Just imagine Uganda had its Gazette from far back available online. Life would be better for all who want to quote or understand historical facts and events. If we managed to get all the laws and regulations of Uganda online, it would be easy for the media, scholars and other people who want to reference a particular law. All none secret information needs to be availed in easy to use globally reaching platforms like online, and where possible, mobile.

This can extend to such basic but vital information such as the list of schools, hospitals and health centres, district offices, sub-country offices, training institutes as well their particular locations and official contacts being availed online. Such information would greatly help Ugandans and other people in the world through for example saving transport people spend to go to the government ministry to check for information, and release the limitations on many business and project initiatives currently hindered by unreliable information.

We need to utilize better technologies available to avail news and information for people to access in their preferred formats when they want to. Both the public and private sector can play a role in initiatives to help avail the country’s information to all who may want it.

A better way to deliver and access news and information are crucial for our development and success as individuals, families, communities, countries and globe generally.

Remember how two years ago, when the  Uganda National Examinations Board released results, one had to wait for days for their respective school head teachers to go to Kampala, pick the examinations results, and then go to the school and get the results from the school admin during working hours. But now, parents and students are able to get UNEB national examination results immediately by sending an sms with their index number of a particular candidate to 6600 at any time of their choice. The sms service charged 500 Uganda shillings from any telephone network operator in Uganda resulted from a partnership between SMS Media and UNEB.

Such winning partnerships that make access to vital information are needed to boost our efforts to have an informed society, a key ingredient of a world free from poverty and disease. Kenya and Google have shown the way, and it is a good and easy way. The Gazette can be accessed at their KenyaLaw.org or searching Google or Google Books.

I hope Google can partner with more countries to and live up to their promise of bringing Africa’s rich historical and cultural heritage online, and that several other partners can join in these noble efforts that will surely prove key to the success or not of our generation.

Apple was the first to offer an App for publishers of newspapers, magazines, video and music to charge subscriptions on their content at the Apple owned ITunes store. The company is giving content owners a chance to set the price and Apple will take 30% of the money earned through its app store.

Just as we were getting to understand the new offer from Apple which was expected to provide another revenue stream from struggling publishers, Google also unveiled another platform for publishers to charge for online content. Google announced that its One Pass service will give publishers 90% of the income earned through their system. Additionally Google offered to let publishers access subscription data which apple didn’t offer.

You can decide to charge for your content, but…

Of course online subscriptions and charging for online content is not new. Some media houses have long operated their individual or group subscription methods, but given that we are talking of online and reaching as many members of the online audience as possible with your content offer, none can claim the scalability of what Google and Apple offer.

Online publishers have for long been looking for how to charge subscriptions, offer metered access (allowing online users to access a particular level of content before requiring them to pay for further access), “freemium” content or single article sales, and the new offers from Apple and Google are indeed welcome.

But many people are wondering what this means for publishers and all content providers, especially how much of what is available online is worth buying or subscribing for. There has been an ongoing concern about the fact that people used to getting free content will unlikely subscribe or buy the same content they have been accessing for free.

I Personally think people can pay for good content, of course if it is well marketed to them  (which Google and Apple are somehow offering). But the major question is how many publishers are developing content that is value added for online usage (as opposed to posting articles that were meant for newspapers, magazines, or videos aired on TV and radio scripts/clips? I think while the platforms to sell are good, they come with a challenge of indirectly requiring publishers to produce content worth selling online.

Will people pay for usual news which is reported by everyone in the same way? What kind of information will people be willing to pay for online? What about the loss in audience subscription or metered access requirements will bring, when selling adverts (based on audience size and quality) continues to raise considerable revenue for publishers? These and other questions need to be at the back of our mind as we look at if and how publishers can benefit from large scale content sale offers by Apple and Google.

I’m also wondering how and when Africa based publishers will be able to benefit from such apps. Apple store doesn’t offer opportunity to purchase in African currencies, while paypal currently cant be used to pay and get paid in more than 90% of the African countries. It means many Africans can neither buy nor earn as content providers on the Apple store.

Goggle says the service “will first be available to publishers in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S., meaning it will be long before publishers in Africa can benefit from their online content selling offer.
We shall continue to look forward to the expansion of such applications to Africa, or developing specific online and mobile apps that can be utilised to benefit African publishers and buyers.

New Vision January 26

I agree that the New Vision can do with a better design, and Daily Monitor is currently better designed and optimized for online, just as I agree that New Vision leads in Uganda (I can only commit to that) when it comes to content.  And that this ranking while providing no special insights is giving due credit to good content. I will in due course as requested by some of my readers be analyzing Ugandan websites. But for this article, I make my take on this debate about website rankings based on popularity especially as it relates to our websites in Uganda, and in the news media.

I didn’t at first feel there was need to react to the rankings on reading the New Vision article because for me it is neither news nor worth much unless we get further details of what is really popular on New Vision or other websites, and especially the trend over the years so we can see which website is headed for better times.

How websites are ranked by Google, Yahoo and Alexa

The New Vision story stated the ranking was based on the most visited websites, according to Google Page Rank, Yahoo (Yahoo site explorer) and Alexa rankings. Now you all know these rankings are available everyday, and for one to join them together and rank you high or low does not constitute anything new. You should as a website be consistently following your ranking on these platforms.

More important however, is that if you take time to analyse how these rankings are arrived at, you will notice that while they provide reliable information you should give attention to, they are not the only web metrics used to determine a good website, neither are they using the same ranking metric.

Google page rank is based on how many ‘worthy’ websites link to pages (content) of a particular website. Being that New Vision was one of the pioneers of newspapers going online in 2003, it shouldn’t be surprising that they have more content on the web linked to by reputable sites than other Ugandan or African newspaper websites that came on the scene much later. Though it does show the New Vision has worthy content worth linking to.

But as Google shows in explaining their web metrics, page rank is just one of the over 200 factors it considers in its search engine ranking of online content.

Alexia also measures website popularity based on number of visitors and links. It has made a name as a big reference point in the web metrics industry and is normally quoted as an accurate measures of web traffic. But their results are only accurate from web users who install the alexa bar in their browsers to enable alexia track their web usability reliably. So I don’t know how many visitors of Ugandan or African websites have installed this alexia bar to provide dependable data. In other words, how many of the visitors to your website does a particular “ranker” base on to rank you?

Yahoo page rankings are somewhat based on a combination of the two models of link referral and visitor popularity, going further to provide linking to particular pages within a website, including inbound links within a site itself. But you have to remember that Yahoo ranking is based on exploring a whole sites’ traffic and with a command of bare 13% of the web search market, yahoo search engines are not the best at this job.

Which is the best newspaper website?

If you have analysed any of these rankings, you will notice that one website does better in google while another does better in Yahoo or Alexa.

Daily Monitor on Jan 26 2010

For example in Google page Rank (which you can access by putting the domain of your interest in http://www.prchecker.info/check_page_rank.php) New Vision scores 8 out of 10 possible points, Daily Monitor scores 7 out of a possible 10 points, Observer scores 6, UGpulse.com 5- to mention a few Ugandan websites. You will notice that the difference isn’t that much. Kenya’s Daily Nation scores 7 out of a possible 10 points while The Standard scores 5.

With the Alexa ranking (accessed by putting the domain name of the website whose rank you want to see at http://www.alexa.com/), New Vision ranks 11,764 globally and 7^th best website in Uganda (with 900 sites linking in). Daily Monitor’s rank is 12,788 globally and 9^th in Uganda (with 927 sites linking in) while Daily Nation of Kenya ranks 7,053 globally with 1,073 sites linking into their website).

