Change. The very thought of such a thing is enough to send many people running for cover. To disrupt a perfect working order can be a hard concept to grasp, and an even harder adjustment to make. When Internet made its debut in the world, news organizations were hesitant to jump on board the World Wide Web wagon. Established media was working just fine. News came daily through the papers, several times a day on television, and much more regularly on the radio. Why change? With so many outlets, it seemed impossible to require another. Despite hesitation, the online news sites began emerging.
Four years ago a word was coined to describe this phenomenon. Mark Briggs was first to refer to this shift in news reporting as Journalism 2.0. Being able to have visuals, audio, blog posts and updates on the journalist's time, not just the six o'clock news or morning paper. When people want to know something, they could turn to their computers and find out for themselves with just a few key strokes. The only set back to this broadened horizon is that much of the news now found on the Internet, is a print story, taken from one media and slapped onto the next. Shovelware as it is called, shovelling content from thing to the next with no adaptations or changes. In a post by Matt Neznanski, he addresses this issue saying, "The biggest impediment is the single-deadline mindset of publications that still cling mightily to shovelware posted after print pages are sent to press. It hasn’t ever fit the Web..." Changing this methodology could make news so much richer. The Internet has no word count that must be met. Stories can be told at length, including details that may have to be withheld in a newspaper. Video footage can be uploaded with no time limit or commercials. Journalism 2.0 brings a myriad of options to the table that just need be embraced.
Understandably, journalists may find the learning curve for such a task very steep. Not only is it a new tool to master, but it means more time and effort to be put forth. Max Rausch pointed out such difficulties in his blog post when he said, "For us, the journalists, life is bound to get even more complicated. When the industry itself doesn't know the best approach, I can safely say they can't teach it to us in university." Change always bring insecurities, and it will be some time before all the bugs are worked out of such a new and constantly evolving system. Still, journalism 2.0 is here to stay. The world of online news has made an impact on our generation and has long since passed the point of no return. For journalism, the only direction left to go is forwards, pushing on through change and adapting to all that encompasses it.
Four years ago a word was coined to describe this phenomenon. Mark Briggs was first to refer to this shift in news reporting as Journalism 2.0. Being able to have visuals, audio, blog posts and updates on the journalist's time, not just the six o'clock news or morning paper. When people want to know something, they could turn to their computers and find out for themselves with just a few key strokes. The only set back to this broadened horizon is that much of the news now found on the Internet, is a print story, taken from one media and slapped onto the next. Shovelware as it is called, shovelling content from thing to the next with no adaptations or changes. In a post by Matt Neznanski, he addresses this issue saying, "The biggest impediment is the single-deadline mindset of publications that still cling mightily to shovelware posted after print pages are sent to press. It hasn’t ever fit the Web..." Changing this methodology could make news so much richer. The Internet has no word count that must be met. Stories can be told at length, including details that may have to be withheld in a newspaper. Video footage can be uploaded with no time limit or commercials. Journalism 2.0 brings a myriad of options to the table that just need be embraced.
Understandably, journalists may find the learning curve for such a task very steep. Not only is it a new tool to master, but it means more time and effort to be put forth. Max Rausch pointed out such difficulties in his blog post when he said, "For us, the journalists, life is bound to get even more complicated. When the industry itself doesn't know the best approach, I can safely say they can't teach it to us in university." Change always bring insecurities, and it will be some time before all the bugs are worked out of such a new and constantly evolving system. Still, journalism 2.0 is here to stay. The world of online news has made an impact on our generation and has long since passed the point of no return. For journalism, the only direction left to go is forwards, pushing on through change and adapting to all that encompasses it.
*note: image from mediabistro.com
I like the flow of you blog post and the narrative you have created.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that online news "has long since passed the point of no return." Very valid claim!
However, I would have liked to hear more of your own attitude towards the change, but I suppose there will be more to come on your final blog post.
I feel like so many of our courses on journalism in university are so web-based because the program doesn't know what the industry is shifting into. I still think that even though the industry is in flux, they prepare us for web-based journalism quite well.
ReplyDelete