Article written by

  • http://twitter.com/kamalaakarsh Aakarsh

    Interesting concept. Raw news is like a twitter-feed of a newspaper, operated by multiple journalists. Cool idea. Thanks for sharing! But with the attention spans of people plummeting (which is infact fuelling the evolution of ‘micro’-ness in everything, be it blogging or reading or whatever…), will the quality of writing/journalism also go down when more things like Raw News pop up. In short, what will be the position of things like in-depth view of an issue, using eloquent editorials? i am sure the number of people reading editorials has gone down significantly in the last decade. What do you think?

    • http://itwofs.com/beastoftraal/ Karthik Srinivasan

      Quality is my prime concern, as much as the fact that unsubstantiated news could seep in, from a legitimate new source. The best use of Raw News is that it offers amazing reach (of the publication) to journalists to build their own profile…it depends entirely on their quality of news!

  • http://twitter.com/MastMolly M&M

    Media content has so much variety in its type (headline news, investigative reports, reviews, opinions, debates) and purpose (information, entertainment). When it comes to reviews, opinions, debates – the who matters. For example, I read Times of India for Jug Suraiya’s subverse , The Hindu for Sudhish Kamath’s reviews, and Hindustan Times for Vir Sanghvi’s articles. In each of those cases – the journalist is the star – not the publication. If tomorrow they were to leave and switch to other publications – I would go there with them. So in that case – your point 1 is valid. And I can see how media houses can capitalize on them to increase their reach. I might be willing to click on another Hindustan Times link available on Vir’s blog even if Vir did not write it.

    However, for content such as headline news and investigative reports – the what matters – not the who – along with the credibility, the thoroughness and the accuracy of the content ofcourse. It is no longer a matter of someone’s opinion. It should be factual. Most often I do not register who covered the headline news (and I am not sure why I should). I do think that here your trust with the publication/media house matters (which you build over several news items and their handling over time and or several other factors which I wont get into). So if I trust BBC over CNN – then that is where I will go for my headlines ultimately (even if I first find out about it through a random source on twitter) and will stay with them unless they have no coverage or dissatisfying coverage on the news in question. Over and above trust, there is another factor, that of getting all the headlines in one place – which is not possible for any one star journalist to provide.

    About your second point – that of a publication’s collective voice and its signficance in today’s age. This is very interesting. On some level – I dont see how a “fragmented” media can have a “collective” voice – its counterintuitive. And yet – considering the social responsibility aspect – one feels it is necessary at some level for someone or something to intervene. Should it be the media house? I dont know. Again – this is more relevant when considering news. For opinions, reviews, and the like – you know what you are getting into – an individual’s take. Nothing collective about that. In choosing whether or not to promote the journalist itself the publication/media house should know what they are getting into. In the event that the journalist does something irresponsible – he/she will have more to lose than than the publication/media house which can always have a disclaimer “thoughts expressed here are the opinions of…..and not …”. It is interesting though that ultimately several media houses collect the stars with the slant they want to have or rather the stars develop the slant of the media house. For example: It is not a coincidence that Bill O’Rielly and Glenn Beck are on Fox.

    When it comes to headline news and its accuracy though, social responsibility is important, and therefore a collective voice/liability assumed by the media house is necessary. Without that, there maybe chaos. But is a collective voice by default socially responsible? One can only hope!

    • http://itwofs.com/beastoftraal/ Karthik Srinivasan

      Yes, there are a few stars now, but initiatives like Raw News could make more stars.

      And you do have point in dissecting it based on kind of news. There are pieces that are ‘newsy’, while there are opinion based pieces that do not depend on timing. The latter will of course offer a better platform for journalists to build fan base, since the former is based purely on speed.

      Collective opinion, as you say, is an interesting space. Take political leanings, as example. A publication, anywhere in the world, usually has specific political leanings…arising out of advertising or its founder’s leanings. Will they be able to ensure that with journalist stars, who have their own priorities? Worth pondering!

  • Pingback: Indiatimes Launches SpeedNews: Real-time Mobile Updates From Reporters - MediaNama