This is the title of one of the many studies that Pablo Boczkowski has written all along his career. He assures that, although nowadays we have a very efficient tool that should provide the media much more variety (the World Wide Web), what really happens is that there is an incipient and increasing homogeneity in the vast majority of newspapers, radios and televisions.
In many editorial offices, journalists are asked to control what their peers have written so that they must reflect the same topics that other journalists from other media have published. Normally, editorial offices have radios switched on and two o’clock news program or bulletins are sacred. Why? Juust to know what the others have done!
Besides, all the editorial offices receive every morning all the newspapers published that day. What is the problem of this situation? Mainly, the controversial question is that journalists do have less time to analyse everyday topics. That is, they loose time in revising what their peers have published instead of taking care of new topics and study them in depth.
Another aspect that we should refer to is that the creation of new media of communication should imply much more variety. Instead, readers find the same stories but from a different perspective. Is that really what society demands?
From my point of view, the most serious matter is that the media can loose initiative because they are accustomed to “copy” what the rest publishes. The information becomes homogeneous and institutionalised. Society demands newspapers, radios or televisions which can report on topics which do not belong to the official agenda that politicians publish everyday. The media should investigate and specialise in different matters so that readers feel that a huge variety of information can be consumed. Maybe this is the solution: to report on the most important topics of the day but also to add some matters that can be of interest for audience.
Trainee student at Signe Words