Convergence and Consolidation: The State of Modern Journalism

The introduction of new technology may not be as positive as many people assume it to be. While the integration of internet, mobile media, blogs, and other such interactive news reporting sites pop up around the World Wide Web, the potential for growth in the realm of traditional media is rapidly declining. Due to the influx in new technologies, both the quality of reporting and the newsworthiness of the information being produced are becoming quite suspect.
While modern media forms, including television, magazines, newspapers, and computers have allowed journalists to flourish, the new turns in technology are making the field more complex. These complexities are doing more harm than good. Many argue that areas, such as the internet, have allowed journalists to research more efficiently, and create news sources that can be supplemented with pictures, videos, and fan feedback. This is absolutely true. The internet, however, is a completely open medium. Anyone, including freelance writers, professional journalists, or just an average person off the street can claim a domain on the internet. These average people now have the ability to write news stories, without the hassle of an editor, a fact checker, or any sort of objective eye in which to correct unseen mistakes. This can become incredibly dangerous. The internet allows false information to be posted; information that could potentially be harmful to an individual or a society at large. Not all information is caught by lawyers ready to swoop in with libel claims, or intentionally infliction of emotional distress suits. Not every blog on the internet can be monitored, nor can every report be checked for accuracy. The convergence of media and journalism, while to an extent can be a wonderful thing, is hovering over the line of social disaster.
Consolidation poses another threat to journalism in the modern day world. Consolidation, or the ownership of multiple news sources by a single company, is running rampant in the newspaper world. According to a report from Credit Suisse-First Boston, the chances of consolidation in newspapers is quite high, and that small companies “could become take-out targets” (Morton 1). Many small newspapers are being bought out by large publishing companies, which then consolidate the multiple local newspapers into one, more general paper for the area. In small states like Maine, this really hurts the newspaper industry, as there are few writers to begin with. After consolidation, many jobs are lost, leaving journalists without jobs. In time, the lack of true “local” news hurts the newspaper, as people begin losing interest and terminate subscriptions.
The trend of consolidation also hurts the free flow of ideas in journalism. While the large corporations are slowly taking over the media, the ability for new and different ideas to emerge is rapidly diminishing. Journalists are now working for “the man”, and must adjust their writing accordingly. Their messages must fit in with what the company stands for, in order to please the ownership. The consolidation of media puts a strain on the marketplace of ideas, one of the founding principles of journalism. Journalists working for consolidated media now put censors on their writing, in order to fit the mold of the company, and end up sometimes end up sacrificing their opportunity to spread their true ideas.
While convergence and consolidation certainly have their pros in the journalistic world, their potential harm seems to outweigh their pros. Journalists must be wary of the changing times, and adapt their writing, and their mindset, accordingly.


Morton, John. Consolidation Nation. American Journalism Review. November 2002. 26 January 2010.

Critiquing the Best

The New York Times provides news reports to millions of readers across the country, and across the world. It is looked upon as one of the top news sources globally. This, however, does not mean that every report printed by journalists on the New York Times’ payroll is perfect. No one is immune to mistakes. If reviewed, it is easy to say that every article in the publication has at least one error, major or minor. There are so many different standards journalists have to meet when writing an article; it is easy for a few blunders to fall through the cracks.
In his January 20, 2010 article, Marc Lacey wrote a world news piece discussing the current health concerns facing the nation of Haiti after the devastating earthquake. The article contains many positive qualities, but there are also a few areas that could be improved. The article is quite focused, centering solely on the issue of health in Haiti. Lacey does not stray away from the topics of illness and disease throughout his piece, which is a positive journalistic quality. Lacey is also objective in his article, reporting not only on the issue at hand, but also on what is being done to help remedy the situation. He also includes what still areas still need work in the recovering country. For example, in the middle of the article, Lacey states, “Still, health experts were arriving in Haiti from Israel, Cuba, Portugal and other countries, many with stocks of medicine and supplies as well as extensive experience in disaster conditions,” (Lacey). He quickly follows that by claiming a health care agency in Haiti “estimated that 20,000 Haitians were dying daily from lack of surgery”, (Lacey). By juxtaposing these concepts, Lacy shows the issue at hand as well as what problems still remain, all the while removing his personal opinion from the situation.
While the report is fair, balanced, and well researched, Marc Lacey missed out in a few areas. He included some extra information to emphasize points, however the comments are unnecessary. After clearly making the point that the conditions in Haiti are as basic as can be, Lacey said, "At some of the hospitals and clinics now treating survivors, the conditions are as basic as can be, with vodka to sterilize instruments and health workers going to the market to buy hacksaws for amputations," (Lacey). This paragraph is graphic, a bit gruesome, and takes away from the brevity of the story. The article would not lose any power without this paragraph. Overall the piece could use some editing, as it carries on a bit too long. Also, his writing structure is lengthy. He does a great job integrating sources into the piece, and attributing them appropriately, but throughout the article his sentences seem a bit long winded. Journalists strive for short, snappy sentences, getting the point across in as few words as possible. March Lacey could improve on that in his New York Times article.
The “Nightmare in Haiti” article demonstrates disaster and hope intertwined in one region of the world. In its entirety, Marc Lacey did an excellent job reporting on this sensitive subject. With a few minor edits, this piece could be top notch.

