Is immersive journalism the next big thing in story telling or just another technological fad?

You open your eyes and you’re in the middle of a war zone. Life is moving on as normal somewhat peacefully, with a young girl singing in her native language until suddenly a bomb goes off. Panic sets in all around you as smoke fills your vision and shouting is heard. Then just as quickly as the madness set in around you, you’re back in the comfort of your everyday life.

In another setting, you’re stuck in a prison cell with only the sound of an inmate’s voice to be heard, his words filling up the walls as he recalls his time inside. You feel trapped with nowhere to go until you take off the headset and you’re back to reality.

You can experience the above scenarios first-hand without having to leave the comfort of your home, thanks to the growing world of immersive journalism. With the rise of video and social media, providing news is an ever-evolving challenge that journalists must keep adapting to in order to keep the audience engaged. While print media has slowly been declining in sales over the past decade according to Statista.com, technology has become an everyday part of the average person's life. Instead of reading a newspaper, consumers are watching live news on their smartphones or reading articles on their tablets. But what’s next? Some suggest that Computer-generated virtual reality (CG-VR) and 360 videos may be the next big thing. This is due to the way Virtual reality (VR) places you in a setting you may never find yourself in again. However, like any new technology, questions and worries are raised revolving around its cost, accessibility and impact on viewers.

Just like any form of new media, immersive journalism raises a lot of ethical questions such as the reliability of the content shown, the long-term effects these stories may have on the viewer and the entertainment value it may have.

Long Term Effects

Due to the recent advancements in technology, it is unknown what long-term effect it may have on viewers, especially children. Being dropped into a such a realistic war zone could impact some users more deeply than others and it has been suggested that people may experience PTSD or other mental health issues after viewing some of the content shown in VR. While this level of immersion may help aid in creating an experience that encourages viewers to have empathy towards people in these war-torn countries, it may do damage to some who place themselves too deeply in the augmented reality. Philosophy professors Thomas Metzinger and Michael Madary published a paper in 2016 titled ‘Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct’ which claimed that VR is a ‘powerful form of both mental and behavioural manipulation’. This supports the theory that the power of VR may be too much for some people, especially those who may find it difficult to differentiate from reality and the VR world. While these effects have not been fully measured yet, if immersive journalism continues to become more popular, it will most likely become a large topic of discussion for scholars.

News or Entertainment?

With CG-VR mostly being used in gaming, it may be difficult for a viewer to perceive the content they are viewing as a journalistic piece, instead of another form of entertainment. This would almost fetishize the content being shown and not evoke the empathy desired from the viewer. It can be argued this is similar to traditional media’s use of poverty as entertainment for viewers, more commonly referred to as ‘poverty porn’. A large argument which surrounds poverty porn is how instead of making viewers feel empathic towards the subjects, they see their struggles and stories as a form of entertainment instead of an impactful piece. Subjects are often portrayed as victims and creators often take their vulnerability and package it for consumption, often portraying negative and harmful stereotypes, purely to humour an audience. This could become a big issue for immersive journalism, but on a much bigger scale as due to the impact, VR emotes. It is important for journalists to display content respectfully while still provoking empathy from the audience.

The 'Real' in Reality

Just with any form of media, the truth is something that could become twisted by journalists and even more so due to the computer-generated factors of immersive journalism. Fake news and trolls have taken over the internet in the past few years, and while it has become easier to spot the lies told in these articles for most people, due to the immersion felt while watching VR, it may make it harder to differentiate between a real story or a false one. Many find it important to let the viewer know which aspects of the piece are real and what has been created to add to the storyline. Traditional media has seen a lot of manipulation to favour whichever political, religious, commercial or governmental body funds it, which could easily be continued onto this new form of journalism. This means stories, surroundings and even dialogue could be manipulated to suit whichever group has funded the project, so viewers should be ready to question everything that is presented to them, just as any other media format. It has been suggested that new rules, similar to the ones that are already enforced on journalists, are set for VR journalism, as with the new format comes new issues that need to be avoided. Media theorists such as Ethan Zuckerman and Jaron Lanier have called for a code of ethics to be created for VR journalists, in order to protect the public from intaking false narratives.

