Tech troubles

As technology continues to improve and become more prevalent, it will undoubtedly become further ingrained in the way that journalists operate. Similarly, it will likely change how we think about journalism as a whole. As was seen in Jason Leopold’s account of the reporting he did in “News Junkie,” technology can be either incredibly helpful, or incredibly damning. When it was working for him, technology helped Leopold get electronic copies of forms and turn stories faster. He scooped the bigger fish. He won awards. He didn’t have to snort so much coke. Not much later, however, an e-mail with no source and no verification ruined his career. He lost his credibility. He lost his job. He took shots from numerous news outlets. I bet that made him want an eight ball real bad.

Jason Leopold certainly was not the first, and definitely won’t be the last, person to be both helped and harmed by technology. What’s yet to be seen is whether this increased access is ultimately better or worse for journalism and, more importantly, how it changes the ethics landscape. I think that technology is a great thing for journalism. Sure, Joe Sixpack might scoop me one day because he’s caught something on his video phone, but ultimately, more participants in journalism — and more eyes on journalists — will improve the trade. Even the watchdogs need a watchdog from time to time.

For instance, in this new age of technology, blogging is becoming an increasingly more important news medium. There are arguments that it shouldn’t be considered journalism because of the multitude of crap that floats around the internet. However, I would argue that the vast majority of people that frequent blog sites know the difference between a pure breed and a mut — they know the layout and the language of the internet and will not fall prey (as easily) to fake sites. That being said, reporters who blog must face an international audience that is capable of commenting on every word that it written. This allows for a much stronger check on power than the readership of a traditional news medium because the conversation is more open. Never before has a reporter been as available for criticism than with blogging — it makes transparency a much larger issue.

Outside of the blogosphere (which is a word I love, along with globesity a,k,a, the global obesity epidemic), technology has improved fact checking and possible source lists. You don’t need to get the government on the horn, or the census bureau, to get some facts, they’re available through the organization’s Web sites now. Additionally, news can be updated continuously, creating greater opportunities for in-depth reporting. So, when 9/11 hit, the news the next day wasn’t that it happened, by why it happened, who did it, etc. Technology has allowed for journalists to keep the public more informed.

These improvements do, admittedly, have a darker side. I know I am very dependent on spell check, something that can come back to haunt you (see public v. pubic if you don’t believe me). Furthermore, the sites that are often used for fact-checking can be wrong — places like Wikipedia contain a plethora of errors and inaccuracies and cannot be relied upon for a news source. With up-to-the-minute reporting also comes at-the-last-minute editing, in which editors and copy editors alike are unable to get ample time to look for inaccuracies, inconsistencies or even libelous content. Additionally, documents can be doctored or fabricated entirely. Sources with any sort of experience on programs like Photoshop can alter pictures to fool news agencies, whose excitement at a breaking story can lead to publishing a falsity. Fake blogs are created by public relations companies to create favorable news for their clients. All of these “improvements” in technology make it that much easier for a journalist to step on a metaphorical landmine. However, that in itself should ultimately lead journalism down a trail of stronger ethics. People who cut corners seem to get caught. Unethical reporters like Jason Leopold or Jayson Blair got caught and it seems likely others will too. In the end, the news organizations with the strongest reputations and strongest reporting will be comprised on journalists with the strongest ethics — or at the very least the journalists who are too scared to act unethically.

After all, if journalists don’t shape up and start acting better, robot journalists will eventually take our spots. And I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a robot as a butler than a reporter. Think about it.