It’s on us, now
Tuesday, July 8th, 2008One could argue whether Web entities are the cause or effect of continuing cuts at newspapers and other print media (probably both), but the growing influence of information sources that start with “http” also places greater responsibility on those sites. Like, for instance, DelMio.com.
In other words, we have to work harder to cultivate and protect our credibility as believable sources of news. With all of the slimeball Web operations perpetrating their versions of “truthiness,” serious e-journalists have to be extra vigilant for bias, or worse, half-truths or outright lies. Yes, adjust to the fast-moving pace of the Web, but protect the values of journalism — being fair and balanced (NOT the Fox “news ” version — check this out for “fair, balanced“) seeking the truth, not just a narrow piece of “evidence” to support a particular political point of view.
What got me thinking about this, and set me off on a mild rant, was news that the Cleveland Plain Dealer, an operation I once considered (mostly) friendly competition a few miles up the road from my former employer, the Akron Beacon Journal, is cutting back on its Sunday book section. OK, it’s hardly shocking news. Newspapers and magazines have been losing readers, advertisers and revenue streams left and right, first in trickles, now in huge gushers. A pair of Cleveland weekly alternative papers are merging into one: Cleveland Scene. And more people are going to lose their jobs. U.S. News and World Report is going to biweekly publication, scaling back from weekly. Layoffs at newspapers have become as common as auto plant layoffs. Only news folk don’t get called back when the economy improves.
The predictions made three decades ago of the impending demise of newspapers now suddenly seem not so implausible. The threat is real. Is the Internet to blame? In part, yes. But so is TV, and to a lesser extent radio. There are just so many outlets for news or what passes for news these days. Hell, most under-30 types get their news from Jon Stewart! At least it ain’t Rush Lintball. And many newspaper companies (and their stubborn employees — I saw it firsthand) were too slow to respond to the challenge, to be creative in applying their fabulous newsgathering abilities and shaping them for the new media.
I can’t tell you how many times I heard a reporter/editor/photographer say indignantly, “We don’t DO that!” Well, you’re right, you don’t do it anymore. The ones who are left there ARE doing that. Now, when you have reporters being sent out to take photographs, chances are about 98 percent of the time the quality of the photo is going to be noticeably inferior. Same when you have graphic artists being made to do jobs they have limited training in, or any other situation where you jam square pegs into round holes. But you can take a tape recorder, convert the conversation to a podcast, or send a photog out with a camcorder (the only real difference is sound) and upload that.
If it goes viral on YouTube, you’ve got big returns.
Anyway, my initial point is that with traditional media losing market share, the onus is on “new” media to get it right. The rise in the 20th century of a serious journalistic code of ethics was a reaction to irresponsible behavior such as “yellow journalism” (That and some costly libel suits). In the 21st century, it’s the same game, different playing field.
It’s time for a gut check, for new media and old.
