¿Quieren los ciudadanos pagar por el periodismo stainless steel tal y como él lo describe? Es un discurso cándido y eso lo hace valioso.
Without new revenue streams, quality journalism will wither. We should be under no illusions about the price we would pay as a result. It would not be measured in terms of jobs alone, but something more enduring and valuable. Journalism forms part of the lifeblood of free societies Journalism is not perfect, nor was it ever meant to be. By its nature, it is often uncomfortable, especially for those in positions of power. But it matters - and I will defend it to the last.
El periodismo importa muchísimo, sí. Los impresos o los digitales no. Si perdemos todo eso que explica Barber, perderemos todos. La calidad de nuestras sociedades democráticas se devaluará. La vida de los ciudadanos se deteriorará. Todos seremos víctimas. ¿Resolverán el desaguisado Google, los consultores a la violeta, la blogosfera? No, dice Barber:
[...] most bloggers do not operate according to the same standards as those who aspire to and practise crafted journalism. They are often happy to report rumour as fact, arguing that readers or fellow networkers can step in to correct those “facts” if they turn out to be wrong. They are rarely engaged in the pursuit of original news: their bread and butter is opinion and comment. Their web-driven culture of immediacy means they are more often consumed by the need to be first than right. And there is a good reason for that. In the words of Michael Arrington, the influential tech blogger in California, “first is cheap, right is expensive.”Olvídese de los detalles (¡Cobro Digital En Un Año! ¡En Dos! ¡Nunca!). Seamos serios. Nos jugamos mucho. Y los primeros responsables de la muerte o resurrección del periodismo son los empresarios de medios y, nosotros, los propios periodistas. No se hagan los suecos. Ánimo. El premio es grande.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario