Find more jobs: http://www.staffingpower.com/

I would agree with you in that users should not have to decide for what's real and what's not. Providing facts should not be difficult with modern technology. However, that wouldn't be a concern politicians would care to address or resolve, especially if it is a conflict of interest to their political agenda.

Unless a person is extremely wealthy and is not tied to external financial dependencies, then that person is much like the general individual in our current society; paid by an employer who may or may not insist in manipulating information to benefit their interests. Until we can all achieve financial independancy and upgrade away from our capital-based society, we will all need to struggle with fragmented information.

Second issue is how journalists craft their stories in this age. One skill is learning to consume this whole firehose of material, and distilling what is important and perhaps popular. To give meaning, its also important to be trusted. Trust is no longer the “from the mountain, heavens(even) but is from connection and a reputation for hard work and speaking your mind.

Just some initial thoughts…

More specifically to your brain dump video, I have to say I was a bit disheartened by your last pilot. It was the coverage which was given to Michael Jackson which turned me off. I understand it was news and people were interested by it; however I just felt bombarded by the coverage it was given. A show of your format could be the perfect forum for the bigger questions such as those being discussed at the Personal Democracy forum. Especially, given the recent protests in Iran and the way in which digital media played its part.

To the point made by one of the panelist, I would have to agree with them. The rise of amateur journalism will create an amalgam of perspectives and bias which could be dangerous, in essence creating an alternate truth. To some extent it already does happen with traditional news media (see Operation Iraqi Freedom). There is not much difference in what happens or idealistically should be happening today. There is an implied shared responsibility on the part of the user and the provider. Just as an independent news media is crucial to a liberal democracy, providing a broader network of checks and balances, the user should be constantly questioning as well creating a broader network of checks.

Incidentally, the New York Time actually had a great article yesterday on how with the rise of digital media journalists are now more prone to publish first and ask questions later, as seen in the case of Iran in past two weeks. This is irresponsible, a powder keg waiting to explode. To their credit they do keep it somewhat distanced from their traditional reporting, as the Gray Lady points out. However, it will only be a matter of time (if it not yet) where governments will use this type of journalism in order to either subvert their people or sway public opinion. The same goes for ordinary citizens and civil society. We may see the era of the “coupe de text” (I wish I coined that phrase. It is so witty, at least to me). Rallying the people by text is nothing new however the methods of delivery have expanded greatly (ie Twitter). We have seen the benefits of digital media in the Philippines in 2001 and more recently in Iran where civil society has benefited to a point. However, the dangers have showed themselves as well, most notably in 2007 after the disputed presidential election in Kenya. Text messages were used to incite hatred and widened tribal fault lines in turn generating deadly violence. If traditional news media grows comfortable into the behavior of “reporting first, questions later” many of these reports will be seen as endorsement by them to certain extent.

There is so much more to say about this and I wish I had more time to write about it. I hope my thoughts were of some help. They seem fragmented as well and hopefully I made myself clear.

I really don't think people trust journalists as much as we once did (heck, a lot of professions are having this problem – ask general contractors with all the home building shows on TV). We can see the dissenting views easier and some networks have geared their whole model on being to one side of center (look at MSNBC movements to counter Fox News). We see when news organizations make up facts (exploding Fords or fake documents) or get into bed with a certain group (ABC's informercial for health care). Heck, we see things we want covered and they aren't so we look elsewhere (look at all the tweets asking why CNN wasn't covering Iran). Instead of the old water cooler, we have twitter and facebook.

The true danger for certain mass media is that we drop them from our list of places to check. We only have so much time in the day, so newspapers (a very time intensive process to read) are being dropped in favor of websites. My watching of Loaded reduces the time for some other information source.

I think the best you can do is develop a reputation for yourself of honesty and being informative that keeps you in people's list of places to go for news.

When it comes to choosing what is “authentic”, I don't ever want to be in a position to where I can't parse through the information presented to me. It's amazing that even in situations where the facts are truly presented, we as humans still come up with our own individual and differeing perspectives. The job of the journalist, to me, has always been in the purest sense one where the facts are all that matter. Whenever personal opinion begins at any point to enter into the reporting of any information to the reader/consumer, then the info is tainted with bias. In our humanity, this is usually unavoidable, but I'm not so sure that this is always a bad thing. The goals of information providers usually have a somewhat differing mission.

I wonder if it puts the burden back on the journalist primarily then to ensure beyond a shadow of a doubt that the information being thrown out there is of the highest quality, and authentic. Although extreme, instances like Jayson Blair at the New York Times, or even Dan Rather's gaffe at CBS news throw doubt into the mind of the intelligent, concerned media/news/information consumer as to what is truly authentic. Whether left or right leaning, both sides of the screen (tv or computer) have a continuing responsibility to make sure that the information out there is reliable and usable for integrating into life perspectives and decisions.

I feel like that was really fragmented as well. But then again, I'm at work trying to write this in between tasks. Now I just have to figure out how to schedule in Buzz Out Loud today.

You say about the type of journalist you want to be. I do not have your qualifications in that media, although I do have a registered IQ of 186 with MENSA. That is not trying to impress, just to say I can think laterally too, while 99% of the globe think linear.

From the invention of the wheel to today's fast paced, in-you-face, ever changing Internet driven society a GOOD journalist, like a doctor with the Hippocratic oath, has ONE duty to the public. Be they online or in print…..

WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WERE, WHY, HOW?

Objectively as possible answer those criteria on each piece you do and you are not only a good journalist, but a socially aware journalist of both sides of the questions.

Your brain dump is you being too critical of yourself in the grand scheme of things. From the work I have seen you do from here in the UK, and as an Australian with that cultural background to draw on as well, you are well on the way to being exactly what you say you wish to be.

In short, you are over-thinking the question when you already have the answer.

Just an old mans point of view from a distance.

Continued success in all your work. And congratulations on the work thus far.

Marcus