Report 1Name: Dr. Vian BakirUniversity: Bangor University, UK Overall Reaction: What is your general reaction to this book? It’s a topic that needs in-depth coverage, and to put this out as a text book would be a nice way of both creating and unifying a field. I was much more convinced by some chapters than others, though. Do you find any of the features of the text particularly appealing?- Tackling drone journalism from a multi-disciplinary perspective.- Ch 6 – explaining the industry dynamics (although see my comment on the need for a stronger focus here on the journalism industry, or a better rationale for widening the focus to other media industries)- Ch 8 – on law and regulation Is the book based on any assumptions with which you agree? Disagree? Please explain. It assumes drone journalism is likely to grow. This is probably correct.Its critical perspectives are less clear, and its theoretical usage (eg of Chouliaraki) could also be more explicit. Do you think the author(s) is suitably qualified for this project? yes2. Competing Books: Do you agree with the assessment of competing titles? Yes, on the whole. However, there is an emerging literature from Cultural Studies and Surveillance Studies looking at drones, which should probably be referenced as these would provide useful insights and theoretical and critical perspectives for assessing this new technology and its cultural import.3. Organization/Coverage: Have all of the topics you find necessary in this type of book been covered? Are there any topics you feel that should be relocated, removed, or added? 4. Individual Chapters: Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of each chapter.Ch 1: This says it will look at how the media cover civilian use of drones. But it would seem important to also look at how the media cover military use of drones, given the history of drone development.Ch2: Useful and sensible.Ch3: Claims interviews with both freelance and corporate operators around the world. The examples offered here are a bit globally restricted though – would like a sense of how global this will really be, in practice.Ch 4: I was least convinced by Ch 4, Drones in humanitarian crisis, which raised some red flags. Chouliaraki’s work is horribly complex and convoluted. How will this be applied to help the student makes sense of drone journalism in humanitarian reporting? Chouliaraki can be productively used to discuss issues of spectatorship, but I’m not sure that this is really what this chapter wants to do. But if it does want to do this, then which of Chouliaraki’s work does it intend to use? Early work on distant suffering explores broadcast news form in some depth, to work out the likely viewer response to different presentations of Otherness. Later work is more wide-ranging, taking a greater number of nodes eg NGOs, celebrities, etc to come up a different thesis about spectatorship. Also – Chouliaraki’s work is very much concerned with analysing the entire news broadcast text. It’s not clear if this chapter also intends to do this, or if it’s just focussing on the drone journalism footage within a news text. Also, this chapter’s comparison of the psychological impact on US military drone pilots and of journalists using drones seems unfounded. Surely, this is not comparable? US military drone users are using drones to track people for later killing, whereas journalists are using drones to get information and different perspectives. So the psychological impacts are hardly going to be the same.Ch5 seems good, overall. It says it will take a critical approach in considering what types of stories are considered suitable for investigation, and I would have liked to have been told which specific authors or schools of thought would be used.Ch6: While I like the thrust of this chapter I would refocus it to be more about the journalism industry, than the wider media industry, unless a convincing rationale can be provided for the current focus. At the very least, the rationale for broadening the study of the use of drones from journalism to other media forms needs to be made explicit. As it stands, it looks like a mis-match, as all of the examples in other chapters are from journalism. I’d also suggest a different chapter heading – highlighting that this is the industrial and commercial context.Ch 7, on teaching drones in education, talks about addressing requirements that any institution needs to consider before embarking on this. Some egs here would be useful. Does it just mean potential privacy infringements, and Health & Safety requirements, or are there other considerations too?Ch 8 on the law and ethics looks like a very valuable chapter.Ch 9 has a fair amount of future gazing. As it’s based on cutting edge technological research and interviews with drone journalists, this will give it some clout – and will be interesting, going forward, to see to what extent these predictions are right.5. Writing Style and Level: Is the writing style and the reading level satisfactory and appropriate for the market?yesAudience/ Market6. Who do you consider to be the primary audience for the book? The secondary audience? Primary: journalism coursesSecondary: media courses surveillance courses7. Would this book have international appeal? Yes – through range of examples of drone journalism and interviews with wide range of practitionersRecommendation8. Based on your comments above, please choose one of the following. For any choice you make, please briefly summarize your overall impressions and the primary recommendations for improving the book (or why you feel it should not be signed). I recommend this book for publication.I would purchase a copy for my own research use. I would request that my university library purchase a copy. I would adopt this book for a course I teach. I recommend this book for publication, but only if revisions are made.What changes would be necessary for you to recommend publication? Is a major overhaul necessary or just some minor additions and/or revision? Overall, it looks OK, But specifically, Ch 4 and Ch6 need some thinking through, possibly with reorientations on theoretical and empirical focus. I do not recommend that this book be signed for publication. Report 2Name: Andrew PorterUniversity: Murdoch University, Australia Overall Reaction: What is your general reaction to this book? I agree that there is little available in terms of how the media uses drones. That’s clearly because that issue is in its infancy. I’d be keen to read the book, but it seems like an inordinate lead time before it is anywhere ready for release. My fear would be the rapid-changing nature of this area of journalistic endeavor will evolve faster than the book can be written. It would run a significant risk of being very-quickly dated. Do you find any of the features of the text particularly appealing?I am in the throes of developing curriculum in this area, so the book is of general interest to me and would likely help inform my teaching..again my fear is the time it will take to get hold of it. Is the book based on any assumptions with which you agree? Disagree? Please explain. I agree with the premise of the book in that there is a need for this kind of text to plug a hole in the market. I have examined what’s out there..and as Phil indicates there is very, very little. Do you think the author(s) is suitably qualified for this project? I do. Given his experience as a journalist, I would be hoping that would make for a very readable book..not atome steeped in impenetrable academic English.2. Competing Books: Do you agree with the assessment of competing titles? 3. Organization/Coverage: Have all of the topics you find necessary in this type of book been covered? Are there any topics you feel that should be relocated, removed, or added? Overall, the outline is comprehensive in that it will be seeking a global perspective on the issue of drones and their use. Given my location, some examination of the Australian model would be helpful in swaying how I might eventually use this book.4. Individual Chapters: Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of each chapter.There is little that I disagree with in the chapter plan for the book and the weight being given to each chapter. As an educator seeking to get related curriculum off the ground..I’d be keen to see more in the Education chapter.5. Writing Style and Level: Is the writing style and the reading level satisfactory and appropriate for the market?As I said the writing style seems accessible and given the author’s credentials I would hope and presume that would ring true with the rest of the book. If this were to become a collection of academic research papers that would appease the author’s university, I would be disinclined to go anywhere near it. Having had some experience with students and their consumption of educational texts..the ones that are complimented by photographs and diagrams are far more popular than dense text. From a personal point of view I would also be keen to see some illustrations to make the book more readable.Audience/ Market6. Who do you consider to be the primary audience for the book? The secondary audience? The primary market..for mine..would be tertiary educational institutions. As the take up of drones increases (and there is little to indicate it will slow down) education will become very important to maintain a sufficient level of safety among users, both commercial and private.The secondary audience would likely be the enthusiast who wants to better understand what has started out as a hobby for many.7. Would this book have international appeal? Certainly to a Eurpoean market and a lesser extent a US market..yes it would. To increase its appeal to the Asia Pacific region, I would suggest some simple examination of this part of the world. Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been struggling with the issue..and seems much closer to reaching some kind of decision on the way in which drones may be controlled, both commercially and privately.Recommendation8. Based on your comments above, please choose one of the following. For any choice you make, please briefly summarize your overall impressions and the primary recommendations for improving the book (or why you feel it should not be signed). I recommend this book for publication.I would purchase a copy for my own research use. I would request that my university library purchase a copy. I would adopt this book for a course I teach. I recommend this book for publication, but only if revisions are made.What changes would be necessary for you to recommend publication? Is a major overhaul necessary or just some minor additions and/or revision? Some basic revisions in the area of how other parts of the world are dealing with the issue of drones and their proliferation would make it more palatable as a book for me to use beyond my own research. It might well be a book that I would adopt for a course. I believe the addition of photographs and illustrations would increase it appeal for a tertiary education audience. I do not recommend that this book be signed for publication.
