Like Hansel and Gretel went up the hill as a pair,  developments in both technology and news reporting have also functioned as a pair, thereby revolutionizing the face of media and journalism. Such developments have unraveled in the following forms: 

 

Digitalization of news- Bid bye-bye to the culture of clutching onto a tangible newspaper for the digitalization of news now brings us news via mobile phones, laptops, pc’s -  name the device and find the news there.  

 

  • The rise of mass media: This rise- specifically involving the transmission of news to a large-scale audience unregulated by geographical boundaries- has changed the aura of news reporting from broadcasting to narrowcasting. This way news can cater to niche audiences and markets for example, intersectional feminists, South Asian entertainment or even Zulu audiences. 
  • Synergy: Synergy connotes the interaction and expansion of two or more organizations to produce a combined greater effect; this results in some degree of vertical, horizontal integration or diversification eg. SkyNews, which potentially expands news making profits. 

 

 

Now that we’ve established the three-faced nature of contemporary news reporting, it becomes imperative to balance out the pros and cons, and analyse whether or not this tech revolution has fomented more harm or good.  So let’s commence our tech celebration with the pros - pertaining to both consumers and producers-  shall we? 

 

Instantaneous : You’re right, even instantaneous becomes an understatement when describing the current status of news generation and transmission and this isn’tn solely isolated to receiving news, but also having an article published, sorting our news, and the ease with which prospective or established journalists can access resources. For example, with regards to publishing an article, the process involving interviews, sorting news,  transcribing or drafting, proofreading, typing, printing and distributing appears to be a lot easier than back in the age. With regards to journalists, they can easily access information from a plethora of e- news networks or tabloids, host interviews and sessions online, and even get in touch with media agencies using social media portals. Naturally, one would assume that the traditional monopoly of news bureaus and journalists has faltered considering getting into the industry isn’t too hard- or is it? Think about it: you can finally  publish content directly through your phone from the comfort of your couch and reach thousands, skipping the bureaucracy of paper, printing and transportation, or can you? 

 

Engaging: News reporting is no longer stranded on a one way street,  instead, it has appreciably  evolved into a two way road (haan we know- shabaash!) Gone are the days we producers merely channeled info. to consumers and claimed the job was done.  Now consumers too possess the liberty to create content, hold producers accountable and exhibit their personal proclivity for certain news categories or agencies. This two way street has often be termed “ multi-directional interactions.” Hereby, individuals can reply, propose suggestions, table feedback and even create their own content (bhai, we live in the TikTok and Vlog wala Zamana na). In this sense, it wouldn’t even be presumptuous to suggest that smart technology is incredibly compensating for the absence of journalists, considering that the smart phones’ integration with cameras and filters for beautification enables photographers, designers and visual editors to submit their pieces and enter the journalism field too.  

Consumer sovereignty: A litany of news bureaus allow consumers the flexibility to choose the news content that they would prefer to receive updates on. Don’t believe us? Mobile based applications, extending but not limited to BBC, Huffpost or the Reuters allow you to choose which news categories you can view content on. 

 

Think we’re bluffing? It's time for our favorite part: the statistics and research backing the science behind our allegedly superficial argument.  Let's start off with Walden University’s research that too tackles the pros and cons of tech dependency within the media sector. Walden University eulogized such developments on the grounds of 3 narratives, specifically the ideas that the contemporary framework can stimulate business, disseminate cultural and artistic elements and empower marginalized communities . As far as stimulating business, the research identified the indispensability of marketing and advertising today - acquired via media agencies- which enable businesses and corporations to reach their target markets more conveniently and eventually keeps the economy on a rise.  With regards to the transmission of artistic and cultural antiquities,  tabloids and online news platforms can serve as  incredible areas to exhibit artistic peculiarities alongside underrated or subjugated forms of art.  Lastly, as far as empowering marginalized communities is concerned, as seen from the ultra trending #BlackLivesMatter movement or the #MeToo movements, not only do such movements gain more traffic via e-based tabloids, but also enable tabloids themselves to generate greater traffic, business and eventually revenue considering they can break through geographical boundaries and reach masses. 

 

However, with all this glory story, there’s the gruesome bit as well, involving the cons to colossal tech developments within the news slash media industry. Firstly, let's just continue with Walden University’s analysis. They claimed that while such developments have enabled the empowerment of socially excluded factions, they somehow also perpetuate this social exclusion in the first place - yup! Sounds definitely what a traditional Marxist would say. Their research found that the media can empower the ruling, already powerful and privileged classes. Considering the fact that the rich buy media licenses, such media companies have their newsworthy values  inevitably shaped by the attitudes, values and beliefs of the upper class individuals running the bureaus. As such, it is less likely that socially excluded factions are provided the attention they deserve. Instead groups such as the disabled, ethnic minorities, and even peaceful demonstrators are most likely to be presented in a demonizing way, which ultimately expands the stigmas they are subjected to  within society - as per the Glasgow University Group’s findings. 

 

Then Walden University continued to explore other cons such as the mass media’s potency and proclivity to spreading misinformation, disinformation and even hate speech. They tend to eEmphasize upon the difficulty of vetting news sources, especially when agencies are dealing with a flux of information. They also accentuate concepts such as state-owned medias, or totalitarian regimes that inevitably use propaganda to further their agenda. 

Cultural homogeneity and the decline in personal, vis-a-vis connection were also cited as cons. As far as cultural homogeneity is concerned, the research found that the contemporary globalised version of mass media tends to uphold one western “Americanized” culture that encourages the entire world to see and hear the same cultural concepts, and disregard localized elements that reflect cultural diversity. Additionally, the findings found that individuals would much rather give precedence to staring at their phone rather than personally connecting with family members- an activity which dismantles individuals’ social skills in the long run.