|
 |
| How
has the online news industry evolved over the last 5 years? Where is it
going? |
Five years ago, most people were just beginning to discover the Web,
and the online news industry took notice not long after that. Early
efforts were embarrassing, to put it kindly, with few publications that
had even an inkling of understanding about the nature of Net culture.
For the most part, old media was content to pour yesterday's news, aptly
called shovelware, into the digital abyss. Nobody read it -- and deservedly
so.
In the past two years, but the past year in particular, there's been
a turnaround. Some of traditional media's biggest powerhouses, such
as the New York Times and
Chicago Tribune,
now do a lot of original reporting on the Web. (Thankfully, we're seeing
an end to the nonsensical drivel about online news organizations "scooping
themselves" with their online editions.) CNN
Interactive and newcomer MSNBC
are fighting it out for supremacy in traffic, drawing millions of visitors
each month. And refreshingly, young online publications like Salon
have provided important new voices to the news dialogue.
|
|
|
| How
has the Internet changed the way people get their news? |
Today news consumers have information flooding them from
all directions. If television displaced newspapers as the medium people
turn to for breaking news, the Net is the medium people turn to in order
to get a richer news experience. That richness may come from the Net's
immediacy, which rivals broadcast's; from its depth, for the news hole
on the Net is limitless; and from its most powerful feature, interactivity,
which online news organizations still haven't grasped, much less exploited.
On election night, I'll have the TV turned to election coverage, but I'll
also be surfing the Web, accessing the races and results most important
to me.
The Net, coupled with cable, talk radio, interview shows and the like,
has created a 24-hour news cycle. It's a cycle that's increasingly out
of the hands of the politicians, the spinmeisters, the PR professionals,
and the news media themselves. Instead, amateur armchair journalists are
sometimes calling the shots, and that's a scary thing for professional
journalists. It also imposes on the public a greater responsibility to
be aware of and educated about the source of the news it receives. Not
all news purveyors are trustworthy, and it's critical that as news consumers
we make distinctions about the sources of the news and information we
come upon. Otherwise we'll live in a news universe where bad information
drives out the good. |
|
|
| How
have Internet-only publications fared (Salon, Slate, etc.)? |
We're still fairly early in this grand experiment. I think Salon
has proved to be one of the singular success stories of the Web, for
the breadth of its coverage, quality of its content, and the likelihood
that it will succeed as a business. Slate
had that opening, too, but has largely frittered away its chances by
hewing too closely to the old media heritage of its editors and founders.
(I worked for Microsoft as a journalist at the time Slate went
to its subscription model and could only shake my head at the Redmond
giant's bumbling missteps.)
What's disappointing is the lack of other new and vibrant voices on
the Web. Feed is a good
chronicler of social issues, Suck
provides an occasional diversion, Wired
News is still plugging away, ZDNet
and CNet do a good job covering
technology news. But we need to see more original voices.
|
|
|
| How
has the Internet affected journalism as a whole? |
It's transformed our craft in new and extraordinary ways.
We're no longer the gatekeepers of information. The floodgates are open,
and it's up to us to try to make sense of it all. The Net is forcing us
to be more relevant to our readers and viewers, more open and accessible,
more trusting in the audience's judgment, and more accountable -- it's
much easier to ferret out deception, plagiarism and deceit in an interactive
medium. I think the Net has also infused the profession with new excitement
and vigor. Young people who are turned off by old media's hierarchical,
closed-to-new-ideas corporate culture are joining new media, whether it's
for the online arm of a traditional news organization, like Time
Digital or Tampa Bay Online,
or for a niche online publication like SonicNet
or BabyCenter. It's healthy
and invigorating for journalism. |
|
|
| Is
there a discrepancy in editorial standards between Internet news and other
mediums? |
I truly believe that we can no more make a sweeping generalization
about "Internet news" than we can about "print news"
or "broadcast news." Standards run the gamut in all media.
I'm relieved and gladdened that traditionial media organizations like
the NewsHour, the
Wall Street Journal, Washington
Post and the like have transferred their timeless values and
standards onto the Web. And when Web upstarts like Salon or Wired
News buck the conventional wisdom, sometimes it's the status quo
that needs reexamination.
As far as Matt Drudge, the conspiracy
theorists and others are concerned, the Net is a big enough medium to
accommodate all shades of reportage. Print has its tabloids, gossip
columnists and anonymous sources. Broadcast has its invasive cameramen,
live car chases and honoraria-taking talking heads. The Net has its
share of abuses, too. But the democratizing of the news process will
ultimately prove to be healthy not just for news consumers but for journalism
as well.
|
