With the way that technology is growing, I believe that we are in the middle of a time of dramatic change in the way people communicate with each other, and how people get their information. The first, and easily most prominent and important, medium to examine is the internet. We have gradually approaching the point where we, as media consumers, can get instant access to ANY information we want. The strides made in only the past few years are incredible; the internet is now available in more places than ever, and the internet and live television are available on cell phones. I believe this technology will continue to grow to the point where consumers will have access to whatever information they want in whatever form they want, all on one device. I think the ability to create video will continue to become easier and cheaper, and will create an environment where every story will be accompanied by a video supplement (or the video will be the primary report). Look at ESPN.com and CNN.com as examples; the amount of video available on these sites has expanded exponentially over the past few years; every other story has a video to supplement it. It is a basic observation; visual images are more desired and more effective than the written word, and that is why the newspaper industry is falling. It is simply because a story and a picture is now competing with a video story, and video is the superior medium for reporting. In short, I think newspapers are a medium of the past.
The way news is reported becoming more and more about who can "break" the story first, and coupled with an unparalleled amount of people who now have the ability to break a story through blogs and various websites, journalistic integrity is seemingly at a high risk. This spring, ESPN broke a story that Rafael Furcal was signing with the Braves. Done deal. Later in the day, he was leaning towards the Dodgers. Then, Furcal signed with the Dodgers. Would this have been reported like this five years ago? The bottomline is that because the sports media industry is so much larger and fast-paced than five years ago, the pressure to have a story before, or not far after, another media outlet is enhanced greatly. Will this increase the amount of instances where media outlets "jump the gun" on a story? Sure. However, this doesn't change the fact that there will ALWAYS be a demand for high-quality information, which is why I think that journalistic intergrity will remain safe. The stakes for misreporting a story is a compromise in credibility, and uncredible sources will never survive.
The final aspect of the new media age I'd like to discuss is that of social networking. First Facebook took over college campuses, then everyone had a MySpace page, and now Twitter is somehow on the verge of taking over the world. While I don't prescribe to the idea that everyone should or wants to know what I'm doing at all times, the urge of people to be connected and know the latest news on anything is undeniable. So while you won't see me Twitter feed read " Sam is going grocery shopping and then to the movies!!!" I do think that constant updates of important information is a very real change that is here to stay. It just depends on people's definition of important information.
If you're interested in some further information about where technology is headed, this is a very good read from the heads companies like youtube, facebook, and twitter: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/03/mondaymediasection.internet
No comments:
Post a Comment