Objectivity does not exist

Now that i wrote about journalism in my last blog, I will continue on that subject.

Since I am working at Algemeen Dagblad (one of the largest newspapers in the Netherlands), I am more interested in journalism in general. What makes a journalist a good one? Do have papers a political preference? (YES!) and is it possible for a writer or journalist to be hundred per cent objective?

The last question is a interesting one. A large number of researchers proved that it is impossible for a journalist to be one-hundred per cent objective. However, almost all the interviewers, writers or presenters claim that they are one-hundred procent objective. For example, Pauw en Witteman, a dutch late night talkshow with a TV-interview setting, say that they are not 'left' or 'right' on the political frame, but just theirselfs (Are they objective by saying this?). Varwijk and Huls (2008) did a research on this topic and concluded that Pauw and Witteman have a preference for left-sided politicans. They indicated a bias in question design, which means that left-sided politicans were approached less aggressive than right-sided politicans.

Why is there a taboo on this topic? Is it forbidden for journalists to say or write what they think? Take a look at Italy! In most of the political facets a strange country, but they know how to report a soccer match. If you want to watch the game AC Milan against Juventus on television, you have the choose between two channels: one with an AC Milan-commentator and one with Juventus-commentator. Objectivity? NO! Pleasure? YES!

Will it be an idea to introduce more subjective television programs in Holland? Studio Sport Feyenoord and Studio Sport PSV, a news program with right presentators or left-sided presentators.

At the moment, I work on my thesis and the subject is comparable to the study of Varwijk and Huls (2008). However, I am studying a talkshow with two presentators who are more right-sided. These two people, Andries Knevel and Tijs van de Brink, both say that they are hundred per cent neutral, but the results will be clear: left-wing politicans will be approached more aggressive than right-wing politicans. Objectivity? NO! Solution: be brave and tell your public your preference: Give all the people their platforms and be honest.

Objectivity does not exist...

Wikipedia-based journalism: The painful future...

There are a large number of changes since the rise of the online and free encyclopedia Wikipedia. First of all, this encyclopedia is more up-to-date than the tangible version of an encyclopedia. When a soccer player moves to another team, Wikipedia will adapt it immediately. A break up between David Beckham and his wife Victoria? It will be edited in an hour on Wikipedia.

The principle of a wiki is quite simple: somebody posts a description of something or somebody on a website and everybody is free to edit the content of it. Wikipedia works on the same way: a person creates a text about somebody (say: the biography of world’s best soccer player Lionel Messi) and everybody who knows more about him is able to add that information.

However, there is a limit in the adaptations on Wikipedia. An insane person who thinks that it will be funny to adapt the contents of topics like World War II, the 2011 tsunami in Japan or the John F. Kennedy murder will be disappointed: these topics are protected and cannot be adapted.

What about journalism nowadays? Did the rise of Wikipedia affect the current world of journalists? Normally, everybody will say: no. A journalist doesn’t use Wikipedia as a source of information, at most to check some general facts.

There is an exception, people! Just my own employer, Algemeen Dagblad (a Dutch newspaper and I am working there as a freelance journalist) uses Wikipedia as a source of information. My favorite soccer team in the world, FC Barcelona, has a unique offense: the amazing Lionel Messi, Spanish striker David Villa and rooky Pedro Rodríguez. In funny circumstances, me and a friend edited the content of Pedro on Wikipedia. I made myself the discoverer of Pedro on the Dutch version of Wikipedia and advised FC Barcelona in 2004 to transfer him to Barcelona. In the week before the Champions League final between FC Barcelona and Manchester United, Algemeen Dagblad made comparisons between the players of both teams: Messi against Rooney, Vitor Valdes against Van der Sar and also: Valencia against Pedro.

I am proud that Algemeen Dagblad makes me part of the history of the ‘Blaugranas’, but I am also ashamed. Where are we going to in the current world of journalism? Please, please, please: could somebody stop this way of ‘copy-paste’ journalism and make journalism qualitative again?

Is he dead?

There will be nobody in the whole, wide world who missed the news about the dead of American's public enemy number one: Osama bin Laden. The terrorist was killed in a firefight in Abbottabad (Pakistan), after a militair operation of the Americans. There were rumors, immediately after the dead of Bin Laden: is the killed man really Osama bin Laden? Is it not a way of winning popularity for Barack Obama? How long did Bin Laden stayed in Abbottabad? And why are there no pictures of his dead body?

