The future isn't bleak

Rich Gordon, an associate professor of journalism at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, wrote an article published in 2005 titled "Online opportunities make journalism's future bright, despite gloomy feelings" in Online Journalism Review that argued the downturn in the media industry may be inevitable, but that doesn't mean that journalism as a profession will disappear.

Well I certainly hope it won't, I am about to finish my degree.

But more to the point, he suggests that the Internet has opened up tremendous other opportunities. In a telephone discussion with him today, I asked what has changed since the article was published. He responded that media outlets are finally seeing they must change their business model. Although it might seem as though the industry has experienced a rapid decline in readership and viewership recently, and it might be tempting to blame that on the Internet, he said newspaper circulation stayed stagnant while the population increased, meaning this has been a gradual loss. He suggested that with the overabundance of media offerings available now, more people are reading the news than ever, they simply aren't getting it all in the traditional print format.

"It's scary and uncomfortable and challenging and any other negative adjective you can come up with," he said. "Three or four years ago there were still an awful lot of people in the traditional media publishing community with their heads in the sand."

Gordon said those people are now beginning to understand that the industry needs to adapt and innovate in order to stay relevant. Although he admitted he is concerned with how much investigative reporting will be funded because the days of giving five reporters six months to work on a project are probably gone. Hopefully those types of groundbreaking stories aren't gone as well. I am hoping, myself, that those kinds of stories will be easier to do with the amount to technology available to us.

Gordon said there's no real set path for a journalist just out of school to follow. This job is one of constant learning, and to remain employable, journalists must learn to adapt. I think that's valid. I don't worry about finding an entry level position at a mid-size daily newspaper. I don't think that will be a problem, I just don't have as much confidence that I will be doing the same kind of journalism down the road. Actually, I'd like to write books someday, maybe after I pay off my student loans.

In 20 years.

Citizen journalism

It's hard not to associate yourself with television "journalism" when you work for print media.

The new community journalism

So where do story ideas come from? Better yet, where should they come from?

Connecting to the community is more important to journalism today than ever before. As readers are falling off in droves, newspapers nationwide are seeking new ways to connect to the community and remain relevant to readers. One concept in its trial stages is the idea of crowdsourcing for journalists.

Essentially, this means that newspapers are turning to readers for information and tips and then using those to develop investigative stories. Why didn't we think of this before? It makes perfect sense, especially since good tips often come from anonymous whistleblowers interested in making a difference in their community.

While journalists live in the communities they cover, they are not the recognizable faces from the nightly broadcast, and are often somewhat mysterious to readers. It takes effort to find out what your favorite writer looks like, and they can't be everywhere all the time. To find out what people are talking about, what easier way than to ask them in a way that makes it possible to ask many at once?

In this article from American Journalism Review, proponents of the concept make it very clear that the need for professional journalism is not diminished by the concept of asking readers for information. In fact, the need for editing content, especially reader produced, is in some minds more apparent.

Robert Niles argues in "Why journalists make ideal online community leaders" that journalists should embrace the idea of being discussion moderators on the Web. He suggests that the skills journalists cultivate such as asking open-ended questions that inspire thought and knowing how to choose your words carefully make them naturals for developing user-generated content.

Crowdsourcing isn't just for journalists:

Building an inside out onion

This article from Newsweek suggests that the era of user-generated content is nearing completion. Apparently people are tired of being mislead by faulty information on the Internet. While journalists get at least some training in how to tell a trustworthy Web site from one that could contain false information, most average Internet users in the U.S. don't. 

So how is one to tell the faux from the Fabergé? It's hard to say. Some Web sites look so real they are very convincing. Sourcing is often the only way to determine the quality of information. Government Web sites are trustworthy, but if you're going to use the information in a Wikipedia article then you had best follow the sourcing links to find out how accurate the information really is. 

What I see is a merging of user-generated content and expert content. Participatory journalism is the way of the future. It will blend reader contributions, from photo submissions to videos caught on cell phones, with stories researched and written by professionals.