In both of my journalism classes this semester, the majority of the first day was spent discussing how journalism as our professors know it has dramatically changed. I left these classes feeling a little disheartened, but also a little confused. As a college student and an aspiring journalist, I do not see journalism as a dying art. I have no reservations about adapting to the new ways of the media. To me, being successful in journalism should not only mean becoming a top writer at The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. Being somewhat technologically savvy, I am prepared to work in an unconventional media field, be it online or otherwise.
“The Reconstruction of American Journalism,” published in the November/December 2009 issue of the Colombia Journalism Review, seems to agree with me. Within the first page, the authors state that “Newspapers and television news are not going to vanish in the foreseeable future…they will play diminished roles in an emerging and still rapidly changing world of digital journalism.” I feel as if people in the media field are panicking about the so-called disappearance of their role in society; this is not true. The only way their role can be lessened is if they are unwilling to adapt to the changes that society is going through.
However, the CJR article also argues that television and radio cannot “make up for the loss of reporting by newspapers,” saying that TV news stories tend to be about “accidents, crimes, and scheduled or staged events.” I have to agree with the authors here. In high school, I got the opportunity to sit in on the production of a live newscast at my neighborhood’s #1 station. The pace was fast-paced to the point of chaotic as the broadcast went on; if even one mistake is made, it can throw off the entire show. The stories to cover are laid out beforehand; while they are ranked in order of importance, each story is only allotted a certain amount of time. This often means that only the facts and/or most shocking elements are reported. At a newspaper, although deadlines are followed, the reporter is able to investigate the issue more thoroughly in order to present a clearer sequence of events.
In newspapers, there is also the ability to do feature articles that you may not see on television broadcasts. It is always a feat when a TV news show is able to cover these types of stories with grace; one of my favorite examples is on the NBC Nightly News broadcast, which often closes with a segment entitled “Making a Difference.” Each piece highlights an American who is, naturally, making a difference in the lives of others through charity work or other means. Not only is it a great way to close the show, it gives the broadcast more heart after having to report what is generally upsetting news.
But the CJR article does not only focus on TV, radio, and newspapers. It sheds some light on the burgeoning online movement, as discussed earlier in this post. The web has the ability to turn what would normally be light news into a massively discussed issue, thanks to people who “pass along, link to, or comment on news and other content originally produced by established news organizations.”
I am fully prepared, once I graduate from college, to pursue a job in any journalistic field that interests me – even if it is not the “classical” approach. I do not believe that the “future of American journalism” lies in the internet and other sources – I believe that already is the face of American journalism.
I like how you look at all the branches of journalism and assess them for the future. I agree with most of what you shared. I should like to see how you would change journalism. I think if you do pursue a career in journalism, journalism will benefit as long as you keep looking at it from all the angles, like you have done here.