I gave a talk not long ago at the Orlando Sentinel newspaper, and
afterward the paper's managing editor, Jane Healy '71, asked if I wanted
to see "the bridge."
The bridge, it turned out, was not a new Disney attraction or a
cross-Florida engineering marvel. It was a large command center, built
into the middle of the Sentinel's newsroom, where newspaper editors,
television news directors and online news producers worked side by side
to coordinate a nonstop, multimedia flow of information to consumers.
Demand for information is primal. Information may not be as immediate a
survival need as food, water and shelter, but it ranks very close on the
scale of human necessities.
|
Here was an old-fashioned print newsroom remaking itself on the fly--an
ink-on-paper news publication merging bravely onto the dazzling and
somewhat daunting fast lane of new media. It was a busy and very visible
sign of the changing face of the news business, a herald of changes that
will affect us all.
But how will these changes affect us? At what speed? And will it be for
better or worse?
Today's news media clearly are awash with change. Technology is
revolutionizing their looks, contents, production and distribution.
Competition is forcing a reinvigoration of their products, standards and
services. The red-hot market is spawning mind-boggling mergers,
consolidations and corporate realignments.
Predictions fly in every direction, and most of them, mine included,
will be wrong. Throughout history, new media have fooled us. For
example, people thought the coming of the telegraph would end warfare by
allowing speedy communication so disputes could be readily resolved.
They saw the telephone as a means for introducing opera into homes. They
thought radio would kill newspapers, and television would kill radio,
and cable would kill networks, and on and on.
Yet just as history humbles would-be prophets, it does offer some
important lessons that can help us understand and anticipate many
effects of the media revolution we are experiencing. As a teacher, I
study and interpret press history. As a writer and a consultant, I visit
newsrooms across the country, observing how innovations affect the way
journalists think and act. From that experience, I can venture some
observations and educated impressions about the potential impact of the
dawning information age.
In general, I think today's media are at the kind of turning point that
occurs once in a century or so, with implications that are potentially
both beneficial and alarming.
Begin with the good news:
* The rise of computers and cyberspace has demolished longstanding
barriers of time and space, yielding us instantaneous access to volumes
of information humanly impossible to reach a decade ago.
* This information explosion will lead to huge, round-the-clock,
real-time media "supermarkets" dispensing data in every possible form.
* It will accelerate demand for superbly trained information and
explanation specialists to help us cope with this cascade, and for
master storytellers to help us make sense of it.
* As consumers we will be empowered as never before because of the
interactive nature of technology. The one-way distribution path that has
allowed producers to dominate the information market will become a
two-way freeway allowing consumers to be involved, from the beginning,
in information transactions.
What could be alarming about these advances? It turns out that they will
raise numerous potential perils to democratic life. These include, among
others, the absorption of much of the serious news media by
conglomerates more committed to investor values than to news and social
values; the near-fanatical short-term thinking that can accompany
corporate culture; the blurring of the line between news and
entertainment; and the decline of journalistic commitment to the civic
duties of democracy. These are not inevitable consequences but every one
of them already has a foothold in the emerging media world.
Before elaborating on these points, we should put them in perspective.
As always, when looking to the future it is wise to first look to the
past, to some lessons from history.
LESSON ONE: Demand for information is primal. Information may not be as
immediate a survival need as food, water and shelter, but it ranks very
close on the scale of human necessities. People require reliable
information to conduct their personal and business lives. Information
conveys political, social, cultural, commercial and personal power.
Information is stupendously valuable, for both consumers and producers.
Demand for information will never abate but will grow and grow.
LESSON TWO: Turning points in the media are usually associated with
quantum technological change. I am not strictly a technological
determinist; many cultural, social, economic and technical forces
combine to produce change. But time has shown that key changes in media
content and influence have followed technological breakthroughs. The
rise of television, for example, did more than technically alter the way
information is presented and received. It has led to a re-engineering of
our brains so that we tend to process information in a manner that is
far more spatial ("right brain") than linear ("left brain").
Computerization will likely have a similarly profound effect on how we
think and organize our lives.
LESSON THREE: Consumers' media use is, in some ways, predictable. People
use media for commerce, education, entertainment, information, personal
gratification and social assistance. To succeed, any medium--new or
old--must fulfill at least one of these roles more cheaply and
efficiently than any competitor. Consumers almost always turn new media
primarily into instruments of commerce, entertainment and personal
gratification; but they also reserve a relatively small but vital
segment of the medium for the transmission of serious information.
For example, it shouldn't surprise us that the Internet--heralded just a
few years ago as a vehicle for accessing museum art and online
libraries--is already overrun with advertising, dominated by e-mail, and
littered with pornography and play sites. We always use media primarily
for commerce, fun and personal utility. But we also always demand a
certain amount of seriousness and service.
It is probably futile to grieve too much about the vulgarization of the
Internet. I believe that trend simply reflects human nature. But it is
an equal error to underestimate the importance of maintaining some space
in cyberspace, in fact in all media, for information that is serious,
reliable, accessible and in the public interest. We may argue about what
proportion of media content qualifies as public service, but evidence is
convincing that there is a threshold minimum of service material that
the public needs, and will rise up to demand if it seems in jeopardy.
With this framework in mind, it is easier to begin evaluating some of
the changes loose in today's media. My specialty is newspapers, a medium
that is surely in the throes of an identity crisis. Are they dinosaurs,
or will they adapt through some Darwin-esque survival instinct? Are they
outmoded buggies clogging the Information Superhighway, or durable
cruisers just needing a mechanical tune-up to get back on the pace?
You can see newspapers wrestling with these questions every day, in the
face of operational reality. I visited a medium-sized Southern newspaper
recently and sat in on an editors' meeting where stories were being
selected for the next day's paper. The meeting extended for more than an
hour and a half--a lifetime in a deadline-driven newsroom. Everything
received lengthy discussion. I was struck by the large percentage of
time the editors spent considering readers' reactions to various
stories. Ten minutes were devoted to a single subscriber's complaint
that a graphic in a previous paper had seemed confusing. An impassioned
exchange took place over how much attention to give a new study showing
that AIDS may be spread through oral sex. The story "runs a very high
risk of offending massive numbers of readers," one top editor said. But
another angrily countered that some people will complain about any story
that even acknowledges gay people, but the information is important and
should be presented anyway.
That story did appear in the next day's paper, but a second
controversial one did not. In the second case, the paper had obtained a
list of the names of more than 500 young, local entrepreneurs who all
ran million-dollar companies, a surprisingly high number of people in a
mid-sized community. This issue, too, drew prolonged discussion. The
first reaction was to publish all the names because of public curiosity.
But ultimately they were not published. The journalists concluded that
doing so would have no real news value and would needlessly upset the
businesspeople.
The striking point, to me, was how much importance the editors attached
to public reaction. A generation ago, editors tended to make decisions
much more arbitrarily and aggressively. Their papers, after all, had a
stranglehold on the information franchise and a near monopolistic grip
on their customers. Today, competition is rife, and newspapers have much
more to fear from irritating the audience.
As one editor told me, the big issue these days is "how it's going to
play at the breakfast table." At another paper I visited, the editors
actually invited members of the public to sit in on their planning
meetings and have a say in which stories appeared on page one.
In these and other ways, editors are engaged in a fascinating,
high-stakes balancing act-- trying to attract and satisfy customers in a
tough marketplace while maintaining traditional journalistic service and
fulfilling their vital obligations to democracy. It is a tricky task,
compounded by rapidly changing technology, and many editors seem to
believe that how they perform over a relatively short term will
determine whether they are dinosaurs or successful adapters.
My hunch is that newspapers will do okay at least in the medium run,
because most periods of challenge can be turned into opportunities.
Challenge tends to prod even cautious institutions toward needed change.
In my recent book, The Magic and Craft of Media Writing
(NTC/Contemporary), I elaborate on this point. Overall, I maintain that
we should not let the allure of technology mislead us. What we
experience today is an emerging age in which the many new means of
delivering information are fascinating to contemplate. But success lies
fully as much in gathering and managing information as in delivering it.
Newspapers and other so-called serious media are likely survivors
because, as the world of information expands, they will persist and
adapt, and they have a gigantic head start in the expertise of gathering
and managing information. This is not to say, however, that the old ways
of journalism will survive.
Change Will Come.
Consider an analogy from the petroleum industry. For 150 years,
newspapers have sold the equivalent of mid-grade regular gasoline, a
mainstream product for the typical consumer. They have transported this
product through the conventional pipeline of newspaper home delivery.
Now, imagine that petroleum companies strike it rich, finding the mother
lode of oil resources beyond their wildest dreams. Essentially, this is
what has happened to mass media. As the information age gains momentum,
a near infinite volume of data is suddenly splashing through the
pipelines.
Moreover, the pipelines themselves, the means of delivering the
information, are being supplanted by faster, cleaner, more direct
delivery. Imagine natural gas or petroleum companies having an
easy-to-maintain pipeline into every home, or directly into your car's
gas tank. This is the kind of delivery that computerization brings to
the information system.
What we find, then, are transformational changes in the nature of
journalism: first, increases in the volume of available information on a
scale unimaginable even 10 or 15 years ago, and second, opportunities to
deliver that information in an expanding variety of ways, some of them
direct and some of them still mediated by news organizations.
Add to this one more transformational change: the awesome rise of
interactivity. Until now media have operated largely as one-way conduits
of information to consumers. But today's information superhighway is a
two-way avenue. More and more, readers, viewers, listeners and surfers
can communicate quickly and directly with media producers. They can
complain, support, request, demand. They can worm their way in to the
very nerve centers of the media, early enough to influence what news
gets covered and how it gets presented.
Immediate effects of these changes will include the following:
The Information Explosion
Both producers and consumers must immediately cope with processing more
information than ever before. Computers and databases now put at our
fingertips virtually every piece of information in every library and
documents collection and database in the world. A decade ago journalists
were lucky to have time to locate and interview half a dozen human
sources and a yellowed clipping or two for a news story. Now, the same
assignment may require a series of electronic interviews over e-mail, a
check of computerized databases to find everything that's been written
about the topic anywhere during the past year, a visit to an electronic
bulletin board where the topic is under discussion, and a search that
produces all, not just a few, relevant documents in the local government
computer library. The change in order of magnitude is astonishing.
Information Supermarkets
Media companies will become gigantic information warehouses and
supermarkets providing material in a variety of forms to a variety of
audiences, online, onscreen, on paper.
|
With all this information available, we are increasingly seeing what
might be called the Vertical Integration of the Information Marketplace.
Media companies will become even more involved all along the information
pipeline, from the "crude" stage (supplying raw information via fax,
phone and computer) to refined premium (combing thousands of sources to
produce reports of specialized value to audience segments willing to pay
top dollar for it). The rash of huge mergers (for instance, AOL and Time
Warner) is the leading edge of this phenomenon. Media companies will
become gigantic information warehouses and supermarkets providing
material in a variety of forms to a variety of audiences, online,
onscreen, on paper.
A New Dependence on Journalists
Predictably, consumers will feel overwhelmed by the intimidating volume
of all this information. What they will most need is help in managing
it. The key emerging roles for tomorrow's journalists will be as
information specialists and explanation specialists.
As information specialists, they must function as complete information
scientists who can expertly search the information universe, locate and
retrieve relevant material, and sort, arrange and assemble it--all under
deadline.
As explanation specialists they may face the greatest challenge of all:
to synthesize and assimilate all this information, presenting it
accurately, clearly, understandably, coherently and, still,
interestingly. One of the most valuable, and powerful, contributors in
the information age will be the writer or producer who can make sense of
the proliferating, bewildering and unyielding flow of information.
Journalists will have at least one additional role, a very traditional
one: master storytellers. One way that societies have always tried to
cope with complexity has been through stories. Through stories, we play
out our hopes, dreams, fears and frustrations. Much of this is through
fiction, of course, but nonfiction storytellers, that is, journalists,
will be in equal demand as the world becomes ever more complex.
An Empowered Consumer Base
Interactivity will amplify consumers' voices and transmit them more
directly to journalists than ever before. The result will be a new kind
of partnership, one in which news users have an enlarging influence. The
lengthy news discussion I described earlier, in which anticipated
consumer reaction played such a large role, is one example of how this
will work.
Here is another scene from a newsroom I visited:
Editors are discussing the upcoming front page's "promos" or "teasers."
These are newsroom terms for those top-of-the-page pictures and
headlines designed to lure readers to juicy items elsewhere in the
paper.
"I want some good inflammatory language ...," a top editor says
pugnaciously. Then, seeing me--a professor and reporter--in the meeting
taking notes, he adds swiftly, "... some inflammatory language that's
responsible!"
Inflammatory and responsible? Is such a combination possible? In today's
world, can media be reliable and responsible and still thrive, or even
survive, in the frantically competitive market?
With its many gifts, the information age also has many worrisome
potential downsides, including the tendency to nudge serious journalists
toward sensationalism.
Again, look at history. The First Amendment establishes a free press. A
chief reason that the press gets special constitutional treatment is
that it plays an essential role in democracy. Our kind of system cannot
endure unless citizens have maximum, dependable information about public
affairs. Our system, in short, requires an independent and dutiful
press, committed to public service at least as much as profit.
Historically, news companies were owned and operated by news people,
that is, by publishers and managers whose training and values lay
primarily in the news business. They understood the press'
constitutional role. Today, media units are routinely swallowed up by
conglomerates whose main interests and values lie outside journalism
(the ownership of ABC News by Disney is one example).
Businesspeople understand profits, of course. Especially in
super-competitive times, they may be susceptible to short-term actions
(to sensationalize news coverage for quick circulation gains, for
instance) that do long-term damage to press credibility and service.
Under such temptation, will this new management class continue to
appreciate, and to perform, the press' social obligations?
A related problem is that, with the almost endless proliferation of
media organs and sites, it becomes harder and harder for consumers to
distinguish the reliable gatekeepers from the basement bums. As the line
between news and entertainment fuzzes over (it's even coined a word,
infotainment, meaning the use of information to entertain), consumers
will have a tougher job evaluating the reliability of information and
acquiring needed knowledge on serious issues.
We like to be entertained, but we need to be informed, even when the
information (coverage of our city council, for instance) may not be as
sexy as a Web site devoted to pop music. New Age journalists must
understand that, as history shows, we still require that a vital
proportion of media offer serious and reliable news.
To me, there is little doubt we are living through a revolutionary era
in media history. It will certainly enhance our access to images and
information. But it will also bring challenges and enticements with
potentially fateful consequences.
At this moment, therefore, what does all this mean for a college
community?
For students, today's developments underscore the importance of
acquiring the skills, concepts, analytical abilities and historical
perspective to appreciate the media's many roles--in news, entertainment,
technology, commerce, and in essential public service.
For faculty members, it means gearing our teaching, research and service
to understanding, delineating and assisting with the complex challenges
of a turning-point media age. As discoverers and distributors of
knowledge, we need to be heard, for example, in assisting in the
development of a sound and lasting ethic for this new age.
For our entire community of media consumers, it means encouraging,
supporting and, in fact, demanding the full range of media services--not
just those that provide enjoyment, gratification or commercial
satisfaction, but also those irreplaceable services that underlie our
very way of life.
Carl Sessions Stepp is professor of journalism at the university.
Radio Waves
by Dianne Burch
Who's in Control?
Story by Judith Bair
So, you want to be a Reporter...
Story by Brenna McBride
