|
|
Post by DanRezler on Nov 21, 2012 12:25:15 GMT -5
Print media is dying a slow and painful death. What should we do about it? This New Game isn't going to be made into its own video like the last one (more of those coming up), but if we come up with some interesting solutions I might work it in. The first question we have to answer is whether or not old media style journalism is worth saving. You already know my answer to that. After that though we have to figure out how. Newspapers have huge dedicated staffs and require a lot of revenue that online advertising simply isn't able to cover. There have been lots of things tried from online subscriptions to pay-per-article plans to out and out asking for donations. What do you think is the best solution? Saving the world and stuff!
|
|
|
|
Post by epicawesomeperson on Nov 21, 2012 12:36:25 GMT -5
I think the idea of working with the online magazine idea. have a subscription, cheaper than print but hey they dont that money for resources to print. Have it formated to take advantage of being online, with things like gif's or audio files. this seams like it will be the easiest for the companys to do, and most likely to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by DanRezler on Nov 21, 2012 12:40:12 GMT -5
I think you're right epicawesomeperson that online subscriptions are certainly going to be a part of the solution, but my question then is: How does a newspaper or newsmagazine get people to pay for their content when it is easy to get your news for free online? Also how do you stop other Web sites from just reposting your story's elsewhere so people can read them without a subscription?
|
|
|
|
Post by almostadorkable on Nov 21, 2012 12:56:17 GMT -5
I completely agree that old media journalism is worth saving, but, especially in the UK, it's definitely debatable that it consists entirely of 'responsible, credible, contemplative journalists'. I think that to still appeal to the general public there definitely has to be a change in traditional journalism - if other news sources are speedier, it needs to redefine itself as a means of the communication of events. Dan makes a good point in that their edge could be offering a contemplative, almost removed and impartial take on stories the internet has rushed into covering so fast that they're entwined in them, but at the moment some simply don't do this. I know I'm probably looking at this from a decidedly British perspective, but for old print media to remain a viable source of information it has to offer a quality that can't be matched as a whole, it has to be trusted, and sadly at the moment I don't think that's the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by blyndeye3 on Nov 21, 2012 13:08:59 GMT -5
Sorry Dan, I don't agree with you on this one. I think that if the demand for a product is so low that companies can't keep their doors open, then that is the end of the story. I understand your point and agree that their is a cost to losing newspapers (especially local ones which report on stories that national media would not pick up); however, the solution to this problem has to be increased demand for the product which would lead to increased revenue for the companies. Unfortunately, there isn't a viable option for motivating people to invest in print media, a source of information that they perceive as antiquated. I think the only thing to do would be to have a moment of silence for print media and then move on to finding a solution for filling the void left in its absence. Providing an alternate solution for obtaining consistent and reliable information about issues that affect local communities has to be considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by DanRezler on Nov 21, 2012 13:22:28 GMT -5
Almostadorkable: I can definitely see your point in regards to the British newspaper legitimacy problem. When I was there I read some pretty ridiculous stuff even in the more serious papers. It's actually the legitimacy and impartiality of papers here like the New York Times and The Washington Post that make them such a valuable asset to me, and is a big part of the reason I think they are worth keeping. You're right that if papers in the UK don't gain some legitimacy and take themselves more professionally then it is a lot harder to say they are worth saving.
Blyndeye3: I mean what you've described here is essentially correct. I don't disagree that this is the way things are going and without a major change you will be right. My argument is that Print Media Journalism serves a critical societal role without which we will have lost a major source of truth. The only way you get consistent reliable information at a local, national, and global level is by having consistent, reliable, professional, and impartial journalists doing contemplative and serious work. I'm not saying that newspapers in their literal print form have to be saved, but the kind of work that they do must be.
|
|
|
|
Post by themiragechild on Nov 21, 2012 14:45:20 GMT -5
I think news media should adopt a Spotify-like payment platform or something similar. I do think that investigative journalism under a company with the resources can be more beneficial than an independent journalist, and I think a way for news media to adapt is to create outlets for their news to be heard. Things print media need to create are subscription-based services online, with more in-depth coverage as premium content, while also focusing on other things besides print media in a more unconventional manner, such as short YouTube videos, short tweets, more ways to make this sort of news to be more accessible.
