Is it worth the wait?
I found this article on 10,000 Words about the new advance that will be released this summer. As, Google Reader will say its goodbye in July, many journalists are beginning to wonder what will take its place? I found this article interesting because I can’t honestly say I got well into Google Reader, however, I do understand the importance that lies behind it. I’ve always thought the look was so plain jane and seeing so much black and white text on one page really turned me away. I know they say you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, however, it’s the cover that draws you in anyways. As Google Reader was a hit…well I thought it was, I’m wondering if this new expected advance will be what everyone is hoping for, or even better.
The article talks about how Betaworks is combining with Instapaper and Digg and journalists are considering that this may be a social reading revolution. I’m not sure if this new advance will be as great as everyone is making it seem, however, I do believe it has a lot of potential. Whether it’s by Betaworks or Google, or even some other company that may just jump out of the blue, journalism is heading in an even greater online generation. Even if that means Google Reader rests in peace.
“Factor in the idea of social sharing and social network reporting, and Digg’s reader has the potential to become the all-in-one news scraper every journalist dreams of.” -Lauren Hockenson
Is it really fair-game?
Although, this article was published on Advancing the Story back in March, I found that it really addressed some great points. With the Boston Marathon bombing, WACO Fertilizer Plant explosion and so much more that has happened lately, amateur video is becoming a normal thing in the news. I’m all for personally watching videos even if it does show corpses lying in the road, but I’m interested. Becoming closer to fulfill my dream as a journalist, I often question some of today’s ethics though. Isn’t the ultimate goal of a journalist…to present the news?
I’ve heard many times by many of people that they hate watching the news because it is too harsh, but honestly, it’s not harsh enough. Everything is so censored now a days and butter-coated, I feel like people really still don’t have a clue on what is truly going on in the world. We get these cell phone videos and we automatically think our world is hell-bound because the video used was so graphic, but in all reality it’s not. As I’m venturing off from my first question, I’d like to return with the thought that using these videos should be for the initial reason: to inform. I feel as if they are used for ratings and they did nothing but take and then credit for them. As videos from bystanders became viral all over local news stations, people were gawking at the thought their video was being used on airwaves. Step a point back though, who is really using who?
I’m not saying news stations shouldn’t have the right to use them, but I feel as if more standards and conditions should be set in place. In fact it doesn’t belong to them and a five-second graphic at the bottom of the video that says “News File” isn’t really the way to go about it.