After reading both articles I am torn to between both arguments. I do not know enough about how media companies run to decide if convergence journalism is the way of the future or not. Some of the journalists I have spoken with are skeptical about the future of convergence journalism.
Convergence journalists will have emphasis areas like all other journalists, except they will be more rounded in other fields of media. From that perspective, we can only help the state of media.
What scares me is the idea that convergence journalism will result in a quality for profit exchange. Kebbel’s fear that some companies will eliminate jobs because they expect one journalist to be capable of 3 journalists’ jobs will happen. Even in the rare instance that one journalist could be capable of doing three journalists jobs well, that person would only have the perspective of a single journalist. There forth, one journalist can never adequately replace three journalists. Different perspectives are key in producing great media in a story-by-story basis, and in the long run.
I agree with Kebbel statement, “While some multimedia journalists can handle a variety of tasks efficiently and professionally, most will only deliver mediocre journalism”. This statement is probably true today, but maybe in 10 years every journalist will be expected to know how to use multiple medias. As Stevens argued, companies may grok at hiring a reporter who can’t slide across media in 10 years. I’m glad to know that if that day does happen, I will have the skills to pay the bills.
Overall I agree with Mendenhall statement, "I think multimedia journalists are here to stay. It has evolved to the point where one person can pretty much do it all. We're just waiting for the technology to do it better”.
by Jordan Stockdale
No comments:
Post a Comment