Information available on the Internet is helping to minimize risky situations, while providing an ongoing peer-reviewed handbook for life.
It's providing the check on government and other institutions that the press once did. In the past, people couldn't access raw data easily. Reporters put in the time to gather information and aggregate the facts. Today, Google makes almost anything accessible to almost anyone.
My intention isn't to condemn the future of journalism. For the foreseeable future there will continue to be a need for well-trained, smart and enterprising journalists. Although their job descriptions and daily activities have been changing as news organizations find their footing in the world of online news, the Internet isn't killing journalism.
But it is changing what it means to be a journalist, even in ways that few previously predicted, according to the State of the News Media 2008 report, which was released yesterday.
One of the report's major findings shows the general trend is that news companies are covering fewer stories. "It was believed at one point that the Net would democratize the media, offering many new voices, stories and perspectives. Yet the news agenda actually seems to be narrowing, with many Web sites primarily packaging news that is produced elsewhere," this article reports.
"The Internet offers the promise of aggregating ever more sources, but its value still depends on what those originating sources are providing. Even as the media world has fragmented into more outlets and options, reporting resources have shrunk," according to an overview of major trends identified by the report.
While there's less reporting going on (the virtues of which can be discussed separately), there's packaging and producing that didn't exist before. Sure, anyone with Internet access can package and produce their own stuff, but there's a reason the Chicago Tribune gets more hits than your neighbor's blog.
Time is valuable and most people aren't looking for ways to waste it. When a person chooses to spend his or her time reading news and information, they're going to go to sites that have some authority in vetting sources, which is the value that journalists can provide.
If the Internet is a web of information, journalism needs to help us navigate it properly. Maybe it's less glamorous than how journalism has traditionally been perceived, but with all the changes, this is clearly where the industry's comparative advantage lies.
That's why I was disappointed when I read the complaints about the undesirable consequences of the Internet in this Baltimore Sun editorial. It says:
Some Internet antics are so outrageous, it seems that "there oughtta be a law." But upon reflection, maybe it's better that there isn't a law... Things were simpler when only newspapers had the ability to disseminate information quickly to large numbers of people. Now, anyone with access to a computer can be a "publisher"... Most Web sites don't have the resources to police their sites for questionable content, and forcing them to do so would effectively shut down much of the Internet. The risk of a trashed reputation appears to be the price we pay for an online world.Ironically, the editors at the Sun sound a lot like the folks at AngryJournalist.com when discussing the abundance of first-hand accounts that are available online. They focus on the negatives (and yes, there are negatives) of sites like DoNotRentTo.com and RateMyTeachers .com. Although the Internet is changing their profession, it's not eliminating it and whining about change won't help anyone adapt to it.
It is second nature for millennials to use online information to verify real-life scenarios on a micro and macro level. We went through college consulting RateMyProfessor.com before signing up for classes and we're checking Web sites like BuzzFeed and Alltop to help us absorb information efficiently and keep tabs on the inner workings of the Web.
If people want primary information, they can go straight to the source and draw their own conclusions. They don't have to read it from a journalist's report on the topic.
The broad range of contributors on the Internet are the new emerging Fourth Estate. It's time for the old Fourth Estate to champion its new role, rather than complain about it.
6 comments:
It's interesting to note that even in a piece where you do a great job of hailing new media as the Fourth Estate, you still make a judgment call in which publications earn their italics and which do not.
The Tribune and Sun are in, while AngryJournalist and RateMyTeachers are not. Sure there is a difference between the Tribune and a blog. But let's set up a simple comparison. NY Times: 5,000-circulation weekly in a small town:: The Daily Dish: AngryJournalist. If both newspapers get to be ital, why not extend the same courtesy to all blogs?
I'd love to hear what other people's takes are on the question of whether blogs are entitled to the same grammatical preferences as newspapers...
As the creator of AngryJournalist.com, I think I'll weigh in by saying that I don't care if my site is formated or not in italics. I just want you to hyperlink to my site when you mention it. Hyperlinks build pagerank, show authority and generally are more helpful than making text slanted and harder to read.
That said, thanks for linking to the site.
Interesting point, Menachem. I'm not sure where exactly, I draw the line, but you certainly got me thinking.
Thanks for weighing in Kiyoshi, I think AngryJournalist.com is an interesting social commentary.
Mark Cuban is blogging about some related ideas. Take a look.
Jaclyn
Thank you for the feedback.
I agree with you. The internet is changing the profession, even enhancing it.
While the aggregation is inevitable and cumbersome, it is also positive. The internet is still in its infancy, and new tools will evolve the way we discover the gems. We won’t always have to rely on the New York Times or other “authority” with vetting sources. Inevitably the cream will float.
All such contribution is an evolution of the fourth estate, however, since we all have biases, the vast majority is not appetizing, and too often simply recapitulatory.
One of the points of “Blogs Complement The Fourth Estate” is that new constructive insights will serendipitously surface from individuals who are not “journalists” but are part of the story. There are advantages and disadvantages to the anonymity offered by the internet. Some produces vast amounts of nonsense, and some produces excellent contribution to our collective comprehension.
For example, on the lighter side, wouldn’t you enjoy reading a detailed and truthful “fly on the wall” personal account of Bill Gate’s drubbing of John Akers and IBM 26 years ago? Some momentous events cannot and will not be recounted. The repercussions would be embarrassing and damaging. Not that anonymity would guarantee truth, because there is always ego processing the “retelling” but we’d get so much closer to authenticity.
Happy blogging.
James Raider
Good post. I think we still tend think of media in terms of old labels (as the debate about italics in the comments shows!): print is somehow more valuable than online, professional blathering is somehow more valuable than passionate, well-reasoned amateurism. The Baltimore Sun's idiotic editorial rantings about the evils of the Internet are an example of this. At the end of the day, it's all media. and the readers, viewers and listeners get to decide what or who they want to believe. It has been ever thus in media consumption.
What journalists really need to accept is that the Internet isn't killing journalism, i know a million and one people who would trade their magazines or newspapers for the world, especially not the internet. We spend our whole lives in front of computers, most jobs consist of it the last thing people want to do when they get home is get on their internet, they want to pick up a magazine or a newspaper and maybe watch some tv.
Post a Comment