Is This the Future of News? 147
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?
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.
A Million Monkeys (Score:4, Insightful)
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:A Million Monkeys (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One can only hope (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Not just No (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets clairify.... (Score:3, Insightful)
vs.
user reporting that even slashdot has proven to be closer to the truth.
Entertainment value or information value?
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.
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: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!
Re:One can only hope (Score:3, Insightful)
Fallacy in the summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A Million Monkeys (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:One can only hope (Score:3, Insightful)
Commenting (Score:1, 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.
Re:Commenting (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, they're usually at the bottom of the page, and are easy to ignore. If you don't like them, you are not required to read them.
Re:Not What I Want (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need to believe the poster, but at least be open-minded enough to consider it. If it's important to you, go check what they're saying. If it's not, then who cares whether you believe them or not?
Re:Not just No (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not just No (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of corporations dominating the US mainstream media:
1983 = 50
1993 = 14
2008 = 5
Gargoyles (Score:2, Insightful)
he's not already conspicuous enough, he's wearing a suit. Hiro starts
walking toward him.
Gargoyles represent the embarrassing side of the Central Intelligence
Corporation. Instead of using laptops, they wear their computers on their
bodies, broken up into separate modules that hang on the waist, on the back,
on the headset. They serve as human surveillance devices, recording
everything that happens around them. Nothing looks stupider; these getups
are the modern-day equivalent of the slide-rule scabbard or the calculator
pouch on the belt, marking the user as belonging to a class that is at once
above and far below human society. They are a boon to Hiro because they
embody the worst stereotype of the CIC stringer. They draw all of the
attention. The payoff for this self-imposed ostracism is that you can be in
the Metaverse all the time, and gather intelligence all the time.
The CIC brass can't stand these guys because they upload staggering
quantities of useless information to the database, on the off chance that
some of it will eventually be useful. It's like writing down the license
number of every car you see on your way to work each morning, just in case
one of them will be involved in a hit-and-run accident. Even the CIC
database can only hold so much garbage. So, usually, these habitual
gargoyles get kicked out of the CIC before too long.
This guy hasn't been kicked out yet. And to judge from the quality of
his equipment - which is very expensive - he's been at it for a while. So he
must be pretty good.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Payment for reports? (Score:2, Insightful)
p> I know that if I were to get video of some incredibly news worth event that there would be no way in h3ll I would be handing it over for free....that's just my cheap-ass though.
Re:A Million Monkeys (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 limited number of seats in the gallery for a popular trial is to simply arrive at the courthouse as early as you can, or take a bit of a risk by hiring someone to stand in line for you. As for free FOIAs, well... journalists receive the same benefits students and researchers receive, essentially no-charge records searches and the first 100 pages of the documents are free. I suppose you can count that as privileged access, but overall it's a fairly minor perk for a working journalist.
But these minor points aside, I totally agree with the main thrust of your argument; print journalists are an essential piece of the news-gathering process, not easily eclipsed or replaced by other types of journalists. Television news editors don't seem to have the patience for in-depth investigative work, television viewers don't seem to notice the lack thereof and from what I've seen with most bloggers, a great deal of the so-called news they generate is simply links to print articles and commentary on those same articles.
Sometimes, gathering news can be as easy as snapping a picture of a bridge collapse as it's happening, but much more often it gets deeper and more complex than simply being at the right place at the right time. For the foreseeable future, I can't imagine citizen journalists -- or television journalists -- replacing print journalists for news that requires a little digging and a few key sources in critical positions. Breaking stories like the warrant-less wiretapping scandal all too-often requires more time and effort than either television reporters or bloggers seem willing to devote to a single issue, and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.
Re:A Million Monkeys (Score:3, Insightful)
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 the first amendment is just as much (if not more) aimed at the printing of handbills as newspapers. It does not establish special investigative rights. It establishes communication rights.
Personally, I don't think that there should be any special investigative rights. It goes back to the whole "who watches the watchers" debate. How do you choose these professionals who have the right to do special investigations that the rest of us cannot? Either the right should be one that everyone can use or it isn't a right.
That's not to say that we shouldn't give the other privileges of which you speak to journalists. However, it should be clear that these are privileges, not rights. There are also some cases (e.g. source confidentiality) where it is clearer to think about the rights of the source rather than those of the journalist.