Online journalims and the promises of new technology, PART 1: The revolution that never happened

A week ago I got the message that my PhD dissertation has been approved and may be defended. The defence will take place in late June. Yuhu! To celebrate, I’m writing a series of posts on online journalism research for the online journalism blog…. This is part 1:

Who would have thought, back in the 1990s, that by 2010, online newspapers would still be mainly about publishing written text to a mass audience?

Not many. The general assumption shared by academics, practitioners and media executives alike was that journalism would be revolutionized by new technology. Online journalism would be all about multimedia, hypertext and interactivity. Some even believed that the Internet would cause the the end of journalism (pdf). And the discourse surrounding both the practice of and research on online journalism is still quite preoccupied with how new technology will fundamentally change journalism.

So why, then, is online journalism still mostly all about producing written text to a mass audience? Why is use of multimedia, hypertext and interactivity still so rare? (If you believe  online journalism in fact is technologically innovative – keep on reading.)  Is it only because online newsrooms don’t have the resources they need to be innovative? Or are there other reasons?

In a series of posts I will take a closer look at online journalism and the promises of new technology.  I will do this by a close examination of the technologically oriented research on online journalism in Europe and the US that has been published during the last decade. This review will show that online journalism indeed is mostly all about text and traditional mass media thinking. Furthermore, it will show that new technology might not be the main driving force behind changes in journalism. The questions therefore are: why do online journalism develop as it does? How can we best understand the evolution of journalism in new media?  The last part of this series will address these questions.

First, however, it is useful to be reminded of a simple fact: revolution prophesying has been quite common  upon the entry of new technology throughout history. The telephone, television, the radio and computers were all supposed to cause “the end of history, the end of geography and the end of politics”, according to professor Vincent Mosco in his brilliant 2004 book The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace. Needless to say, these technological inventions did change the world dramatically, but not in such a quick and radical fashion the fortune-tellers seemed to believe. People tended to use these technologies quite differently than how many of the revolutionists predicted.

Take television: who would have thought in the 1950s and 1960s that radio would still be a powerful technological platform several decades later? Imagine the argument: who would want only sound, when you could have both sound and vision? It seems like a powerful argument (and please feel free to start hum that Bowie tune…). Then consider the fact that television was much more of a revolution than the Internet has been. It took only a few years for television to diffuse in society (8 in the US), while it has taken the Internet 20 years to gain the same kind of penetration. Television did change journalism. But it didn’t kill it, or fundamentally change the social function of journalism and the role of the journalist. Likewise, the Internet will not kill journalism. It will change it, but perhaps no so radically as one would expect.

Things tend to transform slowly. Journalism transforms slowly. For instance, I recently read a 1925 book on feature journalism by American Harry Franklin Harrington. If I didn’t know better, I’d guess it was written 20 years ago. It portrayed feature journalism very much as it still is practiced today.

On that note I’ll end this introduction. In the next part of this series I will look at the three assets of new technology that are generally considered to have the (potentially) greatest impact on online journalism: multimedia, hypertext and interactivity. What are they? And how do they fit with the wide range of concepts that flood the discourse on online journalism, concepts like crowdsourcing, wikijournalism, UGC, participatory journalism, citizen journalism, hypermedia, immediacy, etc?

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Online journalims and the promises of new technology, PART 1: The revolution that never happened”

  1. Online journalism and the promises of new technology PART 3: HYPERTEXT « new journalism/new media Says:

    […] Part 1: The revolution that never happened […]

  2. Online journalism and the promises of new technology PART 4: Interactivity « new journalism/new media Says:

    […] Part 1: The revolution that never happened […]

  3. Online journalism and the promises of new technology PART 5: Multimedia « new journalism/new media Says:

    […] online journalism. Previous parts in this series has focused on the revolution that never happened (part 1); how two define the three main assets of new technology to online journalism — […]

  4. Online journalism and the promises of new technology PART 6: Conclusion « new journalism/new media Says:

    […] The revolution that never happened (part 1) […]

  5. A season of trasnitions – the online journalism | Journalism Evolution – The Online Media Says:

    […] Steenson discusses the impact technology has on the future of journalism in his blog  New Journalism New Media. He says: “Take television: who would have thought in the 1950s and […]

  6. How much has REALLY changed? « The Online Journalism Revolution Says:

    […] Stenson (2010) questions just that in his post: the revolution that never happened. He says: “Who would have thought back in the 1990s, that by 2010, online newspapers would […]

  7. The revolution that never happened « The online revolution and me Says:

    […] Steen Stenson is yet another journalist to explore the ways in which technology is changing the face of journalism in his blog new journalism/new media. […]

  8. Cross-platform content provider’s CV « Says:

    […] Steen Steensen, multimedia, linkage and interactivity are the three pillars of online journalism (more). However, while coss-platform content providing continue being done by the same amount of […]

  9. A cacoon does not change into a butterfly straight away « Journalism Revolution Says:

    […] being asked to read Steen Steenson’s first post: ‘ The revolution that never happened‘  (2010) it seems to still be a surprise to people that online hasn’t changed […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: