The revolution that never happened

Steen Steensen is yet another journalist to explore the ways in which technology is changing the face of journalism in his blog new journalism/new media.

Steen notes, as many others have done, that media executives and academics alike making predictions that technology will revolutionise and perhaps cause the end of journalism as we know it, are wrong. He rightly argues that the majority of online newspapers are still producing written text for their audiences just like regular print publications do when there is a whole world of technology including hyperlinks, multimedia and ways to interact with their readers at their fingertips. All of this “great technology” is readily available so why aren’t they using it if it is supposed to be so revolutionary? I suppose it could be that online readers still want the same types of journalism as they would get in a print copy without having to go out and buy it and with the luxury of being able to read it on their smartphones or laptops. But if that’s the case, then what’s the point of having all of this new technology? 

Steen also notes that everyone believed that the telephone, television, radio and computers would cause “the end of history, the end of geography and the end of politics” but they definitely haven’t. They have changed the world and the way people access information but with each invention and technological change the others haven’t been wiped out and become redundant. None of the previous changes have killed journalism; so why should the internet? 

I have to say that I agree with Steensen, the internet will, inevitably, change journalism and the way we approach things but it won’t happen as quickly or as a dramatically as people seem to predict. The evolution will be slow and journalistic practice will continue to be the same but with adaptations for the online world.


Blog at