|
Post by themiragechild on Nov 21, 2012 20:58:30 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? Explain to me how a small blogger can get the funds and the resources to go to places, like, say, the Gaza Strip? Or a place that has limited connection with the outside world?
|
|
|
Post by DanRezler on Nov 21, 2012 21:24:58 GMT -5
MASSIVE RESPONSE WALLL!!!!! FIND YOUR NAME!!!!
TheMirageChild - (You're my favorite...I mean what?) I essentially agree with everything you said. I think we're already seeing print media companies making some money with premium content subscriptions and that will certainly be part of the formula, but the way things are there just aren't enough people willing to pay for what they can get for free even when the content is better as with The New York Times Web site. Somehow they are going to have to raise more funds and that might come from donations, public endowments, or some other means. I also completely and totally agree the US government needs a greater public news sector. We already have entities like NPR and PBS but I'd like to see a much greater presence for public news that doesn't have to worry about the profit motive.
Robisakson - I think the essential difference here between industries like music where the middle man can be cut out is that journalism is not a solo effort (neither by the way is book writing, but I'll leave that argument to John Green. He makes it eloquently). In order to create effective journalism it requires teams of people collaborating, fact checking, and comparing information in order to gain a clear picture of the overall truth. Otherwise you only get the information that was presented or experienced by a single reporter. Moreover when you access news from an individual not associated with a news entity they are inevitably more biased and one-sided. Journalists in media companies are bound to the reputations of their company. Someone working for the New York Times has a huge responsibility to uphold the credibility of the Times and the structure of the institution prevents blatant bias or misinformation from getting through a system of journalistic checks. The problem with your YouTube proposal is that in order to be popular myself and other YouTubers are forced to be not only informative but also entertaining otherwise nobody watches. The news shouldn't be about entertainment. Social media like YouTube and Twitter can support a certain type of journo-tainment like Vice.com and don't get me wrong Vice is consistently interesting, but what it very much isn't: is the news.
Latenightliteratus - Oh no I totally agree. Eventually the print section of newspapers and news magazines will inevitably stop. My problem is that the content they make needs to be saved and the current trends with moving to online advertising aren't making enough money for professional print media to be sustainable. No I agree that the printers will have to stop, but my issue is that the journalists must keep reporting in much the same way they do now.
Garuda - No I agree that eventually newspapers will have to move online. It's basically inevitable. My concern is that as it stands when newspapers make the shift to online there is no way currently that they can make enough money through online advertising to keep going in the way that they need to. That's the problem. The money.
RandomStuff1019 - I don't have a lot to say to that as I more or less agree, but one little deviation I will put in is that the first amendment doesn't in any way prohibit the government from funding public news outlets. In fact we have a few. PBS and NPR are both publicly funded. I'm beginning to think a large portion of the solution here is going to have to be public subsidies for news outlets to keep them solvent.
Zoeatrics - What major media company has successfully switched to online without massive layoffs? I quite simply haven't seen it. The problem with getting news from decentralized sources like blogs and twitter is that there is no accountability. None of these sources have any duty to the truth and no one to answer to for misreporting. It is the responsibility of newspapers and news magazines that makes them valuable to society.
Eridan - I would argue the exact opposite. It is that very lack of information about the outside world outside our small community that causes the kind of bigotry and hatred of "the outsider." International journalism is one of the great uniting forces of the world. It let's us know there are people and places that think quite differently from ourselves and that that is okay and their opinions are equally valid and important. Journalism is in itself an exercise in empathy. I do think you're more or less right that pay per article plans are not likely to succeed.
MyriadHarbour - I would like to respectfully disagree that you disagree. I think we actually agree with each other. I didn't mean to imply that every single print media company is worthy of sticking around. Of course there are bad papers that don't provide any original content and those will pass in time. I would argue moreover though that this type of aggregation without original content is much more common and alarmingly successful online. Aggregate Web sites seep huge amounts of profit from the real content producers. I also didn't mean to imply that all online only news sources are bad. There are plenty that do a good job, I was speaking in general trends not absolute dogmas. My point stands though that nearly all online only news avenues are extraordinarily limited in the amount and scope of original investigative reporting they can do, and that's the problem. Without greater funds news outlets are crippled. The problem very simply is money money money. There just isn't the money online
Thanks so much to everyone who responded. I appreciated your thoughtful (and hugely divisive) responses. I hope my replies make sense to you. If not I can clarify and you can hopefully refute or expand. Very interesting thoughts all around.
|
|
|
Post by randomstuff1019 on Nov 22, 2012 0:22:59 GMT -5
@danrezler Thanks for the catch. Didn't bother to look up the amendments. Guns may mean freedom of speech in a way, but that was NOT what I meant. Anyways. I absentmindedly forgot about PBS and NPR. Seems I went down the rabbit hole there.
As to subsidies, I don't feel it should be the way to go. To burden an already bankrupt government to pay for news is bad. Not to mention that for it, taxes would have to be raised, in one form or another. Because many now are unwilling to pay for news now, I doubt that they will be willing to pay for something they don't think that they want. The banking bail out was strongly objected to, even though everyone know it was for jobs and stability. How much more will it be likely they object to a tax to fund something they don't DEEPLY care about.
|
|
|
Post by zoeatrics on Nov 22, 2012 18:35:06 GMT -5
Zoeatrics - What major media company has successfully switched to online without massive layoffs? I quite simply haven't seen it. The problem with getting news from decentralized sources like blogs and twitter is that there is no accountability. None of these sources have any duty to the truth and no one to answer to for misreporting. It is the responsibility of newspapers and news magazines that makes them valuable to society. I never said there weren't layoffs, but quite frankly, that is a part of businesses modernising. What old sector /hasn't/ had major layoffs in recent years? Thinking as we did 50 to a 100 years ago doesn't help any one, and giving people concessions to protect traditional forms of doing business is what has caused so many of the world's debt problems. Yes, we need to save/create jobs in the short term, but in the long term we need to be looking to create sustainable jobs in profitable sectors. Personally, while I see why you like print media, I don't see how the things you love about print aren't present online. Several major media outlets now have online only blogs, such as The Atlantic, my favourite source of editorial news. Several outlets have also recently rose to prominence with a base in online journalism, such as the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera and the Gawker Media group, paving the way for just as good, if not better in depth journalism online. I think it is cruel to tar all online media with the same brush as social justice tumblrs and celebrity twitter accounts - not everything online is decentralised and nameless, and frankly, I don't think many people would use news sites that were. Furthermore, I disagree with your assertion that there is no accountability online. The comments section of your videos and this forum alone show that we are holding you responsible and accountable for the things you say, and we are talking back to you. This immediate call and response is something unique to the internet, and I think actually improves the responsiveness and workable accountability of journalists. In the olden days, we were the ones holding traditional media accountable any way. But where do we now make our voices heard to enforce that accountability? Online. Explain to me how a small blogger can get the funds and the resources to go to places, like, say, the Gaza Strip? Or a place that has limited connection with the outside world? Not all online media is a small blogger. Online media is a business just like any other. The Huffington Post has many local versions, versions in Canada and the UK, and I'm pretty sure it now has French and Spanish versions as well, and they have reporters across the globe. Further, this can be worked to an advantage - I would read the blog of someone living in the Gaza Strip, just as so many read the blogs of soldiers in the Middle East. Everything aside, I'm just glad I no longer have to plough through local interest sections, gossip pages, stock prices and wedding announcements for the sake of news. Vive la specialisation!
|
|
eridan
New Member
gosh
Posts: 9
|
Post by eridan on Nov 22, 2012 19:16:49 GMT -5
Eridan - I would argue the exact opposite. It is that very lack of information about the outside world outside our small community that causes the kind of bigotry and hatred of "the outsider." International journalism is one of the great uniting forces of the world. It let's us know there are people and places that think quite differently from ourselves and that that is okay and their opinions are equally valid and important. Journalism is in itself an exercise in empathy. I do think you're more or less right that pay per article plans are not likely to succeed. Mmm I can see where you do think that actually! Though sometimes there's people who interpret things wrong even that's out of their comfort zone (e.g. that outside world) so unity is difficult. Journalism is kind of weird in that sense that nobody is willing to cooperate with what is needed to be said and what is needed to be read. I guess in a way people are becoming less empathetic and journalism, broadcasting, any form of news stuff is... dying... People just don't care what's out there anymore and would rather be self closed than be afraid of what might happen the next day. Or hell I sort of forgot what point I was getting at I'm sorry!!
