(Wits University: Online Journalism Feature Assignment)

One of the most memorable photographs to emerge from the recent spate of xenophobic violence in South Africa is that of a man being burnt alive. “Flames of Hate”, most media called it.

The combination of this image and its headline sent shockwaves through the world, sparked international debate and left the South African nation divided between those who condoned and those who disapproved of the violent acts.

Yet while newspaper images like these are by now lying at the bottom of the birdcage and broadcasts are never to be repeated on television or radio, turn online and there they are – immortalised. In the digital cybersphere unconstrained by time or space, the issue is still very much alive.

The online media have had the opportunity to use the web as a platform for multimedial, interactive and non-linear story-telling in their coverage of xenophobia. Through making use of the characteristics of online journalism (multimedia, hyperlinks and interactivity), involving users by enabling comments, or engaging their audiences via blogging or citizen journalism, the web enabled online media to cover the topic in a converged manner that can’t be reproduced by the traditional media.

Whether this was done, however, is a burning issue.

This feature takes a critical look at five websites that have dealt with the recent xenophobia. The aim is to compare the websites in their treatment of the topic but specifically, to analyse whether they made use of the characteristics of online journalism in their efforts to bring their stories or messages across. From user interaction it can be established whether their treatment has been successful.

1. The Times Online

The Times have a dedicated page for a special report on xenophobia.

In comparison to other South African online news media, The Time’s online coverage of xenophobia is the most advanced in terms of offering hyperlinking, interactivity and multimedia. The design is inviting, colourful and modern and attracts an internet-savvy audience.

The page is divided into three columns and sports the latest photo on the issue. In the left column are news and analysis pieces. While hyperlinks are not found specifically in article texts, typical article pages offer images and links to related stories. Articles are kept short, language-usage is direct and informal.

Several interactive features are found but most importantly, users can comment on articles as well as other multimedia on The Times’ multimedia portal.

In the middle column are links to exclusive audio, as well as to several blogs, including reader blogs and that of The Times editor Ray Hartley. Putting his users directly into contact with him through his blog breaks the barriers of one-way communication of the traditional mass-media and the notion of an editor far removed from his reader.

In the right column are over 20 originally produced photo-slideshows and videos on the topic.

The amount of user-interaction and comments that the The Times’ multimedia coverage has provoked is profound.

For example, the narrated slideshow Flames of Hate has been commented on over 550 times and viewed almost 79000 times.

Through making use of the characteristics of online journalism, The Times’ coverage served its purpose in raising awareness of the topic, encouraging open debate and potentially being a tool for social change.

The Times’ coverage is comprehensive, offering users choice and the option of participation in their news consumption, which has proved effective.

The success of their coverage compelled me to know The Times’ recipe of success. Take a look at my video interview with their multimedia editor, Carly Ritz:

2. Mail & Guardian Online

M&G offer a dedicated page for a special report on xenophobia. The link to this page from the home page seems somewhat lost in a text-heavy design.

A typical article page offers A) a long article with no hyperlinks; B) no pictures, graphics or other media; and C) a few links to related articles.

Interactivity on article pages are limited to features like ‘get news via email’; ‘RSS’ feeds; ‘mobile news’. A ‘find related blogs’ link at the bottom of news pages hasn’t been widely adopted, perhaps because the link is lost on the page.

Disappointingly, there is no option for the user to comment on articles and insight pieces. Users can, however, comment on photos in the photo gallery page, which has a more inviting and interactive design. The photos have provoked almost 270 000 views and 206 comments.

M&G placed a timeline of the xenophobic events on the special report page with links to stories covering the big events on each day. This is a unique and interactive way of helping users keep track of developments.

There are two blog links. One is to Talkback, where users are encouraged to debate a question on the topic. This has provoked 50 comments. The other is to Thought Leader, where posts provoked an average of 20 to 40 comments each – proof that M&G users have the need for interaction. However, no links to reader blogs were found.

While coverage of the topic is extensive and the insight pieces some of the best available, the website is flawed in terms of online journalism. The design is uninviting and offers very little interactivity and hyperlinking and virtually no multimedia.

Here’s why: Check out my slideshow interview with M&G online editor Riaan Wolmarans:

3. Afrigator

Afrigator is an aggregator of blogs, news, video and audio for topics concerning Africa.

