Over the past century technology has become more and more advanced creating a faster connection for not only our internet speed, but our means of communication. Word travels in seconds instead of minutes or days and with developments of camera phones and other technology gives people the capability to provide a visual picture or video to go along with it.
In Dan Gillmor's book We The Media he explains how these advancements have not only created a faster pace world, but has also made everyday people journalists as well. With the click of a button anyone can share their opinions by creating a blog, or commenting on someone elses blog. Word gets out fast, and if it isn't true, or has offended anyone in anyway, it will be known. As Gillmor states " modern communications have become history's greatest soapbox, gossip factory, and, in a very real sense, spreader of genuine news." This means that although there is a lot of talk going on, much of it may just be gossip however with so many voices out there the truths come out a lot faster than they used to.
As for the effects on the world of journalism, competition is at its best. Anyone with a camera and an internet connection is now a journalist making it that much harder for true, trained journalists to break new stories. For the public however, this I believe, is a good thing because journalists are being forced more and more to to put out honest information. Although the story may not be broken for the first time, established journalists are the ones who should (keyword) be the most trustworthy. Instead of beating the peanut gallery journalists now a days should be more concerned with getting the facts straight. Otherwise if they don't someone will certainly let them know they've got it wrong. In addition, to the effects on the journalistic scene, this gossip factory as Gillmor calls it also provides a constant source of leads for journalists. For example, Gillmor states a story in his book from September 2002 when Microsoft advertises a campaign called "Mac to PC: Mission Accomplished, Convert Thrilled" there were some phoney problems with the website and consumers caught hold of it and let them have it. The consumers brought out a truth which establishes a source for true journalists to grab hold of and inform the rest of the public.
So to finally answer if this change and evolution is for the good? I personally would say yes. It can bring out honesty, while enable people to voice their own opinions. We have freedom of speech in our constitution for a reason and the internet has made it that much easy for people to be heard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
With the emergence and proliferation of blogs, I wonder if the people formerly known as the audience are starting to read blogs and all things more critically with a more skeptical eye. I have to think that is but one more good byproduct of this revolution.
The reason print journalism is so important is because it goes through several pairs of eyes before it is printed which ensures it will be well written and accurate. The reason bloggers are bad for the world of journalism is they take themselves so seriously and consider themselves on the same level as trained writers. One has to pay their dues to become a good and responsible reporter. Bloggers never do this.
Good point about blogs bringing out honesty in real journalism. The industry already has infamous liars, like Stephen Glass who made up 27 stories, so the more things there are to keep facts in check, the bettter.
Journalists really do have it much harder these days. Now their objective is to use the tools their education and resources their employer provides to get a leg up on the competition. You present a cool concept by comparing the blogosphere to glorified gossip. I hope that gossip doesn't account for the downfall of tangible journalism.
Would you agree that people themselves are a vital force in the media, required to ensure the success of journalists? If there are no people contributing, there will be no people in the audience to support the facts and reports of the true journalists. Citizens should both read and contribute in order to facilitate the smooth workings of the journalistic market. It's all checks and balances. Does that make sense?
New to the world of blogging, how might one tell if one is a "professional" blogger - paid by a major corporation - versus a "public service" blogger - one of the general public with a computer and possibly a camera?
What different interest groups participate in the bloggersphere and to what end? Simply curious.
Post a Comment