This week we are continuing to look at the state of journalism in American today, its influence and its future. The problem is that the future of newspaper reporting and journalism as we know it is on the endangered species list. Newspaper ad revenue is dwindling quickly as people stop subscribing to the paper and start reading the mostly free news online. The reality is that the newspaper industry and journalism in a broader sense is probably not dying, but it is evolving, and those involved in the change must get on board or get out of the way. What this means for the power of the media in our lives and the role that it plays within our political context remains to be seen. For this week's blog take a look at the stats on the "dying" newspaper industry here and an interesting inside look from the managing editor of TIME magazine here. Also, if you want, you can take a look at an interesting New Yorker article on the subject here, then start a discussion based on the prompts below.
- What does the changing nature of journalism mean for the American public?
- Is the transition to more digital, interactive, and citizen generated news content a positive or negative development for politics and/or political news reporting?
- If you feel like saving the world, you can also feel free to weigh in on what newspapers and traditional media can do to survive and make it off the endangered species list.
To me, the changing nature of journalism means first and foremost that citizens have access to, and are getting confronted with, more information than ever before. As was mentioned in the TIME Magazine article, there is a difference between information about a story and understanding a story, a difference that I believe is probably one of the more important ones to emphasize. It is clearly represented in this quote which stuck out to me:
ReplyDelete"We're forgetting that there's a difference between information and knowledge," he said. "If a bomb goes off in Afghanistan, people can read about it instantly on Twitter but they won't be able to know what it means. Where did it come from? Who did it? What's happening over there? That is what journalism can do."
Subsequently, it would seem like the transition to a more interactive, citizen-generated type of news would be a bad thing but I think it can be positive. The issue with the light version of the news that we get today (information based, not really giving you depth behind the stories like the quote above demonstrates) is that average people are becoming lazier in their news consumption. This means taking stories for face value as they're presented and not taking the time to delve deeper.
For those who enjoy the news and exploring different sources, I believe the transition is positive. However, for those who take the news for what it's worth, I believe that this transition can be more of a negative thing, although it doesn't have to be. If anything, the transition marks a period in which we need to take the time to process news in a more active way rather than passively accepting everything that we see as fact.
I believe your conclusion accurately predicts the future of this transition in the sense that in time more people will avoid processing news "as is" and adapt by taking active steps to affirm validity. One reason being, it's embarrassing re-posting or announcing to a friend, co-worker, or anyone for that matter a ridiculous and false news story that you read and actually believed. While this new freedom of opportunity to misinform mass audiences will fade away in time, the freedom will only continue to increase our knowledge and awareness of news around the country and our world.
DeleteHowever I am inclined to disagree with your notion that average people are becoming lazier in their news consumption. As I briefly mentioned above, one reason why many individuals accept stories for face value is rooted in this early transition stage. As college educated political science and journalism majors we have little difficulty adapting to this transition. For instance, everyone in our class demonstrated full awareness of this increasing trend to promote misleading or completely false news stories on social media sites. When scrolling down our news feeds, however, we notice this is not so obvious. Not only are young children accepting these stories, but also their parents. I am sure we all encounter many of our friends and family members re-posting numerous fallacious news stories. I believe these people are more naive than lazy.
The main premise behind my reasoning, however, is that people have limited amount of time and immense news options to choose from. In this revolutionary era where information "finds us", news is not only inevitable but near inescapable. Everyday we unintentionally encounter numerous headlines relating to many topics. Considering this reality contemporary media has brought to us, we have to adapt accordingly. What may appear lazy is actually the most efficient method given these factors. Headlines and briefings encountered in social media are beneficial as they introduce new information in a concise manner. This allows us the opportunity to scan enormous amounts of information, much more than traditional media, at our leisure and find current events that are of particular interest. Of course this is where credible online journalism comes in to affirm validity and elaborate.
The changing nature of journalism means the American public is going to be faced with information overload. We no longer have a few sources covering a few topics they deem newsworthy. Now we have thousands, millions, of sources covering virtually any topic imaginable; anyone can learn about almost anything. To me, that’s the best attribute of today’s digital media: the free flow of knowledge and information that in years past would have been restricted to particular persons/places.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is nice to have multitudes of opinions out there, the downfall is that it is more difficult than ever to identify truly reputable and trustworthy sources. To put it simply, there’s a whole bunch of shit to sift through. It’s easier than ever for amateurs to pass themselves as professionals and fictions to be passed as facts. Information overload may not be so bad, but misinformation overload is surely a dangerous thing. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is when I tell my girlfriend about something I learned only for her to assume I read it on some hack’s website. Actually, I can tell how frustrating it is: EXTREMELY!
The changing nature of journalism means that the American public can now passively be tuned in at all times to what is happening around them, but they will actively have to find out what it all means. Before the internet, one had to make the choice to read or watch the news, and by doing so, they were faced with the whole story, biased or not. They were presented with what was happening in long form, and whenever someone is faced with long-form, they usually take the time to fully divulge into what the story says.
ReplyDeleteNow, with instant updates, you can feel a part of the surrounding world by merely looking at your phone... But you'll never actually be aware of what is happening. With new media, you have to actually make the effort to find full coverage on the story, and decide whether you believe the source was reputable or not... Too many times have I seen status updates with outrageous headlines on my facebook page, only to find I'm reading a website that barely fact checks, or writes completely one-sided articles and presents them as news. It's effort to be informed these days, but I think that it allows for us to have a much larger breadth of knowledge.
I think political journalism has always been a bit tabloid-like and it's difficult to find fact based articles that do not have some bias. From a journalistic standpoint, the only thing digital does is give people more opportunity to bash candidates left and right, but I have found the American public, for the most part, is smart enough to realize when something is completely out of wack...
I think that the changing nature in journalism has it's pros and cons. Like Xan stated above, the American public constantly have access to the news throughout the day. If something major occurs in the world, I get a push notification on my iPhone instantly, contrasting with the speed of news during the print media era, when people would need to wait for the morning paper to get their news, and even that is delayed. Especially with twitter, people get news almost instantly, making newspapers almost less reliable in terms of being up to date because so much has already happened SINCE that newspaper was printed, even if that was only hours ago.
ReplyDeleteNow it's time for the cons. This era has indubitably become the era of fast and brief journalism. With TV segments, facebook, twitter, and other online sources, news has become something that we simply sit back and consume. I often think, to read a long article in the New York Times sounds so tiresome, so I will just flip on the news and sort of pay attention to what Anderson Cooper is saying. The news used to be looked at as a privilege, and people used to crave it. Reading through a hefty article used to not be a burden but an opportunity to stay informed; but today, news is so brief that we hear a summary of a story and our attention span changes so fast we are ready for the next story instead of desiring the detail in each piece.
After typing this, it becomes clear that the CONS substantially outweigh the PROS. Our generation, the millennial generation, are often considered the ADD generation, and I think that is 100% true because there is so much content out there that we are unable to pay attention for a reasonable amount of time before we get bored. This is a problem not only in terms of journalism but also in intellect as a whole.
I think that the transition to more digital, interactive, and citizen generated news content is a positive development for politics and/or political news reporting because it makes news more accessible. The more access the public has the more aware they are of what is going on in the political arena which is a key aspect to positive development. If more people are becoming politically engaged, chances for an increase in voter participation and civil engagement are higher. In a way it creates a domino effect. More information, more involvement.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the changing nature of journalism means that people are going to have more information than ever before, but it may come at a cost. Like asurinak, the quote about the difference between knowledge and information struck me. I agree that we may hear of an incident through twitter almost instantaneously, but we might not have all of the information. There is so much more to journalism than what can be written in 140 characters. However, having access to this news can also prove to be beneficial.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Eiman that a more digital, interactive, and citizen generated news content can allow people to become more politically knowledgeable and active. Twitter and other digital, interactive cites can reach more people and, as a result, those people could become more politically involved. The fine line between the two is what makes it so complicated, and it shows why newspapers and other traditional news sources are struggling. I think there needs to be a compromise between having instantaneous, but not also thorough, news that is accessible to a vast number of people, and traditional journalism that only reaches those who seek it.
The changing nature of journalism in the United States has inspired a revolution in the way media is approached in regard to the realm of politics. To expand upon last week’s post, the new era of internet journalism has opened the doors to criticisms of policy, or watchdog journalism. The status quo can be challenged at a far more global level with citizens feeling empowered to not only consume multiple forms of press, but also feel confident in their ability to blog, comment, etc. their own views on a particular current event. Returning to my point regarding watchdog journalism, the recent NSA leak exhibits that even political elites feel confident that there will be a venue to support their criticisms. For example, Edward Snowden once ranked in a high government position turned to the digital journalists to publish his story. While the United States wants his head, journalists of United Kingdom's "The Guardian" will be receiving a Pulitzer Prize for the revealing of an extensive surveillance reality.
ReplyDeleteAs a Political Science student it’s easy to generalize things. I feel that I take for granted how closely my peers in college read anything, let alone politics. It’s a diverse world out there, and the reality is that many do not take the time to read the news in its entirety. Often photojournalism and headlines are all people have time or energy to pay attention to. With that said, this acknowledged attention deficit disorder in news consumption is magnified online. With advertisements, false news stories that turn out to be gimmicks, and legitimately more entertainment focused articles showing up in the side bar of my article on Sunday night’s emergency UN Security Council, I even fall victim to this type of ADD. Consequently, I feel that credible news sources and more conventionally intellectual reports of political engagements are losing desirability. The internet is a tool for many people in the United States to find information, but it’s simultaneously an instrumental part of the modern entertainment industry.
I thought one of the most interesting things was in the Time article with the quote, “we’re like the music industry, but none of us can sing.” This quote kind of changed the way I thought about this whole process of transitioning through ways news is consumed. In only 60 years the music industry has seen many different changes and adapted to all of them fairly quickly. They went from LP to Cassette to 8-Track to Compact Disc to MP3 all in a very short period of time. The major change in the News industry is from Paper to internet, which I do not see as being a very big deal. Just like the music industry adapts so does the news industry and they will continue to come up with innovative ways to get information out faster and better.
ReplyDeleteThe problem lays, I feel, with getting people to remain interested in the news. CNN 24 hour news cycle makes plenty of time for uninteresting topics and useless debates about global warming, down to 2 hour segments on the possibility of using toothpaste to hide explosives in Sochi. The current platform is what must be changed if people are to remain interested in the news. The mix of Gossip news with real news also seems volatile to me. The problem appears to be that the current generation just isn’t interested in news as much as the older ones, which is a problem far too complex for me to solve.
Overall, I just think it is being talked about incorrectly. The focus should be on content rather than whether it be on physical paper or a computer screen.
It seems that due to these conversations of the impact of the internet on print journalism as well as how the public either passively or actively engages with the news and media in general is what leads me to conclude that we are in an awkward adolescent stage with the internet despite how old it is. It's relatively new and exciting and people are constantly generating new things like blogs, memes, gifs, and who knows what else will come out of it. While it may seem that the internet is still trying to figure out "who or what it is," I agree with Austin's point of the amazing opportunity for the status quo to be challenged, globally, by people who perhaps never had the opportunity or such a large platform to make their experiences known. Since I am Women & Gender Studies trained, I believe that the personal is always political. Therefore, while there's going to be an absurd amount of useless comments, there will also be many opinions of resistance. It doesn't mean that it has to be at the expense of print journalism, but a shift has happened and is still happening.
ReplyDeleteI would also echo Ashley's comment highlighting the Time magazine article about maybe print journalism being where the full story, along with interpretations, consequences, and results can be discussed in detail. The tweets and facebook statuses can be the platform to announce that an event has taken place. Then people can make the choice of having an opinion based on a headline or based on a contexualized written piece. We can make the choice but we have to hold ourselves accountable to what that means.
As to the changing nature of journalism we are most definitely in a immediate information age where the internet and television news are taking over the print industry. As the one article said there was a drop of over 44% for the biggest print companies in just one year. No one wants to wait for their news anymore when they can get instant updates via social media or websites such as cnn.com that will send updates straight to your phone.
ReplyDeleteAs for the next question, I do believe this is a good thing for political news and updates. I believe this will keep politicians honest as they will not have as much time to cover up a story that could compromise their campaign or constituency.
Traditional media will always have its roll in the world. People love to wake up and read their newspaper by hand and the demand for that, though it is lowering, will always be there and should always be profitable.
The American public has all to gain because of the vast options available through the Internet. A student like myself can read multiple articles from different news sources from the palm of my hand. However with the vast amount of options to choose from, the evolution of journalism is saturating the market. News contents are competing for survival and to be top of their industry. Eventually the market will calm down, and focus on new standards of the industries. The companies that will “make it” are those that can evolve to the new market and distinguish itself as a credible source.
ReplyDeleteThe transition is a positive development for politics because more citizens have the ability to be informed and voice their opinions. The interactive content will draw and retain readers to the in depth content. The more the readers or viewers on the site, the better for the news content providers because they then become frequent visitors. The new age of media will allow the American public have a bigger grasp of what their political representatives are doing and hold them accountable.
Unfortunately I do not know the “magic formula “ to help out the traditional media. I am part of the few subscribers for The New York Times and TIME Magazine. The reason why I subscribed to these two print media is because of their reputation and credibility. I’m not too interested on instant news because I am more interested in discovering the in depth of why it happened. I do use social media for news content, such as Twitter. I use it to follow other major news sources that I find interesting and credible. I do not know what lies ahead for traditional news media. I do hope they adapt to the new market and continue to bring great in depth journalism. As a spectator of the evolution of journalism, it is quite exciting to see the industry evolve right in front of our eyes.
