Internet has changed the world and the lives of people. It has improved many life aspects in terms of speed, convenience and efficiency. Like all the other topics I have blogged about, jounalism is no exception.
With the rise of online journalism, will print journalism fade and disappear from face of the media world?
In my opinion, my answer is no. Like I always believed, internet serves as an enhancement to these existing mediums. It improvises the quality of journalism in terms of its content and it helps to raise other issues that are related to the one at hand. This is possible because of the participation of general citizens who offer their opinions to generate more news stories to debate about. Everybody has an opinion, and internet is the platform for their voices.
There are many benefits for reading news on the internet, but print journalism will always have a place in the society because the quality of news can never be replaced by online versions that are altered by the citizens. In fact, according to Tom Carver, a BBC journalist, internet shapes journalism in the following ways:
Ability to interact
This is what makes the internet such an extraordinary medium - the ability to interact instantaneously with people from all over the world in both print and on video. Will it change the role of a journalist? Not immediately, but in the long run, definitely. At the moment, most people are more accustomed to the passive format of radio and TV and don't know how to interact. But they are learning fast.
Genuinely two-way
Journalists can receive viewers' questions any time, anywhere. As the internet moves into the next stage of broadband and wireless, it is going to turn TV into a genuine two-way medium. Journalists will be able to read e-mails off their wireless phones as they come in, live on air from almost any spot in the planet.
The videophone - a concept that seemed like science fiction five years ago - will become more robust and versatile and, as more people get high-speed internet access, the viewing figures of webcasts will grow. Is it good development? Absolutely.
Internet equals engaged
If people are interacting, it means they are engaged, and that must be healthy for society and democracy. It also keeps media organisations on their toes and gives them a better sense of who they are broadcasting to. Just seeing a name and a town on the e-mails can make a journalist feel connected to his or her audience. They were no longer an anonymous mass but a collection of individuals. There were e-mails from as far afield as Botswana, Belgium, Ghana, France, Canada and Germany, all united by a desire to know more about the American election. This has been called "user-controlled journalism", but hopefully it isn't that.
Editorial expertise
The BBC's value lies in its editorial expertise. That is what they are paid to do as journalists, to follow what they think are the stories of significance. Thus, they chose which e-mails to read out, which to follow up.
The digital divide separates those who know from those who don't. Interaction should not mean surrendering control of the process. Viewers told what they wanted to know about, but journalists still had to meet the needs of the many who didn't email them but were nonetheless following the website. For there is a very real risk that the world will be divided between those with the confidence and the eloquence to speak out and those who remain silent and unheard.
Education is the key
It is not a question of laziness but education. The digital divide is not between those with access to the internet and those without, but between those who have the learning to know how to use this extraordinary tool and those who do not. The internet's trailblazers are beginning to realise that without a well-educated populace, the internet will never be used to its full potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment