The past weeks have presented a unique opportunity to reaffirm online journalism’s mutation from an events-based medium to post-eventuality. I am referring of course to the papers’ live coverage of the mystery of flight MH370. Since March 8 we have been hooked with the live reportage of this tragic event – it has all the elements of a thriller. Interestingly, save for the initial disappearance, what has kept us refreshing pages is nothing more and nothing less than opinion-based reportage and speculation. In other words, beyond the disappearance nothing certain has happened.
At the moment of writing all the “most credible leads” have so far to prove meaningful. All the experts remain both untainted and still to be shown right. The plane crew guilty until deemed innocent, their lives thrown open for everyone to play Sherlock. The plane is nowhere to be found – we listen to this on repeat. A mix of morbid pleasure, angst, need for entertainment, and compassion keeps us checking the news, hoping for something real to happen. Journalism knows this. Knowing what we want is journalism’s talent. And that is why we love it too.
The tug of war regarding what constitutes the truth hardly ever takes place over an event but around its circumstances. We are all aware that a plane has disappeared. Few doubt this – save for the usual congregation of conspiracy theorists, some of whom even claim that the flight never existed. And in fairness to journalism the circumstances of a certain event have always played an important role – it is always about who, what, where, when, and why. Yet never – due to the spectacular nature that is MH370’s disappearance – have the circumstances been so open to discussion.
We have discussed everything that could be discussed, many times irresponsibly. We have discussed, for this is indeed the constitution of a new we. Looking at The Guardian’s coverage of the search for MH370, to name just one serious paper’s, it is possible to see how the top bit and the bottom of the page are now on equal terms: there is no longer any ontological difference between what the paper tells to its readers and what the readers tell themselves – through the comments’ section, that most angry collective soliloquy. This we is both democratising and alienating. On the one hand the public can now fully participate in the construction of the truth, beyond the pub and the word of mouth. On the other hand, it is alienating because it is possible to get lost in this sea of pure opinion attended by no-one. The image of shouting into an empty room comes to mind. The shouting is now being done as much by readers as by journalists.
In relation to journalism’s evolution towards the constitution of a new commons and beyond, it is interesting to recall the Argentine literary critic and Twitter enfant terrible Nicolás Mavrakis’ work. In his book End of Journalism and Other Autopsies Mavrakis describes the inevitable disappearance of this form of communication, a result of the ever expanding impact of social media and associated platforms in communication and everyday life. Mavrakis argues that in light of these new technologies, journalism as the task of an enlightened chronicler is reaching its end. For Mavrakis, suggesting its demise isn’t equal to an attack on journalism, nor a reason to mourn or celebrate. What he terms #endofjournalism (hashtag intended) is just the description of a death that is evident to all but those who make a living coming up with striking headlines. I would add that as long as we continue to point towards the end of journalism this is a sign that journalism is alive and kicking. Still alive because as we continue to move towards a communication based 100 percent on opinion journalism fights for its life and it won’t go without a struggle. Some of the weapons it has at its disposal are the access to other areas closed to the public (i.e. to press conferences with grieving and angry relatives) and the capacity to produce outstanding infographics. The comments’ section, as well brings home the type of debate that would otherwise take place in barbarian territory (blogs and social media). In that sense online commentators are not truly conspiring against journalism but giving it a lifeline.
At least since the invention of the radio journalism has thrived in its ability to report live events. Perhaps the immaterial qualities of the contemporary favoured medium, the internet, are affecting journalism and forcing it towards reporting the purely virtual (virtual in the sense of that which isn’t yet real) and the non-eventual. It must be an exhausting task for journos to keep up with the gigantic flurry of information about things that have not happened – it is even possible to sense the tiredness of the very likely underpaid staff keeping the live coverage blogs alive. It is not far-fetched to suggest that this might be the shape of the journalism to come: a rhizome of cheaply run blogs, desperate for that event that might raise them above the level of their peers – that might raise them to the level of journalism.
Perhaps it wouldn’t be too much to ask that those in charge of informing us come up with a colour-coded system for their sites. Green, for event-based pieces; yellow, for pieces which might contain events; red for pure speculation and opinion (like this piece). This would provide a visual benchmark of journalism’s gradual disappearance. Almost like an infographic of its own death.
1 Comment
Brilliant piece! Insightful and beautifully written. I wonder what readers will make of it 50 years hence. I love the angry soliloquy and shouting into an empty room metaphors!