Change, especially were one finds it to be unwelcome change, is never an easy tablet to swallow down. In the context of ones profession you would expect dealing with unwelcome change would become even harder, you master something, sometimes even receiving recognition for your work and then the next day have to patiently sit through hearing that thing is now obsolete or altered to utilise some new toy or follow some new procedure. In any context when confronted with change any individual or profession has two choices, to either swallow it down, adopt it and keep moving or to point blank refuse and remain steadfast in the way in which they have always done things. As you could imagine in the profession of journalism, one charged with reporting the intricacies of society to itself the latter option does not lead to a great deal of success.
The remarkable thing about journalism is that it has, while never abandoning its traditional roots (with the exception of a lack of rock tablet newspapers), always taken the plunge and embraced societal trends. Whether it be radio, television or online modes journalism has always managed to keep up with, rather than fight against the emergence of new technologies and platforms (unlike say the music industry who instead choose to spend their time fighting online music distribution – an excellent example of how successful you’ll be if you decide not to adopt).
As these blogs have already established change has again come in the form of the online platform and social networks. What makes this change different is that it will never be a solid familiar platform, the online world is forever changing, upgrading and introducing new ways to communicate information and tell stories.
Narrowing down the scope of discussion to social networks like Facebook and Twitter shows that even here websites designed only as a means of communication between people has proved itself to be an invaluable journalistic tool for gathering information, crowd sourcing and obtaining quotes as excellently explained by the Poynter Institutes Jim Romenesko. That’s right….it came as a shock to me too, that that ‘devil website you waste your life on’ (quote attributed to pretty much every family member over age of 25) isn’t just a means to stalk the incredible brunette journalism girl I fell in love with in O week… “It’s helpful for my journalism busy work” excuse might go down better than telling my family about our modern day Romeo/Juliet situation.
While Facebook (and Twitter) presents a whole new basket of hazards and ethical issues this is no reason to shy away from taking the time to learn to effectively operate an utilise these resources. Unfortunately for those with a traditional attitude towards journalism the realities are that if a journalist’s job is truly to reflect on and depict our society this is where they are going to have to go because, as statistics have proven, this is where a large chunk of the world population now reside.
The benefits are pretty obvious, especially in relation to crowd sourcing which I was doing before even realising that’s what it was. (As are my colleagues whom have been plastering the news feed with “PLEASE GIVE US STORY IDEAS” updates.) While it would’ve taken me days to gather sources for my news story last semester on bouncer/patron violence – ringing around, waiting for people to ask others and get back to me etc - all it took me in this instance was one hastily constructed Facebook update and like magic I had 3 people who had been beat up and one security guard to interview.
In the context of obtaining quotes and accessing profiles the new Facebook system updates (yep, fasten in your earplugs and break out the generic indignant agreement nod, how dare they have the audacity to try and make things better for us) and in particular the subscribe options have made it far easier for journalists to access information without having to go through the daunting task of sending friend requests. This new feature, allowing people to receive updates deemed ‘public’ by those that aren’t their friends on Facebook means that for example celebrities and public figures are now able to have the one profile and chose what goes out to the world and alternatively then just to their close family and friends.
These changes do have impacts on journalistic practice (excellent article by Poynter on its implications) But how do these changes effect the already somewhat accepted Facebook policies in relation to the respect of a persons privacy? (that if ones profile is “public” it's open season on any info they give out). Does this feature mean that one might argue that even where a profile itself isn’t private a person who elects to send a update or photo that is available to public there is implied consent to its wider use? I’d think likely so.
As ex-prime-minister of the United Kingdom Harold Wilson once said (or so the quote site informed me),
“He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.”
Despite the constant updates and complexities of their use Journalists cannot afford to turn their noses at these new technologies but rather, in these hard times must be embracing and seeking them out in effort to find a means in which to sustain the industry long into the future.
And to all the journalists still hesitant to accept this change… I respectfully suggest that editors sit them down in a dim lit room and impart this finely crafted wisdom on their souls.