The viewers can't afford to view it yet

The whole purpose of journalism is to inform the public on matters they would otherwise not know about. This can not be achieved if the public has no way to access the story, which is a common issue with immersive journalism. Although 360 videos can be watched on the average smartphone or computer screen, CG-VR uses more advanced and expensive equipment which isn’t very accessible or affordable for the average consumer just yet. Oculus, who is a leading company in VR, created the ‘Oculus Rift’ which was bought for $2 billion by Facebook. The VR headset is on sale for around £349 currently, which may be unattainable for most people, especially when there isn’t a large repertoire of VR content available as of yet. While immersive journalism may be more impactful than traditional media, its inaccessibility means there is only a small number of people who can be reached via this medium. The New York Times attempted to resolve this problem by teaming up with Google and sending out over 1 million cardboard headsets to their subscribers, for users to watch 360 videos with their smartphones. This helped gain attention to their 360-video channel and gave their audience a chance to introduce to this up and coming medium.

In addition to the cost of consuming immersive journalism, the actual desire to watch these sorts of stories may be the downfall of the new medium. While the public may sit down to watch an hour of news on the television or read news articles on their phones for a few minutes throughout the day, plugging into a headset to watch these hard-hitting stories while fully immersed may not be so popular. A lot of consumers watch or read stories passively, which is not possible with immersive journalism which puts the story all around you. This is another way in which 360 videos may have the edge over CG-VR, as 360 allows the option for users to simply move their phone around, or drag their finger on the video without actually having to use a headset.

Luckily, a study has shown that viewing immersive content via a headset or simply a monitor still makes the content more interesting to viewers than traditional written journalism, so although 360 video has some drawbacks and isn’t as immersive as VR, it still is a better option for journalists who want to engage the public.

The journalists can't afford to make it yet

As the technology to produce immersive journalism is new, the cost compared to traditional forms of media may be too expensive for the everyday journalist to use. While 360 cameras are becoming more affordable, such as the Insta360 ONE X which retails around £400, CG-VR is vastly more expensive and requires a certain degree of skill surrounding the technology. Paired with the fact consumers may not even be able to experience this kind of story, it raises the question ‘what is the point of investing so much into a product most viewers won’t even be able to watch?’. However, without the pioneers of this technology, there would be no room for improvement and the equipment would never be more common among consumers and developers. While at the moment, the use of CG-VR is costly for the people making it, hopefully in the future when it becomes more common the price will lower and it’ll be seen as a more common form of journalism, just as smartphones became a part of everyday life. Again, this is where 360 video overtakes CG-VR as it is relatively easy and affordable to make. Normal journalists can make it with only a small amount of experience in the area and budget.

A big defence made against the flaws that come with immersive journalism is the way viewers reportedly feel more emphatic towards the subject in these pieces, compared to traditional journalism. Being completely surrounded, often including the real-life audio, helps the viewer put themselves in the shoes of those around them. It visualises the horrors of a war zone or the isolation of a solitary cell, without putting the viewer in danger. However, this does raise the question ‘Does VR diminish the actual experience of those living in these conditions?’. Although the answer to this may be yes, the positive effects from immersive journalism may outweigh the negatives, as it’s proving an eye-opening chance for people to walk in someone else’s shoes. It is also a lot more impactful than traditional journalism and makes viewers more likely to sign petitions.

RYOT, a news organisation dedicated to creating stories that inspire viewers to take action such as donating money to a cause, created their first virtual piece, 6x9. As shown above, 6x9 includes a virtual cell with narration from a real inmate who has experienced solitary confinement. Molly DeWolf Swenson, the co-founder of RYOT, stated that people connected so well with the piece as they know they are ‘going to be able to take off [the] headset and return to a normal life, but that’s not the case for 80,000 Americans who are in solitary confinement today.’. This is most likely why everyone who tried the experience then went on to sign a petition for ACLU to stop using solidarity confident cells, which Swenson said was ‘basically a 100% conversion rate’.