Real-time Journalism
Intersting conversation amongst editor type folk on twitter tonight (until twitter crashed and ruined it) discussing the emergence of real-time reporting. Think it came about from a report on Apple buying Twitter which turned out to be utterly false.
So, is this change ruining journalism as we know it? Is the rush to report first going to shove factual news to the side? Meaning, here's the rumor, we'll fill the facts in later. Is the rise of the amatuer/citizen journalist killing off professional journalism?
I can see the problems here. Many websites are driven by traffic. The more hits they get, the more revenue generated. If you're the first to get info out on that big rumor, the notion is, people will flock there first, and then hopefully keep coming back. People's desire for instant information is going to power this form of hackneyed reporting. Is really more than just gossip if there's no verifiable backup to the claims? It's one thing to be first and be right, and of course, even the amatuers hope their scoop proves true, but psychology tells us, they don't have to be right all of the time to keep people coming back. Instant gratification is a powerful force. So is money.
The more I've considered this whole thing, the more I feel sorry for the professionals out there who want to provide the public with relevant, factual news. The face of journalism seems to be changing (in my uninformed opinion of course). At least in the traditional news world of print and television, credibility is a big issue. Screw up a story and it makes you look bad, and can ruin reputations. On the net, attention spans and memories are even shorter. There's more leeway for error. The hunger for instant information is more forgiving. Everyone wants to feel like they heard it first.
Even online though, you screw up enough and people will remember. Get your facts wrong too many times and people will direct their traffic somewhere else. It's going to be tough going for the pros I think. You can say, "Come to us for real, verifiable news." But you're going to have to come to terms with the 'we want it now' public, who isn't always so discerning about the facts. Not sure what you'd term this new ear of speed reporting. "High-risk journalism" maybe?
So, is this change ruining journalism as we know it? Is the rush to report first going to shove factual news to the side? Meaning, here's the rumor, we'll fill the facts in later. Is the rise of the amatuer/citizen journalist killing off professional journalism?
I can see the problems here. Many websites are driven by traffic. The more hits they get, the more revenue generated. If you're the first to get info out on that big rumor, the notion is, people will flock there first, and then hopefully keep coming back. People's desire for instant information is going to power this form of hackneyed reporting. Is really more than just gossip if there's no verifiable backup to the claims? It's one thing to be first and be right, and of course, even the amatuers hope their scoop proves true, but psychology tells us, they don't have to be right all of the time to keep people coming back. Instant gratification is a powerful force. So is money.
The more I've considered this whole thing, the more I feel sorry for the professionals out there who want to provide the public with relevant, factual news. The face of journalism seems to be changing (in my uninformed opinion of course). At least in the traditional news world of print and television, credibility is a big issue. Screw up a story and it makes you look bad, and can ruin reputations. On the net, attention spans and memories are even shorter. There's more leeway for error. The hunger for instant information is more forgiving. Everyone wants to feel like they heard it first.
Even online though, you screw up enough and people will remember. Get your facts wrong too many times and people will direct their traffic somewhere else. It's going to be tough going for the pros I think. You can say, "Come to us for real, verifiable news." But you're going to have to come to terms with the 'we want it now' public, who isn't always so discerning about the facts. Not sure what you'd term this new ear of speed reporting. "High-risk journalism" maybe?