As many of you are probably aware, newspapers and magazines have been particularly struggling recently. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a respected newspaper founded over a hundred years ago, just shut down the other day. The Christian Science Monitor was the first nationally circulated newspaper to shut down its paper operations and move completely to the Web.
It seems as though the print medium is dying, as more and more readers move to the Internet. Not only has reporting become much more interactive and open (with such sites as Digg that involve the input of the reader), newspapers often cannot match the breadth and depth provided by the Internet. Although newspapers, content-wise, may be superior, many consider them too static, too slow, and unable to adapt to today's fast-changing times. After all, when the US Airways Flight 1549 crashed in the Hudson River, the first pictures from the event were from the site Twitter, not from any print publication.
That's not to mention that many people consider the revenue models of newspapers outdated. In the age of the Internet, when people are used to receiving content for free, many balk at paying expensive subscription fees to a newspaper.
And yet, despite their decline, I still feel that newspapers often provide higher quality reporting and more detailed coverage than the Internet does. Although blogs and pundits have proliferated around the Web, without good reporting, they all would just be bloviating with empty words. And of course, I still love the solid feel of a good newspaper or magazine, something the Internet just can't match. Many others seems to agree with me on this, and so a new campaign has started: Save the Newspapers!
But as much as I enjoy the print medium, should it be saved? Are newspapers just relics of a time long past, a time before the advent of the Internet? Or do they offer something that the Web can never match, something that should be preserved?
So, what do you think?
-Eric Wei
7 comments:
Although it has become a commonality, some people still don't have access to computers at home, specifically members of older generations who, if I can make this assumption, seem to be predominant consumers of newspapers and magazines. I'm sure that industries would take this into account. What about those who can't afford to stare at computer screens for too long? Paper-based sources work perfectly fine for them.
Loop holes in the web are easily discovered these days. People find ways to edit information (things like Wikipedia?) to match their liking. The edited information is not always true. Once something has been printed on paper at a factory (unless we happen to be living in Oceania), it's a pretty safe bet that the information is permanent...although not always verified. Wasn't Mr. Lazarow telling us a few weeks ago about a guy who worked for a certain newspaper and never verified his information? Scary.
(Sam Maliha)
I understand why some people may want or prefer print media, but isn't the internet just more convenient. Anybody with an iphone can access the internet from just about anywhere and read an article from The New York Times. Also, for the most part, getting articles of this type on the internet is free. The idea of print media being relics of the past will not last the test of time, as fewer people in each generation are accustomed to only print media.
I disagree with Sam's argument that information on the internet is less true than that found in a newspaper or magazine. Though there are sites like Wikipedia, where anyone can edit information, there are many credible sites on the internet that give credible information and verify it. Wikipedia is no different from a tabloid as far as truthfulness.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
People like things that are fast. Cars, toll booth lanes, and the way they get their information. What is faster than clicking the link for a news article you're interested it? We're too impatient to wait for the newspaper to arrive at our doorstep the next morning. By then, most people know about the current events and they're old and not interesting anymore. Why pay for and rely on something that isn't keeping up as well as other media outlets?
If the ability to verify information is what turns people away from Internet news, then I'd have to wonder if there's anything more verifiable. When you read a newspaper, sources are almost never cited and if you want to look up more information you go to your computer and "Google it". If reading the news ends on the Internet, why can't it begin on the Internet? Internet news sources often link the reader to key terms and related stories, providing the reader with a better understanding of the article. These links help to verify information, which a newspaper could never do.
I will agree that many people cannot afford or aren't tech savvy enough to use the Internet as a news source. However, it's a good thing that we still have the option of the newspaper or news television. Unfortunately, im my opinion, they may not be receiving the most accurate, verifiable, and easily understood news.
(Megan West)
Clearly, both print and internet sources have their advantages and disadvantages. For our particular generation, the internet may be more convenient as it can be accessed by certain instruments of technology. Yet oftentimes internet sources cannot match the simplicity and reliability of print sources. Obviously any sort of information, whether from a print or internet source, must be verifiable (as we first learned from Hayakawa), but I personally tend to be more cynical of internet sources, despite the helpful links they provide. Even though newspapers and magazines do not necessarily have "works cited" sections, I'm still inclined to trust their information more than I trust information from a website. Perhaps there is just something about a solid medium that quells my suspicions. In that case, I agree with Eric.
One quick question: do you think it's possible that, in the future, newspapers will become entirely obsolete (no longer be produced)? What will happen to newspapers if the older generations pass away and only our generation (of which newspaper-readers seem to be a minority) remains? Are we perhaps already seeing them become obsolete with the countless transitions over to online papers? Just curious.
(Janet Lee)
If newspaper companies want to keep business and keep profit, why don't they start selling subscriptions to their sites? I realize that newspapers on the internet, like NY Times, have certain articles that can only be accessed with a subscription, but if newspapers are concerned about losing money, why don't they require an access code for every article?
Emily T.
P.S. Just for the record, I personally prefer hard copies of newspapers and magazines...
I, too, am a fan of hard, paper copies. Maybe they seem more reliable because they have been around longer, because they seem to hold some kind of credibility. "Oh well, if it's printed, it must be true!" Doesn't this somewhat correlate with GASCAP's "authority" category? Doesn't a handout from a teacher seem to be more reliable than a website about that handout? I don't know, but there's definitely some deep-rooted bias in this argument. It's something about the physicality and reputation of the paper, but I can't quite place my finger on it.
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin read books. They have been acclaimed as geniuses of our day. Could information like this draw any kind of connection? It might be a stretch, but it's worth consideration.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment