Introduction
There is a disturbing trend when it comes to impact of the rapid development of new technology. The result is “new media” the likes of which the world has never seen and has prompted journalists, thinkers, political leaders, and the elderly to be overly concerned that in the near future the science and art of journalism will be lost.
This is based on the assumption that “new media” is shallow, divisive, and unreliable. However, based on the history of journalism in this country, it is better to learn to love the “new media rather than to go against it. Critics should reconsider their stance because it something that is “free” does not necessarily means that it has no value.
The challenge to traditional journalism ideals in this country was brought about by the rapid development of information technology. It used to be that the Internet was good for increasing interconnectedness. Communication was the obvious blessing that was the by-product of the Internet. But when bloggers, website developers, freelance writers, and other non-traditional media competitors began to proliferate in cyberspace they began to change the rules of the game.
In the past the providers of content are reporters, writers, editors, and publishers. It was a hierarchical world where everyone is expected to know their place and do their work based on their designated jobs. The reporters were expected to aggressive always prowling the streets, public places, the suburbs, and even rural areas to gather news information.
The information is passed on the supply chain until it reaches the editor and when the go signal is given to publish the information is printed on paper. All the while the publisher’s practiced eye takes everything in and acted as a watchdog for the whole process. People who bought the newspapers are aware where the news is coming from and if they need to react to the news then they know where to go and what to do. The same thing cannot be said of “new media” because many are unsure how information is processed and published.
Shallow, Divisive and Unreliable
Critics of the “new media” argued that “the shift toward a more market-minded, profit-driven journalism was both irreversible and destructive” (Fallows, p.1). The best example of this new phenomenon is Nick Denton, the CEO of Gawker Media.
The company specializes in the creation of websites that delivers information for free to everyone that has an Internet access. Since readers and subscribers need not pay for anything to access content this made defenders of traditional media to exclaim that it is shallow, divisive and unreliable.
The argument is based on the idea that since everyone can contribute then there is no check and balances in place to determine if the accuracy and reliability of the content has passed a certain standard. This view was summarized in the following statement: “we are no longer a national audience receiving news from a handful of trusted gatekeepers; we’re now a million or more clusters of consumers, harvesting information from like-minded providers” (Fallows, p.1).
There seems to be an unspoken rule that the consumers of news information are not supposed to be able to provide the news. These things are left to professionals.
If the unfair accusation that bloggers and freelance writers are not as dedicated and not as proficient as writers from The New York Times and The Washington Post is not insulting enough there is the added charge that the information released from websites and blogs have very little value.
This conclusion is derived form the understanding that the core of the content seems to focus on gossip and topics that belongs to the lifestyle and entertainment page of a national daily.
Embracing the New
It has to be clarified tha the criticism against “new media” is not entirely based on unbiased and objective reporting. Consider for instance that Nick Denton is not an uneducated person who happened to be computer illiterate. The credentials of Nick Denton is comparable to any respected reporter of a major newspaper publication. It does not automatically mean that if a person blogs or writes for a website, his or her ability is not at par with other writers.
A major bone of contention is the use of unethical practices such as giving money to sources. There are also those who oppose that owners of these websites are not unaware of the unspoken rules of journalism they also bend the rules. At the same time they are happy to print shallow material. There is an obsession about sex and scandals that involve a person in a compromising position. Critics said that the only purpose is to make money.
Those who disagree with critics point to historical records and these are newspapers and magazines published in the so-called golden age of American journalism. In so doing people would be surprised to discover that what has been done by “new media” is already old news for traditional reporters and publishers.
It does not take great effort to substantiate the claim that even in the old days reporters pay their sources. In the past reporters are more than willing to pay for information or an exclusive interview.
In addition, the old guards of traditional journalism cannot claim to be better than the writers of “new media” because even in the past, publishers are aware that gossip and sex scandal sell more newspapers than an article about the national budget.
This is the reason why critics should have an open mind regarding the new. It can even be said that digital media has gone through the same process as print media. It is not immune to excess and abuse but there is a way to make it better. There are many who are saying that “new media” is the savior of journalism and by embracing comes the possibility of reviving what was old and dead.
This has prompted some thinkers to conclude that “new media” has proven its worth in the past especially when it comes to global events and issues that are beyond the reach of local news and citing an example they wrote: “A major event in world history was covered more quickly, with more nuance, involving a greater range of voices and critical perspectives, than would have been conceivable even a few years ago” (Fallows, p.1). It is time to embrace the new and respect the old.
Conclusion
The criticism levelled against “new media” is based on the assumption that if something is free the it is not as valuable as something that has to be purchased with a price. It is also based on the secondary assumption that providers of information coming from websites and blogs are incompetent people.
And finally there are those who said that providers of “new media” use unethical practices to obtain information. However, an overview of the history of journalism in this country reveals that reporters in the past used the same tactics. It can also be argued that “free” does not mean that it has no value.
Work Cited
Fallows, James. “Learning to Love the (Shallow, Divisive, Unreliable) New Media.” The Atlantic Monthly Group. 2011. Web.