One of the hottest topics going around media-town these days is the future of publishing. The ways in which we seek and receive information is galloping ahead with phenomenal speed, matched only by the changing face of the mediums through which we consume it.
Backyard barbecues and blogs alike are full of the prophesising of people in the industry, wondering just what lies ahead for those who create, and those who publish media content.
With media powerhouses such as the New York Times charging for access to its online content, the journalistic twitterati have been all aflutter with the certainty of their industry’s demise; the predictions vary from excitement at the opportunities new media presents, and concern at whether this will mean the end of quality journalism.
After all, why pay a regular member of staff to research a story over time when chances are there is someone out there who at least knows a bit about what is going on, and willing is to say so for free? Especially when detail becomes less of a concern for audiences who can only take in bite sized sound bites. Isn’t this all our shrinking attention spans can cope with anyway?
When immediacy counts above everything else, the people who bring us news have less time to check the facts, to edit their work, and to seek informed opinions from all sides. More and more news broadcasters are relying on ‘eye witness’ accounts, voices right in the thick of it, and we are all invited to SMS news and submit amateur video footage and photographs to news outlets who will happily add our perspectives into the mix of a breaking story. All this sure does sound like the end of quality information. Or does it?
As the wave of change has torn through the world of journalism as a whole, and news in particular, there has also been a significant change in the means available to people who want their news, and want it from all perspectives.
Publishing, meet the era of aggregation.
We’re entering an age where people seek news all right, but they seek it from a range of sources, with a range of perspectives, often delivered to them in the one place. Google Fast Flip, Crikey, and The National Times are all examples of aggregation in action.
For our fast-paced, constantly connected lifestyles, scanning the headlines of all the major news outlets in Australia, for example, is a piece of cake. If that’s not enough, there is Google Fast Flip which captures pages of online content from international news giants like New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, and displays them alongside stories by Cosmopolitan, The Daily Beast, Seventeen and The Smithsonian. If you want something more personalized, Google Reader is your friend. All this even before the much anticipated iPad hits Austalia.
This aggregation of media sources does more than make it easier for us to find news; they allow us to read about the same topics across a range of publications. Rather than longer, in-depth pieces that tell the whole story, it is often now up to the reader to build the whole story themselves, building ‘the truth’ from the range of opinions on offer.
Where does this leave the people who create the content?
It’s nice to hear someone else’s sentiments on this issue but I think your story suffered from your own lead; it just scratching the surface of a really big topic.
For me, as someone who is and has been interested in carving out a professional career as a journalist for some time now, I feel confident in saying that it’s becoming a harder industry to crack. In the past ten years the industry has literally burst at the seams and evolved, from what once was a revered and skilled profession, to an open platform for anyone who can string two words together (and even those who can’t). As a result the value, appreciation and quality of the mass-consumed word has declined quite rapidly via, as you stated, the dumbing down and thinning out of the lead.
That said, I think that the industry is still in a mode of transition and in another ten years the line between amateur and professional journalism we be more clearly defined. The hard thing for me, however, is that I just don’t have ten years to waste on a hunch. Although my dreams of becoming a journalist still burn as brightly as ever, the toll that Web 2.0 has taken makes for a bigger scramble for the ever-decreasing number of jobs that the industry can support. What this means for me and many people in a similar situation is that, through the need of career stability, writing will likely be delegated to a hobby, and that makes me no better than a ten year old with a Twitter account.
A great article!
Hi Marc,
Thanks for your comments. While I absolutely agree with you that the journalism industry is in a mode of transition, just as all traditional media is, I disagree that journalists will be pushed to the margins, left to create their work in their spare time only. In fact, I’m pretty optimistic about the industry, because in this era of aggregation, there are so many voices and sources out there, and so many people are accessing these different sources. And all of these sources need information to come from somewhere, or someone.
If you think of journalism as worker goes to office, walks the beat, types story, submits story, goes home, wakes up to see story in print, goes to office…then yes, I agree, those days are gone. But if you mean quality news sourcing is dying, then I disagree. But I do think it’s about finding (or better yet, creating) your niche. Which will take work, and it will mean mastering new technologies, and it will probably mean saying goodbye to receiving a predictable paycheck. All of which can be scary. I don’t think ‘change’ and ‘scary’ mean dead, just different.