The Internet allows more voices and opinions to be heard, and keeps the traditional sources of media more accountable, but gives a potentially very powerful voice to someone who is uneducated and/or careless with facts. The “New Media” is by far a better thing than a bad thing, for sure, but it has it’s detrimental effects.

The thing about New Media that makes it so much more exciting than Old Media and Print Journalism is the ongoing immediacy. Before, if you wanted to respond to an article in the newspaper, you would have to take the time to literally write a physical letter to the editor and wait to see if they published it. Now, with comments sections and e-mail, even though journalists are perhaps more obvious about their viewpoints and don’t necessarily cling to the same journalistic ethics as writers past, writers are held so much more accountable. I mean, I write a blog, and if I make one single mistake - even something as stupid as a capitalization error - someone is there putting it out to me within moments. It’s a blessing and a curse. It makes our writing better, but it can also make us doubt ourselves. Overall, I think, New Media is important because of the discussion it fosters. I doubt our parents were thinking about the world in this way when they were our age. It has made us more intellectually accountable, and also better able to articulate our thoughts in a public forum. Like Joan Didion said, most people in their 20’s have this startling feeling that their lives are refreshing and nothing like this has happened to anyone before. The cool thing about young journalists in this time is that nothing like this HAS happened before. We get to ride it out, to see where it takes us, and I think that’s pretty fucking exciting.

So many people react to this topic differently — I have received various positive and negative e-mails and comments from my post on MediaShift.

But I am more pleased to be able to be understood by my peers (you guys) than anyone else.

If the least my article could do was bring us NYU students into a virtual discussion and debate about serious issues, I am satisfied.

Yes, the article could be relevant to a lot of journalists on a larger scale, but I am more interested in improving our micro-community so that we can create a ripple effect across the country.

See you in the blogosphere,
Alana

Same thing for members of the traditional media, actually. I doubt Bill O’Reilly would be comparing DailyKos writers to the KKK if they didn’t draw blood by so aggressively fact-checking him.

A lot of people make arguments against new media because of how it can veer off the path of “journalistic integrity” when taken too far in one direction (think Gawker, of course). But often there’s something more than that, I think - there’s a personal fear that after years of education, deep thinking about lofty journalistic theory and hard work towards the Holy Grail that is Objectivity can be undermined by a random guy with a Twitter account who’s in the right place at the right time.

It makes sense that it feels wrong to many of the champions of old media. It may seem unfair that after they’ve been training so hard to be THE purveyors of journalism, people are instead choosing to get their news from bloggers and sources that don’t necessarily have he traditional, arduous journalistic training that the old mediaites worked through.

But it shouldn’t be able them - it should be about the discussion. The truth is, while new media certainly has its weaknesses and flaws, it’s allowed for channels of communication about important public issues that have never been seen before. That’s what’s important - when people can be involved, they care.