The other day, I wrote a post about newspapers. I got a response from "anonymous". Special sidenote - I have a couple guesses at who this "anonymous" might be. However, the one thing that confuses me is, although I know many who might say something like this, ALL would sign their name to it. Hmm.
Anyhow, anonymous says:
He was taken into custody on Tuesday around 7 AM. If you learned of this news via the Wednesday morning paper, you are probably living in an area which not only doesn't have internet or TV; you probably don't even have electricity."
All right. Ding, round two....
There is definitely a point that news happens more than once every 24 hours. Newspapers probably aren't the best when it comes to 'breaking the news', but this isn't new. Yes, the radio, tv, internet, etc. are probably all better at this.
However, a newspaper's sole purpose isn't 'breaking the news'. There is something tangible, real and lasting about a newspaper. At one time there was a certain buzz and excitement after a big event about 'seeing the headlines tomorrow' (yes, anonymous, headlines of stories about events that people were, indeed, already aware of). Whether or not that buzz still exists is another argument entirely, however, I do know this - the day after Obama's election, there was a huge rush of people in line to get a copy of the morning after's paper (and I HIGHLY HIGHLY doubt it was to find out who won the election). I know a lot of people were interested in preserving their copies and keeping them for years to come. I question if these same people were printing up blog headlines and putting them in a safe place.
Anyhow, one can most definitely question the future of newspapers in today's world, however, as I see it, there is undeniably something newspapers bring to the table that other forms of news media do not.
Posts
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
6 comments:
I also think that the commenter is unaware that such a thing called "journalism" exists. Journalism is not just about saying "X happened". It's supposed to convey events and happenings through the eyes of an expert. Unfortunately, no one seems to respect the idea of journalism anymore. It's all instant gratification with little regard as to how the information is presented. That being said, I don't read newspapers for news. I read them to inform myself about interesting things. A newspaper is a nice way of getting tidbits of info out to a lot of people, and it actually takes less time than Googling everything.
Touche! Lovin it, Piper!
The orginal post asked the question, "Where are people getting their news these days (if not from newspapers)?"
The answer is that people get their news from other sources. No one gets newsworthy info from print newspapers.
That isn't to say newspapers don't have value. Indeed, as Jaime and the above comment point out, newspapers still can serve some purpose. The sentimental publishing/collecting of newspaper headlines, and more expert journalism pieces are two examples.
However, much of the problems with the current print newspaper industry (including the Chi Trib) stem from a reluctance to acknowledge this changed environment. Those at print newspapers continue to believe theirs is a legitmate way to deliver informational news to the public, instead of moving toward a different operating model. In the case of the Trib, the result is decreased circulation, decreased ad revenue, contributing to the company's bankruptcy.
I see the argument you're making, and yes, I agree. It is largely the fault of the news media companies' lack of awareness of how people get their news today that has left them in their current predicament. But like all things, news evolves, and I still think there will be a place for a more traditional format in the future...wherever we end up. I just think it would be a sad day indeed if every paper newspaper company shriveled up and disappeared.
Ok, anonymous. You make some intelligent points. I'll give you this one. However, I wish I could put a name to a comment.
Though individuals will certainly look to the internet for it's immediacy in relaying information, that information is still relayed via news portals and most predominately the online edition of actual hardcopy newspapers. How informative are those Associated Press stories covering Blago in comparison to those where real reporters from the Sun-Times or Tribune have more information, have culled from more sources, and have been crafted? Newspapers are still valid because they are the best source of information even on the internet.
Most AP blurbs on the internet are teases to get you interested enough to search for further more indepth news. god help us, if somehow there is a section of the general population who believes sound bite journalism is what news is.
And regarding in-depth news articles on the internet, those finely wrought stories you read on NYTime.com or anywhere else (that supposedly are so immediate) are mirrors of the stories in the actual paper that went out that day or what will be in the paper the next day.
Though internet certainly may become the initial source of information, for any real consumer of news who expects an indepth and finely crafted view of world topics that might have been already "broken" via internet newspaper is still the best source.
I'm not a sentamentalist, nor am nostalgic, I work for the largest multi media organization in the world in their Interactive (read: internet) division. Newspapers serve a function for people who want to be in touch with their news, who expect a certain level of craft, who are will to wait to get the best story and not the fastest.
Just my opinion.
Post a Comment