Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Journalism Online
twitter writes "The slide in newspaper subscriptions continues for obvious reasons: convenience, variety, depth, cost and user control are all in favor of pull media. The BBC is wondering what this will ultimately mean for journalism. One interesting issue is brought up: 'papers like France's Libération [have] traditionally shunned advertising it deemed politically compromising and relied on its cover price for its income.' Even they see that internet distribution is the answer, but the BBC worries about the details."
From the article: "The International Herald Tribune now sees itself as a media organisation rather than just a paper; their website features video stories and has taken the step of charging for premium content. 'Good journalism costs money and so we are trying to see what we can do to make sure we can continue to grow and support the business,' said Meredith Artley, director of digital development at the International Herald Tribune. "
Hasn't this has been on the horizon since NBC started broadcasting in color? This is the slowest death of a particular medium since radio was supposedly doomed.
I think some people like to read something they can fold, is light and cheap. (Eco-/.er's: I'm thinking recycled paper) and best of all, doesn't need to be charged or plugged in.
Nope, didn't read tfa.
Newspapers have lost a lot of trust with readership because they have chosen to present the news that they want - rather than just reporting the facts.
This made me laugh. Have you ever read a political blog? They spend half their time shouting that the mainstream media is biased and ineffective, and the other half quoting MSM articles that happen to flatter their preconceptions.
The death of the mainstream media is hugely exaggerated. There is very little "news" that percolates from the blogosphere, compared to traditional, full-time, employed journalists.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
But I would be thrilled if I could simply plug my newspaper into my computer every morning, grab the newest issue, and read it on the train, at lunch, when I'm waiting for meetings to start, in class when I'm doing that instead of working, generally when I have a moment. That's the promise of digital paper, and I really hope the news paper guys pick up on it as fast as they can.
I believe (as in a hope or aspiration which I have not verified with evidence or research) that there is still a market for the thoughtful and thorough reporting one recieves from a newspaper which cannot be found on the evening news shows. There is a cultural advantadge in sharing root sources of information which we can all reference, rather than squabling over which version of the news is more Republican or Democrat leaning - this is the traditional role of the newspaper. "Did you see the front page today?" "I know, person Y did X." Check CNN, FOX, and ABC news, they almost never focus on the same stories.. and even when they do, the treatment is often so different that you wouldn't recognize one from the other. For example, as I write this, Fox is pushing the death of James Kim, CNN is running a Pinnochet story, and ABC.. well they're confusedly running a rolling banner which includes everything from Pinnochet to Anna Nicole's baby, with no mention of mr Kim. So, where is the common social icon, the idea we take away together of what happened today that mattered? That's important.. that's what a strong and vibrant local newspaper gives to a community, around which a sense of unity can gather. This kind of seperate news for seperate audiences approaches we have now leads to division and a lack of focus in the social conciousness.
At least that's this hack's opinnion.
-GiH
I'd definitely subscribe to a newspaper...if it were possible for me to subscribe to one. I live approximately halfway between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. in a 300-unit apartment complex. I've tried to subscribe to both the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun, but neither offers delivery in my area. In one of the most connected areas of the country, I find it hard to believe that I can't pay someone to toss a newspaper tossed on my front stoop, but that's the truth.
They're all online media companies now. And this is where they fail: not asking their own journalists, rather than the sales department, about what they should do in the midst of declining sales, stodgy offerings, and peek-a-boo online subcriptions. The guys out in the trenches get it, it's the exec on the golf course that are having trouble making shots while eyes become increasingly glued to monitors, mobile PDAs, and other life in the post-paper era.
The IHT is that silly paper at the conceirge desk at the hotel in Singapore, the airline lounge, and other places abroad. If you look at their advertisers, you can tell their audience. Apparently, execs now get their news-- real news-- from places like RSS and Atom feeds. Fancy that.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Maybe I'm only one, but I simply don't trust blogs as news sources. Even at their best, their "news" is rehashed from a real news source.
Maybe not
The newspapers are losing their readers because the newspapers are abandoning their readers. Real journalism is dying at the newspapers.
Not here in Albany NY. The Times Union has done as much investigative journalism as anyone could hope for -- they even went to court to get information.
Nationally, the NY Times and other papers of similar weight remain bastions of actual reporting.
I could, easily, read my chosen paper online, but I choose not to. The typography is better and easier on my eyes. The viewing area is bigger, and can fit more information in it without having to scroll down (reading from paper feels far more natural than reading from a screen). It's more convenient (I can read a paper on my couch, in the canteen at work, in bed, on the can, just about anywhere really...). Papers aren't going to die any time soon.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --