The old way has gone kaput. Well, nearly. The changing face of modern day interaction, with its ubiquitous lightning-quick information access rates, has began to reveal the wear and tear of the familiar newsroom. Citizen journalists, widespread (underpaid) freelancers, niche media publications, declining advertising revenue, free instant online aggregation and access to news media—the old way of news publications is under attack from all sides. Truly, it only has one solution—revamp; revamp its style, its flair, its strategy, its focus, its approach. Just about everything, really.
What is the old way? It is the newsroom, a closed and centralized behind the scenes meeting room, with a bunch of highly experienced journalists debating over which top stories to cover. It is the sheets of paper, passing on top of roll after roll, and being stamped with these very top stories, only for the final product to be dropped in neatly plastic-rope bound piles near newsstands. It is the newsstands in general, the personal coin-operated found on obscure street corners, and the seemingly arbitrarily placed metal shacks found on the streets, from which, in addition to the paper and a magazine, a candy bar is simply undeniable.
Presently, in addition to the aforementioned examples, numerous journalistic ventures, both large and small, have been launched. The competition for the ‘old way’ has long since changed the playing field. The old way, in what can likely be attributed to their stubbornness and/or insufficient spirit of ‘pioneerism’, fell behind and is forced to play catch up. More (worrisomely) so, they are forced to play catch up in a game they never learned, nor were designed to play.
Alas, we have bid goodnight to candles in favor of bulbs, and turned our ears to the sounds of pianos over that of the harpsichord. Lifestyle and habits, no matter how uniformly adopted, are replaced; sometimes, virtually overnight. We can similarly pay our respects rigid structure. Professional reporters will always be in demand, particularly for guidance, perhaps even to the extent of rigorous apprenticeships. They, however, will be few in number relative to those that will be involved in the collective journalistic product.
Rest assured, we will not fall into a period of intellectual or news-reporting resembling the Dark Ages. Overly optimistic or not, it is a legitimate inference that those presently redesigning, and perhaps even dedicating, their lives and careers to promote the betterment of the future of journalism will not quit if the traditional face of their “official” competition finishes withering.
It is nigh time that a new organization popped up, one that provides a novel method to the present madness. Don’t get me wrong, it is loads of fun finding new information anywhere and everywhere you go (or surf, rather). From coverage/biased reviews (or shameless self promotion) of large scale artistic events to passion-driven exposés of a neighbor’s elaborate dastardly deeds, the internet is speckled with awareness-increasing opportunities of all shapes and sizes. But it is disorganized: structure is required. The lesson, however, must be learned from the old way. Too much structure, too much rigidity, and the system will be unable to adapt to the next best (or new) thing.
With so many new endeavors, it is difficult to predict what will function and what will fail at launch. ‘Function’ should not be confused with ‘succeed’—a grand idea or a stroke of luck, such as recognition/exposure by another well-known source is not necessarily sufficient for the ‘subscription’ or interest in this particular endeavor to skyrocket. The wide spectrum of former candidates for the Republican and Democratic tickets for the 2008 Presidential Elections are all too familiar with the lack of unconditional guarantee accompanying an endorsement. Wait and see, and act quickly.
It is precisely for this that a new organization is necessary. The breadth of this rigid-less organization must reach far enough, potentially across all spectrums, thereby shattering the negative connotations associated with monopoly. Funding for it will stem from subscriptions, for those interested in hyper-oriented news: local, business, sports, international, and so on and so forth.The mission would be to cover everything, with an army of thousands, and on every single continent; a Wikipedia for the nightly news at nine, if you will, one however, with a more streamlined system for flagrant disregards/abuses of journalistic integrity. The bigger projects get voted on, with volunteers in appropriate areas, both geographically and of expertise. If this eventually replaces the remaining forms of news coverage, it only seems fair to establish new incentives for funding, perhaps even a general umbrella fund for coverage, aided with tax exemptions and bias-free subsidies. Users will be charged mere pennies for reading articles. With sufficient readership, this (slightly ominous sounding) organization will generate even more funds.
Cliché warning: The future is uncertain. But we must embrace both what is available and what is viable. There are literally thousands of willing reporters, scaled of course by the scope of their work and their talent. They are waiting to be a part of something, something bigger than them. Something bigger than what is failing now. Something that will be literally too big to fail, as it will owe its inherent inability to fail to its sheer size, a Medusa’s head of independently covered news. It is grand, it is bold, it is ambitious, but most of all, it is doable. No one should be denied the ability to discover the world around them, be it from home or their new nifty electronic newspaper replacement. Now what are we going to do with distribution and property rights? Oy gevalt.