Secondly, I think the US in particular needs a BBC-like entity that is funded by the government under the assumption that this entity would deliver fair reporting. These days, print media will not cut it, because originally, print media was supposed to be the most accessible and useful way to get your news quickly. It was convenient, but it is no longer convenient with things like the smartphone and the Internet. Obviously, there has to be a transition to the Internet for print media that allows these companies to make their news in a way that allows them to grow.
|
|
|
|
Post by robisakson on Nov 21, 2012 15:28:31 GMT -5
I think you are thinking about this entirely wrong. You assume that we need a big middle man in order to get the high quality journalism from one of the high profile journalists. This is like assuming you need a book publisher in order to make a living writing books. This may have been true 10 years ago, but the internet has been cutting out the middle man for all media types (written, video, audio, software). We can access media content directly from the person who comes up with it and I think journalism should be no exception.
There are many YouTubers that make their living making youtube videos (you might even be one of them). If a high profile journalist separated him/herself from a big name paper, and started free-lancing, it is entirely possible that he/she could make a living from ads on YouTube. Heck, it is feasible that they could make more than what they make from working for a middle man.
In order to save the journalist, you do not need to "save the paper".
|
|
|
|
Post by latenightliteratus on Nov 21, 2012 15:36:09 GMT -5
I think that the problems you talked about do exist and are important, but I think that a return to print media is not the answer; I think that revival of that industry is probably impossible, but also not a good idea. Instead I think we should work to adapt online media to better fill those needs. In the same way I see limiting eBook use as the wrong solution to the problems eBooks present, I think that a return to newspapers is the wrong solution. I think we should work on adapting instead. The sensationalist swing of online media is only the acceleration of a problem we've had for a very long time; I think we should address it.
|
|
|
|
Post by garuda on Nov 21, 2012 16:14:50 GMT -5
I do not feel that papers nor journalists require saving. There really is nothing that papers can't provide on-line, including local news, in-depth coverage. I think that there is going to be a major over-haul of how the news sector is conducted. This is a problem that has been coming for quite some time. Local news is disappearing to the interest of national and global news. People are migrating more and more. People pay attention to big events rather than small ones. Money likes big events rather than small ones as their is a greater payout. This is merely just globalization, from many to mono. As an example: People turn out more for presidential election cycles than non-presidential election cycles when those that have the greatest effect in our lives are city/town representatives then county executives then state representatives, then national representatives, then the president of the country. Yet the general public (and thereby consensus) puts more weight and value into the one thing that does so very little for them.
When people move from state to state or even county to county they lack ties with a community. Such is true with the internet, it breaks down physical communities for tangential communities.
Back to the point at hand, on-line media will replace print media. What will also happen is all these 'free' journalists will either be working for the middle man again (on-line newspapers) or will no longer be around. This is just a time of warring states, where authority isn't centralized. This is just another example of a cat getting too fat to move when the fox is near.
|
|
|
|
Post by randomstuff1019 on Nov 21, 2012 18:23:24 GMT -5
Newspapers all across the nation are going out of print. The obvious cause is the lack of funding and subscriptions. As has been previously stated, there are alternatives to print, mainly television and the Internet. Now, I find there are two ways to look at this: A) people don't want to pay for that which they can get for free or B) people don't feel they have the time to dedicate to reading a whole newspaper. (Note: in the US, newspapers are fairly unbiased and objective. And if they falsify something, often have sub rates and revenue drop. Can't say for the UK.) If people are unwilling to pay for news, then regardless of what format it is in, it will die off. The fact that people wanted news that was fair and objective and not: "well I have a friend, who has a friend, that has a friend, who said that the president said, 'I like eating puppies.'" As we have gotten to a point where television replaced newspapers, and now the Internet, media has become accessible and mostly free. Thus any direct money transfer, will not work. As we become more fast paced, less time is spent reflecting on the ramifications that certain choices will ensue in politics. The more 'fun' options there are, the less likely the majority will choose the 'difficult, stressful, and helpful' path. If you go into a high school (they are the next elections voters), a majority do not care about the political scene. Even less care about the local government due to the less availability of news there is. (HS has all demographics so it is a fairly good reference point for condensed opinions) Both, also reflect that a large portion of the US doesn't care about the news. This is the problem (imho), and will not be solved in the short term. I do hope that as major newspaper company's go out of business this will change, but, alas, only time will tell. I do believe it won't happen though. Already, local newspapers are going out of business, and local news is becoming harder to find. And if a few newspapers do survive, they will not include local news. It will only become profitable when people know what they have lost. James Robert Hightower's translation of T'ao Ch'ien's "The Return" really describes this(please read T'ao's preface). The Internet has the possibility to overcome and prevail, but the cost/return ratio will not suffice to keep reporting where it is. They will be unable to send people overseas or to specific areas. Web ads will only become more inexpensive as companies realize haw ineffectual they are, through ad filters and subconscious filtering. Likely online newspapers will have to break up, due to lack of consumer payment. So we will have unregulated freelancers (can be very good or very bad), but in an unformatted and uncentralized news outlet, making it more unlikely people will search to find the news. My opinion: newspapers will fail. All news will fail if we do not support it. And due to the second amendment, we cannot have an 'Obamacare for news.' 'Separation of church' and state also means 'separation of news and state.' Our second amendment ensures freedom of both religion and press, thus they are equal.once people care about news again, then we may see a return of newspapers. Give it 20 years.  Just my 3 cents. |
|
|
|
Post by zoeatrics on Nov 21, 2012 18:26:00 GMT -5
Like I mentioned in the comments of your video, I do not think print media needs saving, and to be honest I find the response to the video very encouraging - I thought I was alone! But anyway, many traditionally print media outlets have made a successful transfer to online journalism, and several others have begun as solely online enterprises and created quite a name for the themselves.
That aside, I find the local media argument ridiculous. Local news media has been replaced by Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, big media outlets now have to cater to a world stage, not just a national one. Both of these changes has changed the way we receive and respond to news, for the better. We get better information from a stream of emails, RSS feeds or blogs that we can un/subscribe to at the click of a button, and we get more targeted information by choosing who we follow and what areas those people/groups/companies are from. I can get information about gigs happening where I am tonight on Twitter, just as I expect updates from all around the world on my news sites, not just that of one particular nation and/or region. And sometimes, yes, I do pay for that service. A year ago, the idea of paying a subscription for online media in this day and age seemed ludicrous, but now I have a couple in addition to making one off donations for blogs and sites I enjoy. Being young and poor didn't last forever.
|
|
eridan
New Member
gosh
Posts: 9 
|
Post by eridan on Nov 21, 2012 18:43:08 GMT -5
You know, this might sound a tad bit silly... but what if we lived in a world with out things that influenced what we knew how we knew what to do how to do. If we all lived in a small city, where no-one knew what was outside of us... would that be beneficial to us? Just knowing there is only one place; that place being where you are standing right now.
With out journalism, or anything other of that, there would be no bias, no fighting, no a lot of things. Yeah the horrible down side of it is that no longer are we educated with what's outside of our small little sphere of where you are standing right this moment... but do we really want to know what's outside? I mean of course we do, it's human's nature to want to explore! Though maybe we need to push ourselves to looking around for our own inner journalist!
Other than that I think a pay-per-view type news reporting wouldn't be...bad... but neither good. I'm up for paying if it's pretty dang good stuff being reported. Nothing wrong with a couple of cents or dollars a day. Though the harsh part of it is that nobody would be willing to pay. Plus it's not like we'll never be able to get rid of that old sentimental paper newspaper, people will always want it! So it's not like it'll be permanently gone!! Just those who aren't doing so well )': I'm not sure...
|
|
|
|
Post by myriadharbour on Nov 21, 2012 19:03:49 GMT -5
Dan, I would like to respectfully disagree.
You're putting all of print media into the same category. Yes, there are many reputable publications such as the New York Times, The Washington Post and even Newsweek who provide insightful, thoughtful and in-depth coverage on issues that really matter. Whether online or in print, there will always be a demand for this kind of writing. However, for every one of these newspapers/magazines, there are several more publications that are only aggregates of reprinted pieces from the aforementioned newspapers and short, comparatively shallow and localised news that is easily found online. These stories are often just elaborate press releases, and contain little to no insight on the issue.
It is also worth mentioning that you see print media through one lens (thoughtful, insightful etc.) and online journalism with another (efficient, emotional, etc.). The fact that journalism can be looked at in such black-and-white terms is alarming to me. There are many, many reputable online news sources that provide stories that are just as good as any local paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by myriadharbour on Nov 21, 2012 19:06:23 GMT -5
Blyndeye3: I mean what you've described here is essentially correct. I don't disagree that this is the way things are going and without a major change you will be right. My argument is that Print Media Journalism serves a critical societal role without which we will have lost a major source of truth. The only way you get consistent reliable information at a local, national, and global level is by having consistent, reliable, professional, and impartial journalists doing contemplative and serious work. I'm not saying that newspapers in their literal print form have to be saved, but the kind of work that they do must be. Why can't this happen online? |
|
