The increased consumption of digital network media has completely transformed and improved the relationship between publishing industries and society. In previous generations, timely news was considered that which was printed a day after occurrence, and an eager sporting fan – who had missed the opportunity to watch or listen to a match involving his favourite football team – was forced to wait for the delivery of his morning newspaper to learn of his side’s fate. Now, thanks to the internet and online newspapers, timely news is that which happened minutes before it was reported, and that sporting fan requires only an iphone and two minutes of free time to access his desired football result.
Similarly, publishing industries have changed the way they deliver information to, and interact with consumers. Online articles are supported by video, and consumers are able to comment or blog on important issues – interacting with news.
This work looks to delve deeper into these amendments, critically analysing societies new relationship with publishing industries via the following categories: timeliness; interactivity; flexibility; quality; and access.
Timeliness
As aforementioned, digital media has reshaped the definition of timeliness. It has ensured that society is no longer required to wait for the nightly television bulletin or morning newspaper, and allowed news reports to be almost instantaneous with events. An example of this is Foxsports.com.au. This website – focusing on Australian sport – reports sporting events as they happen. Delivering their users live scores and match reports, while also opening live match blogs that describe all the key plays as they happen. This ensures that users are informed at the highest level and fills the void for those who may not be able to view the match but who feel they need to know the final result as it happens.
Access
Closely related to timeliness is access. In this context, access can refer to the ability of media consumers to obtain information, or publishers ability to reach media consumers.
Digital media has changed the way society accesses information, forever. While, and before the creation of digital media, topical information was solely confined to the local 432 by 279 mm tabloid, 749 by 597mm broadsheet, or 6pm news bulletin, and received within the home, it is now available everywhere, any time, any place. You could be using your laptop computer to connect to your university’s wireless internet to view the Daily Telegraph’s latest story instead of paying attention to your lecturer; or checking the latest score update from the Ashes via your iPhone. Digital media has given you that ability.
Another issue is price. While you must purchase the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) in order to read it, you do not have to forego any hard-earned money to read the information on the SMH’s online page – a small, yet important change to the relationship between society and publishers.
Interactivity
The level of interactivity between media institutions and society has also undergone significant change. Where print media only allowed for readers to respond via letters to the editor – which could take days to reach the pages – digital media and, specifically, the creation of comment boxes below major stories has allowed readers to instantly respond to issues being discussed. This has created a forum effect, where people can actively debate with other members of society – not always in the most mature matter – in attempts to have their view known, understood and accepted.
Another example of reader interactivity can be found at Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) online via the Cars Guide section. At this location readers are able to vote on which motor vehicle they believe deserves to be named car of the year. They are able to do this in two ways: via poll voting, or allotting a certain number of stars – with five being highest – to each vehicle. This example is one of excellent marketing by SMH for, once they know which vehicles their readers enjoy, they know what to advertise.
But, mostly, interactivity has allowed a passive society – who has spent eternity with little opportunity to be heard – become more active and express their views more regularly. At the same time, it has allowed publishing institutions to learn more about their readers. Their wants. Their needs. And that is any marketers dream.
Flexibility
Flexibility is a vague term and, in this context, could refer to the readers new ability to access information whenever they want to, or publishers ability to publish information at precisely the right time – of the hour, day, or month. While both are apt, it is the new-formed powers of the media institution that is most interesting.
Digital media has transformed news reporting and publishing into a twenty-four hour a day phenomena, allowing them to publish articles at any point of the day. Ideally, this means that articles reporting on important issues, such as governmental policy, would be best received during online-news’ peak-hour – where the website is most likely to receive most hits. However, this choice is left solely to the publishers, allowing them to choose what they think is most important and leaving other issues to be published at less frequented hours of the day – such as 9pm. Similarly, they are able to post the issues they view as less important further down the webpage.
Now, while this may appear a weak argument, with many pointing out that print media institutions hold the same power – printing what they view as frivolous on the back pages of the paper – it must be remembered that while many newspaper readers will read their paper from back to front, very few online readers will read every article on a website, preferring to read the headline articles; those labelled as most viewed; before moving onto their favourite area (cars, sport, etc). Thus illustrating the increased power publishers have in their relationship with society
Quality – Hard-news articles and In-depth Reporting
The quality of publishing – focusing mainly on the writing – has declined. The requirements of online publishing and journalism has meant that quality has taken a backseat to quantity. It is no longer about the quality of the writing, but the timely nature of news. For instance, writers working for foxsports.com.au produce hard-news articles about thirty-minutes after the event they are reporting on has finished – a football match, for example. These articles are supported by a two minute video wrap of the game which is also collated by the working journalist. Thus, in thirty minutes, a journalist must play the role of writer, voice over analyst, and editor. It is this move away from specialisation – where the journalist writes, the editor edits and the video analyst dissects and analyses – that has decreased the quality of information on offer.
Another impact this need for speed has had on the fourth estate is a journalists ability to fulfil his or her most important function – substantiation. It appears, and this is purely subjective, that a focus on speed rather than quality will teach journalists that it is not the truth which is most important but, rather, the ability to produce a groundbreaking story before a ridiculously short deadline. This could impact upon the relationship between publishing institution and society because it could lead society to question if what they are reading has been properly checked. If not, then how is anyone meant to trust the publishing institution?
Furthermore, speed reporting removes the incentive to become an in-depth reporter and compose something on an issue that is perhaps more meaningful than a hard-news story on the latest interest-rate rise. Human-interest features on issues such as the pending extinction of the African Lion, or the injustice that occurs in Sudan, take time. To properly tell a story of heartache, suffering, injustice, sorrow, a journalist requires an in-depth understanding of what he, she is reporting on. However, if the trend towards express reporting continues, are publishing institutions going to give journalists that opportunity? And, if so, is society slowly being stripped of information on the issues that really matter?
Entertainment
There is no doubt about the final issue analysed in this work. Publishing institutions have used digital media to entertain society. Hard-news articles are supported by video feeds. Readers are encouraged to vote on topical issues via polls, as well as post comments and blog. And sport coverers – again, I’m referring to fox sports.com – ask users to create sporting ‘dream teams’ and participate in tipping competitions.
While the quality of writing may have declined, there is no doubt that the quality of overall coverage has increased, with video feeds in particularly providing a nice edge to reports. However, it does raise the question: if users have a video to tell them a story, why would they bother reading?
Conclusion
Digital media has changed the way society interacts with publishing institutions and the way publishing institutions provide for society. And at the rate digital media is progressing, it appears that print media is about to die, leaving society reliant on digital media. With that in mind, you’d hope that quantity won’t always be more important than quality.
