Far too long for a blog post? Agreed. But for those interested in Journalism , the digital revolution, or the future of media in general it’s worth sticking with me on this one. Along with fellow CJS students I’m blogging my Reporters and the Reported Essay. Follow the others on Twitter at #randr , enjoy!
It is the 22nd November 1963, 12.30pm. The sun is shining as a black motorcade slowly pulls its way through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. In New York, CBS news anchor, Walter Cronkite is sitting at his desk, drinking coffee and making notes on some copy. As the motorcade’s wheels crunch their way down the road, the noise of the red, white and blue crowd is so loud that the smiling faces barely hear the first shot.
Nine minutes later the first radio bulletin went out on a local Dallas radio. “KLIF bulletin from Dallas: three shots reportedly were fired at President Kennedy.” 13 minutes later the first television bulletin went out by Walter Cronkite at CBS.
If the same situation happened today the whole world would know within seconds.
In a world where a digital revolution has swept across the media, and continues to change and adapt the way we work as journalists, news reaches the audience faster than ever. It is likely that almost every person in the crowd today would have a mobile phone, each capable of capturing that news and sending it directly to Twitter. But does that make everyone a journalist?
Richard Tait, director of the centre for journalism studies at Cardiff University, said: “When I started in journalism a journalist was the first person at an event, journalists were the first to file. They’re not anymore.” Today the presence of digital technology means anyone at the scene is capable of reporting the event and of therefore being labelled a citizen journalist.
For many the citizen journalist is rogue, a threat to the trained professionals, and little more than a hap-hazard mouth piece. Richard Tait said: “The blogosphere is unregulated, an open city…the bloggers have no rules, they don’t have an ethical code.” When Tiger Woods crashed his car outside his home on 27th November 2009, it wasn’t long before there were Twitter reports saying that he was dead, which was entirely untrue.
The digital revolution, and particularly the internet, has created an open forum and people do not have to check their sources before they put out a piece of ‘news.’ Blogs and tweets can be misinformed, they can offer poorly researched pieces or inaccuracy, but these are the flaws we have to accept in order to progress. It is only by accepting these flaws and being aware of them that we can make use of the advantages created by the digital revolution to support good journalism.
Speaking at the memorial service for Walter Cronkite on 9th September 2009, President Barack Obama questioned what place good journalism can have in such a world of digital noise. He said: “Naturally we find ourselves wondering how [Walter] would’ve covered the stories of our time. In an era where the news that city hall is on fire can sweep around the world at the speed of the internet, would he still have called to double check? Would he have been able to cut through the murky noise of the blogs and the tweets and the sound bites?”
The crucial point however is not to cut through the blogs and the tweets, but to utilise them. Ian Hargreaves, former director of Cardiff University’s Centre for Journalism Studies, said: “User-generated content has an opportunity to emerge unmediated through professional journalists. I think that’s a good thing, and I think journalists, professional journalists, still have a place in that.”
‘User-generated content’ and ‘citizen journalist’ are newly coined terms, often sparking fear into the heart of the professional journalist, but their value has been shown in the past. When President Kennedy sat in his motorcade waving at the Dallas crowds, a 58-year-old American clothes manufacturer was standing on his tip-toes at the side of the road, his Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series movie camera balanced on his arm, trying desperately to capture a shot of the President. Little did he know it would be a very different kind of shot that he would capture.
No broadcast crews were at the Dealey Plaza that day. They had decided it wasn’t an important location and the unknown American became the only person to have clear, moving footage of the assassination of President John F Kennedy at close range. The Zapruda Film, as the footage later became known, was perhaps the first piece of user-generated content, and Abraham Zapruda, the first citizen journalist.
Without the citizen journalist, the public may miss out on the crucial moment of the news event. The citizen journalist is a tool to be cultivated, to be used to support good journalism rather than to replace it.
Mark Byford, deputy director general and head of BBC journalism, considers the notion of good journalism when he says: “What is best journalism? It is certainly around excellence, a strive for excellence in all you do.” He listed ambition, creativity, originality, curiosity and integrity as the organs which allow a good journalist to breathe.
It is this integrity and truth which underpins good journalism. When Walter Cronkite was reporting the assassination, sitting before the camera in just a shirt and tie, his jacket left behind in the urgency to reach the audience, he received rumoured reports that the President had died. KRLD, a CBS affiliate reporting from Dallas, went ahead and reported the death of the president without any official confirmation. Cronkite waited until he was certain of the truth.
To some extent the digital revolution, instead of making a casualty of good journalism has bandaged it and revived it through the policing of this truth. Charles Reiss, former political editor of the Evening Standard, said: “You can fool some of the people some of the time but the number of people you can fool and the time you can fool them is ever shrinking because we have an ever more educated readership and bunch of viewers and we have ever more alternative sources of information thanks largely, but not entirely, to the net.”
The digital revolution has created a global scrutiny network; readers and viewers can speak out against what they perceive to be bad journalism. The screen between the journalist and the viewer has been smashed, they are more engaged and communicative than ever, and this can only be a good thing. In Journalism Truth or Dare, Ian Hargreaves says: “Journalism today is a two-way street, or rather a multi-directional process in a boundaryless space, rather than the one-way street of the traditional newspaper or television news bulletin.”
Good journalism does not need to be a casualty of the digital revolution, instead it must be enhanced by new technology. However, this is not to say there will be no casualties of such dramatic changes to the industry. Ian Hargreaves said: “I’m not sure that physical newspapers will still exist in 20 or 30 years, I think it’s possible that they won’t.”
A report on Media Guardian on 15th January 2010 by Roy Greenslade supports this view as Greenslade described how Greg Hadfield, head of the Telegraph Media Group’s digital development, “stood up at the news rewired conference at City University to make a keynote speech, told a questioner that newspapers had no future and as a consequence, he was leaving his job.”
It would appear that it will not be the quality of content that becomes the casualty of digital journalism but the format, and, regrettably, the days of hands mucky with print, and newspapers on trains will become a casualty long forgotten.