Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Newspaper Extinction Equals The Death of Democracy? I Beg to Differ…



Looking back at one of the first American newspapers, The New England Courant, it is clear that Americans never intended for our news to be simply conventional but rather on the cutting edge. James Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s older brother, and his fellow writers took a more daring approach by filling their paper with satirical letters and essays rather than drab formalities and governors addresses. Looking back, the stories they wrote may not have been quite “newsworthy” but the message remains – news is constantly changing, in style or medium, in order to keep up with the times and demands of the readers.

In the article Out of Print published in The New Yorker, Eric Alterman explores the birth and death of print journalism. He attributes that, “among the most significant aspects of the transition from “dead tree” newspapers to a world of digital information lies in the nature of “news” itself.” Democracy has been heightened with the public valuing more history and less mystery by demanding less “gospel like” news from single sources. People now want up to date, able to discuss information.

Alterman further goes on to discuss The Huffington Post and its incredible impact on the Internet era of news. Jonah Peretti, co founder of the page explains to him that the site has grown from the ideology that news is not something handed down from above but “a shared enterprise between its producer and its consumer.” Peretti goes on to explain that while the site does have its flaws, (little original content, no sports/books pages, entertainment section consisting of mostly trashy gossip) they have a unique editing system. They have created a very reliable and professional front page of the site while the rest inside the site is usually not reviewed by an editor and is user-generated content.

Bloggers Taylor Owen and David Eaves gave their 2 cents on the internet, newspaper decline and democracy in their piece Missing The Link: Why Old Media Still Doesn’t Get The Internet. It gives insight on the necessity that blogging and print journalism are mutually beneficial and that this fact must be accepted. They provide a hopeful tone that print journalism can still succeed in the Internet era and that those who think democracy will suffer because of the changes are simply ignorant. They state that “the divide between “new” media of blogs and “old” media of newspapers is largely mythical and increasingly being bridged”. Though the future is uncertain, these bloggers offer a sense of hope for those who truly "get" blogging and a sense of relief for those who are wise enough to learn from other sources than their hard copy newspapers.

It has been made clear that while print journalism seems to be on it's way out and new era Internet news sources and blogs are on their way to the top, we need to find a balance. Democracy is here to stay, but where will it be displayed? That is up to us to answer now.

Friday, May 8, 2009

Blog Rewrite



Saying sorry is only for journalists
Internet authors don't apologize for fabricated facts

By Rachel Dubinski

When I first watched the movie Shattered Glass, the Hollywood-ized version of Stephen Glass’ time writing for the New Republic, I was admittedly not watching it for the topic of journalism. But when I finished, it opened a realization for me: someone can slip past the editing process and fabricate stories.

Some of his fake stories for the New Republic included:

• May 18, 1998 - "Washington Scene: Hack Heaven"
• November 3, 1997 - "No Free Launch"
• March 31, 1997 - "Spring Breakdown"
• December 30, 1996 - "Hazardous to Your Mental Health"

I didn’t think it was possible for major newspapers and magazines to print false information, none-the-less entire fictional pieces, even without knowledge of the corrupt writer. But print sources hold the power of being the only source for that story.

Even if Stephen Glass messed it up, the editor saved the day for the New Republic with a solid editor’s note of “I’m sorry.” published in the New Republic. Readers could flip back to the issues and see how Glass’ false stories of pre-teen hackers and mini-bars were false; it was a physical story to hold. But how can you capture a false story on the internet?

Webpages flip past like English classes for school kids. They’re just not memorable, and easy to lose track of. If a blog, news site, or even a googled-page’s exclamation of a news story is false, how can you go back to verify the information? Who’s going to contact you if that story turns out to be false? Will the editors send emails to everyone to simply say, “I’m sorry, I got the wrong information”? No.

I’ve clicked on links to ridiculous stories, and exited out of the site just as easily, forgetting what the site was even called. I didn’t have a solid piece of paper in my possession to look back on, recheck facts. Even Thevenot, when he wrote falsified information in his piece “Myth-Making in New Orleans”, had a written piece he could correct; he go back to and point out his faults. And as most newspapers do, the article resulted, apologizing to Thevenot’s readers.

Eliminating newspapers eliminates the ability to correct. It you get rid of newspapers, news stories are just as good as words floating in the air. Floating away, forgettable, and inevitably ridden with uncorrected errors.

Take for instance the ‘scandal’ of Michael Phelps smoking marijuana. When the news broke, internet sources claimed everything from a freak accident at a party to continued marijuana and steroid use during the Olympics. Only one story had correct information, but readers didn’t have a clue which one. If a story would have been printed in a newspaper, editors would print apologies to readers if a false fact was recorded. Since it was in the internet, no reader received such messages.

Watch out, internet readers, for the name ‘Stephen Glass’ as the author of the next news story you find published online. And this time, no editor can apologize.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Response To: The Fall of Print News

Jake Stoflet
I agree that losing our print news will be a great cultural loss to our society. However, instead of viewing the newspaper as nothing but a lost cause, it should be seen as a building block. The printed press served as a great example to our society for the necessity of news.

As information comes at us faster, we tend to feel overwhelmed by the amount of news we actually get. This is because much of the journalism that we see now, like http://www.tmz.com/, provide information that is little more than useless. This type of news, while entertaining, takes away from the credibility of digital journalism.

We need not be discouraged by this fact, though. It is our responsibility as a concerned audience to find the news that we want or need. As people adapt themselves to a newer, faster way of getting our news, it will become easier to get news as soon as it happens. That is, of course, the main objective of news in the first place: to give new information.

The Death of the Newspaper, Not of the News

Television and the internet have changed the face of news in recent years. The written press was by all means institutional in our society. However as society changes and advances, so too must our news source. Eric Alterman of The New Yorker bluntly states this in an article on the future of news: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/080331fa_fact_alterman This is not to say, however, that newspapers are irrelevant.

Though news now comes to its audience quicker, easier, and more often via television shows and internet, the newspaper set the stage. As printed press itself becomes less convenient and in lower demand, its influence has yet to be ebbed. With the same goals and principles embraced by newspapers of the past, media in the present can now get to its audiences in seconds rather than days. News television channels have even crossed the gap to internet journalism to bring us the most current news on demand, in cases such as http://www.cnn.com/, http://www.cnbc.com/, http://www.foxnews.com/.

One issue aroused by these new media outlets is the decline of news credibility. Arguably, news is less reliable due to this trend simply because it has become much easier to publish opinions and facts. However, a higher amount of journalists also exposes the public to more news and views, and thus a better foundation for their own opinions. News is changing and evolving around a society that becomes continually busier and quicker-paced. It is only natural, and in our best interests, that news become quicker-paced as well.

REFERENCE SOURCE:
1) Alterman, Eric. The New Yorker, The News Business: Out of Print. March 31, 2008

Monday, April 13, 2009

Response to Travis about Objective Writers

Stephanie Young
Reading your blog I found myself agreeing with a lot of things you mentioned. While for many, blogs may seem new aged and possible unreliable, those who blog generally are well educated in the area otherwise they would have much to comment on. 

Potter's article deliberates the objectivity of writers which is good to challenge from time to time just to establish an etiquette  for writing. Our different objective viewpoints are what challenges are minds to view things from every angle. 

Newspaper objectives often differ from one another, whether one is more left-winged than the other or more commercialized. It opens up a variety of outlets for us as readers and the internet has only further expanded that for us. 

Websites such as:
-perezhitlon.com
-msnbc.com
-tmj4.com 
all differ in content with writers whos' objectives cover all areas of our lives. Your comments about blogs having more information than newspapers is dead on I believe. Because newspapers have consistent writers with the same viewpoints and blogs have such a vast variety of participants they are able to get many more different opinions. 



limited access


Rachel Dubinski

Failure to connect
Internet access is few and far between

With the downfall of print media, not only the morals and integrity of news is going downhill, so is the access.

Think back to any movie in the 90s you saw concerning a city. How often were newspapers lying in an alley? Floating in the wind? Plastered to walls and poles, displaying news in inked words?

Since the birth of computers, movies in the 21st century no longer show any trace of the everyday news floating around. Computer screens with news websites aren't shown, and any Average Joe doesn't have the capability of picking up a piece of information blowing in the wind.

There are a few places that offer internet use to the public:

● Public libraries
● Schools and universities (to enrolled students)
● Some government buildings and foundations

I completely agree with James Larson when he says “everyone deserves access to the news, but not everyone has access to a computer”. Although most public libraries have computers for use, they only allow for a certain amount of use at a time, and usually there's a waiting period to use a computer. And to find out breaking news, the library certainly isn't open at all hours of the day. Many people still do not own nor have access to a computer, none-the-less the world wide web.

As a middle-upper class college student, I have an opportunity to hop on my laptop, use a computer on campus, or even borrow a friend's to find out the news online.

But those living in poverty or unable to own or get access to a computer are denied their civil right to be informed. One of the aspects of the civic culture of media is providing information to citizens that is accurate and representative to the world around them. This aspect of the media cannot be fulfilled if access to the news is only provided on a computer if the print news goes extinct.

I'm fairly certain that Larson, myself and most of the population aren't willing to start up a laptop on a city bus to share information with the person sitting in front of us. And more than likely, a computer's not going to be left on a waiting room seat, like newspapers usually are.

Writer's Can be Objective

Travis Wacker blog response.

In W. James Potter's article, "Media Literacy", Potter poses a question if writer's can be objective. My response would be most certainly. This would especially be the case if you are getting your news from a reliable blog source. You can find well-known writers posting blogs on reliable websites.

In Jay's post "The New Age of News", he claims to have gotten the news he needed without having to wait for the morning paper. Now nothing is guaranteed that he did not get this information from a blog on the following sites:

  • espn.com
  • sports.yahoo.com.
Actually, many a time, I find myself retrieving new news from Yahoo! sports blogs.

Blogs can provide just as much news, if not more news, than your regular morning paper. I say this because there are many more blogs than newspapers. It would also take much more paper to publish all the news that is published in blogs. I am not trying to say that you should always rely on a blog post, but most of the time the posts are accurate.