"Indeed, across the country newspapers have suffered enormous financial losses over the past decade, with far fewer professionals today covering the news locally, nationally and internationally as a result of the industry's contraction.
The factors behind this shrinkage are sadly familiar: The rise of the Internet has produced sharp declines in traditional advertising revenues in the printed press. Free online advertising competitors such as Craigslist.com have sharply undermined classified advertising as a traditional source of revenue. While many newspapers have attempted mightily to forge a presence on the Web -- including The Chronicle, whose terrific sfgate.com is among the top 10 most trafficked news sites in America -- revenue from online advertising is paltry compared to that from traditional print sources. As a result, newspapers such as The Chronicle must make staff cuts to survive -- and increasingly it is highly skilled professional journalists committed to seeking the truth and reporting it, independently and without fear or favor, who must go.
The average citizen may not realize how severely the public's access to important news, gathered according to high standards, may be threatened by these bottom line trade-offs."
It's been made painfully evident in the business model of legacy journalism that the self-publishing, expenditure-free "new kid" is not only here to stay, it's also winning the popularity contest, and not just with the consumers' votes. Even the advertisers prefer it. However, this raises several concerns regarding the credibility of the Internet as a source for news, especially since it acts as an enabler for absolutely anyone to voice their opinions on the issues that plague our world. The blogosphere has given rise to the emergence of the public as a viable source, turning a former audience into a multitude of content-creators. Traditionalists are worried that this new media will taint the professionalism of the industry. Newspapers are losing money and laying off journalists as more and more people abandon the printed page for the world wide web.
"Davies outlines the areas in which journalism is becoming 'churnalism', a sausage factory, churning out pre-packaged 'news', most of which has been hastily reproduced from the wires and is often badly checked, the thinly-veiled work of PR, or just plain wrong."
The End of Journalism? is an online forum wherein citizens and reporters alike can discuss their concerns about the future of journalism. In one of his posts, the site's editor, Rob D, writes about Nick Davies' book, Flat Earth News:
It is understandable as to why those with a background in traditional journalism are wrinkling their brows at bloggers. Since the Internet has become a darling of free speech, heralds are quickly being replaced by soapboxers. The rise of these citizen journalists has brought about a new trend of transparency in reporting. The old-school notions of neutrality and objectivity that strictly characterized journalism before have now taken a backseat to the the biases clearly outlined in new media.
While it's quite evident that a migration is in order for those in legacy media, the question to ask now is whether or not this assimilation should also require them to abandon their principles when it comes to reporting. Should professional reporters step over that line in the sand and make a shift from neutrality to transparency? Should there even be a line to begin with?
In his article, "Bloggers vs Journalists is Over", Jay Rosen writes:
"If my terms make sense, and professional journalism has entered a period of declining sovereignty in news, politics and the provision of facts to public debate, this does not have to mean declining influence or reputation. It does not mean that prospects for the public service press are suddenly dim. It does, however, mean that the old political contract between news providers and news consumers will give way to something different, founded on what Curley correctly called a new "balance of power."
Personally, I believe that the egress of citizen journalists poses no threat to the profession. In my opinion, semi-pro journalism can be credible despite transparencies, provided it operates within the same professional framework as traditional journalism. Reporters can present their partialities in a very professional manner, although I would much rather derive my own opinion off an article that states "just the facts". I think neutrality and transparency can co-exist, in fact they should, because this juxtaposition will give the audience more to consider when they read about current issues. Instead of presenting no side or only one side to a story, why not show someone every side? However they choose to formulate their opinion after that will be up to them. That's a start, isn't it?
By Tara Graham
September 7, 2008 12:30 PM
You write:
"Instead of presenting no side or only one side to a story, why not show someone every side?"
On the topic of semi-pro journalism, you present a very valid point. We've been told, time and time again, that neutrality is best. But then, why does every newspaper feature an op-ed page? The op-ed page presents a specific view on a given matter and argues accordingly. Readers don't want to be told what to think, but sometimes, it's nice to hear why certain people side with certain positions.
I think there is a place in this world for bloggers and I see neutral journalists as the referees in the overall game. (Hence, semi-pro journalism.) Isn't this the long-standing model for sporting events? The fact of the matter is: Politics is a sporting event. So this new model may end up serving us all just fine.
By Tara Graham
September 7, 2008 1:01 PM
You write:
"Instead of presenting no side or only one side to a story, why not show someone every side?"
On the topic of semi-pro journalism, you present a very valid point. We've been told, time and time again, that neutrality is best. But then, why does every newspaper feature an op-ed page? The op-ed page presents a specific view on a given matter and argues accordingly. Readers don't want to be told what to think, but sometimes, it's nice to hear why certain people side with certain positions.
I think there is a place in this world for bloggers and I see neutral journalists as the referees in the overall game. (Hence, semi-pro journalism.) Isn't this the long-standing model for sporting events? The fact of the matter is: Politics is a sporting event. So this new model may end up serving us all just fine.