Mass Media
17 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Akshat
Scoop.it!

DCRL questions: Nishant Shah

What are digital Cultures? The DCRL-interview-series “Questions” The term “digital cultures” is all-encompassing and at the same time vague. The purpose of…
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Akshat
Scoop.it!

30 Things That Stress Out Journalists

30 Things That Stress Out Journalists

 

According to a Careercast report, journalists have one of the most stressful jobs, along with soldiers, firefighters, airline pilots, and public relation executives (they have the same stresses as journalists but get paid better). Here's why journalists are so stressed:

 

Deadlines 

 

Elections 

 

The first day on the job 

 

When a TV reporter asks a completely bullshit, softball question at a press conference 

 

"Can you email us your questions?" 

 

Losing your notes 

 

When your phone dies in the middle of the day 

 

Readers' comments 

 

Just don't do it. 

 

Typos 

 

When sources don't call back 

 

"No comment" comments 

 

When your editor asks if you can write a brief before the end of your shift 

 

Working on 4 hours of sleep 

 

Being scooped 

 

When you notice your voice recorder is not on in the middle of an interview 

 

When someone threatens to sue you 

 

When a late-night game goes into overtime 

 

When you run into someone in real life after bitching about them on Twitter. 

 

When a reader leaves a voicemail telling you that you're a worthless piece of shit and that you have no idea what you're writing about 

 

After writing your fifth homicide story in a week 

 

Deciding to join the copy desk 

 

"Did I make that change in my lede???????????" 

 

When a source is talking above your state school journalism degree 

 

When your computer freezes and you realize you haven't saved your story 

 

When you realize the meeting you're covering across town starts in five minutes 

 

When you realize you're driving toward a fire instead of away from it 

 

When your editor asks if you could take photos yourself instead of sending a photog 

 

Attending your first presser 

 

Job searching 

 

When you see your paycheck 

 

Journalism in general 

 

We still love it.

 

Share Tweet  
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Akshat
Scoop.it!

Burying The Lede

Burying The Lede | Mass Media | Scoop.it
Burying The LedeThe Tejpal case obscures the reality of unequal newsroomsBy POORNIMA JOSHI | 1 January 2014 NARENDRA BISHT / OUTLOOKIndian media organisations lack clear procedures for addressing complaints of sexual harassment.
Print|E-Mail|Single Page

THE RELENTLESS MEDIA COVERAGE of the former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal’s alleged assault on his much younger colleague in a hotel elevator simultaneously exposes as well as eclipses the complex lived experiences of women in the media. The news reports, opinion pieces and tangential investigations that the editor’s “lapse of judgement” and subsequent rape charge unleashed have been utterly demoralising.

This is particularly true for those who have worked for Tehelka, believed in journalism as a public service and remember collecting money to bring out a “People’s Paper”, which is how Tejpal sold the enterprise to many of us. In the days that he and the very promising Tehelka were being targeted by the BJP-led NDA government for exposing corruption in defence deals in 2001, it was inconceivable that Tejpal would one day resemble some of the creeps that we encountered or heard about in the newsrooms.

The Tehelka I worked in was different. Some friends who joined at the beginning took salary cuts to support an idealistic journalistic venture. They worked tirelessly to cover stories that no one bothered about: I still remember their exhaustive focus on the hair-raising July 2004 protest—by women in Manipur who disrobed and dared the men of the Assam Rifles to “rape us too”—against the custodial rape and murder of a woman named Thangjam Manorama. The men and women at Tehelka even spent nights in the office, spreading newspapers on the floor for short naps between tight deadlines.

The reality of Tejpal’s personal ambitions is quite mundane, but somehow uglier because it was airbrushed with virtue. If Tehelka looks like the caricature of a boys-club newsroom now, perhaps it is because we expected too much. After all, stories about predatory editors who hounded young interns, and not-so-predatory ones who enticed younger colleagues, promising promotions or postings abroad, were common enough in our field. A lot of these lechers are still editing mainstream newspapers. The forever irreverent Vinod Mehta referred to some of them in his Outlook column, ‘Delhi Diary’, early last month: “The abuse of power in the media, especially in the higher echelons, is rampant. Editors sexually exploit and harass trainees and junior staff with a crudity which is unbelievably cynical. The threat is always the same: if the girl ‘cooperates’, she not only keeps her job but enjoys rapid promotion. If she doesn’t, she is shown the door. It is the worst kept secret in our profession but it dare not speak its name.”

The only exceptional part of the Tehelka saga is that the young woman allegedly molested by Tejpal actually complained to her superiors. As Vinod Mehta pointed out, editors assaulting young journalists is commonplace enough. But what may have escaped attention in the media frenzy that followed her complaint is that the young woman no longer has a job. Her courage is remarkable because, for many women journalists, speaking up against a superior means losing work and facing the prospect of being considered unemployable in the future in the ruthless world of media organisations. The usual silence surrounding sexual harassment is as much for the routine reasons of guilt, shame, preserving personal space and dignity, and the desire not to be objectified, as it is for the fear of being left out in the merciless workplace.

A former colleague underwent precisely this experience in the early 2000s, when she complained against her boss in what was then the biggest newspaper in Delhi. She lost her job and never worked in a newsroom again. In the cut-throat media world, complaining is synonymous with weakness, and none of us can ever afford to be seen as weak. So, from creepy managers and heads of editorial departments to wages that are routinely lower than those of our male colleagues; from a lack of standardised, enforced maternity benefits or childcare to job segregation into “hard” and “soft” beats; not to mention downright sexism; a woman journalist learns to live with the newsroom reality very early on. And women who do go on to senior positions find that they have to work harder to constantly prove themselves to both the staff they manage and to those who control the purse strings.

Much of the evidence of this remains anecdotal because there is a scarcity of in-depth research into gender and the media. In 2009, the Global Media Monitoring Project conducted a cursory one-day survey of stories produced by 36 Indian newsrooms. The study, coordinated by the Network of Women in Media India, found that women reported only 34 percent of news stories in the print media and 43 percent of stories on television. (Incidentally, only 22 percent of the stories were about women, and 82 percent of all expert commentators or sources were men.) A 2011 study by the International Women’s Media Foundation found that women made up 18.6 percent of 17 Indian newsrooms surveyed, and that their salaries were generally lower than men’s, particularly in senior positions. Women only made up 13.8 percent of upper management—the category that included publishers and chief executive officers.

The Press Institute of India conducted a near-national survey in 2004, the Status of Women Journalists in the Print Media. Here, too, the evidence is largely anecdotal—the survey noted that only 11.5 percent of the roughly 3,500 women approached even responded to the questionnaire—but it is nevertheless compelling. One respondent asserted: “Women journalists are often overworked, underpaid and have very little access to equal employment. In fact, a large number of organisations often deny women promotions on the flimsy excuse that they cannot do night duty. Childcare, flexi-hours, a more sensitive approach to the limitations she faces when she is in the child-rearing phase can do wonders for both the organisation and the women employees.”

The insecurities have only been magnified in recent years owing to regular job cuts and mass retrenchments. In December 2011, the editor of Mail Today, a newspaper launched by the India Today group in collaboration with the UK’s Daily Mail, resigned because he would not sack journalists he had cajoled into joining the newspaper when it was launched in late 2007. In the subsequent year, at least 13 senior journalists either resigned or were sacked from the political bureau in Mail Today. The situation was similar in the paper’s other departments. This was part of a “convergence” plan, which chiefly entailed the arbitrary sacking of journalists on a large scale. These events preceded the August 2013 bloodbath at the television channels CNN-IBN and IBN7, in which approximately 300 producers, cameramen and reporters were laid off. A few weeks earlier, in July, the Outlook Group had decided to stop production of the local editions of its international franchise magazines—a move that led to an estimated 120 people losing their jobs.

Given this larger reality of a squeezed industry, in which the bulk of decision-making power rests with men, the virtuous, round-the-clock commentary on one woman journalist’s traumatic experience has been distortive, if not downright misrepresentative. As is inevitable in the coverage of cases of sexual violence, some of the commentary has been what can only be called pathologically sexist. Many of the commentators (again, largely male experts) have given little serious thought to, much less acted on, creating an equitable work space by curbing excruciatingly long work hours, professionalising the newsroom, and addressing issues of job security, safety, maternity benefits, childcare, or everyday sexism. These are only some of the issues that concern the professional lives of women—as well as men—in the unorganised, highly informal workplace that is the news media.

When such insecurities plague journalists on a day-to-day basis, the new legal regime of harsh punishments and stricter sentences that followed the 2013 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act in the wake of the 16 December Delhi rape will only serve to complicate issues further. How do we retain our jobs and progress in the profession while demanding redress against editors who might pounce on us in elevators? It is not yet clear whether the severity of the charges Tejpal is facing, and the related harshness of punishment, will eventually help empower other women to speak up about harassment and discrimination in the newsroom. The hypocrisy in the self-righteous rage of the commentators in Tejpal’s case is stunning because a majority of them have done nothing to encourage women to step forward against molesters in their own offices. I know that at least one of the more eloquent commentators refused to act against a news editor harassing a younger colleague until some of us gathered in his office and basically forced him to confront the offender

The cultural norms that govern sexual behaviour still arrest our understanding of what precisely constitutes a crime. Between consent and sexual violence, the law alone cannot define what is injurious and reprehensible, and the best mode of redress for human behaviour does not always fall within existing legal frameworks. From the tired Bollywood trope of “na mein haan” (“no means yes”) to the master of all jurists, Glanville Williams, quoting Lord Byron’s ‘Don Juan’ in the otherwise illuminating 1983 edition of his Textbook of Criminal Law (“A little still she strove, and much repented, and whispering ‘I will ne’er consent’—consented”), sexual behaviour and criminality is a slippery slope. As many lawyers and activists have noted in the ongoing discussion surrounding sexual violence, stringent laws mostly result in less reporting, fewer convictions and a majority of real culprits getting let off the hook.

This cannot be an acceptable scenario when sexual violence and harassment is more routine than most people imagine. The relevant question here is: in how many media houses that have celebrated Tejpal’s arrest and subsequent incarceration do internal mechanisms such as an anti-sexual harassment committee exist? “Not many,” media analyst Sevanti Ninan told me, although again, the evidence is mostly anecdotal. According to Ninan, the “unprofessional and informalised” nature of media organisations makes it difficult to create even legally mandated redressal structures. Moreover, there is no agency through which employees can collectively bargain for such provisions if the organisations refuse to create them. Activists like Kavita Krishnan, secretary of the All India Progressive Women’s Association and a member of the politburo of the CPI(ML)(Liberation), believe that the new legal regime, especially the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013, which mandates that any organisation with ten or more employees form a committee to address complaints of harassment, will create the necessary pressure for the creation of these structures.

Media organisations, including our own, are now scrambling to set up these committees. But for better or worse, the question of serving the public good often looms larger in the newsroom than issues surrounding the hiring, firing and working conditions of employees—an emphasis that often shuts out the very voices, already marginalised, that would enrich our reporting. By putting our faith in Tejpal, we allowed the promise of personal liability to trump institutional safeguards. This tendency to privilege personality over rule-bound equity isn’t likely to disappear soon in a media world that is driven as much by ego as it is by idealism, and which is vulnerable to the creeping in of sexist social mores in the absence of a professional work culture that actively empowers women. While Vinod Mehta may have announced the arrival on the scene of the “new woman” in his Outlook column last month, for most women journalists battling routine problems on account of their gender, celebrations are not in order yet.

Poornima Joshi is a staff writer at The Caravan.

- See more at: http://caravanmagazine.in/perspectives/burying-lede#sthash.MuW0ic2W.dpuf

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Akshat
Scoop.it!

Noam Chomsky Documentary "Manufacturing Consent The Political Consent of Mass Media"

Noam Chomsky's documentary "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media" from 1988. analyses mass media and the political ramifications and im...
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Akshat
Scoop.it!

Leuphana Orientation Week 2013 - Nishant Shah: Digitalization of Culture - YouTube

Rund 1.600 Erstsemester beschäftigen sich mit Folgen des demografischen Wandels -- Hamburgs Erster Bürgermeister Olaf Scholz, Maltesischer Wissenschaftsminis...
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Akshat
Scoop.it!

Gayness doesn't spread like flu - The Times of India

Gayness doesn't spread like flu - The Times of India | Mass Media | Scoop.it
Gayness doesn't spread like flu

Reagan Gavin Rasquinha,TNN | Dec 13, 2013, 10.47 AM 

READ MORE Section 377|Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay|Gay Pride WeekRELATEDWhat does Section 377 of IPC criminalize?A play on Section 377 in DelhiWhy social activists fear Section 377Pune MPs to back Section 377 amendmentAmend Section 377 immediately: MP minister charged with sodomyHomosexuality, as a subject, stays mostly in the closet in India because of continuing social stigma. The gay community finds itself harassed and blackmailed, even as it is forced to battle all forms of myths and prejudices. TOI shines the light on an area of darkness

Section 377 of the IPC criminalizes homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders and others whose sexuality does not conform to the heterosexual mainstream and who are commonly known as gays.

Section 377, introduced by Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1860, punishes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" with either imprisonment of ten years or life and fine. This idea of sex without the possibility of conception has been used by the judiciary over the last 149 years to characterize homosexuality as a perversion and crime, and something meant to be abhorred by civilized society.

However, technically speaking, Section 377 does not criminalize gays as a class, but targets only sexual acts. The fact that these sexual acts are commonly (mistakenly) associated with only gays has made the community far more vulnerable to prosecution than heterosexuals.

The right to equality, the right to dignity or the right to expression have never been seen fit to apply to gays. The judicial understanding of Section 377 only legitimizes and reinforces state power to prosecute and harass those of an alternative sexual orientation or gender identity.

The real danger of Section 377 lies in the fact that it permeates different social settings and becomes part of ordinary conversations and ultimately part of the very social fabric in workplaces, families, hospitals and the press. This creates an environment where violence against queer people gains a semblance of legal acceptability.

If it doesn't criminalize gays, why do they want Section 377 amended?
As former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee once said, Section 377 should not apply to consenting adults in private. So what amendments are gays talking about? Well, Section 377 outlaws any form of penetration other than peno-vaginal, so it also implies that anal sex with a woman is wrong and oral sex with a woman is considered wrong too. The gay community wants to make this more sensible. They say that any sex between two consenting adults in private is outside the purview of the law. Noted writer Vikram Seth, in urging the repeal of Section 377, was supported by scientists, authors, teachers, academics and businessmen. The problem with Section 377, Seth said, is that by presumptively treating as criminals those who love people of the same sex, it violates fundamental human rights, particularly the rights to equality and privacy.

The British decriminalized homosexuality in 1967, but India still continues with Section 377. Why? Noted economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, in supporting Vikram Seth's effort for the repeal of Section 377, said, "It is surprising that independent India has not yet been able to rescind the colonial era monstrosity in the shape of Section 377, dating from 1861. That, as it happens, was the year in which the American Civil War began, which would ultimately abolish the unfreedom of slavery in America. Today, 146 years later, we surely have urgent reason to abolish in India, with our commitment to democracy and human rights, the unfreedom of arbitrary and unjust criminalization."

Are gays perverts, is gayness inherent or by choice?
The difference in an individual's physical and behavioral traits lies in the difference between his/her innate qualities and DNA (nature) and personal experiences (nurture). The common view is that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from nurture. However, to ask which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality, is like asking which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width. One affects the other. Scientific studies are inconclusive. But there is a growing consensus among researchers that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born. Virtually every animal species that has been studied — from sheep to fruit flies — has a small minority who demonstrate homosexual activity. The orientation towards one gender is as natural to a gay as it is for heterosexuals for the other. Just because someone is attracted to the same sex doesn't mean he/she is a criminal or a pervert.

Homosexuality is a western concept, why are we destroying Indian culture by importing it? Homosexuality is an age-old concept in India. Religion has always played a significant role in shaping Indian traditions and customs. And the Manusmriti, which lists the oldest codes of conduct that were proposed to be followed by a Hindu, does include mention of homosexual practices. Same sex love and romantic friendships flourished in ancient India without overt persecution and are not an aberration imported from modern Europe or medieval West Asia.

But though homosexuality was considered a part of Indian sexual practices, and therefore a part of our culture, it was not always well accepted. Yet, it was never a major criminal offence, and India was more accepting and tolerant towards gayness then than it is now. Mainly responsible for this change in our attitude is the British who introduced Section 377 and made homosexuality illegal. Thousands of years ago, the Manusmriti says, there were punishments prescribed for homosexual behaviour. For instance, the verse referring to sexual relations between an older woman and a virgin (woman) reads "...a woman who pollutes a damsel (virgin) shall instantly have (her head) shaved or two fingers cut off, and be made to ride (through the town) on a donkey". The punishment for male offenders was less severe: "...man who commits an unnatural offence with a male... shall bathe, dressed in his clothes". The Rig Veda, sculptures and vestiges depict sexual acts between women as revelations of a feminine world where sexuality was based on pleasure and fertility. The concept of being gay is as old as humanity. When it comes to basic human instincts like eating, self-preservation or sex, human beings are alike, whatever their country of origin.

Heterosexuals fear giving rights to gays, will erode their own rights somehow.
Gays are not asking for extra rights, extra legal sanction or reservations. Gays just don't want harassment. They want the rights that other citizens have to practise their sexual preference, to marry, divorce, adopt, etc. Gays cannot accept that in 21st century India, we still have a law which denies basic Constitutional rights to a section of the population. Yes, it is true that in a way gays are not normal. Which, loosely translated, makes them abnormal. But their only abnormality is that they cannot have children. And though this is an unfair comparison, if society can accept a blind person and give him regular human rights, why cannot gays be given the same respect and privileges? They are no more responsible for their genetic handicap than those born blind are for being visually impaired.

Should the court recognize gay marriages?
Stable relationships are always good, for society as well as for individuals. This is especially true for gay relationships which have been condemned worldwide for the spreading of AIDS through anal sex. Gay marriages, with regular divorce laws and rules of alimony, etc. will greatly reduce swapping of sexual partners and therefore also contain the spread of HIV, as it would if heterosexual men were also monogamous.

Allowing gay couples to adopt will only create abnormal children raised in unnatural homes.
Adoption by gays, after the general acceptance of gay relationships, is a step to be taken in the future. The amendment of Section 377 alone, which is not against adoption, will not help. The entire social structure consisting of the support system - family, neighbours and school - will have to come into play. There has to be openness and sensitivity in a larger quantum for the parents and the child. While it is true that the influence of an opposite gender (whichever case is applicable) is necessary to give a child a rounded personality, the love of gay parents is still any day the better alternative to an orphanage. Western nations that have approved the practice, have reported successful results. Even single and influential gays in India are considering adoption and don't mind being single parents.

Heterosexuals, again, fear that gays will overrun the world and the human population will vanish.
Gays will never be a majority. Liberalization of laws won't lead to homosexuality spreading like wildfire. Why are people so scared? Gayness doesn't spread like 'flu. It's not like gays are going to walk around on the street wantonly raping men! On the contrary, giving legal recognition to homosexual relationships will keep gays within the community and minimize the chances of their hitting on, and forcing themselves upon, heterosexuals they are attracted to.

Parents of gay kids are embarrassed and force them into lives of heterosexuality. Why?
Yes, because there is the question of peer pressure and fear of social ostracism here. Parents should not be embarrassed by gay children. To force gay children into heterosexuality is the cruelest thing parents can do to them. Acceptance and tolerance are the key words here. Every parent lives vicariously through their children. It's a miserable life of constant shame, prejudice and inequality. The question is why would anyone want to live an unnatural life full of societal conflict facing so many difficulties when gays are so happy and readily accepted within their kind?

Why doesn't a secular country like India accept gays the way it accepts other socio-religious minorities?
All minorities have the right to exist. Human relationships, whether sexual or not, are about finding happiness... choosing it and being responsible for it. Making homosexuality legal would make a lot of people more open, honest and happier... after all, what could be more natural than being yourself. But, just as in a secular society like India the majority Hindus can accept and co-habit with the minority Muslims because their own religion and its practices are not threatened, heterosexuals should understand that acceptance of gays in no way encroaches upon their own sexuality.

By accepting gays, are we encouraging pedophiles, and does an assault by a gay on a heterosexual amount to rape?
Pedophilia is not connected to the gay movement. Pedophiles are monsters who prey on children of either sex and should be treated as criminals. Yes, pedophiles could also be gays, but all gays are not pedophiles. And any forcible sex with a minor or major is rape, irrespective of whether it is carried out by a gay or a heterosexual.

Acceptance and tolerance... is it a question of human rights?
To each his or her own sexual preference. But acceptance and tolerance are two different things. Tolerance means we acknowledge there is something sexually different (as opposed to wrong) in a gay but we still tolerate him/her. Acceptance means we accept a gay as our equal in all respects and there is no sense of hetero superiority over gay inferiority because one is the majority community and the other, the minority. In India minorities, including gays, are always looked upon with suspicion because they are different. We have to get over this prejudice. Medical proof suggests that genes influence sexual preference. So, then, how can a homosexual relation be anything but the order of nature? Who decides it is not?

What will the world be without gays?
Much the poorer. What would the world be without the music of celebrated gays like Freddie Mercury, David Bowie, George Michael, Elton John, Boy George? Or without the onscreen performances of bisexuals like Angelina Jolie and Lindsay Lohan, and Sir Laurence Olivier and James Dean earlier, the literature of Oscar Wilde, the writing of Gore Vidal, the art of Leonardo da Vinci - all recognized gays - without the tennis of lesbians like Martina Navratilova and Billie Jean King? Where would history be without the influence of gays like Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great... not to mention all the supremely gifted Indians whose names we will not mention here simply because homosexuality is a taboo subject still in India.

Although a minority, their contribution to the fields of art and culture internationally is immense, and they are geniuses only because they are gay. The same genes that jumbled their sexuality have contributed towards their creative excellence. But by wishing their community away, by refusing to recognize their relationships and legalize them, we are making the world a sad and poor place to live in. There are leading fashion designers, models, actors, musicians, filmmakers, dancers, painters and sculptors, writers, sportspersons, hair-stylists who are gay. Do we want them to forever remain in the closet? Or step out and be counted and thereby make the world a better place?

This article first appeared in 2009

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Akshat
Scoop.it!

Social Media And The Rise Of The Millennials [INFOGRAPHIC] - AllTwitter

Social Media And The Rise Of The Millennials [INFOGRAPHIC] - AllTwitter | Mass Media | Scoop.it
Social Media And The Rise Of The Millennials [INFOGRAPHIC]
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Akshat
Scoop.it!

Journalism before the Internet and now | Media, disrupted

Journalism before the Internet and now | Media, disrupted | Mass Media | Scoop.it
Journalism before the Internet and nowPosted on December 13, 2013 

Updated

Twenty years ago, journalism was different. Here are some ways, and feel free to add your own:

**********

Then: You could do anything short of murdering your city editor and not get fired.

Now: You don’t need to do anything to get fired.

***********

Then: Deadlines were once a day.

Now: Deadlines are 86,400 times a day

***********

Then: You got furloughed – time off without pay – when you screwed up.

Now: You get furloughed when the company screws up.

***********

Then: Most important news ruled.

Now: Most recent news rules.

**********

Then: You got paid little and got small raises.

Now: You get paid little and get no raises.

***********

Then: You smoked and put the cigarette out on the linoleum floor..

Now: You don’t smoke and if your neighbor does, he goes outside on the sidewalk.

************

Then: Readers were surprised by the news

Now: Readers know the news already from Twitter or Facebook or 24-hour cable news.

************

Then: Accuracy was vital and errors were a kick in the stomach.

Now: Accuracy is vital, but dammit, let’s get it out on Twitter!

***********

Then: Sports agate ruled.

Now: ESPN.com

************

Then: Mobile is what newspaper carriers were.

Now: Something newspapers still haven’t quite got right.

************

Then: Avoid the city desk by not answering the phone.

Now: Impossible to avoid the city desk’s phone calls, texts, emails, DMs, tweets…

*************

Then: Competition was that other paper.

Now: Competition is that guy, and that guy, and her, and him over there ….

************

Then: Newsrooms were loud and smoky and crowded.

Now: Newsrooms are quiet and not smoky and filled with empty desks.

************

Then: A link was something that kept the ends of your cuffs together, and which only journalists with airs wore.

Now: A url that most news websites still haven’t figured out how to embed.

Then: You ignored mail you didn’t like.

Now: You ignore mail you don’t like. And email. And story comments. And tweets.

*************

Then: Your day started when your sources did.

Now: Your day has already started, regardless of when you wake up.

***********

Then: Your day ended when the copy desk pressed send.

Now: What copy desk?

**********

Then: Computers frequently crashed and your stories vanished before your eyes.

Now: Yes.

**********

Then: Everyone read your story.

Now: Most everyone has heard about your story.

***********

Then: You decide when to break the story.

Now: The source breaks her story on her blog or FB page or tweet.

*************

Then: In sports, it was all about who won the game.

Now: It’s not about who won the game. (See ESPN.)

***************

Then: In politics, it’s all about the horse race.

Now: In politics, it’s all about the horse race.

*************

Then: Editors never gave you enough time to do quality work.

Now: Editors still don’t give you enough time to do quality work.

***************

Then: You told photographers what kind of photo you wanted.

Now: Photographers? You shoot your own.

**************

Then: Journalists can close down a bar.

Now: Journalists can close down a bar.

From the comments:

Then: News was news, advertising was advertising, and never the twain did meet.

Now: Advertorial, or embedded advertising, or whatever the term of the day is, is “a new revenue opportunity” requiring no transparency as to either form or source, readers be damned. (Lex)

***********

Then: You used a telephone book and a city directory book to look up people’s phone numbers, verify the spelling of their names (never trust the city directory), and get their addresses (also their neighbors’, if it was a crime scene).

Now: Books? (Steve)
**********
Then: You never went out to cover a story without a reporter’s notebook and a couple of pens in your pocket or purse. And your desk was stuffed with half-used notebooks.

Now: You never go anywhere without your cell phone. And your desk is still filled with half-used notebooks. (Steve)

**********
Then: You went to the morgue to get background for a story.

Now: Whaddya mean they wiped out the archive when they updated the CMS? (Steve)

**********

Then: Small town newspapers were family owned.

Now: Hundreds of small town papers are being bought out by the same enormous firm run by questionable lawyers and bankers.

***********

Then: The daily newspaper was placed in newsrooms for staff to read.

Now: Staff goes to the front counter to buy a newspaper if they want to read it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John Robinson. Bookmark the permalink.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Akshat from Social Media, SEO, Mobile, Digital Marketing
Scoop.it!

12 Social Media Accounts That Turned Into Books

12 Social Media Accounts That Turned Into Books | Mass Media | Scoop.it
Social media accounts have spawned dozens of book deals: Here are 12 of our favorites.

Via Kamal Bennani
more...
No comment yet.