A few weeks ago I wrote an 800-word piece for UK Press Gazette on how journalism has changed in the past decade. My original draft was almost 1200 words – here then is the original ‘Blogger’s Cut’ for your delectation…
The past decade has seen more change in the craft of journalism than perhaps any other. Some of the changes have erupted into the mainstream; others have nibbled at the edges. Paul Bradshaw counts the ways…
From a lecture to a conversation
Perhaps the biggest and most widely publicised change in journalism has been the increasing involvement of – and expectation of involvement by – the readers/audience. Yes, readers had always written letters, and occasionally phoned in tips, but the last ten years have seen the relationship between publisher and reader turn into something else entirely.
You could say it started with the accessibility of email, coupled with the less passive nature of the internet in general, as readers, listeners and watchers became “users”. But the change really gained momentum with…
The rise of the amateur
The blogs of September 11; the camcorder images from the Asian tsunami; the mobile phone images of July 7; the Facebook pages of Virginia Tech. If you needed to read about any of these major events, you could do so – if you wished – without opening a newspaper or watching TV.
The spread of cheap camcorders and video- and photo-enabled mobile phones, coupled with blogs and the viral distribution of the internet made publishers realise they were not only competing with each other, but with the readers themselves. And when a big story broke in public, they needed to be in a position to harvest what became known as “user generated content”. Thankfully the NUJ’s suggestion of “witness contributions” didn’t catch on…
Everyone’s a paperboy/girl now
If a newspaper didn’t reach a particular newsagent, or viewers in the Cumbria region were experiencing difficulties, that simply wasn’t a journalist’s problem. Online, however, distribution has become part of a journalist’s job description, whether they realise it or not.
From your Facebook profile to the way you respond to comments on your blog, a journalist’s activity online has formed a key element in any news organisation’s distribution (although few have yet realised this). Meanwhile, newspaper webpages have come out in a rash of ‘Digg/Blog this’ buttons, and Facebook applications from the likes of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have demonstrated how important it’s become for newspapers to be where the reader is, rather than the other way around.
Just a click away
Amidst all the Web 2.0 hype it’s easy to forget the fundamental characteristic of news in the online era: everything is connected; and the reader is only a click or a search away from something else. This has created major opportunities and challenges for journalists.
On the one hand, journalists can now link to full documents, previous reports, and unedited material. On the other, so can the readers. Material culled from wire copy is more easily spotted; and, as Dan Rather discovered, holes in your story can be quickly highlighted.
And while doorstepping used to be between you and the Dear Departed’s family, its digital equivalent is so much more public. The game has been raised – but have news organisations responded?
Really Simple Syndication
RSS is one of the most underestimated innovations in journalism. At it’s most basic level it means journalists can subscribe to a range of RSS feeds in one RSS reader – and therefore not have to keep checking back to dozens of original websites for updates. But the more people play with the technology, the more is being achieved.
For one thing, RSS enables very specific consumption: readers can now subscribe to just one section of a newspaper – or even one writer. In the Sun’s case, they can subscribe to search results. In terms of production, RSS enables different bits of news to be aggregated: pick a source, any source, and mash it up into a single feed. It works for Google News, why shouldn’t it work again?
2007 saw some real experimentation with mapping in UK newspapers: the Manchester Evening News mapped fatal shootings in Manchester, the Grantham Journal tracked a “killer heron” and the Lancashire Evening Post mapped roadworks and speed cameras. The Shropshire Star used it to map fuel prices.
But 2008 should mark the year mapping and geotagging gets serious. Leading the pack are Archant, with their much-awaited geotag-based website relaunches. Journalists, says Web Editor James Goffin, can now draw on a map when they submit a story, or supply postcodes. He argues it will “make for a better archive and make reporters’ lives easier in handling cuttings and follow ups.” The Telegraph launched the first stage of their dynamic Flash-based political map of Britain, while the BBC are using similar technologies for their proposed local website plans, which looks likely to further increase the pressures on regional publishers.
The internet has released news organisations from the limitations of physical distribution and broadcast – to the extent that news organisations have seen a new market for their old print products.
The Guardian, emboldened by statistics about website visitors, took its step across the Atlantic in 2003; The Times followed in 2006, and the BBC announced plans to sell advertising on its international site last year. And figures released last month showed visitors from outside the UK outnumbering the domestic audience for the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times and The Daily Mail.
Conversely, “hyperlocal” has entered the nomenclature of the news executive. Trinity Mirror’s Teesside Gazette’s experiments with hyperlocal, postcode-based news led to print equivalents, and likely extension to the group’s other newspapers.
The biggest untapped potential in journalism online is that of databases. So far we’ve seen some impressive demonstrations: ChicagoCrime.org famously drew information from a crime database onto a map of the area – and was followed by similar efforts at the LA Times and Washington Post (who added house sales and schools); The Herald Tribune, meanwhile, used databases in their coverage of how complaints against teachers were handled – readers could drill down to data in a specific school.
In the UK it’s The Telegraph leading the way, with football coverage that pulls up player statistics to rival ProZone, an A levels results map, and a recently unveiled political map that presents information on how local services ratings have improved or declined. Developments such as these have generated debate about whether journalists should be taught how to program. The conclusion seemed to be that it was easier to teach programmers how to do journalism.
Most read, most commented, most emailed. Hits, pageviews and unique visitors. If you felt your editor’s news sense was as bad as his fashion sense, the measurability of the web gave you valuable ammunition; but if you thought Performance Related Pay was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
If the pen is mightier than the sword, what does that make a microphone, camcorder and laptop… in a wifi hotspot? Newspapers dabbled in podcasts in 2005, before really mucking in 2006 when video took off and print journalists started worrying for the first time about tea staining their teeth. Now print journalists are learning about white balance, and broadcast journalists are learning about local news. And everyone is waiting for an almighty fight.
The thing that has changed my journlism life the most is RSS. It’s allowed me to keep up with whats happening so easily. With all this web 2.0 innovation i think rss is singly the most important thing.
Pingback: Mudanças no jornalismo em 10 pontos « Jornalismo e Comunicação
Pingback: The New Media Diva » Ten ways journalism has changed in the last ten years
Pingback: links for 2008-03-10 « David Black
Pingback: links for 2008-03-12 | Daily EM
Pingback: dnevna košarica zanimivosti 18-3-08 « zelena je barva srca
Pingback: EU, BLOG - POST DE UM ANO : André Deak
Pingback: monday note
Pingback: Printed Matters » Top ten current trends in online journalism
Pingback: Quick Links from Monday Note #26 | Monday Note
Pingback: Notes from a Teacher: Mark on Media » Wednesday squibs
Pingback: Blogging journalists pt 5: Post-publication: “You’ve got to be ready for that conversation” | Online Journalism Blog
Pingback: How has Journalism changed in the past 10 years? « Bri’s Blog
Pingback: Technology updates deliver faster news « The Maegan Times
I do agree with the idea that journalism has changed from a lecture to conversation. Before, media was controlled by large media organizations and became conglomerates. People are only consumers for passive receiving information. However, with the development of Web 2.0 and DIY media, people could become the producers of news as well. Especially for the citizen journalists, they could report the breaking news through mobile phones or Twitter.
It true the internet has changed Journalism in that we can cover events that are far away from home.
With the internet i have visited many countries all over the world and i have covered many events that i would not cover in the past because i would not know what was going on and who the would be sponsors might be.
The internet has made me an International Journalist.
Pingback: Tuesday, September 14 « jrn411
Pingback: 10 Ways Journalism has Changed. « Streeter Hill
Pingback: A reflection on the first task « New Communication Technologies
definitely, internent has revolutionized the world of media and journalism…one does not need to wait for the 9 AM newspaper or the 9 PM news to know the going-ons in the world…every information is just a clcik away and every avid reader is aware of everything going on around him..
The coming of websites and video journalism has hit us hard in Africa. As a print journalist used to writing and reading from the newspaper, the switch can never be that easy. We have learnt to adapt or else we are send out of the business running. Slowly, we are starting to appreciate the crucial immediacy brought by the websites and blogs. But have also realised that website stories, like some TV stories still lack the depth our weekly stories provides.
Pingback: Ten ways journalism has changed in the last ten years (Blogger’s Cut) | Westmedia Multimedia Training
Pingback: Dear Andrew Marr… « Social Media Rookie
Pingback: links for 2010-11-19 « Andy Tedd @ CEMP
Pingback: Online Journalism Resources « Dinesh Balliah
Pingback: Online Journalism Resources | Dinesh Balliah
Pingback: Online resources: Online Journalism | DINESH BALLIAH
Pingback: Online resources: Online Radio | DINESH BALLIAH
Greetings from Idaho! I’m bored to death at work so I decided to check out your site on my iphone during lunch break. I enjoy the info you provide here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home.
I’m shocked at how fast your blog loaded on my phone .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .
. Anyhow, good site!
Pingback: New Media – Will it Better Journalism? | Collaborative Services
Pingback: Satirical Newspapers | aminap1
Pingback: New Article: Precarious Newswork | Brian Ekdale
Pingback: An Overview of The Daily Repeater: A Final Exam Blog by Jonathan Flink | Visionary Loyola by CS118.1/CM203.1 Messina
I agree with you in the idea that nowadays there’s a feedback between the writer and the reader that it doesn’t exist before but, it is always ok? Of course that for me, as a journalist, is perfect the idea of knowing what my readers think about what I wrote, but sometimes it could be used in a bad way. For example, we are tired of read bad comments in news of people that is just bored or angry. I think that we need a filter between the writer and the reader, because the direct link could be use in a very bad way. I also agree with you in the rise of the amateur, but I think that in the end they can’t be journalist. There’s people who is in the perfect moment at the perfect place, but it doesn’t mean that they are journalist. I believe that we need to differentiate between journalist with knowledge before or viewers of a new.
Pingback: 13 | KOM 109 - Inés Luján
It’s impossible to say that journalism hasn’t changed these last years. It has been changing until now of course and it will continue. Nowadays journalist have to be more innovative tan before I think because they have lots of elements to deal with but I believe that the most important is the hypertext. I mean, now it is really easy for the reader to click on another news, and on another and so on. So journalists have catch the attention of the reader from the beginning because if not he/she will change the article that is Reading. Internet has helped journalism because now we have more channels to get the information but it is more difficult to trust on it. We will see how this development continues.
Pingback: Assignment 14 | DIGITAL PRESENTATION
Pingback: Changing Definitions – How Journalism has evolved throughout the 21st Century | The Thing About Journalism Is…
Pingback: Changes to journalsim over the past decade | Daniela Cardoso
Pingback: What do you need to become a 21st century journalist? | Carlapedret.cat
Pingback: Legends Set Bar Future of Journalism – carmenmichellenews
Pingback: The Changing Nature of Journalism – ALJ112
Pingback: Reflection – Kit's Blog
Pingback: The most-read posts on Online Journalism Blog — and on Medium — in 2016 | Online Journalism Blog
Pingback: Tap to advance: the rise and rise of the horizontal story | Online Journalism Blog
Pingback: Industry Analysis of the Journalism Industry – Journalism: Essays and Analysis
Pingback: How ‘The Baltimore Sun’ shone in digital long-form storytelling
Pingback: Revision of Proposal – Armando's Writing
Pingback: New Article: Precarious Newswork – Brian Ekdale