Digital journalism or journalism in a digital environment

This “new” journalism produced for and in a digital environment has been given many names because of the fertile academic discussion regarding the use of “cyberjournalism,”

“online journalism,” “webjournalism” or “digital journalism.”

“Online journalism” is the label most used in Anglo-Saxon countries and has been adopted by Paul Bradshaw (2012a), Steen Steensen (2009), among others. Mark Deuze also uses “online journalism”, but in the plural (2003) along with multimedia journalism (2004).

Palacios (2003) also uses the term “online journalism”. On the other hand, “cyberjournalism”

and “webjournalism” is more used in Latin American countries, Portugal and Spain (along with “periodismo digital”). The first is used by Bastos (2006) and Zamith (2011), among others. The latter is used by Canavilhas (2014, 2001) and Longhi (2011).

For the purpose of this investigation we use the expression “digital journalism” as we believe the other terms can be misleading — for example, online journalism, webjournalism or cyberjournalism can be perceived as just referring to journalism practiced and disseminated on the Web, and digital journalism literally includes all the journalism produced and disseminated through digital media platforms, including mobile phones and tablets, for example (which can deliver offline as well as online content). This naming is used by several authors (Hansen, 2012; Grueskin, Seave & Graves, 2012; Briggs, 2007; Butry, 2014; Kawamoto, 2003) and by universities and organizations for programs or seminars, such as by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism from Columbia University (http://towcenter.org) or Poynter

News University (http://www.newsu.org) and scientific publications (as Digital Journalism, published by Taylor and Francis).

We can define digital journalism with a more conservative approach, as proposed by Kevin Kawamoto: “[is] the use of digital technologies to research, produce and deliver (or make accessible) news and information to an increasingly computer-literate audience”

(2003, p. 4).

This definition recognizes the historical and important function of journalism in a democracy (informing and enlightening the public) and acknowledges the digital tools which have an impact on how journalists construct their stories and how the audiences receive and have the power to participate in their life-cycle.

However, this definition can be a little too simple, i.e., it doesn´t acknowledge in an assertive way the complexity and continuous reconfiguration (because it changes alongside the evolution of technology and digital devices) of this new reality for journalism. In the presentation of a new scientific journal, titled Digital Journalism, its editor, Bob Franklin, acknowledges precisely that

digital journalism is complex, expansive and, even in these early days, constitutes a massive and ill-defined communications terrain which is constantly in flux. Digital journalism engages different types of journalistic organizations and individuals, embraces distinctive content formats and styles, and involves contributors with divergent editorial ambitions, professional backgrounds, and educational experiences and achievements, who strive to reach diverse audiences. (Franklin, 2013, p. 2)

This definition approaches what is happening in a digital environment: mainstream media live online together with niche native digital media projects, social media, blogs, and so on; journalists exist together with the so-called pro-amateurs. Users receive this daily mix of languages, formats and sources, in which they can also actively participate. Thus, digital journalism requires new ways of thinking: about the audience, the content and its distribution, the business models and the blurring boundaries between journalism and non-journalism.

Figuring out the most useful role a journalist can play in the new information ecosystem requires thinking about the essence of journalism and what can journalists do better under the new model. Journalism has a historic relationship with democracy, exposing corruption and injustice; it explains complex issues and draws attention to what matters; it accounts for politicians’ promises and duties. This role is, of course, irreplaceable. The journalist is a

“truth-teller, a sense-maker, an explainer” (Anderson et al., 2012, p. 4) and that´s how he can make a difference in a world where everybody can make information available:

Now and for the foreseeable future, we need a cadre of full-time workers who report the things someone somewhere doesn’t want reported, and who do it in a way that doesn’t

just make information available (a commodity we are currently awash in), but frames that information so that it reaches and affects the public. (idem)

For Pavlik (2001, p. 219), the role of the journalist in a digital environment changed in three ways. Once dominated by three objectives — report the facts, interpret the facts and help shape public opinion — journalists now must be more than tellers of facts, providing them in context; they must expand their interpretation of facts and be curators of the avalanche of information, in a way that they can reconnect and manage communities.

In the new digital environment, journalists need to have in-depth knowledge about issues because of the wider availability of specialist commentary. They also need to know how to deal with big data and statistics, as well as understanding metrics and audiences.

Besides data skills, they also should know how to code.

Another key skill is storytelling: journalists need to know how to tell stories using the most appropriate medium, from video to image galleries and infographics, in the most compelling way. Finally, they also need to know how to manage a project, since today an idea doesn´t end in a story, but in multiple platforms with specific audiences and characteristics.

Using Deuze´s model for online journalism as a reference, which concentrates on public connectivity as much as it does editorial content (2006b, p. 21) and the suggested expansion by Sue Robinson (2012, p. 65) integrating citizen´s personal experience in the news (both immersive and participatory ways), we can conclude that journalist’s functions don´t resume to instrumental and informative functions, but rather to a more global role that includes engaging with the public and finding new ways to provide them with a more immersive and participatory experience. Thus, journalists surely haven´t been replaced, but their role has definitely changed.

The journalist has not been replaced but displaced, moved higher up the editorial chain — from the production of initial observations to a role that emphasizes verification and interpretation, bringing sense to the streams of text, audio, photos and video produced by the public. (Anderson et al., 2012, p. 22)

Every year, Nieman Lab asks some of the most influential people in media field to predict what the next year will bring for the future of journalism. Their predictions are great indicators of what the trends will be.

For the year 2014, Dan Gillmor (2013) argued that in order for journalism to still matter, journalists should focus more on critical mass, raising big topics, spreading them, but also sustaining them. For that, journalists have to acknowledge the value of collaboration and cooperation (with citizens and even with other media). In that sense, “exclusives” can be counterproductive.

“The future of news is anticipatory”, said Amy Webb (2013), revealing other major great trend: the personalization of news, anticipating people’s thoughts, interests and needs through sophisticated algorithms, as social media and Google Now are already doing. In this case, James Robinson (2013) predicted that 2014 would be the year that newsrooms would begin to think of analytics to increase the quality of their readership, not just the quantity.

‘Connecting’ would be also a word in every journalist’s mind, whether it means connecting with communities, connecting the dots to a more immersive niche coverage or finding compelling ways to tell stories (Kramer, 2013). In this context, it would be essential to get smarter about social media (Hermida, 2013), being more careful about distinguishing facts from fiction (from what people know and think that they know), not making assumptions or jumping to conclusions.

In the context of entrepreneurial journalism, Elizabeth Green (2013) predicted that there will be more nonprofit news entrepreneurs and a continued rise of single-subject websites.

Along this line of thought, Carrie Brown-Smith (2013) said that the most successful startups will be the ones that understand readers and address their needs. One of the most important needs was precisely, according to Lauren Rabaino (2013), contextualized news…

These are just a few of those predictions, and most deal with the need for innovation.

Taking into account that the future is now, how are media adapting and innovating in order to be sustainable? That question waits to be answered in the next chapter.