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.