What is the Future of TV News?

Even though we are well into the Internet age, online media continues to evolve. Video continues to improve in quality, and at the same time, it continues to be easier to produce and distribute. Online video is also expanding in the wide variety of ways that it is informing us. From straight news style interviews, to footage from stabilized drones that would have required an expensive helicopter just a couple of years ago. The profuse variety of video is encroaching on, and may be displacing, TV news.

According to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, television viewing has declined on by as much as 4% per year since 2012 in countries like the US and the UK. This is similar to the decline in newspaper circulation that happened in the 2000s. I see this as an indicator that as those raised on broadcast television continue to age and decline, viewership of scheduled programming, including TV news, will also decline. They also point out that there is no reason to expect the subsequent generations raised with access to on demand video to choose programmed viewing as they get older.

To further show the demise of cable television, including TV news, the Reuters Institute notes that those habituated to on demand viewing are less willing to be constrained to viewing a cable connected television. They have become accustomed to being able to access video content on any number of internet connecting devices including smart phones and tablets, smart TVs, personal and laptop computers, and gaming consoles. This idea is supported by Digitalsmiths and TiVo’s 2016 quarter three Video Trends Report survey showing nearly 18% of respondents had “cut the cable” within the last 12 months.

With the growing number of people opting out of scheduled programming, more people will either encounter their news by happenstance, or they will actively seek out news programming; most likely it will be a combination of both. Network news will most likely become a place we verify what we have encountered elsewhere. I know that this is the case for myself. Also, it seems to me that TV news programs will continue to shift their focus turning into infotainment programs populated by talking heads. I see the more substantive news being delivered by standalone video articles reporting on specific news events. This would fall in line with the growing demand for instantaneous information.       

Sources:

http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/publications/2016/what-is-happening-to-television-news/

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/currency/tivo-survey-finds-cord-cutting-rise/161192

Audio Podcast - Who Cares if it's True?

LINK TO AUDIO

Who Cares if it's True?

TRANSCRIPT

Anchor: Wayne Young

SLUGLINE: Who cares if it's true?

Timecode: 02:06

INTRO: This is Reflections on Online Media. The date is November 20, 2016. A rare rainy afternoon in Phoenix, Arizona. I am Wayne Young.

WY: Today I’ll be speaking about truth in reporting in the Internet age. Does it matter anymore and if so, how do we achieve it. Let’s take a look at one successful example of reporting via the Internet, and it is Buzzfeed.

WY: From its start, Buzzfeed’s journalists shared the idea that the quicker a story was put out the better, even if it had not been thoroughly vetted. They felt that the internet was self-correcting and that the truth would emerge through open trial and error. While still maintaining much of this philosophy, Buzzfeed has decided that convincing its readers that its posts are true makes good sense regarding both journalism and business. In order to do so, they have started to use journalistic tools that have been derided as “old-school”, and one of the most fundamental of these tools is the copy editor. 

WY: This philosophy falls in line with a primary concern that veteran reporters have. The old guard holds that reporting is a quest for truth and for what the readers need to know to stay informed. Their process was all about verifying the facts and only then presenting them to the public.

WY: Adding some of the old tools doesn’t mean Buzzfeed is going to be slavishly following the “rules” of the past. Instead of insisting that stories have at least two source, one really strong and credible source is enough to see it to publication. The editor in chief, Ben Smith prefers to rely on smart reporters and on Twitter, fixing stories as they develop.

WY: For more information and other stories, go to wayne-young-online (dot) blogspot (dot) com.  

OUT-RO: Thank you for listening to Reflections on Online Media. Be sure to keep listening.  

Buzzfeed - Who Cares if it's True?

How is Buzzfeed changing its practice in regards to stories it posts/shares each day?

From its start, Buzzfeed’s journalists shared the idea that the quicker a story was put out the better, even if it had not been thoroughly vetted. They felt that the internet was self-correcting and that the truth would emerge through open trial and error. While still maintaining much of this philosophy, Buzzfeed has decided that convincing its readers that its posts are true makes good sense regarding both journalism and business.

Buzzfeed, along with other non-traditional news organizations, is working to find a middle ground from which to approach journalism. In order to do so, they have started to use journalistic tools that have been derided as “old-school”, and one of the most fundamental of these tools is the copy editor. Buzzfeed has decided that it better to get it right from the start instead of trying to fix any errors after a story has been published.

This doesn’t mean slavishly following the “rules” of the past. Instead of insisting that stories have at least two source, one really strong and credible source is enough to see it to publication. The editor in chief, Ben Smith prefers to rely on smart reporters and on Twitter, fixing stories as they develop.

