5.04.2006

This House believes that traditional journalism will not be dead in 15 years.

Thinking back to my post about how I came to get into the news and how in 10 years technology has advanced, I started thinking about the real question. Where are we headed in 15 years? If we’ve come so far in just the past 10, how can I begin to guess what 2021 will look like?

While pondering that question, I thought about what my father had said about liking his newspaper. I also thought about the way my typical day starts, or my parents, and how we are all creatures of habit. Yes, we adapt and evolve with the changes and advances in technology, but really we all have our routines. I know from watching my mother’s preferred morning shows as I was growing up that I have adopted the same shows to start my day now as an adult. Same goes for the radio shows I listen to or the papers I read – I am a product of my environment. But now, my parents are getting internet savvy, but I don’t expect them to stop reading their morning paper or download podcasts. My mother has a PDA, but she still uses her desk calendar. I don’t expect them to change their habits regardless of what new things come on the market in 15 years. I’m not sure that I will either; I’m still trying to figure out my Mp3 player!

Yet, what is going to happen in 15 years? Likely magazines will continue to lose subscriptions and will be forced to go online or even fold completely. This could happen to newspapers as well, but more likely the smaller regional ones first. With the introduction of the World Wide Web, media companies are converging in order to reach their audience. To continue to be successful, they must have an online component to keep up with their readers, listeners, and viewers. The internet will continue to grow and the information is literally at our fingertips – we need only search for it.

This brings me to my next point. I wrote out a survey and emailed it to my friends and family. I tabulated their answers and took their feedback into consideration.


What is your main news source (genre):
Online……………46%
Radio………….....22%
Television……….16%
Newspaper..……..11%
News-Magazine…..2%
Other……………...2%

The 46% who answered online were primarily in my demographic (25-30 years old). Most of us are students or “desk job” workers who have a lot of computer time. Most replies to this had more than one method, but I took their first response as their main source for news.


What newspaper do you read frequently:
National………..27%
Local/County…..27%
State……………27%
None…………...19%

It appears that newspapers are still relevant, regardless if some may consider them archaic in this age.

Do you read blogs?
No……………..51%
Yes ……………32%
Only Kate’s……16%

Hey cool! I got some votes!

Do you consider blogs as a reliable news source:
No …………….69%
Sometimes…….28%
Yes……………..3%

My friend Laura says: “As part of a broader picture, I think they are. Definitely I wouldn’t just depend upon a single blog for all my news, but I think that if you employ multiple sources in different media (a combination of tv, paper, online, blogs, radio), you can really get a deeper understanding (and varying viewpoints on) most subjects.”

This leads me to my last question which had a multitude of answers, so I took the top four answers to the question – what do you consider to be the most accurate news source?
CNN
MSNBC
NPR
Primarily online news – to see more than one source.

Similarly to Laura, my friend Dory answers: “No single source. I usually try to read the same story on BBC, Al-Jazeera, NYTimes, LATimes, and CNN, and from that patchwork assemble a reasonable idea of what the truth is. If you have ever had a newspaper report about something that you personally participated in or witnessed, then you know that they can't be trusted to even get the names right, much less the actual flow of events or motivations. By taking the composite of multiple reporters' stories, I can sometimes build what I believe to be an accurate assessment, but I always have to take any media source with a grain of salt due to inherent inaccuracies that adhere in any single reporter's grasp of a happening. I also keep in mind that all news agencies' business is not to accurately report the news but rather to sell their newspaper, television show, or online article to as wide an audience as possible in the hopes of generating revenue for their company. News media is an industry just like any other, and the political and profit motive cannot ever be ignored in what they report, and more importantly in what they choose not to report. By taking in the assessments of multiple sources with widely differing political standpoints I hope to get a glimmer of the truth of any matter that garners my attention.”

The trend that I’m seeing in these answers is that traditional journalism isn’t going to die, but rather the audience is going to take a more participatory approach to the news. We may be accessing the newspaper on electronic paper/ink in a couple years, but that doesn’t meant that we won’t sit down on the computer later to search for more facts, or flip on the telly for a narrated view.

Traditional journalism, as defined by the way we get our news today (i.e. newspaper, news magazine, radio, television, and online), will not die in 15 years. It will progressively conform to the needs of the audience using the newest technology available.

3 Comments:

At 1:02 PM GMT+10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find the question itself is highly problematic. What is traditional journalism? If we were to answer that question, do we look at the 'journalist', at the 'journal' or possibly the 'journey'? The category that is said to be definitive of the subject is always left wanting in a discussion.
In a sense, I'd rather approach it not in terms of the traditional soothsayer mentality of 'predictions' and 'mystical predilections', but rather to evaluate not 'in 15 years', but rather with 'what is dead now?' and 'what died 15 years ago?'.

 
At 3:01 PM GMT+10, Blogger Kate said...

It was my choice in the definition. So it is only problematic because the question could be tackled in so many different ways. And the question was also about where are we going so that we as students and future workers in this field can be aware of the direction we might be heading into. We know where we've come from, but where are we going?

 
At 3:59 PM GMT+10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do we know where we come from, or do we choose, or was it chosen for us?

In terms of journalism/media, is it more about how readers and authors are hailing one another?

The internet is said to 'change things' - but what about technological divides?

I remember a time when the 'international herald tribune' by having its network of expatriates, international hotels, airline link ups have allowed them a greater presence even though the content providers were only and for a particular demographic. In that sense, they always wanted a wider audience, they always wanted to reach 'them' faster - exactly why they and others would use the internet as a tool.

I argue, that today, those particularities still exist.

News has for at least a hundred years been expanding only because there is always a large growing middle class who are passively taking in information without being able to challenge it. The growth justifies the substance of its actual prevalence.

Blogs in my opinion, and news, will continue to survive exactly because people have for a millenia (why most religions have survived) have wanted to know things exactly ebcause they don't want to know too much about it or do anything about it. That is the force, not simplistic conceptions of information's form.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home