The New Journalists
The future of journalism has often been discussed in the past few years, especially in light of declining readership of traditional mediums (magazine subscriptions, physical newspapers, etc.) - and while I still read my fair share of physical media, it is becoming clear that traditional media outlets are having difficulty paying their bills. The larger implication of this, of course, is that they're beginning to have difficulty retaining quality journalists who are now pursuing their own endeavors, looking to establish the next serious milestone.
What's interesting to me is that those leading the emerging class of news outlets, especially in the tech world, aren't classically trained journalists in any sense of the word, especially evident by the squealing of those who do hold these credentials. There was an article recently in PC Magazine by Mr. Lance Ulanoff (here) regarding TechCrunch's Michael Arrington and his ability to essentially write whatever he pleases without regard to traditional journalism ethics.
Let's hold on for a moment, and take into consideration the fact that Mr. Ulanoff is maybe just a bit butthurt over the fact that, despite all of his schooling and experience (and he has the experience), a no-name blogger has been able to grow a substantial readership and significantly affect the world of tech in such a short amount of time through a publication that even just a few years ago nobody had ever heard of. The fact is that Arrington can be, at times, so outrageous that people HAVE to turn their heads. How do you think Lindsay Lohan stays in the news? Traditional media could take a few pointers from this guy.
Not too long ago CNN was being lambasted by critics who were concerned that the news outlet was overly objective and not opinionated enough. Easy illustration: What's more captivating? A technical manual, or a drama-laced epic about deception, secret alliances, and raging success? Or the more classic illustration: What sells more newspapers? Kids selling lemonade, or a magnificent car crash?
To be fair, I'd prefer an ounce of truth in the news I decide to spend my time with, but as any online news junkie will tell you, it takes a little training to gloss over these sensational stories without a care. It's funny - the ones I typically gloss over are the ones that generate the most noise. I go to TechCrunch for startup news, and little else. I then take the aggregate of all of the news stories I read, take the average, and equate the result as an approximation of what the day's news happened to be. Mr. Ulanoff clearly didn't do this, and is wasting energy on a perceived threat to his profession that would be better spent on figuring out how he's going to keep the boundaries of his beloved profession in tact.
If these traditional journalists are so damn worried, and outbursts such as the one referenced above are clearly evidence of their squeamish state, then they need to pick up the pace in quality, exposure, and progression/engagement of new mediums. After all, readers can differentiate between tabloids and actual news, unless you journalists really believe that the lines have been blurred that much in the online world. But really - who reads one news source and takes it as gospel?
I suppose that if the internet has demonstrated anything at all, it's the idea that a website built by a couple of guys in their mom's basement can carry more clout than traditional media, despite the vast differences in funding and manpower. Perhaps the lines are blurring between what we traditionally consider to be tabloids and serious news organizations - or are we simply rewriting the definitions of each?
Calm down and evolve, guys.
