In a fast paced world, where people want news in small, easy digestable chunks, I worry about the art of storytelling.
I love stories. As an only child, imagination was my lifeline. I still find nothing better than reading or listening to a story and picturing the whole thing in my head. Its rather fulfilling.
I therefore find the concept of multimedia storytelling immensely exciting. I love being creative. Even more, I love creating stories, its why I want to be a journalist. I love to talk about things and be talked at. I think thats called discussion. But I want to read every book and see every picture and I want to know how other people see things and why its different. Most importantly, I want everything I do, every story I tell to mean something to someone.
But, in a world where people want fast, hard-hitting news in a flash, or at specific times to suit busy lifestyles, do people really have time for stories anymore? As I said, I find the concept brilliant, but does it really have a place in the world of journalism, and if so, I'm afraid I fail to see where. This is what these guys think . . . :
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p_JsoL7b96E
Stories are meant to be enjoyable. They are for those people who actually afford to take the time to sit and read. Who reads anymore? Even with multimedia storytelling, we are reviving an old tradition but in a brand new technical way. Lets face it, the only people who probably now sit down to a story are the old or the young, and neither of those groups fall into my category of being technologically advanced. Either I'm stereotyping, or I'm being incredibly judgemental.
Lets then take the position of stories in print journalism. Especially the Daily Mail. I love the section in the Daily Mail, after all the news headlines where you come to some kind of scandal, incident, or the incredibly thrilling double life of some age old celebrity. I LOVE them. I am that person who takes the time to flick through the paper just to get to these pages and sit there for however long it takes me to read the entire thing. I love the research that goes into it, and the personal approach. But this is just a double page spread inside a 95-page paper.
More to the point, its in a paper. Lets narrow it down even more, aside from its place in journalism, where will the multimedia story fit into the world of print, however effective the online accompaniment is.
Are people really going to log on and set their RSS feeds to the latest story posted by myself or a colleague? I doubt anyone has the time for stories anymore and it saddens me. Does anyone really care about anyone else's sentimental recollections anymore? Do we have time to? Lets see shall we . . . I hope I'm proved wrong.
Saturday, 25 October 2008
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
On a Positive Note . . .
So quite clearly, I am not a huge fan of the rise in citizen journalism as an individual trade, as it were.
I am, unashamedly, a traditionalist. I mean this in general terms. I want a big white wedding, no kids until I'm married (not that I have anything against this, its just me), and I believe that people trained to do a certain job should be the ones to actually do it.
Granted then, when the term "network journalism" reared its head, I thought pretty much the same thing I did of citizen journalism . . . why don't they just leave it to us?!
I was pleasantly surprised. Actually more than pleasantly, I was really really happy with what I came across. Network journalism is exactly what is should be; a return to the oldest values, just a little bit updated. Dialogue is key to journalism. We're not preachers, we convey things that we believe people want to hear. We work in the interest of the public, so what better way to write a story for people than a story which people tell us they want to read? Isn't that the whole point?!
I suppose its almost an abnoxious trait to believe that we know what people want to hear without actually asking them. Its funny because if a journalist is taken to court over a story, he/she practically blames it on the public who to be honest, the majority of which probably only glanced at the story anyway. So yeah, I am all for this idea of networking.
People, more often than not, have a particular interest. Its not a bad thing, we all do. I am obsessed with the world of celebrities, and a little bit of politics now and again, but have no interest in sport. Therefore, as a member of the public I would love a story tailored to my own interest and so I should think do the general public.
For my next trick therefore, I refer you to http://wiki.spot.us/. This is exactly what its all about, people with common interests all sharing ideas about one topic they all have something to say about. Then, they get someone else to write it.
So, as a trainee journalist I am now going to do something quite out of character and issue an apology for my "dubiousness" over public participation. If someone wants a particular story and they can get all the substance I as a journalist need to accompany my research, by this I mean pics and audio, I'm all for it. The person gets a well written version of a story they want to read with all the stuff they have managed to get on said story, stuff I may not have been able to get hold of myself. I, as the journalist get to do my job of researching and writing in a way only we know how to do as trained professionals and the readers, get to . . . well, read and no one has to put themselves out really.
Hmmm, yes. I think I like it.
I am, unashamedly, a traditionalist. I mean this in general terms. I want a big white wedding, no kids until I'm married (not that I have anything against this, its just me), and I believe that people trained to do a certain job should be the ones to actually do it.
Granted then, when the term "network journalism" reared its head, I thought pretty much the same thing I did of citizen journalism . . . why don't they just leave it to us?!
I was pleasantly surprised. Actually more than pleasantly, I was really really happy with what I came across. Network journalism is exactly what is should be; a return to the oldest values, just a little bit updated. Dialogue is key to journalism. We're not preachers, we convey things that we believe people want to hear. We work in the interest of the public, so what better way to write a story for people than a story which people tell us they want to read? Isn't that the whole point?!
I suppose its almost an abnoxious trait to believe that we know what people want to hear without actually asking them. Its funny because if a journalist is taken to court over a story, he/she practically blames it on the public who to be honest, the majority of which probably only glanced at the story anyway. So yeah, I am all for this idea of networking.
People, more often than not, have a particular interest. Its not a bad thing, we all do. I am obsessed with the world of celebrities, and a little bit of politics now and again, but have no interest in sport. Therefore, as a member of the public I would love a story tailored to my own interest and so I should think do the general public.
For my next trick therefore, I refer you to http://wiki.spot.us/. This is exactly what its all about, people with common interests all sharing ideas about one topic they all have something to say about. Then, they get someone else to write it.
So, as a trainee journalist I am now going to do something quite out of character and issue an apology for my "dubiousness" over public participation. If someone wants a particular story and they can get all the substance I as a journalist need to accompany my research, by this I mean pics and audio, I'm all for it. The person gets a well written version of a story they want to read with all the stuff they have managed to get on said story, stuff I may not have been able to get hold of myself. I, as the journalist get to do my job of researching and writing in a way only we know how to do as trained professionals and the readers, get to . . . well, read and no one has to put themselves out really.
Hmmm, yes. I think I like it.
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
"Citizen" Journalism?
Three weeks ago, if asked what components the term media encompassed, I would have listed three. Magazines, Broadcast and Newspapers. Would that make me naive or a little bit ignorant?
Of course I’m not stupid enough not to realise that news could be accessed through the internet, but “citizen journalism” certainly meant nothing to me and neither did it occur to me that print editors may choose to put breaking stories online prior to printing them because well, its just more efficient isn’t it. It seems a day is too long to wait nowadays. People want to see things immediately, and if that means the story comes from an individual source rather than a journalist, well that’s what we’ll use. That is what I did not realise three weeks ago.
The internet has a lot to answer for in the evolvement of the media. It allows us as journalists to communicate like never before, but also, it allows ordinary people to communicate as well. Ian Hargreaves claims that “journalism has become, almost at a stroke, a global enterprise.”And it’s true. It’s not something people have to struggle to access anymore, nor something they even have to wait for. Pictures, videos and audio taken straight from the source are now the most effective ways of conveying the news before it even gets written.
But journalism isn’t an enterprise. It is not an open invitation for budding entrepreneurs. It is a profession, and a skill. A talent. I apologise if I seem cynical, I’m not. Before coming onto this course I would not even have considered citizen journalism to be a bad contributing factor, maybe the recession is making me slightly edgy about my future with a job. I mean, we learn things as trainee journalists.
I’m all for group participation (by this I mean the public you understand), but surely this shouldn’t take over what it is that we do. Our job. I can’t really explain what I mean in terms of other jobs, because, well this isn’t a normal job is it? Perhaps my fear is that we, as trained, employed journalists may eventually become futile, playing second fiddle to Mr. Doe who just posted a video of the latest . . . whatever it may be.
Of course I’m not stupid enough not to realise that news could be accessed through the internet, but “citizen journalism” certainly meant nothing to me and neither did it occur to me that print editors may choose to put breaking stories online prior to printing them because well, its just more efficient isn’t it. It seems a day is too long to wait nowadays. People want to see things immediately, and if that means the story comes from an individual source rather than a journalist, well that’s what we’ll use. That is what I did not realise three weeks ago.
The internet has a lot to answer for in the evolvement of the media. It allows us as journalists to communicate like never before, but also, it allows ordinary people to communicate as well. Ian Hargreaves claims that “journalism has become, almost at a stroke, a global enterprise.”And it’s true. It’s not something people have to struggle to access anymore, nor something they even have to wait for. Pictures, videos and audio taken straight from the source are now the most effective ways of conveying the news before it even gets written.
But journalism isn’t an enterprise. It is not an open invitation for budding entrepreneurs. It is a profession, and a skill. A talent. I apologise if I seem cynical, I’m not. Before coming onto this course I would not even have considered citizen journalism to be a bad contributing factor, maybe the recession is making me slightly edgy about my future with a job. I mean, we learn things as trainee journalists.
I’m all for group participation (by this I mean the public you understand), but surely this shouldn’t take over what it is that we do. Our job. I can’t really explain what I mean in terms of other jobs, because, well this isn’t a normal job is it? Perhaps my fear is that we, as trained, employed journalists may eventually become futile, playing second fiddle to Mr. Doe who just posted a video of the latest . . . whatever it may be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)