Will New Technologies Really Increase the Quality of Journalism?

David Johnson has a strong belief in the potential of a future in which journalism of the people becomes as recognized and accepted as journalism of the “rich white guys” (as he may term it).  In our last class meeting, he expressed frustration in the traditional press’ willingness to bypass stories of greater importance (the many wars and struggles in the Middle East) for constant coverage of the Anthony Weiner debacle.  Although he may foresee an ideal journalistic-democratic society in which important news is covered by those best able to present this information, Johnson is also a realist.  He expressed plainly that people often don’t want to read the most important news stories because they just aren’t interesting.  Unfortunately, when the mainstream press faces this problem, they do not choose to increase the readability of significant information.  Instead, they increase the output of less worthwhile—but perhaps more flashy—content.

I really hope this isn't real.

This trend can be seen with a simple Google search.  The search “Anthony Weiner” on Google under the “News” subcategory returns 22,100 results.  Keep in mind this is a search for a man who no longer is currently a part of the government (after his resignation).  Meanwhile the news searches for Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Tim Pawlenty only returned 22,040 results combined.  All three of these people are viable candidates for the Republican nominee as the President of the United States.

There is clearly a problem when American journalists are more interested in political scandal than political relevance.  But is the answer to this really to increase the journalistic participation of the public through technology?  Will this increase the quality of our news?  Individual creation of news has been shown to have some promise.  In Iran and Egypt recent political uprisings have gained organizational support from social networking sites, causing some to call them “Twitter Revolutions.”  In Egypt (see below) millions filled the streets to protest Mubarak's government, many inspired by leaders sending messages to organize demonstrations.

My tweets calling for a lunch at Chipotle have never been met with such fervor.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/01/the-twitter-revolution-debate-the-egyptian-test-case/21296/

The above article points out that one simply cannot ignore the effects that online social networks had on these revolutions.  After all, would Mubarak have wanted to shut down the internet if the internet was having no impact on the political uprising?  Nevertheless, the possibilities for twitter's use as an organizational tool, do not necessarily foretell its use as a tool for good journalism.  This article goes on to mention that previous technologies have helped fuel rebellions.  A “texting rebellion” in  Manila and “Fax Revolution” in China did not fundamentally change the quality of journalism.

Perhaps this is an unfair comparison to make.  Texting and faxing may bring speed of transmission, but they are essentially two way messages.  Meanwhile tweets, blogs, and facebook messages do not reach just one receiver; they are immediately available to hundreds, thousands, or millions of news consumers.  And those consumers are out there.  The Pew Report, “Understanding the Participatory News Consumer” points out that on a typical day 61% of Americans get their news at least partially online.

See the report here: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Online-News/Summary-of-Findings/Overview.aspx

 But, despite Johnson’s wishes, it seems as though most people are still only seeking information rather than creating it.  Although many more internet users contribute to news through links and comments, only 9 percent of internet users have “contributed their own article, opinion piece, picture, or video” in a form of participatory news-making.  I would argue that this means the era of a democratic  journalistic industry is still far away.

However, this does not mean that online social networks are not increasing the quality of news.  I would argue in fact that individual news creation is not even necessary to increase news quality.  Instead, sharing will become the vital component in holding professional journalists accountable for the quality of their material.  The same Pew report states that of the adults that get news online, 75% of them say they “get news forwarded to them through email or posts on social networking sites.”  People often no longer even need to seek out relevant news, it is being delivered to them by their friends on facebook and twitter feeds.  News that is unimportant or not of interest to the readers will not reach an audience, while relevant, quality articles will become more easily accessible as they are spread on social network sites.  In conclusion, the rise of facebook and twitter may not be creating new, better journalists, but they will most definitely be used to spread the work of better mainstream journalists while leaving the work of out-of-touch journalists to flounder in the online abyss.