New Media

This whole rise of new media issue is actually really important. I know it seems trivial, trendy and fleeting, but even if Twitter dies in a year, it still has changed journalism. Since journalism is my chosen career, its effect on the industry directly concerns me.

I use Twitter, I won't lie. Yes, I misuse it and tweet annoying and/or pointless information. Nearly every person who uses Twitter abuses it because as people, we all enjoy sharing our lives with others-- and as people, we do not care about the lives of others. This leaves every person shouting into the abyss of the Internet, hoping someone notices.

Using Twitter to spread information is, in theory, a good idea. But, again, since most of the users do not use the Web site correctly, the information and tips are almost always wrong, making the actual media look like idiots.

The rise of blogs has made anyone a "reporter." Sources are not as viable as they were, shoe-leather investigative journalism is practically dead, and the art of the interview is falling apart.

In theory, all the new media is great. But in reality, it is destroying my field. People spread information before it is verified, reporters are becoming more and more lazy, anyone who has access to the Internet apparently can be a reporter, and stories are becoming compressed into 140 characters. Police use Facebook to research their suspects (no background checks anymore?), using pictures from parties posted to the site to figure out the sources of fires, and checking alibis. New media is destroying the work ethic of the media-- YOUR watchdogs. As the public, you should not be okay with this either.

This weekend, I attended a journalism conference where different sessions were held about the changing world of media. One program had potential to be really great-- the blurb said it was going to be about social media and its effect on journalism. Having just presented a paper on my own about this same topic, I was looking forward to hearing more research about it and maybe even solutions.

No. The panel was three people, but there was one man there, a professor from North Carolina State who looked like he did a lot of drugs back in the day and had not seen a barber in 10 years, who thought Twitter was the greatest invention ever to come from the Internet. I am fairly certain he was Tweeting during the panel-- you know, the parts where he was not dominating the discussion and talking over everyone.

Before I continue: Yes, I think Twitter could be a good tool, but it is not used properly. Information can be shared quickly and easily through one medium to a large group of people. And yes, it is good because the media can hear the opinions of their audience, allowing for commuication between both ends of the spectrum. It has pros, but the cons are against it. It is a good idea that has been abused by middle schoolers.

Okay, back on topic. This man thought Twitter was awesome, and he spent half the time talking about the people he follows. No one cares, we all think Twitter is stupid. When he asked us-- a roomful of college journalists-- if we followed Perez Hilton's blog, we all sat there in silence before the girl next to me said, "No. I read real news." Everyone murmured in agreement, and the professor seemed completely shocked while all of the advisors were thoroughly relieved their students are not idiots.

One student raised his hand, saying that Twitter was feeding the laziness of Americans and taking away the necessity for sites such as CNN and MSNBC. We all were relieved someone voiced exactly what we had been thinking this whole time. However, the profesor said that he felt Twitter was good because he followed a weather man who tweeted weather reports and sometimes, he could recieve real traffic updates from Twitter via his followers. He completely disregarding the question, and the other two members did not have a chance to speak.

Another student said that the Internet cannot destroy the newspaper industry entirely because circulation is still up, and people still pay to have their papers delivered because they enjoy the tangiable nature of the paper, even if the content is free online. The professor said, "Newspapers are only good if you have small pets." A few people laughed awkwardly, but the entire room was offended that this man said our work is only good enough for small pets to poop on. He continued to say that he had believed mothers would save newspapers. So that they could paper-mache. Again, awkward laughs and angry glances were exchanged.

So, the panel was about this one man's opinion about how awesome Twitter is as opposed to how we, the rising media, are supposed to adapt to it. There was absolutely no discussion, but rather a lecture from someone who believed he was deep into social media because he could tweet, use Digg and knew about viral videos. The whole session was very frustating and went against the entire thesis of the paper I just presented.

New media will not kill newspapers. Television did not kill radio, and radio did not kill newspapers. But the industry will have to adapt, and that is what we are trying to figure out right now.

However, no matter what this man said, the rise of social media and the ease of access and publication is completely destroying the elitism of journalism.