Journalism is not dying from digital age

Journalism is not dying from digital age, only medium changed.

While people mourn the death of journalism, we firmly believed the digital tools murdered it. Those tools are Twitter, Facebook, Google news, Mobile Apps; the list is endless. Everyone, it seems, owns a platform, a publishing system, and now everyone is able to announce or broadcast what’s going on.  It is feared that online platforms might diminish the authoritative level of the journalists.

I see a glimmer of hope for journalism in digital age. Last month, I attended a panel discussion at NYU where George Brock, the author of Out the Print, said digital media puts journalism in a better position than ever. It has been declining in journalism, but it is only true for paper medium. The quick dropping down is really in newspaper, which sold fewer than 300,000 copies while the website attract 31 million traffic. The industry has been in decline since long before Internet came along. What we see now is the quantity of newspaper drooping, but the journalism has been being transformed into other mediums and it is actually being lifted up.

Thinking about YouTube, it did not even exist 5 years ago. Social media is being heavily invested since then. We are so overwhelmed by the mega-size information in digital age. However, journalists are now able to access much more sources, which was never happened before. Going way back to the past, journalist is nothing else but used by politicians to beat opponent. Thanks, Fox News makes it valid today. It was all about political interests, purely.

Along with the emerging of digital media, the journalism job is growing and news organization is rising, allowing online website generate more traffic. The accessible sources from social media are so diversified and realistic. It has shaped and changed the way of how journalists conduct and research. Besides, it even made easier for people to challenge power, to question and to give a voice.

Interactive feature in news reporting is a trend. It sounds trendy and looks attractive. However, wouldn’t it cause distractions and increase complexity in news reporting.  Is interaction feature will replace the role of storytelling role in journalism. Would readers be too fetishized the interactive features? For reporter, instead of writing extractive story, they invest lot of  time in making a “engaging” motion graphic. It may be true that interaction feature keeping readers attention.  Are journalist too eager to please readers?

Another good example of interaction feature is Google News. People can create news filter, which allow the only selected topic being shown. You read what you are interested in. It is fair. But you never know what news you don’t need to read. I mean you never know what you don’t want to know, and Google News cuts them out ahead. Would it hurt diversity in news and eliminate choices for readers before they actually have the choices.

Applause. Applause. The new era is coming. As long as journalists rethink and reposition on a global scale, digital media has much more to offer. George Brock encourages young journalists produce “engaging” content with interaction features. Overall, Mr. Brock gives a fair evaluation to journalism in digital age. It is not Journalism dying. It is Newspaper. It is not about content, it’s about medium changing.

 

New Way to Use Big Data:New Drug Trials

Cornell Tech in New York City hosted an event last week and invited Wendy Mayer, the VP of Worldwide Innovation at Pfizer, to talk about how innovation and creative ideas could be transformed into real values for pharmaceutical business.

The important step stone to innovative individual is the endorsement from the executive boards.Generating revenue and sales is the best result that innovation adding to every business. At Pfizer, all the ideas would first come from the internal team then from outside of the organization.Because the internal team always knows what their main business challenges are, what the next break through should be, and what are the desire among markets.

Ms. Mayer brought a very trendy concept which now is the most popular way  for research conducting.  Big Data for new drug trials.

The average testing period for developing a new drug at Pfizer is 10 to 20 years.  Sometime, drug developing teams have to wait for a long time to identify a right patient. if big data comes in, drug trails are no longer need to rely on real patients or real cases. At some point in the future,  having Data to tracks and calculates the correlations maybe the vision of all. She didn’t specific how big data can be used for such delicate business since drug trails requires the pharmaceutical team to presents the  real improvements of the cases for official regulators.

Can big data replace the real human being’s for drug trials? I think it’s interesting to hear the ideas. However, for me, big data ideas in testing drug made me uncomfortable. Technology helps us to live an lives.

But do people feel secure from the computer generating system in our life?

Are we comfortable with them?

I recently read an article on the Wall Street journal. Big data is almighty, except telling the causation. All you see from data is only correlations.

It’s interesting to hear that the executives board at Pfizer would make important decisions today, but the result can be known 10 years later from now.

Maybe good things always take time to achieve.