What is news?

The nature of news is changing. And the change is at a fundamental level. What does this mean to you, and me?

At a fundamental level a tool such as the internet and a PC (or simply a cellphone) provides users with the capability to now decide what is news. That decision used to belong to someone else. If each individual determines what news is for them, they can attract more and more of the content THEY want. We are part of the process that decides what news is. In fact, we are the news.

Do you want to know?

The fundamental shift is essentially from news being a vital public service (servicing a real need for information) to a money making stream of information servicing what people want to know. There are a few ethical problems with this, but the fact remains, it has happened and is accelerating.

So is news something we want, or need? Well, that depends on you. Once upon a time editors decided what was news. Now aggregators make those decisions (online anyway) and so in a very real sense, the news is 'whatever is the most popular' or put in an even simpler way: 'what people want'.

Moral?

Once again, many are concerned about the ethical implications, but the fact remains that the internet is where the future lies, and to bet against the internet, and the rise of blogs, citizen journalism, user generated content, social media etc. is not going to be good for business.

The nature of journalism is also changing, but reporting in some sense will always stay the same. Can you find a good story and how well can you write it? Your ability to tell a good story determines your capacity to influence news (yes, as a private citizen). That's tremendously exciting. Reporting is becoming less a specialisation than it once was.

Community Cloud

As alluded to above, the role of editors in the online space is somewhat different to the traditional role. Online there is almost immediate feedback on which stories are doing well, and even this is news. People's responses to news is newsworthy, and the internet can also quickly aggregate the communities response.

The internet provides an alternative to the sort of information that has traditionally been put out there. Instead of talking at, or talking to, online merchants now have the option to talk 'with'. The question is: are we using this opportunity?

The News at the level of Citizen Journalism

How is this relevant to UGC? Well, of course it is very relevant. Users are now the creators of their own news. So whoever you are, wherever you are, you can look at a situation and provide your insight, your impression, your response. It might be your experience of drugs, teen pregnancy, higher petrol prices, your experience of racism at university, or how you're solving the dilemma of higher food prices.

To the extent that you can accurately draw a picture representing your life in your community, that's a valuable contribution. We need to know how healthy our communities are, and what is happening in them.

Bloggers - some of them - want to create our OWN news. This means not recycling what is already on the internet. It means something YOU saw or experienced, or something that happened to a friend or neighbour. It also means adding something of value - not merely posting something for the sake of it, but because your information helps someone else, it fulfills a PURPOSE.

YOU are the news, and so the responsibility is yours, mine (ours) for creating newsworthy content; a prudent mixture of news that we want and news that we need.

Now each of us gets to be part of that decision. When we realise how important that role can be, the news begins to belong to everyone, and becomes more meaningful and useful than ever before.

What is happening to journalism?

And what is happening to the media's sense of mission?

When doing statistical analysis to find out what is popular on our websites, the results are often disturbing. The 'tabloid' news beats hard news hands down, every time; good 'documentary type'/hardcore news simply cannot compete with infotainment styled gossip/scandal. Standards have changed (some would say dropped) because of the pressure of profits, but also the broadening, the flattening of content into a 24/7 stream of infotainment from myriad sources.

The question is, who now decides what is news? Are we still providing a public service, or are we simply pandering to a public hungry to hear about Britney, Paris and a snake-bitten golfer?

Entertain and Teach

When I was a teacher in South Korea an old fogey once said: "I am NOT an entertainer." This guy was a highly qualified educator, and there had been complaints that his textbook approach was 'too boring'. I understood his point, but I also felt that he was fundamentally misguided in his approach. If you can't hold people's interest, no matter how important the thing is you're communicating, well you've lost already.

But there is certainly a crisis going on, and we all know that the internet is distracting a lot of eyeballs (and revenue) away from traditional media, and newspapers in particular.

Here's the rub: original reporting is what distinguishes newspapers and good news from second hand, second rate media. Original reporting is hard work, it requires effort, and passion. It is knocking on doors, pushing, chest beating work. It is also, often, highly local. It is uncovering, unearthing, a skelton in a neighbours garden. It is up close and personal, and we discover important insights about what is really happening in our community - how things are being run, what decision makers are really doing (compared to what they are saying) and so on. Now, with advertising revenues for newspapers contracting, there is less money for newspapers to spend on reporters, less money dedicated to the task of doing valuable hard nosed reporting. Which means that essentially the likes of Google and Yahoo (Yahoo is the biggest online News site in the world, followed by MSNBC) who are critically dependent on newspapers for their content are also, in a sense, the most critical saboteurs of the revenue stream of newspapers.

Less is More, More or Less

More and more revenue is being diverted away from newspapers, even though newspapers remain the key conduit, the fountainhead, for news. Radio, TV, and online content all tap in to news printed every day.

As a result of the dearth of content providers, and the public's participation in providing content (citizen journalism), quality, consistency and reliability is an ongoing issue. Once again original reporting distinguishes. There are plenty of sites that simply regurgitate or recycle [this blog suffers the same tendency]. Thus newspapers are finding their ownership of the news quickly usurped, and then disseminated at a fantastic speed. As such competition is levelling the playing field, bringing Media Providers face to face with this vital question: 'Should we give the public what it wants or what it ought to want, or ought to know?' The question can be rephrased: Who decides what is news? The editor, or the public? Is it an either or?

What is certain is that newspapers have in the past and must continue to provide a public service. It can be a difficult situation where a company is essentially providing a public service, but must answer to shareholders in terms of the fundamentals of private enterprise (bottom line revenues). Selling news is still a business after all, isn't it? Or have things shifted to the extent that with the internet and other technologies, we all have the capacity to know everything. Do we really need a single resource? The answer is we do, but possibly less than we did before. How much less is the question.

It is easy for news providers to make the mistake of covering big international stories (as seen on CNN, Sky and BBC and mirrored elsewhere). Once again, what distinguishes a newspaper or indeed any media is its attention, its sensitivity, the quality of its local context. To the extent that it can address and reflect and provide vital insights into a local context, to this extent the Media (or medium) becomes, and can become, indispensable.

Online

Online news is a challenge simply because the online viewer (I dislike the term user) is engaged in an entirely different approach/mindset to a person holding a newspaper. This is simply because, armed with a mouse, a viewer is super-connected to limitless digitised networks. It is very easy to match thinking with information on the web. It is easier by far to draw information towards you, rather than to page through something tangible, but static.

Think for example of someone looking for a job, or a house, or a car online, as opposed to someone having to wave through endless mismatches set out in document form. The one is simply a far more efficienct option.

The way online viewers consume news is highly accelarated, highly efficient, and highly spontaneous. The methodology is sometimes called infosnacking, or infochunking. The word conjures up a new ethos immediately, not based on necessarily wanting formulaic news, but a more personalised, more interesting mix that is in parts informative, entertaining and interesting, but most of all convenient. It's exactly what the viewer wants, and it's interactive.

My aim as a writer is to simply write stories (both here and for mass media) that taste good and are good for you.

For further background read this excellent article:
Journalism without journalists