Change Your Tone - Media Coverage Shouldn't Be Toned By Software

As a part of the media, we are saddled with the task of providing content to our readers and have been chastised for not being able to meet that demand. However, it is important that we recognize that software does not make content and does not even make a substantial difference in our ability to cover information. Media coverage should not be toned by software. Software will never replace journalistic practices; it may be more efficient for certain tasks, but it cannot replace journalism itself. If we are going to be criticized for producing fewer articles than those who use software, then "software doesn't make content" should at least come from journalists themselves.

Paula Span has written a fantastic article on software's effect on journalistic practices. I found it to be very different from the usual opinions I hear today. In my opinion, the tone and tenor of this article was the right one:

"Smartphones, tablets, and computers have made it easier to send information around the world instantly and at minimal cost. But they've also made it easier to spread misinformation, distort news, and distract people. The best-known examples fill newspapers that are also available online: fabricated stories about Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush's origins. The worst-known examples fill the airwaves or the Web: fears about hurricanes, bogus reports of shootings at schools, and claims that a massacre of civilians in Iraq was a lie fabricated by U.S. soldiers themselves."

Paula states that software cannot replace journalism because software does not make content. I agree completely. Software does not make content and it can't even help you find better information than it provides. But, software is responsible for a large chunk of the content we read, hear about and view every day in some form or another.

The effects of software are going to be more prevalent as time goes on because so many people use these devices on a daily basis whether they know it or not (e.g., on the subway, in your journalism classroom, etc.). The best way to deal with software is to not use it. I know this may be difficult since, first and foremost, we are journalists who use computers for work. But if you are only going to use the software for work or for some other legitimate purpose then don't be a hypocrite. If you use your smartphone/tablet/whatever for everything but professional work then you are being unethical and it's likely that you will also be found guilty by a jury of your peers (the audience).

I have been told that many people do not like my tone on this issue but I have always viewed my tone as being harsh. I'm harsh with myself, I'm harsh with other people, and I'm harsh with this issue. The reason for this is that I have come to realize that technology is making it increasingly difficult to do journalism. Certain software has essentially replaced certain journalism practices, like taking telephone calls and writing down information while interviewing someone. Not everybody uses the same software or even types on a computer so how are you going to get their information? You can't ask them to write the information down because a lot of people don't know how to use a computer or don't own one. People can call my desk but they cannot reach me if I am at school or away from my desk. I bring this up because it's not like the days of the past where we used Rolodexes to keep information and didn't use computers. I don't have a Rolodex and I don't really want one - I either have to write something down or remember it, which is more difficult than typing something down while it is still fresh in your mind.

I have never been held in high regard by my peers because they don't like my tone in general so why start now? The tone on this issue should be very harsh because journalism could be lost if software continues to take an increased role within our profession. I find it very disheartening that a lot of people don't even think about the issue. They don't think about how much information they receive every day and how much of it is coming from software. The information we hear today isn't journalism; for the most part, it's useless. Journalism is supposed to be a process, a series of steps that includes fact-checking, multiple sources, timeline creation and more - software doesn't help us do this nor can it ever. Software is only efficiency. Efficiency will make us lazy while journalism will make us better journalists.

I have been told that I am "not understanding technology" because I refuse to use or talk about (in my writing) certain software. I have also been told that software doesn't make content because it doesn't write the articles; people do. My response is that this distinction is not what we're talking about - it's more of a diversion tactic than anything else. In journalism, we've always had to deal with being able to get information from sources. I am a firm believer in the adage that there are two sides to every story and I want my readers to hear both sides, or at least as many as possible. The easiest way for me to do this is for me (as a journalist) to physically talk to people and get their information. Software may be able to help me with some of these tasks but it cannot replace the need for human interaction.

I have also been told that software is the future of journalism and that it's going to make journalism better. I think this is a very dangerous line of thought. The problem with software is that it can't be controlled. The people who develop the software are not necessarily trained journalists so they will not necessarily understand what we need or want in our profession. This may sound very harsh but I really don't care: a lot of companies have tried to come up with new ways to do journalism and none of them have succeeded because they just didn't get it right.

I have been told that I am not a real reporter because I don't use certain software. Well, it's my opinion that you cannot be a real reporter if you don't do journalism. A lot of people are confused on this issue and are thinking that software is an improvement to the profession. Those people may have been trained in journalism but they are not practicing it - they're just being efficient with their time so they can get more information and write more stories.

Some people, like Paula Span, may argue that software is neutral and that we as journalists need to be the "guardians" of it. This is very dangerous thinking because it places the responsibility of maintaining journalism on us and our actions. This can lead to people trying to manipulate journalism in order to get different results. We already have enough issues with people trying to manipulate the media - we don't need software to help them out.

I don't care what anybody says about this issue: I refuse to stop doing journalism if it involves talking and/or writing. This is going to be difficult for me as a journalist but I don't care. The reason I am being so harsh on this issue is because it's causing problems for me as a journalist; I cannot contact sources, use my memory or get information from interviews.

Conclusion of my Common Sense Argument

In summary, I have made a case that we as journalists need to interact with sources and not simply use software. A journalist can still be a real journalist while also using software since they are still interacting with sources (and being human) but the media is only going to become worse if we continue to use software. We don't need the computer - it's just efficient but we do need humans in order for journalism to improve. If you think about journalism as a process, then yes, you could use software but that process would be much different and would not actually make journalism better.

I have written twice on this issue and people have responded to both of my essays.