As a journalism major seeking a job in a little over a year, this article made me excited, rather than scared, for all the changes in the industry. The final quote especially emphasizes the point that, in the end, these changes may simply represent growing pains toward a journalism that is more transparent, engaging and helpful for the modern world.
This is not the first time newspapers have morphed in response to new technology--Al Neuharth created USA Today in 1982 to be a newspaper that would appeal to a generation brought up on television--which meant less words and more pictures. Neuharth apparently recognized what the public wanted, because according to a study conducted by US News Wire, it is the most widely read newspaper in the United States. Newspapers need to reformat again however--to deliver content to an America that spends so much of its time online.
The journalism industry must change not only to make money and survive but also to serve the needs of the public. Journalists serve the public by gathering information and presenting it in a truthful way, but if the citizens are not receiving that information, then reporters are not fulfilling a component of their job. The Casualties of War piece is a great example of telling a story in a different format that is more meaningful for readers. The ability to search for soldiers in a specific town gives the information a local lens. The presentation--overwhelming the viewer with image after image of the deceased--builds an emotional bond between the paper and the reader. The website could post an article on all the lives lost with numbers and quotes, but it would not have the same impact.
The internet age means editors have more ways to tell a story, but oftentimes, a text article will suffice as long as it is bolstered with links and sidebars to other resources. I like that the NYT has begun posting raw documents related to articles for readers to scour themselves. This reminds me of wikileaks.org but with credibility (albeit less freedom). Although everyone has a multitude of sources on the web for information, the NYT is still relevant because they are trusted and respected. If advertisers cannot sustain news organizations anymore, I do not think that is a bad thing. Maybe we can come up with a way to fund the media without being controlled by other business interests.
Amen Rhiannon! Your last sentence really hit home. I propose a model adopted by the Poynter Institute in Tampa. They run the St. Petersburg Times as a nonprofit publication. Of course, they still sell advertising and take subscriptions to pay their staffers, but they are not concerned with turning a profit.
ReplyDeleteYour examples highlight how traditional media can reshape itself to connect with the new American public. However, the problem lies within advertising. Companies just haven't figured out how to turn a profit on the Internet. Which brings us back to your final point.
Great post! I enjoyed reading.