To start off, this is my first actual post. And what better to kick off my introduction to the world of blogging than a lengthy consideration of print news’ similar situation.
But why am I, a Film and TV major, interested in the journalistic revolution that seems to be afoot? Why should anyone be interested? For one, some are worried that, in this necessary, if partial, transition from print media to this new-fangled contraption called ‘the internet,’ newspapers will be (and many already have been) left in the dust, and along with them something called “true investigative journalism.”
What’s the big deal? It’s not like the internet just popped out of the blue in 2005 taking the world by hostage, just like better constructed, more fuel efficient, cars produced by foreign car companies didn’t hop out from behind a bush in 2008. Both newsprint and automotive industries saw something coming years in advance, but chose to turn a blind eye, and what do they now have to show for it? Well, GM recently received 30+ Billion dollars, but that’s a whole other issue. The point is, like the the auto industry, newsprint failed to anticipate consumer market shit that has been occurring for the past couple decades. Unlike GM, however, they have not been deemed ‘too big to fail.’
In short, the industry didn’t plan ahead, and are now left scrambling to gain an audience (and somehow a profit) from their websites.
This presents a problem, or at least an issue. Cody Brown, of NYU Local, posted an interesting discussion of The New York Times (which is the only newspaper anyone seems to discuss these days), and the difficulties posed by its transition into the age of real-time journalism. Read it here .
Although Cody’s conclusion seems a little one-sided, I agreed that the issues he brought up had to be resolved somehow in order for the Times to succeed. The following is my response:
The New York Times, in the face of either changing or becoming extinct as the dinosaurs it apparently identifies with, seems to be developing a news blog.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/
The blog, although not yet far reaching, lately focuses on the Iran election controversy, something that requires real time coverage from scores of sources. And that’s exactly what they’re doing. Just as NYU Local adapted itself to the demand for information with the Kimmel occupation, so the New York Times has made the first steps to adapting to its readers.
This blog has given me new confidence in the Times and all it has to offer the 21st century. On top of using their journalistic prowess to analyze and process the goings on in real time, they’re also digging through the pile of information that is the internet for clues, citing unverified articles, correcting themselves where needed. In other words, doing basically what you said they wouldn’t do. By establishing this blog inside the Times website, they seem to have sidestepped, at least for the moment, your mandate that they shed their commitment to ‘packaged’ news.
This leads me to the overarching idea that the debates involving the future of news media, especially involving the internet, seem to glaze over: there is an audience for both packaged news and live news, speculative columns tied neatly in a bow as well as live, up the minute coverage, complete with hundreds upon hundreds of user comments.
I oppose the idea that the only way journalism, particularly the Times, can survive on the internet is to provide news stories that are ‘in process.’ The television equivalent would be watching CNN all day, everyday (in fact, it seems CNN is relying more and more in the internet, citing and reading Twitter and Facebook messages on the air), getting rid of shows like 60 Minutes, and other nightly news programs. (This brings up another set of issues entirely, so try to just look it as an metaphor rather than a direct comparison)
This limitless amount of pages and therefore news stories that blog sites have at their fingertips, just like the 24 hours CNN has as its, can be their greatest asset, but can often turn into the most crippling feature. Many think that more information is better, and in many ways it is, but it must be understood that not all of the world is an internet buff or a journalism major, and do not have hours to spend on the internet or the television searching for the latest on whatever happens to be going on at the time. The packaging Times articles undergo are not simply because there are a limited number of square inches on the page, but also a limited time and attention span of the reader.
Again, I am not arguing for or against either side, I am simply acknowledging that the Times tradition of packaging its content, and its trustworthiness is not its weakness, but its strength, and these things should not be compromised in order to become more like everything else on the internet. Adaptation is necessary, but not to the extent that you seem to be demanding. Their blog can, and I hope will, prove this. They can be both trustworthy and groundbreaking at two different levels, without either tarnishing its counterpart.
As it is in most debates, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Between instantaneous news and their credibility, the Times must strive for both in order to succeed.
He responded promptly, which can be read further down on the comments, starting with “@ Blake” (after all, they’re his words. You can read them on his site).
More thoughts on this subject to come.
Posted by Blake 
