Are newspapers coming to an end?

Last month, Eric Alterman wrote an article for the New Yorker named "OUT OF PRINT: The death and life of the American newspaper.” In this article he mentioned some of the factors of why newspapers might be coming to an end. After reading this article I found some interesting points, but I also found some points that did not really convince me.

Alterman made a very good point when he said that real reporting is expensive while aggregation and opinion are cheap. I definitely agree with Alterman. As a journalism student I know all the hard work it takes to write a story. I am not trying to say that blogging is very easy to do, but the way information is gathered it is done very different.

A reporter has to come up with an idea that is important to the public or an idea that is interesting. Then she has to do a lot of research so that she can get accurate information. After she is well informed she has to contact people to conduct interviews and make sure she gets enough voices in her story to show all sides. A blogger on the other hand looks for information that is already out there, gives his/her opinion, and then lets others do the same. As a news consumer I have to admit I do enjoy reading blogs. I know that there are good blogs out there like Mark Cuban’s blog. However there are those blogs that I do not take serious at all like Pink is the new Blog.

In this article Alterman mentioned that if newspapers would not exist certain stories would disappear as well. There are many feature stories about other places and people around the world that we would not be aware of if it was not for newspapers. Technology is here to speed up life, and that is exactly what it will also do to news. We would only see top news stories on Web sites. The way Web sites are designed is for people to get quick information. People just get what they need and want to know.

I agree with Alterman that people will be so much less informed about the world. As a potential professional journalist I want to write about those unusual events in the world, and it is very scary to think that maybe I will not be able to do that with my profession. I know there are a variety of bloggers that touch on so many different topics, but it is not the same experience. As a news consumer I would believe someone who has actually been there reporting on the issue. I would not believe someone who is just talking about an issue that he/she has read from someone else's story.

I do not agree that more Americans believe in flying saucers and 9/11 conspiracy theories than believe that American news media are balanced. I think we are at a time when more than ever people are very informed. Yes, I do agree that not all America news media are reliable, but that is why there are other options. Most Americans still rely on the news whether on newspapers, on TV, or online to get informed. If no one believed in what the American news media said then no one would read or watch. People now more than ever have all kinds of ways of researching, especially with the ability of the Internet, to see if the information that they are receiving is correct.

The news does not control what people think but rather offers options to what a person wants to believe. The only difference with print media and online media is that in print media the person stays with their thoughts while online media lets the person react. Some news media might seek to influence public policies, but not all news media are the same. That is why people should get their news from different sources. Big corporations own some news media, and the reporters cannot be as objective when they have to write a story concerning that specific corporation. There are independent news media that present a different view than what it is seen by corporate news media. That is why it is very important to get different views on stories.

Alterman also mentioned that 65 percent of the American public disapproves of the Bush Administration but how there is only very little representation anywhere in the mainstream media. I do not agree with Alterman. We do see people talk about how they feel when it comes down to the Bush Administration. We see it every time there is a story dealing with the Iraq War and any of the issues surrounding it. We see the mothers and families of soldiers speaking out. We see the American people debating about how much money is being spent on the war. Especially now with elections we are hearing the American people speak out. A lot of Americans are tired of how things are being done under the Bush Administration and want change.

Alterman makes it seem as if the public has no form of expression when it comes down to news media but they do. The job of a reporter is to give the public a voice not to silence it. It might have been like that in the past but today the circumstances are different. People can speak out without fear.

I believe that newspapers are going to eventually go away, but I think it will take some time before they do. Like Alterman mentioned in the article only 19 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 35 look at a daily newspaper. The average age of someone who reads the newspaper is 55 and over. Journalists have to find a way to keep informing people the way they do in print media. I think so much can be done online with the type of reporting that a print journalist does. It can be very informative and at the same time very interactive. I think print journalists should really try to figure out how they can put information online. I know we already see the Dallas Morning News online and other news media, but the only thing they are doing is basically just copying what they have in their newspapers to their online Web sites.

Journalists are not taking advantage of all the things that could be done online. Newspapers might not survive but journalist can if they put some effort. Of course as a journalism student I know that news media consists of business. That is why we need corporations backing us up so we can eventually grow. Newspapers might not exist, but we can see the same type of reporting online and perhaps even better. There can be Web sites for those who want quick news, and there can be Web sites for those who want compelling news. The Internet offers options, and that is exactly what reporters do as well. It will just depend on what my generation of journalist students wants to do since the faith of online journalism will depend on us.

Allan Sloan

Allan Sloan is the Senior Editor-At-Large for Fortune magazine. Before that he was the Wall Street Editor at Newsweek magazine. He is a weekly contributor to Public Radio International’s Marketplace. Earlier in his career he was a senior editor for Forbes magazine. He has been writing Business Journalism for 38 years. He is a six-time winner of the Gerald Loeb Award. He also received the Distinguished Achievement Award from the Society of American Business Editors and Writers in 2001, and he has won the John Hancock Award for excellence in business and financial journalism. He is from Brooklyn. He received his master’s degree from the Columbia Journalism School in 1967, and he received his bachelor’s degree from Brooklyn College in 1966.

Sloan delivered the third William O’Neil Lecture in Business Journalism on February 26 at Southern Methodist University. Sloan talked about how he does not think journalism is dead. He thinks that journalism has a business problem instead. He talked about how people need to invest in journalism so reporters can keep on informing the public of what is going on in the world. He believes it is important to keep people informed of what they do not know. He thinks if more people start to think of journalism as a business then journalism can survive.

Sloan talked about how he believes physical newspapers are gradually going to fade away. I definitely agree with him. As Sloan said it will take a while before they do but it is going to happen. Most people my age do not read physical newspapers but instead read the news online. I myself prefer to get my news online. It is more convenient and it is free. I agree with Sloan when he says it is a money issue and not a journalism problem. Physical newspapers need for people to actually buy them so the business can keep running. Right now physical newspapers are surviving because they also have an online version. Plus there is still an older generation of people who enjoy reading physical newspapers or do not know their way around technology. However, as technology keeps advancing and as people keep learning I think more and more people will turn to the Internet for news. As we discussed in my Digital Journalism class there are advantages of online journalism. Those advantages include audience control, nonlinearity, storage and retrieval, unlimited space, immediacy, multimedia capability, and interactivity. As Sloan said journalism will be around but we do not know in what form. We will only know until we get there. I agree with him that no matter what happens the skills that journalists have of understanding and synthesizing information will be useful no matter what.

John McCain and his supposedly affair

As I was searching the Web for John McCain and his supposedly affair with the lobbyist Vicki Iseman I came across several blogs that made very interesting points about the situation.

On Spin Cycle one of its bloggers John Riley made the comment of how long will this issue last since both parties are saying that there was no affair. How far can reporters go to make this matter even bigger? Even though I am a journalist myself I know that journalists sometimes make the mistake of running a story that they might still not have completely. I think this was a story to really think about because it can affect McCain greatly during his presidential campaign. The story would had made more sense if one of the parties came out saying it was true but both are saying nothing happened. Why try to make this story bigger if no one is being hurt? Even if it is true neither one seems to have a problem with it. It would not be something new for McCain to have an affair since he already has a history of having affairs. I don’t agree that the story should be ongoing if we have both McCain and Iseman already saying that it is not true. If it is true that McCain was doing some illegal things then the story can keep running, but it seems to me more people are worried right now about if he cheated or not than if he was doing favors for the lobbyist.

On No More Incumbents Blog Brettbum mentioned that “Politicians like all Americans are still human an subject to human mistakes.” I definitely agree with Brettbum. Why does it have to be such a big deal if he had an affair or not? An affair has nothing to do with how he will run the country. He can have an affair and still run the country successfully. Like Brettbum said it even happened to Bill Clinton and he was doing fine as president. Clinton’s affair had nothing to do with the decisions he was making for the country. I think Americans take this matter to an extreme. Politicians can’t be perfect human beings. I would rather have McCain have an affair than for him to make a big mistake while running our country and it affecting us all. Emotional issues are very different from political issues. I agree with Brettbum that they attack politicians this way since that is what affects them the most when it comes down to their career. I think it is very unfair because even though in the eyes of some it is a sin to cheat it would be far worse if he had committed a crime such as murder. At least when you have an affair you can give an apology, but you can never bring a person back from the dead.

On Political Base Mark Nickolas made the statement that if this affair did actually occur then McCain’s party will start to go down. I definitely agree with this since McCain is trying to get the most conservative people on his side. Conservatives would take this very seriously, and it would make most of them change their minds over McCain. The timing of this story still hurts McCain since there is still enough time for Conservatives to chose another party. If the story would have ran in November it would had also affected McCain by getting him out of the race much faster. Either way it goes it affects him negatively. Maybe if it was ran in November things could have been cleared up faster, but even with that happening it already puts doubt in people’s minds. Conservatives will go with whoever they think is more conservative. McCain has worked and is still working so hard to get Conservatives on his side that allegations like these can mess it up for him. Nickolas also raised a very good question about whether Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are still in the race because of this story. Nickolas wonders if both candidates knew about the situation and that is why they remained in the race even though their chances of winning were low. This makes me think the same. I had already asked myself why Romney suspended his campaign and why Huckabee still kept on when he is far away from winning. It makes me think that maybe the affair is true. However, my opinion doesn’t change that affairs have nothing to do with politics.

