The moral dimension of journalism grows out of its purpose and principles — calling attention to inequities in the system, connecting people, creating community, giving voice to the voiceless, serving as a public forum, etc. In what way is this aspect of journalism — the journalist’s call to exercise conscience — influenced by rapid growth of technology and how can this important moral aspect be maintained?

Is there hope for independent media coverage and a journalism of truth and verification whose loyalty is to its citizens in the current media environment?

              The online news revolution has reconstructed the way in which journalists portray information, as well as changing the citizen’s role. Kovach and Rosenstiel state, “technology is transforming citizens from passive consumers of news produced by professionals to active participants who can assemble their own journalism from disparate elements” (19). By shifting more responsibility to the consumer, online journalism prompts “the rise of a new and more active kind of American citizenship” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 19). However this responsibility can easily be abused and unfulfilled; with the elements of journalism applying now to all citizens actively involved in the news, there has never been a stronger need for honesty, independence and morality.

              “How can we ensure that our development as moral and social animals keeps pace with our rapidly evolving communications technology?” (Gladstone 150). Her answers emphasize active news consumption and truth verification, asserting the importance of the evolution from readers as naive perceivers to skeptical and involved contributors. Nowadays, with poorly written, slanted or false news burying the good on the internet, it’s a journalist’s new responsibility to distinguish the two and unmask the important information in an engaging form. Kovach and Rosenstiel reiterate this role, “in this new century, the press must watchdog not only government but also…the expanding public debate that new technology is creating” (159). From scholarly articles to personal blogs, it’s increasingly less about scrounging to gather information and instead verifying the validity and expressing it in an effective manner. As online news becomes more of a multidimensional conversation than a statement of facts and events, all involved must strive for comprehensive truth and self-education to create a deeper, more reliable basis for news consumption.

              Online publications allow for an extremely unfiltered form of journalism, causing influential pros and cons. The potential for a more engaging multimedia presentation, no word limit, more independence from media conglomeration and easy, worldwide accessibility is counter parted by the possibilities of falsehood, information overload and mediocrity. The ability for ‘citizen journalists’ to exercise freedom of speech online provides a structure independent from outside influences such as big corporations and truly gives a voice to the voiceless. Not only is information on the internet the most easily accessible, it becomes a canvas open to anyone and everyone to express themselves on. “In the future, we may well rely more on citizens to be sentinels for one another,” explained in Elements of Journalism, “no doubt this will expand the public forum and enrich the range of voiced” (184). But the forum still has to be based on a foundation of fact and context, and ideally the community’s conversation could still uphold a level of well-educated, informative discussion.

              The positive factor of online news discussion as a way of connecting people and creating community is indisputable. Focusing on social media alone, sharing news is used to interact with others and start conversations, whether the information is from a credible source or the person is sharing their own expression of the news. Online articles also expand the consumer community to be worldwide and all-inclusive, globalizing the information to all who are interested. Therefore, the point that Kovach and Rosenstiel made about the nature of new technology creating a shift away from journalism’s connection to citizen building is rather disputable. They state, “the internet has begun to disassociate journalism from geography and therefore community as we know it” (29). Although a local, private community might feel exposed, the opportunity for unrestricted news favorably appears to allow for global-citizen building.

             Gladstone mentions in the “Meet the Author” section that, “the more people participate in the media, the more they hate the media. The greater the participation, the greater the paranoia that the media are in control” (xiv). On the contrary, it seems that the more citizens are getting involved in news discussion online, the more they find the news significant, reliable, and comprehensive. The scary ‘Influencing Machine’ construct shatters as the public realize their influence and voice in the media. From there it’s up to citizens what kind of news they want to reflect and receive. The moral dimension of journalism becomes more fragile and uncertain as new technology “reorganize[s] the way news is produced and communicated” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 158), and by whom. However, just as Gladstone illustrates in the final statement of the graphic novel, “we get the media we deserve” (156); so whatever involvement a person has, whether it’s writing a piece for the New York Times or commenting on an online blog, it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to exercise conscience and exhibit commendable ethics if we want the product and the response to be honest, influential and educational.