Ok, I should have immediately noted the date, but didn't and wrote a long rebuttal before I realized the article was three years old. But...since I put in the effort, I'll go ahead and set it out. Points are still valid.
10 Reasons There's a Bright Future for Journalism by Mark Glaser, June 28, 2007
My comment:
1. More access to journalism worldwide. Yes, and Google's translation service will make the amount available of that news far greater. But with let's say 10s of thousands more pieces become available even within one country, how will one lonely person sift through ALL of it? Google page count may be one way, but if you're looking beyond the "popular" i.e., chosen by many then you need a filter which can at least point out the reliable from the not. Who will provide that filter?
2. I don't think news publishers nor journalists ever thought that "we have all the answers here." Normally journalists deal with one very targeted topic, event, situation, person and report on that as a breaking story, normal story, feature, investigative piece.
The loyalty or esteem given that publishing org is largely based on a client's (reader, listener, watcher) perception of the quality of that targeted news. PLUS more and more these days loyalty is to those who comment on the news bloggers and paid columnists who obviously are largely fed on "news" generated in part from their own contacts, but much more so from news publishers.
THEY are the ones who have to earn revenue to pay for journalists' expenses:
• time spent on the story
• train or plane tickets
• cab fare or rent-a-car bills
• 3 meals a day per diem
• hotel bills
• phone bills
• perhaps a lunch here and there for a source
All above only to say aggregation of other news outlets on a publishers' site is NOT journalism. Please. It may be a way of attracting clicks, but I repeat, it is NOT journalism.
3. Sorry to repeat: what's being described is "distribution" of news stories unbound, not "journalism."
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed.
6. Right. People who used to write letters to the editors, now have a plethora of places where they can express themselves. While there are "more outsiders and experts exerting influence over the news agenda," there's also a concentration of political views now focused on distorting, exaggerating, and above all drawing attention that is also a "concentrated agenda=setting power" radicalizing political discourse away from "truth."
7.Where are these "conflicts of interest" being published? Haven't seen them.
8. Again, if that happens, will that de-concentration and revenue "spread out to smaller independent sites" make it possible to fund credible ongoing nationwide or statewide investigations of government actions?
9. Agree on environmental concern. But...choosing online over print means millions of people with limited incomes unable to buy a personal computer will be forced to depend only on TV and radio for news, a considerable shrinking of their ability to be informed voters, the raison d'etre of press freedom. Here in Peru at least people in urban areas, even small commercial villages, can go to public computer use stores for around 60¢ at least once a week if they wish.
10. Point taken about followups...should be a lot more.
============
No comments:
Post a Comment