This week, I (along with everyone else studying postgraduate journalism at Cardiff University) was presented with an interesting microcosm of perhaps the most pertinent debate in the media right now — the relationship between online and print.
Now as far as shifts in relationships go, the one occurring in this media-dichotomy makes Oedipus’ affiliation with his mother look one-dimensional. How is the traditional, print-based ‘fortress journalism’ (so called by Director of BBC World Service,Peter Horrocks) going to cope with the influence of the world-wide-interweb?
The aforementioned microcosm of this debate is prattled-out in two articles. First, an internet manifesto written up in 17 points; a sort of internet code of ethics and guidelines for internet journalists, if you will. Second, a — empathetic-yet-cynical — reply to these 17 points by digital executive editor for the Liverpool Echo and Liverpool Daily Post, Alison Gow.
In the Internet Manifesto, there are all sorts of gasp-inducers such as: “More is more – there is no such thing as too much information”, and: “The Internet is different.”
However, there are some interesting points in there among the hilariously-translated ‘web-2.0-twitter-is-fucking-great-follow-me-lol’ stuff that you might expect expect from Newsrounds’ Lezo. For example, point 13: “Copyright becomes a civic duty on the Internet”, says that copywrite is the “cornerstone of information organization on the Internet” — a point often overlooked whether your stealing a flickr image for your myspace layout (oops sorry, keep forgetting it’s not 2003), or rehashing someone else’s copy from the BBC.
The manifesto can be summed up by point 6: “The Internet changes improves journalism” (see what they did there with their clever crossing out? George Orwell would be turning under his succinctly-written epitaph).
This is the general jist of those who defy the old print guard — who are probably still found on their lunch break, seven whiskies down while the intern mashes out their copy. The two worlds can work together, they just need to find a symbiosis where they can both be financially viable — something The Guardian hasn’t done since it was founded in 6BC by Jesus (perhaps not factual, but by the way some people go on, one would be forgiven for thinking)
Alison Gow, on the other hand, isn’t so convinced. She takes the stance, not of the crusty, piss-artist old print-codger, but of a digital editor in a contemporary world.
She isn’t buying into this manifesto so easily — citing the difficulty in implementing such a scheme on the internet: the most un-moderated medium since Channel 5 stopped showing it’s biological pieces on a Sunday night.
“I agree with the statements it makes but the huge, clanging problem with the 17 stated fundamental points, basic as they are, is that they are on… the internet. And, for too many people in too many newsrooms, things on the internet really don’t seem to be considered that important.”
She asserts that, although sounding nice, the points are not about to turn those who most need it. The people who are culturally, traditionally and financially invested in print. Instead, she makes 5 points of her own, perhaps more suited to working in the existing, print world.
I wont go into too much detail but the general idea is that yes, the internet is important, but convincing hacks to down their style books and embrace the mutli-media-tidal-wave isn’t going to be that easy.
Although the two articles are interesting, we essentially come out of the debate with similar conclusions we could have drawn on the way in. Of course the internet is important: giving a whole new string to the journalistic bow, whether it’s from expert commentaries or eye witness camera phone pics.
The real question is how we let this new influence slot in in a viable way into the journalistic-model without diluting crucial practices. The answer is pretty much one big fucking collective shrug.
