With the development of new technology,
journalism is changing rapidly day by day. No longer do we sit down
and read a copy of the newspaper, instead, we are able to read news
articles on our iPhone, IPad, and laptop. The trend of digital
journalism is obvious and evident- even the Pulitzer award
recognizes the great influence of digital journalism this year.
The article Pulitzer Honors Digital Journalism from the Harvard Crimson calls to attention of this year's Pulitzer Prize. Online news organizations such as the Huffington Post
and Politico won the awards. This is a big deal for journalists
around the world as Pulitzer is considered as the “Oscar of
journalism industry”. The article argues that the Huffington Post
and Politico are awarded not necessarily for their way of presenting
news but instead of their contents which in close look are still
quite conservative.
This year's Pulitzer Prize may give
great comfort and hope to digital journalists, but many still raise
doubts about digital journalism and its capability of reporting
quality news. Digital journalism often takes advantage of social
media such as Tweeter, Facebook, and online blogs to gather
information. As the article mentioned, the Huffington Post has often
receive criticism for over-using social media outlets as a news
source.
The question here is are we willing to sacrifice efficiency for quality journalism? Digital journalism is no
doubt becoming the trend right now. However, are we getting quality
news online? This question remains ambiguous but at the mean time
let's celebrate what digital journalism has brought to us.
Ashley Huang
The affects of Digital Journalism is outlined in this weeks reading, “User-
ReplyDeleteGenerated Content and Journalistic Value” by Singer and Ashman. The authors compare the key differences between UGC (user-generated content) writers and journalists. By utilizing employees of the UK’s Guardian newspaper, they interview journalists about their encounters with the online realm of Journalism.
Through Singer and Ashman’s interviews, readers gain a sense of the
animosity between journalists who work for the Guardian and individuals who write for UGCs. As a member of the Guardian staff, writers put their name on an gmarticle, and must stand behind their words, since this is their livelihood. On the other hand, UGC writers are anonymous and can leave behind the consequences of their article at any point without any repercussions.
The greatest difference between writers for the Guardian and those members of UGCs is the effect that public opinion plays in the stories that are covered.Newspapers should not rely on what information is popular at a given time; instead, they should distribute news about all types of fields. UGCs mainly cover issues that the public wants discussed. In my opinion, this is completely absurd. By only writing about ‘hot topics,’ citizens are being placed in a bubble where they are not challenged to ponder unforeseen topics; or, for that matter, citizens begin to loose the ability to view topics constructively. As individuals, we remain stagnant in our conceptual ideals and are unwilling to grow mentally.
While I do believe that UGCs are important to providing information to
citizens, there needs to be a balance between the channels that provide information to citizens. Both credible news sources, such as Newspapers, as well as blogs, where users’ opinions are expressed, need to be present in the everyday lives of today’s citizens.
I like the exchange here and how Singer and Ashman raise questions about new labor practices and the ideology of journalism in this time of change. It might be good to use a source other than the Harvard Crimson, of course, since a college paper may not have the same access to sources that other news outlets do. More analysis of specific examples from the Huffington Post would be interesting, and I would love to see Ashley reply specifically to Kelly in this discussion.
ReplyDelete