Have we decided what the future of journalism is and not know it yet?
I spent my early childhood in a communist state — Bulgaria. As a teenager, I took part in protest rallies against the “reformed” Socialist party’s government which had brought the country’s economy to the brink of collapse. Not even the worst financial crisis since the 1930s can shatter my belief in capitalism and free markets.
I have a friend who has spent his early childhood in Ireland and his teenage years in Sweden. No amount of reports about atrocities under dictatorship can shatter his belief in communism.
Our respective societies have taught us their doctrines. We have experienced the practice of these doctrines first hand and have been disappointed. As a result, we have turned to the opposing theory. We believe in it so firmly that real-life examples of it not working do not deter us. What’s more, we do not need real-life examples of it working to bolster our faith. Until something changes dramatically, I suppose.
What’s that to do with journalism? Here’s what: Journalists have been taught a theory about what their job is and what role they play in society. This theory is no longer valid. Many are disappointed with legacy media and have embraced ideas such as conversational journalism, link journalism, the economics of free, etc. But what if that’s all smoke and mirrors? Where are the real-life success stories that prove these new theories right?
You know what, strike that. It doesn’t matter if there’s proof or not. As the example of me and my friend suggests, people will believe what they want to. So we’ll just find ways to explain the cracks in our theories and move on, until something changes dramatically.
Should that be a worry? Or should we have a sigh of relief and settle for what, due to the nature of being human, is probably going to be the immediate future of journalism?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=84f1c641-f72f-4453-b68b-7ccf9e5ecc0d)
