We're always talking about how the internet could destroy broadcast television as we know it. We talk even more about how newspapers will inevitably die because everyone gets their news from the internet. We then discuss how devastating this will be to a great number of people because people will lose jobs. Those who are news reporters can move on to become bloggers, but those that operate the presses will be out of work.
When this topic comes up in class discussions or academic forums, sometimes one will put forth the fact that the internet is just another step in the evolution of media and it's threats and benefits to society are the same type of threats and benefits that society have needed to address before.
When phonograph recording was invented, people thought that no one would buy sheet music or go to live music performances anymore, therefore the music industry as it existed would die.
When television was invented, the radio industry and film industry feared that no one would listen to the radio and no one would go to the "pictures" anymore.
In all of these cases, the industries that were in danger from these media innovations suffered drawbacks, but they survived in the end.
I wonder this, "What is going to come in the future that will put the internet in danger?" I'm gonna go to my dorky roots (I used to be a huge Sci-Fi nerd) to address this. Arthur C. Clarke, the author of 2001: A Space Odyssey, wrote several sequels to that book (they definitely are not as well known as 2001, nor are they as good). In the final book of this series, 3001: The Final Odyssey, mankind all shaved their heads and wore metal helmets that allowed them to download and upload information directly to and from their brains. I could see that technology as a threat to the internet as we know it, but how long until that comes about?
I don't want it to happen in my lifetime, personally. I like hair. A lot.
Also, consider this: What if somehow the internet existed before Television or Radio or even newspapers? It could be possible that those inventions could have threatened the popularity of the internet back then if history were to work that way.
If you're getting the idea that I am teasing my class presentation tonight, you are correct... :)
3 comments:
First, GREAT presentation tonight! I especially loved Walter Winchell’s interview.
Second, I’m not as sanguine about the transition from mainstream media to the Internet. I’m not sure many reporters can support themselves by blogging. So far, with rare exception, the ad revenue simply isn’t there. Also, individuals don’t have deep pockets, which come in handy when someone sues you for libel (or threatens to sue, which can have a chilling effect). And last but not least, everyone needs an editor. Now, I’m sure I’m biased toward editors, but I’ve seen enough embarrassing reporter errors – errors caught by astute editors – to make the hair stand up on the back of my head … if I had hair.
Which gets me to my final point: I certainly wouldn’t want to wear a metal helmet to get my news, but hair is overrated :-)
-- Tim
reading your comment, Tim, it occurred to me--in all this talk about depth of reporting and business models and internet transitions--im amazed we haven't gotten around to talking about the demise of editors and fact checkers! new media writing that is on the fence of being judged as good journalism largely preclude a skimpy or non-existent editorial staff. what is the role of editors in new media?
Just for the record, I don't necessarily believe that all newspaper reporters could become bloggers, I just heard that theory from someone somewhere. Don't remember where...
Glad you liked the presentation Tim! I loved yours and I'm am glad I was able to follow up to it to your liking. :)
Post a Comment