The site has created several hot topics of discussion, of which “The Xenophobia Crisis” is one.

The xenophobia page has collected over 950 blog posts from citizens, journalists and news blogs, mostly from South Africa but also from other parts of the continent. The amount of posts found gives a reflection of the vast amount of people on the blogosphere debating this topic.

What is interesting, and rather disappointing, however, is that these blogs have provoked little reaction. Even though there are some brilliant posts that try encourage free debate, very few actually have comments.

Only one podcast has been collected on xenophobia, but the page offers links to various news articles from different media as well as over 70 videos and slideshows from YouTube.

The page navigation is not as user-friendly and there aren’t many interactive features, however, both hypertext and hypermedia links are well done.

The concept of collecting blog posts on xenophobia is brilliant in that it has the potential to raise awareness on the issue, encourage free debate and give more people access to each other’s blogs to discuss the same topic.

However, the Xenophobia Crisis aggregator has seemingly not provoked the desired effect, judging by the lack of substantial user-interaction and comments.

This could be due to Afrigator not being established on a well-known news agency’s brand name, making it more difficult to find as well as, perhaps, bringing its credibility into question. Web users looking for news, blogs, video and audio on xenophobia are perhaps also more likely to search well-known news sites.

Proof of this is in Afrigator’s stats. The top two most visited blogs that link from the Afrigator site are that of The Times and Thought Leader from M&G.

4. CNN

CNN’s coverage provides users with three interactive choices on each article: “read” (in which users can read a text article that makes use of hyperlinking); “videos” and “photos”.

Both hypertext and hypermedia are used effectively. Article pages typically offer images and “story highlights” which summarises the article for the reader. Links to related articles are placed in a “Don’t miss” box in article texts, which draws the reader in and make for easy navigation.

Various interactive features, including share, download, RSS-feeds, email-to-friend are used. There are also links to blogs from readers, journalists and news sites. One journalist blog on this topic has drawn 110 comments, many of which are from South Africans and ex-pats, expressing their disgust at the violence. The blog therefore facilitates a global conversation and serves as a platform for specifically South Africans to raise their voices on a foreign news site where they know the world is looking.

A great interactive feature is offered via the ireport link, which is a sort of citizen journalism portal that encourages users to upload their stories, photos and videos, thus stimulating news participation from users.

Although coverage is limited in terms of the number of reports, coverage is comprehensive in terms of giving users a choice between multimedia, as well as links to analysis and in-depth online articles by Time Magazine.

Interesting to note is the difference in coverage between foreign and local news agencies.
Most videos produced by CNN relate the xenophobic attacks to violence seen in the Apartheid era.

This one, found on YouTube, had over 4000 views and 41 comments.

CNN’s articles and videos are written and produced from the perspective of outsiders looking in and provide perspective and context through hyperlinks in the case of articles and narration in the case of videos and photo slideshows. This is in sharp contrast with the way the South African sites analysed in this feature have covered the topic.

5. YouTube

This social networking site aggregates news and analysis videos and vlogs from different news and blogging sites on the web.

The sheer volume of attention xenophobia videos on YouTube have drawn is astounding.

The site thus provides comprehensive video and photo slideshow coverage from many different corners of cyberspace, giving the reader choice and diversity from both news agencies and the general public.

Although the site makes use of mainly one form of multimedia, being videos, the amount of user-interaction (some xenophobia videos have been viewed over 20 000 times and commented on literally hundreds of times) is proof: 1. Of the site’s popularity and effectiveness even though it uses mainly a video-medium only; and 2. That a social networking site has proven successful in facilitating free and open debate as well as raising widespread awareness of the issue.

Searching for “xenophobia in South Africa” delivers a page with over 120 videos and moving slideshows, but not all are directly related to the recent attacks in the country.

In the right-hand corner there are around 33 directly related videos. Videos show their rating, when it was added and the amount of views. Interactive features include rating and sharing videos. What’s interesting is that users can comment via both text and by placing a video response.

Easy navigation and user-friendly applications encourage users to load their videos at the click of a button and within a matter of minutes.

The converse of this, however, raises the question whether the reliability and credibility of content on this site can be disputed.

CONCLUSION:

Of the local sites analysed The Times’ coverage is by far the most advanced in terms of making use of the characteristics of online journalism. Judging by the amount of user interaction the site’s coverage has been successful.
Mail & Gaurdian’s articles offer more in-depth analysis and context of the topic, but their website is flawed and therefore their multimedia and interactive coverage is limited.
While Afrigator had a brilliant concept in that it had the potential to put bloggers in contact with each other and stimulate a global conversation about the topic, the site didn’t provoke the desired amount of attention. The reasons for this are debatable.
CNN’s coverage is comprehensive and offers multimedia, interactivity and hyperlinking. Although their coverage is not as up-to-date, it has drawn the desired effect judging by the amount of comments. The coverage also encourages user participation in the news-making process.
Finally, the amount of attention xenophobia videos have provoked on YouTube is profound. The use of video media offered users a variety of news and analysis on the issue, but also became a vlogging platform for ordinary citizens to be heard. YouTube also serves as a platform where existing news videos gain an incredible amount of extra exposure, thus it increased awareness of, discussion about and participation in the issue.

*Analysis for this feature was done between 6-9 June, 2008.

* For interest’s sake: I found this video on YouTube (it’s an analysis of SA print media’s coverage of xenophobia): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA7FAZsT1U8

Our class visited the Mail & Guardian Online (www.mg.co.za) yesterday.   The first thing I must mention about M&G is that they all work on Apple Macs, wow!

The online team is currently working hard on creating the new-look site, which will include more hypertext, interactive features and multimedia including video. It will also be more colourful, with more images – a major improvement from the existing site, which is built on a limited, old CMS (content management system)  template that doesn’t allow for much multimedia.

The new site will be launched on 17 June 2008. Thanks to online editor Riaan Wolmarans for the trip!

In the pic: Werner Theron (M.D. The Hothouse Communications); Craig Jenkinson (senior journalist, SABC radio); me!; Jenny O’Grady (SAPA senior reporter); Isaac Esipisu (Wits online journalism lecturer); front: Ntando Ncube (Zim Online reporter in South Africa).

Of the three characteristics of online journalism, namely hypertextuality, multimediality and interactivity, the latter lies at its very core. No other traditional medium is able to offer the same interactivity level as the internet.

This is because the medium of the web, embedded on the internet’s limitless boundaries considering time and space, has become a platform that closely resembles human interaction (Chung, 2008), enabling people across the world to interact with one another. Chung (2008 ) describes this interaction as the conversational ideal, giving users a sense of satisfaction, motivation, fun and learning (Rafaeli, 1988). Yet the implications of interactivity for both journalists and users are much more profound.

Online interactivity has been described and defined in many ways. Deuze (2003) distinguishes between navigational, adaptive and functional interactivity, with the latter being like human interactivity in that it involves personal interaction. Downes and McMillan (2000, quoted in Domingo, 2008), define interactivity as the power of the user to control communication and even manipulate the message sent by the producer. Svanaes (n.d.) contends that interactivity signals both a general phenomenon and a property of the medium. Interactivity is based on design, function, usability and speed of response to user interaction (Hitchcock, 2003).

Chung describes three forms of online interactivity, the first being user-system interaction, for example ’send to a friend’ or ‘download’ options; and the second being middle-ground interactive features like customising, polls and submitting comments functions.  It is the third kind of interactivity, however, namely human or interpersonal interactivity, that refers to users interacting with one another and with the media, via emails, chatrooms or message boards and even blogs, that distinguishes new media from the old.

The web’s many-to-many way of communication breaks the barriers of the traditional top-down, one-way hierarchial structure of producing news. On the web, anyone can produce news and this interactivity challenges conventional journalism by taking away the gatekeeping function of the media (Chung, 2008).

The challenge in newsrooms, however, is that journalists see interactivity as a problem that they need to deal with, instead of an opportunity to enhance their journalism (Domingo, 2008). Perhaps a clearer understanding of what interactivity means for journalism, and training in order to implement interactivity, is needed in newsrooms to overcome this and inform new methods of practice towards the future of online journalism. 

In South Africa however, the situation is different, where cost (of connection, broadband etc.) and slow download times (i.e. the Telkom monopoly), for both the media and user, is a major factor in hampering the growth of technologies, and therefore interactivity in news sites. This should, however, not paint a grim picture for South Africa’s online journalism as things are certainly changing (Manoim 2000). A recent example of how interactivity was embraced by South African online audiences came from the Vernon Koekemoer phenomenon.

 Domingo looks at the “myth of interactivity”, suggesting that the professional culture of traditional journalism has a huge effect in online newsrooms, as this prevents journalists from developing most of the ideals of interactivity, because these ideals don’t fit into the standard news production routines.

Domingo quotes Bruns (2005) as saying that weblogs and citizen journalism has revitalized the idea that the internet will make journalism like a conversation in which the audience collaborates to the news.

There’s a general perception of the advantages that online journalism holds but few of these ideals have realised. Instead, there’s a gap between journalist’s perception of the internet’s potential and user’s actually making use of interactive features (Deuze et al, 2004).

Therefore it’s imperative to understand how journalists deal with interactivity in the newsroom, and what the reasons are for choosing to use certain interactive features on their sites.

The paper suggests that the professional culture of traditional journalism makes interactivity a problem to deal with instead of an opportunity for change.

Interactivity is the power of the user to control the communication and even manipulate the message sent by the producer (Downes and McMillan, 2000).

The internet’s many-to-many way of communication has allowed anyone to produce news, and journos may find themselves left behind in a new generation of communicators (Seib, 2002).

But others say the sheer amount of online info creates a filtering role for the journo.

Therefore, journalism evolves from producing fact to producing meaning.

The threat on journalism is that the increased transparency between readers and users may weaken the profession’s authority, enabling bloggers to claim some of the monopoly of journalism functions (Lowrey and Anderson, 2005).

McMillan (2006) is quoted as defining three levels of interactivity: user-user; user-document and user-system.

Domingo looks at the following interactive features: 1.content customisation: users can personalise the news to best suit their needs, but this can be seen as endangering the social cohesive role of journalism. This also fragments an audience, but does enable a better journalist-user relationship.

2. Audience feedback: putting email addresses with stories allows the audience to comment, critic, and collaborate with the news. This allows users to take on the watchdog role but also users can be the eyes of the journo- submitting content.

3. Citizens’ Debate: This places issues in the public debate that would’ve otherwise not been dealt with in the media.  Unlike mass media, the Internet can easily be a platform of

many-to-many discussions, open to anybody without limitations (Hall, 2001).

4. Citizen journalism: where readers become part of the professional news production process; thus changing journos’ role from producer of news to conductor of debate.

Despite this there’s a global trend in not utilizing interactive features on news sites.

After analysing the online newsrooms of four European news sites, Domingo concludes that:

-          Journos blame limited resources for low interactivity

-          Comments/discussions are managed as problems as journos think they need to control content – a traditional professional journalism culture.

I agree that journalists are conditioned to think in terms of traditional journalistic norms so it makes sense that this kind of thinking would prevent journalists from exploiting any or all of the characteristics of online journalism, even though they have an understanding that it’s necessary to use those characteristics for a successful site.

I think a mindshift is needed in the way we think about online journalism, and that journalists need more training and a clearer understanding of the reasons why we should, and how we can, make use of interactivity on our news sites.

In this piece, Chung identifies 4 interactivity features, user patters and factors that predict the use of interactive features.

Interactivity challenges the traditional one-way flow of news by allowing users choice and even to become part of the news production – so interactivity has the potential to change conventional journalism through online news. Online newspapers are encouraged to share control of the news by allowing communication between readers and readers and the journalists.

Traditional news media have delivered information through a top-down, centralised model with journos being gatekeepers. But online news media present greater opportunities for control and ownership because users can interact while consuming news.

Chung quotes Rafaeli (1988), who writes that the consequences of interactivity are satisfaction, motivation,

sense of fun, cognition and learning.

Online interactivity closely resembles face-to-face interaction; the ideal being the “conversational ideal”.

While medium interactivity can be seen as the user-system/document interaction; for example send to a friend option, photo galleries, or downloads; there are middle-ground interactive features like customizing, submitting comments, polls, stories etc.

Human interactivity refers to users interacting with one another through a communication channel or medium; these are features that promote human-human communication, like emails, chatrooms, message boards. This interpersonal communication distinguishes online from print and other traditional media.

Deuze (2003) distinguishes between navigational, adaptive and functional interactivity, with the latter being like human interactivity in that it involves personal interaction.

Online media have been critisised for not fully exploiting human interactivity.

Influences on the use of interactive features:

The amount of time spent online (the more time the more use)

Level of perceived skill for using the net

Credibility of the medium

Perception of online news

Civic involvement and political engagement offline (studies show people who engage in online activity are more likely to engage in political activities.  (civic involvement = people use features to express ideas/opinions;  political engagement =  people use features for interpersonal communication).

Chung concludes that interactivity in online news sites was cast in a rosy light and the adoption of interactive features by users exaggerated.

She finds that users are not using interactive features extensively as anticipated; so online news sites don’t have to adopt all the interactive features

“It appears that the news audience does not actively engage in various

uses of interactive features on news websites, especially the features that facilitate communication

and the expression of ideas—features that require more effort to be utilized.” (Pg 673)

Chung makes the following conclusions:

Online news sites should know their audiences – then decide which interactive features to put on their sites, which features would be used by their audiences?

It’s important to build up credibility with one’s audience – this will encourage them to use the interactive features.

Online news sites should try educating online users.

I believe Chung offers a valuable and interesting critical look of interactivity in online news. It’s quite interesting that the study found that people who are politically engaged are more likely to use interactive features. It was my belief, before I read this, that users of online interactivity are mostly a younger audience that are more technologically driven. But this provided a different view.

It makes sense to know your audience before implementing interactive features. I do however, think that online sites should invest in all kinds of interactive features – if only to test the waters because the online audience and environment is forever growing and changing.

“A BURNING ISSUE: Online coverage of the xenophobic attacks in South Africa”

Few people will ever forget the images, in the press and on tv, of refugees burnt alive during the spate of xenophobic attacks in South Africa. These images may have ended up at the bottom of the bird cage with the newspaper or may not be repeated on tv. But turn to online and and there they are, immortalised. The issue of the attacks is still very much alive online, where a multimedial platform provide us with video, images, graphics and more…

This feature will take a critical look at five websites that have dealt with the recent xenophobic attacks in South Africa.

The websites will include that of two local news agencies, a foreign news agency, social network site Youtube.com and a blogging site.

The aim is to compare the websites in their treatment of the topic, conveyance of the issue and specifically, to analyse whether they made use of the characteristics of online journalism (multimediality, hypertextuality and interactivity) to bring their stories or messages across. 

The piece will include an interview with a media expert, who can provide useful insight into the reasons behind the findings and perspective on the analysis of the websites.

Journalists don’t need special skills to write for the web, they just need mind-shift.

Writing for the web is like wire service reporting – it should happen in ‘takes’, where you provide more and more information as you get it. “It’s more in keeping with the broadcast model and less on the print model”. As your reporting continues, so the story is fleshed out.

Online writing needs to be:

1. Timely and relevant (even if an event hasn’t happened yet, you can publish a story online saying what is expected to happen);

2. Write lively and tight: don’t waste time, get to the point with direct language. Poynter Institute tips include: writing should be a cross between broadcast and print, tight and punchy as well as literate and detailed. Write actively not passively; Avoiding long clauses also holds readers’ attention better. Use lively prose, strong verbs and sharp nouns, use humor or attitude – give the writing a voice. Write as if it is a conversation. However, you still have to maintain the standards of professional journalism, so facts need checking, you still need to provide the five Ws and H for the story. A balance needs to be found between finding the “sweet spot” in between the facts, and avoiding the unsubstantiated opinionated style of blogs.

3. Use time stamps: By simply tagging new information with time stamps it saves you from rewriting a story that needs constant updates. (Ex: 1pm: The bus crashed.   2pm: 20 bodies are being recovered from the wreck.)

4. Headlines sell the story: good headlines draw the reader in, makes the reader want to read on and at the same time, gets to the point of telling the news. Headlines should emotionally engage the audience.

5. Contextual hyperlinking: link to relevant sources in your online writing; you should also link to your previous writings on the topic instead of regurgitating the info.

6. Make use of art (pix, graphics), context, interactivity, multimediality.

There has been much speculation over the future of online journalism. What I found from several readings, however, is that the general notion seems to be focused on how the evolution of online journalism impacts on traditional mass communications mediums (print, television, radio) and less on online journalism itself.

This is not without justification, however. 

The internet began as a military project called Arpanet in 1969, but it was not until Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web in 1989 that online journalism started to flourish. No other mass communications medium has grown as rapidly as the web (Alves: 2001). As well as news collectors such as Google and Yahoo, there are 70 million bloggers (personal web diaries) worldwide, numerous online journals and magazines, video on demand and social networking sites, all “enticing people into a new media experience”: (Myton: 2007).

This phenomenal growth rate and the subsequent investment of billions of dollars into online news ventures, has led traditional media, especially printed newspapers, to believe that new technologies would one day ‘swallow’ traditional media.

These concerns have been dubbed the “contemporary crisis in journalism” (Campbell: 2004), due to, but not limited to, factors such as technology, tabloidisation and a decline in audiences, especially in the youth market. News Corporation media magnate Rupert Murdoch was quoted in 2005 as saying “new technologies are fast writing newsprint’s obituary (Allan: 2006).

Most debates concerning the threat that new media poses on the old assumes that older media would need to ‘adapt or die’ and mostly, this adaptation is viewed in a positive light, considering the advantages of converged, multimedial news agencies.

“The Internet, far from being the villain… may turn out to be the print media’s salvation” (Kunkel and Layton: 2001).

In my opinion, the printed newspaper is safe for a long time to come. It is the role of traditional media, however, that has changed from story-breaking to story-telling.

Matheson (2004) quotes Katherine Fulton as describing the online environment as “a challenge to the practices of journalism”. With its interactivity, multimediality and hypertextuality, the web has revolutionized journalism. Blogging, social networking sites and citizen journalism have blurred the line between conventional, professional journalism and entertainment and opinion. So the main problem with the debate on the future of journalism perhaps lies within the fact that the conventional definition of journalism is no longer valid.

I argue that the debate on the future of journalism can be seen as three-fold. First is the impact of online journalism as it evolves, on older media – which I have superficially and briefly discussed above. The second deals with the evolution of online journalism, but I have found most of the readings really only focus on the web as mass communications medium – rather than on the actual journalism online – and embed their arguments in whether old media will survive the evolution of the new.

To illustrate, Alves (2001) speaks of the future of online journalism in the context of two equal arguments, mediamorphosis vs. mediacide. Again the focus here is on how new media forces the old to morph into something new or ‘commit media suicide’ (the ‘adapt or die’ argument). Such analysis suggests outcomes of the future of traditional media rather than the future of online journalism.

While justified, I believe given the rapid growth of technology, we should rather be focusing our ‘future of online journalism’ debate around the actual journalism that is online.

So, the third leg of the argument deals with online journalism as a journalism in its own right, fundamentally based on the technology of the web.

Nobody can deny that the advantages of online journalism are profound – the web has not only changed the way we communicate, but changed how news and information is perceived and received.

However, media analysts have been recognising that online journalism is not being used to its full potential, as was initially thought would happen. Barb Palser writes in the American Journalism Review (2006, 28:4) that the reason for this is that news organizations still follow their old instinct to control and own the news. Very few news sites are reaching out to online audiences and instead, wait for the public to submit their content to news sites.

Nora Paul (2005) takes a critical look at some of the initial promises that pioneers of online journalism professed this form of journalism would offer, namely: 1. a limitless newshole, 2. satisfy the ‘give me more’ need of readers (with the web’s unlimited space for multimedial content), 3. better communication between reader and reporter, 4. hyperlinking, 5. new, expressive reporting, 6. better follow-up opportunities, 7. a new relationship between words and graphics, and 8. a new platform for the way stories are told. Paul argues that very few of these promises have been delivered.

Three years later, it can be argued that nothing has changed, apart from a handful of traditional media agencies, like CNN.com and the Wall Street Journal, or in South Africa, The Times and the Mail & Guardian, that have successful online ventures tied in with their existing brands. Yet even these, while at the forefront of using blogs as a complementary form of journalism, are lacking when it comes to fully making use of online journalism’s best characteristics (hypertextuality, multimediality and interactivity. It is generally known that most online content is shovelware (taken from print) and very little original content exists for online journalism.

This has largely been due to the fact that there is not yet a successful business model for making profit on the web, and that journalists have failed to find a proper language suited to the medium (Alves: 2001). One might then argue that, until such a business model exists, the future of online journalism will remain stagnant.

However, there is evidence that, as the business world recognises the value of online advertising, technology is improving and internet users are ever-increasing, more and more news sites can become ventures in their own right. While the lion’s share of total advertising spend in South Africa is still shared between print (newspapers and magazines), television and radio, internet advertising spend nearly tripled to R141 million in the period 2001 to 2005 (Mochiko: 2006).

