- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The Death of the Newspaper
I am sorry to say that most newspapers do not deserve to be saved, yes even the one in my hometown. They have become no more than mouthpieces for their owners and editorial staffs most of the time. They are more concerned with molding public opinion than informing them. Giving the public real information is counteractive to that purpose. What little real investigating and real news that is done, is either never seen, kept unpublished until the subject matter is no longer relevant or rewritten to say what the brass want it to say. Any real search for, or telling of the "truth" has long since been brushed aside. People crave information, if newspapers had been doing the job of informing their audience like they claim they are then that audience would not be looking for information in other places like they have been for some time now. The problem is not the newspaper, its the ownership and editorial staff being more beholden to what they want over the papers function of informing the public and letting the readers decide for themselves. All the talk is about these 'poor' papers not making the money they want/need and how we will all be worse off without them is starting to grind on me. It will be a lot less dead trees that's for sure, and that can't be too bad a thing. I don't think we will be lost without them either, certainly not to the extreme that it is described. It is always this "huge void" or "social loss" when the closing of a newspaper is talked about. What is going to happen is what has happened before, very much like when newspapers first got their start. Newspapers all but destroyed illiteracy, the internet will all but destroy technological illiteracy. If people wanted to get the news, they had to learn how to read. If people are going to get the news in the future, they're going to have to learn how to use a computer or the equivalent thereof. The way we in which we communicate is evolving, and will continue to do so. I guess you could just watch TV your whole life and never learn how to read, but would you consider yourself informed? But I digress. The quality of the news that an audience think they are receiving is in direct relation to who they trust to give it to them I believe, and the newspapers and news channels have lost that trust. I am not saying that the Internet is intrinsically more trustworthy because it is not true. But then neither are newspapers or news channels, but don't tell them that. The problem is that the newspapers and news channels must convince us they are more trustworthy and that we just couldn't live without them in order to justify their continued existence. But we could, and we will. And that's the elephant in the room that they don't want us to see. They don't want us to see that there will come a day when there are no more newspapers, and guess what? We'll still be getting the news. |
Comments (42)
But Scott
Reminds me of a video, nowhere to be found on the net these days. The scene was taking place in a not so far future, it was supposed to be a video from a "media museum", explaining how came the end of the new york times in year 2020 (not sure of the date ;-) ).
It was basically what you say here, with lots of explanations on how people craved for infos, and new sources of info overwhelmed the aper-news industry.
If only i could put the mouse on this vid..
It was basically what you say here, with lots of explanations on how people craved for infos, and new sources of info overwhelmed the aper-news industry.
If only i could put the mouse on this vid..
Quoting:Sure most of them are no good, and those that are you can get online, but they are all there in one convenient location.This leads to the excellent point that when readers/users must be offline, there may be few viable alternatives other than newspapers for receiving news. Perhaps one of the best examples of this is when one is travelling by bus or train through areas of poor or even nonexistent wireless/cell reception (e.g., tunnels, bridges, certain bldgs, far distances from transmitting towers, ... etc) Typically, daily commuters in major metropolitan areas across the World must actually rely upon daily printed news coverage. A folded newspaper section takes up less space than a laptop and requires no external power-source other than the ambient outside lighting.
As a related aside, one could also make the related claim that broadcast news radio replaces both online access and newspapers for driving commuters and/or for those who must otherwise multitask without using any type of a video console (e.g., TV, computer monitor, handheld display, ... etc.) News radio certainly reigns supreme for providing near-realtime traffic and weather conditions to drivers and non-computer multitaskers . One specific concern for broadcast news radio, however, is that many if not most radio stations seem to broadcast the bulk of their ad-free major news stories on the hour every hour. Even the more complete news coverage on traffic and weather conditions only occurs at certain fixed times per hour. This leads to the everpresent vehicle commuting tactic of keeping several radio stations (news, talkshows, music) stored in memory readily available to be switched to at a moment's notice. Just like for broadcast TV, ads and infomercials on broadcast radio can be noisome at times. At least with a newspaper, one can easily gloss over or toss out the ads and included circulars.
