Although the main goal of columnists is to speak their opinion on several different topics and guide people through their information, allowing those readers to have a voice adds more credibility. When thinking about columns, dozens of emails flood the newspapers and magazines from readers expressing their own opinions. If the stories are meant for the readers, why not digitize and allow the readers to have their own voices.
People are becoming so bored of the same news and have more attention poured into social media. I refuse to believe that journalism will die when their are dozens of newer outlets to capture readers. Social media grabs peoples attention because it’s personal. The news doesn’t always seem personalized. Writers appear to be talking at their readers, instructing them on the appropriate paths to take. This is a main reason why readers choose to turn the channel or put down the paper. They’d rather spend time listening to someone tell them news that pertains to them.
One of the main arguments against digitizing to social media and even blogs is the extra time commitment. Writers appear to be worried that keeping up with ongoing conversations with their readers will take away from precious time for researching and writing new things. However, writing isn’t about finding the story and forgetting about it. A good writer gives their piece life and should aim to keep it alive. Blogger Robert Niles hits the nail on the head referring to columnists writing and digital media. “The best write in a lively voice and forge a strong connection with their readers.”
Digital journalism allows for constant communication on what the people think is important.More time on one topic could in the end be more beneficial for the news organization and journalism in general. The main factor behind the downfall of journalism is reader participation. By intercepting the readers in their most popular social outlets, the media will have the upper hand in communication. Readers will have the ability to view exactly what type of news pertains to them and have an active conversation on the subject.
If journalists took hold of this digital idea, journalism would be incapable of failing. Journalism is about finding the truth and getting that information to the people. It doesn’t matter if it’s television, radio, print, or digital media, a journalists responsibility is to report what’s going on. Adapting to the digital future is just part of the job.
facebook as a news medium
twitter as a news medium
Wonderful World of Bree 
I agree with your post and that digitization of journalism is not only what needs to happen but it almost feels like the natural progression of things. I am surprised that so many journalists are reluctant to go online and engage their audience through a new medium. Throughout the years journalism has always been on the cutting edge of technology, from the printing press to photography and radio to television. Social media and the Internet offer journalism a “personal” quality that it has lacked in other formats.
LikeLike
Your statement on how journalists should blog to keep their story alive is spot on. Instead of a story being posted to a news outlet’s website, being read for a day or two and being forgotten is actually more of a waste of time for a writer than putting that extra little effort to blog about the subject, inviting readers to have a more personalized feedback opportunity on the piece.
Engaging one’s audience is becoming a big deal in journalism, and the one’s who take the time to interact with their readers are the ones who are thriving in the digital age.
LikeLike
I like that you mention that if stories are meant for the readers then why not give readers the opportunity to comment on the topics at hand. I agree with you that stories should be for the readers and that they should be allowed to speak for themselves on what they would like to hear. On one hand though, as soon as you start allowing commenting to happen then people are expecting a response. The argument then becomes, how much time should a journalist spend responding to readers, if they respond at all? Finding the right balance for this is probably hard due to the fact that journalists also need to write. At what point is writing more important than responding to your readers or vise versa?
LikeLike
I love that you linked the use of social media to the revival of journalism. We hear it every day, right? Journalism is dead but that’s definitely not true. Journalism has merely reincarnated into this social media machine that definitely has no end in sight. You’re also right when you say that adapting to this change is “just part of the job.” Police officers are constantly attending seminars and getting bigger and badder weapons, it’s the same idea with journalism. Any job you have is always going to ask more of you the longer you work there and as technology evolves.
LikeLike
I applaud your line and link on writers keeping their work alive. Not only does blogging keep their news stories relevant for a much longer period, but it also allows the writers to engage the readers and defend viewpoints. In the long run I feel this will not only benefit the readers by providing a more engaging experience, but it will also help the writer continually develop their writing.
LikeLike
I like your thoughts regarding this topic. I agree that journalists need to be engaged with their readers. The more a journalist interacts with their readers the more consistent the readers are.
With any job, an employee must adapt to new technology or a new way to do things. Like you said, it’s apart of their job. If a journalist does not want to use social media or blogging sites then that is only hurting their career. Now a days, everything is becoming so advanced. I remember walking into the Apple store for the first time. It is crazy to see that Apple employees can swipe a credit card on an iPhone. It just shows how quickly technology is advancing and that we must always stay up to date with the latest technology and social media sites in order to succeed in the journalism industry.
LikeLike
I think you were spot on by stating:
“However, writing isn’t about finding the story and forgetting about it. A good writer gives their piece life and should aim to keep it alive.”
Many journalists think of social media or blogs as another chore. The key word is “social.” Socializing with your audience not only gives your piece life, but it also puts a face to your work. You are owning up to it and standing by what you said. Traditional print media stops after someone reads it. Yes, someone can email the journalist and discuss it further. But they may never get a response or have it seen by others. Opening up articles to the public gives people the opportunity to share their voice and opinion. This just gives a journalists article more “virality.” Something that they benefit from.
LikeLike
I agree with your thoughts on this subject. As journalists we need to be able to adapt to the technology surrounding us. Why fight it when we can make it work for us? Like you said, the field of journalism isn’t dying, and that is a direct result of the Internet being able to capture new readers on a broader, larger scope. In a way, us budding journalists a lucky to be able to use the Internet as a tool in order to get our work published faster and easier. We cannot expect to get published in the NY Times right away, so why not use the platform of a blog or smaller website to get our work out there?
LikeLike
Love your post. I totally agree with you. This is a huge argument that journalists should be facing today. The digital age is upon us, journalists have to adapt or suffer the consequences. Yes, they can still be credible and noteworthy when their articles are published in a newspaper or magazine, but the public wants it now. Our society wants everything NOW, in the palm of our hand or straight in our face, the only way to be a great journalist is to adapt to the times. I get all my news from online publications – some blogs/twitter and some from the actual print copy. I just feel like everything in print is a little behind because it has already been brought up the day before on the Internet. I don’t want print to die, but we really are evolving, journalists should too.
LikeLike
I completely agree with you comment of the interaction that occurs on social media! It’s one of the greatest benefits that Web 2.0 has brought to the online world! Everybody loves to be acknowledges. People always tend to want to share their thoughts and be heard and through social media, we are able to do just that! Social media is keeping news alive! I’m sure most of us receive news primarily from social media!
LikeLike
Bree, I agree with your statement that journalists need to give their pieces life. Perhaps that is one reason why print journalism is dying–it just doesn’t have the life or dynamic element that digital journalism does. Once the piece is published, it is read and forgotten within a few days, unlike online pieces which can easily be referenced through links within other pieces.
LikeLike