In "Saving the News," the last chapter of Jones's Losing the News, he makes a number of educated guesses about the future of the newspaper and of the news itself. Do you agree with him on any of his conclusions, or do you think he is simply engaging in wistful thinking?
He speaks of the adjustments news practitioners have made from media to media. Is the internet just one more "media" to be mastered? Or are we headed toward the loss of the "verifiable facts" we need to support a democracy?
One line stands out in Chapter 9, “One line of thinking is that newspapers made a fundamental mistake when they decided to give away their news online rather than to charge for it as they do the print product” (211). Jones has mentioned this fact in other chapters. He feels that apart of the demise began with internet news sites. If the newspapers did not provide the information to consumers, they would have got to a free site to get it such as Google News or a blog. My hometown paper in Kenosha contains a lot of fluff and not enough stuff, and so does many papers. One could not subscribe to it for lack of information as well. If Kenosha residents want to know about the sheriff or alderman for their district, they have to look elsewhere for the information. You’d have to call the office of the running official to obtain information. The state of the newspaper in my hometown, makes me weary of news found in other papers. And one does not have the time to check all source. Sad but true, even nonfiction books may not contain truth with the advent of self publishing services and the easy access to them. For a couple hundred of dollars, writers can publish a book and not have remained to one iota of the truth. Might as well go to Wikipedia in some cases. Now off of the tangent.
ReplyDeleteEven if reporters master the internet media, the iron core news of print may not survive. As Jones states, “My nightmare scenario is one of bankrupt newspapers, news by press release that is thinly disguised advocacy, scattered and ineffectual brands of former journalists and sincere amateurs whose work is left in obscurity, and a small cadre of high-priced newsletters that serve as an intelligence service for the rich and powerful” (221). This “nightmare scenario” already occurs on a daily basis. Many small time newspapers have folded as subscribers go to the internet for information. Not only newspapers, but books as well. If consumers go on Google Books or Search Inside the Book on Amazon, they can easily read a chapter or article by searching up key words. Many press releases contain advocacy journalism. The average person does not know how to dig deep to get at the truth at what occurs on the local, national, and foreign level (especially overseas news). A reporter should get a decent salary to uncover the truths and present it to the public in clear understandable language (completely unlike the New Journalists). One day, only the rich may have access to iron core news. A big brother regulation of the internet may not even prevent the inevitable collapse of traditional news. Soon democracy dissolves and rich corporations take over, and America becomes a capitalist country. Jones engages in wishful thinking.
I like that Jones ends the book hopeful. I think he does have reason to be. Americans are nothing if not creative when faced with trouble. We can see the dangers ahead and are working to figure out how to exist in spite of them. I agree with Linda, the internet itself isn't the problem. People who misuse media are the problem and that somewhere in the future, people will have to pay for news again. I believe the iron core will survive, but those who believe in its value will be the ones who have to stand up for it and potentially pay for quality news and let the rest of the masses have their entertainment news. I am excited to see what develops and confident in the American spirit of ingenuity. Our democracy was not based on who had access to a newspaper, nor has it subsisted on that alone for the past two hundred fifty years. So, with Jones, I am hopeful, but understand we all must act now.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the "verifiable fact" is lost because the medium changes. Granted, the Internet is the most unrestricted medium on the planet and -- therefore -- anyone from scholar to sociopath can post whatever he pleases. Whether or not it is fact, however, is up to a critical public to decide.
ReplyDeleteI think the medium of newspapers -- that is, newsprint -- will eventually become obsolete. But I don't think it will happen overnight; there are people who are fond of holding a paper in their hands (just as there are bibliophiles who couldn't imagine reading a novel on a Kindle). But as technology becomes more efficient, more affordable for the public, and more cost-effective on the production end the printed versions will go away.
I agree with many of the things in your posts. Above all, I think Americans will always crave the NEWS; some because they like to be "in the know" and others because they savor the bits of news that impact their daily lives.
ReplyDeleteFormats and methods of delivery will continuously change. There may be a time when all news is delivered electronically and hard copy books and dead tree newspapers will be collectors items only. In the future, all libraries may be virtual libraries and all books available on Kindle, Ipads or ?? (heaven only knows).
As with most elements of a futuristic world, projecting and predicting the details is both exciting and daunting.
The ending of the book was refreshing, I thought. ones remains hopeful. In regards to whether or not newspapers will stick around, it's hard to say. Based on the percentages over the last few years in relation to how many people are reading actual newspapers anymore, they may very well go away. If that does becomes the case, I don't think it'll be happening anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteThe way news is delivered will continue to change. If a time does come when we have to get all of our news, etc online, then so be it. People may not like the changes, but in the end, they will make them. We have to learn to adapt, just as journalism has to.
I think Jones' points about the future of the news are pretty accurate. Changes need to be made in the realm of newspapers, that much is for certain. Until editors figure out how to draw in more readers and increase subscriptions, they are going to continually flounder. Unfortunately, it is incredibly convenient and usually free to access news online, which makes it hard for newspapers to compete. I think readers in general would be perfectly okay with returning to getting their news from actual newspapers, but they have to have a good reason to do so. As of now, even well-known, reputable newspapers haven't found a way to do this yet. Newspapers are a business, and they must change things in order to maintain a profit. Not only this, but there must also be a demand on the part of consumers for them to meet. Newspaper readership is going to steadily decline until changes are made.
ReplyDeleteI think the internet is one more media to be mastered, and I also believe that there will be a loss of "verifiable facts" until all of the major kinks are worked out of internet news. It is hard to put stock into the things we read online more often than not, usually because we do not know who is writing what we are reading and what credentials they have. I feel as though internet news will undoubtedly only grow in popularity throughout the years, but I hope that newspapers can find better ways of staying afloat because I personally trust what I read in print rather than what pops up on my computer screen.
Thank you for all your comments. The one thing I want you all to remember is verifiability. There is plenty of verifiable news on the internet right now. Most of it comes from newspapers. That is, you're pretty sure what you're getting has been checked out if it is from The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. You may see a slant, but you won't see fiction. As people stop buying newspapers, however, remember that there will be no money to pay the Times or Journal staff. They are currently giving it away. Starting in January, the Times will be charging for online information. Will others follow suit? I do think eventually the newspaper will not exist in its current form; I, too, get much of my news online right now. But the problem lies in not paying professional newsgatherers. The amateurs are out there right now--and most of us don't go to them if we want to be sure of our information. That is the problem. It is nothing sentimental like having newsprint around with coffee in the morning. It isn't whether we prefer paper to screen. It isn't a generational problem. We are--most of us--electronically oriented RIGHT NOW. But we expect it to be free, and no professional I know will work for nothing. That's the problem.
ReplyDeleteEven though various indicators (reduced subscribers, advertisers, and paper size) signal that the newspaper industry is disappearing, I can’t yet concede on that point. Diminish, yes, disappear, no. So, yes, I agree with several of Jones’s conclusions and one in particular. I think the best of the best papers will survive. These are the papers Jones describes as “strong, brave, rich in quality and personality”. I believe there is a small part of the population that appreciates the importance of iron core news and will continuously support newspapers of this caliber.
ReplyDeleteA huge part of the problem, as Jones points out is that the public doesn’t “realize the news they now acquire for free will rapidly diminish in quality and value if a new way is not found to fund its production by careful practitioners”. The newspapers industry should try—as the magazine industry is currently doing—tooting their own horn about the important role they play locally and globally.
The visuals of these magazines ads I’m referring to are clever—substituting magazines covers like More, Health and Vogue for text—while touting the uniqueness of this medium—“Magazines do what the Internet doesn’t….They engage us in ways distinct from digital media”.
There needs to be a public campaign to raise the awareness of what will happen if we don’t have professional investigative journalists probing, asking the hard questions, and telling us what we may otherwise never know. Right now the focus is so fixated on cost—papers losing revenue, the public getting news free online—it has obliterated other important aspects of this issue.