|
|
|
Post by themiragechild on Nov 22, 2012 22:49:08 GMT -5
Not all online media is a small blogger. Online media is a business just like any other. The Huffington Post has many local versions, versions in Canada and the UK, and I'm pretty sure it now has French and Spanish versions as well, and they have reporters across the globe. Further, this can be worked to an advantage - I would read the blog of someone living in the Gaza Strip, just as so many read the blogs of soldiers in the Middle East. Everything aside, I'm just glad I no longer have to plough through local interest sections, gossip pages, stock prices and wedding announcements for the sake of news. Vive la specialisation! Like what has noted previously, they are still losing money and they aren't allowed to expand their prospects because of this. Once again, the current ways of funding for these newspapers are off print media, not the online content. What I've been saying is that, yes, print media will go away, but we still need companies to still have the money to utilize the connections they have. Dan's point is that things like the Huffington Post will not have enough prominence after the loss of print media to achieve the profit that makes their companies grow. Just because they exist now, that doesn't mean that once print media goes extinct, they will be here later. They wouldn't have the funding, and because we expect our news to be free, they will go extinct once print media goes out of use.
|
|
|
Post by zoeatrics on Nov 26, 2012 19:02:01 GMT -5
Like what has noted previously, they are still losing money and they aren't allowed to expand their prospects because of this. Once again, the current ways of funding for these newspapers are off print media, not the online content. What I've been saying is that, yes, print media will go away, but we still need companies to still have the money to utilize the connections they have. Dan's point is that things like the Huffington Post will not have enough prominence after the loss of print media to achieve the profit that makes their companies grow. Just because they exist now, that doesn't mean that once print media goes extinct, they will be here later. They wouldn't have the funding, and because we expect our news to be free, they will go extinct once print media goes out of use. Then isn't this about saving the media in general, not just print media? I don't want journalism to go extinct - very, very far from it. I just don't see why print media is seen as the only way. If online media dies as well, with no replacement, then I would fight to save it. It is only that, as the situation stands at the moment, I do not see detriment in switching format. You, however, seem to see this as switching off, which I understand is distressing, but I just don't see it happening. Companies would not have switched online if they couldn't make a profit out of it, and if they are /not/ making money, then I would not hesitate to admit defeat if I saw proof of this - I just haven't. Thus, I don't believe that the death of print is the death of media. I think it's better media. Again, I reiterate, NO PAGE 6!!!
|
|
|
Post by randomstuff1019 on Nov 28, 2012 19:58:10 GMT -5
@mainly zoeatrics I disagree with you on one point. That online journalism is currently a sustainable alternative to print. So, I made a scenario prediction. I like scenarios But this is just an outline, so..... I'm positive you can see some flaws, but feel free to; I may be able to fix it! Thus follows my reasoning: The simplest reason as to why reporting will deteriorate is just simple economics. As it is, a page gets about .007ยข per ad displayed (ie: the random loading of 1 ad on any webpage).{*1} Now, say we had a reporter getting 1 article written a day at minimum wage. Assume standard wages/times WITHOUT additional fees such as travel, or hazard pay. The reporter's daily wages would be ~$70. Thus, to compensate for JUST the wages, a total of 10,000 ads have to be displayed on his article a day. 5 ads a page, and you need 2000 views per page per day for the reporters costs. And now let's calculate the costs for server space and maintenance, promotion and advertising, administration pay, airfare, healthcare, PR management, page operators and moderators, ect. So there is likely the equivalent of about ten people involved a day for just one article (or we assume some are getting payed more than a salary that even a pre-teen would be upset with, let alone a person with 20+ years experience and a bachelors degree). So now we are at ~15,000 views a page a day( I lowered it for the amount of ads seen on main pages or sub-pages). Then, many newspaper customers don't look at all the articles a day(some skip sports or obituaries or health/wellbeing or politics ect) so they likely will only have seen 1/4 th. 60,000. Then perhaps only 25% of the US are actively interested in the news. So you need to be serving about a quarter million Americans to survive,as is, fully on advertising. Likely more. As you could likely tell, this is me being generous. So, according to my stipulation, reporting would go down. By a lot. Of course, as it is now, they get a good portion of their income from subscriptions. But as I mentioned before, I believe the trend of subs dropping will continue. Therefore I find subscriptions to be....unsustainable in the current environment. It's 19th century thinking. Nor do I agree that news should be coddled by the government who needs coddling itself >.