What really interested me with the last online media lecture was the comparisons made between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. (Although increasingly what interests me almost as much is why it’s called 2.0 rather than merely 2, are we really going to have 2.1 and 2.2 and 2.3 updates? Have these stages already come and gone and we are now onto 3.0? Also I couldn’t make my mind up if Web deserved a capital W in the context of Web 2.0? I suspect I have gone off the point somewhat).
So what I was really going to talk about was the differences between Web 1(.0?) and 2.0. There is a general understanding that web 1 was essentially un-responsive, in a similar way to print newspapers. This was because content could be published and read but those that read it couldn’t really respond.
Web 2.0 allows much more exciting prospects for journalism. Although the ‘excitement’ of Web 2.0 could be seen as a scary thing to many journalists, if journalists do embrace this change then it is potentially a very exciting thing. Modern journalists should realise that rather than being fearful of the consumers increased ability to respond them, it can be of great benefit to their stories. The conversation and the creation of the ‘prosumer’ means that journalists have greater access to new sources and potentially more ‘experts’ than ever before. These are available through all manners of different methods, many of which are yet to be explored fully, with some suggesting ideas such as posting draft versions of articles on blogs, allowing readers to have an input on the creative process. Here are some other examples of what the Liverpool Post is experimenting with
Those who have read previous blog entries may be wondering where my critical tone has gone, and fear not it is about to arrive. There are obviously some great limitations to the concept of Web 2.0.
The first point is that perhaps all this talk of what Web 2.0 can bring to modern journalism is just a bit hopeful? Sure journalists could put a draft version up and allow reader input, sure they could respond to online criticism on their articles, they could do many of the things that Web 2.0 offers. Here is the big BUT though, journalists are increasingly seeing resources cut back as advertising revenues drop and a recession hits in resulting in many job cut backs. How are journalists expected to find the time to do all these extra things when they are being increasingly stretched? There isn’t really time for journalists to engage with readers about stories they have already written as they are generally working on the next story.
The sum of what I am trying to suggest is that if journalists were to use all these great perks of Web 2.0 then it would mean that they potentially have to spend an infinite amount of time on just one story. They would have to keep coming back to the story, grinding their current work to a halt. There are surely some great benefits to be found from Web 2.0 but personally I question whether it is possible for all areas of the media to make full use of these benefits, and I certainly question the bleak vision some provide of the newspaper industry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yes, you are correct that we can not do all of these things all of the time.
But don't forget that the whole point is the potential that this offers - we will need to get our heads around how to make this work.
Newsrooms are in decline no matter what else we do - so is it hopeful, maybe but it is better than standing on the deck watching the boat sink.
Besides, it is still relatively early (in media body terms) for thinking about how to deal with this.
The point is, we don't have to do everything.
Jobs will change, subs are potentially in decline while community managers are slowly starting to appear.
I agree time is of the issue, and in the short term I can't see how that will change - it is up to people like you to try and work out how to build on the core skills.
Post a Comment