What is the primary concern that media veterans have with this type of hyper-immediate news delivery?

The primary concern that veterans have is the question of what is the very purpose of what journalist do. There is an ongoing debate over the core values of journalism and reporting. The old guard holds that it is the quest for truth and a sense of what the citizens need to know to be informed participants in our democratic process. The process was all about verifying the facts and only then presenting them to the public.  

Where do you see potential problems with Buzzfeed's practices, or process of vetting stories?

The digital news revolution has been around long enough for the consequences of overly fast, or overly slow journalism to be evident. Too fast and the news reporting could become shoddy. Too slow and thoroughly vetted stories could lose their timeliness. It seems that there does need to be a balance between the old guard’s and the new digital journalists’ approaches to the dissemination of the news. The new readership wants to have their news served up with a minimum of delay. However, it is the responsibility of all journalist, from professionals to the newly risen citizen journalists, to delivery their stories with at the quickest speed possible, and with the largest amount of veracity.  

Source:

http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/who_cares_if_its_true.php

https://www.buzzfeed.com/about

Podcasts Part II, Podcasts and Audio

In this blog, I'll be looking at how interviews are conducted in a podcasts by answering a few questions. I chose this particular podcast because it is well regarded and the interviewer is a seasoned journalist. Another reason I chose this podcast is that it is produced locally.  

What is the program called?

KJZZ’s Here & Now, Nov. 9, 2016 

Who is the interviewer (full name)?

Steve Goldstein

Who is the interviewee?

Chris Herstam

What did the interviewer know about the subject before the interview?

The questions were political in nature and centered on the recent election. Steve Goldstein seemed very knowledgeable about the issues.

What kinds of questions did they ask?

Did Arizona play an important part in the election as a swing state? Because Joe Arpaio and Donald Trump were lumped together, was it surprising that Arpaio lost and Trump won? Why did John McCain win even though he has lost popularity over the last few years?

How did they build up to questions?

The questions started on a national level and then proceeded to state and local concerns.

How did they follow up questions?

Many questions were followed up with questions asking for more details and explanations.

Did the interviewer appear to have a strategy?

Steve Goldstein did allude to other topics that would be covered later in the podcast with the continuation of the interview with Herstam.

How were any inadequate or evasive answers handled?

There did not seem to be any inadequately or evasively answered questions.

What was the apparent relationship between the interviewer and interviewee? Did they seem like friends, or adversaries?

It seemed apparent that they had interviews before and were comfortable discussing the subject. They certainly seemed friendlier than if they had been strangers to one another.

What did you learn about interviewing from this interview?

It seemed that Goldstein’s familiarity with the subject was a strong point. He also seemed to have follow up questions ready that would lead Herstam into more detailed answers.

Sources:

http://kjzz.org/podcast/here-now

Podcasts Part I, Reflections on Podcasts



I have never been a fan of podcasts. To me they seem inconvenient. I searched for a podcast to listen to and came upon Fresh Air. I had listened to Fresh Air before on the radio and it did not occur to me that it would be classified as a podcast. I think that the delivery mechanism, more than the content, determines if something is classified as a podcast. I also learned about the NPR One app for accessing and scheduling the delivery of podcasts to your device.

Fresh Air is produced by radio station WHYY in Philadelphia. It is associated with NPR. It is a weekday broadcast that covers the contemporary Arts and other issues. I listened to an interview with Stephen Colbert. They talked about the ending of his last show, The Colbert Report, and the beginning of his current position with Late Show on CBS. They discussed how the Late Show is influenced by the network, if there is any interference, and if he feels limited by CBS’s language restrictions on curse words. They also discussed Colbert’s feelings about the Presidential campaign.

In listening to the podcast, I noticed that the audio quality was good, but a bit heavy on the bass. I think that may be an effect of their sound engineering. While it was not objectionable, it did make them sound a little flat. There were a few drop outs of the audio, but no real buffering.

I generally prefer to read news stories which allows me to reread sections at my discretion to make sure that I am understanding the subject of the story. However, because of the conversational tone and language that was used in the podcast, I do not feel that it would read well. I did not mind listening to this podcast even though some Colbert’s answers were fairly lengthy and detailed. It is here that the conversational tone worked and the language was easily comprehensible.

I will be listening more to Fresh Air and other NPR podcasts now that I know how to easily access them. NPR has been very smart to streamline the process of searching for and scheduling listening to their podcasts. They may have won me over.  

Sources:

http://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444908/fresh-air

http://www.whyy.org/