Slashdot Mirror
The Net's Effect on Journalism
An Associated Press article about the impact of the internet on journalism has a few interesting findings. A few years ago, it was expected that the internet would democratize news coverage. While print media is being rapidly reborn online, web-based news appears to be constraining the number of conversations instead of expanding them. "The news agenda actually seems to be narrowing, with many Web sites primarily packaging news that is produced elsewhere, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual State of the News Media report. Two stories - the war in Iraq and the 2008 presidential election campaign - represented more than a quarter of the stories in newspapers, on television and online last year, the project found. Take away Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, and news from all of the other countries in the world combined filled up less than 6 percent of the American news hole, the project said."
take away the subjects people care most about and theres not much left. huh. thats amazing.
what a surprise.
Two stories - the war in Iraq and the 2008 presidential election campaign - represented more than a quarter of the stories in newspapers, on television and online last year, the project found.
You know, it might be possible that these topics dominate the news so because they are the most important issues we currently face. Making the claim that the Net is "narrowing" the news agenda based upon this is disingenuous.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Why should we "democratize" news coverage? If you had a health problem, would you want even the most uninformed voting on your diagnosis, or would you rather see a top specialist working with advanced knowledge and experience?
I am so fucking sick of this belief on digg etc. that "the people" are finally taking back the web.
If you don't agree with the left leaning crowd then you don't have a voice. You are automatically branded a "troll" and down-modded.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
'American news hole'
You read it 'hear' first!
if I claimed I was emperor just because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
I read an interesting story on http://slashdot.org/articles/08/03/17/0649200.shtmlthis very subject.
1) Listen to Web pundits make predictions about anything.
2) Bet your money on the EXACT OPPOSITE.
3) Wait a few years
4) Profit!
Please show me the flaw in my plan.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I'm seeing a gravitation of most news efforts towards what everyone cares about (we're seeing more economic news, btw) from news organizations on the extremes (pick your favorite kook and conspiracy website) and mainstream media. It's a bit of a stating the obvious, but everyone wants to break news - no matter what the source, report on something, and state an opinion.
What we are ALSO seeing - which TFA doesn't comment much on - is the watchdog nature of the internet and how EVERYTHING gets fact-checked, particularly major news items. It led to the downfall of Dan Rather, who assumed everyone would believe him (and may actually have had a credible story) and had such a hot line that he forgot he was a journalist. John Kerry's "swiftboating" was the opposite - he has never been able to effectively disprove claims, despite everything at his disposal.
BTW, as an aside, I'm a history guy, and never liked journalism's tendencies to ignore history and leave conflicting facts out of stories.
I'm an American and I also go to BBC (Firefox so nicely puts the feed in the default installation), The Economist, Al Jazeera (English version), and some others. The AP, Wall Street Journal and CNN have become too provincial for me...or I'm becoming more worldly (Yeah, right).
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
That's the problem with mainstream media. They are so used to summarizing stories for us little people that they seldom give links to the material they use in their stories. It would be nice to be able to independently corroborate Wired's assessment of the paper, wouldn't it? A paper written by industry people is summarized for us by industry people. Forgive me for being a bit skeptical.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I am probably one of the few slashdot readers who has worked as a foreign correspondent for a newspaper. I worked for Nevski Novosti in St. Petersburg Russia for a year. Doing good journalism takes time to develop sources and money to support said process. In the quarterly-profit world of corporate media, there is no time for delayed gratification. Therefore, we get endless stories about Britney and other celeb trash news.
because people will spend more effort bitching online than actually going out and doing something.
Iran or Election, if even a quarter of the people who posted on sites like this and Digg then we might be reading about real changes in the US but the fact is these same people don't. They are the modern day version of the water cooler braggarts (then I told my boss to gfo) who don't do nearly half of what they claim.
News, hardly. If anything too many of the internet sources turned into rabid dogs totally free of any quality information and instead chock full of half truths and obvious lies.
FWIW, these two issues are not the most important in the US. The first has hardly any real effect on the average American and the second is usually out of our hands, even more so if you watch the battle in the Democratic party. (who would of thought, the party which screams about Republican's trying to keep votes from counting are doing the same themselves but on a very public stage)
What you do find is places where discussion is allowed is that you can see a shout down effect. Basically groups exchange messages saying "go here and do this" and they do it. The broadcast media is immune to it, as well as the print media. Look at these elections you mentioned, before it was down to the three we have you could not get past Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinch stories leading popular sites like Digg or similar. Why? Because just like online polls, every vote and position must automatically be considered fraud as no one has a method to positively identify who voted/posted. Talk about rigging elections, it would be the same as traveling from district to district and voting in each for any elected official.
Constraining conversation? Only if you don't go to real news sources.
I see more about off beat information from the net than I do from the main stream media. Shoots, Sibel Edmunds has offered to spill all that she knows about corruption in the gov. IFF they will do a live show. Upon doing that show, she will be arrested. In fact, probably during the show. The main stream news media will not touch it. The net is begging for it. In fact, some of the best stuff coming up is from the net and being picked up by the british press.
All in all, I believe that the net is doing the work that mainstream is no longer doing. Of course, the vast majority of Americans are sick of worthless news.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
An Associated Press article
The AP reporting on journalism, and we're supposed to believe they're unbiased and objective?
"The news agenda actually seems to be narrowing, with many Web sites primarily packaging news that is produced elsewhere"
1997 called and it wants its blogs back. Where has AP been for the last fifteen years? Uning their trusty old Underwoods?
Two stories - the war in Iraq and the 2008 presidential election campaign - represented more than a quarter of the stories in newspapers, on television and online last year, the project found. Take away Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, and news from all of the other countries in the world combined filled up less than 6 percent of the American news hole, the project said."
What planet are these people from, anyway? If it doesn't affect me, it's gossip rather than news (and that includes Britney Spears). Were Friday's Tornados in the UK's Guardian? Of course not (and of course I probably picked a bad example and someone will link a Guardian story about it). Local news is the most important, followed by regional news, followed by your country's news, THEN world news - if there's room.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Although at these rates, it will not probably happen before 2020 or so.
Our media is dying because people don't trust it. It's not rocket science. The media's role (or lack thereof) during the two terms of the Bush administration is just the last straw in a process that's been going on in this country for a while. I don't claim to know the mechanism behind it, but the visible result is the transformation of our media from a "4th Estate" to a propaganda mouthpiece for the state not unlike what one sees in countries that have state-controlled media. I'm lucky enough to be reasonably fluent in French and fully fluent in Spanish, and I regularly read several European and Latin-American online newspapers. The information presented in other countries is dramatically different, in the general and in the specific. While I'm not quite ready to don a tinfoil hat, it's hard not to see something systematic in this, and the reality is undeniable. Most Americans my age (40) have so little trust in the traditional media that they turn to political satire shows to get their news. Seriously - who cares about Heath Ledger's suicide to that extent? Especially when there are so many other important issues that should be covered?
As for the previous poster who mentioned the election coverage - while this is an extremely important election for this country, I have to agree that the coverage has been ridiculous. At this point, the "analysts" have the gall to claim that the public is suffering from "election fatigue", which is basically their way of saying "We've exhausted every possible detail and want to talk about something different". Just another example of the American media's race to irrelevance.
The crimes of eBay are a disgrace to it's pig latin heritage!
The Winter Soldier II hearings ended yesterday. These hearings showcase soldiers telling their stories in their own words. They're riveting listening. The Mainstream media (MSM) wasn't present for them.
The MSM got the run-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq wrong and have yet to apologize. Reading their coverage it's a wonder anyone can understand how irrational it is to not hold war crime trials. The only Winter Soldier II coverage came from alternative news which uses the Internet extensively: Indymedia and Democracy Now!. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! reports that the MSM simply wasn't there. The Washington Post ran something small in their local section because the Winter Soldier hearings happened to occur near their offices. On today's DN! Seymour Hirsch briefly talked about how shameful the MSM war coverage was. He touched on both the run-up lies and Winter Soldier II non-coverage (they'll probably have their coverage, including Hirsch's rebuttal, online later today; check out The Internet Archive for copies of DN! as well).
Digital Citizen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The only thing that makes any sense is that world news gets low ratings, and therefore gets shoved aside or canceled. News is all about ratings now, since ratings mean more money for the commercials. The real question is why do bullshit stories like cats stuck in trees, Paris Hilton, etc matter more to Americans than world news? The other thing to keep in mind is that if there is no video of something, it doesn't exist as far as the 24/7 news networks are concerned.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Exactly. While the US media (and the UK media, and etc.) may be regionally petrifying, we now have the option to go to other regions virtually. I use the BBC as my primary news source, and Le Monde for stories the BBC does a bad job with. Add in the New York Times and a twist of Al Jazeera and you have a relatively broad coverage.
It's what's being read.
If only one online web site carried a story about starving children in XYZland, but 10 million pairs of eyeballs saw it and paid attention to it, that's a lot more significant than a story about a battle in Iraq that hit every news aggregator on the planet but got universally ignored by readers.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I don't trust mainstream media. You obviously don't either. My 60-year-old father, though, certainly does. And, as a 23-year-old college student in the honors program (i.e. I'm surrounded by the supposed cream of the crop of my peers), the vast majority of them don't seem to have any real issues with the mainstream media. At best, some of them prefer CNN and dislike Faux News.
What's that mean? Nothing, really, it's totally anecdotal. But so is your argument.
Newspapers are failing because few people want to read them (I don't think I've ever seen anyone my own age buy a paper). I don't know what the situation is with TV news, financially, but the vast majority of it that I've seen is now more of an entertainment program than a news program so its moot.
Sometimes we don't even get news about what's going on *here*. I had a friend who was traveling abroad in 1992. He was watching CNN International and observed a story about the possibility that California might secede from the union over unfunded federal mandates.
He had brought this up in conversation because I had told him about finding legislation in the California legislature that would hold federal taxes in escrow pending a review of federal mandates. If there were too many mandates, California would keep the money and spend it on their own projects.
Not a peep within the states, but you know whole world outside knew about it. So yeah, it's *out there*.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
The only American *NEWS* outlets they mention are the same old same old sources. I don't even read those sources anymore cause they don't have any news I'm interested in. I check my Google News home page once in the morning each day to see if anything interesting pops out but other than that I go straight to New Scientist, Science Daily, /., Macrumors, TreeHugger, and a few blogs that have topics I care about.
There's very little that happens day to day in the world that I consider a new event. The protests in Tibet are an example but only for a few minutes. Every year there are protests. Every year the Chinese gov. reacts horribly and every year it gets about a week of coverage.
Why would I read *world events* in the mainstream media when I can read these much more interesting stories on Science Daily:
Genes That Reduce 'Bad Cholesterol' And Protect Against Atherosclerosis Identified
Speed Of Light: Sub-femtosecond Stop Watch For 'Photon Finish' Races
Light Waves Can Detect Alzheimer's Disease Early On, Study Suggests
Soy Compound May Halt Spread Of Prostate Cancer
Huge Iceberg Splits In Southern Atlantic Ocean
New Bird Species Discovered
Pain-free Childbirth? Get Real
Rare North Island Brown Kiwi Hatches At Smithsonian's National Zoo
Regular Low Dose Aspirin Cuts Asthma Risk In Women, Study Finds
Nanomaterials Show Unexpected Strength Under Stress
Toddlers Affected Most By Secondhand Smoke Exposure At Home, Study Shows
p.s. 90% of these stories will eventually make it to the mainstream media outlets as sidebars or 5 minute commentaries on the 11 0'clock news... after they've been misunderstood or converted to fluff pieces
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I'm glad to see that amateur journalism is still going strong, check out this report about someone who was recently in the news for finding a 3+ carat diamond in Arkansas.
http://fakeminerals.com/
None of the major news stories would have thought about digging into this story, but an amaetur sleuth did.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Let's not forget how most people got their news before the popularization of the internet. The average person had read a newspaper or two, had a subscription to a magazine or two, and watched mainstream news on a few television channels. The average person had little access to foreign media unless they put effort to find it. These mediums were all broadcast style, with virtually no feedback to the source. They were virtually all controlled by large corporations.
I submit that the condition of dialog in US and maybe the world would be MUCH worse than it is now if the internet didn't exist, and the advent of its popularization is grossly underrated in the effect it has had on society. We have a population that regularly and instantly interacts with foreign nationals, hears and expresses opinions opposing the standard line fed by mainstream media outlets, accesses articles and information in quantities and variation vastly beyond the past, and has the capability to organize efforts around issues that would have never been exposed by the powers that be. We might cowering under a state of martial law at this point if the critical mass of voices weren't heard opposing the current administration's policies.
While there is still a place for journalistic principles and rigorous training in the discipline, the majority of "journalism" that people were exposed to before the internet hardly made an attempt to meet that standard. Anyone can and should be a journalist, even if it simply means having a cell-phone camera at the right place and right time.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
... film at 11.
I'd like to point out that it is the American News Media that has focused to an absurd extent on these two topics. This in turn is driven by what the News Media Corporations believe will be watched or read by Americans. As much as people bitch about MSM and right-wing bias and left-wing bias, face it folks - the News Conglomerates are feeding the public what the public wants. This is the beauty of the capitalist system. Yes, there is some blatant editorializing going on, but I can guarantee you that if that editorializing wouldn't get these massive ratings, it would have died out long ago.
In short, I place the blame for idiotic reporting squarely at the feet of the American public. Stop watching stupid crap, and stupid crap will stop being produced. Yes, I know - the American public is not a homogeneous entity. But it is frightening how many people consider Geraldo Rivera to be an actual journalist.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The whole "the Internet has degraded the quality of news" meme makes me want to axe-murder someone. I'm truly sick of hearing it. Its not true, and it mostly comes from people having a vested interest in the old media. This worst part if it is this silly fantasy that the news was of better quality and unbiased when it was 3 networks and newspapers in every city. Limited choice does not equal better quality. Having all news in the grip of the newsmedia priesthood does not ensure fair reporting. Self-contained guilds aren't always the best way to ensure quality and openness, and that's what we had with the old system. These old media types never seem to realize that the reasons independent Internet press took off... both right and left... is because it had gotten to the point where no one really trusted the old news cartels. They're mad because giants like Dan Rather can be brought down by common people with keyboards when he pushes faked documents. NBC is mad because they can't get away with putting rockets on fuel tanks to make vehicles explode for their stories.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
This is only true if you define "journalism" as being the spew regurgitated by mainstream media and their partners.
The Gospel according to lolcat
Everyone knows that.
I'd just like to see a reporter ask a follow up question once in a while when a politicians makes some claim or another. All they do is parrot what the sack of shit politico says. Same thing with press releases of the "sleep causes cancer" type of "science" from "research institutes" which are actually poorly disguised activist groups conducting half assed phone polls.
Online news isn't any better. It's just as biased, perhaps even more so. It's either warmed over shallow crap or manifesto-like hysterial written by someone so mlinded by reality distortion fields it's a wonder they can find their way to the computer to post. Sometimes I can imagine them occasionally trying to type their screed into their microwave oven or their pet.
There's no in between. There's no thoughtful, unbiased analysis. And if think you found an unbiased, truthful site, most likely it's just something that agrees with whatever ideological memetic poison you personally have decided to mainline.
The Internet allowed any journalist to publish a story, even serous ones that some people may not want you to read.
Before the Internet, you had all media controlled by a few billionaire corporate fascists that always take a political point of view (Fox especially), so certain stories would never get there (Would you see a story saying something bad about the War on Terror on Fox News, for example?). So stories could be censored if they made serious implications or accusations, or were negitive to a specofic person.
Suddenly, we have the Internet. Now we are all free! Anyone can be a journalist, and you don't have to fear being censored or prosecuted. No one can censor a story.
Ultimately, the Internet revolutionized journalism, changing it from a 1 sided, biased, and controlled system to a free and open ssytem where everyone knows what is going on.
Drew Curtis actually sums up the net's overall effect on journalism quite well in his book. Say what you will about Fark, and admittedly I originally wrote this book off as sophomoric and self-promoting drivel, but then I discovered it in the University of Pittsburgh Library, of all places!!!! Apparently, somebody in academic circles must've actually taken this seriously. And, to be honest, he actually makes a lot of very good points.
It's a little dishonest to call the "presidential primaries" a single story, I think. It's many stories, all locally very important but with national impact. Locally, it's important to note that most of the states now voting had a snowball's chance in hell of actually having a decision in the primaries, so it's big and surprising to find out that they actually matter. And it's logical to "cash in" on the drama now, since it's possible that the Republicans will be so unpopular that the Democrat will win in a landslide, or the Democrats will become fragmented and give McCain a cakewalk (and so the media would be saved from complaints of "why didn't you cover the real decisions earlier?!").
I haven't heard anything about that from NetCraft...
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
The fact that AP news articles do not contain links is a gross oversight. Is is inconscionable that a responsible journalist could write an entire story online without a link to a primary source. The most ridiculous thing is when an entire AP story, based on some document received though FOIA, is without a single link to the actual report. ATTN: Reporters. If you are citing a document on the Internet, you must provide a link to the original! It is easy, and you probably have an intern or underling that you can get to scan the document also. Other people could actually verify your story themselves instead of taking everything you write on blind faith. Look it is easy!
Sure, I work at a newspaper, but would likely have an IT job if I didn't like my job, and the area I work in, so well. :-)
The thing is, it's all part of the slow death spiral that journalism has been doing for a long time. Before amateurs were let loose on "news sites" doing the sort of work journalists were doing for free instead of the moderate living wage real journalists were getting.
The downside is that most the online journalists don't do their own research. Take a look at most the popular 'sites. Someone listed Fark, right? Fark's basically just a human-powered news aggregator with a snarky attitude. Slashdot? Sorry, but people submitting stories to this 'site are rarely right. Digg? Relies on other users to police whether or not a story is "accurate," meaning something totally inaccurate can get to the front and stay there...unless it's about Scientology, of course. *wink* And again, on Digg, they rely on--you guessed it--other sources.
I mention this because traditional news outlets have a "brilliant" new strategy: Let the reader provide the news. That's right, kids: Instead of someone leaving the office at the end of the day to cover council meetings, school board meetings, etc. we'll just rely on John Q. Citizen to be politically active enough to go cover that stuff. And we'll support it all with online advertising! And we'll centralize it all instead of leaving it to the local markets! Or even better, we'll have people creating the ad content on services like Mechanical Turk! Then we'll be rich, rich, rich!!!
Ugh. Whether it's a brilliant new downsizing strategy or the last gasp of old media, I can't tell, but I do wonder if any of these brilliant businessmen in several fields have considered something: After you've outsourced all the information jobs, just as you've done with manufacturing jobs, to foreign markets and to volunteers and/or to virtual sweatshops like mturk (some companies brag they pay "tens of dollars" for things they used to pay thousands for), who will the advertisers get their revenue from, since darn near everyone (at least in America) will be broke and out of work? And who will volunteer, since most unemployed people can't afford the computers to do volunteer work?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
i used to like Google News because it brought together all sorts of news from a variety of sources. Now it's front page is filled with stories from the largest of the MSM. Now it is just a direct path from NYT, LAT, and W.P. to your monitor.
How many global wire services are there? AP, Reuters, AFP? Do we count Rev Moon's UPI? Is it still running? In any case, not many. They, in turn, feed into all other media. It's not uncommon to see one wire service story reflected and echoed through 4,000 online news sources. Sometimes it's the original 20 paragraphs long (or whatever) and sometimes it's only the first sentence or two. In Canada, "Canoe.com" has homogenized online news for the majority of Canadian newspapers with the local being paper being reduced to little more than an advertising bureau and the real editorial decisions are made elsewhere, if not every day then for one or more days each week as far as the editoiral olicy on national issues is concerned. The process AP writes abot has been underway for years. They are merely reporting how it is manifested on the Net.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Whatever, Slashdot. What does all this have to do with Iraq?
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
Although it's done nothing else of value, it has shown pretty convincingly that if you give typewriters to 10^6 monkeys, you don't magically get Shakespeare. All you get is a rough equivalent of "want bananas" * 10^6.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..