Eric Alterman’s Out of Print article clearly discusses the problems facing the future of newspapers and the growing popularity of the Internet.
Since I am a senior double majoring in Journalism and Political Science, I have read many articles about the death of newspapers and took a class that focused on the history of the newspaper and the its future.
I agree that newspapers are not as popular as they once were, but it is only because they are other ways of getting the news today. I have spoken with Dallas Morning News publisher and CEO James Moroney about this very issue and he acknowledged the fact that many people think newspapers are becoming obsolete, but he assured me that newspapers were not on their way out.
The evidence Alterman presents in his article verifies the declining popularity of newspapers and I can see why. The Internet has permeated the daily lives of people all over the world especially in the Western Hemisphere. The Internet has replaced going to the mall with online shopping, researching at the library with online encyclopedias, and of course newspapers with online versions with the same information.
Alterman says that as of May 2004, newspapers had become the least preferred source for news among younger people and this doesn’t surprise me. Young adults like me have grown up with the Internet. Seven years ago when I was a freshman in high school, schools in Houston began giving incoming freshman laptops, equipping the campus with wireless access and requiring that all homework be submitted via email. Things have only gotten more technologically advanced.
Alterman points out that public trust in newspapers has been slipping and that a recent study found that fewer than twenty percent of Americans said they could believe “all or most” media reporting and that only one in five believed what they read in print. This argument doesn’t necessarily mean that people don’t believe what is written in the paper, it’s a combination of all media reporting- written, broadcast and even Internet reports.
I agree with Rupert Murdoch that consumers want news on demand and continuously updated and for me this is the main reason I get my news from the Web. I can read CNN’s top stories at 9 a.m. and by 12 p.m. there is a whole new set of issues being reported on.
I think online newspapers are the way of the future. Papers like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The LA Times have all created web sites with basically the same information found in their printed version. Especially now that we are at war with a country on the other side of globe, online journalism provides an outlet for reporters, military personnel and citizens of those war torn countries of the Middle East to tell us first hand what is going on there.
Blogs are also a new source of online journalism. However, I am leery when it comes to getting my news from blogs. Maybe it’s just me, but I have a hard time believing what is written on a blog, perhaps it is because for the last four years I have been told by my professors that blogs are not an acceptable resource for information and that we are not allowed to source blogs in a bibliography. However, Rupert Murdoch says that people today “want a point of view about not just what happened but why is happened…And finally, they want to be able to use the information in a larger community-to talk about, to debate, to question, and even to meet people who about the world in similar or different ways.” And this I believe is sole purpose of blogs. Blogs have also proved effective in cases like the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the bringing down the U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Bloggers keep a watchful eye out in the world of cyberspace and when they come across something that doesn’t seem quite on cue, they call attention to it. Whether or not the information is accurate, bloggers have the ability to bring issues to the forefront and get people to talk about them. Bloggers like Michael Drudge and Joshua Micah Marshall and many others have become national celebrities because they were the first to report on scandals that brought down dignified elites like Alberto Gonzalez, Dan Rather and exposed Clinton’s affair with an intern.
While a lot of people believe newspapers are a thing of the past, I am not entirely convinced. For instance, when CNN was founded in 1980, it completely revolutionized the idea of broadcast news. I’m assuming that a lot of people believed that the idea of a 24/7 news channel would replace the local news channels, but that has yet to happen. While these around the clock news outlets have become more popular, they have hardly replaced hour news programs. And this I feel like may be the same with the Internet and newspapers. I think there is a lot of hype because the Internet, as a news outlet is virtually a new concept. In 1980 there was the same kind of buzz surrounding Ted Turner’s idea of a continuous news channel.
In an effort to keep newspapers afloat while also keeping up with the times, large newspaper companies should employ people who are multitalented- those who can write wire copy, scripts for broadcast and online news reports. When I was interning this summer at a local Houston news station, one of the producers told me that if I can write for print, broadcast and the Web that I will always have a job because companies are consolidating their newsroom.
I believe that newspapers will not completely disappear, but that they will simply become another outlet for information. Newspapers and national news stations have the resources that blogs and small online news sites do not- equipment to broadcast the aftermath of a car bomb in Iraq or the bitter fighting in the Gaza strip, photographs of children staving in a poor African village or the sun setting in Australia. Larger news organizations will remain at least for now because they have mastered the art of journalism and bringing the news to living rooms and doorsteps across the country. Alterman says that the newspaper, more than any other medium, has provided the information that the nation needed it if it was to be “kept out of the dark” and as of right now I don’t see the Internet-based news concept fulfilling that responsibility. The concept of the newspaper has been around for nearly 300 years and people are still reading them. So, while we may be on the brink of a journalistic revolution, until everyone jumps on the Internet bandwagon, I think the printed ink publication will remain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You have some good thoughts, but they seem to be jumbled together in a rather loose ramble.
I'm pointing this out because it seems in places that you obfuscate your own position, seeming to argue against yourself.
I think in essence I agree with you, but have trouble with your analogies of previous media.
Though it is true that none of the three network news outlets have canceled their programs, their ratings have dropped every single year in recent memory and the number of stories covered in each program is reducing each season. Some have argued that this is the slow decline in the broadcast news network model that will lead to eventual death.
Unless they adapt. You suggest that news formats can change, but I don't know precisely in what ways you're suggesting they change (other than adopting new technologies? Or producing more frequently?).
I would also think that if you were going to invoke James Moroney III as an authority that you might offer some of his explanations and assumptions that lead him to the conclusion he offered.
He has drawn a lot of fire because his news properties are undergoing another round of cutbacks on the news productions side. He recently said that the Dallas Morning News should not cover national issues. And DallasNews.com has received several stinging critiques of its operations in recent years.
Invoking Moroney without presenting his view doesn't seem to add much to the debate.
I do think your presentation of the technology influx perspective is a valuable contribution. But what does this mean for newspapers? Be specific.
My primary point of confusion revolves around the lines you draw between online journalism and the online medium. You argue that "online newspapers are the way of the future" but also that "the printed ink publication will remain."
I'm guessing that you're suggesting that print will survive in the short terms while it follows the audience online? But what about the long term? Or are you suggesting that online newspapers and print newspapers will somehow be distinct from one another?
Oh, and I think it is Matt Drudge you're referring to, not Michael. And you could provide some links which would clear up issues like these. And watch the paragraph spacing.
All that said, you obviously put some thought into this post. It does feel like you stopped and started over a couple of times, perhaps some editing would solidify your argument and present your ideas a bit more clearly.
Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment