I have decided to post a draft on some of my ideas on ‘new media’ and the discussion it creates in larger companies and publishers: Well, its difficult to decide where to start, but I have been told that people find it clever to start out a text by quoting someone important. I am not going to do that. Instead I will start out with one of my favourite British sayings: Opinions are like butt-holes: everybody has one. Today, one can almost say the same about blogs. Not that all blogs has butt-holes, no, but that it seems like everybody now a days have a blog. The question is though; is this new media killing journalism, as we know it, or more appropriately, how is it killing journalism?
I don’t think there is any doubt in saying that most of us are ‘google-journalistolics’ - if such a term exists. If we want to know something, we go to the Internet. David Lynch once said at a press conference I attended, that ‘if you want to send a message - go to western union’. We, the ‘google-journalistolics’, are living after quite the same rules: If we want news or information, we go to the Internet. But the problem with Wikipedia, Yahoo! Answers, or YouTube videos for that matter, is like hearing a great story from a drunken man in a pub. You believe the story is true, but you never bother confirming it. And maybe this is where the new media and new journalism is substituting the old regular journalism is we know it.
When I was in my teenage years (not that long ago), I remember buying newspapers or reading my parents. With great interest, I enjoyed the long detailed reports, sometimes even from foreign countries and societies, where the journalist, almost like Tintin, used to discover and explore an exciting phenomenon. Now, I open up my laptop and go to the first and best blog available (or newspaper’s websites), where I often, to my disappointment, am satisfied with the information I get. It usually takes me 3-4 minutes, and then I am updated. Or, at least I think I am.
Citizen journalism is what, by many, the bloggers are known as. I am a citizen journalist. You might be one too. Some other ‘normal’ citizens are even creating films and video clips. Some might even create podcasts. But where is it we fail, where are our limitations and why shouldn’t we take over the medium of journalism?
I believe the citizen journalism is, in many ways, helping the ‘real’ journalist. I like to consider them as a supplement for the regular papers at the newsstand. A watchdog, really. Bloggers are the ones who are forcing the journalists to do even better and work even harder for a good story. Citizen journalists are dangerous to the journalists, as many of them show that what we read in the newspapers or see in television can be done even better, sometimes even with less effort and at prices much more favorable. One can say that new media enthusiasts are what journalists used to be to politicians: A straight up pain in the ass. It is a terrible truth, especially to publish here at a newspaper’s website, but nonetheless, it is a fact that the quality of journalism is decreasing. It seems like the fun at the importance of taking your time to write a good article or report is gone and substituted by products sold by the meter. And if newspaper readers get products sold by the meter, they might as well go to the Internet and Google the topic. At least there, they’ll have some thousand pages to look at (found in 0.01 second).
Though,‘citizen journalism’ can be as bad for you as a portion of southern fried chicken with chips and extra mayonnaise. ‘Real journalism’ is probably more like an organic salad with eggs and Danish rye bread on the side. In the long run, it is really up to you to choose what you like, even though you know what is best for you. Sometimes I prefer the bad thing and I like to think of it as sufficient. Just like choosing random blogs or Youtube instead of The Guardian and BBC.
Though, more often than not, I like to be able to know who is writing the stuff I read. I like to think that journalists have a responsibility when writing. Bloggers haven’t really got that sort of issue, and thank God (or Gods or whatever else one chooses to or not to believe in) for that. And apropos religion and responsibility, I guess you would be able to find hundreds of Muhammad depictions on the Internet, might even hundreds of anti-Islamic films, but none who are responsible for them. With a newspaper article, the good thing is that you know who wrote it, you know who published it and you know who to blame if you think something is wrong or unethical.
I believe journalists are scared and feels somebody are taking over their highly reserved territory. And this with a good reason. New Media practitioners are producing and producing with relevance of everything and nothing. The diverse range of information and points of view confuses readers. And editors are in doubt whether what to do in the future with their newspapers. The question is whether we want quantity or quality?
I started out this article by calling attention to the many known sayings among British people. Nonetheless, I want to end it with one among the French that secure the maximum outcome of a medium: ‘Think a lot, say a little, write even less’.
All pictures above are taken and copyrighted by Christian Halsted ®
