If you were to tell your great grandmother or great grandfather that journalism is in a present-day crisis, they would probably tell you that that’s an absurd idea. But the truth is that with the onset of technology (smart mobile phones, television sets, and the internet), our connection to forms of media is almost daily and much of the news information we receive is via video message not by physical text. Therefore, I argue that journalism is in crisis for three reasons: the advent of the internet has resulted in so much readily available news from different mediums that the need for “real” journalists has significantly decreased, the quality of this news has decreased, and the reliability of information is at stake due to our global network. The following essay supports the viewpoint that journalism is in crisis rather than decline or just experiencing change.
No matter what its status, in crisis or not, journalism is fundamental for a healthy democracy and I assert Cunningham’s claim, “journalism is a job that is crucial to society” (2013) as it shapes, for better or for worse, our collective impression of the world. According to the State of the News Media Report (Newspaper Association of America, 2012), journalism is experiencing an 11-year decline for daily advertising revenue as profits are at an all-time low and are below what they were in 1985. In order to evaluate whether journalism is in crisis or if it is just experiencing decline or change, I consider the metrics from Stephen Harrington’s Australian TV News: New Forms, Functions, and Futures): number of outlets, diversity of outlets, critical interrogation of other ‘Estates’, and connection with audiences, and will focus on the first two metrics.
Regarding the number of outlets, Harrington considers that healthy professions would see more of its products being produced, which in this case of journalism means an increase in published news articles. Although the number of journalism products has increased with the inception of the internet, I argue that an increased number of articles does not necessarily mean that the profession is flourishing or that the articles written were high quality or accurate. For these reasons, I argue that the increase in number of outlets for journalism has propelled the career into crisis rather than decline or change.
In terms of the diversity of outlets, Harrington raises the point that diversity is increasingly important with the increase in journalism outlets available as he claims: “If it’s all saying the same thing, there’s no point in having a lot of it.” However, I make the opposite point that in having an increased diversity of outlets means that more sources are producing articles from writers of a variety of professional backgrounds, not all of which may be legitimate or credible. Therefore, the diversity of outlet does not necessarily favor the career of journalism but rather further propels journalism into crisis as accountability of information is lost. In this way, it becomes more difficult to distinguish valid resources and fact from fiction.
The advent of the internet has resulted in a phenomena of more and more regular people becoming “living journalists”. This term implies that an increasing number of everyday people can now become “journalists” and write blogs, articles, and other news people because the amount of information is so readily accessible due to the internet: twitter, blogging, Facebook, Reddit, iPhones and the 24/7 news cycle. However, this is problematic in two ways. One, these people are not necessarily qualified with the training that journalism provides to accurately disseminate information and decipher fact from fiction. Furthermore, although there are more and more articles telling stories, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern what is the “truth” in the news today. If any average-Joe can post their own version of the “truth”, how does anyone figure out what is fact and fiction?
Some people would argue that there is no need for young people to study journalism. Many journalists would agree with the statement, “you don’t need to study journalism to become a journalist”. They argue that it is more lucratively advantageous to gain a degree that has more potential job opportunities attached to it (ie: political science or economics) and then look for internships and job opportunities related to journalism. However, I think this is also dangerous as there are certain methods and ways of critical thinking that are taught in journalism school. With less people studying journalism and the flow of information, the more likely society is to be mislead, manipulated, and naive about what is going on in our world.
Lastly, Harrington raises the concern of whether or not contemporary journalism practices successfully connects with audiences. As Windschuttle stated (1998), “The measurement of a journalist’s success is their relationship with the audience.” Ironically, in our fast paced digital age where news is read online, many people skim over large amounts of news articles due to our “information overload” and thus very few take the time to engage with the journalist on an individual level. Another way to evaluate this is whether or not audiences are engaging with news output and if readership/viewership is declining with increased mediums for journal outlets. The inconvenient truth is that yes, indeed readership/viewership is declining despite the rise in amount of available news. This may be reflective in shortened attention spans and the increase of ADD/ADHD in today’s youth and general society.
Some people argue that journalism is not necessarily dying but rather its changing. I would extend this statement and make the point that this change is large and deep enough to deem journalism as in a crisis. However ironic, it may be true that the very technology that is killing newspapers and has people addicted to their smart phones and internet to source their news, will also be the very platform that will save journalism. In this way, although journalists struggle to find their place in the new digital environment, it is also true that the number of places for journalists to find their place is indeed infinite, thanks to the unlimited possibilities of the internet.
References
All Journalism LLC, 2014. It’s All Journalism. [online] Available at: <http://itsalljournalism.com/> [Accessed 28 May 2014].
Anderson, K (2012) ‘Is journalism in crisis?’, Al Jazeera, http://aje.me/1jauRD0..
Club Reporters, 2010. Becoming a Journalist in the Digital Age. [online]. Available at: <http://cubreporters.org/journalism_careers.html> [Accessed 28 May 2014].
Harrington, S. (2208) ‘Future-Proofing Journalism: Youthful Tastes and the Challenge for the Academy’, Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 22(3), pp. 395-407.
Harrington, S. (2013) Chapter 7: ‘Journalism in Crisis?’, in Australian TN News: New forms, Functions and Futures, Bristol and Chicago: Intellect. pp. 135 - 146.
