Piaras Kelly PR - Public Relations in Ireland

One of Steve Rubel’s recent blog posts caught my attention. Rubel states that he believes that the future of news is the newsfeed. The newsfeed, for those unfamiliar with the concept, is similar to a scrolling news ticker listening off headlines during the course of the day. It’s a similar concept to RSS whereby the reader has the latest headlines delivered to a personalised page.

My big hangup about all these debates stating that such-and-such is the future is that these discussions simply seem to be focused on tools as opposed to content. There is an interesting discussion about the future of news brewing and we should look to learnings from the newsrooms of today to influence how we move to the future.

A number of commentators are quick to point out that a number of stories break online first. Then when you examine where the stories are emerging, new tools like Twitter or FriendFeed are being highlighted. Ignoring the fact that they are niche sites, there are two concerns that immediate spring to mind - speed and volume of news stories.

Some people seem to think that because news breaks on a certain medium first, then that medium is inherently the best news source. That is a dangerous assumption. Firstly there are editorial standards to consider. Following its coverage of the Beslan tragedy, the BBC introduced a time delay as part of the its editorial guidelines in order to underline the point that accuracy should come before speed. Secondly one has to serious consider the quality of news sources. For example, a report on CNN’s iReport that Apple CEO Steve Jobs suffered a heart attack played havok with Apple’s stock price despite being incorrect.

My apprehension about the shift to the Internet as the public’s primary news source is that the importance of a news story seems to be dictated by the volume and frequency of posts about the story. From a consumer journalism perspective it can be worrying because numerous studies have shown that a subset of consumers produce content for the web. Invariably this content is content that they are passionate about, which may not reflect its true value as it is not reflective of society’s interest as a whole. Seriously, just look at all the online chatter about Web 2.0, Twitter et al, which doesn’t even resonate with the general public. Yes everyone can contribute, but not everyone does.

My old boss in Drury Communications, Padraig McKeon, offered the best insight into the shifts in the communications landscape. He remarked to me one day that:

The Internet will be the medium people turn to for breaking news.
People will tune into broadcast media because it captures the emotion of a story.
Newspapers will continue to be read because they will provide analysis of the event.

I hope that he’s right about the third point, as it is the analysis of trusted sources - be they traditional media or new media - that should influence the public. The danger about collaborative news reporting is that the minority could dictate the news agenda. I recently attended the Atlantic Corridor conference on science education and promotion and arranged an interview for Lord Robert Winston on Today FM’s Last Word. Winston briefly discussed the public reaction to stem cell research with the show’s host Matt Cooper and pointed out that the public reaction was that of a small minority who were passionate in their arguments about stem cell research. However when the public as a whole was surveyed, it could be shown that their views were not representative of society as a whole.

Personally I dislike the thought of the newsfeed or RSS as the future of news, despite the fact that RSS is my primary source of news. I am more comfortable with the thought that when soceity finally shifts online that they will still consume news similar to the printed format where by the judge a story’s importance based on the media source and its presentation - i.e. lead story on the homepage with an attention grabbing picture, rather than another entry on a newsfeed.