Transition is simply a part of our natural world. Charles Darwin’s idea of natural selection depends on an organisms ability to adapt or transition in order to survive. As individuals we go through so many stages of transition in our lives that it’s impossible to keep track of all the times we have adapted. So it makes sense that as a society our forms of communication must transition and adapt with us.
The article “Towards an Aesthetics of Transition” raises an interesting point about finding the middle ground between the euphoria and panic of transitions in new media. My first job in the media industry started in 2006 for a major daily newspaper. I began working as a reporter and, although I was still trying to get my legs under me as a member of the work force, I could tell the the newspaper was in the beginnings of an identity crisis. Four years doesn’t seem all that long ago, but the idea of new media production was just taking off at the paper and tweeting was a word only used by a nature columnist. Euphoria and panic were everywhere. Panic came from the established beat writers who scoffed at that idea of taking their own photographs or writing an instantly publishable blog post. Euphoria from the editors who wanted every story to have some kind of web element no matter the quality or relevance.
The article identifies two key components that defined this period of transition.
“The evolution of new communications systems is always immensely complicated by the rivalry of competing media and by the economic structures that shape and support them. (page 11)”
The website of rival newspapers were viewed as much as our own in the newspaper offices. And the increased workload of reporters, who had to suddenly become multimedia creators, video editors, photographers and more, was greatly intensified by the monthly budget cuts and layoffs. Artistic freedom was great as editors and upper management paid little attention or had little idea about how to regulate the new media elements. However, it also meant a lot of poorly-made videos and hastily-crafted web media were uploaded for public consumption.
By the end of my year at the newspaper the entire landscape of the office had changed. A new crop of web savvy reporters filled the empty desks left behind by their laid off predecessors. Web development emerged from the darkened IT wing as the new position of online editor was given central location in the newsroom. Standards and templates were implemented on video content. The entire paper itself was acquired by a larger media conglomerate to try and combat its economic woes.
Throughout all the turmoil and changes in the office one thing never changed: the news. While the structure around it was simultaneously imploding and expanding, the information was still published. Like a cockroach in a nuclear disaster, it made it’s way through.
Since I left the paper at the end of 2007, I’ve observed from afar how the transition has slowed but continued. The paper has seemed to finally find its middle ground between online and print, but overall the content still remains the same. As the article said, the language endured.
Pingback: Not doom and gloom, just the times evolving | JRTR blogs iMedia