In the New York Times today, there was an article that described Wikipedia as a source for breaking news. There is no doubt that Wikipedia is updated quickly and efficiently, but is it necessarily a better source for news than a website for a newspaper company?
Wikipedia was updated every time new information was gathered about the McCain/Obama election. However, it is possible for people (who are not recent new users of Wkipedia) to update information freely.
The article said that eventually the internet will overtake print and television as far as media coverage goes. However, with credibility being an issue with Wikipedia for instance, is this such a good thing? I read a quote earlier (I don't remember who said it) that said journalism has to deliberate which to satisfy, the urge to be the first with the story, or getting the facts right.
If the world continues to turn to Wikipedia, or sources like it, where the news can basically be changed by whoever, without an employer of some kind to hold them accountable to telling the truth, what will happen to the news? Will people trust it blindly, or not trust it at all? Will news businesses go out of business?
I am holding on to the hope that people will always need news organizations to collect and distribute the news. Maybe news corporations will just have to keep on adapting and become more and more internet oriented. So... here's hoping.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment