Look Who's Reporting Now!

   In his book, "Here Comes Everybody", author Clay Shirky discusses the role of the scribe in early societies. Limited to the select few that could read and write, this role suddenly faced obsolescence in the early 1400s with the invention of the moveable type printing press. The role of journalists in modern society and the emergence of the Internet mirror that same event in history. Shirky expounds on this situation, citing that "anyone in the developed world can publish anything anytime, and the instant it is published, it is globally available and readily findable. If anyone can be a publisher, then anyone can be a journalist. If anyone can become a journalist, then journalistic privilege suddenly becomes a loophole too large to be borne by society."

   With this revolution of sharing user-generated content at hand, does this mean that anyone with a computer and a camera counts as a viable source of information? Clearly, in this age of WiFi, podcasts and blogs, we expect news to reach us at the same rate with which technology allows us to document and share that information. These days, traditional forms of media no longer act as our primary sources for news. Current events that are documented by the country's top broadsheets are reported faster and to a wider audience thanks to the tools that enable us to share and discuss these events with one another. For example, John McCain's choice to have Sarah Palin as his vice president candidate was widely discussed in the LA Times.

   While the link above demonstrates what is now being referred to as "legacy" media's competency in conveying a story, there are myriad paradigms and opinions of the same event that are readily available for no cost on the Internet. The same story can be found in several versions and expressing several opinions on the blog Politico.com.

   The immediacy and extensive reach of the Internet make it a very powerful tool when it comes to reporting, giving it some edge over legacy media. However, while I agree that the phenomenon of user-generated content is definitely changing journalism, I do not believe that it will render our profession obsolete. Despite the fact that we now have several programs enabling anyone (regardless of age, background and occupation) to record information and generate content based on that (which doesn't have to pass through the filters of traditional journalistic publications), it is not in our nature to simply accept everything we see or hear. New media may have legacy media beat in terms of the volume of consumers it can reach, but it doesn't mean that the information it conveys will be of the same caliber as what trained professionals and traditional media outlets can guarantee. To further illustrate this, take the story of Palin's candidacy. While there are credible sources online to report on this event, there are also those that will approach it in a manner that will not be taken so seriously, such as this blog, called Wonkette.com.

   This is a photo taken from that blog:

   The way I see it, Shirky's right; there's no way for us to ignore the Internet's effect on traditional news media. However, there's also no reason for journalists to panic. In the end, it's quality that will set us apart from your average opinionated blogger who's looking to get their two-cents in through a platform that may get them their fifteen seconds. Just because journalistic tools allow the public to mimic the work of a reporter doesn't mean they can replace us as professionals. It's true, the times have definitely changed, but with all the technology that's made available to us, I don't see any reason why we can't keep up.