I'm in Knoxville, TN (my hometown) this week for Thanksgiving, and I tracked down two stories with similar undertones. The way of the traditional media is fading fast. Writer's note: this post is a little dubious since I'm writing it on a blog, after all.
This first story from the Knoxville News-Sentinel mentions how many local television and print media outlets have had to lay off folks in the past several weeks due to the down economy.
This second essay is from Time Magazine and tracks how blogs and constant media updates shaped the Presidential election season. Essentially, blogs are making traditional reporting obsolete.
...[W]hile an article a day used to be a typical reporter's quota (or in the leisurely precincts of newsmagazines, an article a week), reporters are now expected to blog 24/7 as well. Not only that, they must perpetually update their stories, as in the old days of multiple newspaper editions. And they may well be handed a voice recorder and/or webcam and told to file audio and video too. Meanwhile, they are glancing over their shoulder and awaiting the Grim Reaper from HR with word of the latest round of layoffs.
So, traditional media is getting fired and blogs are filling the gaps and causing the downsizing in the first place. This is an interesting phenomenon, and one I don't necessarily like.
As a Christian and [at least I hope] a thoughtful human being, I truly care about truth. And truth is what is at stake in this phenomenon. Traditional journalism has a code of ethics and a general way about handling major stories with responsibility. Despite the biases of print journalism, it is generally of a higher quality of reporting and opining. I make no defense for television journalism, however (except for maybe 60 Minutes). Print journalism is supposed to care about the truth. Furthermore, the role of the newspaper disseminates better information than does television or blogs. One is not forced to chase link after link, but can handle all the information at one's fingertips. Newspapers are more thorough, accessible, and less image-heavy than the internet or the television. And unfortunately, the television and the internet generally have the presence of images without commentary so the images speak to their own truth (which is the essence of losing truth in the first place).
On the other hand, the proliferation of blogs has its positives. Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit (see blog column on the left), wrote a book about the idea that blogs can take down traditional media by sharing the load amonst the little people (see An Army of Davids). Blogs are a watchdog of the traditional media, calling out its biases and reporting on the reporting. They do, however, break stories first often with misinformation because they have no journalistic standards. Rumors abound on the internet.
In sum, there are both positives and negatives to this movement, but in all I lament the decline of traditional journalism. There's something romantic and honorable about uncovering the truth. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I think it's hard to find good TV journalism anymore. The one I watch is News Hour on PBS, it's the best journalism hands down I've seen on any sort of medium. The interviewing is incredible, they bring in academic types as well as people "in the field" to discuss issues. They often have stories that you just won't find on any other station. I don't care about Britney Spears, I care about the good and the bad in the world and contemplating where God is at in that.
I agree that video clips can show some sort of bias or sound bites or what have you. But at the same time there is something powerful about seeing the faces of the people that the stories are about. It's one thing to hear or read about a Zimbabwean disease epidemic. But it's entirely another thing to SEE the faces and the lives that are affected. Especially as Christians we can't become disconnected from the realities of pain and suffering in the world so much so that reading about travesty in a newspaper takes away the reality of the situation and the lives that are affected.
I agree totally Daniel, but I think our over-exposure to images also leaves us desensitized to frail human images of war and disease. Images are powerful, but can lose their effectiveness with constant exposure. I suppose the same argument is made for violent video games: they desensitize humans to violence when we are supposed to be disgusted by it.
Good point. So where is the line drawn between the need for exposure to reality and overtness?
Post a Comment