Online journalism and the promises of new technology PART 1: The revolution that never happened

This post is cross-published from my new journalism/new media-blog.

Who would have thought, back in the 1990s, that by 2010, online newspapers would still be mainly about publishing written text to a mass audience?

Not many. The general assumption shared by academics, practitioners and media executives alike was that journalism would be revolutionized by new technology. Online journalism would be all about multimedia, hypertext and interactivity. Some even believed that the Internet would cause the the end of journalism (pdf). And the discourse surrounding both the practice of and research on online journalism is still quite preoccupied with how new technology will fundamentally change journalism.

So why, then, is online journalism still mostly all about producing written text to a mass audience? Why is use of multimedia, hypertext and interactivity still so rare? (If you believe  online journalism in fact is technologically innovative – keep on reading.)  Is it only because online newsrooms don’t have the resources they need to be innovative? Or are there other reasons?

In a series of posts I will take a closer look at online journalism and the promises of new technology.  I will do this by a close examination of the technologically oriented research on online journalism in Europe and the US that has been published during the last decade. This review will show that online journalism indeed is mostly all about text and traditional mass media thinking. Furthermore, it will show that new technology might not be the main driving force behind changes in journalism. The questions therefore are: why do online journalism develop as it does? How can we best understand the evolution of journalism in new media?  The last part of this series will address these questions.

First, however, it is useful to be reminded of a simple fact: revolution prophesying has been quite common  upon the entry of new technology throughout history. The telephone, television, the radio and computers were all supposed to cause “the end of history, the end of geography and the end of politics”, according to professor Vincent Mosco in his brilliant 2004 book The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace. Needless to say, these technological inventions did change the world dramatically, but not in such a quick and radical fashion the fortune-tellers seemed to believe. People tended to use these technologies quite differently than how many of the revolutionists predicted.

Take television: who would have thought in the 1950s and 1960s that radio would still be a powerful technological platform several decades later? Imagine the argument: who would want only sound, when you could have both sound and vision? It seems like a powerful argument (and please feel free to start hum that Bowie tune…). Then consider the fact that television was much more of a revolution than the Internet has been. It took only a few years for television to diffuse in society (8 years in the US), while it has taken the Internet 20 years to gain the same kind of penetration. Television did change journalism. But it didn’t kill it, or fundamentally change the social function of journalism and the role of the journalist. Likewise, the Internet will not kill journalism. It will change it, but perhaps no so radically as one would expect.

Things tend to transform slowly. Journalism transforms slowly. For instance, I recently read a 1925 book on feature journalism by American Harry Franklin Harrington. If I didn’t know better, I’d guess it was written 20 years ago. It portrayed feature journalism very much as it still is practiced today.

On that note I’ll end this introduction. In the next part of this series I will look at the the three assets of new technology that are generally considered to have the (potentially) greatest impact on online journalism: multimedia, hypertext and interactivity. What are they? And how do they fit with the wide range of concepts that flood the discourse on online journalism, concepts like crowdsourcing, wikijournalism, UGC, partucipatory journalism, citizen journalism, hypermedia, immediacy, etc?

About these ads

13 thoughts on “Online journalism and the promises of new technology PART 1: The revolution that never happened

  1. Pingback: Online journalism and the promises of new technology PART 1: The … : BigEgg

  2. Pingback: Online journalism and the promises of new technology PART 1: The … | BuildMyComputer :Hardware News, Tests and Reviews

  3. Larry Eiler

    The real issues with online journalism are:
    1. Does any edit anything or are we just becoming a world of opinions and unvetted ideas, opinions and thoughts? If this, then are traditional values of journalism becoming obsolete?

    2. Real thinkers and real journalists still see the importance of editing, attribution, digging with corroborating sources. Serious people see the value and necessity of traditional journalism, perhaps delivered in Internet format but nonetheless, believable.

    Larry Eiler

    Reply
  4. Pingback: Recommended Links for May 5th | Alex Gamela - Digital Media & Journalism

  5. megri

    I Think online journalism is not a good way to gave the information to the people.If we want to edit anything or are we just becoming a world of opinions.the journalists invention technologies but these technological inventions did change the world dramatically, but not in such a quick.

    Reply
  6. Pingback: What’s The Difference Between An Nba Swingman Jersey And An Nba Replica Jersey? | nba|nba live|nba answers

  7. Pingback: links for 2010-05-06 « Onlinejournalismtest's Blog

  8. Pingback: Recommended Links for May 6th | Alex Gamela - Digital Media & Journalism

  9. Pingback: Write This Way, Condensed: Top Writing and Editing Links for May 13, 2010 « Write Livelihood

  10. Pingback: Online journalism and the promises of new technology PART 5: Multimedia | Online Journalism Blog

  11. Pingback: A Taste of Google-Fame « stephenhayton.co.uk

  12. Pingback: Online journalism and the promises of new technology PART 6: Conclusion | Online Journalism Blog

  13. Larry Eiler

    Lazy for sure. All want “instant gratification of information.”
    Bloggers mostly do not vet or attribute anything and that is the imperative of any good writing — sourcing and verifying.
    Sure Internet is gaining more use every day as people learn about values of social media to measure results — the decades-old band of marketing: no measurement.
    All the monance about “conversation” has little meaning if opinions and thoughts are not attributed and supported. That’s why 80 percent of the “conversation” on the ‘net is meaningless and useless.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s