We were all getting a little tired of the Web 2.0 buzzwords being drummed into us.
Social media. Change. Conversation. Democracy. Blogs. Networking.
Buzz when you hear the Web 2.0 word. Photo by Markus Angermeier.
So, it was a nice surprise for the Telegraph’s Communities Editor, Shane Richmond to give us a different point of view in this week’s Online and Mobile Media lecture.
Most interestingly, he mentioned the NUJ and their concern about Web 2.0 destroying journalism. He has written a blog post about it.
This shocked me. I was under the impression there was two distinct groups in journalism at the moment.
- The traditional hack; clinging and clawing onto the old ways and means of making news.
- The tech-savvy geek with a bunch of blogs and Twitter-meet ups in his diary.
@tweetfreak a Twitter meet up. Photo by mallix
Apparently, there are others (aside from the sub-culture of students) who are very confused about all this web stuff. And more poignantly, even the NUJ!
The offending article in the NUJ’s magazine, The Journalist, was written by a Multi-Media Commission member, Donnacha DeLong. He said:
“There are those who claim that Web 2.0 democratises the media. It would make everyone equal, yes, but should they be? It’s like saying anyone can play for Manchester United.”
Whatever Delong thinks, Web 2.0 democracy is something worth maintaining. Quality journalism will not be forfeited simply because more content is being published.
Shane Richmond also defends the concern from people like DeLong about Web 2.0.
Indeed, some internet or Web 2.0 content may seem “rubbish” (to use DeLong’s word) but that content may not be for you.
This is something I had never considered. Some journalists have been very quick to disregard online content. But that awful content may well be important to the people it involves and therefore it is important to maintain it.
Shane used the analogy of someone talking on their mobile on a train. It’s the same conversation you always hear: “I’m on the train”, and it’s a bit of a social joke now (thanks to Dom Joly). Although this conversation is not relevant to you, it is to the people who are having it; even the worst of the internet (as considered by Word Magazine) is relevant to someone. [youtube=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Xut__-uXG8U]
Relevation: the quality of Web 2.0 content can only be judged by those who it is relevant to.
I’m sure the Facebook for dogs, Dogbook, is relevant for someone out there (who are these people?)
And – although I hate to admit it – stuff like this makes me laugh:
[youtube=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BQOds0kCgOk&feature=related]
Long live Web 2.0 democracy!
I’m going to do a follow up on this with a list of the worst internet content (which is relevant for someone) just for fun. Let me know if you have any to add.
Photo used courtesy of mallix and used under the Creative Commons Licence. Available on Flickr.
Hmmm, seems to me that Donnacha DeLong doesn’t quite understand what he’s looking at. Just because you publish on the internet it does not mean you are playing for Manchester United. As Clay Shirky points out, the best material will rise to the top via the links it gains and the worst (or least generally interesting or relevant) will sink to the bottom. Just like the divisions of the football league. Only a few will be in the Premiership and most of us will be non-league. Nothing wrong with that, surely – and even more crucially, is it even possible to have a *bit* of democracy? Or would DeLong prefer something that is not really democracy?
Nice to see my rant is still causing controversy and people are still misunderstanding it. My argument is not against the democracy of the Internet and social media tools, it’s about those who want to get rid of traditional media and replace it with so-called Web 2.0. Have a look at how corporations are destroying the media, getting rid of sub-editors, turning journalists into churnalists stuck at their desks turning press releases into stories and depending on Twitter for information. I’ve no problem with blogs, YouTube or Twitter, my argument is against those who think we don’t need professional journalism any more. You might want to read this: http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=629 for a fuller elucidation of the argument.
Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the impact of new media upon traditional journalism is something professional journalists are right to worry about. The new digital environment has shaken the foundations of professional journalism and its values of accuracy, honesty and reliability as an increasing part of the news is generated in accordance with UGC.
Rather than getting ‘rid of traditional media’, new media platforms, like Twitter, means traditional journalism will be forced to change and adapt. Professionals have to incorporate citizen journalists into their reports and accept that citizens (using blogs, YouTube and Twitter) will most likely be first on the scene, be able to provide eye-witness accounts and maybe even know more about a subject than a single journalist. Citizens are now part of the reporting pool. The issue now is how to use this information and not lose traditional values.
In order to protect professional journalism, professionals will have to adjust their roles. Not only will journalists have to generate quality reports and provide reliable analysis, but, journalists will now play a greater role in verifying UGC. Indeed, journalism is a two-way process now and we will rely upon journalistic training and experience to create order from the digital chaos.
There is pressure upon media organisations to compete with a growing influx of content and generate web traffic. Yes, with the awareness of such information as ‘clickstream data’, some of the media are prioritising popular content – about celebrities and the like – to attract readers. Yet, this is not reflective of all media organisations.
I believe professional journalism is simply changing. And the passion such journalists as yourself have for maintaining professionalism goes to prove that quality will be protected providing professionals do not resist the emergence of UGC but learn how to use it to everyone’s advantage. Web 2.0 is not replacing traditional journalism, it is changing it and it cannot – and should not – be resisted.
Please let me know what you think.
I agree completely with you and, as a new media journalist for over 10 years (RTÉ, Edexcell, Amnesty International), I’ve watched the changes as they’ve happened and changed with them. The problem is the attitude of current media bosses – their failure to train people in new technologies, constant job cuts and increasing workloads mean that people are drowning in work and unable to effectively adapt and change. Have a look at the NUJ’s Cutbacks Crisis page: http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=1035 and see the extent of the problem.
We need to reinvent how the media is run and how it’s funded to achieve the kind of system you outline where journalists add value to what the public can do through UGC (rather than parrot it and press releases as too many are resorting to at the moment).