More and more, media commentary includes the phrase “the downfall of journalism”. I find that fascinating — and slightly unsettling. Sure, we are clearly in a transitionary phase from traditional media to digital media.
Journalism today is not where it is because of the dire straits that newspapers find themselves in (although it is admittedly another chicken and egg argument). Technology has certainly precipitated big change. But many of the modern thinkers acknowledge that newspapers had been suffering from estrangement from their readers for years. I firmly believe that journalism will not die. On the other hand, journalism will undergo its own changes, some directly related to technology, but most related to new approaches spawned by the digital age.
Community has always been a feature of a good newspaper. Journalists who knew their community, who had an “inside track” on a story as it broke, were the most successful. But, as Jay Rosen points out, communities can form on the “margins” of the known group. In other words, on the Web there is no well-defined geographic boundary, nor even a demographic or interest-bounded group. Communities will rise up, be served by writers and thinkers (the journalists of the future), and eventually disappear.
In the same podcast, Dave Winer talks about how user interface design rules were tossed out when the Web was born. They have since been re-established and in some ways reinvented. He itemizes almost a dozen platform revolutions like that. I believe the analogy he makes is utterly appropriate: ten or eleven platform revolutions versus one or two revolutions for journalists. He says: “Journalism must keep its own downfall in perspective.” Although I take issue with calling it a downfall, I have to applaud Winer’s admonishment. Things do change, so roll with it.
My favorite comment about all this is still from Clay Shirky. We are definitely going through a transition and it is very difficult to know where we will end up. I am stating emphatically that no matter how it all turns out, we will still have journalists: people who investigate, research, think, and write. We have bloggers today, but just as journalists (as we currently define them) will need to get more “interactive” and latch on to digital sharing, bloggers will probably have to learn to do more “legwork”. The future end result, hitting the sweet spot for some sort of sustainable institution, I would still call journalism. I might even still call it the Fourth Estate.