A person who reads only the NY Times(or whatever) starts to think like NYT. A person who reads the web has much more to work with, has to separate cr@p from gold, and (unless they are only reading one site) knows much more than we ever did in the past.
The journalists often pretend we aren't capable of sorting out the junk. True, some of us are not, but those folks don't read serious newspapers or magazines anyway. They read the junk at the supermarket checkout lines. The rest of us are capable of thinking for ourselves, thank you.
The journalists often pretend we aren't capable of sorting out the junk. True, some of us are not, but those folks don't read serious newspapers or magazines anyway. They read the junk at the supermarket checkout lines. The rest of us are capable of thinking for ourselves, thank you.
@skai955: This one? http://idorosen.com/mirrors/robinsloan.com/epic/
This is what happens...
...when your business model involves thinking that you some how know what is better for people to read about or not. If the chief issue really is only a matter of a digitalizing the content than they would be able to adapt.
"thinking that you some how know what is better for people to read about or not."
Editorial bias.
Editorial bias.
Bravo, Scott.
Thank You NoDough, it fell out of me. I wrote it in about 15 minutes, tops. Had to stop to take breaths. ;-)
Nice job Scott. Yes indeed that was good.
My Letters to the Editor never got published but my blog is great. txt, pay attention here: /dead serious/
My Letters to the Editor never got published but my blog is great. txt, pay attention here: /dead serious/
Not just technological change, rejection of editorial bias.
Back at the beginning of newspapers, they were rabid scandal rags more like the National Enquirer and its copycats than anything we have today.
The elevation of Newspapers (capital N) to the status of Prophets of our Time came much later. Journalistic Integrity, Fair and Balanced, All the News that's Fit to Print, The Newspaper of Record, etc.
But what was missed was the fact that editorial bias infected and effected what news it was that was "fit". The news was chosen, carefully, with "correct" emphasis. William Randolph Hearst doing a dance over the front pages of his newspapers each day comes to mind. Thou Shalt Not Displease The Owner.
TV, carefully regulated, merely expanded the careful self-censorship to a new medium. It was still "few to many" broadcasting.
Even cable TV did not expand the number of news sources enough to change things, because the barriers to entry were so very, very high.
But not with the 'Net. The barriers to entry are gone. One web page has just as much availability as any other. The Drudge Report turned the American news establishment on its ear, and that was just one guy.
Yes, newspapers are dieing, but it's not just a technology issue. It's also the fact that their monolithic editorial bias is now obvious, because alternatives exist that are just as easy to read. People aren't going to one source or one medium any more. They are abandoning the single-source news reporting en masse.
So someone with an issue, like me, can know that this "economic stimulus package" that every "real" news source and ever "reputable" politician, and every "mainstream" economist, says is desperately needed, is just a Big Lie to cover over the theft of the entire US economy by a few well connected expletives.
But fear not, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are floating the idea of reviving the insanity of the "Fairness Doctrine".
If you're too young to remember, it comes down to "equal time for opposing viewpoints", at least officially. What it really means is that anyone who makes a blatantly biased statement, such as Olberman's glorious excoriations of the Bush administration, or Limbaugh's equally emasculating diatribes concerning Clinton, could be punished for not offering equal time for opposing viewpoints in the judgement of federal law enforcement.
But the new medium (I pretend to hear you cry)! With many sources, what basis can such a "Fairness Doctrine" have when opposing viewpoints are out there at any time for anyone who wants them?
Indeed, that's why I'm so worried about it myself. Reviving the Fairness Doctrine in this distributed age can have only one meaning: They want to crush the 'Net.
The elevation of Newspapers (capital N) to the status of Prophets of our Time came much later. Journalistic Integrity, Fair and Balanced, All the News that's Fit to Print, The Newspaper of Record, etc.
But what was missed was the fact that editorial bias infected and effected what news it was that was "fit". The news was chosen, carefully, with "correct" emphasis. William Randolph Hearst doing a dance over the front pages of his newspapers each day comes to mind. Thou Shalt Not Displease The Owner.
TV, carefully regulated, merely expanded the careful self-censorship to a new medium. It was still "few to many" broadcasting.
Even cable TV did not expand the number of news sources enough to change things, because the barriers to entry were so very, very high.
But not with the 'Net. The barriers to entry are gone. One web page has just as much availability as any other. The Drudge Report turned the American news establishment on its ear, and that was just one guy.
Yes, newspapers are dieing, but it's not just a technology issue. It's also the fact that their monolithic editorial bias is now obvious, because alternatives exist that are just as easy to read. People aren't going to one source or one medium any more. They are abandoning the single-source news reporting en masse.
So someone with an issue, like me, can know that this "economic stimulus package" that every "real" news source and ever "reputable" politician, and every "mainstream" economist, says is desperately needed, is just a Big Lie to cover over the theft of the entire US economy by a few well connected expletives.
But fear not, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are floating the idea of reviving the insanity of the "Fairness Doctrine".
If you're too young to remember, it comes down to "equal time for opposing viewpoints", at least officially. What it really means is that anyone who makes a blatantly biased statement, such as Olberman's glorious excoriations of the Bush administration, or Limbaugh's equally emasculating diatribes concerning Clinton, could be punished for not offering equal time for opposing viewpoints in the judgement of federal law enforcement.
But the new medium (I pretend to hear you cry)! With many sources, what basis can such a "Fairness Doctrine" have when opposing viewpoints are out there at any time for anyone who wants them?
Indeed, that's why I'm so worried about it myself. Reviving the Fairness Doctrine in this distributed age can have only one meaning: They want to crush the 'Net.
Hmmm, nah.
"Death to the Internet" is Big Media's motivation. Right now, as I type this, there are 4 stories on the Slashdot main page involving Big Media:
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/06/1444258 ESPN wants to charge ISP's for access (NB: ESPN is a Disney property.)
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/06/024246 RIAA lied to Congress about stopping lawsuits
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/05/1539251 RIAA and BSA lawyers taking high US Dept. of Justice posts
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/05/1443206 CNN inserts into EULA their "right" to abuse your bandwidth
I think they think we're not paying attention.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/06/1444258 ESPN wants to charge ISP's for access (NB: ESPN is a Disney property.)
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/06/024246 RIAA lied to Congress about stopping lawsuits
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/05/1539251 RIAA and BSA lawyers taking high US Dept. of Justice posts
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/05/1443206 CNN inserts into EULA their "right" to abuse your bandwidth
I think they think we're not paying attention.
Quoting:"Death to the Internet" is Big Media's motivation. Right now, as I type this, there are 4 stories on the Slashdot main page involving Big MediaBesides Slashdot, the Electronic Freedom Foundation is renown for trying to stand up hands-on against many of the "Big Media's Death to the Internet" efforts, see http://www.eff.org/ Major issues that EFF defends include - Free Speech - Innovation - Intellectual Property - International - Privacy - Transparency EFF also has a quite LXer-related - Blogger's Rights resources page, http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/ - Coders' Rights resources page, http://www.eff.org/coders
"Senator wants to revive 'Fairness Doctrine' censorship"
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008...
Oh heck, just put "revive fairness doctrine" into a google search and hang on. Word is getting around.
Oh heck, just put "revive fairness doctrine" into a google search and hang on. Word is getting around.
Just put "revive fairness doctrine" into a google search and hang on. Word is getting around.
I grew up in NYC with the New York Times
6 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:There are a lot of threads on this. One of the things that is overlooked is that the internet allows you to filter out the news you don't want to hear.Although OTOH, it is can be easier to filter out and downright discard printed advertisements in newspapers (e.g, as distributed circular ads) than it is to avoid the same on the Internet (as email spam, banner ads, popups....etcetera)
At the opposite spectrum, the task of filtering out the news and advertisements "you don't want to hear" would seem to be the most difficult for broadcast TV and radio.
> At the opposite spectrum, the task of filtering out the news and advertisements "you don't want to hear" would seem to be the most difficult for broadcast TV and radio.
Exactly the rationall of the Fairness Doctrine. Because there were so few "broadcast" channels, and editorial bias would be so easy to use to control what people heard/read/saw.