In my opinion, the changing nature of journalism allows the public more opportunities than ever to increase their political literacy. There are so many different outlets to gather the news, with thousands of websites to choose from. Also, now that most newspapers are moving their content online, we can also choose from newspapers all over the country instead of just the local ones. Journalism is now more fast-paced and attention grabbing. This means that is not necessarily correct. For example, CNN made a lot of mistakes last year when reporting about the Boston Marathon bombing, they prematurely announced the identities of the suspects, and ended up being incorrect. This is a risk of the new ago of journalism.
ReplyDeleteOverall, there are benefits and risks to the digital, interactive, and citizen generated news content which is prevalent now. On the internet people can post things all the time which are not necessarily true. Others may read it though and believe it. This is a negative thing about new media. There are so many different sources it can be hard to decipher what is fact and what is opinion. There are positives as well though. More people than ever before have access to the news, and they can take an active role through Twitter and Facebook. In many cases social media is ahead of the news sources in reporting on events around the world. This is all making us more interconnected with each other.
The changing nature of news media effects more than just traditional news outlets. Print media like newspapers and magazines are indeed a dying breed, but it’s not just print media that is falling behind. As Claire Suddath from TIME mentioned, people aren’t getting their breaking news from traditional sources anymore because social media such as Facebook and Twitter have the ability to get the breaking news out faster than any other outlet. Traditional news sources then are changing from actual news sources to more information or even entertainment, and they struggle to stay relevant in this quickly evolving industry. This completely changes the way we receive and interoperate news. Most people receive news through social media sites which are largely informal and through word of mouth, so we may be able to get news quickly but it has a much better chance to be distorted, biased, and subjective. This forces us to take everything we hear with a grain of salt and learn how to sift through the subjective opinions to find out what is true and what’s not.
ReplyDeleteFor political reporting, this revolutionary social media outlet can be both good and bad. Social media gets out news so quickly which can be good if politicians want to spread their ideas or information about events or proposals extremely fast, but it can also be bad because there are so many opportunities for their message to be distorted. When information is passed through thousands of Facebook and Twitter accounts at once, it is easy for people to add their commentary on the news they’re passing on, because after all, it is social media. I believe politicians can absolutely use this evolving news channel to their advantage, but it would be ignorant not to take into account the ability for everything they say to be interpreted one way or another.
The fact that journalism has been rapidly changing is actually a good thing for Americans. Americans end up benefitting from the fact that the monopolized newspaper companies are losing out to other news sources such as blogs, radio casts, and other various types of independent media, which tend to be more based on facts, and that are also more tailored to the emotions and interests of its fan base.
ReplyDeleteI see the transition to the digital version of news as more beneficial because it is instantaneous, and it is more tailored to the facts and interests of it reader. The fact that citizens are generating news tends to make the reader feel that they are receiving more factual and news that is more appealing to the viewer’s emotions.
The advanced technology we have today, allow us to be informed of the most recent news with no effort needed in the search process, when there are all varieties of news apps on our phone with the pop up's like a text message and reads to us the title line of the news. I find this a lot of times to be overwhelming with too much information given to me, that eventually I give up on following them, unless it is something that really interest me. Sometime I just read the title line on my phone, when there are too much follow up information on the same news, and yet it required time and interest to find what I think is the fact. I agree that there are both pros and cons to having too much access to news. It help the public stay inform even for people who are not too interested in news, but this can also be misguiding when people are given bits and parts of the pieces and sure they can discuss the issues with friends and family, that may lead to a deeper sense of shifting away from the fact, because facts can be boring, without puzzling them together.
ReplyDeleteHaving the public to be more engaged in news and media give the government and officials a better understanding of what the public want based on how the public react to the news, that may or may not influence policy changing. As mentioned in the reading, its difficult for news to be objective, because everyone have their own opinions. Therefore, I think this could create sides of those who are oppose to and for the news they see, that help create revenue for the media. This also goes in the matter of what the public prefers to hear, for me, I definitely prefer positive news.
However, new media provide are fast and most updated news, but may not be as accurate. Newspaper and traditional news are believed to be more reliable. If newspapers and web medias are to operate independently, that reports different information, instead of transferring what is on the internet to the news paper, then it may attract more people to news papers. From what I'm getting from the article reading, by sorting out information that on the internet, including people opinions to the news, and publish the information as accurate as possible on paper.
