The over-used and under-examined claim that Journalism is dead is one that I find both disheartening and extremely closed minded. In a day and age where nearly anything is possible, many are claiming 
that our free speech publications will no longer exist? So where is Journalism going if it isn’t dying?
Journalism isn’t dying, it is merely taking on a new shape; adapting to the ever-changing environment that we have created.
The Internet.
The first of two major issues in the industry is that with the emergence of limitless internet connection, blossoming social networks and an affinity for instant gratification among nearly every demographic, micro-blogging sites like Twitter, photo hosting sites like Flickr and Twitpic and hosts like WordPress are giving everyday citizens the ability to become citizen journalists.
Citizen Journalism is creating a new temperature for the industry; information is unbiased and honest, but the quality cannot be controlled. Because information is more readily available, and consumers are finding it to be convenient and unbiased, our traditional news sources are losing the following they once had.
The second major issue is we see today is that more and more people are finding their news on the Internet, but most of the papers are making money from their print advertisements. This, being completely ineffective, means the print newspapers will have to adapt to online endeavors and subsequently charge a fee for their offerings as well as make money from direct-targeted online advertisements. In order for it to be effective and efficient, however, each of the newspapers would have to implement this business model simultaneously and without wavering from the newly-set standard.
Just as technology gains momentum and adapts to our needs,
professions and skills must also adapt.
While picking up a bulky 4-section newspaper may not be completely convenient in our fast-paced lifestyles, it is the duty of learned Journalists to make moves to adapt to the needs of their readers.
Patrick Thornton, blog writer of The Future of Journalism, states very wisely that If you’re not willing to work on the Web, do more than write, get your hands dirty with code, blog, be a social media pro, etc, than journalism isn’t for you. Those currently working for publications should be hyper focused on making the same content available online as it happens in order to adapt to the changes in modern Journalism.
So, while most think Journalism is “dying,” I challenge you to explore the idea that yes, there are significant differences in the way we dole out news, but the change is both necessary and exciting. We need to take the future of journalism into consideration and initiate a renaissance of sorts. A rebirth of Journalism.
Tags: journalism
I agree with your observation on journalism. The only reason that people say journalism is dying is because we as journalist have not found a way to move with technology. Throughout media history it has been shown that we can move with the times, (print, radio, tv) but when the internet came everything froze.
Citizen Journalist came in to feel the void that we couldn’t find a way to. The people had to produce the stories while we tried to find a way to harness what the internet was capable of. I think things have come along somewhat, but like you said people have to be willing to use these avenues. The ones that are not willing to use the internet are going to get phased out in order to keep journalism alive.
Journalism is not dying, it is the business model that is, …and maybe the expectation of reading quality prose.
Thanks for the mention, but the quote you attribute to me was actually written by Patrick Thornton.
All the best,
king
(Click my name in the previous comment for the post where Patrick wrote that.)
Thank you for correcting that for me, I appreciate it! Am making the correction now.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s evolution. And I reckon most journalists *are* evolving with it – embracing the new media, understanding its very different ways of getting the message across, its different rules on formality and accessibility, and then getting right on with the job they’re superb at. All the national newspapers hire bloggers, promote social media and generally fly the flag stamped “Web 2.0″.
I know a few people who don’t want to “get their hands dirty” and see who online apps like Twitter and Stumbleupon as superficial and wholly useless wastes of time. They’re wrong. (Well, on *average *they’re wrong).
Traditional journalism is in flux, and online new media is in flux. They’re educating each other and finding a middle ground, but it’ll be chaos for a while: gluts of spammy blogging, for example, and relatively low pay rates for online work. But in a way that’s good too: low pay means online journalists apply pressure to make things on an equal footing…and spammy rubbish makes the good stuff shine out like a floodlit Tinkerbell.
Rebirth, aye. Not yet – but very soon.
Mother Jones magazines had an article recently about a NY Times article on the triage that went on in New Orleans hospitals after Hurricane Katrina. Because of that article, indictments were handed down and hospitals all over the US have changed their systems of triage and hopefully, hundreds of lives will be saved in future disasters.
That article cost the NY Times $400,000 to report as the reporters worked several years on the piece There is absolutely no way that “citizen journalists” could have done that work. They don’t have the vast funding necessary, they don’t have fact checkers and editors pushing them to do better.The fact that traditional journalistic outlet can’t find funding is huge. It undermines, potentially, our democracy.
What we mostly see on the internet are “citizen journalists” giving their opinions of what the actual journalists have uncovered. And that’s in the best case scenarios. When it comes to travel journalism, what you’re often seeing are small-time hacks being bought off by marketing and PR firms to go on unpaid junkets and then report on the products displayed to them for their blog followers. This exercise has no relationship to real journalism at all. It’s actually “Citizen PR”.
The bottom line with the future of journalism is that no one really knows yet what the future holds. Who knows – it’s possible that print media will hold out and in 15 years we’ll still be reading newspapers (alongside consuming vast amounts of online media).
The big question for me is how journalists can continue making a living if most of their work is published online and for free. I agree with Jenny T that citizen journalists don’t have the resources or the cash to do major, long-term reporting…but it could soon be the case that even the NYT won’t have the means to pay for great investigative journalism. Then what will happen? Why should a publication pay a reporter’s airfare, salary, hotel, meals etc when they could just get a story done by someone already there on the ground?
It’s true that new technology has democratized journalism in the sense that it’s no longer only established reporters doing all the reporting. More people can report on more varied topics than before and without constraints like deadlines etc. But that has also lead to all kinds of crap stories like Fuzzy the cat being stuck up in the tree for 7 hours being considered “citizen journalism.” What could become a great thing in the future of journalism – if the weak quality of most “citizen journalism” is any guide – is that serious talent could really stand out. Those who in the past for whatever reasons didn’t take to journalism school or working for local papers but who can instinctively use technology and combine it with good writing and reporting could really prosper in the future.
Totally agree with you. One must not forget that it’s not only about fact, but rather abou analysing it and learning how to express it properly. Information is out there, but does it mean that everyone can absorb it? Understand it?
From what I can see, people are getting confused. Now, more than ever, it’s all about being able to ‘digest’ all the facts and make a sense out of it.