Many critics today claim that decent journalism is a dying art. With an infinite amount of unqualified, inexperienced “journalists” blogging away at their computers, as well as little regulation on information accuracy online, it’s no wonder why some people would think that. However, I beg to differ. Although traditional methods of reporting are indeed slowly disappearing, I believe that the new methods being introduced today will successfully fill in that gap.
Although having a larger amount of contributors to news (bloggers, social media enthusiasts, etc) does increase the potential for inaccurate information to circulate, it also allows new viewpoints on issues to be heard. Someone living in New York is not limited to the opinion of those in the same city; in fact, they could research another side of the story from a man in Thailand if they so wished. New perspectives are always a healthy addition to any debate. Plus, even though many sources of information on the Internet aren’t factually correct, the ones that are typically gain more attention than the others. Inaccuracy will not be a major downfall of new journalism.
One benefit of increased numbers of information sources is less opportunity for sources to be paid for their contributions. Although this sounds like a bad thing at first, another look reveals it in a more positive light. Little or no compensation for citizen contributors makes lying in exchange for money a smaller issue, and therefor decreases false reporting. Also, those that still choose to contribute won’t be under the control of a major news station (NBC, Fox, etc) and won’t have to be as biased. The potential for less biased reporting is great with the way journalism is changing.
Overall, there is no doubt that journalism is not what it used to be. However, rather than look at the new emerging form of reporting as a shadow of its former self, I believe we should view it as a totally new entity that has unbelievable potential to be every bit as great as its predecessor, if not more.