Journalism: the transitional innovations of print to online media.

It’s hard to deny that the biggest blow to the print industry has been the invention of the internet, with readers choosing to access up to the minute news that’s accessible on the toilet via tablets and mobiles for free, rather than traipsing down to the local shop to pick up yesterday’s news. The real shock is not that this is happening, rather, that printed journalism hasn’t died out entirely yet. Admittedly, there’s a bizarre pleasure to be had in a hard copy in your hands, but for anyone to argue that free, instantaneous news, features and multimedia via the greatest invention since sliced bread is in some way inferior to cutting down trees, smashing them into ultra-thin pieces and carefully laying ink on it is the equivalent of this hypothetical conversation:

1: “Hey, we’re off to Australia, want to hop in the teleporter with us?”

2: “No thanks, I’ll walk”

Arguably, there are still those, often the older members of society who aren’t familiar with modern means of acquiring news, who prefer having the traditional means of a physical product in their hands and can trust the publications who are having evidence continually stacked against them via phone hacking scandals etc..  Yet, this is a dying breed and within the next few decades will surely be extinct.

Therefore, the next innovation for magazine journalism is surely the progression onto the internet, which most magazines are already doing. The problems for most however, is that they are still trying to charge the reader for the privilege of reading their slant on stories and features that are continually covered by thousands of other free online publications. In the age of uber state capitalism, it is obvious that the main objective for any online publication should be to attract advertisers to fund the relatively minute costs of publication by comparison with print. This can be done in many ways, banner advertising, testimonial advertising (by which I mean those annoying faux articles proclaiming the superiority of a particular product), or getting those tedious z-list celebrities who are always plugging some horrendous proof of their lack of talent in any field.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the profiteering mentality that corporate publishers want to hear, but in a world where literally anyone, including dogs, can publish any kind of piece they wish, it is the only way to gain power. Using their print reputations to bring in the big names that people want to hear about or from, building a regular amount of traffic and using said traffic to attract advertisers.

On the bright side though, never has it been easier to advertise your publication, with social media helping every video that raised even the slightest grin being thrown into the public consciousness. This means that every publication needs to reproduce their product on every form of socially relevant application.

A great example of such a business model is Vice, formerly just a magazine that now finds homes for all of its articles, good or bad, on Facebook feeds across the globe. Vice uses both love and hate to generate views. The typical argument that occurs on the comment section of most of their articles goes something like this:

·         R--- J---- VICE UK is utterly woeful. To think their US counterparts are reporting from Ukraine, South Sudan and CAR and all we seem to get is this drivel getting churned out week on week.

Like · Reply · 27 · 7 hours ago

S--- W---- You really need to stop repping this piece of shit article every weekend

Like · Reply · 21 · 8 hours ago

A-- R-------- I think I'm starting to join the ranks of the haters. I know there's a tone to Vice that you have to roll with, but even ironic ignorance sounds like ignorance when it's so utterly convincing. And I'm pretty sure it's no longer ironic.

Like · Reply · 5 · 5 hours ago

S------- J---- D-------- Do you lot put this post on every week? I'm sick of seeing it. I don't need you lot to tell me how to have a shit weekend.

I - am - the - shit - weekend - fucking - master.

So? (would you kindly) fuck off making this and give us some pointers on how to make a shit weekend? better

As can be seen here, some of these people genuinely feel that many of the articles, even weekly regulars, are “shit”, “utterly woeful” and “fuck off”. Yet they don’t seem to recognise that they are the ones reading it every week and supplying the viewing figures necessary to keep it going. Gone are the days when quality was what brought in the money, as proven in the music industry by Simon Cowell’s ironically VICE-like grip on the Christmas No 1 spot through X Factor. Nowadays, the public seem to enjoy an opportunity to berate and create willing hate-figures to vent their inner anguish upon almost more so than the traditional, well written, intelligent and not “fuck off” pieces of literature. It’s this recognition of the fact that all publicity is good publicity, which I believe was pioneered by the artist formerly known as Jordan, that has been adopted as a philosophy by most magazines, print or otherwise, whether it be in their showbiz sections or in a publication centred entirely around celebrity based voyeurism.

This method of churning out as many pieces out as their budget will allow, fishing for what is either good enough to develop a following or bad enough to develop a devoted angry mob and repeating the best/worst of the bunch has helped Vice to become one of the most successful online publications out there, bringing in huge investment from the likes of NewsCorp and huge advertising fees for testimonials and banner advertising.

This ‘nothing is too dumb for the public’ sensationalism is a direct descendant of the Daily Mail, who in the same way, have used their ridiculous and misleading headlines to become a very successful online reinvention with such incredible revelations as:

“Kim Kardashian spends FIVE HOURS at the office with Kourtney as they finish up work ahead of her wedding”

“Having a ball! Beyonce enjoys a basketball game with Jay Z as they snack on lollipops and pop corn”

And

“Crunch time: Alex Gerrard does her daily 'little gym sesh' before heading to the hairdressers to get new hair extensions”

Needless to say, in order to show the journalism of the Mail Online in this light, I too have become part of their viewership and will help fund the continuation of such media. Through the technologically determined innovations on tablets and smartphones, online media can do away with many of the restrictions of print, no longer is a tight word count for an article because of print space an issue; and the liberty of multimedia is beyond even that of print, radio and television combined (and you can access it, for free, on the toilet!). The progression and survival of established media, as they are drawn into the black hole of the internet, depends entirely upon their ability to adapt to the requirements of a reader with an ever decreasing attention span. For now, the exploiting of internet ‘trolls’’ bad nature and desire to abuse poor stories is funding advertising, but soon there will be something else to throw the profitability of journalism right out the window again and the question is; how low can the media sink into the mire of celebrity tat and trivialities before integrity becomes fashionable again? Or transition into a form of media that people will be willing to pay for/ cannot be found at every blog, forum or Facebook page. In the land of the internet, everyone is a star, so surely the only way for big media giants to survive is to pool resources to cover genuine news stories across the world in ways that only those with big budgets can, before the budget dries up.