Will Google eat the news media (Part 2)
(Reproduced from 'The End of Journalism?')
Redundant - in more ways than one
The end result of this period of flux in the media workplace is a long way off yet, but already, nightmare scenarios are being bandied about with a heavy sense of foreboding.
The general assumption amongst the more sceptical members of the press, is that the industry is heading downhill at a rate of knots. As citizens become journalists and computers become sub-editors, they say, we are being squeezed out.
The logical conclusion of such a process is the behemoth mentioned in Part 1. According to this Doomsday scenario, each person would be served by a news aggregator. The aggregator, familiar with the interests of the user, would be able to cherry-pick features, interviews, hard news, or indeed new books, films and music, from an inexhaustible online supply.
This, cry the pessimists, is truly the end of journalism, for the user no longer needs mediation – he/she can go straight to the source.
But the logical conclusion of any process is rarely the one arrived at. Nuclear technology inspired visions of apocalyptic destruction such as that portrayed in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. In the 1960s, advances in computer technology led hundreds of thousands of people to believe that by 2007, the average person would be having their tea brewed and served by a robot.
Although it could be argued that we have been close to both at times, neither situation materialised.
Keeping the faith
The same may be true of our journalistic Apocalypse. There are certainly rough times ahead. As media groups recalibrate their operations gradually in an effort to find the right balance between all of these exciting new technologies available, employees are going to suffer; there is no question about that.
But there ought to be light at the end of the tunnel. The reason that man has not destroyed itself in a nuclear holocaust, or that very few of us have a robot in the house, is that human nature changes much more slowly than the technology we invent.
(Reproduced from 'The End of Journalism?')
Redundant - in more ways than one
The end result of this period of flux in the media workplace is a long way off yet, but already, nightmare scenarios are being bandied about with a heavy sense of foreboding.
The general assumption amongst the more sceptical members of the press, is that the industry is heading downhill at a rate of knots. As citizens become journalists and computers become sub-editors, they say, we are being squeezed out.
The logical conclusion of such a process is the behemoth mentioned in Part 1. According to this Doomsday scenario, each person would be served by a news aggregator. The aggregator, familiar with the interests of the user, would be able to cherry-pick features, interviews, hard news, or indeed new books, films and music, from an inexhaustible online supply.
This, cry the pessimists, is truly the end of journalism, for the user no longer needs mediation – he/she can go straight to the source.
But the logical conclusion of any process is rarely the one arrived at. Nuclear technology inspired visions of apocalyptic destruction such as that portrayed in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. In the 1960s, advances in computer technology led hundreds of thousands of people to believe that by 2007, the average person would be having their tea brewed and served by a robot.
Although it could be argued that we have been close to both at times, neither situation materialised.
Keeping the faith
The same may be true of our journalistic Apocalypse. There are certainly rough times ahead. As media groups recalibrate their operations gradually in an effort to find the right balance between all of these exciting new technologies available, employees are going to suffer; there is no question about that.
But there ought to be light at the end of the tunnel. The reason that man has not destroyed itself in a nuclear holocaust, or that very few of us have a robot in the house, is that human nature changes much more slowly than the technology we invent.
posted by Rob Davies at 2:55 PM
1 Comments:
You're right. People are generally scared of technology - especially if it means they'll be out of a job because of it (btw love your reference to Luddites in previous posts).
But as journalists (i'm currently finishing off a PGDip at Preston) we have to adapt - there's no other option.
However, I'm not a paid up member of the newspaper journalism doomsday cult which has afflicted so many in the industry. Simply because, I feel people will still want their news from sources they trust.
I wrote about this in my first post of a blog I started. Have only managed to do three posts so far - guess i'm lazy or just too bloody busy.
Anyway, check it out: http:thehackattacks.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
<< Home