After months of absence, the Kingston University news website "River Online" has finally been relaunched in a much slicker and sexier format.
The student news website, which is the online version of "The River" newspaper, the successful and well known KU publication, contains articles written by students on the journalism MA course and covers a range of subjects including: News, Sports, Politics, Comment, Health and Technology, Entertainment and Features.
Matilde Morandi, a foreign student on the course described it as "Totally meta" , referring to Jen Larner's initiative to RSS Riveronline headlines out to a facebook profile which then, in theory at least, collects friends for promotional purposes and keeps people on fb afloat on the latest currents.
Although progress has been slow in the last few years, with the site only attracting hits in the low hundreds annually, Senior Lecturer and Editor-in-Chief Lucy Smy has said that she hopes this year's redesign and added interactivity will attract more interest from students.
On first inspection, the site looks excellent, with a variety of interesting stories ranging from the headline "KU Students Cheat their way towards Degree" by Jun Merrett to "Ares 1-X Launch" by health and technology correspondent Dan Aspel, but how will the site fare over the year (or years) to come?
Well, it is hoped that the addition of the facebook group, and a new twitter account will help to attract interest, and help the site integrate with the wider world of web news sites, but with all news websites struggling to survive in the recession, what hope is there for a university run project like this one?
When questioned on the subject, veteran print reporter, long time editor of the Times Educational Supplement and current Vice Chancellor of the university Sir Peter Scott seemed upbeat about the site. Whilst he confessed to being a journalist from 'the old school' he indicated that he thought it could grow and develop over the years into something really exemplary.
No doubt, as the site has the guaranteed support of 30 dedicated reporters paying around £5600 each to do their masters degrees, the site can only be a success, as the business model of other news-websites is entirely reversed, so what exactly would hold the project back from expanding into a multi-level news website incorporating content from all the university departments from video production to graphic design and audio courses, to voices from the politics and law students?
Apart from the apparently limited scope of the expertise of the reporters, bureaucracy is usually a defining factor in a successful web-enterprise model, and with faculty and students alike nervous of the dangers of publishing to a site that represents the university to the outside world, a very tight ship must be run in order to keep its contents acceptable to all.
So why do I have this constant nagging doubt about stories like Jun's? Could it be that publicising a story which instructs students 'how to cheat to pass their degree' is just a little bit irresponsible?
I do think it's a well-written and newsworthy story, however with all due respect to Jun, and the Editor Dan McAdam, I would argue that it is irresponsible to publish it, reminded as I am of a passage in the original broadcasting remit of the BBC "not to broadcast any modus operandi of criminals".
Could it be that this type of story is unnecessarily sensationalist, written to attract interest, but in reality providing an instructional blueprint for otherwise innocent students to become party to cheating?
No doubt, as the site has the guaranteed support of 30 dedicated reporters paying around £5600 each to do their masters degrees, the site can only be a success, as the business model of other news-websites is entirely reversed, so what exactly would hold the project back from expanding into a multi-level news website incorporating content from all the university departments from video production to graphic design and audio courses, to voices from the politics and law students?
Apart from the apparently limited scope of the expertise of the reporters, bureaucracy is usually a defining factor in a successful web-enterprise model, and with faculty and students alike nervous of the dangers of publishing to a site that represents the university to the outside world, a very tight ship must be run in order to keep its contents acceptable to all.
So why do I have this constant nagging doubt about stories like Jun's? Could it be that publicising a story which instructs students 'how to cheat to pass their degree' is just a little bit irresponsible?
I do think it's a well-written and newsworthy story, however with all due respect to Jun, and the Editor Dan McAdam, I would argue that it is irresponsible to publish it, reminded as I am of a passage in the original broadcasting remit of the BBC "not to broadcast any modus operandi of criminals".
Could it be that this type of story is unnecessarily sensationalist, written to attract interest, but in reality providing an instructional blueprint for otherwise innocent students to become party to cheating?
Finally there's the issue of comment, as this article is intended to posit the all important question: What counts as fair comment? Who is allowed to comment on the content, and what will the strictures imposed on freedom of speech regarding editorial policy be like?
For me at least, these questions are just some more of the fuzzy unknowns in the sea of possibilities that the web produces every day. One thing is clear: one oughtn't be complacent or ignore those voices who are trying to address these questions sensibly.
In any case for what it's worth, riveronline.co.uk is here to stay, so watch this space!
For me at least, these questions are just some more of the fuzzy unknowns in the sea of possibilities that the web produces every day. One thing is clear: one oughtn't be complacent or ignore those voices who are trying to address these questions sensibly.
In any case for what it's worth, riveronline.co.uk is here to stay, so watch this space!
2 comments:
Clearly, censorship is the model for the RiverOnline site. Posts have been taken down for no apparent reason, except that perhaps the University doesn't want truthful commentary that might reflect poorly on its record.
... Or they just want to get on with their work without attracting massive amounts of controversy? In other words, please treat the river online, the university, the vice chancellor and the students with respect.
Thanks
Post a Comment