Lisa Reinisch

Convergence and its discontents

Is the glass really half empty? Or are the hysterics on ‘Tweet Street’ just the allures of deflated egos grappling with the humbling lessons of web 2.0 journalism?

In theory, this should be a golden age of journalism. Never before have journalists have had more ways of telling their stories; never before have audiences had more ways of finding exactly the kind of content they want. In theory, both audiences and journalists should be empowered by new technologies.

Yet the air on ‘Tweet Street’ is thick with indignation and despair. Terms like web 2.0 and convergence are habitually used in conjunction with expletives and fearsome words – like ‘lay-offs’ and ‘commercialisation’.

Convergence - noose or life-saver?

The media industry has been split by the question whether media convergence is full of journalistic potential, or an ingenious cost-saving mechanism that could potentially undermine democracy. While some see convergence as the noose around the bony neck of journalism, others see it as the life-saver that will keep it from going under.

Media convergence has transformed the technological, industrial, cultural and social fabric of journalism. Journalists are now catering to a global audience and a 24-hour news-cycle. They are turning into what is breathlessly referred to as ‘preditors’ or ‘platypus journalists’ – print, broadcast and web, editor and producer, all rolled into one.

While such multi-skilled, multi-tasking journalists are popular with cost-conscious employers, they do not enjoy the best of reputations – or working conditions. As pointed out by Martin Bell (2003), rolling deadlines can critically undermine the craft and integrity of journalists:

‘They aim to be first and fastest with the news. Their nature, too often, is to be fearful, feverish, frenzied, frantic, frail, false and fallible. Some mistakes are bound to be made, as they have always been, by journalists seeking to discover the truth in the fog of breaking news; but those mistake do not have to be as systemic as they have become in the rolling news business, when rumour masquerades as fact, and networks compete wildly with each other to get their speculation in first.’

Competition has never been fiercer

Convergence has led to content and audiences moving freely across different types of media. It has made content free, ubiquitous, social, playful and utterly unpredictable. There is no doubt that the amount of content has increased tremendously. Alternative views finally have a shot at capturing a global audience. If a blogger or independent reporter succeeds in creating enough buzz around a story, chances are it will enter the mainstream, providing the public with an alternative perspective to that of the established media brands.

But ironically, the ubiquity of multimedia journalism might lead to audiences becoming more suspicious and less adventurous. The public sphere is awash with free, high-quality information provided by trusted outlets. Few people have the time or the inclination to find and then trust an alternative source.

Jenkins (2006) observed that ‘in the world of media convergence every important story gets told, every brand gets sold and every consumer gets courted across multiple platforms’.

Of course, the interplay between commerce and public service has always been a problematic feature of journalism. The dilemma has now been compounded by the global financial crisis, the triumph of the internet and mobile technologies and the widespread failure of media companies to turn a profit from online operations.

Are we just getting more of the same? While there is no doubt that the alternative media scene is blossoming, the same can not be said of the mainstream media brands. As commercial pressures increase, editorial offices around the globe are cutting costs, laying off reporters and closing bureaux. It is a trend that is widely perceived as harmful – not just for the media industry, but for democratic societies in general.

As observed by Susan D. Moeller (1999), ‘many news stories appear to be natural or unforced. But when comparisons are made, it becomes clear that the choices and frames are not inevitable, and they’re not unproblematic.’

Those who see creative potential in multiplatform journalism argue that competition breeds excellence, weeding out under-performers and empowering audiences. Quinn (2004: 121) argued that ‘with wise leadership, convergence offers opportunities to do better and more socially useful journalism.’ He added: ‘Technology makes it relatively easy to convert and distribute any form of content into another, it is possible to produce new forms of storytelling and consequently do better journalism.’

Narrowing news agendas?

On the other end of the spectrum, Richard Keeble (1) asserted that ‘competition paradoxically encourages conformity and is narrowing news agendas rather than diversifying the media.’

In the eyes of Nick Davies (2008: 108), mainstream multimedia journalism is turning audiences into ‘global village idiots’. His is a grave view: ‘What has been created is a vortex of concentric forces, reducing reality to a small cluster of reports, flowing through a handful of monopoly providers who, in turn, channel each others stories into their own streams.’

Taken together, these do not seem like good prerequisites for the daring, diverse and innovative journalism that convergent media could and should enable. Instead, it looks like increased competition and convergence have driven media companies and journalists into a corner – and far out of their comfort zone. Experts like Anthony Thornton (2) think that ‘this could be a good thing.’

According to Quinn (2004: 132) ‘most journalists are still working out how to ‘do’ convergence.’ Journalism is in a turbulent phase of transition. Constant change is already a permanent fact of professional life for many journalists. What journalists will need to survive and thrive in this period is pragmatism and flexibility – and a diverse set of high-value skills to set themselves apart from the white noise of information overload.

The holy grail of convergence

Until someone figures out a viable convergent business model, media companies and their employees are in for a bumpy ride. As long as journalists are being asked to deliver more stories in less time, quality standards will continue to slip, audiences will dwindle and businesses will collapse.

To overcome these issues and finally realise the full potential of convergence, media companies will have to return to an almost forgotten credo: ‘Quality over quantity.’ Quinn (2004) noted that ‘news organisations will need to invest in widespread training, to teach journalists skilled in one medium how to tell stories in another. In this sense convergence is definitely not a cheap option; it will mean that media organisations will have to surrender the huge profits of the past decades in pursuit of the holy grail of journalism – quality content.’