McNair, B (2006) Chapter 1: ‘Cultural Chaos and the Globalisation of Journalism’, in Cultural Chaos: Journalism, News and Power in a Globalised World, London: Routledge. pp. 1-18.
27 May 2014
Porn is perhaps one of the most formative yet least understood shapers of society due to its secretive and naughty nature. The question of how it influences relationships is a concern for many researchers today; however the need for scientific evaluation and peer reviewed publication is dire. Because it is so controversy and unfamiliar, pornography is often a polarizing issue: people are very strongly either on one side of the spectrum or the other. However, the beauty of discussion and understanding comes from evaluating the gray area in the middle and raising questions such as: can healthy relationships exist in the presence of pornography use? I support the viewpoint that viewing pornography has little influence on relationship success or failure, especially when true love is experienced. Couples who fall out of love and end their relationship due to some aspect of pornography is not solely due to pornography’s influence, but rather due to the underlying problem of personal problems or their compatibility for each other. I will evaluate three facets of “Big porn” and relationships: addiction to pornography, masturbation, and health benefits of pornography/masturbation.
According to news writer Tracy Clark-Flory (2014), new evidence suggests that addiction to pornography does not actually exist. David Ley, a clinical psychologist and an expert in neurophysiology and addiction, assisted and provided a scientific perspective on the subject. His conclusions that porn cannot be addictive are based off a peer reviewed scientific journal article from Current Sexual Health Reports that concludes “research on porn addiction is hindered by poor experimental designs and limited methodological rigor and that the porn addiction model ignores the real issues underlying compulsive smut-watching and that the lucrative treatment industry that has arisen to address this new diagnosis has no evidence of effectiveness.” This assertion brings me to my second point that the idea that porn addiction can ruin relationships is fallacy and rather that underlying issues causes one to resort to pornography and damage a relationship.
Commonalities in those who participated in porn addiction research studies include high rates of depression, money issues, problems at work, which all lead to marital or relationship stresses. These qualities can be correlated to porn dependency because “sexuality and sexual arousal is a very effective, perhaps the most effective method of distracting oneself from negative emotions” according to Ley. However, the majorities of studies were conducted unscientifically and there were too many factors not accounted for (such as the time value of the surveys) to generate any causality from the findings. This supports my viewpoint that “Big porn” cannot inherently destroy relationships, but rather it is one’s own underlying emotional problems that harms their love life.
The only scientific evidence that may say something about pornography effects on relationships is that is has been demonstrated that high levels of porn watching can be associated with difficulty in achieving organsms or delayed ejaculations in men. However, in this case the line between porn usage and masturbation becomes fuzzy. In the same vein, you could say that the use of vibrators for females results in increased difficulty levels of reaching orgasms (which has been scientifically demonstrated); however this is completely separate from the use of pornography during masturbation. Unfortunately there is not enough evidence to link pornography (without the use of masturbation) to decreasing abilities to organism. Ley brings up an important point: “Are we concerned here with porn or masturbation? If the issue is masturbation, are we replicating our history where we believed that masturbation depleted people of necessary spiritual or psychic energies?”. Along these lines, I agree that neither pornography or masturbation is the culprit and rather these tendencies may have associated health benefits.
Rather than seeing pornography as a detraction from one’s relationship, there are many arguments as to why it is beneficial to relationships. These positive physical health benefits have been discussed and researched extensively and include: “greater acceptance of more modern gender values and greater acceptance of varying levels of sexual orientation”, according to Ley. Moreover, there are studies that demonstrate that porn use indeed correlates to healthier, longer lasting relationships. Despite all of the hearsay about pornography addiction, there is in fact more research and conclusions about healthy pornography use correlated to successful relationships than there is with pornography and unhealthy relationships. In fact, according to Ley there has been a recent study which demonstrated that couples who openly talk about each other’s levels of porn use do in fact have healthier relationships. This supports the notion that communication, willingness to work out differences, and an ounce of true love leads to healthier relationships and that pornography use is not a fundamental reason as to why relationships fail.
In conclusion, the debate on whether or not “big porn” destroys relationships underscores a social, spiritual, and emotional crisis that many individuals are facing. This is beyond a moral crisis of whether or not porn is bad and rather highlights the need for human connection in sexual (or non sexual relationships). A friend once said to me, “love can often be sexually induced, but it is more difficult to experience true love in sex.” Although this opinion is difficult to get one’s mind around, I do agree that sex and love are often mutually exclusive, but perhaps they don’t have to be. In any case, partners should be able to love each other with or without sex and with varying needs for pornographic input. However pornography on its own does very little to obstruct relationships on its own and rather couples fail for other underlying causes.
References
Clark-Flory (2014) ‘Porn, addicted? There’s no proof’, Salon, February 16, http://bit.ly/MZVSh8.
McNair, B (2013) Chapter 5: “What Has Pornography Ever Done for Us?”: The Argument from Evidence’, in Porno? Chic!: How Pornography Changed the World and Made it a Better Place, London: Routledge. pp.79-90.
Weitzer, R (2011) ‘Pornography’s Effects: The Need for Solid Evidence’, Violence Against Women, 17(5), pp. 666-675.
