Post by Timothy on Apr 21, 2009 8:45:34 GMT -5
The following is from a forum I used to post on:
Here was my reply;
I feel that "Yellow journalism" of the late 19th century is an excellent historical counterpoint to any person working for a newspaper who uses the argument of "journalistic integrity" in the 21st century. The sensationalism that filled page after page of Victorian newspapers continues today with the sort of tabloid journalism that unfortunately reins supreme. Anyone else here remember the "African Killer-Bee" scare or the "Avian Flu" within the last ten years that was hyped and disapeared as quietly as possible in supposedly respectable papers?
Compounding this problem is the idea of media consolidation and corporate suppression of unwanted ideas. Case in point would be MSNBC's suppression of then-presidential candidate Dennis Kuccinich during the 2008 United States presidential elections due to anti-war Democratic positions. While I did not personally support Mr. Kuccinich, I did, however, find it interesting that MSNBC is owned by General Electric (GE), which is one of the top three military contractors in the world; since Kuccinich's supposedly free views did not mesh well with GE's war profiteering, they simply excluded him from any conversations.
I do not believe that the advent of the Internet killed printed newspapers, but I do feel that the lack of a sound economic plan for online publishing did. By charging nothing for online versions of the same printed content, people have grown accustomed to getting information for free rather than spending money on said information. If papers had a system of, say, paying anywhere from a penny to a nickle per article online, that would generate at least some reasonable form of revenue.
I personally distrust blogs, as I feel that they are a relatively new(s) fad; that, and as the news can come from anyone, the "facts" at times can come from anywhere. Newspapers, however, are valuable for those who wish to read them at a leisurely pace (my great-grandmother, for example), for those who wish for more tactility and are powerful for disseminating information in revolutionary times. However, as much as I admire the symbolism of rebellion which newspapers can espouse, I do not feel that the seemingly endless "corporate welfare" we have seen in recent months should be extended to newspapers. As was the case with the banking system, the idea of "bailing out" newspapers is equivalent to the following statement;
"Let's reward your incapability of completing tasks which you are supposedly skilled and trained to accomplish with hard-earned tax payer income."
What do you think about the recent closings of newspaper publishers across the country? Should bailout money be used to prop them up, or should they disappear?
Jon_B wrote:
The question is, does this matter? According to many in the media, it does. News presented on the internet doesn't match newsprint in terms of depth or journalistic integrity, they claim. And individual bloggers don't have the backing to withstand the lawsuits that are a result of questioning the powerful. Of course, most of the people making this argument happen to work for newspapers themselves.
And quite frankly, I don't really think that newspapers as a whole have the "journalistic integrity" that they are claiming. There is nothing particular to the medium of ink on paper that causes more integrity than TV or the internet.
Personally, while I appreciate the aesthetics of a newspaper and have a sort of sentimental fondness for some of them, I don't see how - as a medium - they are of any greater value than any other medium in which news is presented.
How do you feel about it? How do you get your news today? Can you conceive of a world were newspapers are not your primary source of news or, even around at all? Should the public make some kind of effort to save newspapers, or are they simply an obsolete medium?
The question is, does this matter? According to many in the media, it does. News presented on the internet doesn't match newsprint in terms of depth or journalistic integrity, they claim. And individual bloggers don't have the backing to withstand the lawsuits that are a result of questioning the powerful. Of course, most of the people making this argument happen to work for newspapers themselves.
And quite frankly, I don't really think that newspapers as a whole have the "journalistic integrity" that they are claiming. There is nothing particular to the medium of ink on paper that causes more integrity than TV or the internet.
Personally, while I appreciate the aesthetics of a newspaper and have a sort of sentimental fondness for some of them, I don't see how - as a medium - they are of any greater value than any other medium in which news is presented.
How do you feel about it? How do you get your news today? Can you conceive of a world were newspapers are not your primary source of news or, even around at all? Should the public make some kind of effort to save newspapers, or are they simply an obsolete medium?
Here was my reply;
I feel that "Yellow journalism" of the late 19th century is an excellent historical counterpoint to any person working for a newspaper who uses the argument of "journalistic integrity" in the 21st century. The sensationalism that filled page after page of Victorian newspapers continues today with the sort of tabloid journalism that unfortunately reins supreme. Anyone else here remember the "African Killer-Bee" scare or the "Avian Flu" within the last ten years that was hyped and disapeared as quietly as possible in supposedly respectable papers?
Compounding this problem is the idea of media consolidation and corporate suppression of unwanted ideas. Case in point would be MSNBC's suppression of then-presidential candidate Dennis Kuccinich during the 2008 United States presidential elections due to anti-war Democratic positions. While I did not personally support Mr. Kuccinich, I did, however, find it interesting that MSNBC is owned by General Electric (GE), which is one of the top three military contractors in the world; since Kuccinich's supposedly free views did not mesh well with GE's war profiteering, they simply excluded him from any conversations.
I do not believe that the advent of the Internet killed printed newspapers, but I do feel that the lack of a sound economic plan for online publishing did. By charging nothing for online versions of the same printed content, people have grown accustomed to getting information for free rather than spending money on said information. If papers had a system of, say, paying anywhere from a penny to a nickle per article online, that would generate at least some reasonable form of revenue.
I personally distrust blogs, as I feel that they are a relatively new(s) fad; that, and as the news can come from anyone, the "facts" at times can come from anywhere. Newspapers, however, are valuable for those who wish to read them at a leisurely pace (my great-grandmother, for example), for those who wish for more tactility and are powerful for disseminating information in revolutionary times. However, as much as I admire the symbolism of rebellion which newspapers can espouse, I do not feel that the seemingly endless "corporate welfare" we have seen in recent months should be extended to newspapers. As was the case with the banking system, the idea of "bailing out" newspapers is equivalent to the following statement;
"Let's reward your incapability of completing tasks which you are supposedly skilled and trained to accomplish with hard-earned tax payer income."
What do you think about the recent closings of newspaper publishers across the country? Should bailout money be used to prop them up, or should they disappear?
