Two beliefs safely inhabit the canon of contemporary thinking about journalism. The first is that the internet is the most powerful force disrupting the news media. The second is that the internet and the communication and information tools it spawned, like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, are shifting power from governments to civil society and to individual bloggers, netizens, or “citizen journalists.”
It is hard to disagree with these two beliefs. Yet they obscure evidence that governments are having as much success as the internet in disrupting independent media and determining the information that reaches society. Moreover, in many poor countries or in those with autocratic regimes, government actions are more important than the internet in defining how information is produced and consumed, and by whom.
Since it launched in March 2012, IFLS has attracted more than 17.9 million Facebook followers—more than Popular Science (2.7 million), Discover (2.7 million), Scientific American (1.9 million), and The New York Times (8 million) combined. Its following is larger than those of the world’s two most prominent science communicators: Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson (1.8 million) and Bill Nye The Science Guy (3.2 million), both of whom are fans of Andrew’s page. Her empire has since expanded to include a website, IFLscience.com, which has a staff and publishes news stories, and a television show slated to start on the Science Channel this fall.
Learn how Elise Andrew changed the way people interact with science reporting in Do you know Elise Andrew? : Columbia Journalism Review.
The debate about what journalists who cover the poor owe their subjects remains unsettled, and the answer is as important today as ever. Income inequality, rising steadily since the 1970s, is now at its highest level in America since 1928. If one of journalism’s duties is to hold the public accountable for the realities of democracy, then it is crucial to tell the stories of those who are losing out… But that type of coverage also forces journalists into unsettled ethical terrain.
The longstanding debate about whether and when a reporter can intervene in a story is rekindled in the age of inequality.
Read more: Are we journalists first? : Columbia Journalism Review
(Source: cjr.org)
The pitch that the Matter’s first supporters—many of them ardent fans of science journalism—backed in 2012 has morphed dramatically enough that the publication being delivered no longer much resembles the original project.
This was a truly transformational moment in Texas politics. We hadn’t considered the possibility that by the transmission of this livestream it would become the national and international story that it did… We specifically sought permission from the legislature in 2013 to jack into their feed and present the livestream on an ongoing basis for free to people who access our site. The cable companies had permission, but of course you had to pay to watch. We said, we think we can do this better.
Evan Smith, editor in chief and CEO of the Texas Tribune, discusses covering the Wendy Davis filibuster with Ann Friedman.
Read more: Making politics and policy news sexy : Columbia Journalism Review
(Source: cjr.org)
What the Supreme Court’s decisions on DOMA and Prop 8 mean for journalists covering marriage equality
Video from Columbia Journalism Review’s panel discussion on June 12 on how journalists should—and shouldn’t—cover same-sex marriage with BuzzFeed reporter Chris Geidner, George Washington University Law Professor David Fontana, Steven Petrow, a New York Times columnist and former president of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, and American Prospect columnist EJ Graff.
(Source: youtube.com)


