Web 2.0

Web 2.0 has changed a lot of things.  As mentioned in the previous blog post, the media and journalism as a profession has had to adapt and shift in order to meet the demands of the internet and its 24 hour nature.  Social media is at the heart of web 2.0 and has cause significant changes particularly in the political sphere.  There are many debates surrounding social media, the internet, censoring and transparency with many differing views presented.  I will discuss some of these views in this blog post and how the web 2.0 has helped and hindered the political sphere.

Transparency has been a key issue on the internet in the political sphere.  Lawrence Lessig in “Against Transparency” , as the name suggests, questions transparency on the web especially regarding monetary contributions and results and that the wide availability of political documents.  Importantly Lessig believes that this transparency will not spur reform, but disgust amongst the public.  This concept of transparency is beginning to show in Australian Politics with websites such as My School and My Hospital .  These sites are not depicting the transparency of the government directly, but the importance of the public knowing how their local schools and hospitals rate and compare to others, helping the public to make informed decisions.

Social media is another core factor in web 2.0 and has had numerous effects in the political sphere.  In Egypt, the blogosphere, as well as other forms of social media, caused a political uprising.  The Kifaya movement was one of the most successful Egyptian movements overcoming institutional barriers and coordinating movements between 2004-2007; its succes was in its ability to organise a large group.  This movement was successful due to the way it exploited the potential of the internet, now with thousands of political activism blogs.  Read more here.

Technology has expanded the power of the individual especially those individuals who exploit the power of the internet.  The question then remains will the state consider pulling the plug on technology, shut off mobile connection and censor the web?  This is a worry for Paul Mason in his article ’20 Reasons Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere’.  In many Asian countries there is censorship of the web, for example in China, where monitoring for political activists against the current government occurs.  On the Australian front, there is debate around the introduction of an internet filter which has been discussed by the Australian Labor Party since 2008.  This debate has seen anti websites pop up including ’No Clean Feed’.

It is clear that web 2.0 has caused many issues for debate in the political sphere, with individuals exploiting the internet and calling for transparency.  This call to arms as shown above in the Egyptian example is causing uprisings and significant political shifts.  The worry is whether or not the state will pull the plug on the internet to stop these situations from occurring.

The digital journalism paradigm (transversely)

The ubiquity of the internet has meant that the digital realm is thriving providing various channels of opportunity for users.  In this digital age we have seen the rise of the blogger, the rise of the citizen journalist, the rise of social media and the rise of sharing information.  The digital realm has also meant that that certain industries have had to adapt and change in order to compete, including journalism.

Newspapers have had to adapt and provide content in the online space, including the UK newspaper the Guardian.  The Guardian has developed an ‘open journalism’ platform so that readers can be involved and get the most up to date content.  Editor, Alan Rusbridger has developed 10 principles of open journalism and how journalism has had to adapt to continue to exist and be profitable.  Some key principles include; encouraging participation, initiating debate and publishing as the beginning of a debate not the end (see here for further information).  Journalism and the internet has also meant that young journalists have to become ‘multiplatform journalists’, able to produce content, video and images which are included in most stories online.  This content has meant that stories can be taken to a new level being interactive - not possible in print form.  Some amazing Australian examples of this include the Sydney Morning Herald’s ‘Bikie Wars’ story which combines video, images, sound and design to create a layered viewing experience for the reader.  The Walkley Award winning Maroondah Leader’s ‘Feeling the Strain’ is another example which took an in-paper series of stories and expanded on them with compelling multimedia galleries and relevant background information and links.

This open journalism platform is intended to create debate and discussion by readers and is turning readers into citizen journalists.  This debate by readers can in some cases create new stories; a relevant and recent example of this is the Samantha Brick media storm.  After writing an article for the Daily Mail about being attractive, reader comments and social media went through the roof discussing their opinion on this article.  This is what media companies want through their open journalism platform, however, the comments and social media storm caused after this article turned ugly and nasty with readers commenting on how ugly Samantha Brick was some evening saying she deserved to die.  In this circumstance it is worth questioning where the line should be drawn in the sand with the open platform.

The current journalism paradigm has meant media companies have had to adapt and they may not be 100% there yet.  The adapting, as mentioned in this blog, has resulted in in-depth multimedia journalistic pieces not possible in print but also, on the other hand, the potential for debate and discussion to turn ugly and severely negative.