This week we are continuing to look at the state of journalism in American today, its influence and its future. The problem is that the future of newspaper reporting and journalism as we know it is on the endangered species list. Newspaper ad revenue is dwindling quickly as people stop subscribing to the paper and start reading the mostly free news online. The reality is that the newspaper industry and journalism in a broader sense is probably not dying, but it is evolving, and those involved in the change must get on board or get out of the way. What this means for the power of the media in our lives and the role that it plays within our political context remains to be seen. For this week's blog take a look at the stats on the "dying" newspaper industry here and an interesting inside look from the managing editor of TIME magazine here. Also, if you want, you can take a look at an interesting New Yorker article on the subject here, then start a discussion based on the prompts below.
- What does the changing nature of journalism mean for the American public?
- Is the transition to more digital, interactive, and citizen generated news content a positive or negative development for politics and/or political news reporting?
- If you feel like saving the world, you can also feel free to weigh in on what newspapers and traditional media can do to survive and make it off the endangered species list.
The foretold death of the newspaper industry is a key issue for American Politics today, especially since this tendency is likely to accelerate, given the fact that young people are even less interested in printed press than the previous generations. The changing nature of news reporting has a dual significance for the American public in my opinion. In the short term it appears to be a positive development: information becomes unlimited, more current than ever and accessible to all. However in the long term, it has detrimental effects on the empowerment and the well-information of citizens. The temptation to settle for superficial news and headlines grows stronger. Since you don’t keep your old newspapers, it becomes easier to forget about the previous week’s news. The 24-hours news cycle is not fitted for political news. Indeed, the political timing is much longer: policies take time to implement and show results for example.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I feel there is still a need for newspapers, even in their digital format. Newspapers can survive through online advertising, saving money on printing (plus it is good for the environment), and keeping subscribers with specific content. To create informed citizens is essential for a healthy democracy. Political news, as well as the news of the world, has to be explained and put into context for the public to understand them and to make knowledgeable decisions. Only trained journalists have the competence and credibility to complete this public interest mission, which is why traditional media have to, and will, survive.
The state of contemporary journalism hasn’t so much been rendered obsolete as it has undergone an evolution. The digital age of mass media has arrived and with it, a built in audience of technologically saavy (and perhaps dependent) readers. As information has become more readily available through the digitization of news sources, the accessibility of these sources has risen along with the potential for variety in political discourse as well as a an interface more inclined to a generation of readers who perhaps don’t have the patience to purchase and page through the typical news column.
ReplyDeleteTo me, this transition of information accessibility is a boon for readers of political news and discourse in that provides for a far greater variety in sources, free or otherwise, and facilitates a level of interactivity through simple inventions such as the comment section on your favorite blog or news site, than you find in the paper. Our generations affinity for a user interface and interactivity that can be provided by technology manifests itself in our preference for information that can be updated quickly, synthesized and discussed, and interpreted in numerous ways.
The evolution from print to digital media journalism has greatly changed in the way the American public consume their news. There are more outlets for Americans to consume news than ever before. More Americans are receiving their news online, through mobiles or tablets, or from their social media feeds. The public can pick and choose what stories they want to follow and how well informed they are. However, often times when receiving news online, there will be a tendency to pick the outlets that align with their views. I find the ideal is to have a full understanding of various issues that way I can be better informed of a subject matter from all sides, and then I’ll be able make my opinion accordingly.
ReplyDeleteThere are negatives and positives in regards to the rise of digital media with politics/political news. There is immediacy for the media to put out new information. This issue of immediacy plagues the newsroom as there is an influx of sensational news being produced. The best example I can think of in recent times is the disappearance of Flight 370. There is a mystery surrounding this story, and I do agree that proper investigation need be taken to discover what happened to the plane, however, too many news cycles focused on this tragic story for far too long. Sadly, the public often feed into the sensational, which increase viewership/numbers, which compel newsrooms to continue churning out the most sensational story as the top story.
For me, ideally, a positive that can grow from the landscape of journalism and politics is a more transparent government. There will be a newfound pressure for politicians to act according to their word and represent the citizens of the United States. A well rounded, better informed citizen could engage interactively with a politician. This can lead to stronger debates about the issues that directly affect the American public.
We have stumbled into a digital revolution, everything and anything you could or want to know is at your fingertips, literally. With a click of a button you can get news and updates from around the globe. But that also means that to create a credible base and lasting influence, you must be at the forefront of delivery—something discussed in the reading: prestige. There is a lot of competition among new and old media and this inherently splits the public across generational lines. As we are making more and more technological strides, I feel that there will be a shift in the profession of journalism itself, as many have reported it to be a dying career. To me it seems that everyone can be a journalist, or at least believes that they can be. If you have the internet at your disposal, your posting capabilities on various mediums are almost endless.
