Andrew on bloggers, etc.
OK, so I'll try to fit this in before we leave for the Powerhouse Museum. Let's see how it goes...
I enjoyed our discussion about the role of bloggers versus the institutional media today. I think it's naive of us, as "traditional" journalists, to assume blogs and other forms of alternative media aren't going to affect how we conduct our jobs. If anything, alternative outlets of information will dictate how we view a story. Subsequently, this will force us to approach our practices in a different, less established way. This will be a good thing, mind you. There's no need to oppose this shift in thinking, because such a shift will determine the direction in which journalism travels during the next 20-30 years. With so many differing perspectives injecting themselves into the analysis of life's daily struggle -- especially if we're talking about a headline-grabbing piece -- then change, and the way we view said change, is inevitable.
How can we, as the traditional media, continue to follow the path of straight objectivity, if others offer more interesting, humanistic (see personal) perspectives? How can we, as the traditional media, continue to hold dated notions that our audience will eventually come back ... once people get their fix of "subjective news"?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the opposite situation -- that once we lose people, they are gone forever -- is more likely the case.
As we have said in class, we can't afford to continue to practice the status quo. In my opinion, people will expect a more humanistic approach from the "mainstream media." With so many outlets from which the public to choose, it will become obligatory for the media to become more personal with its presentation of information. If this means becoming more niche-oriented in daily reporting, then so be it. The public, moreso than ever, has become selective with its consumption of information. The "mainstream media" -- whether it be from blogs or other forms of alternative presentations -- will have to cater to the demand for personalized news.
However, in my opinion, the human angle amid conflict, etc., will be of interest until humanity is no more. People will always have a craving for the personal connection within every story.
How does this situation relate to me? Why should I associate with the conflict and trials of the party affected?
It will the job of future journalists to articulate relevancy in a personable, yet affective manner to turn the public's attention to corporate-driven journalism amid the cacophony of the "private sector." Then, and only then, will we begin to regain the public's trust (if this is even a possibility), and more importantly, have a paycheck waiting for us at the end of the day.
I enjoyed our discussion about the role of bloggers versus the institutional media today. I think it's naive of us, as "traditional" journalists, to assume blogs and other forms of alternative media aren't going to affect how we conduct our jobs. If anything, alternative outlets of information will dictate how we view a story. Subsequently, this will force us to approach our practices in a different, less established way. This will be a good thing, mind you. There's no need to oppose this shift in thinking, because such a shift will determine the direction in which journalism travels during the next 20-30 years. With so many differing perspectives injecting themselves into the analysis of life's daily struggle -- especially if we're talking about a headline-grabbing piece -- then change, and the way we view said change, is inevitable.
How can we, as the traditional media, continue to follow the path of straight objectivity, if others offer more interesting, humanistic (see personal) perspectives? How can we, as the traditional media, continue to hold dated notions that our audience will eventually come back ... once people get their fix of "subjective news"?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the opposite situation -- that once we lose people, they are gone forever -- is more likely the case.
As we have said in class, we can't afford to continue to practice the status quo. In my opinion, people will expect a more humanistic approach from the "mainstream media." With so many outlets from which the public to choose, it will become obligatory for the media to become more personal with its presentation of information. If this means becoming more niche-oriented in daily reporting, then so be it. The public, moreso than ever, has become selective with its consumption of information. The "mainstream media" -- whether it be from blogs or other forms of alternative presentations -- will have to cater to the demand for personalized news.
However, in my opinion, the human angle amid conflict, etc., will be of interest until humanity is no more. People will always have a craving for the personal connection within every story.
How does this situation relate to me? Why should I associate with the conflict and trials of the party affected?
It will the job of future journalists to articulate relevancy in a personable, yet affective manner to turn the public's attention to corporate-driven journalism amid the cacophony of the "private sector." Then, and only then, will we begin to regain the public's trust (if this is even a possibility), and more importantly, have a paycheck waiting for us at the end of the day.
posted by Andrew Astleford at
11:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home