Yahoo Rankings for selected websites in Uganda and Kenya (this is not the full list)

New Vision Pages (469,163)Inlinks (348,433) Daily Monitor Pages (44,508) Inlinks (101,774) Weinformers.net Pages (1,847)Inlinks (677) Ugpulse.com Pages (25,696) Inlinks (411) The independent Pages (17,825)Inlinks (1,352) Observer.ug Pages (39,496)Inlinks (4,561) Nation.co.ke Pages (109,172)Inlinks (135,307) The standard Pages (138,504) Inlinks (110,141)

What do these rankings tell us?  You will notice that Next Page

Reading content online or offline requires undivided attention, unlike say listening to radio (audio), which you can listen to while driving, gardening or even playing. If the content you want is available in sound, many might be able to consume it even as they do undertake some other tasks on the computer.

For those who access internet on their phones, they can get news and information on the go wherever they are, and that means that even if one is driving for example, they can continue to access news and information from their favorite blogs and websites.

Despite several recommendations for media houses and other content providers to give some content in audio form, readers have not had many choices when it comes to getting their content of interest in audio. I’m not just talking about podcasts or basic audio files, as most of the information online is currently available in text.

BlogRadio is an application that is enabling people to access text news and information in audio form. BlogRadio converts content from your RSS feeds into audio files which you can listen to at any time of your choice.

It is a cloud-based streaming media for RSS that is acclaimed for saving people time by enabling those who use it to listen to their favoirite blogs.

All you need is to download the BlogRadio Desktop Manager, input the RSS feed addresses of the blog or blogs you want and the RSS feed articles will be converted into audio. There are two male and two female voices for you to choose the one you want to read for you your blogs.

On the left, it shows you all the blogs you have subscribed to, and you just click on the one you want to listen to, and it will display the particular feeds that have been converted, and you can click the one you want to listen to. It launches with some feeds already installed by default e.g. CNN, BBC Technlogy among others and you can select the Add button to add another RSS feed.

It is a really great tool from BT Software enabling people to get their favorite news and information even when they cannot concentrate visually on the content. But you will need some patience as it might take the system up to four hours to configure your blog for the first time and start receiving and converting the RSS feeds into audio for you.

While I liked this tool, I was disappointed that it doesn’t automatically load to the next RSS feed, meaning you have to click one feed at ago, which really doesn’t reduce time spent on, or increase convenience of accessing a particular new or information item. I hope the creators of this great innovation will up its ability to read through the feeds automatically so that one just clicks once and the reader starts until ordered to stop, or you change to another blog.

Also, since it is client end application, I wish it had other abilities other than reading RSS feeds, because apart from determining which RSS feeds to subscribe to, audience members don’t determine how the RSS will be i.e. how much text will appear in the feed, whether it presents whole or summary article etc. If it was a tool for publishers to enable them provide their RSS feeds in audio (directly embed within) and in either summary of full article, it might probably have been a better application for online news and information sharing.

There are other options to BlogRadio like NewsAloud but it is a paid for service, Pressmart that powers Daily Monitor’s e-paper with text to speech capabilities and several others. People trying to access BlogRadio on phone haven’t been very pleasant in their reviews either, and i haven’t seen reviews for the Pressmart I-pone application. But it is clear how many people that would reach in Uganda and a solution that can deliver this text to audio on most mobile phone handsets will be more than welcome.

It is also clear also that both Text To Speech translator applications use voices that many people in Uganda, or Africa will find hard to comprehend (pressmart’s Daily monitor audio is pretty clear i dare say), and little has been achieved in translated audio beyond Italian and Spanish. Hopefully one Text To Speech application with different African accents will soon come our way. If it can have abilities to translate English into major local languages, a major barrier in information access will be unlocked, as many people unable to read English can access the relevant news and information in audio.

Gerald Businge

If you would like me to review any particular item or section of your website or blog so that we prompt a discussion on how we can make it better, email me gb[@]geraldbusinge.com or just add a comment or question below.

Brought to you by:

Ultimate Multimedia Training Services

But because of space limitations, many newspapers use only one or a few more photos in their prints to illustrate the issue or event they are reporting about. Yet their photo journalists take (or should) many photos at events and during reporting interviews. While the newspapers cannot understandably always present many photos in their prints, they can always use many photos in their online publications if the series of photos taken better illustrate the story being told.

As I start my series commenting on online journalism and communications in Uganda, I’m beginning with the impression I got early today about The New Vision’s improved use of their photo journalism online.

They are now consistently making photo slideshows for big stories that are better told through many photos, like the case of the Sudan Referendum. If you forgive the quality of some of the photos in this slideshow, you will be impressed by the big number of photos they bring to the audience about the South Sudan voting process in this plebiscite, and the fact that each photo has a caption below it.

The slideshow navigation is also great, with numbering for each photo, previous and next buttons to guide the reader at each side of the photo displayed, as well as start and end buttons. This for me shows great effort by the New Vision in thinking beyond being a newspaper to deliver information in the best media possible. I just hope they can go on improving and become a true multimedia communicator, taking full advantage of the online platforms to deliver news and information in multimedia ways.

While their use of slideshow is commendable, I should state that the slideshow could have been better done. For example it might have been better to show the slideshow within the news website so that it doesn’t feel lonely for the person viewing it as there is no other content on the page. Where do you expect readers to go after going through the slideshow, or getting bored? Presenting your multimedia content like photo slideshow within you website helps readers go to other website sections of interest, in addition to marketing your other content on offer. I also expected to see a pointer of the other such slideshows that they have done but I didn’t see any.

Eh! I alluded to the New Vision slideshow as multimedia content. Yes, because it mixes text and photos, but a truly multimedia story would have included some more elements. For example, adding audio to make it a sound slide or audio photo slide. While images can show the numbers, excitement, and condition, the audio would bring out more emotion (and thus deliver more meaning to audience members) of what these people we are seeing feel about what they are doing. Audio recorders are fairly affordable (you can get a good one for 100,000UGX), and most digital cameras can record audio, video in addition to taking pictures.

I have not emphasized adding videos (while strongly recommended) because we are talking about photos today, and also the progression from text only articles or one badly implemented photo in most online news items as The New Vision is doing deserves commendation.

I also noticed the New Vision has started better aligning of their photos within the content as this example shows. Those who have been reading their content online know how bad their online photo implementation has been. Actually, I noticed today that the health and beauty section is well designed both at featuring level and the real article display level.

I have over the past two years been wondering why The New Vision (and other online publishers) continue to publish unaligned images and graphics or only centered ones, even when they clearly have good designers. This is not good blending of text and content, just as this isn’t. It is so easy to align left or right and I’m sure every web designer should know how.

Just as you ensure the printed newspaper article is well designed and aligned, so should the online story. Many CMS (content management system) platforms offer simpler ways of helping you align your images and graphics, and you too can design it into your template(s).

I’m sure whoever read this story would have liked to see more photos of Joseph Ntensibe’s art instead of the one photo presented un-aligned. A photo slideshow would do great for a story about art, weddings, launches and public rallies among others. So if the New Vision can always think of what media best tells a particular story, they will become a better online media.

Gerald Businge

If you would like me to review any particular item or section of your website or blog so that we prompt a discussion on how we can make it better, email me gb[@]geraldbusinge.com or just add a comment or question below.

Brought to you by:

Ultimate Multimedia Training Services

Many media houses will insist and market themselves as the most of objective newspaper, radio or television station. The New Vision and Daily Monitor recently were tousling using statistics from the same report each saying it is the most objective and trusted newspaper in Uganda. Many media houses always advertise themselves as objective and thus what they report or say should be trusted.

Journalists covering an event

But is any media house or journalist really objective or can they be? I have tended to always ignore this debate and focus on the fact that objectivity (impartiality in our work as journalists) is a good goal all media houses and journalists should work towards. I thought that it is not more important whether journalists and media houses are objective now or not, but that they work hard to fulfill it. Just like Christians (and others who may) believe in avoiding sin, and not necessarily that you don’t sin.

This was until my professor Allan Mutter recently added a candid view that objectivity is long gone, especially in the era of new media where almost everyone can report, but also he emphasizes that no journalist or media house has ever or can be objective. Mutter argues that the standard of objectivity (impartiality) is too high for anyone to measure up to and should instead be replaced with a more practical standard of Transparency.

This got me thinking whether anyone journalist or media house can genuinely claim to be impartial in reporting on any issue, institution or person. Is either of the New Vision or Daily Monitor really objective, or have I in my 10 years of journalism practice been objective? The answer was not that straight but it certainly isn’t a yes as many reports are almost unavoidably laced with personal views or norms (learned over time) and selective interviewing and quoting.

What got me thinking about this more was Mutter’s argument that instead of promising or assuming to be objective (thus impartial), every journalist should make a statement about him/herself declaring major details about themselves, including political and religious views, group affiliations etc.

He said Full disclosure of one’s leanings is much more important for the audience that claiming to be impartial. I remembered a time in 2002 and 2003 while I was still a Features Writer at The New Vision when I asked my editor to stop assigning me stories related to Banyoro-Bakiga conflicts in Kibaale. I didn’t feel I could continue reporting about the issues objectively (impartially) and I told my editor as much. Reflecting on this, my concern was not so much about fulfilling my job as a journalist who wanted to keep impartial, but more to do with the fact that both sides never told the truth and there wasn’t one truth. I reasoned that the audience would benefit more from my personal opinion on issues in the conflict I had covered for years, than me trying to interview people whose answers were almost certain-blaming the other party and selectively telling events of confrontation in the localities.

I guess without knowing I was thinking like Mutter wanting to report with more disclosure and push my views, findings and conclusions that depending on trying to balance what mostly turned out to be untruths. But what is better. Does the public benefit better from “impartial reporting” or from those who declare their leanings and hammer their key points with more conviction?

The principle of balance which requires giving both sides of the story has also been criticized as a false equilibrium when many journalists are reluctant to call out lies when we know they are lies.

The people reacting to Mutter’s transparency Vs impartiality debate are also divided. Some say the biggest problem isn’t the lack of disclosure as Mutter’s proposes, but the lack of meaningful journalism,” said one Tom Hood.

“I have found that I learn more about the facts of an issue by reading op-eds (editorial opinions) than by reading “objective” stories where I am left wondering whose talking points are valid,” he reasoned. There for long have been support for civic journalism which emphasizes a particular point of view.

“The biggest problem is lazy journalism, and bias shows up most in the choices of what not to report. Presenting “all sides” doesn’t mean anything when it’s just a clash of quotes from axe-grinders. There are things such as facts, and it is the reporter and editor’s job to bring them to light. The Internet will allow readers to confirm them, and build confidence in the journalists’ work,” a lady argued.

There are many who believe that most media houses have a given point of view on most issues, and this is evident in their editorial policies, what they chose to report, how they report it and the prominence they give to an issue or personality. To such people, claiming impartiality is not necessary as we always have a point of view, norms or favour for some issues of ways.

Yet other people insist that journalists and indeed media houses can be objective. To such people being Objective means not lacking an opinion or point of view on something but dealing with facts without regard to personal opinion, subjective values or tastes.

“Objective reporting consists of empirical facts presented in a way that each participant in a news event gets their side told and, in a perfect story, told in such a way that each side feels their position was described as well as everyone else’s. Space, time and human frailty come between the perfect and the published,” Allison Wells argued.

But people from both viewpoints expressed concern at the need to improve journalism beyond regurgitating what politicians, businesses and celebrities say (the biggest content of our newspapers, radios and television stations), the loss of skepticism and questioning what journalists, business and celebrities say, as well what some say is a growing problem of reporters (and editors) who write about things with no understanding of the issues they are reporting about. Not every journalist for example can write a good story about the court system, mining or HIV/AIDS.

With new media emphasis on getting out the news as fast as possible and on the least cost possible, these anomalies are expected to get worse, just as the possibility of interviewing all sides in a story, ensuring competing view points  are reflected is waning in most reports we see today. After all what do you expect a financially challenged media house or journalist with no operating budget for news collection to do?

So if a politician announces that 50 Forum for Democratic Change supporters have cross to the National Resistance Movement, or that a government minister has swindled billion of tax payers’ money, it is becoming normal these days for every media house to reports this as the truth, just as few (if any) journalists or media houses will question MTN Uganda when the telecommunications giant announces that its subscribers can now call for two shillings per second or give the implications of what has been announced.

