“To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion … But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.” (Source)
Legend has it that after the conclusion of the broadcast, President Lyndon B. Johnson turned to his aides in the White House and said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” (Source) While the authenticity of this quote has been disputed (Source), the impact of Cronkite’s influence as a reporter and a voice to millions of Americans has never been called into question.
For nearly twenty years, Walter Cronkite was the face of the news. Cronkite, the anchor of the CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981, was a familiar personality that appeared on millions of Americans’ television screens with startling regularity every night for years. His deep voice and unmistakable, even tone captured the attention of more than ten million viewers near the end of his career (Source). He was so respected and revered that he was sometimes referred to as “the most trusted man in America” (Source).
Cronkite had the duty during his career of delivering to Americans some of the biggest stories that our nation has ever recorded: the assassination of President Kennedy, the first steps of men on the moon, the resignation of President Nixon and the 444-day hostage crisis in Iran. It would be the aspiration of most reporters today to cover just one story of this magnitude in their entire careers. Cronkite did it many times over, inextricably linking his voice and his newscasts to the events themselves. When children learn about American history in the mid-twentieth century, they often learn it through the lens of the world provided by Walter Cronkite’s CBS Evening News.
This concept — the idea that one man, one television program could hold so much power over the reporting of a news story and the narrative Americans would hear from it — is unheard of today. Through the forces of media convergence, news in the 21st century is owned by no one.
Media convergence, in a nutshell, is the melding together of once disparate and distinct media entities. Through the use of modern technology, such as a free and open Internet and wireless networks that have expanded to cover entire communities and cities, the media have grown exponentially beyond the bounds of one man and one network. Mobile data systems enable a person to receive, on demand, any information that is desired on the device most convenient to the recipient. Today, through media convergence, the news is anywhere we are.
Most of these changes are very good. The changing media landscape, enabled by convergence, allows for news to be disseminated through a variety of means at a faster pace than the world has ever seen. It also empowers the public with greater personal choice. In one recent survey, more than 75 percent of respondents said it was easier than ever to know what’s happening in the world (Source). This access means there is not only greater sharing of information but a greater sharing of divergent viewpoints as well.
Some of these changes present serious challenges, however. With media sources now utilizing instantaneous, digital forms of communication such as Twitter and YouTube, colleges and universities who train reporters must now weigh the value of teaching courses in communications tools that are continuously changing and far more simplistic than the cameras and editing bays of the established media. Further, a focus on accuracy in reporting must become an even greater emphasis than it already was. In the age of Cronkite and the evening newscast as one of the only sources an American had for news, corrections rarely occurred. In this present age of mountains of data available freely on the Web, social media and mobile technology now enables the media to share news so quickly and haphazardly that corrections are often a foregone necessity rather than a rarity.
Not only are the tools of a reporter changing; the lines between the media and the public have also become blurred. If the tools and communication channels used by reporters are the same ones that average Americans use on a daily basis, what is to stop citizens from taking on the role of journalists themselves? As we will see in a couple of weeks, this is a reality that is already having tremendous consequences — good and bad — on the industry. It changes the definition of who a “reporter” is as well as the requirements to be employed as one. To some in power and positions of authority, it calls into question the need for reporters at all. In the past, it was understood that any good issue-based news story would include three voices: a proponent’s voice, an opponent’s voice, and the voice of the reporter. But if the proponents and opponents of an issue both have websites and social media profiles that function the same way, where does the reporter’s voice fit? Is it even necessary to have the reporter’s voice among a public empowered to access these viewpoints themselves without waiting for an evening newscast or a morning paper?
In this age of media convergence, it will be interesting to consider who the next “Walter Cronkite” could be. Will it be someone who rises to fame and trust through the ranks of social media or digital communication? Will it be someone who is among the first to harness the power of some new avenue of news reporting that has not yet been invented? Or, will there ever be another Cronkite in a world where convergence creates more voices — and more noise — than ever?
No comments:
Post a Comment