I want to hear more about this from both you and Andy. While there are definitely medium-specific limitations, why would the journalism NOT be journalism regardless of the medium?

Of course, that would probably require everyone agreeing on a definition of journalism, which opens an even bigger can of worms.

Of course, delivery matters as far as production is concerned, but, ultimately, it CAN be delivered one way or another. Holograms in air might not be far off for the next big idea. The rest is resolve via technique, expertise and budget.

How longstanding mediums will continue, as paper newspapers suffer, as print books fall out of fashion, and as they days of everyone crowding around the TV in the college dorm to watch Must-See TV are dead — how it will continue will be driven by the market. The indie aspect of online video won’t continue much longer.

As far as video is concerned, with YouTube and emerging competitors, sorting out bad programming will be key. Video overload already exists. While TV and cable might offer to the lowest common denominator they do screen out the worst. Issues of quality and relevance are obvious with much of YouTube. No one screens and democracy prevails, but big business will try to take over. We saw this in the Super Bowl ads.

Big business is big businesss. Here, the strong will survive. The only difference is that the weak will also survive, clouding our choices.

Part of this grammar is the expectation of a television viewer versus that of an Internet maven.

When I watch television, I’m flipping channels, settling down, maybe eating or drinking. A few seconds of content lapses consumed by segues (correct spelling for seg-ways?) doesn’t bother me.

When I use the Internet, I’m working. Time is of the essence. Content lapses are irritating. I’m not as likely to view anything longer then two or three minutes–unless it hits my needs/wants spot on!

–
Jason Paul Kazarian
http://leftbrainedgeeks.com/vidgroup.htm

My picking up of Alf’s comment was more because it chimed with my view that if you consider the journalistic possibilities first without getting bogged down in the practicalities of the medium - or in this case the medium of TV - digital is an exciting place to be. As a journalist you want to tell exciting and engaging stories - digital can help do that. As a TV journalist you only have one medium to do that in.

It’s Journalism as the defining factor and not the medium.

I’ve always disagreed with the journalism is journalism, regardless view as well. In my experience it often hides a very medium-specific bias.

So, it was great to see Alfs post and I would always go with the “rethink of journalism that considers the opportunities of digital journalism and multimedia storytelling”.

I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreeing… is that right…