As this evolution meets revolution, the world is not changing. However, with new technology comes the ability to create a better understanding of the world. For example, the video we watched in class last week took what was an already heartbreaking story and put viewers right in the middle. The article itself was written very powerfully, but the accompanying video maximized the emotional impact of a soldier getting killed. While I think many were deeply affected by this video, I'm not sure if it actually changed anything. This is a small-scale representation of what I think the impact that technology has on the world.
In the abstract, journalism is changing because of new technology. Potentially, anyone with a cell phone camera or access to the internet could play the role of a journalist. Beyond that, I don't think that there has been any real functional change in the field of journalism. The way I see it, we just have different ways to look at the same shit.
2 comments:
Obviously, anyone can be a journalist. There is nothing wrong with that. The only difference is that despite the fact that technology can make anything possible for anyone, a journalist's job is simple...to report what one finds, and to make it known to the world as a newsworthy package. Journalists have guidelines and regulations, but the facts, no matter how they are presented (slanted or not) are still the facts no matter WHO publishes them.
"Different ways to look at the same shit." Nice.
Do you think there is more accountability out there among the mainstream media now that they know mobs of people are out there to fact-check their ass?
Post a Comment