One of my favourite debates I’m tracking at the moment is the future of journalism. I’m doing this for a number of reasons. First off I’m a bit of a skills junkie, I like learning things and technology journalism forces you to get to grips with all sorts before filtering down to every other field. Right now I should be pretty handy with a CMS; have a passing knowledge of HTML and CSS, know how to handle a DSLR and frame a shot; manipulate images; design a page; and, oh yeah, foster contacts and write. Having a decent speaking voice for radio and TV help a lot as well. Truly the age of the ‘multimedia specialist’ has arrived and that’s great so long as the will is there on the part of publishers to upskill their staff and give them the tools to work more effectively.
The second prong of the debate is what the future of journalism will look like. At present newspapers are divided up into news and opinion across current affairs, business, arts, sport, foreign news etc. This two-tier approach gives donkey work to juniors while experts put it all in context from a personal perspective advancing their own political bias. Myers, O’Toole, Harris, hate them of you must but their word has weight.
In the new paradigm the role of the pundit remains largely unchanged but the role of the reporter becomes vastly different as the primary source of information no longer comes direct from a press release or first hand report but also from user-generated content – often from numerous sources. This works particularly well for foreign news as desks sift through a/v footage, blog posts, Twitter feeds and news wires in real time, putting together a package suitable for distribution online and in print before being forwarded for analysis. News is no longer about facts but response as well. The experience is much richer but much more prone to innaccuracy and a massive signal-to-noise ratio as ‘facts’ change on a second-by-second basis. It’s exciting but fraught with difficulties ethical and legal as stories can break without verification before spreading virally. By the time something has been passed kosher, old media gets another hammering for being too slow or behind the times. The Internet doesn’t do just process – ask IP rights holders.
The third debate, and the one that makes me smile, is what journalism ‘should’ be. This is the current hobbyhorse of netizens and early adopters who have grown up in a world of free content and are sensing the end of the social media gravy train. People even know to post pictures of their lunch on Twitter and call it ‘nom’. Heck everyone and their mother has a profile, a page and a cause on Facebook so what other unsuspecting, confused, aged demographic can we rip off next? You know it, publishers!
Now before I rush to an impassioned defence of mainstream media I will concede the following areas where print and broadcast have committed commercial suicide:
- Lack of appreciation of the value of real-time breaking news
- Seeing the Web as separate, lower quality medium
- Failing to acknowledge the value of community
- Ignoring potential of new media
- Leaving outdated revenue models to crumble
- Failing to convince advertisers of the quality rather than quantity of readers
- Failing to upskill staff to produce a superior product
Ok, now the mea culpas are out of the way lets look at the commercial realities facing mainstream media, in part because of the above but also in part due to the changing attutides of advertisers and readers. As follows:
- Readers believe they get the same product online
- Readers believe they have greater choice online
- Readers believe they should not have to pay for news they can read elsewhere
- Advertisers believe larger readerships directly relate to improved ad response rates
- Advertisers see Google AdWords as a good solution to their commercial needs
Given these, often diametrically opposed, sets of beliefs mainstream media finds itself having to adjust to a new commercial reality where sponsorships, social media and catch-up services are as, if not more, important than their first run broadcast proposition. In print some of these principles hold firm. Twitter and Facebook usage are a given for any title now. But in the same way as the broadcast paradigm has changed to embrace lighter models of production with more transient content so too must journalism. The proposition from the new media brigade is as follows:
- News breaks in real time and should be reported as it develops
- Information should be free
- Everyone is an editor
- Stories can be crowdsourced
- A/V content is essential
- Mobile apps are the future
Ok, all interesting and in some cases inevitable developments should you live under the following assumptions:
- Newer is always better
- Journalism is not a skill and can be done cheaply
- Journalists’ produce ‘content’ – an amorphous product that wants to be ‘free’
- All reporting is of equal value
- Due process/fact checking is not a concern
- The role of the designer is separate from the editorial team
- News pays for itself
- There is no role for (expensive) investigative reporting
Compare and contrast with the following commercial reality:
- Journalism costs money
- Respected analysts cost more money
- Journalism is a profession bound by an ethical code
- Reporters do not operate in a commercial vacuum
Which leads us to an uncomfortable truth:
- If you want better you have to pay for it
Point by point that’s the debate as I understand it right now. As a journalist I believe my work has value. Advertisers believe so too, which is why they choose to support the publication, website and podcast I’m involved in. I support paywalls as a method of weeding out casual readers with no relevance to advertisers and curating an installed base of interested parties with money to spend. That’s the commercial reality. Just as if a punter in a newsagent looks at the front page of the Sun in the morning he cannot be counted as a reader, let alone someone of interest to an advertiers. Someone who actually pays his few cents to buy their morning paper has a much bigger chance of responding to an ad because they have an actual interest in the content. A webpage is not a billboard.
It’s not that I think the argument from the post-blogosphere new media set is without merit, but it is an outsider view bereft of any knowledge of how old media works and the challenges it faces in adopting new technologies and turning them into viable add-ons and not expensive distractions from the job of reporting fairly and accurately.
Blogging has been pretty much absorbed into mainstream media as papers get more added value from their columnists’ star power. The medium hasn’t died but control has passed from amateur to professional outlets. This is unlikely to happen with Twitter, which has successfully levelled the playing field and strikes a pretty good balance as a news, conversation and marketing platform.
Paywalls are turning into a bit of a chicken and egg dilemma. You need good content to establish a need before charging but without investment ahead of time it’s hard to come up with a production line worth a damn. For the record I’m in favour of them for niche publications or those with a high standard of writing. iPad apps notwithstanding I can’t see anything in Ireland hitting that sweet spot.
On a philosophical level, the question I’m concerned with it is what the speed of truth (i.e. the verifiable, accurate and fair) is. Is it a phonecall away to a well-placed source? Is it sifting throught hours of YouTube footage, is it deciphering Twitter detritus. Sometimes it’s quick, sometimes the dust has to settle but it can never be hysterical. New media lives on hystericism, transience and a lack of boundaries – values inconsistent with a mature, reliable media. That’s why the argument from the soon-to-be-former social media experts fails.
The speed of information is far greater than the speed of truth but it is a far inferior product. Support your local, regulated, accurate media – while it still can be.
RSS feed for comments on this post. / TrackBack URI