Multimedia journalism is a reletively new concept, and people are referring to it either as multimedia journalism or online journalism. Then ultimately, what shall it be called?
I believe for the time being, multimedia journalism will stay for a while; but in the long run, it should better be called online journalism, as it is more in line with the sequence of print journalism and broadcast journalism.
The reason multimedia journalism is a better option for now is that the term “multimedia” is more descriptive to people who are not sure, up front, what “online journalism” essentially means.
From the standpoint of sociology, the words and phrases we use in our daily life are all “social constructs.” Such social constructs themselves do not carry any intrisic meaning or value with them, it is during its use by the people that such words and phrases are linked to certain symbols or phenomenna. Over time, such external symbols or phenomenna will be internalized and become the “meaning” of a word or phrase and then shared by most people. Take for instance, “sad,” this word itself does not carry any meaning in and of itself, but the word is linked to various concrete instances such as tears, sobbing, specific facial expressions. So much so that whenever I say the word “sad” everybody knows what I’m referring to.
In the case of “online journalism,” until and before most people have seen enough of it and know what the typical look and feel is, the phrase itself will remain an abstract reference for people to use in their conversation. On the other hand, the word “multimedia” seems to have established its meaning, as most people know what it means: a mixture of text, audio, video, image, etc.
