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.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)