I feel this change in a lot of ways is a double edged sword. On the one hand, these changes take away from the information monopoly that has been held for years by the 5 or so major corporations, which is always a positive. On the negative side I feel that it can create almost too many voices with no sort of accountability, and now none of them have to contend with any form of journalistic ethics and then the real industry has to start competing (though some could argue the ethics have been slipping in the "real" industry anyway for years). Ultimately these shifts mean that those who really want to dig deep for news now can, there are now even more great, varied sources, but with that comes a rise in unreliable and manipulative journalism.
ReplyDeleteKeeping with the animal analogy, I think in some ways traditional journalism "missed the arc", like a lot of industries in the face of the digiital revolution (music, film etc) they spent too much time fighting against the tides of change and are essentially reaping the consequences. Perhaps print journalism can "learn to swim" (sorry, keeping with the analogy) if they decide instead of trying to compete in the new market (it's too late, they're too far behind) they instead decide to remain the journalistic standard.
1. Journalism should become more important to the American public. As the media increases, people need professional journalists to filter through the information and provide a credible voice for news. As the Time article stated, they won't be able to cover breaking news as quickly as say a Twitter, but they can tell us who is reporting from where and what we should listen to.
ReplyDelete2. Journalism during the political cycle is important for the public and candidates. However where the new age of journalism is becoming negative is the over analysis of politicians and election cycles. Almost immediately after Obama was re-elected, the media began speculating who would run for the 2016 presidential race. I have heard countless times about how Hillary Clinton is going to run for President. That aspect of the new political coverage has a negative effect on people because it becomes repetitive and makes people become more apathetic towards politics.
3. I think a great example of how to transition into the digital age is The New York Times. Say what you will about their politics, but it's a great business model. Users can get daily headlines and stories for free, but then have to pay extra for the other sections. It's also easy to use. The company makes money, but people can still get free news.
The changing nature of journalism has tremendous implications for the American public. Americans are becoming significantly more educated on both domestic and international issues as a result of the constant and instantaneous exposure to information and news. I believe the transition is a positive development for politics as more Americans are assuming their duty as a citizen and becoming politically engaged.
ReplyDeleteI think that this transition in journalism has brought up the issue of quantity vs. quality. While I think that the increasing access to news due to technological advancements is at the surface a good thing, we should be concerned with the quality of information being thrown at us. I think that the big names of print journalism will always be our go-to for reliable information. Someone mentioned "Push Notifications" and I think that is a great example. While we may know that something happened, we aren't given enough to really comprehend the implications of the event. I think journalism is exploiting human tendencies and short attention spans and while I love my Buzzfeed and EliteDaily "20 things all 'insert demographic here' understand" quick, mindless reads, I know that this is replacing quality political dialogue.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I find concerning is that the news is reporting on internet circulating the news. I think it is says a lot that television news programs are using twitter as a source or reporting on whats trending. For example, this quote in the Time article: "'They talked about his 2005 Stanford address as if they had discovered it, when really it had been reposted all over Facebook,' he said." I think it reinforces a belief that what is on the internet is reliable, and frankly, the things I see circulating on my Facebook wall terrifies me. It is so scary to think that people will so blindly accept some of these things to be true without question and repost it without hesitancy.
Overall, I think its great that this increased access to news via the internet prompts people to involve themselves in a discussion, but I think that the transition away from print journalism is coming at the price of quality new reports.
The general theme about the constant, continuing changing of journalism essentially deals with the public getting access to many various news outlets, thus creating more bias and opinions about the everyday news. We can get our news from numerous ways which positively benefits the public, creating and at the same time strengthening ways of obtaining the news that you need to know and at an easier, less costly expense. All news simultaneously will come with some fallacies and unwanted truths, but for the most part, being able to get what's happening around us in growing ways has proven to enhance overall journalism and give us more say in actively engaging in political affairs.
ReplyDeleteThe changing name of journalism is an important topic relevant to any American. I say this because in terms of what kind of information is exposed in society, it can determine is people would even want to read the newspaper anymore. There are times where I feel as though certain newspaper are very conservative and biased, and to me, it makes me feel as if I cannot trust what is being exposed. I believe that journalists have a power that is often not used in the best way. They have the opportunity and chance to spread information, along with their opinions. If people follow their opinions, it is not always necessarily accurate, which then prevents people from figuring out what is the truth. people often times depend on other people's posts and opinions, which is not right, but what can they do? SO for me, newspapers should provide more factual, rather than biased opinions in order for others to create their own opinions as well as enhance intellectual discussions. The transition can definitely be positive, if used the right way. I say this because opinions sometimes overlap facts, hence leaving people to believe opinions rather than facts.
ReplyDelete