Newspapers... Going Going Gone...

I really do not want to see printed news go by the wayside. Although it is likely to happen in the future as we become less motivated to get off our couches. Newspapers however should not become things of the past. This may sound far fetched, ML but the only reason that we have that now now now attitude is because the media created it. They want us to "need news now" but really we don't. Are we going to pass out because we didn't read or see some petty theft or burglary or that the Bucks won tonight a minute after it happens? I don't see it happening. Which is actually weird, because the media did create this I need it now attitude. It confuses me though, because they print the papers, whose subscription numbers are falling and falling and falling. Perhaps this point isn't entirely the reason for the Decline and Fall of the Newspaper, but it counts for some of it, that much I know.
Being able to find well-rounded information on a topic through the internet is one thing I agree with ML about. That is important to a lot of people and is definitely a positive of the internet-based news coverage. It gives the reader a chance to be more "objective" in their understandings of a certain topic.
However, one interesting point that Silverblatt mentioned in his Media Literacy article was that certain media outlets might not be so objective in their news because of their ties to other companies in the section where he talks about Media Ownership and News Content. I think this is a very interesting point because the fact that newspapers rely so heavily on their image of beings objective I wonder how many people actually realized that their news is slanted.
Regardless of objectivity, the face of newspapers is changing and I hope will don't have to see the complete extinction. For whatever reason, newspixel doesn't ring the same bell.

Response to The Pros and Cons of Digital News

I both agree and disagree with certain points of jprellwitz’s argument. While I already stated in my original post that newspapers are definitely dying and that the news sector of media is becoming dictated by online journalism, there are parts of the interpretation that I may or may not agree with. For the most part though, I think this writer is right on the money.

I wholeheartedly agree with the points made in this post about the effects on journalism relating to speed, efficiency, and access. Because of the ease of publishing information online, it makes up-to-the-minute coverage virtually possible for any reliable news source. The speed at which either professional or amateur journalists can put information on the web and make it accessible to the public is rapid and altogether astounding, especially to those who have waited anxiously for news coverage through other mediums in the past. Also, because of quick Internet speeds and technology savvy individuals, it’s possible to post information online in seconds. In addition, anyone with a computer, computer access, or at the very least, a library card, can access information online for free. As Stovall points out on page 169 of Chapter 7 in Writing For The Mass Media, a website can cover the same story as a newspaper or broadcast, but can go more in depth in a considerably smaller amount of time. He says, “The Web does not require the personnel or equipment that broadcasting needs, and it does not have the distribution problems of print.”

Another point of the argument that I agree with and didn’t think about before is the point jprellwitz made about unlimited resources on the web. No matter what subject you’re looking up, you can always find multiple perspectives and takes on the issue or story. This can make research and the quest for reliable, unbiased information much easier than relying on one or two staple news shows or a single morning paper. For example, if you’re looking for multiple interpretations of the same event, you could check the websites for both Fox News and MSNBC .

I also agree with most of the points about revenue. Because most websites don’t charge a subscription fee for reading most of their content, they’re alluring to many news followers and therefore detract readership from newspapers. Also, because this readership is down, many companies no longer bother publishing their advertisements in print. This means less money for the newspaper, but it also means less money for the websites. In this argument, it sounded like the author didn’t think that websites would be charging subscriptions any time soon. I, however, think it won’t be long before many large news conglomerations decide together or at once to start charging readers. Eventually, if they want to be able to keep their websites up and running, they’re going to need this additional revenue.

Response to Who killed the newspaper?

Daniel, I like this post and I agree with you about everything. One of the parts I really like is when you write about how you read the sport section of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel while eating breakfast every day. I myself used to do this but with a different Newspaper. I spent the first 18 years of my life in the City of Duluth, MN before I moved to Milwaukee the summer after I graduated from High School. Every morning I would wake up and read the sports section of the Duluth News Tribune. http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/ Then I moved to Milwaukee I stopped doing this entirely. This is probably for two reasons. First, I really do not eat breakfast anymore. Second everything I would read about in the morning paper I already know about before I go to bed the night before.

So why is this? This is mainly because of I spend more time on the Internet in one night now then I used to for an entire month. I already know about the final score of the Heat-Spurs game approximately 1-2 minutes after it is over. I already know about the big baseball trade that happened before I go to bed. I also think that this has changed what the general public views as breaking news. For example, earlier this summer, Cliff Lee was traded to the Phillies from the Indians. About 1 hour after the story broke ESPN stopped considering it breaking news. This is also an example of how up to date people want to be. If a story is more than an hour old, they are already bored with it.

You also made another good point that really caught my eye. You said that "the details are no longer important" and all people want is the main information. My mother is the perfect example of this. She has her google home page set up so she knows what all the big stories are. But she does not really know the details of a story. It can be really irritating to try to have a discussion about a topic when are like this.

down with the newspaper

I remember a long time ago when the newspaper was read by everyone young and old whenever we needed wanted to know what was going on in the world. We cut down so many trees just so we could know what was happening around us. And to "keep it real" most people don't recycle so after we read the paper we through it out instantly.
When it comes to technology i am always the first to say that the world is moving at too fast of an pace and that i see the time of the robots taking over coming soon, but in this case i think digitally displaying the news since it is saving millions of trees and causing less waste. it also forces some people to become smarter and stay up with today's trends. Since most factories are closing down or building robots to do the labor, it forces people to go back to school in order to make ourselves employable again.
Personally speaking, the internet makes all aspects of life faster and more efficient. Why should i walk (or drive if I'm feeling lazy) all the way to the gas station to read the employment and sport sections of the newspaper, when i can just start my laptop and go to jsonline.com, Milwaukeejobs.com or ESPN.com
When i comes to the death or the newspaper, I'm for the idea of putting a once great news invention to sleep, the same way we did the VCR and the portable CD player.

Do we need Newspapers or Journalism? (Re-Post)

The newspaper industry as a whole is in trouble due to the internet. I feel that people simply do not have the time or will to sit down and read the bulky newspaper every day. Instead, they get their news from their phones or laptops at various times during the day. Large newspapers around the country have recognized this trend, as evidenced by The Chicago Tribune who switched their entire format because of it. The number of people subscribing to newspapers is only going to decline in the future when the entire population becomes computer-literate. The economy as of late has only contributed to the problem as of late with consumers unwilling to pay for something they can get for free.

The circulation of printed newspaper in the U.S. has been on the decline since the 1990s. The New York Times wrote an article this October showing the sharp decrease in circulation as of late, up to a ten percent drop in the last six months. The biggest problem facing newspaper companies is that they have not found a working business model to charge people for their online news. Newspapers at one time basically printed money, but now cannot find a way generate income from their websites online, even with a drastic increase in online readership. Sure there are advertisements online, but the profit generated from these advertisements does not come close to matching print advertisement money.

The newspaper was once a large part of American culture, but online media has taken over that role. News stories travel over the internet instantaneously as they develop. However, this does have its drawbacks as accuracy and credibility are becoming less important than rapidity in reporting. Citizens are filling the role of journalists in many cases now as a result of the internet. Citizen journalism led early reporting of the plane landing in the Hudson River, which was reported and photographed by Twitter users far before large media outlets could respond.

As a result of all of this newspaper companies are now forced to do more with less. They are trying to cater to their dying print audience, while developing and upgrading their websites. If newspapers were to quit printing we could lose important aspects of media like investigative and foreign reporters. I think the best compromise for companies lagging in online readership would be for them to become non-profit organizations to provide this valuable reporting to the citizens. I believe in the end we simply need journalism more than we need newspapers.

Response to "Losing more than just tradition"

I agree with the beginning of your post and what you’re saying about the risks inherent with trusting unaccountable bloggers as a main news source. However, I must strongly disagree with you about your concerns with bloggers leading to increased corporate advertising and decreased corporate accountability.

That mainstream media is dependent upon advertising revenue in itself creates a source of corporate bias. As one example, I recommend reading the latest car reviews in your local paper or Wisconsin Auto and RV. You will notice that these articles are rarely, if ever critical of the vehicles discussed. Often if not always, the vehicle receives glowing praise. Why? Because the paper receives revenue from that auto manufacturer.

No matter how “credible” a source is, there will always be bias. Whether it’s from the writer or whoever pays the bills, someone’s agenda will seep through. Whether we receive our news from blogs or the mainstream media, it is still our duty as citizens to perform our own fact checks and find multiple points of view in order to remain objective.

The Pros and Cons of Digital News

That the news has largely switched from a print format to a digital one has many pros and perhaps just as many cons.

The good news:

Speed, efficiency and access

· With newspaper, readers received their news first-thing in the morning and then perhaps in a separate evening edition. The same goes for televised news broadcasts with the exception of events so catastrophic the media can justify interrupting regular programming.

· Online news updates as soon as new information becomes available. No more waiting for the next day’s paper to learn the details of a story that the evening broadcast only dedicated two minutes to. No need to watch four hours’ drivel of “breaking news coverage”; read the article online, get the facts, and move on with your day.

· Concerned the article you just read didn’t provide enough details or perhaps seemed biased? Don’t buy a second paper, just click to a different website and, voila! you have a new angle and almost unlimited resources for further research.

The bad news:

Limited income

There is widespread concern about where news agencies will generate income without subscription fees and advertising revenue that is quickly evaporating.

Newspapers traditionally depend upon a wide variety of advertisers, classified ad listings and subscription fees to supplement costs and provide profit.

· With online news, there are only a handful of advertisements per page, often only one.

· Online classifieds listings such as Craigslist offer full-page ads with multiple color pictures for free, eliminating any incentive to publish an ad in the paper.

· Online news sources have yet to develop the balls to charge a subscription fee to their readers. Reason being, if one source has a fee, readers will simply receive their news from a free source and advertisers will drift there as well.

Limited sources

With limited finances come restrictions in other areas, namely employees.

A struggling or limited budget news agency can’t always afford to send its reporters on-location for a story, especially if it’s happening overseas. In cases such as these, an agency will purchase the rights to publish a story from a larger company such as the Associated Press.

This means that many agencies publish the same story, which leads to a lack of objectivism when a story has only one angle provided by one reporter.

My take

I’m old school. When I read a book or a magazine, I want to read of a page, not a computer screen. I like the feel and smell of the printed page.

That said, I won’t cry if newspapers disappear completely. I briefly took out a subscription last year to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. While reading from an actual paper made me feel sophisticated, I hate how overly large and unwieldy a paper can be. There’s also a lot of content in there I’m paying for that I don’t want to read.

Reading online solves those issues for me. Except for that feeling of sophistication.

POST 2 - response to Megan Bradley

Although I agree with most of what Megan is saying in her blog, I do have to disagree with the statement about the newspaper not falling completely. Not only is it much more convenient and informing to have news online, our country is also environmentally aware these days. Saving the earth is a big deal and with more and more companies going “green” the newspaper will most likely go south. Even UWM is cutting back on paper and no longer mailing paper tuition bills. Almost all information is now online.

Yes there will be those people who just don’t understand the internet and I agree with the point that some companies are trying to accommodate those people. Although that is the case now, I think that just like people a long time ago only listened to the radio for the news; with time the paper press will be a part of history. The internet is growing everyday with new technologies that allow faster coverage of the news and even live video for those who prefer to hear the story from an anchor.

Silverblatt mentions in his Media Literacy book that people in their forties are more likely to go online for news than younger people and he goes on to state that convenience and speed are the reasons for using the web method of news. The internet is slowly but surely taking over and the news papers will have to make some changes to keep up with the industry. There are many newspapers around the country taking a nose dive and according to
News Paper Death Watch with all the papers going out of business, there just doesn't seem to be any demand.

Reply to DBolling

I definitely agree with your opening statement about daily routines being changed and newspapers becoming obsolete. I find it interesting that you brought up that you would read the sports section when you woke up – what about the other sections? It would be interesting to find out how many people actually read the entire newspaper versus just sections of it. I know that many people skip over sections that they don’t find interesting.

I also agree with your point about people buying newspapers when big national or international events occur. I know that I still have articles from the newspaper when a friend passed away and when September 11 happened. People use articles from newspapers to share their history. Something to show to the grandkids as some would say. It is disappointing thinking that these tokens of our history could be lost.

Again, I think you make a very valid point expressing your views on what is to come for the newspaper. Once a staple in print journalism and part of our everyday life, the newspaper could be left as a forgotten memory in our nation. People are just too busy, or like to think they are too busy, to take the time to read an entire newspaper. I know as from a personal experience that my parents used to get daily papers. Now they get the Sunday paper only, for reasons that you have already listed. People will buy newspapers when they need them (an example is the ads and coupons for Black Friday sales), but will people start realizing that those opportunities may diminish at some point? Do they plan on putting all of the coupons and shopping ads in the online newspapers? It is an interesting thing to think about.

Response to Ali Zainer

I like your post about newspapers in today's modern world. Whether we like it or not, newspapers are disappearing off of our kitchen tables and are being replaced with the latest technology. The internet is the most practical and quickest way to stay up to date with news and current events. However, it is not always the most accurate or credible place to get your information. The internet cannot always be trusted which can present some problems. The internet is an interesting place where you want to trust everyone, but can actually only trust a limited amount of sources.
Writing for the internet can turn into a whole new world for some individuals. According to James Glen Stovall, author of Writing for the Mass Media, writers for the Web must concentrate on efficiency, simplicity, and tone. Those who get their information from the internet can choose to get their information anywhere on the Web, so it is important to draw the reader in and make them want to stay. This can be a difficult task for some writers, which is why some of them end up not being the best writers they can be. Credible websites for newspapers like the New York Times have writers who have mastered this technique and are extremely credible. Other websites like Wikipedia have turned writing for the Web into a joke and are very untrustworthy.
Being able to get the news on the internet has made the newspapers really start to evaluate themselves. It is important for writers every where to stay accurate and credible. This is a challenge for some writers for the Web since they do not have to be experts or do not have someone checking over everything they do. The internet is a strong competitor for newspapers and will probably one day over run them, but newspapers will most likely always have the most accurate stories money can buy.

Response to Instant News and Original News

I agree with this post. Although statistics show that the internet is rapidly becoming America's preferred way to access the most recent news stories, one has to be critical about the quality of facts and reporting on internet news sites.

As Silverblatt said, "reading [the newspaper] presupposes a certain level of education." (230) It also presupposes a certain level of education to write newspaper articles. Journalists are educated and trained in reporting techniques in order to give us the most unbiased information possible. Although internet news sites are also written by journalists, the pace at which they are published puts into question the quality and research that goes into them.

Online news media doesn't always have to be coming from an institution like CNN, either. Many people write political blogs or moderate websites that have political or newsworthy content. Although these types of websites have the capacity to connect more people together and open minds, since there are no educational standards to write a blog or website, we should not assume that the person writing actually knows what they're talking about.

This is why newspapers are still needed--to maintain a standard of what good journalism ought to be.

Response to Ashley (Post #2)

The opening paragraph in this blog is well represented with a fact that I wouldn't of thought myself. Everything is constantly being upgraded and we can't keep up with everything. Just because the newspaper is a little old-fashioned for most, there are plenty of other ways to get the news without looking at the paper--the internet, radio, and television all are other solutions to learning about stories fast. No matter how we look at it, technology is going to go out of date and new projects are going to be in the making. The good old newspaper is still in business,but it's just not the most popular fit anymore.

As Stovall addresses, the internet has a unique quality known as immediacy. With the web, as information is available in some form, it can be loaded onto a website within seconds. (Stoval 169) This goes along with your statement of going online and viewing the latest breaking news--because almost instantly after it happens, it is published onto the internet. Not only can a person check out news articles on websites such as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but they can view the sports scores on ESPN. So with that said, the internet is very diverse and people are able to pick and choose what they want to view depending on what they are interested in.

It's depressing to think about how old habits just die off so quickly. Some people do prefer the old fashioned way, as you mentioned above, but if that goes out of style, (as the newspaper is) is it required for people to automatically adjust to a different habit? For instance, if someone isn't familiar with using the web, and the paper goes out of business, where are they supposed to turn? Looking at the overall picture, the newspaper is still an important part of culture and eliminating it may cause more harm than good.

Who Killed The Newspaper?

Ever since I can remember, my morning routine would consist of waking up, taking a shower, getting dressed, going to the kitchen to eat some breakfast and read the sports section of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. You always hear about how back in the day people would have paper routes as their first jobs, but now newspapers are becoming obsolete. What happened to the newspaper? In one word; technology. With today's internet on phones, laptops, etc., anyone can get breaking news as it happens, meaning that the need for day old news in newspapers is no longer needed.

People want to be as up to date as possible, and that is no longer the case for newspapers. Since 2000, newspaper subscribers have dropped significantly. Newspaper sales are at an all time low and there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. As long as internet revenue continues to climb, the younger generations will never turn towards seeing the need for newspaper. The younger generations are always in a hurry and only want to take time to read certain articles not the entire paper like people used to do. Another factor is that there are the same articles on the Internet for free with no subscription needed.

Our culture is already changing as newspapers slowly become obsolete. Details are becoming less important and the outcome is all that people care about. There is no such thing as the full story anymore, because the general public wants to know a lot, but nothing in depth. The only reason people pay for newspapers is when a catastrophic event occurred and the entire nation is involved and interested in the story (Hurricane Katrina). Even Sunday newspaper sales are down, and that used to be the most purchased piece of news each week. That was when people used coupons, looked at ads for the best deals and wanted to see what was on tap for the week ahead.

What will happen in the future is anyone's guess. Most likely all newspapers will be either available only on the Internet, or be much thinner within the next 100 years. Even highly toted newspapers such as the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post and L.A. Times will struggle to stay afloat. Technology is becoming more and more advanced and even those who spend time reading the newspaper can only continue to support it, but need to realize that eventually newspapers will become obsolete. I know I will still support the local newspaper, but I am only one of a few twenty-year-old's that probably read the newspaper on a daily basis.

Traditional Newspaper vs. Citizen Journalism

The newspaper has long been a cultural symbol of American freedom and democracy. Since its earliest days, the mission of “the newspaper” has been to inform the public of the latest local and national headlines, and also to serve as a power-checker of the political and economical elite of our society. To many Americans, reading the newspaper was once as routine as drinking a morning coffee. However, traditional newspapers are finding it hard to compete with online trends like blogging and RSS feeds, which are able to deliver news straight into the user’s fingertips 24 hours a day.

There is a definite appeal to online news sources such as CNN or MSNBC. In addition to the standard news articles, online news sites offer additional comprehension aids such as numerous photos, video streams, and comment boxes where the average citizen can offer his or her perspective on the issue. Users can also subscribe to online news sources, which allow subscribers to get new information as it happening. Newspapers, which are printed once a day at maximum, can hardly compete with that kind of immediacy.

Many argue that this new kind of "citizen journalism" is great because it offers multiple perspectives on newsworthy issues. The average citizen has more chances to contribute to and participate in democracy. However, I argue that the increase number of viewpoints and blogs does not necessarily equal greater democracy. For one, journalists are held to certain set of standards and code of ethics. They are trained to report the news in an objective way that provides the most amount of information. Citizen journalism is not held to any kind of publication or fact-checking standards. Anybody can say anything about anyone. Call me cynical, but I don’t believe that more information necessarily equals a more informed society. If citizen journalism is really going to be successful, it requires a more media literate society. The average person needs to be able to siphon out the truth from the opinion. This is not always easy.

Also, who is the “citizen” in citizen journalism? Are online blogs and news sites really representing the “average” opinion of society? What about those who don’t own a computer or who can’t afford Internet access? What about those who don’t have the computer literacy needed to navigate the Internet? If news eventually becomes completely digitalized, what will this mean in terms of democracy for everyone?

