Last semester, when working the copydesk during the night of the elections, I remember the newsroom buzzing about the break up of Brittney and K-Fed. All day I was anxious to hear the results of the election and hear which party had seized control in congress. For others, however, election news during most of the day was over-shadowed by news of this Hollywood breakup. When staff members in The Missourian asked me if I had heard about the ground-breaking split, my response was, “Why should I care?”
Technology’s most significant negative impact on news is the change in what is considered “news.” Technology has become the news hub for the younger generation of readers. This has caused reporters and editors to focus on a different form of news in order to attract more readers. The current news priorities are music, local, current events, international, national and politics, respectively. In addition, there has been an increased emphasis on celebrity gossip being passed off as news. Our society has been infiltrated by new technologies, so much that most people have become dependant on television, internet and their MP3 players.
Journalism plays a unique role in democratic societies. In order to make educated decisions concerning elections and different legislative policies, voters need information about local, national and international events. Journalism is the manner in which this information can be widely dispersed. However the current media’s attention has been redirected to a daily analysis of Hollywood. By the increased coverage of celebrities, the media is affirming that pop culture news is more important than local, national and international current events and political news. Celebrity news, however, does not contribute to the helping voters create a political consciousness.
The internet still offers a wide-array of information on politics and foreign affairs, though sometimes placed in a position subordinate to Brittney’s breakup. However even with the hard news provided, the news websites are only abbreviated versions of the print and television versions, Gans explains.
“In fact, the internet provides the most abbreviated news in all the news media, which may help explain why many young people, who are traditionally the least interested in the news, are getting most of their news from the web.”
When reporters fold to the market’s demands, in the manner of elevating news of music and celebrities above traditional news, they are failing in their role to serve their democratic society. Journalists need to be continually cognizant of their role in society. Editors are able to dictate what people think about by their choice of what to report and the choice of placement of different stories.
Journalists have an important ethical responsibility. Readers are always able to find news concerning just about any topic they want, however with the growing prominence of celebrity news the readers have to dig deeper to find the news that actually matters to their lives. Brittney’s breakup has no effect on the average reader’s life, however new immigration policies has an effect on the immigrants, small businesses, agriculture, prices of commodities, etc…
And, as Gans pointed out, the younger readers of internet news – which the celebrity gossip is appealing to – has a limited attention span for news. Therefore it is unlikely that these readers will set out to search for traditional news, the form that matters to their everyday lives.
So with technology pervading every aspect of society, celebrities are rising in the ranks and becoming more dominant figures. But where does journalism draw the line between reporting on celebrity news – which the market might demand – and traditional news of current events and politics which is pertinent to a democratic society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment