Slashdot Log In
Is This the Future of News?
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:25 AM
from the power-to-the-people dept.
from the power-to-the-people dept.
WirePosted points us to a story discussing the future of news reporting. For over a year, CNN has been accepting user-generated news stories and posting the best of them for all to see. Earlier this week, CNN handed over the reins of iReport.com, allowing unfiltered and unedited content from anyone who cares to participate, provided it adheres to "established community guidelines". Analysts point to the amateur footage from the Virginia Tech shootings and the Minnesota bridge collapse as an example of the capabilities of distributed reporting. Will this form of user-driven reporting (with which we are well acquainted) come to challenge or supplant traditional new broadcasting?
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not just No (Score:5, Insightful)
"Will this form of user-driven reporting (with which we are well acquainted) come to challenge or supplant traditional new broadcasting?"
This can be done for free. That doesn't sell advertising. CNN et al. would never let that happen. Instead they're encapsulating the user generated stuff within their own domain where they can use it to support their ad money generating bread and butter. Not embedding this stuff within their own output would be more of a threat.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not just No (Score:5, Insightful)
It's perfect. They create a pre-screening room that tests all kinds of content and also makes some money, generates a few content gems (bridge collapse footage, etc.) every once in a while and that doesn't affect the serious/professional-flavour of their premium brand. Still they exploit the top content in all of their programs.
Now to really change the news business: Can't someone create a popular site that does auctions of valuable cell phone footage, with news companies as bidders? Stop giving away your content for free, people!
Parent
Scoopt.com (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not just No (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of corporations dominating the US mainstream media:
1983 = 50
1993 = 14
2008 = 5
Parent
I'm no mathematician (Score:3, Interesting)
Also a change in role (Score:3, Insightful)
News competes with reality TV and sitcoms. Thus the dry facts are ditched in favor of "edgy" "newsworthy" stories with more interest value.
editorial function (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, but for some slightly different reasons that I'll get to below.
I agree that the CNN's, MSNBC's, NYT's, et. al are guided in part by the profit motive, but news in and of itself goes far beyond just putting asses in the seats.
The free press, aka the newsmedia, is a *cornerstone* of our country. It is the 4th estate. The newsmedia, at its best, is a check on government power, and the founders of our country understood this, and promoted it.
Now, newsmedia isn't just reporting of facts, it involves editorial decisions. What stories to cover, how to cover them, how long the article should be, who is sent to cover the story, what the headline reads, and where the story is put are all the kind of core decisions that filter the news from a flood of uncategorized facts to a understandable informative piece of journalism. No one has enough time to filter all the day's information for themselves, that's why we have editors.
I am a harsh critic of today's mainstream media, as I imagine you might be. But let's not forget that we need the news done right in order for our country to operate properly. I hate tabloid journalism like Fox News more than most people because I work in the media, and I know how harmful it is for that network to call itself 'news'...it's entertainment, a plastic husk fashioned to resemble true journalism, but inside, instead of facts, there is nothing.
The answer to the question from TFA is definitely 'hell no' partially b/c of the reasons given in your post, but more importantly, because any sort of internet user provided journalism will inevitably need an editorial function for it to be usable.
Parent
A Million Monkeys (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A Million Monkeys (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:A Million Monkeys (Score:5, Interesting)
The incredible inaccuracy of eye witness accounts is well known. It is also a truism that the camera lies; a singe perspective can be dangerous. Grammar has nothing to do with it. Being objective does not mean elitism.
There's a helluva lot to be said for people interested in journalism to be able to earn a living from it, to earn respect for doing a good job, and for having an organisation that can support them, mentor them as they learn their trade, and get them direct access to the highest politicians in their country.
I personally don't think anyone has managed to beat the model of the UK's BBC, where the state-funded-but-independently-governed design allows for experienced commentary and challenging interviews without the ratings and advertisers having any influence. Not a perfect system, but the best I'm aware of. The BBC takes in photos and other submissions from the public, which allows the first person experience even where the network does not have resources on the ground, while still allowing for some editorial quality control.
Parent
Re:A Million Monkeys (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is exactly why the news media has so much power. They choose the shots that say what they want them to say. Socially-driven content will contain multiple perspectives from multiple sources. It is therefore easier to compare and find the truth -- even if an individual perspective is incorrect.
That may be true, and I'm not saying necessarily that major media has no place at all. I'm just saying that socially-driven news sites are a necessary competition, supplement, and counter-agent.
