The past issue of this series spotlights the importance of journalists striking a balance between a sense of context and objectivity. My colleague had put forth his opinion that while the society no longer takes the media’s words for granted and seeks their own conclusion, it should still be the media and not the general public who presents the news by putting information in the context of the story. He argued that journalists should strive to keep the thin line between yellow journalism and its opposite. However, before criticizing the current state of online writing, should we not address and remind ourselves the fundamental cause of it? The age of the Internet has inculcated a sense of urgency in each of us and thus, it has been imperative for the current online media system to demand a more rapid production of information. Though the quick flow of news is welcome, it seems almost impossible for the online media to achieve the accuracy and the high standard of the traditional media.

The online media has disappointed us many times over for the past few years, with their thoughtless creations driven by viewership rather than the right job ethics. Competing amongst each other to be the first in bringing news to the public - pressed by time - writers let meaningless words lengthen what should have been a concise piece of writing and allow unrefined opinions permeate what could have been an entirely objective article. Two in three online articles covering the same news are akin to each other, if not exactly identical, and there is not one without the absurd listings of the netizens’ (a term derived from “citizens on the Internet”) opinions that no one knows the origins of. Reading the coverage of the recent Sewol ferry tragedy felt painful not just because of the stories themselves, but because every article I read repeated and echoed each other. Not surprisingly, the end of each article had the replies of the netizens - supposedly existent somewhere on the Internet - to the incident that served no purpose in the article. In fact, many feedbacks to the articles could be seen complaining about the low quality of writings, as well as demanding the source of the public’s responses mentioned in the article. Online writers fail to bring to the public unique information, or at least similar ones put in different ways. The rushed writing process has stifled the writers in their logical thought processes, as well as made them imperceptive to their job ethics. How one constantly produces materials of such low level and be content with it, we will never know. However, this deterioration of the media is testing the public of their patience.

There are a few reasons why traditional media produces higher quality articles. Unlike the online news, there are much fewer press companies that produce the articles, reducing repetition of the way an article is written. Strict review and editing of the articles make it difficult for journalists to write thoughtlessly. Submission of articles is not driven by seconds and thus, writers have more time to contemplate what they want their articles to contain. Traditional media is less directed by viewership and that relieves the stress on writers to pen down stimulating words beyond what is necessary. These differences that result between the old and new media show us the direction that the reform should take.

My take on the development of the media over the years is that it had gradually leaned for the worse. Several factors have driven the writers to disregard their responsibilities to serve the public through accurate and concise writings. It is now the time to slow down the surge of information and reflect in order to direct the culture of online media similar to that of the traditional media. We, as journalists, should gladly follow. 

Copyright © The KAIST Herald Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution prohibited