I don’t like kicking journalism students (they tend to blub), and if I never have to write another word about Joel Monaghan that would be just fine.
But there’s a curious post-script to the matter on the UC School of Journalism’s online presence NowUC.
The lengthy piece by James Fennessy is intriguing on a couple of levels.
- — The fact it’s about the differences between new and old media while only quoting old media sources.
— That it never names the “‘news’ sites” it refers to.
— The way it buries the body of the story (Joel Monaghan) beneath the obligatory new media bong water media academics can’t get enough of.
— Then there’s a journalism student being unaware that defamation laws most certainly do apply to online media outlets large and small
But when it comes to what the Raiders’ media man Ben Pollock thinks it gets really interesting:
Canberra Raiders media manager Ben Pollock said while online journalism can be professional, some ‘news’ sites and social media sites have too much freedom.
“People have the ability to become reporters themselves and post images like the one of Joel without consequence,” Pollock said.
“If it was a television or radio station or a newspaper they would face serious litigation but because it wasn’t, this person gets off with no consequences.
They don’t have to go to university or face an editor and a lot of the ‘news’ websites just talk dribble.”
Pollock said that reputable organisations are upholding current news values but admits that social media and independent news sites are only going to get bigger.
So what freedoms should be stripped away at Mr Pollock’s behest to
ensure his players can engage in sex acts with dogs without the public finding out uphold “current news values”?