It has been in my mind this entire class that the future of journalism would have something to do with video. The reason as to why I say that is that video is the best technology for really getting a story across to someone. If I had the choice of reading every news story I saw or watching it on video, I would definitely choose the latter. From my perspective, video is the best tool for a journalist to use.
I am, however, not entirely sure as to whether or not the video columns described in Mark Briggs’ “Journalism 2.0″ show what the future of journalism will be like. I appreciate his points about how almost anyone can upload videos onto sites such as “Hulu” or “Youtube,” but I am someone who still appreciates quality. There is no way to know exactly how credible a video that was uploaded by a “non-professional” might be. That is something I have always appreciated about sites such as the New York Times: their videos are always well-edited and very credible (because professionals are behind the work). That is a main concern I have with this recent buzz of youtube being the future of journalism.
At the same time I think the availabilty to upload videos wherever, whenever, and whoever you are, can come in handy quite often. People who were shooting video of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2009 just before it was attacked easily had the edge in that story. No news organization was there to film it, because, well, we haven’t yet figured out how to look ahead in time (I am confident that technology will be here in the next 20 years though. I am kidding, of course). So for breaking news and/or detailed footage of something (perhaps footage a soldier being tortured in Iraq as a POW), I have a soft spot for the “Youtube Age” because we have access to more detailed information that does not hide any truth.
