Is the problem with journalism that it always focuses on the increment?
Was reading Jeff Jarvis' piece on the revolutionary impact of the iPhone -- not, I hasten to add, about the iPhone as an item (the fetishism surrounding it may mark a lowpoint in our materialistic age) but about the citizen journalism coverage of the absurd lines forming outside shops by those eager to be an early buyer (yes, this, too, may mark a low-point in our cravenly submissive consumer culture, but let's not go there. At least for now.)
No, Jarvis was more interested in this real-time coverage and what it represents. He rightly suggests this is real-time coverage on a par with the Virginia shootings -- something that Duncan Riley, who writes good stuff at the usually puffy or snarky TechCrunch, has already called eventstreaming.
Jarvis is right: the subject matter aside (Virginia Tech shootings vs absurd consumer lines outside stores that don't sell out) this is a good dry run for something more serious. But it's Jarvis' other point (if you've read this far, sorry for the wiggly lines getting here) that caught my attention: the tendency of media to pick holes in the potential of this:
Problems? Of course, there are. I never sit in a meeting with journalists without hearing them obsess about all the things that could go wrong; that is, sadly and inevitably, their starting point in any discussion about new opportunities. I blew my gasket Friday when I sat with a bunch of TV people doing just that.
Very true. Journalists do this all the time. That's because we're trained to. Not a bad thing, actually, being able to spot problems. But it has a downside. And quite a big one. It's this:
Journalists are taught to identify "news". In some situations, it's obvious: A bomb goes off in Baghdad; two guys drive a flaming SUV into Glasgow Airport; Apple launches a cute phone. All news, and no one would disagree.
But it's the rest of the stuff that gets problematic. Most journalists don't have these kinds of stories to work with so they're forced to look for them, and that mostly involves prying apart things, people, organizations, situations, points of view and seeing some incremental change or difference that merits a news story, such as U.S. family terrorized by possible phone hoax (Cellphones Terror Weapon Horror!)
So Wikipedia, for example, gets coverage not for the millions of great articles in there and the millions of people who go to it first for information, but the few articles that are wrong, badly written, libelous, mischievous or biased. That, for a journalist, is the news story. (Wikipedia Unreliable Shock!)
Some companies and PR folk know this tendency and exploit it: Several security companies base their business model on the idea that there are enough journalists out there to write scare stories about mobile phone viruses for an industry to emerge (I wrote what I thought was a piece somewhat mocking this scaremongery only to get another company in the same business email me thanking me for my article and suggesting that I write about their product, which rests on all the same scaremongery that I was trying to pooh-pooh.)
I am not saying journalists only write negative stories and not positive ones. I'm saying that we journalists tend to focus on kinks in the same picture, magnify them and then call it news. This is nothing new, but we should be smart enough to realize that if it's not just us journalists making the news anymore, we have to be ready to accept the notion of "news" is changing.
Just as we can see lots of things going wrong with citizen journalism, and fixate on those to the exclusion of the bigger picture, we may well be missing the bigger picture that technology is giving us.