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.