Digital journalism has been an exciting innovation and an easy way to spread news quickly, connect you with multiple different sources, and use embedded links, photos and videos to sell a news story. However, it has become so main stream that the originality of it has become close to none. Journalist Michael Massing investigated this "new" type of news and examined the state of digital journalism today.
The first issue with digital journalism is that everything is borrowed. No one source writes strictly on their own, rather, they created small pieces of their own journalism to throw in the mix of someone else's work. We see this with the Huffington Post (HP)and the Associated Press (AP). While they have a contract to work together, Massing points out that nearly all of HP's work is borrowed or heavily influenced by the AP. This is a recurring problem for HP, as their company has had a long battle with creating its' own content and hiring credible journalists. A journalist used to writing for print though has a hard time transitioning to the creative spark it requires to write for an online publication. When your readership is lower, your ad sales must increase to make up for the lost money. Which can draw in readers, or turn them away depending on their taste. No one is safe from the ad beast, as bloggers and journalists alike are finding their work sidelined by a full page ad taking away from the quality of their work.
The second comes from using an upset to increase page views. If your writing is going to spread because of a disagreeable opinion, the views will surely sky rocket. Sure, this works for money, but if you're using journalism to cause harm and upset, is it really ethical? However, when done with good intentions, these critical sites can be a refreshing take on our democracy. If we are seeing the facts presented to us about injustice happening in our government, society and democracy, we can become more informed citizens. With the term "fake news" being thrown around when your opinion differs, it's important to understand the difference between a journalistic piece written with fact from an editorial. When you're able to read about things happening within our country and globally, that are not politically driven, you can expand your understanding and view point on an issue being discussed heavily across news sources. It takes one to be the leader. One news site to take the chance at creating a new "medium" of journalism for others to follow and gain leadership. This type of journalism was reflected by Politico . An editor took a chance and is reaping the great rewards.
With our news taking to the internet rather than the TV screen or even print newspaper, it's important to understand the legitimacy of the sources. The quality of writing is also important. Just because it's fun to look at, doesn't mean it's a credible source.
A prime example of a fun to read but not so credible source is Buzzfeed. Famous for it's articles related to young adults life full of links to amazon and animations to further the point, is this really journalism? Buzzfeed strives to compete with mainstream news sources and breaking down barriers. Their content, in my opinion, is definitly aimed toward a younger audience. Such as college aged students or people in a midlife crisis. To cut to the chase, if your main source of news is Buzzfeed, you may want to fact check your "news." This isn't to discredit them, rather, it is to create an informed consumer. With journalists claiming to uphold the practice of investigative and critical journalism within Buzzfeed, pressure and disapproval from other sites has caused them to take down these exact types of articles.
We see these types of "news sources" sky rocket to fame then come plummiting back to earth when someone questions their coverage and legitimacy. Is it just a matter of time before these become strictly opinion based websites, or at least referred to as so?
If there's one thing the internet is not lacking in 2018, it's opinion based websites. Ranging from blogs to sites considering themselves news, to YouTube channels such as "Think Tank" discussing various hot topics in the news, they are nothing more than opinion. These sites support themselves mainly from ad sales or dedicated readers who share the opinion of the piece. We saw this phenomenon come to light during the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton with Facebook reportedly showing users news catered strictly to their ideology rather than giving them a broad political viewpoint. "The [comments] sections became clogged with insults, slurs, and partisan attacks posted by trolls hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet, and more and more news organizations have decided to either rigorously vet them or drop them altogether." This has also aided in sharing view points. We see a friend criticize a news story and piggy back by adding to the insult. The journalist behind the screen is aiming to provide a fair and unbiased story, or should be, yet we forget that they are feeling people just like us.
It is this quick to jump on board tactic that creates the "fake news" phenomenon. We see internet campaigns go viral within hours without fact checking or truly understanding the background of the issue. But if we agree with the viewpoint, all it takes is a single view, share, or retweet to spread the message and create a trending topic. Massing notes "for every such constructive example, however, there are many troubling ones. In one of the most notorious, the Boston marathon bombing set off a wave of inaccurate and outrightly false tweets that spread misinformation about the hunt for the two brothers and much more. (Some traditional news outlets were similarly guilty.)"
I agree with Massing that the state of digital journalism is sort of in limbo. While the idea of digital journalism is fantastic, spreading messages quickly and having updates of major events buzz on our phones, there is a lack of credibility. There are sites that are trust worthy and you can trust, but how can you tell them apart from a primarily opinion based site? After all, if we see an opinion we agree with, we tend to take it as fact. Print journalists spend hours hunting down facts, interviewing and fact checking their work before sending it to an editor. It's not to say that print media has no bias or opinion in it. But it's easier to google something you're unsure of and take the first source as credible. It's similar to doing a research paper for a college class, you wouldn't use Wikipedia as your main source for the unbias and overall truth, but it can give you an idea of the issue at hand and provide incite in where to go next.
As Massing explains, "when it comes to actual journalistic practice, however, it’s the media startups that in general seem the laggards." Citizen journalism is especially important in our current media platform, with anyone having the ability to be a "journalist" at the tips of their fingers. However, mainstream media networks often triumph the work of individuals. A google search of a major event will bring up many of the top news sources, with an independent blog covering the same topic being two or three pages into the search.
Comments
Post a Comment