Journalism on the Internet

The Internet has transformed many, if not all, aspects of our lives, since its invention. It has not remained static, however, but has evolved, taking us along with it. With the inception of Web 2.0 and social media, content could now flow between large corporations and individuals, rather than the previous top-down approach of Web 1.0, where the production of content was in the hands of a few select corporations.

One major industry that was greatly affected by this was the journalism industry. Here, different journalists and columnists come together and give their two pence worth (it's a British newspaper after all) on how the Internet would affect journalism. Here, too, college professors share their opinions. But what do I think? I'll talk about a couple of pros and cons first before giving my opinion. Which will probably another one in an ocean of comments. 
To begin with, the tragedy at the Boston Marathon showed, again, how quickly news can spread around the world via social media. It also demonstrated how matter-of-fact and straightforward citizen journalism could be. Quoting OJR: "While reporters tried to sort out whether reported explosions at Boston’s JFK library had any connection to the marathon explosions, a flood of tweets and Vine clips were posted with video and on-scene impressions as three people were reportedly killed and almost a hundred wounded." Yet, what exactly does citizen journalism (or journalism via social media) have over traditional journalism? And what does the latter have over it? The table below shows a few:

Why Citizen Journalism is Better	Why Traditional Journalism is Better
News received a lot faster by readers; lead time much less	Credibility (large numbers of people posting “news”)
Journalist(s) receive/s instant feedback	Comment boxes grounds for argument
Not subject to censorship (unlike traditional media, which can be state-controlled and therefore doctored)	Not as in-depth and analytical as traditional news (“quick fix” vs “immersion”)
Rich media (full colour, videos, social media)	No precondition of Internet availability
Free-Of-Charge / No variable costs once a news article is put on the Web	Requires equipment (hardware with Internet connection)
Interactive; therefore more news can be shared	Ethical issues (TRS and TOC showing pictures of the Tampines incident)

You can read more opinions by giants in the news business here. 

To be entirely fair, however, efforts are now under way to train citizen journalists in journalism, so that in the true sense of the word, they can be journalists. Traditional journalism has always been stifled by those in power: Be it the government or the head honchos of news corporations, such that the news as we know it is censored, ignored entirely or simply biased according to the views of the powers-that-be. This has caused many journalists to become disillusioned and leave the field. In this day and age, some join the blogosphere, using their old contacts and networks to stay up-to-date on the latest happenings, and reporting news on blogs and social media platforms such as Twitter. Indeed, Twitter has been instrumental in passing news along, almost in real time, from ordinary people who were at the scene. 

The point is this: Journalists have been leaving news companies in the last decade. Online journalism fills this gap. Citizen journalism reanimates journalism by placing the power of spreading information in the hands of ordinary people. No longer are blogs exclusively for keeping web journals or ranting about the inequality of life. Increasing numbers of former journalists have begun to join newly set up news blogs, using their names and reputations to boost the blog's, as well as covering stories that the newsrooms choose to ignore, or from a different perspective from that of traditional journalists. For instance:

A bit biased, but you get the point, I think.

By decentralising the news business, quality coverage of important stories will be given their due, thanks to concerned citizens. Yet, care must be taken that people do not go overboard. Offering a cash reward for news stories is a surefire way of that. This can be seen in Singapore's STOMP, where $50 was offered for a story that made breaking news on the online news portal. As a result, many stories that were exaggerated or outright fraudulent were submitted, most notably that of the MRT door. There needs to be a balance between searching for news and soliciting it, which, I think, Singapore has yet to find. That said, the traditional newspapers such as The Straits' Times and TODAY have done a good job in bringing their content online, so as to attract more subscribers. 

Update: I have just read this news article that shows the picture above wasn't being entirely honest, either. However, this reinforces my point on news on social media being spread extremely quickly. The article in question just came out 8 hours ago and it's already making its rounds on Facebook. Contrast this to normal newspapers, who can only run their printing presses once or twice a day, and you can see the difference in efficiency. Also, it illustrates that though social media is good for on-the-spot coverage, it loses out to traditional media in terms of credibility and in-depth analysis.