On the other side you could say that, there will be created a widder range of oppinions and the media will loose it’s power in creating oppinions which could be false. Or you get on better informations because a journalist who writes about a topic, often isn’t a professional in this topic while others might be and they get the chance of presenting their view or they have more reliable or detailt sources/informations. For example Burma, where local Burmese had a much bigger power than the media, because the media couldn’t get informations out of Burma.

I personally do not think that blogging has had nearly the effect on the MSM as the MSM would like to think. I think that they were offering an inferior product for some time before blogs became relevant. Now they have some competition and they should use this as an opportunity to improve their offering. That will not happen if they refuse to look at how they cover news and instead just blame blogging for their failures.

Interesting stuff. As a PR agency owner, I think “New” online media has had a huge effect on traditional media. For proof one only need look at the every declining national and regional newspaper circulations.

Online media definitely has an advantage to move a story on at a breakneck pace making traditional print media out of date within hours. People have naturally focused more on new media more and more as this is seen as the source of the debate within a story.

I don’t think that new media will kill off journalism, as many media outlets and journos already have a strong online presence. I do however think that it has a great affect on quality journalism, as some lazy journos take blog content and Wikipedia, for example, as red with sometimes disastrous consequences.

Take a look at my blog for examples when national journalists have taken blog content too seriously, rather with a balance view.

Matt – Montage Communications

Overall, I think MSM is looking toward online and doing some amazing things. I also thing bloggers are forging a path. At the moment, I think both forms of media can co-exist.

If you look at a majority of sites, from Joe Schmo down the street blogging about local politics to the massive Gawker sites, there is still a reliance on MSM. Journalists still do break stories and report them well. They’re also taking their own video, and posting constantly to the web.

I think newspapers (the form of media I work for) don’t necessarily cast blogs as trash. We read them. Some of the old-timers thought they were a passing fad, but blogs and user-gen content is here to stay and I believe MSM recognizes that. There ar a number of papers out there that are launchnig user-gen sites, and allowing citizens to blog for the paper. Papers are using blogs as content for the print edition.

So, I don’t think ti’s fair to say MSM is ignoring anything and I won’t even get into the whole “MSM has a slant” deal. Bloggers have slant too. As a “house” of media with lots of eyes reading each piece, different people with different viewpoints touch each story. That’s the whole basis of how journalistic objectivity. Of course a single reporter has their bias. But the report is not the only person handling and crafting a story.

Is new media a threat to my job? No. Journalists will always have a place in society. Someone has to write the news, and maybe in the future people will not be so crotchety to say that bloggers aren’t journalists (I don’t subscribe to this). There will always be someone paying reporters to produce news. Will it be on paper? Probably not. But even the most podunk of papers has a web site anymore. It may not be fantastic, but it’s there.

There are plenty of young people such as myself pushing MSM to do more, and they’re willingly doing it. They see the declining revenue, etc. More risks are being taken and will continue to.

Moreover, journalism implies standards (read: editors), which most bloggers don’t have. There is always a place for this third-party information – it brings credibility and trust. Bloggers are more like the op-ed section of the newspaper, infinitely interesting, but often wrong.

Although we are seeing an increase in the digital media front, a long way to go we still have before we could even say that digital media is going to give the journalist a run for their money.

Blogging still has a lowbrow stigma to it,most of the corporate world still can’t
1. tell you what a blog is
2. can’t see themselves needing one
3. Think bloggers are gray matter lacking fluffy slipper bored house wives. (not far from the truth)

This perception problem will keep the blogger down in the respect of the greater community, it is this reason that print media is still the preferred media for information education.

Interestingly traditional media still accounts for 53% of all education media – i.e. the newspaper.

99% of all blogs are still the rantings of people who now feel they have a soap box to stand upon, not to mention many are inaccurate.

News media is becoming aware of the blogs sphere and there are already a few cases where they have been made to look a little foolish, but a long way of a undulating track the blogger still has to walk down.

It may effect the news media channels over time, but with the average person still not being the sharpest tool in the shed, and bookshops closing down on busy city streets, I think the journalist still has a fair head start on the poor blogger.

Have a B L O G G I N G good day!

You could mix both of them together easily.

Anyway. For the present there is need for both. When the new “tradition” emerges in MSM (and there will likely always be some form of MSM even if that becomes the arm of the state) there will likely be a new definition of the genre “Cit J”.

Travis mentioned on-the-scene amateur video being used instead of professional photojournalists; well, that is nothing really new except that there are more amateur video-types on the loose these days and fewer paid photojournalists who are not roaming the streets getting the latest for the next publication as glorified in Spiderman but are out on assignments that can’t be cut short. Often reporters double as their own videographers lugging around 50-100 pound cameras and tripods and hoping nobody steals or trips over them. And why, when Cit J just uses their camera phone; because even the best camera phone translates to shoddy video on TV regardless of format. Then there is the argument for perspective and depth versus the raw in-your-face video streaming of the amateur camera phone user.

But the original question is “does digital user-generated content pose a threat to traditional journalists?” There is that perception at the moment because the bulk of journalists are a generation before the digital revolution and the scrambling required to make changes gives the impression of running for their lives as a whole. It is true that some resisted too long and actually are on a race to save their stake in the market. But it is not true across the board. For some of us, and I include myself even though I was away from journalism for about 2 decades, it makes possible so many things we dreamed about doing but budget and editorial and publishing said was non-essential.

And it is also true that because nothing is static the traditionalists who are catching the digital vision realize that survival means being able to meet the next shift so how much do they invest in this phase and how much of it will be reusable in the next evolution is a realistic business consideration. Anybody with a crystal ball? Maybe Godin has a spare.

In my opinion, it comes down to gatekeeping. With the traditional media, you’ve got a vast reach, but the ideas and information, and content all trickles down from one powerful source at the top with their own personal agenda.
Here’s an example:
If Anna Wintour does not like a fashion designer for personal reasons, you’re probably not going to be reading much about said designer in Vogue.
Anna is the gatekeeper, and her ideas and opinions are ultimately far-reaching becauses Vogue is such a large publication. There’s no room for other opinions or alternative viewpoints.

This is the folly of traditional media. New Media on the other hand is all about the individual. I could care less about what Anna Wintour thinks of that designer, because I find their clothing fresh and fun. Therefore, I am going to blog about it, hype them up, and sing their praises. A few years ago, I may have only been able to reach within my circle of friends, but now that the internet has gone “2.0,” I can potentially shout my opinions for the world to hear. So can everyone else!
I think mainstream media gatekeepers are getting wise to this and are finding ways to make sure they stay on top, but things are changing and for the better in this blogger’s humble opinion.

1. Source quality in New Media – this can be very good, or very bad. There are lots of fanatics who think lots of conspiracy theory put together make an objective journalist who’s “telling it like it is.” New media seems to encourage this sort of person.

However, that sort of person isn’t the threat of New Media to more established journalistic enterprises – at best, they will act as a watchdog, at worst they can be ignored. The threat comes when more established journalists are scooped by people who are actually on the scene or by people who have established expertise already in a field and are blogging topically.

2. The financial stability of mainstream enterprises – the mere creation of New Media means fewer eyes to watch the nightly news. Broadcast networks are hurting, newspapers are hurting worse (magazines, Steve Rubel has pointed out, are actually thriving. One wonders if the Internet makes us long for nice glossy pretty pics more – I have argued that digital cameras + Internet = a lot of us are way better at seeing).

I have noted, in the spirit of Jaron Lanier at Edge, that the “New Media” is engaged in a bit of theft. Google gets a lot more money for aggregating content than the New York Times or WSJ is getting for providing that content. Jeff Jarvis argues that there’s free publicity for any traditional media enterprise in this.

I think it’s more brutal than that – investors are overvaluing the “new” and not recognizing how essential the “old” is. I can’t do my job as a blogger without established, traditional media. If they go broke, a lot of new media tumbles with them.

It should also be noted that it is not clear whether the better content providers online are getting a fair opportunity to express themselves, or are being exploited unknowingly by the tech sector driving all of this. There are good questions to be asked about the sustainability of quality New Media.

I think a better idea would be to compare traditional organizational journalism with one man / woman shops. Those are mostly blogs, but I’ve seen small newspapers and newsletters that are more “new media” than most blogs.

Gal

I think for the most part that “new media” will eventually work itself into a new form of journalism, rather than be a direct threat to it. People still want to express their feelings and the new technologies out there allow more people than ever to be able to do that. They may not always spell things correctly or worry too much about the five W’s but the message will still go out.

And perhaps because they are not following those traditional practices or journalistic guidelines those words will be viewed in a more positive light. In this age where everyone feels the media is being controlled by strong corporations with hidden agendas, the voice of the common man will be the more popular one.

Madame Monet

Because of blogging, there are many more views and perspectives being shared. We are not buying the traditional media’s bias “hook, line and sinker.” News organizations that begin providing a balanced view are thriving! (ie: FoxNews, although I know this is contested by some who would rather not hear the conservative view) Organizations who continue to believe their view is the only valid one are suffering (ie: network news/ The New York Times)

Ultimately, consumers are realizing that every journalist has bias, and it is refreshing to me that most bloggers will freely admit their bias, even when presenting the other side.

Josh P said “The problem is that user-generated content can sometimes be incredibly inaccurate compared to traditional journalism as the average user doesn’t have to go through any ‘accountability mechanisms.’”

It appears that many traditional journalists don’t have accountability mechanisms either, as we’ve seen from the false or misleading stories that have been exposed by bloggers. (ie: mass murder and hundreds of dead bodies found in the New Orleans Superdome, Rather-gate, Jayson Blair, etc.)

Not to say that there are great bloggers around, but blogging is usually centered around a niche topic. Instead of watching CNN everyday I would have to read 20 or so blog posts per day. Blog posts of niche blogs usually have a tendency to be quite long and it would take a lot of time to achieve the same effect as that of watching CNN.

Now you might say that the old media is going to die, and user-generated news will take its place. But the old media wins over the new one in one important aspect. It’s simple, short, logical, and is written/edited by professional writers/editors.

It is true that bloggers are first to react to a new event, but the old media sums all this up and presents it all in a average-Jose friendly way. And that’s what 90% of our population wants.

We’re not all tech savvy yet, and most of us will never be. In any case is even a win-win situation for the new media. Instead of having to have journalists all over the place, they could use information gathered by the general public.

Example?

The media’s coverage of the events in Burma, now reporters were allowed in yet the people of Burma still managed to get videos posted online.

Traditional media companies are also experimenting heavily with the online world. Take CNN or BBC as two examples, both have thriving internet portals where people can also discuss articles, both ask for their viewers opinion on their website and both have journalists that also blog a lot.

Could we be talking of a Traditional Media 2.0 now?

http://www.helium.com/tm/543374/favor-allowing-media-access

In many cases, bloggers and citizen journalists are the people who produce the digital, user-generated content. There is no question that the speed of the Internet is a major advantage to “break” news more quickly and as a result many old media companies now have an on-line presence.

One issue that I see, however, is that mainstream media journalists have one major advantage that the new media don’t necessarily have: personal relationships and access to key news sources. Certain entities, like the US Congress, have traditionally resisted uncontrolled or unplanned media access; the same would be true for many Fortune 500 companies. When the digital media can match the speed of delivery with access to the same key news sources, the traditional journalist will have no choice but to copy the “new wave”. And that is already starting to happen.