DISQUS

Adriana · 1 year ago

All this is without a doubt true. I find it is a shame that soon the profession of "reporters' will no longer be valuable. I enjoy the news the conventional way as well as through blogs and twitter, etc. I with they could both survive, but sooner or later, as you said...one will die, and we know which one that will be. Thanks for the great article.

Jesse Stay · 1 year ago

Consequently, Twitterers are currently experiencing a Tornado in Plano, TX as this get published. We're seeing it first on Twitter: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=tornado

Hutch Carpenter · 1 year ago

These are good points about journalism Jesse. I think journalists are going to need to practice a juggling act the next ten years. Many, many people still read newspapers physical copies and online. I mean, they make Techmeme seem small.

But a growing, important part of the population is hungry for news served up faster and piecemeal (e.g. Twitter). This portion will grow over the next decade.

I'm a fan of the idea that reporters work social media into their daily work. These folks are hearing things, and tweeting, tumblring (?), FriendFeeding and blogging are all natural avenues for them to distribute the content the read and create.

This was a point I raised in A Promising Future for Newspapers (http://bit.ly/PmyP). I'm not convinced going super-local is the way for newspapers. I thinking streaming the information reporters are reading and learning during the course of the day - international, national, regional, local - is the basis for how newspapers maintain relevancy in the coming years. Along with solidly written and researched long form articles.

Ben Turner · 1 year ago

I think you need to be very clear about your terminology. Bloggers get out the word faster, yes, but "news reporters" will have more access to sources on-site because of the connection with their news agency.

"Journalists" (that is, people who write fairly in-depth reports on a topic) are still needed; the best of them are able to represent a story in a very understandable way that explains all of the sides to the issue. They have an understanding of what the underlying context of a story is that they find so important to write about.

I think it's silly to say that bloggers will drive those jobs away -- there are many things that bloggers can do (ambient awareness) but very few of them are trained or have the integrity to really make an important story make change for the better.

Ideally there should be a blend of both bloggers and journalists with high integrity. As for news reporters, until personal videocams become more commonplace, sending out a news truck is still not a bad way to report the news.

Jesse Stay · 1 year ago

Ben, the thing is, I'm not saying bloggers will drive those jobs away. I'm saying the average reader will drive the journalists a way. The way things are progressing, the average reader can simply get the news, straight from the source, from social media tools such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Qik, and others. We no longer need an intermediary. In the end, the readers just want the news, and now they can get it, even faster than a journalist can provide because it's happening real-time.

Ari Herzog · 1 year ago

Call me curious, Ben: How do you define an in-depth news story? Something that takes days to write and is truly investigative in nature, or something that takes hours to write in reaction to that day's events to run in the next day's newspaper?

The former is not dying; the latter is.

Piero Rivizzigno · 1 year ago

Louis,

I'm a very heavvy consumer of news through social media but still the quality of the content of the vast majority of the news published in those sites don't have the quality of many of the articles published in the NYT, ... Sometimes we tend to believe speed is everything, and in same case that statment holds, but many times speed is strictily related to shallowness.

april~living the sweet life · 1 year ago

Great post this is just what I have been telling everyone this week. If you want to know about something get on blogs. If you want to know about it even faster get on twitter. The people who are watching it happen have a cell phone and are on twitter tweeting it as it is happening before the news crew arrives. As I say to people when they ask about my blog it is quick writing and the great thing about it I can go back and edit if needed.

Scott Duehlmeier · 1 year ago

Really interesting, as one who works with the media on a daily basis, I have heard a few of them talking about the new trends with the news and how people are getting it. I have the pleasure of working with about 12 different media markets across the country, and I have seen TV stations and newspapers disappear, or get eaten up by others. Great article. Will pass this around the agency tomorrow.

Ari Herzog · 1 year ago

I have a TV. I pay $33 a month for a digital starter cable package, as part of a larger bundle including my internet service. I work out of my place, and it's rare to turn on the TV for anything but mindless entertainment or background noise. TV news? That lost me a while ago. I only watch TV news when I have Twitter and other news sources running simultaneously to see who knows more when.

Jandy · 1 year ago

As others have mentioned or hinted, there's a distinction between reporting news and writing in-depth analyses of news/events. Twitter is much better and faster at getting out the news that "hey, there's an earthquake right now in Los Angeles." But Twitter isn't going to be the source for stories like, say, the Watergate expose (sorry, watched All the President's Men recently). There's a place for both, and what old media journalists need to learn is not that they're being replaced, but that they need to focus on the longer-form, more investigative, more analytical stories that take days or weeks to write rather than basic event reporting - and they need to learn to use the new media tools, too. I think some bloggers have the ability to write those stories, too, especially within their specific vertical - I'm far from an old media apologist. Just pointing out that old media-style journalists shouldn't go away, just refocus.

