Innovative Journalism versus Infotainment

This week’s readings and discussions focused on the changing arena of news; who determines the news, what the news is and where the news is. In our text, The News About the News, authors Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser stressed the importance that journalism (although changing) is still very much alive and important. Several examples were presented on journalism that’s made a difference, including the IRS and its sudden turn-about in giving Scientology tax-exempt status as a church (Downie, 30). A brief history of American journalism also revealed some of the changes our country has experienced in how they receive, perceive and prefer their news, and how today, more than ever, Americans are turning to the Internet for news (Downie, 199, 200). Finally, the text touched on where the news is headed and how we, as journalists, can prepare for such changes. Likewise, in class, we discussed the fact that communication is becoming increasingly mediated and that the news has an intense presence on the Internet (lecture 8/29/06). Our role as journalists then, in a time when everyone can be a journalist, is to find a way to reach the audience. Also, as we said in class, our focus must shift from geographic communities to communities of interest (lecture 8/29, 31/06).

As with the dawn of radio and later television, journalism is headed toward the newest medium. Actually, it’s already landed there and pervades just about any online surfing anyone does. It’s hard to check your e-mail, Facebook or shop online and not get a pop-up for a news site, receive an e-mail news update or see a banner for a news or blogging site somewhere along the way. Although print and broadcast mediums of journalism are still very much alive, most newspapers and news stations also have some kind of online supplement or presence. And in this age of increasing reliance on the Internet, why wouldn’t citizens use the Internet as their source of news? It’s fast, efficient and built around them. Not to mention that they can participate. Bloggers can write about what they deem to be news, youtube.com offers a unique forum for anyone to broadcast their own news (like whistleblower Michael De Kort), search engines allow for narrow story searches and advanced web browsers have special tabs and navigational tools that individualize news. Choice truly rules the day. And with this choice, media must be flexible enough to combine new mediums with the old. "This is a time if experimentation for all news media as they try to adapt revolutionary new technology," (Downie, 199).

Living in the little bubble of the Missouri Journalism School, some of us still think everyone in Columbia reads, views or listens to our stories, but, if we’re honest with ourselves, we know that’s not true. A study at the Poynter Institute from the 1990s, called Eyes on the News, showed that readership of newspapers, defined as reading the first line of text, was at a mere 25 percent—a far cry from what most journalists strive for (Poynter.org). And what we may think of as the most important stories, those about politics, civic issues or education are not what the masses deem important. People, especially generation Xers and younger, have been shown to gravitate toward entertainment-geared news.

Given that the nature of news is shifting to at least incorporate, if not one day dominate, the medium of the Internet and that there are certainly divergent views of what news is between journalists and the audience, journalists have a hefty challenge in front of them. Unlike the days of Watergate, it’s not to be the best watchdog possible (although that’s still important), but instead it’s to be an innovator. We’ve proven we can write well, that we can inform the masses and call out big business and the government when they’ve done wrong; but can we be creative? Can we, as professionals, combine our news judgment with strategies to reach an audience that might not care about the top news story? I think we can, but it certainly is a new role for journalists to be taking on, and according to Downie and Kaiser, it may not have happened yet.

"With a few exceptions, attempts at synergy have produced relatively little additional original or improved journalism or new revenue. They mostly have 'repurposed' (another news term) journalism already being produced by one news medium for use by another," (Downie, 200).

In short, we're not there yet, and perhaps that's because we (as a profession) are still figuring out where we're going. Of course we must still inform and explain, but we must also be thoughtful toward our audience and give a little more of what studies show they want; and we can't just do that by dumping duplicate content online. Filling the front page of the Missourian with celebrity gossip is not my suggestion, but rather, analyze what it is about entertainment news that readers/listeners/viewers enjoy and use that to design pages, package broadcasts and write stories. Perhaps re-organization or the addition of more entertainment information is also needed. In any case, there’s certainly not a need to drop everything we’ve ever learned about what is news and clone the National Enquirer, but figuring out specifically what in that tabloid draws people in and then using it in a newspaper may not be a bad idea. Print media will have to be especially innovative, but journalists should also bare in mind that they can offer something unique. As Downie and Kaiser said in regards to a New York Times article that ran in the late 1990s, "Both the characters and the story line were intriguing, new and unexpected -- the essence of a good story," (Downie 66). How many of our stories are actually "new and unexpected"? So many come across as mundane, or simply lacking an element of intruige.

The same can be said for television and radio needing to change format and content. Fox, although I realize their news judgment is quite off kilter, has done a good job with changing their news format with a segment called “Around the World in 80 Seconds.” Basically, viewers get a glimpse of what’s going on in the world in less than two minutes, and although I personally find the accompanying music annoying, it is an effort to make the news more accessible for a busier and perhaps younger audience.

This new venture in news asks a lot of journalists, but if part of our goal is to give readers what they need and want, then changes must be made and our profession must be thoughtful in approaching news and the way it’s presented to maintain readership, viewers and listeners. We must differentiate ourselves from the online marketplace for news and give audience members something they can’t get online, while still maintaining a strong Web presence for synergy. It’s going to be a balancing act, especially between innovative journalism and infotainment.