The traditional perspective of a middle-aged man, smoking a cigarette while furiously typing away on a typewriter in a mad bid to have his story submitted by a deadline is what some people may think of when they hear the word ‘journalist’. However this view of journalism has become seriously outdated. Yes, the tight deadlines remain, but due to evolving technologies the profession of journalism has also developed. The journalist is now tech-savvy, with many incorporating various forms of media such as video, pictures, text and audio into a compilation of news, presented through the internet, the format that has changed journalism forever.
While the internet has changed the profession of journalism, so did television. Television was thought to be the death of radio, however both media forms survive to this day. While the internet will not be the death of traditional media outlets, it will indeed change them forever, with the possibility of audiences having to pay to view content that would normally be for free. (However my optimistic view of traditional journalism medias is not shared by all, with Roy Greenslade, one of Britain’s leading media commentators declaring at the Future of Journalism Summit, “Popular newspapers, the mass newspapers, are dying and will die. They have no future whatsoever” (2008).
Rupert Murdoch famously has announced his plans to persuade newspaper readers to pay for online content, something that journalist Margret Simons from Crikey has acknowledged as the “media issue of the new decade” (2010). A survey from the international World Internet Project, in conjunction with Australian researchers, found that seven out of 10 Australians stated they would not be willing to pay for anything at all, an interesting finding for Mr Murdoch to consider. (However as Simons states, the survey involved a small number of respondents which should be taken into consideration.)
So I pose the questions… Would you pay for online news? How much? What type of news would you pay to consume? Isn’t it only fair that as you have to pay to consume news through newspapers, you should have to pay to consume news through the internet?
To check out the views from one side of the argument, have a look at this YouTube clip where the author of Googled: The End of the World As We Know it, Ken Auletta, suggests that the culture of the internet suggests that “information should be free” and if we charge people to consume news, as Murdoch suggests, we would be changing the culture of the internet.
References:
Simons, M 2010, ‘Will Aussies pay for Murdoch’s news?’, Crikey, 13 January, accessed 18 August 2010, <http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/13/murdochs-grand-paywall-experiment-will-aussies-pay/>
The Future of Journalism: A joint initiative of the Media Alliance and the Walkley Foundation, 2010, accessed 18 August 2010, <http://www.thefutureofjournalism.org.au/>
YouTube – Would You Pay for Online News? Ken Auletta, 2009, online video, accessed 18 August 210, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC-FWdagpz8>
I have to agree with you Jess, I don't think the general public are aware of how multidimensional the role of the journalist has become and how big the domain of the internet is in relation to the generation of news.
ReplyDeleteGrudgingly I have to admit I would pay for online content. In saying this though I would be happier to pay for 'real' news on the internet rather than celebrity and gossip news. Although; (sadly and embarrassingly) I would still like to access such entertainment news. Therefore, I would look to other avenues to access this content! Online news, watch this space!
No one want to exist on meat and three veg alone. An occasional sweet is good for the soul. But too sweet a diet rots your teeth and increases the weight around your middle.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same with the diet journalism offers the consumer. Entertainment is one part of it only.