Parent
Re:A Million Monkeys (Score:4, Insightful)
True objectivism would review all sources and not just trusted or professional ones. Simply dismissing eye witness accounts and photographic evidence because they could be wrong is not objective either.
Take the execution of Saddam Hussein. One could troll Youtube for countless uncensored versions of it, but on the nightly news, it played without sound and usually cut off right before they dropped him.
If you think people can't handle the whole part of the news, then perhaps that is where elitism comes into play. The problem with the current professional news in all mediums is that there is some type of spin on it with subtraction of context and addition of irrelevant language.
Of course, that could simply be a problem with the English language and I'd rather see facts and unedited media first hand than have someone decide what is important to me.
Parent
Re:A Million Monkeys (Score:5, Insightful)
Not because there might be grammar mistakes, but because there might be logic mistakes- incorrect assumptions, poor analogies, or fallacious reasoning. Which isn't to say that's exactly what we get with so-called liberal or conservative media; but at least they make an effort to appear balanced, and can (and should) be called on it when they don't make the effort. The man-on-the-street lacks that accountability.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A Million Monkeys (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, while I will concede that some rather trivial local affairs (e.g. the iron chef competition at the county fair) could be covered adequately by "citizen journalists," real INVESTIGATIVE reporting (which lies at the heart of the First Amendment protection of the Press) is very difficult, very time consuming, and very expensive. It is unlikely that the general public will ever be able to break meaningful stories on subjects like Watergate, warrantless wiretapping, or Enron. The reasons for this are manifold, and are at least in part articulated by Scott Gant ("We're All Journalists Now"):
i) The working Press have special access privileges (e.g. priority seating in courtrooms, embedded reporting in wartimes, etc.) that must be limited out of physical necessity. They also receive privileged treatment that would be financially impractical if doled out to everyone (e.g. no-cost Freedom of Information Act requests).
ii) To understand subjects like Enron in even a moderately sophisticated manner requires devoting one's life to their study, for weeks, months, or even YEARS. Since the vast majority of the non-Press have day jobs, this is all but impossible.
iii) The Press rely heavily on confidential sources, not necessarily to provide substantive information (certainly not without fact-checking) but certainly to provide a starting point for future information. Such sources confide in the Press because of a long tradition of confidentiality and respect by members of the Press; indeed, reporters have gone to prison for refusing to disclose their sources. Additionally, confidential sources - who very well could be breaking the law by talking to reporters - may have a degree of trust that a reporter will not disclose information that is unduly personally damaging or that would materially harm the national interest. It is unlikely that Daniel Ellsberg would have leaked the Pentagon Papers to his hairdresser. (And if anyone reading this does not know the name Daniel Ellsberg, for the love of God pick up a history book.)
iv) No matter what pundits may say, journalists at major newspapers take great pains to be unbiased. (Do not confuse the opinion pages with the news pages; in good newspapers there is NO crosstalk between the two.) If you don't believe me, look at the news sections of the Wall Street Journal or the Christian Science Monitor. Neither neoconservativism (abundant in the editorial's of the former) nor religion (built into the charter of the latter) creep into the news in either. Similarly, the New York Times - bastion of editorial liberalism - always takes care to give all sides of an issue voice in a news article. While blogs and websites DO exist with a similar level of impartiality, they are few and far between. It simply is not the way of the blogger (or the human in general).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While it's true that reporters can sometimes get privileged access -- to crime scenes for example, if you've taken the time to get a press pass beforehand and if the police are feeling particularly generous that day -- courtroom access isn't always privileged, at least not here in California. If you want to report on courtroom proceedings in California, you have no more special access than any other citizen who happens to show up for a courtroom seat that day. Usually, your best bet to get one of a limite
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
real INVESTIGATIVE reporting (which lies at the heart of the First Amendment protection of the Press)
I see this stated often but established never. I think that this is you creating a right that you think should exist. Is there any evidence that anything like investigative journalism even existed in the eighteenth century?
The first amendment is about protecting the rights of normal individuals. A normal individual has the right to speak freely, to print (written speech) freely, to practice one's religion freely, and to peaceably assemble with others (for the redress of grievances). The free press of t
Re:A Million Monkeys (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously a trained reporter can *report* better than an amateur, but there's not a lot of reporting going on nowadays. It's mostly "Hey, this happened. The next hour is my opinion and speculation presented as fact."
Air traffic control and news media are pretty different animals as well, so I'm not so sure your analogy flies, so to speak. Either way, if air traffic controllers spent 5% of their time controlling traffic and the other 95% arguing over whether Boeing or Airbus will win that big defense contract (or whatever), I'd say they weren't very good air traffic controllers either.
Parent
newsvine (Score:5, Interesting)
One can only hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Depending on your political point of view, you might think I'm referring specifically to MSNBC, Fox, or CNN. Fact is, I'm talking about all of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One can only hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Regrettably, many so-called reporters such as Keith Olbermann pass off their opinion as news. There's no problem with a reporter offering his/her opinion, but they could be honest about it and label it as such. O'Reilly clearly states this on his show, although when he spends much time as he does reporting
It did some time ago. (Score:4, Interesting)
They were one of few sites with the bandwidth and the eyewitness accounts to accurately describe and present what was going on. I can wait a day or two for analysis -- when something big happens, I'll turn to somewhere like that for immediate presence. It's more annoying to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it's also an experience one doesn't get sitting in front of a TV or reading the sanitized version on the AP.
Dear God in heaven... (Score:3, Funny)
when pigs have wings ... (Score:5, Insightful)
When I can a.) call the White House and get a serious answer to a serious question, and b.) when I have a substantial amount of your trust that I'm telling you the truth, then I can do what big media does.
Without those, my story about the alien spacecraft in my backyard is equal to my story about the White House press conference.
Re:when pigs have wings ... (Score:4, Interesting)
>When I can a.) call the White House and get a serious answer to a serious question
Are you SERIOUS? Can you not remember ANY of the press coverage post-911, when the PRESS was as guilty as the White House in drumming up The War?
Remember, this ALSO came at a time when 2 of the 3 major networks are subsidiaries OF military industrial complex corporations.
To keep pressure on the fourth network, Fox... oh wait, no pressure was needed.
Oh yeah, to keep pressure on the third network (Disney), the FCC was looking to "relax ownership limits" on broadcast TV (which leads to greater concentration in one network but the real value is the individual local channels become inflated, can actually have buyers)
The press wasn't misled... they dodged some very serious issues and questions. After all, they have an obligation to serve the stockholders (funds mostly, and funds could see the spending spree written on the wall)
Parent
Prelude to the Future (Score:4, Interesting)
The "open news content" will come first, but it will suck until our social networks make our filter as easy as flipping to "Cronkite" used to be.
Not What I Want (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like Slashdot. Just what I don't want. "Unfiltered and unedited" means writers' mistakes, biases and lies slip through because there's no one in the loop to catch and eliminate them, and the readers won't either. Result: more jabber, less news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I decide the credibility of any single source -- CNN or a Slashdot commenter -- by spending a lot of time with that source and seeing how it measures up against everything else I read.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need
Re: (Score:2)
I'm the one who does that.
I just think the search for a single perfect news source is silly and a waste of time. I also think there is no more reason to expect a "flat" bunch of anonymous "users" to be any better at producing news than a "hierarchy" of professionals. The process you say you use here at
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it's already happening.
This doesn't mean that news will become inaccurate or drop in quality. People will still want to read edited content produced by intelligent writers and those who provide them will naturally gain prominence and credibility. It's a rather nice change from the past where credibility depends on how much money you have to produce and distribute the content.
Of course, I'm only talking about corporate publications vs. blogs. TV newscast still has requires some infrastructure to
Lets clairify.... (Score:3, Insightful)
vs.
user reporting that even slashdot has proven to be closer to the truth.
Entertainment value or information value?
Citizen journalists can not cover real news issues (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to real in-depth news reporting, i-reporting can never, never replace professional news outlets. Solid reporting requires time, know-how, resources and money.
For example, the biggest story of the day is Kosovo declaring independence from Serbia. Tell me how that story can be researched, shot and written and presented by the average person. And for free? Yes, they can get reaction to the story. But putting it in context is entirely different.
There is much bias, sensationalism and broadcast "journalists" who are no more than pretty faces or loudmouth know-it-alls. Still, there are many real reporters out there doing real reporting. We will always need them.
Re:Citizen journalists can not cover real news iss (Score:4, Insightful)
What news requires is synthesis, taking information from all around the world, creating context, and informing people of what it all means. User generated news will never be able to compete with someone who is paid to investigate, understand and report professionally.
Unfortunately modern American news (from what I've seen) has completely dropped true synthesis in fear of bias. The false dichotomy of that there are 2 sides to every issue, even factual ones, is what makes news into simple parroting of press releases and dry facts, pushing all synthesis to the realm of punditry, which has no credibility whatsoever.
