While I thought this week’s reading was very long and not entirely different to anything I had read before, I still found it fairly interesting and well written. I also noticed similarities and differences in the opinions of the six writers.
According to Jay Rosen, the Internet has opened up new opportunities for the public to become active members of the press, which is no longer just a domain for professional journalists. He believes that “the old political contract between news providers and news consumers will give way” to a new ‘balance of power.’ Central to shift in power is the invention of blogging. Rosen even goes as far to suggest that the opinions of freelance bloggers which can come from anywhere and from anyone are better than the opinions printed in the op-ed pages of the newspaper. I’m not too sure about that as I feel that opinion pages in newspapers are still important. Furthermore, he states that “…professional journalism has entered a period of declining sovereignty in news, politics and the provision of facts to public debate…” Therefore, traditional journalism such as newspapers and television has given way to new media such as blogging, resulting in freedom of expression to anyone with access to the Internet.
This brings me to Lance Knobel who believes that “an effective democracy requires both effective institutions and the culture to use those institutions well.” This means having both the right ‘software’ and ‘hardware’, or having the right tools and knowing how to use them. Knobel notes “four pieces of hardware that are creating a new democratisation,” all of which stem for the Internet. These include the Weblog, the Wiki which resulted in Wiki news and the well known Wikipedia, Google, RSS and not included in the four but still important, Skype. In general, the Internet means we can use a number of sources and not just one to make up our own mind. However, I agree with Knobel that such as large amount of information on the Internet also means that not all sources will be reliable. However, I also agree that users can find a list of “trusted intermediaries” to rely on. Furthermore, he agrees with Rosen that while some web bloggers are journalists, you don’t have to be one to get your voice heard and reach millions, and in certain specialist areas, some bloggers influence can be compared to specialist reports of traditional media. In support of this, Margot Kingston argues that ‘participatory journalism’, such as Webdiary “can help save the profession” by empowering readers to “suggest topics for investigation” become “investigators” and “ask their own questions and state their own views rather than being “passive consumers of news.” As outlined in Knobels articles, blogs aren’t the only personalised media on the Internet. There is also “the Daily Me … a personalised newspaper that contains just what you want.” The new tools or ‘hardware’ of the new media mean we can be the creators of media and not just users.
In contrast to Knobel and Rosen, Eric Beecher is more sceptical about new media. His article outlines the notion that media companies, journalist and editors feel the Internet and new technologies ability to deliver information quickly and on demand, in addition to young people lack of interest in news, poses a ‘threat to serious journalism.’ This is the same type of personalised news gathering that Rosen and Knobel praise. According to Merill Brown, blogs, web sites and hand-held devices have dramatically changed the way people access information and “new forms of news gathering and distribution, grassroots or citizen journalism and blogging sites are changing the very nature of who produces news.” Rupert Murdoch believes there is an ‘information revolution’ which will “not only change the way people consume information and entertainment … [but is], likely to alter the way people- and therefore governments and societies-think and act.” However, Beecher argues Murdoch is not interesting in protecting “the future of journalism” but is more concerned in how to best make money from advertising revenue. Making media available to what Murdoch describes as the young “digital natives” means it needs to be convenient and fast to keep them interested, which Beecher questions may result in a decreased quality of journalism for future generations.
Beecher is critical of Jay Rosen’s claim that “freelancing bloggers are frequently better at creating opinions than the ‘sleepy op-ed page.” But Beecher says unless bloggers ideas are “disseminated or syndicated to a big audience they remain good ideas to only a tiny audience.” I agree that opinion pages are at least guaranteed to reach many, unlike blogging where only a few individuals achieve real notoriety. However, I agree with Rosen that unlike in traditional journalism, a blog does not have to reach many to be deemed successful. Beecher is doubtful of the future of “well-resourced high quality journalism in Australia” but as owner of Crikey “…one of Australia’s few independent arms of the new media”, he is still optimistic about the “future of editorially based Internet outlets.” However, he is still concerned about what effect “technology-savvy young people(s)” instant need for gratification will have on “serious debate” and “thoughtful reflection” in society. While this is possible, I disagree with Beecher that new media will overtake traditional forms of essay writing and opinion pages, but rather will just change the way they are produced. There still needs to be an adequate grasp of language to express opinions and ideas for blogs to be successful and taken seriously.
While Guy Rundle does not deny that the Internet is arguably the most revolutionary media development since the printing press and has had a significant effect on society, he is sceptical of new online mediums such as blogging and its claim to revolutionise the media and journalism. Rundle is hopeful that there will still “be a demand for news that the purchaser knows has been researched, edited and fact-checked.” He feels blogging cannot replace the trust people have in traditional newspapers that stories will be reported with accuracy and truth. Even online news is more reputable to people if it comes from already known newspapers like The Age or Herald Sun which are already known and trusted.Online news in the future will be praised for what it leaves out, such as “ranting bloggers” in addition to the accuracy of news and people will continue to pay for such services. Therefore, the industry will continue to profit. Rundle however, suspect’s people might lose interest in the novelty of interactive websites that allow for readers to leave comments and post discussions. I can relate to this as I feel social networking sites while still very popular, are not quite as appealing as they once were. He concludes that there is no guarantee that new media like the Internet will revolutionise media/journalism or “guarantee the revival of a more democratic way of political life…”
Andrew Clark’s article seems to encompass ideas from all other five writers. He also acknowledges print journalism anxiety from lower sales, budget tightening, television and the Internet and identifies that there “has been a shift in media power from old media – principally newspapers-to television and the Internet.” According to the Carnegie report, “…old media is being supplemented, if not replaced by new forms of journalism created by freelancers and interested members of the public.” Internet portals like Google news have been cited as a major news site for “technology savvy” young people who “want news on demand” are no longer getting their news from traditional sources like newspapers and TV. Clark further states that young people don’t care for the “fair and detailed” stories of newspapers but “want a personal level of engagement.” The three major media players in Australia such as or was Kerry Packer, Fairfax and Rupert Murdoch who is “obsessed about the rise of the Internet,” have spent much time and resources in researching how old and new media can co-exist. However, Clark is “highly sceptical that the new technology is also ushering in a new dawn of a healthier, freer media landscape.” He remains “…optimistic that journalism will survive” as at its core a “journalists task… [is] to tell people something new.” The media has been criticised for caring more about entertainment than hard news, but I agree journalism has always been a combination of “information and entertainment.” I further agree with Clark that just because people have a fascination with celebrity news, there is still a large market out there for people who want to know about important news relating to economics, politics and other social issues. I also agree with Clark that print journalism is “alive and well” but will continue to face challenges in a new media age.
