As I have previously stated on this blog, I believe the impact of the internet is highly important and highly valuable. I believe that the technological advancements within the world of journalism will lead to more effective manners in which information is provided to the largest number of people possible in the easiest, most accessible ways.
http://cyberjournalist.org.in/advance.html
This article opens with “Journalism has been going through several major technological changes during the past few decades. The pace of these changes is quickening now, altering the practice of the profession as never before. These changes, which encompass a wide range of activities from news gathering to dissemination, are bringing many benefits. At the same time, the profession faces some negative impacts too.” That pretty much sums it up right there, but the information it provides is an obvious prediction of what was to come.
“It is only a matter of years before digital cameras are widely used by the photojournalists. It will free the photojournalist from dark room processing and time consuming manipulations with the enlarger. Wet processing is bound to become a thing of the past, if digital cameras achieve the resolution of films.”
http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/routledg/1461670x/v1n2/s3.pdf?expires=1285600459&id=58810789&titleid=744&accname=UNIVERSITY+OF+MARYLAND&checksum=0117B048EA654935ECF81C1C1D4086AF
This is a study by John Pavlik of the University of Minnesota. This study looks at the impact the internet has on “how journalists do their work, the content of news; the structure or
organization of the newsroom; and the relationships between or among news organizations,
journalists and their many publics.” Pavlik is critical of how the internet has impacted the manner in which journalists get information. He is skeptical about the notion that some journalists may compile information and entire interviews over email. However, he does note that “improve the quality of news-gathering, especially when on deadline or in after-hours situations.” He questions whether or not the speed at which information can be posted online is a positive influence or a negative one, comparing it to the columbine shootings, asking whether you would have wanted the know immediately, or if you would have wanted more fact checking beforehand. While critical, this study does provide solid information about the impact the internet has on news reporting.
http://blogs.reuters.com/from-reuterscom/2009/12/11/how-will-journalism-survive-the-internet-age/
This is the text from Chris Ahearn’s remarks on whether journalism survive the internet age from the Federal Trade Commission’s workshop on how internet has effected journalism. His proposed answer to that question is yes, “journalism will do more than survive the Internet Age, it will thrive. It will thrive as creators and publishers embrace the collaborative power of new technologies, retool production and distribution strategies and we stop trying to do everything ourselves.”
Ahearn says, “We see a world that opens up the newsroom and news gathering process to allow the highest quality and valuable content to flow better from creators to publishers. This new network of syndication is predicated on serving the needs of publishers and their audiences – not what one organization or another simply wants to produce.”
The impact of the internet on journalism will prove to be incredibly valuable in keeping journalism afloat in the deterioration of traditional media. While print sources may go down, the online world will prove to be a much more interactive and useful environment for producing information.
It is true that the Internet has contributed tremendously to the field of journalism. Disseminating information over wider audiences has become easier and faster. Journalists have more freedoms with regard to deciding the story they should cover and the medium they should use, such as a particular news site, Facebook, Twitter or Blogger. In addition, it is now possible for ordinary people to engage more in the news by posting facts, pictures and videos about a recent development in their area. However, this does raise questions about the credibility of the information posted online. Another issue is that journalists may just post a couple of sentences, which may be inaccurate due to insufficient details.
ReplyDeleteFollowing up on the previous comment, I wonder what the difference is between tweeting a gradually unfolding event (i.e. Columbine) and Walter Cronkite (anyone remember him?) broadcasting the shooting that just occurred in Dallas along President Kennedy's motorcade. In either case, given the limited amount of information, the facts were sparse and unfolding BUT they were reported accurately. It seems to me that the newer technology doesn't necessarily increase the amount of inaccurate information (unless the technology is used to post random facts that may or may not be correct.) If so, then old style television could arguably be misused to accomplish the same thing. But a breaking news story on Twitter is confined to the same thing that breaking news on television is. That is limited information. Now it's true that there may be more of an opportunity for individuals to recklessly tweet ANY info heard from anybody, but aren't we talking about JOURNALISTS here? No school I know of encourages the transmission of random information by any student wishing to become a paid professional journalist. The responsibility to avoid misinformation online, therefore, is not with the technology as noted by the Minnesota researcher, but with the journalist who is USING the technology.
ReplyDelete