So while user-generated news is probably rising, and traditional news outlets are probably hurting in a big way lately, I think it's all because the news lost its spine and won't concentrate on what makes news great. A new organization will probably rise over CNN, Fox, MSNBC.....but the AP won't die.
Parent
Its only part of it. (Score:2)
Fallacy in the summary (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope not (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope this isn't the future of news.
The number of real news reporters keeps dropping. Most stories today, other than those that involve some act of violence or a disaster, originated as a press release or staged media event. Very few reporters are out there digging. Digging takes time and money.
The future is pluriform and independent (Score:2)
People are getting wise and no longer expect corporate/government news sources to provide them with anything close to the truth. More and more, they are turning to various independent Internet news sources, and make up their own minds about what is credible, and what is not.
News sources such as these: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ [whatreallyhappened.com] http://www.opednews.com/ [opednews.com] http://www.electricpolitics.com/ [electricpolitics.com] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ [informatio...house.info]
Great idea! (Score:2)
I'd normally add a "zing!" to the end of this post to make it clear it's supposed to be funny, but since this model is actually being exploited... well, it's not funny... just sad.
Fox (save the bashing, it only makes you seem like a brainwashed, meme-spewing twit) is doing the same thing, too. They call it (IIRC) "uReport". So, CNN isn't alone in this.
Here's the deal: if a news outlet wants to profit from your work, demand credit and/or a slice of the pie. Give the b
Not as easy as it looks (Score:5, Interesting)
When I first started writing news, for alternative newspapers, I thought it was easy. I knew who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were, and all I had to do was expose them. Just try it. If only it were that easy.
The most important lesson I learned as a real journalist, as distinct from a hippie journalist, is that whenever you attack the bastards, always call them up and give them a chance to respond. Let them defend themselves, and then show how they're lying. Just try it. Every real journalist (Molly Ivins, for one) will tell you all the times they thought they had the guy nailed, but when they called him up, it turned the story completely around.
There was a story on This American Life http://www.thislife.org/ [thislife.org] about a kid who was in Europe, and talked his way into a press conference with George H.W. Bush (the father, not the stupid one). Good work so far. Then he got a chance to ask the President of the United States a question on the environment. Bush said that he supported nuclear power because it would do, overall, less harm to the environment. He actually made some good points.
The kid hadn't done his homework. He didn't know how to frame a good question that would pin the bastard down, and he didn't know how to follow it up. He didn't know shit about the environment. Bush had probably answered the same question a dozen times before, knew more about the environment than the kid did, and knew how to give a good answer. TAL played a tape of the press conference, and it was painful for me to listen, because I'd been in that same situation so many times before. (If you want to become a citizen journalist, you can practice getting prepared by looking up that story on the TAL web site. This will give you an idea of how hard it is to do research.)
Look at what I think is one of the best news sources in English: Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org/ [democracynow.org] Take a look at this: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/28/the_democrats_suharto_bill_clinton_richard [democracynow.org] There is no way that any citizen journalist is going to be able to question Richard Holbrooke or Bill Clinton about human rights the way Alan Nairn and Amy Goodman did. Or this http://www.democracynow.org/features [democracynow.org] They know their facts thorougly.
Who do you want grilling your so-called elected leaders -- Amy Goodman, or some well-intentioned "activist" who doesn't know his facts (like those ringers they have in the audience during the presidential debates)?
I'm not defending the White House press corps either. Sure, the average stoned activist could do a better job than Judy Miller, but that's a pretty low bar.
There is one case where citizen journalists can do a good job, and that's as first-hand eyewitnesses. I remember going to an anti-war demonstration during the '60s, and having the New York City police viciously attack non-violent demonstrators (including me), some of whom had brought their children, and put some of them in the hospital with permanent injuries, for no reason that I could see (or that the City's lawyers could come up with in subsequent lawsuits). Running for safety, I came across a bunch of guys with press badges, huddled safely away from the scene where they couldn't witness the police brutality. On WBAI-FM radio, we heard first-hand accounts of what happened on the scene, which was consistent with what I saw.
Next morning, I picked up the New York Times, and saw a complete propaganda job, quoting only the police and City officials, claiming that the demonstrators had started it, it was the demonstrators' fault, and the cops had behaved with proper restraint. The Times didn'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, they're usually at the bottom of the page, and are easy t
Re: (Score:2)
This is a news site. Why don't you remove yourself, as an example to the rest of us?