Until recently, online journalism was seen as an extensiton to traditional journalism and the view from many a newspaper editor has been that online journalism would only complement conventional journalism. But the financial news site Moneyweb (www.moneyweb.co.za), South Africa’s only website with its own dedicated editorial team that does not rely on a print publication for content (Grobler: 2007), is disproving the ‘complementary media’ theory. Boasting with a 40% per year growth rate in unique visitors to the website, Moneyweb’s CEO Alec Hogg predicts that his site “will soon give business print a run for its money” (Grobler: 2007). Important to note is that Moneyweb is a niche new product, and therefore offers readers something they can’t find in print.

So while it is evident that technological change is occurring across the world and that online journalism is not new, it is perhaps fair to say that online journalism is still in its infancy in many parts of the world and one can speculate only that it can and will flourish in future. The future of this form of journalism is then, that news sites harness the characteristics of the web. Online training for journalists is also needed.

The speed at which this will happen, however, will be different in each country. In South Africa, for instance, internet utilisation was a mere 5.1% in 2005 (ABC: 2006). The country’s infrastructure (many people don’t have electricity for PC-connections) and the Telkom monopoly on telecommunications are also hampering the growth of local online journalism (Berger, 2004).

Perhaps in third-world countries online journalism will be developed through other technologies, like cellphone browsers that are more accessible to users. Perhaps more original content will be produces as newsrooms start integrating. And eventually, perhaps the online journalism we know now might converge or morph into something completely different.

What the future holds for online journalism is unclear but one thing is certain, a mind-shift is needed in first defining, and then developing and harnessing the trade. I think our efforts need to be concentrated on researching and analysing successful news sites because until news sites harness online journalism to its full potential, we can only speculate on the future of online journalism.

Sources:

• Allan, S. 2006. Online News. England: Open University Press, pp. 1-29.
• Alves, R.C. 2001. The future of Online Journalism: Mediamorphosis or mediacide? Camford Journal of Policy, Regulation & Strategy for telecommunications information and media. Vol 3:1.
• Berger, G. (2004). The new media maelstrom: New technologies promise a wealth of media and messages. Rhodes Journalism Review, 24, 39. Retrieved 27 July 2007 from http://saoj.org/wiki/index.php/Online_Journalism_in_SA
• Campbell, V. 2004. Information Age Journalism. London: Hodder Headline Group, pp. 6-26.
• Grobler, F. 2007. Business Media. Accessed 17 May 2007 from http://www.themedia.co.za/article.aspx?articleid=299442&area=/media_insightfeatures/

·        Kunkel, T. & Layton, C. (Ed.). 2001. Leaving Readers Behind: An Age of Corporate Newspapering. Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press, pp. 1-17.

·        Matheson, D. (2004). Weblogs and the epistemology of the news: Some trends in online journalism.

·        Mochiko, T. 2006. Adspend doubles to R1bn in five years. Accessed 6 May 2007 from http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3137240.

·        Myton, D. 2007. How the internet is forcing innovation. Accessed 16 May 2007 from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5813.

·        Palser, B. (2006). Missed Opportunities. American Journalism Review (vol. 28:4).

• Paul, N. (2005). ‘New News’ retrospective: Is online news reaching its potential? Online Journalism Review. Retrieved July 26, 2007, from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050324paul

In this article, the author analyses news blogging on the website of the Guardian in Brittan (www.guardian.co.uk/blog), focusing on the relationship between the blogs on this site and its impact on the practice of journalism (impact on the communicative process and social context).

Matheson quotes Katherine Fulton as describing the online environment as “a challenge

to the practices of journalism” (pg.2). He says that critics of online journalism have been slow to recognize the possibilities and challenges it holds for journalism.

Most content on the web is “shovelware”, just mirroring the content of traditional media – therefore most online sites have been criticized for not being interactive enough and not using the web to its full potential in terms of interactivity, multimediality and hypertextuality. Most sites don’t even put reporters’ email addresses on the web and therefore remaining “insanely stagnant” (Katz, 1997, cited in this article).

Matheson looks at blogging as one form of online journalism that enables journos to break the stagnant barrier, and how blogging is changing existing journalism practices and conventions.

