when bird meets blog: 2a

Vox Me Up: Pro-print Opinions (text post)

So far in this blog I have highlighted the reasons why an internet medium is far superior to print, and also suggested that student press no longer has a place in a landscape rife with student bloggers and citizen journalists.  Now, I shall attempt to turn this argument around, and emphasise the superiority of the print medium, as well the continued relevance of student print.  Little academic writing has been done on the subject (perhaps because student print does admittedly range greatly in regards to both content and quality), so now I shall turn towards interviews that I myself have conducted with student editors across Australia, and I also draw from my own, personal experiences as editor of the Pelican. 

Indeed, the overwhelming sentiment amongst the student media community is that, if anything, the internet has heightened students’ desire for information. While there is a general consensus that everyday newspapers are gradually becoming obsolete, the shared argument is that so-called ‘issue-based’ papers (like monthly student magazines) are actually gaining currency. Editors agree that the widespread circulation of virtual information and “the end of media scarcity” (Bruns and Jacobs, 2006, p. 46) has made us, as a generation, far more "inquisitive'" and therefore much more likely to pick up a issue-based paper.  Jonothan Brent (the 2007 editor of Farrago) put it thusly; “I think the internet, particularly Wikipedia, has made us more eager to know something about everything than ever before. I feel that the sheer variety of topics ruminated on in student papers is a great way of expanding your mind, in a similar way to ‘Wiki-browsing.’”

Furthermore, the print medium can afford content control, in a manner that the internet can not.  In his book Web Journalism: Practice and Promise of a New Medium, James Glen Stovall dedicates an entire chapter to “editing online” (2004, pp. 91-112). And yet, for all this talk, very few internet sources are actually mediated.  Naturally, those which are published as part of a larger project do receive some form of editing (frequently-accessed examples include news.com.au and fasterlouder.com.au); however, the larger mass of internet content, especially that contained within the blogosphere and most frequently created by students, is entirely free-form and beyond the limits of editorial control. 

On the contrary, student press (and indeed, any form of print) places a high premium upon the importance of editing.  Any book on the student press is structured around the process of editing (Reddick, 1963; Tsitas, 1999). Any student press organisation will be centralised by the control of the editor, who naturally has final say regarding the selection of articles and editorial changes.  The selection of a new editor marks the beginning of fresh, new year for the paper, both in terms of content and design, because the influence of the editor is so entirely permeating. 

Finally, it also can’t be denied that press has a power and legitimacy that the internet medium still lacks, despite its rapid growth in influence.  Naomi Snell (the editor of Lot’s Wife) emphasised the fact that “students like seeing their work, and the work of their friends in print,” because print still carries an intangible weight of importance and pretension that you will not find on the internet.  No incident exemplifies this more than the lawsuit raised against Rabelais (La Trobe’s student newspaper) by The Office of Film and Literature Classification in 1995.  They were charged with publishing, distributing and depositing “objectionable material” that alledgedly “incited criminal behaviour.”  The article, entitled “The Art of Shoplifting” (1995), was a satirical how-to-steal guide/quasi-political manifesto, which position thieving as 'social justice' and urged shoplifters to target larger chain shops for shoplifting purposes, as opposed to smaller independent stores (van Opstal, 2005). The charges were officially dropped in 1999; however, it has been said that they established a “dangerous precedent” regarding free speech restrictions nationwide. More can be read about the case here. 

It’s worth noting that such a lawsuit could never be raised against the multitude of “objectionable material” published by students online.  A simple browse through any student blog will reveal a range of similarly offensive content - from the sexually explicit to that which encourages criminal/drug activity (although it is admittedly not from Australia, one eerily familiar example to be found here).  The fact this content exists and is entirely ignored by OFLC, while this one particular article inspired such legal uproar, is indicative of the fact that printed press still holds more inherent power.  From this incident, we can extrapolate that officially (as well as personally, as highlighted by Snell) the printed word remains far more influential than the virtual word.  It is to be feared by those official bodies that wish to control the media, and celebrated by the independent journalism wanting to communicate an often overlooked opinion. 

---

REFERENCES