Although the Americans killed their greatest enemy, the communication process was undersized. The only people who are quite sure about the dead of Al Queada's leader are the members of the special force team and Obama himself (see picture above), who followed the whole operation on a big television screen. What about the rest of the world, Barack? Do we have to do it with your promise and some facts like: 'Osama used his fifth wife as a shield', 'We practiced the operation in Afghanistan in a copied house' and most sensational: 'We gave Bin Laden a burial at sea'.

We are living in a digital world nowadays and almost everything in this world is findable. If you need an email account of a doctor in South-Africa, you need to know the favourite sport of a woman in Iraq or the idol of your neighbour: you can almost find everything on the world wide web. People wants to know a large number of facts and more important: they want evidence for these facts. A shooting in a Dutch shopping-centre? Photo's please. The man without a face is operated? We want to see his new face. A crashed plane? Pictures, before we believe this horrible fact.

Therefore, Barack, a call from mankind: would you please come with more evidence about the dead of Osama bin Laden? We need a small picture or otherwise a DNA proof. Or... am I too curious and suspicious?

Our Vlog!

Our video blog with Martijn Goudbeek...

Vlog

the link to our video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy7Rwjxs0bU

The sun is shining for Facebook

Imagine the following situation: you are studying a boring paper, while sitting on a table in a hot room and the temperature outside is around 30 degrees. It is clear that everyone wants to be outside: the pool, beach or park are better options than reading that boring paper. However, you have to do it, otherwise you will fail the exam. During studying, you take a quick look at your Facebook profile and what do you see? More messages and updates than usual!

Is there a tendency between sunny weather and updates on Facebook? When I look to my profile, there is a significant tendency: in the best week of 2011, I updated more messages than usual and in one of the rainiest weeks of this year I only placed two updates.

What kind of messages do you see when the sun is shining? 'chilling at the Dutch beach', 'drinking a couple of beers in Rotterdam', 'playing some football in the park' or: 'enjoying the weather'. In all the updates is a clear similarity: they are describe the weather conditions. What kind of messages do you see when the weather is rainy or cold? Nothing about the weather conditions, only when they are extreme.

Despite you should think that people will go enjoy the sun when it is good weather outside, people want to show their friends that they are in the sun. In my opinion a weird trend, because it gives a colored image to a person.

Oh and don't worry about me: I took my school stuff outside as you can see on the picture ;)

Social Media and Sports

The introducing of one of the most influential social media 'tools', Twitter, changes the world on a couple of aspects. Famous movie actors (John Cleese, Elijah Wood, Robin Williams), directors (Ducan Jones, David Wain, Kevin Smith) and singers (Britney Spears, Paul de Leeuw, Snoop Dogg) use Twitter to inform other Twitter users about their daily life. World famous sporters are also active on this social medium, which bring the sporters closer to their fans. However, is the dissappeared distance between sporter and supporter a positive effect?

The sporter with the most Twitter followers worldwide is Lance Armstrong. The seven time Tour de France winner is followed by 2,801,195 people and give them updates about his foundation, his life or his sports activities. Another famous sporter on Twitter is Alberto Contador, who twitters his messages in Spanish and English so that all his fans understand him.

Carlos Puyol, Cesc Fabregas, Leroy Fer (all soccer players), Robert Gesink, Robbie McEwen, Laurens ten Dam (all cyclists), Shaquille O'Neal, Paul Pierce, LeBron James (all basketball players): are there still sporters without Twitter?

Despite the accessability to the life of famous sporters, twittering sport people are, in my opinion, unwelcome. Fifteen years ago, when I first visited my favourite football club Feyenoord Rotterdam, I saw my idols on the pitch. Through the years I watched games of players like Pierre van Hooydonk, Robin van Persie, Solomon Kalou and Dirk Kuyt and wanted to know everything about them.

However, since Dirk Kuyt has a Twitter account, I found out that I don't like that. A 'twitpic' with Dirk eating his favourite meal, Robin van Persie with his little son: I don't like it at all. A sports idol or hero: I want to keep them away, far away. That's why I want to do a request to all my sport idols:

PLEASE STOP TWITTERING!