ReplyDeleteI think whether interactive news has had a positive or negative impact definitely varies. If we are looking at it from a protection of the 1st amendment and celebrating freedom of speech it is definitely a positive step—there is room for debate, to speak your opinion, and to actively respond to the world around you and partake in active citizenship. But, it can also be negative as the volume of news increases to tremendous amounts. The average person is then bombarded almost with varying degrees of attitudes and outlooks on a topic, and are forming an opinion from oftentimes sources that may or may not be the most credible.
"We're forgetting that there's a difference between information and knowledge."--Journalism from this perspective is now an outlet to tell the story, to give framework and context to the news. I found this very interesting. Often times we are bombarded with so many facts that we don’t take the time to piece together the puzzles and put the information we are given into perspective.
Every summer morning I eat breakfast at the kitchen table next to my grandparents who both have their iPads in front of them, reading their daily newspapers. Although their hands would have been accompanied by an actual set of papers five years ago, they, just like many others, are shifting towards using technology more readily. Not only is it easier to access information online, a majority of it is free! As a retired couple with three kids and ten grand-kids, they will save money wherever they can.
ReplyDeleteJust because many have transitioned from subscribing to an actual paper to reading their favorite news outlets online, doesn’t mean that journalism is dying. It is actually becoming more revolutionary. Online articles aren’t restricted to a certain amount of space on a paper and therefore cover much more information within them than any newspaper column. Placing news online can also attract many more viewers from different areas throughout the world. When a newspaper is dropped off at your doorstep, the people within your area are reading the same articles but not many others have access to it. When someone is interested about a certain topic, all they have to do is type it into a search engine and many online news sources covering that issue are exposed and are given the opportunity to be seen.
Companies who want to advertise their product or business in a newspaper are willing to pay more money to have it placed on the side of a website than they are inside of a paper. They know by doing so their ad will look much more appealing with color and movement and they will retrieve more success due to a surplus in viewers. This jump in advertisement revenue can allow news outlets to hire better reporters, allow their reporters to investigate issues more in depth, and in return the audience is receiving more advanced information.
Newspapers aren’t the only thing that is making the jump from paper to digital. Many people have transitioned from reading actual books to using a Kindle where they can read text on a screen. Although this is a more technologically advanced way of reading, people still love their books and will continue to buy them. Books will not go extinct just because some people have found a new preference for reading. I believe the same goes for newspapers. Yes, of course the newspaper industry has lost a large amount of revenue over this more advanced technological era but so have many other things. Newspapers will not go extinct any time soon, just like books will not.
I don’t remember the last time when I have read a newspaper fully from the front page all the way to the end. I remember last year, in my English class, an assignment was assigned to collect specific information from the New York Times, but instead of being instructed to subscribe to the paper and have it delivered to our doorstep, our Professor instructed us to subscribe to the online version. This made me stop and think. Is the newspaper industry dying? What is happening to the traditional paper version of the newspaper, which people read in the morning while having their breakfast and coffee? I believe the newspaper industry is not dying. Rather, it is going through a transformation. There is a type of revolution going on, where everything from newspapers, books, journals, and more, are being transferred over to the now-much-more-convenient digital world.
ReplyDeleteAs we have read in Dunaway and Graber’s Chapter 2, Ownership, Regulation, and Guidance of Media, traditional media is not being wiped out, but it is rather forced to adjust and adopt to new technologies (p.41). I believe there are a lot of positive outcomes from this revolution. The cost to subscribe to the online versions of many newspapers is much lower than receiving their paper versions. The audience reached by online version of news is much bigger and much more diverse than the traditional audience reached. Also, news that cannot fit into the newspapers and are deemed not important enough compared to other more significant news will be brought to light, since the web is much bigger than just 30 printed pages. Aside from more information reaching out society, information is spread and shared much easier and quicker, as Dunaway and Graber described (p.41). Last but not least, breaking news will be able to reach a much bigger audience and reach it much quicker via technology and its advancement. These are just some of the advancements, which definitely benefit our society.
When it comes to politics, I believe this change is positive as well. Campaigning and reaching the public, urging society to mobilize and educate individuals on important issues and topics could be easier with more and more people being online and getting their news from the web. The audience reached is much larger. Ads are much more colorful, informative, and persuasive. The space is much larger, almost infinitive. Creativity does not have any boundaries when it is taken to the digital world.
Newspapers are not dying. Instead they are going through an important and notable transformation, which brings out more benefits to it. Every transition is complicated, but I believe this one specifically is well worth it. Keeping up with evolution and modernization is key to thriving and keeping in business.
There is a very important quote by Rick Stengel, TIME’s managing editor, which should be looked at closely. He said, “We are forgetting that there is a difference between information and knowledge.” He uses the example that if a bomb goes off in Afghanistan, people will know it occurred, but they will not know what it means or why it happened. A quick Twitter update would give us the information we need, but a newspaper article would have given us the knowledge to understand the event. I agree that newspapers are merely evolving and not dying, however that is not to say an evolution is completely positive.
ReplyDeleteThe transition into a digital and social media channel also yields an enormous amount of information. Still, this information may just skim the surface whereas newspapers dive in depth to make the public understand why the issue is happening, and why it is relevant. Although print medium is becoming more unpopular, as long as the articles online contain the same amount of in depth information as a newspaper article would have, the American public can still have both information and knowledge. However, if this evolution means a shortening and simplification of information, the public may only have glimpses of information, and no knowledge of the issue.
When I think about the transition from print to digital media, I think about the transition from radio to television. Granted that change took longer then the change from print to digital but it still offers us a look into the future of media. It did not completely wipe out radio broadcasting it just evolved to something different. Radio became for people on the go whether in the car or at work, it became another layer of information. Media revolutions changed how we saw the world, when we transitioned from radio to television, we saw things past generations didn’t see, and we saw the reality of what used to be for the privileged of our society. Our reaction to Vietnam in the 60s is a prime example of the effects of the media revolution. Advertisement also expanded the vanity of consumption and the reality of production e.g. the American dream, perpetuating a common goal in a patriotic tone, and new ways of showing media creates more advertisements. So newspapers will not die off it will just be another layer in our new information age.
ReplyDeleteThe transition to digital media has created a flow of information that no one can control; we have blogs, independent journalist, and independent news websites and large corporate news companies on TV and online. It can be positive in that we can express ourselves and hear different point of views, but it can be negative if we get drowned in all the information that is flooding our lives. We will become sheep herded by new trends or norms that is circulating on media outlets; this will affect straw polls, approval rating and by affect cause party election, policies and laws and reinforce norms that might not be rational e.g. Edward R. Murrow who was a rational voice among irrational norms.
For me the effect on the American public from the changing nature of journalism is one that is really unknowable. Its effect can be theorized and debated, but I feel that no one can know with absolute certainty. With the advent of online and interactive news, and its broadcast on social media outlets the possibilities are endless for the amount of information, ideas and opinions that can be shared and broadcasted across the United States and around the world. That is really a point that is really undebatable in my opinion. Yet the effect of this widespread access to information on the American people is one that can’t really be determined for sure.
ReplyDeletePeople could for example move towards becoming more informed as there is now a wider degree of access to information. They could see that there is a wider set of opinions than their own and with an open mind and the appropriate amount of time find their way to more factual sources of information and reports.
At the same time however, the sheer size of the amount of information and its ability to link people together also means that people could be less likely to change their minds on issues, upon seeing that there are vast numbers of other people who have the share perspective as them.
Thus I don’t believe that I can say whether it has a positive or negative impact on news reporting. It balances out, it simply trades the old positive and negative aspects of past forms of media for new ones.
Additionally I feel that though online and TV news are the vast majority of media outlets today, print media will always exist in some form or another; though perhaps newspapers might be virtually non-existent once the baby-boomer generation largely fades away. But print media I feel, will always be around in some format. I myself have a physical subscription to TIME and get their weekly magazine in the mail every Friday and I feel that there will always be people that will want to have a physical source of media to read.
Unfortunately, I feel as though later generations will be raised in a world where newspapers will almost be obsolete. In the Mashable article, it mentioned that newspapers aren’t endangered, but they are merely evolving; and I hope that is true, but I am not entirely sure. Hopefully, there will be an innovative method that returns journalism to its previous revenue. It seems as though it will become harder for journalists to receive recognition. Nowadays, anyone can create a blog and post their views. Between social media and everyone posting their opinions, I think it will become difficult for people to “get to” the professional writers (because they could become attracted/distracted with other sites). I think that this transition to digital will produce more of a negative development for politics. The Time article made strong and valid points. Today, one can find out if someone died before it is shown on the news that night; but, there is a difference between information and knowledge. Yes, one can obtain the fact that someone died by simply turning on their phone. Yes, it is possible to access that news online via Twitter, Facebook, and etcetera. However, having the knowledge of where, when, why, and how separates the news one can read on Twitter and the news one reads in a newspaper (or sees on television). “Our goal wasn't to tell you that he died, our goal was to tell you about his life — about how he changed our world and what might happen now that he's gone”(Mohyeldin). I cannot think of a process that traditional media can use to return to former revenue and demand, but I appreciate the newspapers and cannot imagine American life without newspapers.
