The Internet on the Journalism: Advantages or Disadvantages - Essay Example

of The Internet on the Journalism: Advantages or Disadvantages Introduction: This paper seeks to analyze and discuss Internet Journalism including its advantages and disadvantages in comparison with print journalism. This paper posits that the Internet is created to address changing needs and wants of mankind and although there could be criticism of its use in journalism, it advantages far outweighs its disadvantages. Analysis and Discussion To know the advantages or disadvantages of something there must some comparison made other the thing may be considered unique and that would be the only one to choose after all. And so for us to know the advantages of electronic or online journalism, we must at least compare the same with print journalism. Since print journalism could have many areas, we take Print journalism can be divided into several categories like newspapers, news magazines, general interest magazines, trade magazines, hobby magazines, newsletters, private publications, online news pages and others and category can have its own requirements for researching and writing reports to serve its users.1 Since we could see the very broad are of print journalism we are limiting our analysis to certain categories of particularly to magazine journalism. Wikipedia said, “News magazine and general interest magazine articles are usually written in a different style, with less emphasis on the inverted pyramid. Trade publications can be more news-oriented, while hobby publications can be more feature-oriented.” (Wikipedia, 2006,) To make it different from on-line or electronic journalism, it could be stated that this latest form as use all uses electronic information and to access the same presuppose the used of the computer linked in a network. Wikipedia said, “The fast and vast growth of the Internet and World Wide Web has spawned the newest medium for journalism, on-line journalism….The bulk of on-line journalism has been the extension of existing print and broadcast media into the web via web versions of their primary products. New reports that were set to be released at expected times now can be published as soon as they are written and edited, increasing the deadline pressure and fear of being scooped many journalists must deal with.” The advantages of Electronic Journalism We do come to discuss first the advantages on internet journalism over print as follows: First, electronic journalism will create competition among so as to encourage editors to work harder to better improve their trade in printed matters. Competition create pressures and it can create help in bringing out publication misconduct like unverifiable data or plagiarism due the now availability if huge database of information with ability to check such misconduct. Patel told us so in discussing “How Is Increasing Internet Use Affecting Print Media?”, where he said, “Regarding the highly argued topic of online medical journals and journalism, there are numerous "swords in the stone" of the Internet—most of them double-edged. For instance, electronic journalism will encourage editors to work harder to better their own printed journals. It will expose research and publication misconduct (e.g., fraudulent data, plagiarism, dual publications) because there is a huge database with ability to cross-reference.”2 He cited a recent Canadian Medical Association Journal editorial regarding Varmus first proposal, where e-Biomed (4) noted several advantages: the almost instantaneous, cost-free, full-text access to biomedical research papers is by far the most exciting. He however explained that authors would still enjoy copyright, on the condition that their work would be freely available for transmission, downloading, and publication and that sites such as e-Biomed and PubMed Central would also ensure that electronic versions of journals will be made a part of permanent record.3 Second, Internet journalism will hold save substantial public and private money for storage and retrieval operation. It is should not be hard to see the savings a publisher will have in choosing online publishing rather than using the traditional storage. It is said the Internet itself is big library itself where one could not store his personal files and design his own library with without really contemplating to build a physical one. One could put voluminous volumes of material in a compact disc the latest electronic gadgets. Patel said that internal electronic storage and retrieval of information may save substantial public and private money and this would also free considerable space in libraries for other projects or archives. He explained that both commercial and association-based publishers have been criticized for making monopoly profits and extorting copyrights from authors and that although this may be true for some publishers—in all likelihood a small percent—most seem to be serving the best interests of the scientific community and the public. Hence, he argued that the addition of electronic media would provide additional competition, thus additional places for submission, tipping the balance of power away from journals and into the hands of the author.4 Third, curios readers to related topics under online journalism would be greatly helped as electronic sources may opt to provide links to the materials other sources like encyclopedias and other sources. The Internet is virtually linked to many sources and every day additional information is being made available as more entities are doing their business now in it. Patel said that presently, much of the virtue of print journals surrounds the peer-review process; the claim is that they have properly qualified and unbiased reviewers who do the job fairly and accurately. He admitted that there exist now an opportunity to publicly evaluate their worth through peer review which is a hot topic of debate in the print-vs.-electronic media arena. He attributed o the fact that, traditionally, editorial peer review was secretive, narrow, and somewhat arbitrary where the choice of reviewers is at the discretion of the editors5. He said that this process is dramatically different with online review and that some theorists speculate that additional peer review may now take place post-haste, within a virtual community of on-line experts, broadening the range of expertise in (and speed of) review6. Thus, Patel said that this process may continue even after publication of an article and, unlike printed responses to articles, corrections and amplifications may appear immediately.7 Fourth, the financial cost of publishing on the Internet is much lower than in print media. It may not be hard to appreciate this since the Internet is virtually paperless. Paper comes in when there is now need to finalize the report. Even faxed message could be store electronically. Publication entails copying and reproduction which could be conveniently done in the net. Dr Patel agreed with us in saying “the financial cost of publishing on the Worldwide Web is about 30% lower than in print media. Many journals report paper, printing, binding, and postage accounts for over half their costs (8). Posting manuscripts electronically only incurs the expense of maintaining an electronic archive, which is less than two cents an article.8 The Disadvantages of Electronic Journalism The advantages could include the following: First, material from the Web may be of questionable value. With the ease of source of information comes doubt as to reliability of sources. Dr. Patel said, “Bioethically and "Hippocratically," using the Internet as ones primary method of gathering information in clinical practice is unwise. It is hard to deny—immediate practice of what is preached over the Web may be hazardous to ones health. Those familiar with the Internet have heard of cautionary tales of online predators prowling on youngsters and con artists peddling get-rich-quick schemes. The Web itself seems to breed a certain pathology, causing some individuals, believing them anonymous and thus untouchable, to fake medical data as well as illnesses.” Second, the users of the Internet may fail to recognize fundamental differences what is applicable to the cases or need at hand and what the printed materials could have conveyed properly through print. Because of enormous sources, the user may be tempted to rely too much and may not fully grasp the consequences on decision made for lack of expertise. Dr Patel cited Relmans pessimistic editorial points out the potentially "disastrous" consequences that electronic distribution of articles may have on clinical medicine.9 Patel said, “He believes the "proposal fails to recognize fundamental differences between basic-science and clinical journals," and goes on to state that basic-science literature is used exclusively by working scientists, those familiar with a given field. Such scientists (for example, a physicist) would want rapid, efficient, inexpensive (electronic) posting of such data. It is unusual for the busy clinical psychiatrist to need such minutiae. Classically, what they need is review and keen assessment of what has been tested and applied in practice. Also, basic scientists rarely deal with dilemmas such as patient safety or economic or public policy. Clinical medicine confronts these issues daily. The medical community, especially those in direct contact with patients, does not form a readership that is not concerned with methodology; nor do they want their e-mails cluttered by journal-like presentations boosting panaceas and charlatanism that could result in potential harm. Like newspapers, electronic media often emphasize the "human interest" angle of scientific findings, an approach researchers in the field may not prefer. What they need is accompanying editorials in clinical journals to help them interpret the data and place the studies in the context of their own practices. As Relman stated, "Mistakes, inaccuracies, and misinterpretations in clinical research pose a far greater risk to health and the public welfare than [they] do in basic-science research."”10 Third, many online journals declare to preserve the process of peer review, yet the potential in online journalism to avoid peer review to on costs. It is said typical printed journal have a thorough, yet cumbersome, review process since it is a standard that each article be read by at least two editors and often by several others, and by two or three peer reviewers in addition to, as warranted, a biostatistician. After which, it is copyedited where figures and grafts, structure, and internal consistency are checked until finally published. Dr Patel feared that although many online journals unabashedly avow to preserve this process, the potential is there for electronic publications to ignore peer review in order to cut costs. He argued that editing is not free and the practice was that fifty percent of a typical printed journals costs are incurred in processing manuscripts. He explained, “Most journals rely on subscriptions and advertisements to cover costs (biotechnology company marketing and advertising is already prevalent online). Releasing articles directly to online services would cause many libraries to cancel their subscriptions, justifiably, perhaps, if the information is accessible for free on the Internet. Medical journals face the whole issue of free vs. online paid subscriptions, which can cause publishers to perpetually fear that they may compete with themselves and lose paper subscriptions.” Fourth, there is danger that electronic journalism may be used for companies to increase stock prices hence the danger of commercialism. Like any endeavor, the ease of publishing creates opportunities for advertising which may blow out of proportion. The world’ economy depends much on information and unscrupulous people may use the Internet for obviously for commercials purposes. Where commercialism begins, professionalism declines. Journalism and even medical field are professions but they have their places also in business, where like any endeavors in life there could be opportunists. Dr. Patel explained a very relevant event. He said that science news influences Wall Street and if results of key studies are released to the public before critical reviews, stocks prices could, theoretically, be affected. Dr. Patel therefore injected the related issue on peer review saying, “Again, peer review rears its problematic, multifaceted head; and dissatisfaction with this process is growing. In a survey of scientific deception, Grayson11 found that peer review "has been widely criticized for conservatism, professional prejudice, and sloppy standards. Moreover, journal peer review is under enormous stress because of the explosion in scientific publishing.” This was supported in an article by the editor of Nature, John Maddox 12, who said, "Misconduct of some overt kind is on the rise. We all know why that is. Reputations rest on publications as never before, as do promotions and research grants."13 Fifth, magazines or journals and other forms of journalism serve communities in a particular way. The Internet may have come with the times yet it is not comprehensive enough to replace the print. Those who have unlimited access to electricity may not readily felt the difference but for those who cannot even have access to print journalism would rather listen to the ratio or just rely on pass on information especially in areas where up to information age people might not have the change to appreciate what is happening in the world of the Internet. Dr. Patel cited the Lancet’s "Guide to the Internet" 14 where he said, “Horton extolled the four major virtues of traditional, printed medical journals. First, journals report who did what, and when. Second, a journal legitimizes research through the overall quality of its editorial process, especially peer review. Third, the journal acts as an archive, a historical record from which to research and learn. Fourth, a journal distributes research to its readers. In other words, journals serve communities. The success of a journal depends on how well it serves its community.” He explained that this fourth virtue is hard to replace with the Internet. He further said, “General medical journals play a role in helping their specific readers by interpretation and discussion of the data presented. The weeks between acceptance and print publication in journals allow commentary and interpretation to develop. The result is editorial commentary, letters to the editor, updates, and notices of corrections. Will the Internet provide this? More important, will the Internet be able to provide quality medical information to its community?” The answer, Dr. Patel said, “is undoubtedly "Yes and No": some sites will, some sites wont.” This is also is also the response given by an interview when asked how he would believe internet sources as to the medical field.15 Conclusion The Internet is a product of the times. It came because it serves a need. Under normal turn of events many people may not necessarily invent all that is beneficial to him for even the most unique invention could be used wrongly by man. But in a greater probability the Internet has brought greater things in journalism as an alternative or a supplement to print journalism. It has brought more information more accessible to every body, it has given more choices to people who although may be victim is still the final decision maker of his or her life. Yes, there are disadvantages but like a medicine, it is not perfect, yet it still prescribed like what doctors do because the advantages will far outweigh the disadvantages. So internet journalism must be given a chance to grow and improve and despite the criticisms noted but with a warning to its misuse by some. There is reason to agree to with Dr. Patel’s conclusion that as with ones child, as with ones computer, the consequences of human creations have never been fully appreciated except in hindsight. After realization that the birth of the computer age is behind us, and that the technology has matured to a degree that the consequences are now beginning to be grasped, Dr Patel concluded that the changes Internet has brought about in our lifestyle are greater than many predicted. Thus he said, “And, again, the analogy is appropriate: as with children, we are having to learn to adapt to the presence of the computer and the Internet, constantly continuing dialogues and working out problems so that we may operate synergistically with these new beings. Lets hope we can be enthusiastic participants in this undoubtedly changing electronic era, rather than become paralyzed by Bertrand Russells controversy over whether this bit of progress should be considered ethical.”16 Work Cited: Bell C, Ruskin K: e-Biomed and clinical research (letter). N Engl J Med 1999; 341:1081[Free Full Text] Bingham C: Peer review on the Internet: a better class of conversation. Lancet 1998; 351(suppl 1):10-14 Grayson L: Scientific deception. London, UK, The British Library, 1995 Horton R: In defense of Why, I: introduction. Lancet 1998; 351(suppl) Interview with a local editor of local news paper but requested anonymity Maddox J: Valediction from an old hand. Nature 1995; 378:521[CrossRef][Medline] Patel, R., How the Internet Is Altering Medical Journalism and Education, Academic Psychiatry, 2001, {www document} URL http://ap.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/25/3/134#SEC2, Accessed on December 4, 2006. Relman AS: The NIH e-Biomed proposal: a potential threat to the evaluation and orderly dissemination of new clinical studies. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:1828-1829[Free Full Text] Wikipedia, Internet Journalism, 2006{www document} URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_journalism#Print_journalism, Accessed on December 4, 2006. Read More