As more and more newspapers appear to be downsizing and decreasing circulation, online news seekers must keep these questions in mind when contributing or reading online news sources.

The News and Technology Today: Are We Moving Too Fast?

It is undeniable that we live in a high-tech society.  Advertisers are constantly trying to persuade us to buy the newest, flashiest product on the market.  Companies understand that Americans expect fast and convenient products to make our hectic days a little less stressful.  But what has this done for us except turn us into socially isolated robots?  Have we all gotten so busy with our lives that we can't sit down for twenty minutes with a cup of coffee and pick up the morning paper?  Americans are obsessed with life "on the go."  Everywhere we look there is something making someone's life "easier," whether it be the self check-out line at Pick n' Save, or the tens of thousands of apps in the iPod App Store.  With just one click of a button anyone can download the USA Today app for their BlackBerry and read the news on their way to work. But does this "convenience" really make our lives less stressful?  Recent studies suggest that 48% of Americans are more stressed than they were five years ago and that these numbers will continue to increase.  Apparently, convenience isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

Even more so, the convenience of online news is only convenient for a fraction of Americans.  Statistics have shown that in 2005 only 76% of Americans owns a personal computer.  This means that almost a quarter of our country's population does not have access to online news on a daily basis and must receive the news from a source other than the Internet. 

I feel there is something to be said for the comfort that comes with a newspaper.   For centuries it has been mankind's primary source of news, and to completely get rid of it would be the end of an era in some sorts.  Personally, the newspaper gives me a feeling of nostalgia when I think back on my childhood.  Every morning before I got ready for school, I'd join my father in the kitchen for Eggo waffles and the comics section of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  For those fifteen minutes each morning, whether it was a beautiful day or it was pouring rain, nothing else in the world mattered to me except for what kind of trouble Charlie Brown was getting in today and whether I had enough syrup for my waffle.  It is clear to me that without the comfort that my waffles and the daily comics section of the newspaper brought me, my childhood would certainly have been more dull.

Losing More than Just Tradition

As someone whose family is being personally affected by the newspaper crisis, it’s undeniable to me that the demise of the newspaper industry will have a horrible impact on our democracy as a whole. Newspapers are no match for the immediacy of the internet or the inexpensive allure of websites so the decline should come as no shock to anyone. In fact, an online survey done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates shows just how significant this decline has become nationwide. While this shift to online information may be more efficient, accessible, and ultimately increase the variety of news sources people have to choose from, it’s important to ask ourselves, “Is this really a good thing?”

Many people are getting their information from online news sources like CNN or MSNBC, but what about those who choose to acquire information from other places such as blogs or the often unfiltered comments left on real informational sites? How much fact checking are bloggers actually doing and how reliable are their sources? Not to mention that there is little to no accountability for blogs or the comments made online because no one is required to provide their actual identities. Newspapers are widely regarded as a reliable news source because their stories are provided by journalists who are often onsite, talking to those involved in the story, and fact checking their sources. Online, how can we prove the reliability or accuracy of the sites we choose to read from?

The public is also, by eliminating a trustworthy source of news, subjecting itself to more corporate advertisement. The main purpose of newspapers has always been to filter out the garbage and report the crucial information as a check of sorts on those with power. Now that information is going mainly online, it opens the door for practically unregulated product endorsements and for stories that could hurt big companies to go unprinted. This also connects back with the lack of accountability of internet sources because it’s not uncommon for bloggers to be paid to support a product or even in some cases for companies to create seemingly legitimate blogs with the sole purpose of endorsing their product. How do we know who’s providing us the information that we’re reading and what their agenda is?

The biggest impact, though, will undoubtedly be on the economy. The rapid decline this year may have been even more than expected according to the New York Times and this will only lead to further layoffs. With unemployment already approaching 8 percent nationally, it’s questionable how well the United States will be able to rebound from another large economic blow. Ultimately, what people have to consider about the rapid decline of the newspaper industry is how reliable are these new internet sources, where’s the accountability, and exactly how much are we losing?