Real Journalism
Journo | 17.10.2005 17:06
The world wide web has become a major public space. It allows us to experience public events and get much more interactive with public life. It is often said that new media such as the newsites on the web are a re-mediation of old media such as newspaper prints.
However this can overlook areas such as the webs availability to independent news sources to publish sites. They may have a old media form but this would probably not reach as wide an audience as their website. Therefore I am going to look at these new media re-mediations of a political story in the newspapers.
This will allow me to look at differences in the:
1. Style 2. Content available 3. Bias 4. Right to Reply
between the two websites.
The news story I have choosen to look at is about the recent demonstrations against foxhunting. The two news stories are about the demonstrations by the countryside alliance over the ban on fox hunting. The first is by the BBC and then second is from a site called indymedia.
BBC coverage
The BBC coverage focuses heavily on the incident on members of the protest breaking into the chambers of parliment.They also discuss the protest itself, by covering the people arrested during the protest and some the injuries obtained.
The style is a very professional but easily understood and readable one. It has a clear paragraph structure with headline and sub headlines to break the story up. The BBC are clearly a large organisation as they are able to get quotes from MP's, security and high members of the protest. This allows them to get a fuller idea of what is happening in the story. For this reason, there appears to be no or little bias when you read the story. It gives accounts of both sides recieving injuries and doesn't support or condone anyones actions, they let the people in the story do this.
The BBC coverage is much more in depth than the indymedia and a old media form. They offer pictures of the protest, video from their television station, forums for people to talk about the events and a computer diagram of where disturbances took place. As well as a background section to understand history which led to the event and links to other websites for both sides of the debate. All of this allows you to get completly immersed in the subject.
The forums section is carefully monitord and does not allow you to use swearing or any other offence terms. This is obviously important as the BBC are a respected and family institution in the real world and they want to keep this image online as well. They have people who screen the replies and decide which ones are the best to post. However this asks questions about censorship and could they be keeping information back in these forums.
Indymedia coverage
The indymedia story is much less in depth than the BBC. It is one journalists account of being at the demonstration. It is a set of photographs of people on the hunt and then a short paragraph about the protest. However the style he uses in the paragraph is very bias. There are some facts there but hidden away. He gives a short sentence saying how the demostration would always be large due to the money spent by the ruling classes to get the countryside there. Unfortunatly after this he just complains about issues being missed and has no real news to report.
As I said there are photos at the beginning of the story but they have just been cut and pasted in a line. There is no artistic styling to improve the layout of the story and make it more readable. The photos included are also slightly bias. He shows nothing of the violence at the hunt and also he uses photos of the ruling class who were at the hunt rather than the many working class who were also there. All of this creates a large bias in this story.
The right to reply section is below the article and it is clear there is no censorship. The two comments use swearing and violent threats. They are in no way constructive and just add to bias of the story.
However this can overlook areas such as the webs availability to independent news sources to publish sites. They may have a old media form but this would probably not reach as wide an audience as their website. Therefore I am going to look at these new media re-mediations of a political story in the newspapers.
This will allow me to look at differences in the:
1. Style 2. Content available 3. Bias 4. Right to Reply
between the two websites.
The news story I have choosen to look at is about the recent demonstrations against foxhunting. The two news stories are about the demonstrations by the countryside alliance over the ban on fox hunting. The first is by the BBC and then second is from a site called indymedia.
BBC coverage
The BBC coverage focuses heavily on the incident on members of the protest breaking into the chambers of parliment.They also discuss the protest itself, by covering the people arrested during the protest and some the injuries obtained.
The style is a very professional but easily understood and readable one. It has a clear paragraph structure with headline and sub headlines to break the story up. The BBC are clearly a large organisation as they are able to get quotes from MP's, security and high members of the protest. This allows them to get a fuller idea of what is happening in the story. For this reason, there appears to be no or little bias when you read the story. It gives accounts of both sides recieving injuries and doesn't support or condone anyones actions, they let the people in the story do this.
The BBC coverage is much more in depth than the indymedia and a old media form. They offer pictures of the protest, video from their television station, forums for people to talk about the events and a computer diagram of where disturbances took place. As well as a background section to understand history which led to the event and links to other websites for both sides of the debate. All of this allows you to get completly immersed in the subject.
The forums section is carefully monitord and does not allow you to use swearing or any other offence terms. This is obviously important as the BBC are a respected and family institution in the real world and they want to keep this image online as well. They have people who screen the replies and decide which ones are the best to post. However this asks questions about censorship and could they be keeping information back in these forums.
Indymedia coverage
The indymedia story is much less in depth than the BBC. It is one journalists account of being at the demonstration. It is a set of photographs of people on the hunt and then a short paragraph about the protest. However the style he uses in the paragraph is very bias. There are some facts there but hidden away. He gives a short sentence saying how the demostration would always be large due to the money spent by the ruling classes to get the countryside there. Unfortunatly after this he just complains about issues being missed and has no real news to report.
As I said there are photos at the beginning of the story but they have just been cut and pasted in a line. There is no artistic styling to improve the layout of the story and make it more readable. The photos included are also slightly bias. He shows nothing of the violence at the hunt and also he uses photos of the ruling class who were at the hunt rather than the many working class who were also there. All of this creates a large bias in this story.
The right to reply section is below the article and it is clear there is no censorship. The two comments use swearing and violent threats. They are in no way constructive and just add to bias of the story.
Journo