Response to Chapter 5: "We Can All be Super Heroes"

I think there are some plausible points that Beckett brings up during this chapter. Journalism has begun to shift and with new technological advances, journalism needs to find different methods and outlets. Basic investigative journalism can no longer be taught and Beckett illustrates this point by stating “media literacy courses will have to teach about citizen journalist and how to work them”. The main reason for this is because due to blogging and social networks, the public is beginning to become the journalists; hence, the professionals need to know how to interact with this shift.

Ethnic diversity should play a role in journalism based on certain topics. If the journalist is reporting on hard news, then there should be no reason for diversity and biases should be excluded from the piece. On the other hand, if the article is soft news, then ethnic diversity should be illustrated within the work because; soft news usually targets certain specific groups of people. With that said, I think it would be agreeable to state that the public rather than a certain individual should collectively write certain news pieces. If there is a controversial topic, it is hard for an individual to not portray biased or “framed” opinions. Therefore, if the public interacts with one another and draws different ideas, it brings ethnic diversity and a stronger understanding to the topic.

I do not believe there is a right or wrong way to view news. People have different views and with that said, they will consistently look at news through different lenses. Some people may find news as an entertainment source, while others find it strictly informative. The goal for news is to share important information to the public and how people digest it differs from person to person.

As regards to the question about PR shifting the world of journalism and the effects it has, I believe it to be both positive and negative. Due to the shift, the only way for the world of journalism to stay afloat would be to join “the dark side of journalism”. However, it does not mean that journalism as we know it has completely disappeared, it has just altered certain aspects to adjust to the change. I do not believe that it is possible to teach fairness and transparency to citizen journalist because, the main reason a person would become a citizen journalist is if they have an opinion or certain view on a particular topic. To play off of that, “e-democracy” would be very hard to obtain because people are going to constantly have different views and challenge one another.

Transition Phase

Response

Although presenting information suggesting that journalism is going through a transition phase, Shirky does not make a prediction for what will be the replacement of print journalism in the future. In response to Kacey’s question pertaining the transition period of journalism, I agree with Shirky in the sense that now is the time for ‘experiments’. Shirky cites how innovations like Craigslist, Wikipedia, and Octavolumes were formulated through experimentation in the transformation period. By listing the beneficiaries of print journalism (politicians, district attorneys, radio hosts and bloggers) in then presenting the high expenses of printing presses, a sense of urgency is evoked among the audience. “The old stuff (printing presses) gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place.” If print journalism is forced to foreclose due to a lack of income before a replacement is invented than I think a chain of negative economic events will ensue, affecting politicians, radio hosts, bloggers etc (all beneficiaries of print journalism). This is why digital journalist innovators must keep experimenting until they find a solution just as a one was found in 1500 with the invention of print.

In regard to the micropayment question, I do think newspapers are doing the right thing by experimenting with ways to turn a profit online, however I don’t think micropayment will mark the end of the transition phase because instead of paying for online newspapers, people will turn to other news outlets like blogging, and word of mouth. The unthinkable scenario, which is the notion of people sharing information through the internet, has become print journalisms biggest nightmare.

In response to the third question, I think newspapers will become extinct due to the high expenses of print. The New York Times for example, is anticipating prints disappearance which is why they have invented the CustomTimes. The CustomTImes is the New York Times, but instead of paper its on your phone and television. Pending 'experimentation' with the public, things like the CustomTimes will replace newspapers.

1) If a replacement for print journalism is not found, and print presses become to expensive to keep running, than should micropayments be installed for blogging web sites so that the beneficiaries of print journalism don’t feel the effects?

2) What will surface first, prints extinction or the end of the transition period?

Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable

Clay Shirky’s article “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” outlines some of the major problems newspapers and journalism are facing today. Shirky outlines the history of newspapers, the recent history leading up to the internet, the present, and the future of newspapers. Throughout the article, Shirky describes ways journalists thought they would deal with the Internet, and then the “unthinkable” scenario. According to Shirky, the “unthinkable” scenario regarding newspapers and the evolution of the internet is that “The ability to share content wouldn’t shrink, it would grow.”

During the 1990’s before the explosion and widespread usage of the internet, many journalists came up with ideas on how to integrate themselves with the internet. The problem with these ideas were that none of them were taking into account the fact that the entire system may shift online, not just certain aspects. Some ideas journalists came up with to protect their industry included educating people on copyright laws, making software more coveted, paying for usage and even more harsh, suing for copyright infringers. While all of these options seemed plausible, they were missing one key option that could ensue: The Unthinkable Scenario.

The Unthinkable Scenario suggests that rules and regulations regarding the Internet aforementioned would not work, and that content sharing and usage would become the normal. This scenario virtually wipes out the entire print media industry. This unthinkable scenario appears to becoming reality.

Shirky draws a parallel between the invention of the printing press in 1500 and what is happening today to journalism. He notes that Elizabeth Eisenstein noticed that many historians ignored the actual transition from before the printing press to after the printing press was developed. She ponders, “How did we get from the world before the printing press to the world after it? What was the revolution itself like?” Shirky goes on to mention that the revolution was chaotic, and it was not a smooth transition to the printing press.

Ironically, today we face a similar revolution: the dissolution of the printing press. The biggest problem with print journalism today is the fact that printing presses are obscenely expensive and time consuming to run. While in the near future, printing press will still hold some responsibility, such as “flooding the zone-covering every angle of a huge story-to the daily grind of attending the City Council meeting, just in case.”

In relation to the expenses of the printing press, from an economic standpoint, the newspaper business is dwindling. One particular way Shirky talks about this is with his quote “ ‘Your gonna miss us when were gone!’ Has never been much of a business model.” The newspapers don’t know what to do or who exactly is covering the news currently.

According to Shirky, we are living through 1500 again, in the transition period. There are many unknowns in what is going on with newspapers, “now is the time for experiments” he states. However, while there may be ups and downs on what is going on, concern and panic shouldn’t occur because, at the end of the day only one thing matters: journalism. “Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism.”

I think Shirky outlines important points in this article. While journalists, and society alike should be somewhat concerned because we don't know what is coming in the future, instead of worry we should experiment with this new age, and sift through what works and what doesn't work in the new media. While the result of this revolution may leave print newspapers behind, in the long-run journalism as a whole will be stronger, and society will benefit because of it.

-Check out bestselling author Seth Godin's viewpoint on the disappearance of newspapers here.

-Global perspective of the U.S. mainstream media from Russia Today on You Tube.

-Here is a brief yet concise You Tube video from freelance journalist Michael Stroud discussing the future of print newspapers.

Questions for discussion:

1.Do you think things will settle in the new media like it did after the invention and establishment of the printing press? Or, have we reached an age of technology where things will constantly be changing, and we will be in a constant transition period?

2.Do you think a micropayment system such as Itunes could eventually work successfully for online newspapers?

3. Economically speaking, do you think journalism can prosper?

Chapter 5: "We can all be Superheros"

In his final chapter, Beckett talks about the future of journalism and how the public is becoming greatly apart of the news media and the media in general. The idea of a global community is becoming less of a myth and more of a reality with the birth of the Internet and new media. One example of this is Wikipedia. Instead of following the strict rules and guidelines of an encyclopedia, information is constantly being corrected and added by individuals free of charge. Beckett writes, “the wiki principle takes advantage of software to allow a collective version of reality to be produced.” He says that both the encyclopedia, and obviously Wikipedia both make mistakes, however Wikipedia entries are constantly being corrected. Wikipedia is also another example of what Beckett describes as a blurring of lines between the journalist and the amateur. He argues that anyone can seemingly be a network journalist, or an investigative journalist if he/she has the tools. With blogs, interactive videos on Youtube, and with Internet usage on most newer cell phones, it seems as if Beckett might be on to something. He also brings up the idea of editorial diversity. This term refers to how journalists today need to focus more on catering to the audience and what they want almost as much as reporting on a story itself. When Beckett says that we have a diverse audience, he is talking about how the public has many different interests, and with the Internet we can “have multiple identities facilitated by new media and technologies.” He also argues that typically journalists today are of one particular demographic, and this is a problem because it causes certain minority groups to feel left out, or not feel as if journalism and the mainstream media are for them. Beckett believes that media colleges need to focus on attracting more of a diverse student population because, “it is in the self-interest of the news media to employ a variety of people who will connect with the various audiences.” Beckett adds on to the idea of a changing educational background in journalism by conjoining it more with business schools. The media lines have blurred because all of these tools that help us connect cater to a more informed and connected audience. Because of this, journalism is slowly becoming not much different from PR and marketing. Porter Novelli is a good example of how businesses, in this case a PR firm, have based their company’s PR techniques all using new media. Being ‘business creative’ in the journalism field is becoming a reality because with more of a diverse audience, the editor of an online publication needs to focus not only what stories to report on but also how they are laid out on a computer screen.

Questions:

Should it matter that journalists are ethnically diverse if their ultimate job is to report on news stories in a fair and unbiased way?

Beckett and Shudson have different takes on what the news should be. Beckett believes that it should be treated as a social good, whereas Schudson compares media to a form of entertainment. Do you believe there is a right or wrong way to view the news?

Are there certain news events/stories that should be written more collectively by the voice of the public than the control of the journalist? What are some examples?

Beckett talks about how journalism and business schools should be tied together as the media is changing, however he believes that journalism in the future will become more closely related to businesses such as PR and marketing. Do you think this is a positive or negative change?

Do you think it is possible to ‘teach the citizen journalist’ about fairness, transparency, and skepticism? Why or why not?

Is the idea of an “e-democracy” feasible?