Electronic Journalism - Live Coverage

== Live Coverage ==
Electronic Journalism
New technology such as internet, satellite and digital equipment means that we are no longer bound by a country’s borders or oceans. When a crisis breaks in Russia we can see it, hear it, and read about it almost instantly. However this issue raises various concerns for different governments. Many governments push for strict regulations of when and how journalists can report in specific places, particularly war zones – the main reason for this being the threat that live coverage can bring to operational security when military is involved. This regulation of journalists and the media raises serious ethical questions which need to be weighed by policy makers in order to determine whether freedom of speech is more important than national security.

Author of Politics and the Press, Pippa Norris, questions what the effects of viewing scenes of ‘carnage’ or major crises in a war may be for government and the public:

“The possibility of live television coverage from the battlefield raises major security, political, and journalistic questions. Could a mistake in a live broadcast, which cost U.S. lives cause a public backlash that people might be willing to sacrifice some democratic freedoms in order to curb the networks?â€? (Norris, P 1997 : 238)

Norris notes that while live coverage of future wars is inevitable, not only should politicians be aware of the different ethical arguments that a certain issue may carry, but so too should media network editors. Norris quotes ABC News Nightline anchorman, Ted Koppel who is against the idea of live coverage from the battlefield:

“You simply cannot have (a US war) co-existing with an unedited rendition of what is going on in the battlefield, knowing full well that everything that is sent out is going to be made available to the enemy.. During a war there just has to be a certain application of common sense… the essence of journalism lies in the editing process, not in training a camera on an event. That is not journalism.â€? (Koppel T, cited in Norris, P 2003 : 238)

A question of ethics is also raised in the case where News Corporations and television stations are constantly covering events, for example in the gulf war. Joanne Ostrow questions the quality of this constant coverage, and argues that it simply tried to credit itself on being live from a war zone. She accused journalists of "flag waving":

“The idea of being pro-troops was often confused with being pro-war, and not just on MSNBC's wall of heroes. In the rush of live newscasts, the Pentagon's view was at times relayed uncritically. American anchors spoke admiringly of 'surgical strikes' and 'precision bombing,' while Al Jazeera viewers saw footage of civilian casualties.� (Ostrow, 2003: Online)

Other questions of ethics are raised in relation to live coverage and the use of technology as a gimmick. Steven Barkin, author of the book American Television News accuses some forms of news networks of using technology to create hype and for self-promotion, in cases where live repots and helicopter-based coverage are all there for show. He accuses the newscast of self promotion in their use of cars and vans and satellites as billboards for their networks. (Barkin, 2003: 67)

It is almost impossible to monitor the number of media outlets reporting the latest breaking events. Internet sites such as news.com are updated regularly throughout the day as news breaks to provide the public with the latest on world events.

Brigid Andersen 14:19, 21 Oct 2004 (EST)

Bibliography

1. Barkin, Steve. M, 2003, American Television News: The media marketplace and the public interest M. E. Sharpe, Inc., New York ISBN 0765609231
2. Norris, P, 1997 Politics and the Press Lynne Rienner Publishers, Colorado
3. Ostrow, J (2003) Iraq war coverage more eye-catching than eye-opening:[Final Edition] Denver Post,