Technology & Journalism, Pt 2

So what is technology currently doing with, for, or to journalism? It depends on how you look at it. Some think print’s death is inevitable, and others think that old and new media should work together. This first topic of citizen journalism could be and probably already is the topic of a plethora of books. Citizen journalism can be a multitude of things, but for this presentation I will mainly refer to it as blogs – a Weblog – where people essentially write down whatever they want, fact or fiction.

Andrew Keen describes his problems with the advent of Web 2.0 and its use of amateur voices throughout his book, The Cult of the Amateur. Specifically, Keen calls citizen journalism “journalism by nonjournalists” because of its creators’ lack of formal education and expertise. “The simple ownership of a computer and an Internet connection doesn't transform one into a serious journalist any more than having access to a kitchen makes one into a serious cook,” he says.

Besides that, we can’t be sure if what we see or read on a blog (among other things) is the truth. When Hurricane Katrina struck Louisiana, initial reports came through on blogs and helped spread rumors. Keen argues that citizen journalists don’t have the resources professionals do.

On the flipside, he quotes Dan Gillmor, a champion of citizen journalism, who says that if a blogger reports the wrong info, other users will jump to comment telling him or her that the information is incorrect. Cori Faklaris of the Indianapolis Star provided very useful starting points for this entire project. Of blogs, she said:

“People complain quite rightly that most blogs are partisan, poorly sourced and unprofessional. Really though, it's not any different from what journalism was back in the 1700s… Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin were publishing rags so full of innuendo and non-truths that the New York Post and the National Enquirer would have been horrified, if they had existed at the same time.”

Keen quoted a Pew study, saying that 34% of bloggers – over four million people – considered their work a form of journalism. He argues that website owners aren’t held liable for their content like newspaper editors are. “In America, bloggers don't go to jail for their work. That's the difference between professionals and amateurs. It's as if libel law has taken a brief vacation so that citizen journalists can get their feet wet,” said Al Saracevic, deputy business editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, in an interview with Keen.

Henry Jenkins, MIT professor and author of Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, is behind blogs. Jenkins likes the fact that content producers can pool information and grassroots expertise. People can debate evidence and challenge one another’s assumptions. Jenkins also argues that bloggers make no claim to objectivity and that some are even “unapologetically partisan,” an argument Keen leaves out.

Bloggers say mainstream journalism is unreliable because it trivializes politics and makes issues sound easier than they really are. Jenkins credits both traditional media and new media with a trade of information – the professionals get ideas from bloggers, and bloggers link to professional reports. But why? “The old media are becoming faster, more transparent, more interactive - not because they want to be, but because they have to be,” says Jenkins.

Blogs aren’t the only trend sweeping through journalism today. Twitter is a microblogging system, allowing users to “tweet” a thought or idea for 140 characters or less. Often times, Twitter users post a link to another site for users to visit. When people ask me what Twitter is, I tell them it is essentially Facebook’s status feature. One might ask, “well, how can a journalist use Twitter?”

A site called ReadWriteWeb talked about the positives and the hurdles Twitter has to offer. First, Twitter is fast. With the aid of a laptop or mobile phone, reporters can tweet in near real-time to what is happening at the scene. Twitter was the first place users posted about the earthquakes in Japan and China, and users tweeted about one in Mexico even before the USGS registered it.

Like blogs, Twitter allows for two-way communication. In the scope of time, Twitter updates can occur in minutes or seconds because of its character limit. Blogs, a little more thought out, can take hours. And traditional media, like TV and newspapers, can take a whole day.

Twitter also has played host to interviews – a form of reporting called a Twitterview or a Twinterview. ABC’s George Stephanpoulos conducted an interview with John McCain solely through Twitter on Tuesday, March 17. The exchanges weren’t as long-winded as they were in front of a live audience on the campaign trail because of Twitter’s 140-character limit, but McCain got his points across in an easy-to-read format. On March 19, the Chicago Tribune changed its masthead names to Twitter usernames. For example, @twhunter was listed as the publisher, @GerryKern was the editor, and so on.

Twitter is not without its faults. Anybody following more than a few users can see how many tweets come in at once. Third-party software filters these a little better, but I have yet to experiment with one. So many tweets at once can become muddled and out of context as there are no threads.

Plus, it’s just plain hard to find people. There is no unified search method like there is on MySpace and Facebook. A lot has been talked about with a Twitter search, but nothing has come about as of this writing. In the last week or so, there has been some buzz about Twitter adding paid accounts, but there is no official word on that either.

The focus here is on blogs and Twitter instead of general news websites because not everybody has adopted them yet. But totally leaving news sites out of this presentation is hiding part of the story. The American Journalism Review at one time had reported nearly 5,000 newspaper sites, a number that has surely risen. In 2002 almost half of the top 20 news sites were newspaper sites. By going online, newspaper sites found themselves in direct competition for the first time with broadcast and cable news. But, newspapers now have the opportunity for their website to scoop their print edition. In 1999, 58% of papers said they wouldn’t let this happen. As of a few years ago, only 45% said they wouldn’t.

Those who start a news site have reduced the amount of capital in starting a newspaper – no printing press, no distribution, no real estate, and so on. While the cost is low to start, Pavlik and McIntosh make sure to note that the cost of producing quality content is still high. And many online media outlets have a backer, like MSNBC. Regardless, the online audience is much more active and has many more choices for content than in previous years.