< but that's a different topic. I digress. Also, the more ads you have, the less traffic you get. If you limit the ads, you limit the cash flow, BUT offset it with large amounts of traffic. Google vs AskJeeves. Or just look at Facebook. Three ads a page/min. Both have massive profits, but even more massive web-traffic. However, news does not behave quite like Facebook or Google due to its more structured form. To put all that in perspective, there are only ~120 urban zones in the US that would conceivably support the structure I laid out on a semi-local scale. And even then, due to local political/social/economic environments, many would not be suitable. And those that could make it, would have slim profit margins. Furthermore, due to me being HIGHLY lenient of costs, I would think only 4 or five companies could make the change without a total collapse and restructurization(sp >.< ik, hlp plz!) This is what the dilemma that we are facing, and is what Dan was trying to get at. As it is, a newscorp would have to flounder in the financial reserves of bygone eras, only to sink from the relentless swelling sea of change. And through the omnipresent rush of the modernized world, news' cries for help will dwindle into the inky blackness of textbook screens; heard as distinct echos only after their needfulness is seen, through tears of shame and regret. Who am I kidding? I'm no poet Eh. But we all know life can really be a . As in, y hormonal girl on her period, that daily transforms into a dog just to procreate and give birth to more dogs in an effort just to spite and piss people off, kind of . Ya...... Life: she's a real piece of work when she wants to be } Now, I do agree that decentralized news in the Internet has about the same amount of accountability as a newscorp. Although the scandal is smaller and less noticed, it effects a larger portion of its base, thus creating a news-quality-equality. But it also will never be noticed unless it is funneled through a parent company. Along those same lines, I also agree that online has the ability for more thoughtful, deep, and explained journalism. It releases the writer from time constraints, size constraints, and even helps transfer of ideas (a story can be un-released if the publishers don't want it, whereas online the publisher and writer can be one and the same). However, this /can/ backfire due to the faster uploading time and less people to approve/disprove it. But overall, I tend to agree with you here. RECAP Everyone here seems to agree that print journalism is dying and will be replaced by online journalism. And in its core, I would say the only MAIN disagreement (there are a few stemming from it) is whether online and print are interconnected; if one goes down, how hard will it impact the other? My opinion here is that they are interconnected in a highly symbiotic fashion. Therefore we should A)support newspapers or B) help online journalism have similar profit margins to that of newspapers, but without newspapers; desymbiosis of journalism with proper care given to its eco(nomic)system. And in a massive loop, we are brought back to the simple question. What is to be done to ensure that reliable, unbiased news can be effectively gotten to the average American? Well.....at the very least, the same amount as now? {*1} go to the bottom of the page and look at "Make this page Ad-Free". It constitutes 100,000 ads seen as $7.
|
|
|
Post by sabryth on Jan 31, 2013 18:11:23 GMT -5
I adore print books and don't think those ever should or will go extinct. However, I'm more flexible when it comes to newspapers. Like Dan said, the real issue here is having a good news source written by reliable professionals that is accessible to the masses. I think the very simple solution is the online news sites that are already becoming popular. A website can have just as much credibility as a newspaper because they can be run like businesses and staffed with professional and reliable individuals. My mother is in fact an online journalist writing articles for publications (both print and online) in the OpenSource industry. She is a strong advocate of print, but she is also an example of the effectiveness of professional news sources on the internet. I believe the difficulty comes in making it clear to our very gullible population which websites are reputable and which aren't, but that kind of information is spread the same way it is with print newspapers: through word of mouth and review articles. The websites would have no more difficulty than a print publication would in keeping things factual. In this way, I think hard hitting and reliable journalism can and will remain in practice, even if print newspapers become obsolete. In addition, visual news is well and thriving.
|
|