We live in an impatient world. With technology by our side, we have come to demand things ASAP; sometimes this means that we compromise quality for speed/convenience. When it comes to news, we cannot wait for the official 6 pm evening news hour. Instead, we will use our mobile device to find out the latest on Google or check our iPhone newsfeed to catch up. We do this while walking to a meeting, eating lunch, or commuting home on the train at night. We do not wait until we are sitting in front of our TVs at home; we make the news come to us. For this reason, I would agree with Twitter's Adam Sharp in a recent article by the Houston Chronicle. He says that the "24-hour news cycle has become a 140-character one." (1) Meaning that social media has revolutionized the news since we adapted the phrase "24-hour news cycle." News is no longer considered "fresh" when it falls within a 24 hour window of time. It has to be immediate -- like a 140 character tweet. It has to be in real-time.
Just four years ago, I remember having a conversation with one of my broadcast professors at BU. We were discussing the term "timeliness." I remember wondering whether I could use a story from the previous day (something on the Celtics -- not my forte). The fact that I was even considering this is stunning. Now yesterday's story is so old, it's already decomposing in the trash. The lifespan for news has changed dramatically. Now, due largely in part to social media, breaking news has a lifespan of a couple hours at most.
The New York Times did a great piece back in May 2012 that focused on a man Joe Weisenthal who blogs for one of the top financial insider magazines on Wall Street. As with other journalists and media pros, Weisenthal works in an extremely competitive field. In order to survive, he "stands apart by starting earlier, writing more, publishing faster." (2) This illustrates what we all know is the rat race of our society and media culture. It allows us to be very well informed, but what are we losing when we get our information so quickly? Is the quality of the content that we read always up to par? Would it be worth waiting a couple extra hours to read something of greater value?
In response to the NYT article, HousingWire interviewed Federal Reserve Chief Richard Fisher about the quality vs. quantity conundrum. Fisher said that he has a problem with journalists who give “too much of a focus on the immediate and the short term.” He said, "This 24-hour news cycle 'often will lead to greater volatility, not just in terms of market activity, but in emotions in the way people supposedly analyze things. There is a lot of information but very little clarity.'" (3) Needless to say, sloppy journalism for the sake of speed is silly. Why put information out there if all it does is confuse and frustrate people? This is counterintuitive to the purpose of journalism. However, I do think that there is a way to maintain a reasonable pace and stay out front with the news, without losing accuracy or depth to a story or message. And there are definite perks to speed...
When looking at the current presidential election and the recent RNC and DNC conventions, it is easy to see how social media has taken over the show. On Tuesday night I tweeted my way through the Democratic National Convention (and stayed up way too late). I had promised myself to watch both party conventions and I was bitten by the Twitter bug, big time! Using hashtags such as #dnc2012, #michelle, and #forward2012, I commented on the speeches and interacted with journalists, friends, and strangers. We were all watching the folks down in Charlotte (I was watching via @MSNBC) and we all had similar questions to debate or discuss. The dynamic and immediate interaction was extremely satisfying. I was invigorated and inspired. Because the conversation was in real time, I ended up making a business connection with a producer for CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta. She tweeted about #MichelleObama and the military presence, noting that we need to do more for our #vets. I chimed in using the hashtag #vets and introduced her to the program that I work for at Massachusetts General Hospital. These valuable connections make real-time news quite effective.
Overall, I think that it will not matter how busy our lives get; we will find time to read the news and when we do, we will expect fresh, reliable content. The 24-hour news cycle expectation is now transformed to what we know as real-time news. The challenge for media professionals is to provide stellar stories and news content, without jeopardizing the quality. I think that this is possible and entirely doable. Social media sites and the internet in general have enabled the everyday citizen to play a much greater role in the media landscape. PR Professionals, journalists, and citizens alike need to work together to maintain a balance between real-time news and valuable content. It is our obligation to ensure quality at all costs. Integrity is the foundation of good journalism.
This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.
Sources:
1.) http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/24-hour-news-cycle-has-become-a-140-character-3822397.php
2.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/joe-weisenthal-vs-the-24-hour-news-cycle.html?pagewanted=all
3.) http://www.housingwire.com/rewired/24-hour-cycle-vs-quality-journalism