However, I think that argument is put on its ear by the distributed nature of the 'Net. How can the justify forcing me to read what I do not want to read?
Wait, I guess the real issue is not whether or not they can do it, but only whether or not they can justify writing it into law.
Exactly the rationall of the Fairness Doctrine. Because there were so few "broadcast" channels, and editorial bias would be so easy to use to control what people heard/read/saw.
However, I think that argument is put on its ear by the distributed nature of the 'Net. How can the justify forcing me to read what I do not want to read?
Wait, I guess the real issue is not whether or not they can do it, but only whether or not they can justify writing it into law.
Y'all might be familiar with the old saying, "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." With the Internet, more people than ever have their own "printing press."
And the motto of my website, the relevant First Amendment phrases:
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Well, they're sure trying.
It not like Congress/Courts/etc. pay much attention to the Constitution anyway...sadly.
Bad LXerers, you can't say those things.
GenX never knew...
Cabooses Records grow-the-list-if-you-like
What will GenNext never know....?
The Sound of the Morning paper hitting the door.
Or window...If I was your paperboy. Took out about 2 a week for a while there.
h
Cabooses Records grow-the-list-if-you-like
What will GenNext never know....?
The Sound of the Morning paper hitting the door.
Or window...If I was your paperboy. Took out about 2 a week for a while there.
h
Come on everybody!!
It's the bright new era of Obamalosi.
Sunshine and Strawberries.
Sweet joy and merriment.
What could ever be better?
And no -- those newspapers aren't biased!!! They're just enjoying the Big O.
It's the bright new era of Obamalosi.
Sunshine and Strawberries.
Sweet joy and merriment.
What could ever be better?
And no -- those newspapers aren't biased!!! They're just enjoying the Big O.
Print isn't dead. It just smells funny.
(with apologies to F. Zappa)
(with apologies to F. Zappa)
For many years newspapers like the NYT have made most of their money from classified advertising NOT from selling the newspaper itself. The advent of free internet based classified advertising such as Craigslist is the reason newspapers are in trouble.
It has nothing to do with opinion pieces. If it was the Fox News which is strongly opinionated would be in trouble and it is clearly not.
As well as many opinion pieces which are generally tilted left, the NYT does a lot of DAILY in depth primarily objective reporting of news. If it folded this would be lost. Where would this be replaced on the internet? The equivalent level of *detailed* daily reporting does not exist at present.
I think those cheering on the demise of broadsheet newspapers have a short sighted and mainly partisan motivation. They are ignoring the good work that such publications have produced because they don't use that service.
Alternative in depth reporting on the internet is not yet at the level of broadsheets. I hope for the sake of democracy in the US that if broadsheets fold that it develops further. We need it.
It has nothing to do with opinion pieces. If it was the Fox News which is strongly opinionated would be in trouble and it is clearly not.
As well as many opinion pieces which are generally tilted left, the NYT does a lot of DAILY in depth primarily objective reporting of news. If it folded this would be lost. Where would this be replaced on the internet? The equivalent level of *detailed* daily reporting does not exist at present.
I think those cheering on the demise of broadsheet newspapers have a short sighted and mainly partisan motivation. They are ignoring the good work that such publications have produced because they don't use that service.
Alternative in depth reporting on the internet is not yet at the level of broadsheets. I hope for the sake of democracy in the US that if broadsheets fold that it develops further. We need it.
>It has nothing to do with opinion pieces. If it was the Fox News which is strongly opinionated would be in trouble and it is clearly not.
Dumb logic. It presumes all opinions are equal. Opinions that make people decide that you hate the country and hate working people and pretty much everything that isn't in Manhattan, Boston, or California will not appeal to some people.
Dumb logic. It presumes all opinions are equal. Opinions that make people decide that you hate the country and hate working people and pretty much everything that isn't in Manhattan, Boston, or California will not appeal to some people.
Dino,
Your bias is showing unfortunately. There are destructive types on both sides of politics.
Example
"I hope Obama fails" Rush Limbaugh
Moreover that destructive mentality makes for a good business model. Playing to a partisan audience is a sure fire winner.
Example
"I hope Obama fails" Rush Limbaugh
Moreover that destructive mentality makes for a good business model. Playing to a partisan audience is a sure fire winner.
All opinions are not equal
Opinions are like...everybody has one.
Opinions are like...everybody has one.
And?
The most popular part of the NYT judging from their e-mailed stats are exactly the opinion pieces.
The most popular shows on Fox are O'Reilly and Hannity. Both shows are heavily opinionated.
The most popular shows on Fox are O'Reilly and Hannity. Both shows are heavily opinionated.
I was just making the most general statement about opinions I could, I had nothing to say about anything other than that.
> All opinions are not equal
True, they are as unequal as individual people are. And just as equal in their individuality.
The problem with trying to assert "fairness" is that there are just as many opinions of "fairness" as there are individuals, also.
So we end up with either individual opinion suppressed, and the resultant resentment, or a chaos of individual opinions clamoring at the same time.
As a believer in private property, it is each newspaper's choice what to print in their own pages. Each station's decision what to transmit.
However, I also believe that they should make their bias known up front. If I know what their bias is, I can filter what I see from that source.
If, however, with a "fairness doctrine" or assertions of "fair and balanced", or worse yet a limitation on who may write/speak/transmit, then it becomes difficult to know their bias (or whose bias it is) and filtering for reality becomes impossible.
Montezuma, Obama already failed. Just as all presidents before him. Dave Barry gave a great talk after Clinton's election, talking about the "failed Clinton presidency" when it hadn't even started yet. Funny, but true.
True, they are as unequal as individual people are. And just as equal in their individuality.
The problem with trying to assert "fairness" is that there are just as many opinions of "fairness" as there are individuals, also.
So we end up with either individual opinion suppressed, and the resultant resentment, or a chaos of individual opinions clamoring at the same time.
As a believer in private property, it is each newspaper's choice what to print in their own pages. Each station's decision what to transmit.
However, I also believe that they should make their bias known up front. If I know what their bias is, I can filter what I see from that source.
If, however, with a "fairness doctrine" or assertions of "fair and balanced", or worse yet a limitation on who may write/speak/transmit, then it becomes difficult to know their bias (or whose bias it is) and filtering for reality becomes impossible.
Montezuma, Obama already failed. Just as all presidents before him. Dave Barry gave a great talk after Clinton's election, talking about the "failed Clinton presidency" when it hadn't even started yet. Funny, but true.
> "I hope Obama fails" Rush Limbaugh
If someone honestly believes that a Presidents stated policies will be bad for the country, what's wrong with hoping he fails at implementing them? He's not hoping that Obama fails as a person, but as a politician.
By contrast, significant portions of the left hated Bush's guts and would have liked nothing better than to see him completely destroyed both as a politician and a person.
And please note that I neither voted for Bush nor supported the majority of his policies.
If someone honestly believes that a Presidents stated policies will be bad for the country, what's wrong with hoping he fails at implementing them? He's not hoping that Obama fails as a person, but as a politician.
By contrast, significant portions of the left hated Bush's guts and would have liked nothing better than to see him completely destroyed both as a politician and a person.
And please note that I neither voted for Bush nor supported the majority of his policies.
Ok, please, extra pretty please let's not drag politics into this thread? The story is about newspapers, I know I know, but..please?
Scott
Scott
> Ok, please, extra pretty please let's not drag politics into this thread?
Well, ignoring the fact that obvious but unstated political bias is one of the main reasons the newspapers are failing seems to be ducking the issue somewhat; but OK, I'll try to refrain.
Well, ignoring the fact that obvious but unstated political bias is one of the main reasons the newspapers are failing seems to be ducking the issue somewhat; but OK, I'll try to refrain.
montezeuma -
I've never made any effort to hide my bias. Only dishonest people pretend to have not bias.
I've never made any effort to hide my bias. Only dishonest people pretend to have not bias.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
|
|
Although I do have to admit that I do not nor do I plan on subscribing to a newspaper.