A Changing Face

Journalism is changing. Newspapers are a dying industry. The work of reporters is being compromised by the ever-changing technology. Journalists today have heard these words of warning and many more. While there is no arguing the fact that the face of journalism is quickly adapting to new mediums, the essence journalism – keeper of democracy, disperser of truth, information without a hidden agenda – remains unchanged. Or at least it should. Contrary to the naysayers who point to statistics and insist journalism will never hit the peak that it did in the middle of last century, the craft will continue to be a powerful societal force. It just may be somewhat disguised.

In his article, “Beyond News,” which addresses the way the Web will likely affect the continual evolution of newspaper journalism, Mitchell Stephens asserts that “mainstream journalists are making a mistake if they believe their ability to collect and organize facts will continue to make them indispensable” (CJR, Jan/Feb, pg. 35). In other words, if newspapers are going to remain vital and serve a unique purpose, then newspaper journalists must add another dimension to their writing. They must be able to give readers something they cannot get online or from some other media source. The key lies in analysis. Stephens says the goal is to create something like a “viewpaper,” in which there is another layer to simply reporting the news; there is “analysis, interpretation, point of view” (36). As I read Stephens’ argument, I was both intrigued and appalled by his suggestion of transforming newspapers into “viewpapers.” On one hand, I agree that we need to strive to add extra value to news events. The inverted pyramid style of writing may be going by the wayside because newspapers are no longer people’s first source for the news. We must assume that by the time the morning paper is delivered that the average reader has already heard on the radio, watched on t.v. or read online much of yesterday’s news.

Therefore, ideally a newspaper can serve an analytical role. Newspaper journalists have the time and likely the resources to find specific relevance of newsworthy events and put them in perspective. Why does the city council vote matter to the kindergarten teach down the street? How does the change in city tax affect the university professor? Will the restaurant manager’s day-to-day activities be adversely altered as a result of an upcoming protest? Newspapers must provide a sort of analysis that makes news personal and meaningful in order to remain a necessity.

However, Stephens’ assertion that newspapers need to be “viewpapers” makes me wonder if journalism is heading away from its emphasis for objectiveness. There is still a need for the public to be able to take facts and come to conclusions on its own. If reporters take a stance, how will the public know what are facts and what are opinion? Newspapers need to find a new way to stay important, but sacrificing objectiveness to do so jeopardizes the already dwindling credibility people in the profession enjoy.

I also believe that if journalism is going to continue to perform its essential role in preserving democracy, that newspapers cannot be afraid to take risks. We need to go after the stories that other mediums do not have the time or the resources to attack. However, the picture that Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert Kaiser paint in their book, The News About the News, is an ominous one. With newspapers consolidating and being purchased by media conglomerates, the trend has been more toward making profit rather than bettering news coverage. This is extremely troublesome. While it is inevitable that newspapers do constitute a business, the examples of the Des Moines Register (pg. 90) and the Louisville Courier-Journal (pg. 91) drastically cutting back on their staffs and consequently on the quality of their news coverage makes me very concerned about the future of this business. Good journalism depends on resources and reporters, and with the number of those diminishing, good journalism is threatened.

While the face of journalism is inevitably changing, one way in which journalists, especially print journalists, can stay up with new technology, is through practicing accountability journalism. Downie writes that journalists “help encourage the honest and open use of power, and they help make America a fairer society… [through] resourceful reporting and vivid presentation” (30-31). This is a power and purpose that bloggers and other new media sources cannot emulate. I see newspapers having to go in this direction if they want to continue to have a useful function. The newspapers have an advantage in that they have a greater number of resources available in comparison to other media. Another thing that the authors point out is that newspapers still do much of the original reporting that is now being read online. Statistics show that readership of newspapers is steadily declining. That is no secret. However, that does not necessarily translate into a decline in readership of what newspaper journalists write. The medium is simply changing. Online sources take from traditional newspaper sources, such as the AP and Reuters, but the skills and in-depth reporting that newspapers have been known for are still far from disappearing.

The idea that journalism mediums are intertwined goes beyond online sources using newspaper copy. The future of journalism is a future characterized by synergy. It’s a future of convergence. Already there are a number of newspapers and television stations that share multimedia newsrooms. This type of collaboration has been utilized successfully in Tampa where the Tribune, WFLA and TBO.com all share one news center. The introduction of online news sources forced one-trade journalists to be able to adapt and produce for a second medium. In the future, journalists may be expected to be experts of three or four mediums. A newspaper reporter will write a basic story that can quickly be put up online, before churning out a more in-depth copy to run in the next day’s paper. In addition, they may be asked to appear on a news station or call into a radio news program to serve as an expert.

The future of journalism is bright, that is, if journalists want it to be. To survive and thrive, journalists need to be willing and able to adapt. What won’t change is the fact that people still want – and more importantly, need – the news. Journalists need to be there to give it to them.