In the webchat that Eric has referred us to, one participant asks a really valid question:
“Q [Naimat Ullah Khan]: LC Karachi: How and to what extent, does traditional media remain effective despite the boom of digital Journalism?”
I’ve posted Butler’s response below, as I think it has huge relevance for us.
A [Patrick Butler]: I think that if the traditional media accept and embrace these changes, they can actually thrive in the era of digital journalism. Traditional media often have a trusted brand, so when you read something from a prestigious newspaper in your country on line you may trust it more than something that comes from a less well-known source. But traditional media have to become more relevant to people who prefer digital journalism — people who like blogs, multimedia content, etc. The traditional media that thrive will be those that embrace those new techniques without giving up the quality journalism they are known for.
So, what do we think? Can traditional media survive in an age of digital technology? I certainly don’t buy newspapers as regularly as I used to, as I get RSS feeds to my laptop, and breaking news to my mobile. I read my daily paper online, and use an RSS feed on facebook for financial news!
The BBC’s iPlayer is undergoing massive change at the moment. For the first week after a programme is broadcast, it’s free on iPlayer. After that, we have to pay to download it (at just over £1 per download). Doesn’t this conflict with the BBC’s values? We pay the license fee, shouldn’t all programmes be paid for through that? Nope. After a week, the programme becomes part of the BBC’s money making arm, BBC World. Effectively, it’s like us going into HMV and buying a dvd of Pride and Prejudice.
So that’s how the BBC is dealing with having to fund a whole new branch of media.
What about other channels? There’s been a huge amount of coverage of advertising revenues falling, and ITV feeling the strain. It was headline news last week that their annual profits fell 35%. So how will they pick up the slack? Executive chairman, Michael Grade, says he’s reversed the trend, but we’ll have to wait to see if improved viewing figures will really mean improved investment.
I’m inclined to agree with Butler, that traditional media can benefit from digital technology, but needs to stay relevant to feel the benefits. But I’m not convinced that newspapers will be able to keep their heads afloat with all the changes. Even massive publications like the NY Times are cutting down on staff.
From a personal stance, I know I changed my plans for a masters after seeing what was happening to the media world. A magazine journalism MA just wouldn’t have given me a career. I knew I’d need as many skills as possible just to get onto the lowest rung of the career ladder.
Fingers crossed for our futures…
March 9, 2008 at 7:17 pm
It is important to note that people are still adhering to traditional media. If you look at newspapers like The Telegraph, they have massively expanded their approaches into Digital Technology. They have Telegraph TV which you can view online (however, it is difficult to state how widely it is watched. It also is an important point to note that the BBC, uniquely in the broadcasting world, has a licence fee to which everyone who has a TV set must subsribe too. Therefore, they can afford to ’splash out’ on differing forms of digital technology.
Traditional Print Media has an important role to play. Although circulations are sliding worldwide, they still have an important name recognition around the world. People in differing countries know print media. IE the New Zealand Herald has a reputation for being staid and conservative, however, it is well known, both inside and outside the country.
March 16, 2008 at 8:31 pm
The problem of course is that no one knows how the traditional media should go about remaining relevant. Websites, blogs, newsletters and rss are all attempts to deal with what are perceived as fundamental changes in the media landscape.
Personally I think the traditional media will only start circling the drain once we start turning away from them in favour of independent sources. One of the points Butler makes over and over again is that quality control is our overriding imperative. In this case I would argue that quality control means trust. We (as in we the public) still feel more inclined to believe that something our licence fee pays for will be more authoritative than what a privat blogger will put online.
At the same time we can now access newswires online. Sites such as Reuters let us (public/journalists) keep abreast with breaking news as it happens. It may not be real time but we can be reasonably confident that Reuters will have a story at the same time the BBC does if not even earlier.
But from the public’s point of view I’m not sure that really matters that much. News as a commodity still relies on journalists. Not necessarily to find the primary information but to package it in a way that makes it relevant to the audience. The journalist can contextualize information. He or she benefits from resources which allow him or her to save the public time (if not necessarily money). We (journalists) can put a factoid in relation to the wider goings on.
This means that for some the role of journalist may be changing but at the end of the day it’s still about telling a story. A story which is not only well researched and interesting but that also gives the audience more than the bare facts.
Facts alone don’t make a story. But facts only make sense if we can imbed them in a narrative. That’s the journalist’s job and I don’t think all the blogs in china will change that.
March 16, 2008 at 8:34 pm
sorry that last one was EG