| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Newspapers aren't essential for democracy
Allen Murabayashi, Photographer
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
 |
Kokomo | IN | | Posted: 3:49 PM on 03.28.09 |
| ->> Tabloids. Facebook. Myspace. Twitter. Blogs. Celebrity News. Television News. I'm beginning to wonder.... is it possible for civilization to jump the shark, so to speak? That's probably a little strong I guess. The idea's been suggested before in previous decades and centuries so it's not the case probably. I just find so many interests considered popular really bland after the initial novelty wears off. We already had the dark ages for 600 years. Maybe we need a new name for this period? |
|
Dave Einsel, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Houston | TX | United States | Posted: 6:37 PM on 03.28.09 |
| ->> "News Papers" are not. Solid, balanced, smart, insightful, accessible journalism is. As newspapers shut down or go online only and reduce their staffs by 85%, the big question is, "Who will be asking the questions?" Sure there is a large and growing community of information aggregators on line but the challenge will come when no one is paid to report and officials refuse to talk to every Dick and Jane that have a blog. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 6:54 PM on 03.28.09 |
| ->> At least we've got Jon Stewart looking out for us lol |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 8:22 PM on 03.28.09 |
->> Jeff...that makes me shudder, because there are so many people who think that the Daily Show really is a news program. Many claim that they "know" that it's a farce, but they still see it as this amazing source for hard hitting news. Not a good sign.
As for the original topic...well, newsPAPERS may not be essential. NEWS is. I hate to say it, but is the medium anywhere near as important as the content? It's only a matter of time before it's less expensive to read your daily "paper" on an e-reader, or watch TV news on your phone/pocket computer while you're on the subway, in the bathroom...anywhere you like. The important part here is that this information is coming from a reliable source. Just because it's online doesn't mean it's less reliable, as long as it's coming from someone with an established record of reliable and responsible journalism.
What's truly critical is that established newspapers don't give up the fight, but rather, adapt to the changing distribution methods. Newspapers are, after all, a brand. If printed newspapers die, that doesn't mean that the Wall Street Journal, for example, should close their operations. It just means that they need to present and distribute their news in whatever medium is currently dominating the market. |
|
John Bowersmith, Photographer
|
Lubbock | Tx | USA | Posted: 8:29 PM on 03.28.09 |
->> "If the Washington Post didn't endorse a presidential nominee or the New York Times failed to assemble exhaustive biographies of the candidates, I'm sure the voters would find their way to most of the relevant information."
No they won't. Studies have proven that. They will just watch TV, and the point Jack Shafer missed about the Princeton University study was what they called the "News Ecosystem." Many of us in the print world see that television gets much of its hard news from the pages of the newspaper. And to TVs credit, many newspapers get spot news tips by having a tv on in the newsroom. It is this destruction of a vital part of that ecosystem which will cause the whole environment around it to collapse.
Shafer is right that newspapers in Jefferson's day were much different than they are now. Were they better? Who knows, I personally don't believe so. Presses were much cheaper in those days, and much less complicated. As blogs continue to increase in number "news" is slipping back to how it was in Jefferson's day. If you can afford a computer and an internet connection you get to say whatever the hell you want. Heck, you don't really need those things either. If you can get to the library for an hour you still have access.
Should the guy who sleeps outside the library across from my newspaper's office be allowed to say whatever he wants? You're dammed right he should. Should what he says be considered careful, accurate and professional reporting one can use to base a political decision on? Hell no, the guy got naked and walked into our newsroom for Heaven's sake. I've already seen his penis, I'm not interested in his ideals. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
|
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 8:57 PM on 03.28.09 |
| ->> I'm getting my news for the Cartoon Network. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:52 PM on 03.28.09 |
->> This is a little off topic so please forgive me but still regarding newspapers and democracy. A part of John's post reminded me of an issue that I wanted to touch on and thats the issue of how can a news publication endorse a presidential candidate ? I know of course that most of them do it, but how can you present fair and balanced information but still say one person is "better" than the other ?
How can a newspaper serve as an unbiased voice thats purpose is simply presenting information for voters to make up their own minds when at the same time taking sides ? |
|
Bryan Littel, Photographer
|
Oaklyn | NJ | USA | Posted: 10:49 AM on 03.29.09 |
->> Jeff - that's Newspapers 101. Presidential endorsements (and any other candidate endorsements) are the domain of the editorial board, the separate, opinion arm of the newspaper staff.
Whether political endorsements on the editorial page are ultimately worth anything is a good question, but they're no different from any other opinion presented in an editorial, an op-ed, a column, a restaurant review or a letter to the editor. They just happen to be - in the case of Presidential endorsements - an opinion on the highest-profile, most polarizing subject; inevitably, that opinion will lead to controversy, criticism and debate - as it should.
Oh, and enough with "fair and balanced." Journalism has an obligation to the truth, and that's the bottom line. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 11:22 AM on 03.29.09 |
->> People need long-form, professional journalism. But it's one of those things that is hard for most people to ask for if it goes away.
For example, if the NYT just stops publishing - goes away completely - there will be people for a couple of months who will miss it from a sentimental perspective...they've always subscribed to the Times, liked their photography, etc. But after that...after it's obvious that it's gone and isn't coming back, will people really know that there's a void? There will still be tons of news from other sources. The average person will not consciously perceive a void.
If the NYT goes away, there will be stories that remain untold because the people at the Times won't be there to do them. But how will the public know about stories that remain untold?
If they don't know about the untold stories, how can they ask for long form journalism to return? How will someone KNOW that they aren't getting enough depth? How will they KNOW that research isn't being done? Who will tell them?
Many in our industry assume that this type of journalism will simply find another outlet - online perhaps. I'm not so sure. |
|
Grant Blankenship, Photographer
|
Macon | GA | USA | Posted: 8:29 AM on 03.30.09 |
->> Forget the NYT as an example for a second and think of smaller papers.
The last edition of the PBS program NOW dealt with the investigative work done by the East Valley Tribune, a daily, but by no means the Big Daily, in Maricopa County, AZ. The paper got down and dirty with with reams of records concerning the county sheriff and his increasing focus on immigration issues, and how that focus has affected the rest of law enforcement in that community. Long story short, the paperwork showed that chasing illegals meant that in some cases things like rapes and armed robberies were going uninvestigated.
That's important.
Smaller paper, important story for that community, and definitely not the kind of thing that a blogger or drive by recreational journalist could have accomplished.
Lots of internet thinkers seem to enjoy dancing on the grave of "institutions". See Clay Shirky. However, the work done by the East Valley Tribune on the Joe Arpaio story is a really good example of something that can really only be done by an institution.
Newspapers may not be important, but organized journalism undeniably is. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | Lower 48 | Posted: 10:33 AM on 03.30.09 |
->> Speaking of the Times, interesting article on their site yesterday ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/business/media/30paper.html?src=linkedin
Not really any great solutions or the like, but still an interesting read.
And I have to agree with Grant for a second. Seems like every time we talk about "the end," someone inevitably brings up the NYT, or the Post, or USAT, etc. Those are all great, (inter)national newspapers, and I'd lament their loss with the rest of them, but really, they don't do much for my community.
I mean, we get ink if propane tanks explode in downtown or bone-headed cops pull over grieving NFL players, but by and large, the big national dailies don't cover our local news. It's the DMN that busts DISD's chops when it fails the community; or doggedly questions city management over decisions like the Trinity Tollway and Convention Center hotel; or, wonderfully profiles a local military member who is the latest casualty in the meandering War on Terror.
People don't get those stories from the Times. They get them from us. And sadly, I worry that it's going to take some sort of great failing of local, organized news coverage -- as Grant calls it -- before other people besides working and former journalists really freak out.
Yes, you can get your news from Jon Stewart or Glenn Beck, from AM talk radio or Internet blogs. But more often than not, those folks are getting their source material from a newspaper article. It will be interesting (scary, better said) to see what happens next if the latter fades into obscurity.
I really, really hate to think it's going to take the loss of solid community reporting before people realize how important organized journalism institutions are to a functioning society. But these days, I'm not given much hope otherwise.
Cheers,
- gerry - |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | Lower 48 | Posted: 10:34 AM on 03.30.09 |
->> PS -- John B ... "I've already seen his penis, I'm not interested in his ideals."
Best. Quote. Ever.
- g - |
|
Grant Blankenship, Photographer
|
Macon | GA | USA | Posted: 8:37 AM on 03.31.09 |
| ->> Allen, you posted the link, what is your opinion? |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|