Where does objectivity apply in all this? How much of our work as journalists and media houses embody fairness, responsibility, accuracy and thorough research as required? With the new media trends providing room for members of the public to analyze and comment on our work, are journalists and news media houses ready to keep holding up claim to these principles like objectivity, fairness, balance, accuracy, verification? I’m still wondering whether I’m for impartiality or full disclosure (transparency).

Gerald Businge

One of the key buzz words of today’s news and information cycle is “citizen journalism”. I have for years now been hearing people talk about citizen journalism. Some people are doing work calling themselves citizen journalists. I have even seen research efforts exploring citizen Journalism and the work of so called citizen journalists.

This trend of citizen journalism generally refers to the trend of using web 2.0 tools by people who are not trained or employed by news organizations to communicate news and information or share their views.

The new media tools of online and now mobile enabled communication have availed almost everyone with internet access and access to a mobile phone the opportunity to tell what they want to tell. This can be through self or jointly owned blogs, reports to other online publications, reports to broadcast media (yes many radios and TV even CNN through IReport) sometimes depend on information filed by audience members to tell what the media house is unable to cover on their own. In a way it enables the established media houses to tell stories they wouldn’t be able to tell.

There is no doubt that this has brought forth new information, and given more voice to people that are normally neglected or unreachable by the formal news media. They have filled the news and information gap since news media have long been accused of carrying stories and views of a select few.

But is it proper to call this trend “citizen journalism”, or for anyone to say they are a “citizen journalist”?  I have always had concerns with not the trend of ordinary people taking advantage of web 2.0 tools to tell their stories and those of others (which is what the trend wrongly called citizen journalism is all about), but with the very term “citizen journalist” or “citizen journalism”.

As a trained and practicing journalist, I find it almost insulting for someone to claim to be a citizen journalist or practicing citizen journalism (meaning there are some journalists who are not). You need to understand what journalism is to get my point. All journalism is aimed at citizens (read the good of) and all real journalists are indeed working for citizens.

I might agree with concepts of citizen media, citizen or community reports, community journalism but not citizen journalist or citizen journalism because not everyone who writes in the media, produces or broadcasts is a journalist. Just like not every media (channel of communication) is journalistic.

I still find a lot of mixing of the terms “journalism” and “media”. From my understanding, media are the channels of communication/ information flow. Journalism, while defined differently by different people, is the practice or craft of generating (following a set of principles that ensure public interest is served) and conveying news, descriptive material and comments on issues or events through a wide spectrum of media. While everyone can write, produce or describe things, journalists, or indeed those who do journalism must follow a number of principles including objectivity, fairness, accuracy, verification, balance, and most cardinal the love and practice of telling or exposing the truth.

It is therefore not appropriate to refer to whoever writes or reporters for the public as a journalist or whatever is reported or published is journalism.

Even if someone has trained as a journalist or works as one, and he or she writes or produces something short of the principles of journalism, such material should not be considered journalism. There are many trained journalists doing public relations, advocacy, propaganda or writing personal or group stories.

Journalists and Media houses should embrace web 2.0 tools to improve journalism

But this new trend where everyone can report or contribute to reporting should be embraced by all news media so it can be used to improve journalism. Truth be told, no news media shall ever have the capacity to tell stories from everywhere, or know all the issues in any community. Allowing non-journalist people an opportunity to contribute to the news media’s agenda and content is a big plus. This interactivity and engagement with the audience is beneficial for every media house worth its name.

Also, as one of my professors at UC Berkeley used to point out, it is high time news media and journalists in particular understood there is more wisdom in the whole community than in any one or a couple of experts or people we interview for our articles. So enabling platforms for all people to contribute ideas, tips or express their opinion on an issue is the best a journalist or news media who wants to be accurate, fair, balanced and objective can do.

Sadly, most media houses were built on this tradition of filtering what people have to say, to be the ones to determine what gets said and who gets heard. See a comment by one reader of Daily Monitor online to see the public interest in being involved and why they seek alternative media

“Hallo there, Thanks for all you are doing to keep us informed. I would like to make a complaint though. In the days gone by, we used to be able to comment on your articles online and we would not only read about our but also other people’s contributions. Today, it appears you have turned our comments into direct exclusive mail to your selves. What is the point of me writing a comment if no one but you will have access to it? I am very disappointed.” Submitted by Chafaon Posted July 25, 2010 02:42 PM

While I agree that many people are looking to alternative media to get the journalism they need, faster and in ways that allow them (audiences) to participate and get feedback, it doesn’t mean all the news and information they are getting out is journalism, let alone citizen journalism.

According to The Elements of Journalism, a book by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, there are ten elements of journalism.  In order for a journalist to fulfill their duty of providing the people with the information, they need to be free and self-governing. They must follow these guidelines:

1.     Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.

2.     Its first loyalty is to the citizens.

3.     Its essence is discipline of verification.

4.     Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.

5.     It must serve as an independent monitor of power.

6.     It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.

7.     It must strive to make the significant interesting, and relevant.

8.     It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.

9.     Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

10. Its the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

These are largely absent from the content of most so called citizen journalists as most are answerable to none and do not have to follow any principles in doing their work. No doubt the work of citizen reporters, bloggers etc is good and commendable as they add to information in the public know and give more voices and diversity, but it is a little too much in my view to call such people journalists and their content journalism. What do you think?

Gerald Businge

Thanks to Joyce Kyeyune’s twitter updates, and a few other tweets from presenters and attendees, there would not have been anything on the proceedings online for those who couldn’t make, it to follow.

With all due respect, it is not fair in 2010 to expect that for people to know about something, they have to gather at some place physically. If anyone wants us to know what is on offer in the ICT industry, or the latest developments in ICT regulation etc, the better solution would be to put those ‘availabilities’ on an online location in a searchable format, with good standard keywords so the information can be accessed anytime when someone wants it.

The better option would be to have any kind of expo (effort to exhibit or expose items, processes or information) held online. Just create a website with multimedia information packages of what you want people to know about and then direct people to the website. The website can be interactive and even involve forums to discuss some of these issues as many of you are already used to contribute to different forums when and how you want to.

If a physical expo and forum (conference) like this is organised, it would be better if it is covered live for the benefit of many people who will not be attending physically due to different reasons.

There are many free and easy to use resources out there beyond twitter updates (which are limited in what you can communicate). Resources like www.coveritlive.com , www.livestream.com , www.ustream.tv , www.qik.com , www.livestreaming.com, and several others are available to present such important events to a larger audience beyond those physically present. We have been using coveritlive and livestream without major issues for our live coverage and live streaming. All these platform already incorporate social networks like twitter, facebook, myspace and live chatting to ensure really interactive events.

When you say or want to say something, you want to be heard and luckily ICTs have enabled many possibilities for us to reach out to people with relevant information and knowledge.

As I always insist to my communications clients, knowledge, like information is not an event…but a process (whose managers) need to consider how people they are targeting can best continue to receive that information or knowledge. Any communication mix needs to include online and mobile being the best options in terms of offering people information when the person wants it-through searching or going to the location (website one wants), or sms calling the number one wants when the person wants to fulfill a given need.

We need to think seriously of the audience and the message we need to get out there, and utilize all the available means for the message to reach the intended audience. This means we think beyond events to processes and continued presence of what we are communicating. The question to ask is if someone wants to know about this news, product, or piece of information now or tomorrow, can they get it? Is the way the message is available the best for the audience member to get it?

My first interaction with this 2010 ICT Expo and East Africa Digital Forum was when I read from the organizers a message that we should not miss the ICT expo documentary on UBC at 10:45 pm on Sunday and Monday. So they even have a video? Wouldn’t it be better to share it beyond UBC and at that particular time?  Just upload the video on youtube, vimeo and a host of other providers so that people can access this information in the powerful visual medium when they want (their not your preferred time). Remember it is not about you but the target audience.

Gerald Businge