- Political journalism is changing as news media becomes more networked and citizens have more direct access to information and ability to participate.
- Traditional political journalism provided information about policies and events, facilitated deliberation through debate and analysis, and held politicians accountable through investigation.
- However, both politicians and the public have problems with political journalism, such as perceived bias, lack of expertise, and irrelevance.
- New media allows for more citizen voice and direct access to information but can also fragment discussions and spread misinformation. The role of journalists is shifting to curating relevant information for audiences while still upholding accountability.
2. What does journalism do for politics?
• Information
[facts, records, statistics, events,
policies]
• Deliberation
[debate, analysis, comment, opinion]
• Accountability
[investigation, audit, voice for
citizen, campaigns]
5. The (politician’s) problem with
political journalism is..?
• Unaccountable power
• Bias
• Obsession with process
• Cynicism
• Lack of information
• Lack of expertise
• Loss of local press
6. The (journalist’s) problem with
political journalism is..?
• Lack of resources for (political) journalism
• Government secrecy
• Government and party spin and manipulation
• Disintermediation: increased role of social
networks & public relations
7. The (public’s) problem with
political journalism is..?
• Too complicated
• Too cynical
• Too belligerent, biased
• Too much process
• Boring
• Irrelevant – ‘Westminster
bubble’
• Too simplistic
• Not critical enough
• Too complicit – not critical
or radical enough
• Sensationalist
• Not informed enough about
realities of policy-making
12. Potential of ‘new’ media for
democracy
• Gives citizen direct voice
• Gives citizen direct access to information
• Allows citizen to organise and campaign
• Allows the public to critique mainstream
media
• Makes mainstream media more diverse &
relevant
13. Dangers of new media democracy
• Fragmentation/polarisation
• Bad information/propaganda
• Distraction
• Short attention span
17. More democratic?
“Journalism will continue to become more plural
in its forms, its functions, and its practitioners.
It will become more difficult to distinguish it
from advocacy political communications,
public relations alternative and participatory
civic information, personal commentary,
poplar culture and so on”
Dahlgren 2009
18. The political role of networked
journalism
• Job of the political journalist becomes to filter,
curate and make relevant the right
information for the right people
• To be public-centred, customer-focused,
reliable, transparent and credible
• While continuing to uphold the traditional
functions of acting as an independent
reporter, investigator and critic of government
19. What difference does it make?
• Influence – who has it?
• Proportionality – a fair voice?
• Verification – what’s true?
• Acceleration – faster, instant, all the time
• Destabilisation – surprise, ambush, reveal
• Superficiality – attention & distraction
• Fragmentation or diversity?
24. More examples from this election
• Data visualisations
• Media campaigns – Sky News/Standup and be
counted
• Variety of coverage – human interest
• TV debate saga – most effective BBCQT
• More exposure for minority parties
• SNP exceptionalism in journalism terms
• Facebook v twitter?
But actually no-one knows if he actually said it at all – so from it’s birth political journalism has been as much about myth as fact
So I think that networked journalism is itself a more democratic form of journalism because it shifts power and engages public participation.
It changes the media model from this
What I am going to argue is that with media change we are moving towards this model
T
As journalism becomes more open does it foster great democratic engagement?