Jesse Stay · 1 year ago

Jandy, you're right to an extent. However, as the world becomes more transparent, and more and more people are using these Social Media tools, it will become easier to detect scandals like that, and harder to commit them at the same time. It won't necessarily take a traditional journalist, unless the person is really good. We're not there yet, but I predict that happening as society becomes more transparent. We may still have a need, but it will be much, much less than it is now.

scott · 1 year ago

You will also have more scandals incorrectly reported by social media addicts craving for attention. Lives will be ruined just because someone that is looking to add more internet followers/friends wants to be first to report something to Twitter's echo chamber. There will also be tons of spam masquerading as news reports.

Jesse Stay · 1 year ago

Scott, as I mentioned in the article, the rumors will spread, but as fast as
rumors spread so will the facts. The advantage to social media is that
majority always rules - rumors always get corrected quickly, much faster
than with old media. It's just the downside you get with little editing. I
think people are willing to forgive that for the most part.

scott · 1 year ago

I don't at all believe there is the same incentive to submit retractions or that people will forgive and forget. The Mumbai tragedy demonstrated this. False rumors persisted for days. The lack of accountability is also a problem. I suspect the CNN iReporter episode where Steve Jobs was reported to be gravely ill which in turn depressed Apple's stock price will be commonplace if many people start seeing social media as a reliable news source. It's very difficult to prove if that individual was trying to manipulate the market but the FTC was very interested in pursuing legal action against him. In your vision for the future of news reporting there is just too much opportunity for maliciousness. I am convinced that this and the spam issue will turn people off to social media as a news source before a tipping point is reached.

lukobe · 12 months ago

"Majority rules" is also how you get urban legends, folk etymology, scaremongering chain letters, and the like. Don't get me wrong, a lot of what you have to say makes sense -- but I honestly don't see the world becoming more transparent, nor do I see the crowd completely taking over from professionals as far as in-depth investigative reporting goes.

Jesse Stay · 1 year ago

I just remembered something else. I used to work for Media General, owner of print and broadcast publications throughout the southeast. I worked in their Interactive Media division, the division which works to get the print and broadcast media online. While I was there, my boss was actually a former meteorologist, turned programmer. We're already seeing journalists and old media folk changing jobs to adapt. The smart ones will. This is also the reason News Corp bought Myspace I think. They realized they needed to be a content-enabler, not just producer. More and more of these companies will become technology companies, and not just content companies.

Guillaume Foutry · 1 year ago

Without being that radical this is more a generation gap than anything else, I mean I am sure that the vast majority of young journalists are using these tools. Old media will never disappear,they will evolve. Look at what happens in the US and in the rest of the world after the election day: everyone wanted a printed copy to keep it. Will be there in 20 years time, not sure delicious will survive two years.

Andrew H · 1 year ago

I really don't care if you call yourself a blogger or a journalist, or whatever. Whatever we call you or people like you isn't the issue. It's whether or not we'll someone will be fulfilling so many of the functions of journalism that we as a society have valued highly enough for at least 160 years to call journalism the Fourth Estate. Who calls the governor on his BS? Who sniffs out corruption by taking several months to pore over documents? Who identifies and gives voice to the voiceless? And who does so without fear or favor, all while sincerely trying to remain fair and balanced (when that actually meant something)?

If you're up for it, fine. But I happen to think that most bloggers aren't in it for public service. In my observation it's mostly an ego trip, or a project in self-promotion. Sure, I think many journalists are arrogant and out of touch. But I also think many bloggers are egotistical and couldn't care less about the public good. Yes you can find out about earthquakes and terrorist attacks before most people. And tech news too, maybe. But that's such a sorrily small part of what journalism is supposed to be.

So I'd suggest you take a moment and reflect on why it is you're doing what you're doing. Also, take a moment to think about the values that journalism is supposed to fulfill in an ideal world. Good journalism is a critical component of democratic civilization, and without it we'd be in big trouble. If you want to step up and claim the mantle of journalist, and all of the responsibilities that should ideally entail, by all means please do.

Eric Hamilton · 1 year ago

I think that the reporter's job function is going to change significantly over time, but I don't think the need for tv anchors and news program hosts is going away any time soon. They should certainly plug in and be a part of the conversation, but they need to realize, they are not just relays of news -- the demand for that function is going away quickly. Instead, they will be valued as personalities that can dissect news and share differing perspectives. I'm hoping for a rise in old-fashioned investigative journalism. In-depth news stories on topics that are really important.