I’ve expressed my ongoing thoughts about the communications revolution previously here (to see, go to the “categories” tab to the right, and see the pull-down menu for “communications and news business” and for one on my views about “new media”).

When discussing the future of the news business, most of the attention has been focused on what is happening to mainstream media per se.  Thus, the debate is about how long newspapers will continue to publish print editions, which will be successful in a transition to the web, the “new media” plays that will replace them, etc.  But it has occurred to me that there is another serious consequence.  Journalism as we have known it has already changed dramatically, and the trend is for the change to continue and accelerate.

When I pick up a copy of The Washington Post and read an article, I can see the reporter’s byline.  I know that reporter’s credentials were vetted by The Post before the reporter was hired.  I know the very story I am reading was taken-on in cooperation with an editorial staff and will be reviewed by at least one editor, who will raise questions to substantiate assertions and make certain the quality and ethical standards of The Post and the journalism profession are upheld.  The same goes for network television reporting.  Although The Post and other newspapers have bought-out seasoned reporters with early retirements and replaced them with much younger and inexperienced reporters, a reporter still gains an imprimatur by being a staff reporter for a newspaper with a known reputation.  The same is true of television broadcast news.

But watch the trend.  Mainstream media is shrinking for a reason: the attention of their audiences is being won by other sources that are more relevant to their specific interests, regardless of whether it is digital or a daily print newspaper distributed within a confined market.  The trend has not bottomed out.  It is still going south.  So it is fair to conclude that large powerful newspapers and television networks are becoming dinosaurs.  As that happens, reporters will lose their imprimaturs and the importance of the imprimatur will decline.  That will be because whereas quality of reporting may continue to be a priority among those who choose what messages they receive and whose messages they are willing to accept, quality journalism will not be the only or even top priority in many, if not most, instances.

I Think We Are Already Seeing Evidence Of The Erosion Of Journalism And The Rise Of Neo-Journalism.

One thing I’ve discovered about “new media” is that although I and others can communicate one-to-many, as in a blog, most often people communicate back on a one-to-one basis.  Thus, while some people comment about what I post online (which I think is great because it creates a dialogue about an idea), most (by far) communicate back on a one-to-one basis.  I received a large number of emails about my recent post “There Is About To Be A Very Significant Change In Headlines Around The World.” In virtually every email, the comment is the same: “I agree that there is a pattern in the protests that are happening globally; why hasn’t this gotten the attention of the news media?”  Why, indeed?

When I first posted that article, I thought that maybe I was seeing something that wasn’t there.  After all, if something of this significance was actually happening, wouldn’t it make the news?  But the comments from a large number of people I respect validated my views.  The news media has missed a story.  Why?

I have a few theories.  As someone posted in a comment at my article, the news business has instituted expense reductions and that translates into fewer bureaus, less time to do real reporting, and less time to think.  I think that means: less journalism.  Another reason may be because the current universe of journalists follows a pack mentality – not unlike institutional investors, as another example.  The Big Question among journalists has been:  How does the current economic crisis compare to the Depression?  Where is the journalist who might ask other questions, and compare the current crisis to other historical events to gain a different perspective?  Where has the space and time gone that could give visibility to what are really major events around the world, such as the million+ person nationwide protest in France or the collapse of the government in Latvia or the scores of other protests that have been happening around the world?  I call that less journalism.  And I see that trend continuing.  So, just playing out the logic, you come to the conclusion that unless there is some reason to stop the trend journalism as we have known it is going away.

At the same time, there has been an explosion in sources of information.  One aspect of that hit me as I searched around for news about economy-related protests.  Whereas mainstream news media hasn’t been covering these stories and linking them together as a trend, the extreme media in this world sure has.  As I researched my article, I followed links to news sources that I never really bothered about before – the media for the world of the politically extreme.  In virtually all cases, I could not find an “about us” link that would give me anything other than the vaguest information about the people behind the site.  Nevertheless, these sites are distributing “news” to what could be very loyal and growing audiences.  Hey!  That’s a hell of a statement!  “Could be a very ….” What’s with this “could be” stuff?  Difficulty is that there is no way of actually knowing just how wide and deep these audiences are.  That is part of neo-journalism:  no identity of the supporters of the content, no idea of the power of the source, no absolute need for accuracy or rejection of personal bias.

That’s the evolution of journalism as I see it.  Not particularly pretty.  I wish I could see a different future, especially because I think that if I am right about the growth trend of global middle class protests, the world is going to need true journalists now more than ever.