The Internet is pretty great. I would even consider it as important as the invention of fire or the wheel. It gives people access to millions of snippets of information at the click of a button. It also allows us to seamlessly connect with our friends and streams videos for us. You can even play virtual pool on it instead of paying attention in class. Like I said before, it’s pretty great.
But despite all the good the Internet has does for the world, it has slowly and quietly been killing something that has been around for ages. Journalism.
Now, I’m not talking about that “digital is making print obsolete” argument that was so popular a few years ago, nor am I saying that thanks to the Internet, journalism will become extinct. I’m saying that the Internet is ruining the quality of journalism.
Since we have skyrocketed into the digital age, people’s attention spans have dwindled. People don’t have the attention span to sit down and read an article when they could just as easily find a video on the subject. Because of this, journalistic websites found themselves at a crossroad. Do they continue to make quality articles that hardly anyone will read, or do they strip down the quality of their content just to pander to the hustle and bustle of digital life?
Well, these journalists went with the latter.
Popular websites like Buzzfeed and the Huffington Post have begun to publish many of their articles in a “top 10” format.
Gone are well-written and well-researched articles for people to read. Instead they are given “Top 10 funny things at the Grammy’s” to ponder over.
I have nothing against “top 10” lists. They can be enjoyable to read, and the key word here is “read.” Numerous Buzzfeed “top 10” lists are noticeably empty of any writing. Instead their “articles” consist of numerous animated GIF files accompanied by a few words
This may seem perfectly fine to some, but to me it symbolizes the bottom of the barrel of journalism.
It’s not like they even have an excuse for having such bare-boned content. Cracked does the same “top 10” format that Buzzfeed and Huffington Post use, but they still manage to write genuinely well-written articles, and rather lengthy ones too.
Even writers for The Onion, a website renown for its comedic satirical content, still writes better, more professional sounding articles when compared to “professional” journalists.
So, why? Why do these news sources seem to be sacrificing the quality of their articles by stripping down most of the content to a few funny pictures and wacky captions?
Journalists do this to meet the needs of the individual. Thanks to the Internet, a place where we are constantly having content thrown at us, hardly anyone bothers to take the time to ponder anything that takes more than 15 seconds to read.
If someone suddenly gets bored with an article or a video, they can simply exit out of the window and go find something else to spend their time on.
Journalists have to essentially cripple themselves just to have a chance to grab somebody’s attention. Even wthen they have that attention, they have to keep it by making the articles as simple and as quick to read as possible.
It’s not a good way to write, and I should hope no one takes pride in their work if they do so.
I don’t even know what to recommend. I know how these writers feel. I’ve written numerous articles for the school newspaper’s website, others have written more than me, and hardly any of the student body reads them.
I find myself asking, “Is it all worth it to write something, probably no one will ever read?” It is.
Even if no one will read it because of the length, that shouldn’t stop that writer from making the best story that they can.
If I write an article on the school website about orca whales held in captivity, and it’s the best article I’ve ever written, but only three people read it, I would still feel more accomplished than the guy who wrote an article about Shia LeBouf wearing a paper bag on his head that only consisted of several pictures and a few poorly-written captions that got a million readers.