So once again we hear about how important blogging is in the media, and how it’s becoming and important tool for journalists. Adam Tinworth is someone who clearly believes in the value of blogging; he has several himself. There clearly is a very real value to blogging, it allows for commentary and discussion on news stories, rather than just chucking the facts at the consumer. The phrase ‘two-way conversation’ definitely has a place here. It allows healthy debate and awareness of issues surrounding stories, rather than just telling the bare facts. This then follows on to making people more culturally aware and maybe even more sensitive to certain issues.
However, I think their importance and how popular they are is being exaggerated by some. Do people really have time to ready X,Y and Z’s blog? Do they really engage with it to a great extent? Or do they just scan through them to get a general overview? Does any of this even really matter?
Also, is this really that new? Newspapers have carried commentary and letters pages pretty much since their birth – the only real difference now is that the feedback by consumers is much more instant and the writers have to sit up and take notice. The comments are right in front of their screen; they can’t hide from them.
However, I particularly took issue with Adam’s comments that ‘now we can break news when it happens’. Well, broadcast news has always done this.
However, I think their importance and how popular they are is being exaggerated by some. Do people really have time to ready X,Y and Z’s blog? Do they really engage with it to a great extent? Or do they just scan through them to get a general overview? Does any of this even really matter?
Also, is this really that new? Newspapers have carried commentary and letters pages pretty much since their birth – the only real difference now is that the feedback by consumers is much more instant and the writers have to sit up and take notice. The comments are right in front of their screen; they can’t hide from them.
However, I particularly took issue with Adam’s comments that ‘now we can break news when it happens’. Well, broadcast news has always done this.
Rolling news channels were a great step forward in providing 24/7 news but radio bulletins before this were even more up to date than print media. With bulletins on the hour, half hour and during peak times, headlines every 15 minutes, broadcasters have always been able to break news as it happens. I understand that he’s coming from a print background, but this newspaper-centric view, is perhaps a little naïve. Online media and websites are revolutionary for print journalists, because they really can now break news stories much more quickly than they ever have done – but this isn’t new for everyone and its importance shouldn’t be overplayed.
1 comment:
The answer to your post has always been yes and no. No, broadcast (particularly TV) couldn't always break news straightaway and even with 24/7 (as you hear from Justin) there is a set of slots.
Besides, I don't want to have to go and find a TV to get my news in the day - my boss would go ballistic. So one of the places I'll got to is the BBC website and RSS feeds to keep updated on what is happening.
Your point about news not having to fit into prearranged slots, either print or broadcast, is a very good one.
Remember even people like Peston tend to break news on their blog - which provides the flip side to your argument on broadcast news.
And for you info - Adam is from a magazine company not a newspaper. Maybe that's a bit of niave broadcast centric comment from you ;D
Post a Comment