In the 1960s, television became a primary medium for the influence of public opinion. The rise of televised entertainment and news was in its beginning stages. But when John F. Kennedy was shot in 1963, it became a turning point for broadcast television. His assassination was broadcasted to a horrified nation as they watched their president was gunned down in front of their very eyes. In that moment, the public was given something that print or radio couldn’t – moving images that impacted them as an audience, as it happened. The shooting of Kennedy’s assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was also televised to the nation. But this time, it inflicted an entirely different emotion. That was- and still is- the power of broadcast television.
In 2016’s most recent news, there has been an idea of “fake news” websites that is said to have tampered with the 2016 election results. According to Pewresearch, sixty-four percent of U.S. adults use Facebook. Thirty percent of them get their news from Facebook. When the nation was in shock after Donald Trump was elected president, the country wanted to know why this happened, as it was said to be highly unlikely. One proposition was that Facebook was allowing “fake news” sites to post false information that could influence an unjustified opinion, that could then influence an unjustified vote. The argument stands that if thirty percent of all U.S. adults get their news from Facebook, and “fake news” is lingering on their timeline, then it’s likely the same thirty percent of U.S. adults could have voted in the election for the “fake” reasons. Even local newspapers have competition with these “fake news” websites that float around people’s feeds. Brittany Ruess, a reporter for the Columbia Tribune in Columbia, MO, says that she feels these sites are a big problem for her as a reporter.
“Competition and accuracy have always existed, but today real reporters are competing against fake news sites,” Ruess said. “I hope that people are waking up to the reality of those fake news sites in the wake of Donald Trump’s election to president, but I still see friends on Facebook posting obviously ridiculous ‘news articles.’”
The nation has shifted from the impact of broadcast television to the impact of news that may or may not be legitimate on our computer or cell phone screens. It compromises the reputation of news stations. The trust of the audience has been tampered with. Even articles about the “fake news” problem could be fake news alone. So what’s next for the future of journalism?
Regardless of how questionable the future of journalism may look, it won’t die out.
“I don’t think we will ever perish. We are too critical to society for that and many communities value the local newspaper.” Ruess said. “The reality is, though, that many newspapers have shut down and not as many communities are being covered the way they need to be.”
It’s not widely believed that investigative journalism is dead. Of course, there are victory stories like the Oscar-winning film Spotlight which plays out the story of the investigators at the Boston Globe outing sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. But there is a time element to the existence and/or quality of investigative journalism in 2016. There is also a pay element.
Journalists are overworked and underpaid. Talented journalists are turning elsewhere for a career as a result of lack of pay. Less staff means less reporting.
“With shrinking staffs, you see newspapers with less coverage overall and less in-depth coverage. I think that’s the most upsetting thing about the state of journalism today. There’s sometimes not enough time to conduct the reporting and research required to be a watchdog reporter while also churning out daily stories.” said Ruess.
If John F. Kennedy was shot last week, it would be trending on Twitter: #RIPPresidentKennedy. The nation would be horrified at a shopping mall, at their jobs, or on a date. They would be receiving their news from their cell phone screens instead of their living room TVs. There would be a Facebook group for a Vietnam War protest in the 1970s.
On the contrary, the rise of these assets has often become a positive outlet for the opportunity for the future of journalism and future journalists. It creates a challenge to charge full frontal at difficult and impactful stories. Stories that could change the world, like the first time the heavy news was broadcasted and shocked an entire country.
Comments are closed.