Journalism: a thriving field in disguise

I've said it before, but I'll say it again; I'm tired of people telling me that journalism is a dying field. The same people that say this to me are the people spending their nights watching Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show or clicking through YouTube videos; some of them featuring commentary about the news. So, to those people, I say "open your eyes and ears! Those videos you are watching? That's journalism!!" And guess what; it's not going anywhere.

When I talk to people about this, they say newspapers are losing their following to the rapid technological advancements of todays era. I'm not going to completely disagree with that, but that doesn't mean journalism is disappearing. In fact, in the case of journalists like Michael Buckley of the show, "What the Buck?", journalism is reaching more than 100 million eyes. How many print papers can do that?

How many people have the time to sit down and watch an hour long newscast just to hear about one story that might peak their interest? You can probably go on YouTube and find a five minute clip of just that story. Furthermore, a New York Times article from last year states that Americans are canceling or not renewing their cable source in exchange for internet packages and it's programs like Netflix and Hulu.

A New York Times article points out that YouTube stars can make just as much as the average reporter and television/radio star, thanks to the viewership and partnership with advertisers and companies interested in supporting such successful journalism.

The article brings up some criticisms of this newfound journalism. My own grandparents are among those critics; they say that the people "reporting" on YouTube are too amateur; that audiences don't want their news from some  college kid sitting in front of a piece of fabric in their bedroom.
         * Today's generations are proving my grandparents wrong... Buckley's audience is mostly under
            35.
         * Yes. Some of these videos may be amateur at first, but they won't have as big of a following
            as the more professional broadcasters. The bigger a YouTube star becomes, the more
            resources they might have and the more professional they may become.

Another one of the objections is that these YouTube stars are objective. They're not fair and balanced, like (obviously) right leaning Fox News claims to be.

Click to see source

To that objection I say, you're right. BUT, is that a problem? The face of journalism is changing. No one can be completely objective. Perhaps there would be more trust given to journalists if readers did not expect journalists could be completely void of bias. It is acceptable for an outlet to take a side, and as long as they fairly present both sides of the argument, it's okay for writers to be openly biased; it's impossible not to be. So, isn't it better to be open with your readers? Is transparency better than objectivity? 

I would argue, and it seems that many contemporary (and let's not forget extremely successful) journalists would agree, that transparency IS more important than "objectivity," so long as the reporting is giving the complete picture.