He particularly looks at blogs because they have developed on the web and are unique to the web. Blogs are interactive, fast and rely on hyperlinking as their key characteristics. Blogs are also easy to create and maintain, anyone can do it. Thus, blogging is growing fast (from 500 000 in 2000 to 50 million in 2005).

Before the impact of blogging, journalistic conventions existed in the knowledge that the journalist has authority over the news, and the audience should read/listen without participating by voicing their opinion. The journalist was the gatekeeper of information, and even journalists were limited by the forms of journalism in what they could write about (Pg3).  So different forms of telling the news (blogs that break away from the conventional, mainstream and homogenous news media) have changed the way in which journos work, changed the symbolic power of news conventions journos hold. Many analysts believe that blogs have revolutionised journalism (pg4) and in a way makes up for what the traditional media lack. The blog is a platform for journalists to express what may not have made it into print/broadcast.

Blogs started flourishing after 1998, when affordable software made it possible for anyone to create and maintain their own blog. Built on HTML, a blog’s main characteristic is hyperlinking. Blogs are online diaries, in chronological order, interactive and informal– thus different from static websites. I agree with Matheson that there are many variations outside the definitions of blogs. Many blogs take on different forms.

Thus, the “line between journalism and other forms is blurred by the many news-related blogs maintained by non-journos”. (pg.7).

Blogs and their relationship to journalism have been discussed at length, with the following issues at the core:

(1) Blogs as a space for journalistic thinking for which

institutional journalism provides little room;

(2) Blogs as a challenge to corporate journalism; and

(3) Blogs as a democratic, interactive space.

Blogging enables a shift from a mass medium to a more intimate one, in which the journo has a direct relationship with the reader.

So blogs are not only changing the relationship but also the conventional authority and journalism based on connection rather than fact.

Matheson concludes that the Guardian preserves the journalistic role as gatekeeper and doesn’t allow the audience to talk. He suggests that journos are using blogging as a means of escaping the limitations of mainstream traditional journalism.

I agree with this author that blogging should be complementary to journalism, not the main form of journalism. It can not be. Because practising journalists will always defend their journalistic principles (fundamentally based on truth, facts and credibility and not on opinion).

I think blogging makes terms like “journalist”, “journalism”, “news” and “truth” seem archaic and we need to rethink them.

Blogs, citizen journalism and discussion forums on social networking sites (like Facebook) often have the power to put issues from the public agenda onto the media agenda, even if the media didn’t first pick it up. So where issues have been perhaps ignored by the mainstream media, the web has become a platform for the public to bring those issues alive, giving a voice to the public who may previously not have been heard.

The web has become a platform for anyone to be a journalist, thus changing the rules for newsmakers/sources and journalists.

Gillmor argues that, as a result, there are three new rules of public life: 1. it’s never been easier to disseminate news; 2. information is everywhere, distributed via various instant means; 3. this info can take on a life of its own, even if untrue.

The web has enabled global conversations. People can now communicate with one another instantly, discuss issues they are interested in and even freely criticize anyone and anything, from business to government, on a digital open platform of free debate – the consequences have been profound, and in some cases, life-changing. The web has changed the way we receive and perceive news and also how news is made and disseminated.

Given this was written in 2004, Gillmor is talking here of the advent of cellphone cameras that will enable any person to become part of the paparazzi, or even help prevent crime. In today’s age we can see that this has largely realized – for example, many a criminal has been caught after ordinary citizens captured them on cellphone cameras and sent those pics in to newspapers. (Gillmor uses September 11, 2001 to demonstrate the power of citizen journalism and how the net has immortalized those citizens’ contributions long after traditional media stopped printing/broadcasting it; but he says if those citizens had cellphone cameras their contributions could’ve been even more powerful).

Gillmor talks of a “court of public opinion” – this is the platform the web has created for open, independent public debate – putting the power back in the hands of the audience or consumer (as opposed to the newsmaker/journo/government/corporation).

But more than that, anyone can now tap into and dissect the corporate world via the web – the criticisms could spell major damage for companies, help (or force) companies to improve on their products/services and even market a product/service.

So too, journalists are being criticized on public forums on the web. He argues that the trend towards media transparency is inevitable.

I think, given this chosen title, Gillmor is ultimately saying that the advent of the web has brought with it citizen journalism and so, traditional gatekeepers of information are no longer able to “gatekeep” information. Thus, the gates have come down.