Lacey, Mark. "Nightmare in Haiti: Untreated Illness and Injury."New York Times. 21 January 2010: A1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/world/americas/21haiti.html?ref=todayspaper

Writing the Truth

Everything printed in newspapers is true. At least, that is what most of the general public believes. Sometimes, however, journalists there are exceptions to this statement. Whether the journalist is misinformed or maliciously ignores the facts in order to create a juicy story, some articles are published with less than truthful information. This creates a bit of a quandary in the world of journalism, forcing the public to determine what is real and what is false. In order to protect the false printing of information, libel laws for publication have emerged. Libel law protects people from defamation, and it remains one of the biggest legal issues facing journalists today.
A form of defamation, libel is written word that causes injury to ones reputation. Libel is a hot button issue facing journalists because not only do they have to make sure what they write is truthful, but they are also responsible for information they quote from others. According to the AP Stylebook, “A republisher of a libel is generally considered just as responsible for the libel as the original speaker. That you were simply an accurate conduit for the statement of another is no defense to a libel claim” (AP 384). Journalists are responsible for not only checking their own facts, but also for checking the facts of all others appearing in their article. This makes for extra work and diligence on the part of the reporter.
The courts require five standards of proof in order to convict a journalist of libel. This five prong test gives some protection back to the journalists. First, it must be proven that the printed defamatory statement was indeed made, and not simply implied. Second, the statement must be a factual statement rather than a statement of opinion. Opinion is protected, falsifying fact is not. Also, the statement in question must actually be false. A libel claim cannot be made if the information is simply embarrassing, but truthful nonetheless. The statement must also be directly of or concerning the person bringing the libel suit to court. Finally, it must be proven that the statement was published with “the requisite degree of fault” (AP 385), meaning there was some sort of negligence or actual malice involved with the printing.
While libel itself is a complicated legal issue in journalism, it becomes even more complicated when discussing private versus public figures. Each level of status requires a different level of proof. It is much harder for public officials and public figures to win a libel suit in comparison to private individuals. Public officials and public figures must prove actual malice, while private individuals must only prove negligence. Negligence, simply put, it when false information is printed without the knowledge that it was actually false. Actual malice means that there was prior knowledge of falsity before printing. Two Supreme Court cases helped form this libel law, Gertz v. Welch 418 U.S. 323 (1974) and New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964). In the Gertz case, it was determined just exactly what kinds of people qualify as public as opposed to private, and further explained the actual malice versus negligence decision established by the New York Times ruling.
Journalists face many legal and moral issues in everyday society. They must act legal and lawfully in everything they do. Libel law is one of the biggest legal issues facing journalists in today’s society. If violated, journalists not only risk major financial lawsuits, but are more than likely face losing their jobs as well. Libel law makes fact checking one of the most important aspects of writing a news story.

Gertz v. Welch http://www.lexisnexis.com.prxy4.ursus.maine.edu/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T8319884256&homeCsi=152583&A=0.8034961933612275&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=418%20U.S.%20323&countryCode=USA
New York Times v. Sullivan
http://www.lexisnexis.com.prxy4.ursus.maine.edu/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T8319903296&homeCsi=6320&A=0.6559475672726641&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=376%20U.S.%20254&countryCode=USA

Christian, Darrell, Jacobsen, Sally, Minthorn, David, Eds. Associated Press 2009 Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law. New York: The Associated Press, 2009. Print.