ReplyDeleteRebecka Bronkema
ReplyDeleteThe newspaper industry is, unfortunately, slowly dying, but it is also transforming and transitioning into internet news and new interfaces. Almost every newspaper has a website that users can buy subscriptions to if they want the ability to read through as many articles each month (although there are plenty of ways to read all the articles and bypass the monthly payment); they are using more and more social media integration, such as linking articles to Facebook and Twitter and having their own accounts. The evolution of newspapers and news media is reshaping the idea of journalism. It puts greater expectations on the news sources to build and maintain credibility, objectivity, and instant news output because of the vast amount of news sources available with the internet. Because of this transition to a dominant online news media system, the public needs to shift to become more news literate and conscious. People need to put it upon themselves to look for the credible sources for information rather than believing the first article they read. There are hundreds of news sources for the same topic; there are even more that are comprised of less facts and more opinions and random thoughts than news. Searching through the "junk" news and finding the necessary information is part of becoming a news literate society.
The evolution of news media--print to broadcast to internet--has affected the newspaper industry, but the industry is slowly adapting. They may not overcome the financial struggles, but they are trying their damnedest. In years to come, we'll see even less news stands, newspaper boys around the country will be without their first jobs, and college grads with journalism degrees will likely not become the esteemed reporter they always dreamed of, but the newspaper industry will continue to try to adapt to the interface of media. Politicians will continue to use the newspapers and news media to their advantage, but the new interface will increase the amount of transparency the public has available about politics. I would like to believe that newspapers will never die entirely; they will just live in the annals of the internet forever.
It is obvious, from both of the articles we read this week, and from just observing everyday life, that print news media is being consumed less with every year passing. Just the other day my dad told me that he had cancelled our newspaper subscription at home in the suburbs. He was very melancholy about it and felt very guilty, but said he could not justify paying for it when he threw out just about every single copy because he does not have time to read it.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a time where when a question comes up in a conversation, the solution is to “Google it” (at least it is for me). As the article from the TIME editor alludes to, people have so much free information in the palm of their hand that I think it makes it difficult for people to justify the purchase of news. What I do like is the idea presented near the end of the TIME article. That the job of print media in the future should focus on thoughtfully expanding upon the headlines. I think that the transition to more digital media is both good and bad for politics in that it is more accessible. I would just hope that the ability to throw political news and reporting up on a website in a matter of minutes would not hinder the time and effort put in to produce a quality piece of journalism.
The changing nature of journalism has some good effects, but in my opinion mostly bad effects. For one, information has become more accessible and the quantity of information has increased drastically. While I believe accessibility is a pro, I would rather have quality information over increasing quantity of information. And while there are some great journalists out there, the changing nature of journalism makes it more challenging to find them. People now have to sift through the loads of distractions out there and I would say that a majority of people do not really want to do that. Another disadvantage to the changing nature of journalism is the increasing pressures on journalists to keep up. Now that articles are being posted online, there are pressures on journalists to fill the space and to be the first to put important stories. This for one, creates clutter of not so important stories, but also the pressure on timing prevents journalists from investigating deeper into the subject so they can give context to the stories they are writing.
ReplyDeleteI do not know what traditional media should do in order to survive, however, I do believe that if new media was held more accountable and called out for the lack journalistic values, then people (who actually care about getting the best information) might make better decisions of what news to watch or read.
I believe that newspapers will not cease to exist for quite some time but will probably not print as many as they used to.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the evolution of digital news media gives the American public more opportunity to receive news from different sources and expand their horizons past traditional broadcast.
Its kind of like how when the printing press rolled out in Europe everybody could read the Bible, which was considered as the absolute truth back then and for many still does. The big shift then was instead of relying on priest to pass down the "good word" straight from the vatican they could read it for themselves if they were literate enough. The modern equivalent is the news is available to all who are on the right side of the digital divide and no longer have to pay the priest with his big ties to the Catholic church or the .
I think digital news is a positive although if caught within the wrong digital circle garbage information can flow like the waste of the human centipede. However, if one exposes themselves to status-quo challenging info, many insights can be gained. Also, less newspapers = more trees = less C02. But on the flip side more internet time = more electricity usage = more C02.
Monetizing information is hard because it is so fluid. Maybe some kind of mobile application development with exclusive content. Advertising seems like the somewhat unfortunate future for news world though.