On Stumper blogger Andrew Romano points out that this story is only important if it is true that McCain did favors for lobbyist Iseman and not if he had an affair or not. I agree with him. If McCain did have an affair there is nothing illegal about that, but if he did favors for Iseman then that is illegal. Then I would agree that this story is important and one that should be told. This would let people find out the things politics do behind close doors. There are a lot of illegal matters that never come out to public because they are always covered up by the government. I would much rather read a story about what a political figure is doing illegally than a story that explains who is cheating on who. That belongs in entertainment news and with celebrities. Reporters should stick to what really matters. I have read so many blogs over this situation, and mostly all of them touch on the affair and just mention in one or two sentences the illegal issues. The New York Times reporters do have a story here, but they just need to focus on what really is important.

On Paul Levinson’s Infinite Regress Levinson makes a great point about the sourcing the newspaper did. Levinson comments, “the public interest requires real names of real sources.” I definitely agree with him because like he mentioned in his blog a story as big as this one should have named sources and not unnamed ones. This makes the public doubt the credibility of the newspaper because there is no real proof. This makes the public believe the newspaper itself and people want to make their own judgments as Levinson explains. I agree because even when I read a newspaper I always check who is the person that is being quoted or from where is the information being obtain to see if I can really trust what they are saying. I don’t think The New York Times did right in running the story at this time. It should have waited to make sure it was really true and should have done some more research. It needs sources that can prove the allegations, and without those sources the story is not very believable. This makes all accusations very unclear.

Here are two videos that give reactions to the situation.

• McCain denies lobbyist allegations
• Glenn Beck on NYT McCain story

blog!

I was assigned to read some sections from the book blog! by David Kline and Dan Burstein for my Digital Journalism class, and I was surprised with some of the information I read.

As a journalism student I am aware of the fact that the media’s reputation has been declining and that citizens don’t trust the media as they once did. During this reading it surprised me to find out that even though this is true the media still holds the power when it comes down to news.

I thought that ratings were decreasing as time passed by, but it seems that they are still increasing by combining new technology and effectively including blogs into the system. I have heard various times in the news that blogs are taking over the media, and I thought this was actually true. After reading these sections I come to understand that blogs are not taking over but rather helping the media stay alive.

It makes sense why the media has created blogs and stresses out to the public to participate in those blogs. They want to keep the people interested in this new phenomenon but at the same time give them a say. Blogs are definitely keeping the readers informed and connected.

I agree with these authors when they say that blogs are here to make things better and not necessarily to take over. It is true that important names will still keep the power because they are still considered more reliable. Anyone can write a blog and for most people to actually believe someone they need to know who they are and what they are about. In blogs we don’t know who is actually doing the writing.

As a journalism student I plan to become a reporter one day, and this reading proves to me how I should be aware of blogs and learn how to blog effectively. It makes me see that it will be around for a while and how eventually I will have to do it myself. My Digital Journalism class is a great example of this because our professor is actually making us blog.

What really surprised me was the effect that blogs had in the 2004 presidential election. I was unaware of how blogs practically determined who was going to win the election. It surprised me the power that blogs can have, and it makes me understand why it is very important to keep them close to the media.

As long as the media keeps up with technology it should have nothing to fear especially when it comes down to blogs. Like these authors mentioned blogs can’t control people’s ideas but they can certainly make them think and question the unthinkable.

Parent Dish

Aren't illegal immigrants parents, too?
http://www.parentdish.com/


I find this blog very interesting because not only does it give helpful tips or updates you with entertainment news but also it addresses important issues. This blog adds fun but at the same time discusses important things that are happening around the world. It makes it worthy of note because it is not a crazy blog where you find things that are dumb and make no sense. This blog is more realistic in the way it covers topics that parents like myself can find both helpful, interesting, and enjoyable.


For example this blog serves to see what people have to say about the situation of a mother who was deported to El Salvador leaving behind her children with their father. Not only does this blog present injustice but also the problems America is having with immigration. Immigration is a very important issue right now, especially in the presidential elections. Some politics are still fighting for immigration while others are still against it.


This blog does a good job about finding a story that deals with parenthood but at the same time one that deals with one of the major problems illegal immigrants are facing today. Immigration has been an ongoing battle and we have seen this in the news. Illegal immigrants are still being deported no matter what their situation is and many have been the cases where mothers or fathers end up leaving their children behind.


I think it is really unfair because if they already have a family here why should they be deported. They are people who are responsible working to give a better life to their family and while they are doing that they are helping out the United States’ economy. I could see the case of an illegal immigrant being deported because he/she is a criminal and is causing problems to the United States but most of these people are just hard workers.

My First Post

This is my first post.

A second will be coming soon.