JOUR 1111 Lecture 2: Media Evolves and Journalism Regresses

Source: http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2010/10/14/evolution-of-twitter-through-alternative-ways-of-usage/

In week two Bruce took us through the evolution of media, and its impact on news and journalism. Things such as old media (newspapers, radio etc), Web 1.0, which is the internet in its most basic form (information accompanied by ads), Web 2.0 (Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks), and finally Web 3.0 or the 'Semantic Web'. Web 3.0 revolves around structured data which allows users to share and find information more easily. An example of websites implementing this concept can be seen on YouTube, where they provide the user with 'recommended videos', derived from search history. 

Brilliant, and a little scary.  

Bruce also talked about how these different forms of media were changing news and the way in which it is distributed. Personally speaking, there is no doubt that news on the web has led to me neglecting older forms of media, simply due to accessibly. This is illustrated in my media diary. 

The fact that web news is so accessible means that people generally will look towards the internet for news. Whilst there is nothing wrong with qualified journalists writing up a story on the internet as opposed to a newspaper, I feel that the accessibility of the web has diluted the quality of journalism. 

The web is open to anyone.  In my opinion, this means that ANYONE can be a journalist. Anyone can write about an event and how they saw it, without verifying facts. Facebook and blogging are forums that are typically used for lazy journalism. 

I'm not saying that the number of good journalists has decreased as media and the internet has evolved, I am arguing that we are just more prone to bad journalism.

People might disagree with me, arguing that just because the average Joe wrote a story on something, doesn't make him a journalist. Well, yes it does. It just doesn't make him a very good one.