We are Journalists

The statement that communication is arbitrary is applicable when referring to the term “journalism”, or the lifeblood of the news. You could consider a journalist as a person that regularly summarizes pertinent (and factual) information to the public in a professional manner. The word professional can have different meanings for different people, so there can be possible discrepancy between individual understanding of what a journalist is. “The Interaction Between Technologies and Society: Lessons Learnt From 160 Years of Online News Service” challenges preconceived notions of the term “online news” and supports the theory that demand of a digital characteristic will decide direction not technical feasibility.

There are a very small amount of technologically incapable people in our society that do not participate in the mutual the sharing of information. Albeit a lot of the information can be unimportant to 99% of the other contributors but there is also a substantial bulk of media, ideas, and publishing occurring that is pertinent, convincing, and free. The ease of distributing data today is remarkable, if a media file happens to stimulate the senses or contain desired information, there is no stopping a neural circuitry of distribution. This is a fairly recent ability, and media outlets that operate using traditional methods are in trouble because of it. This holds true for news. The struggle to stay above water is a losing battle for those not masterminds of multi-media, because those are the true deciders what will be seen and heard on this behemoth of an information network.

View more presentations fromjmudd12
Advertisements

About jmudd12

I grew up in San Diego, California and have been studying at UW-Seattle for the past few years. I am currently on the road to a profession relating to live music and viral marketing for artists, venues, and music distribution systems.

Posted on August 1, 2011, in Discussion Leader. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. We didn’t really get to finish our discussion about if we thought media would eventually become entirely online, and my argument was that it will. I think especially news because of the need for immediacy and the amount of online resources is becoming vast. Literally the only time I use the newspaper these days, is to look at the sports section, and even then I am just trying to see what sporting events will be playing on television. So for me personally, I have completely moved online for my news. I also liked the point you made about what makes a journalist, because I agree that the qualifications are pretty much non existent with blogs. I think the internet is changing a lot of norms for what we consider to be experts. For example, my presentation was about product reviews and “expert” reviewers, which turned out to mean anybody who reviewed a lot. The problem with major newspapers going down due to lack of readership though, is that it will become increasingly hard to find credible sources. Great presentation!

  2. Your presentation makes some interesting points.

    When I think of journalism I generally lean towards the incumbent news stations/providers. While I appreciate bloggers I find that I mostly go to them for technical news and reviews, or tutorials, etc. due to their generally more biased points of view.

    I often bash news outlets for their political leanings but they are at least generally known quantities. Blogs, on the other hand, are so numerous and often visited so infrequently that building up an idea of their bias level can be hard.

    When it becomes better to quickly parse many blogs for the same event they will find themselves much more heavily relied upon as their numerous nature makes them a much more powerful tool against the smaller numbered new outlets.

  3. I enjoyed how you took us through the development of journalism. Its always nice to get a background in a topic before discussing the present. Sadly, I no longer look at hard print newspapers or magazines for that matter. And I do think that although its sad to see something so important in our culture shift from hardcopy to online, its a part of phasing and evolution. We are still reading the same content but in a different medium. What I like about online journalism is that I can access it at any time anywhere. I can turn on my phone and get today’s highlights of the most important news globally. This helps me filter out all the news that I may not find important. The world is changing, and so is the way humans are deciding to live. I wonder what will be after online journalism!?

    Good job!!

  4. Will all news go digital in the next 40 years ? NO. In the next 10 years. Yeah! This online news thing is growing way beyond our imagination. Like you mentioned in your power point, in the past ten years, online news posts have grown tremendously. And we are seeing a handful of publications who abandoned the prints and went completely online, for example Seattle PI. So there are choices a news organization have to face. Lots of them chose to keep both for now. But what i am seeing is that, the demand is going to grow higher , and the need for people to see the actual people is declining, not disappearing though. So does the need for “professional journalist” is declining. “Citizen journalist” is the way to go. Everyone can be a journalist , no matter what ethnicity you are, where you live or what language you speak.

  5. While it can be difficult to determine if someone is a professional journalism or not now, I believe in time it will become easier and easier to define it within our culture. I believe the primary definition of a “professional” means they get paid to do what they do. Now this could be at a large organization that is well known in a city or state or country or even worldwide. An organization that reports the news in some fashion with the “professionals” getting paid to report it. Maybe another way we can define the word is by our peers…. this is just an idea of mine. Perhaps that someone is making money reporting some kind of “news” but when a group of that person’s peers are gathered… they don’t look to kindly on that person’s work. Maybe because it is poorly done. Perhaps this person is getting paid for their work but they are not considered “professional”. I think with this vast internet and the more and more “journalists” we have, the more screening we are going to be doing and making our own decisions as to who is professional and who is not. Otherwise, I think the meaning of the word will be lost with the only requirement to be a professional is to be making money.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: