Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Net's Effect on Journalism

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the no-not-that-way-the-other-way dept.

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."

8 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Not the Net's fault... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Not the Net's fault... by Zelos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I spent a couple of weeks on a business trip in the US in January - the saturation coverage of the presidential primaries was over the top IMHO. It's not like it's even an election, it's a pre-election. I noticed that there was virtually no mention of (for example) the massive violence going on in Kenya at the time over their elections.

    2. Re:Not the Net's fault... by sjs132 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "YOU only see what THEY want you to see..." "Consume"

      Hasn't everyone figured this out yet? Not being funny. Quite serious. If you want the "NEWS" don't rely on just one source, and usually look for various "opinions" to get the full story.

      The reference is from some hokey alien movie with an ex-wrestler... the truth is more scary because the aliens are not real, they are the elitest ruling class on both sides of the political spectrum and they will use each other and media outlets to keep you keeping your heads down and munching... QUESTION EVERYTHING. (except me, of course.)

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
  2. Why Democratize? by abscissa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why Democratize? by mikelu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Democratize is the wrong word - what they mean is news coverage akin to the Greek jury model: the number of news sources becomes so large that bribing or intimidating enough of them to have an effect becomes staggeringly difficult.

  3. Investigative Journalism Takes Time and Money by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Absolute Crap by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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