Matt Birt
Courtesy: Twitter
Twenty years ago, online news was a goofy, slow, newfangled
notion that, figuratively speaking, still hadn’t been housebroken. Television and print media were top dog as
far as media goes and had been around for decades. But since then, the internet has gotten
itself together and has pushed aside the established industries, becoming the
primary method for how people under the age of 50 to get their news. It is not only supplanting both TV and
printed publications in audience share, but it is causing a massive shift in
the industry that is putting newspapers out of business and leaving news
stations scrambling to reorganize.
The internet is a cheaper, easier way for individuals and
companies to share news. The
instantaneous nature of it allows for constant updates unrestrained by time
slots or printing schedules. Platforms
like Twitter and Facebook – social media sites that allow users to
pick-and-choose what news they see – bring to-the-minute updates to followers
on their computers, mobile phones, and tablets.
The biggest attraction these devices and sites have to many users is the
customizable news feeds. Rather than being
fed the news that editors or producers felt was worthy enough to make the cut, users
can choose what news to take in. Media
outlets like NBC, Cosmopolitan and the Huffington Post have multiple accounts
on dedicated to more specific niches like the NFL or regions like the United
Kingdom.
Individualized news is a relatively new concept. Televised news and the stories they covered
were up to producers, who could give any amount of time to whatever stories
they deemed important. Newspapers had
similar restrictions with word counts and column space where only so much could
be squeezed into an edition. Outlets had
to present themselves as generally unbiased onlookers merely passing along
information to the general public. What
the internet has done for the news world is create a place with virtually no
limits on coverage or content. Not only
can users find stories with angles more suited to themselves (e.g. a Republican
following FOX News on Facebook), but people so inclined can actually create
their own websites dedicated to what they see as important.
In the tumult of this shuffle, users have gained an
increasing sense of self. The new format
– which allows consumers to pick what
they read, when they read it and with whom they share it with – gives a newfound sense of liberty. They are no longer shackled to a menu with
limited course offerings. The buffet is
now open, and people want all they can get.
Social media users take this philosophy to the next
level. Sites like AOL Instant Messenger
and MySpace paved the way for users to express themselves as individuals on
services like Instagram and Pinterest.
Not only can members follow who and what they like, they can also generate
content they want to fit their own desires.
Before this time, bylines and anchor positions were what people fought
for in order share their thoughts with the world. Now, people can be satisfied with a couple
hundred likes on a few thousand followers to share their daily thoughts with.
The newfound attitudes the public has developed in
conjunction with the new technology have proven to be major obstacles for
companies to adjust to. Surveys have
shown that news viewers and subscribers have an increasing distrust or dislike
for the established media today. They
believe outlets are biased, or don’t do a good job being independent observers
in stories anymore. To some extent they
may be right, but they also have different expectations for the journalists and
reporters. They want to hear the news
they want, and with today’s oversaturated market of cable news networks and
online websites that are constantly growing in number, they can find that. Before the internet, that pacification didn’t
exist and people had to accept it. Now,
they don’t have to accept it and can voice their displeasures with big media more
readily.
A pioneer in the online news game is BuzzFeed. It was created as a hub for viral content and
is generally known for short, succinct “listicles”, but has flourished since
2006, becoming one of the biggest news generators online today. The content offered by its staff range from
political and international news articles to entertainment notes and even
quizzes. As of this hour, BuzzFeed’s
primary Twitter account had 1,216,802 followers. Comparably, The New York Times, one of the
most well-known and vaunted newspapers in the world, has a daily circulation of
1,865,315 subscribers, 1,133,923 of whom have digital subscriptions. If a 2006 start-up can attract just as many
consumers to its site as an established journalistic icon, then it seems to
reason that the age of mass communications as we knew it has morphed almost
totally the opposite. Instead of an
industry dominated by businesses that told us what it thought was important, that same industry now depends on giving
the consumers what they believe is
important, no matter how arcane their expectations or definitions of journalism
may seem.
As demographics continue to shift, the notion of a
personalized news industry will only continue to take shape. Journalists who have spent years or decades
in the newspaper or television industry will have to adapt to using their
employers’ websites to get their content out and utilize social media to
continue to be relevant. The need to be
present on social media only reflects the demands of the consumers, who want to
know and interact with their news sources rather than just being talked at by
them. It’s up to the journalists to
adjust to the users’ demands, however unreasonable they may seem. Me-first journalism is a new idea that the established industry must conform to, and a refusal to do so may result in
the greatest extinction since the dinosaurs.
No comments:
Post a Comment