Slashdot Mirror


The Internet Is Killing Local News, Says the FCC

Art3x writes "The rise of the Internet has led to a 'shortage of local, professional, accountability reporting' (Here's the AP's version) says a 475-page report by the FCC, and the consequences could be 'more government waste, more local corruption,' 'less effective schools' and other problems. Even though there are more media choices today than ever, newspapers have been laying off reporters, leaving a gap that is yet to be filled."

44 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, that's it by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not that the majority of local businesses are multinational franchises with no need for local advertising.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Yeah, that's it by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lets see, if I make a trip outside my local area, working for a multinational. Am I going to want to go to the local news company's website (so the internet is promoting local news), or am I going to go to another news website, although both obviously don't mean reading the local news or watching tv news.

      Is that really a surprise in this day and age?

      Meanwhile, shitty/shoddy reporting has killed news in general, not shortages of staff. Considering that they wont' even cover tough topics pretty much sealed the deal for any form of regular news website being considered legitimate or worth a glance. I'd sooner read fark than new york times, since at least I can get more info from fark, such as when they actually covered iran protests and NYT/CNN/Fox news/ABC/NBC/AP were nowhere to be found. Only Al Jazeera has been stepping up as a news org.

    2. Re:Yeah, that's it by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Meanwhile, shitty/shoddy reporting has killed news in general, not shortages of staff. Considering that they wont' even cover tough topics pretty much sealed the deal for any form of regular news website being considered legitimate or worth a glance. I'd sooner read fark than new york times, since at least I can get more info from fark, such as when they actually covered iran protests and NYT/CNN/Fox news/ABC/NBC/AP were nowhere to be found. Only Al Jazeera has been stepping up as a news org.

      Personally, I have long since ignored local news media outlets because of the level of bias they all seem to carry. There are more choices for national and international news, you can find more sources online and sources based overseas, but here in America most of the media is pushing the same agenda - why would I waste my time watching what are essentially 20 minute news-based political cartoons?

      The internet didn't kill local news or newspapers, they killed themselves by deciding to stop reporting news and start shaping and creating news.

    3. Re:Yeah, that's it by wealthychef · · Score: 2

      Yes, there is a dearth of local reporters of quality -- but hasn't that always been the case? The tradeoff is now we have lots of raw data in the form of blogs and iphone uploads and such, but less filtering. The challenge is for local media to make the switch from thinking of themselves as the exclusive reliable data and information providers and discoverers and giving more time to data and information collection and filtering and interpretation. The more HONEST and effective they are, the more they will prosper. They are stuck in an old paradigm and cannot escape.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    4. Re:Yeah, that's it by butalearner · · Score: 3, Informative

      Personally, I have long since ignored local news media outlets because of the level of bias they all seem to carry. There are more choices for national and international news, you can find more sources online and sources based overseas, but here in America most of the media is pushing the same agenda - why would I waste my time watching what are essentially 20 minute news-based political cartoons?

      The internet didn't kill local news or newspapers, they killed themselves by deciding to stop reporting news and start shaping and creating news.

      My local internet-only news is actually quite good, but the TV news is exactly as you say. There's usually brief segments of news, weather, and sports, followed by the lengthy feature story about how likely I am to be murdered if I sell something on Craigslist or how terrorists can make my computer explode if I share too much personal information on Facebook.

    5. Re:Yeah, that's it by jmac_the_man · · Score: 5, Informative

      That, and the Fox News "We won the right to blatantly lie and call it news" SCOTUS case pretty much clenched it.

      Humorously enough, this is a blatant lie. The case you are referring to had nothing to do with Fox News. Also, the case wasn't a SCOTUS case (it was a Florida court case.)

    6. Re:Yeah, that's it by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 2

      I stopped watching and reading the news once it was legal for them to lie. Until they fix that... I can never believe anything they say.

      At least it's not legal in many foreign countries. So your post makes a lot of sense and I am pretty much of the same mind here.

    7. Re:Yeah, that's it by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 2

      Yeah, more and more I'm having to count on news agencies outside the US to find good reporting on news inside the US.

      That, and the Fox News "We won the right to blatantly lie and call it news" SCOTUS case pretty much clenched it.

      Don't think of it as Fox News winning a right to lie and call it news. Think of it as you keeping the right to report news, and not have Fox News not gaining the right to shut you down because they want to consider what you say to be lies.

      That is, unless you want really powerful organizations going to court to decide what is "true enough" to be said. You can still change the channel.

    8. Re:Yeah, that's it by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2
      Fox Television affiliates are different and distinct from Fox News. Is it fair to say that Fox News won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2007? The Wall Street Journal, which today falls under the News Corp. umbrella, won it. Of course not. Attributing possible malfeasance to Fox News is the same thing.

      By the way, the court didn't rule that the story WTVT told Akre to run was a lie. The rule in question says that whistle-blowing is alerting the proper authorities to violations of the law. The lower court threw out all the claims made by the reporters (including that they were told to report something false) except that they were whistle-blowers because they were going to make a report to the FCC. The low court left that claim intact because they believed that they were whistle-blowers, even though the court just ruled that WTVT did not tell them to lie.

      The high court overturned the whistle-blower part, but they didn't consider whether the reporters were told to lie, except to note that the low court ruled that they were never told to lie. This story is told in plain English on every Wikipedia page mentioning this. So let's review this. You say "Fox News won the right to lie from the Supreme Court." I say that "Someone who's not Fox News won a case because the a Florida district court (not the Supreme Court) ruled that it wasn't a lie." What part of your statement is not a lie?

      Good thing it's not illegal to lie on Slashdot.

  2. Government waste is already here,,, by clm1970 · · Score: 2

    Seems to me the FCC doing a 475 page report on something that was pretty obvious is Government waste.

  3. it is a shame too. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, the problem with citizen journalism is that unless you've got enough eyes peering onto your site to somehow support some sort of revenue stream, you're going to be spending half your day at work, the other half doing reporting and you're going to be pretty burnt out from all of it.

    This is the advantage of professional journalists, they get to eat because of their work.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:it is a shame too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the problem with citizen journalism is that unless you've got enough eyes peering onto your site to somehow support some sort of revenue stream, you're going to be spending half your day at work, the other half doing reporting and you're going to be pretty burnt out from all of it.

      This is the advantage of professional journalists, they get to eat because of their work.

      They gave up a long time ago, and now they're paying the price. Rather that doing journalism like a profession, they went for the lazy option and reduced news to celebrity gossip, and even using forum posts and twitter as items within their pointless articles. Tough titties, these "journalist" are getting exactly what the deserve.

    2. Re:it is a shame too. by paiute · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, the problem with citizen journalism is that unless you've got enough eyes peering onto your site to somehow support some sort of revenue stream, you're going to be spending half your day at work, the other half doing reporting and you're going to be pretty burnt out from all of it.

      This is the advantage of professional journalists, they get to eat because of their work.

      On the other hand, a citizen journalist is going to be less careful about sources and fact checking. The citizen journalist is going to blog their suspicions and air unfounded allegations. A low signal-to-noise compared to a legit newpaper, but a lot of tip of the iceberg stuff which might appear earlier.

      Remember that the two-newpaper town is only the news paradigm we can remember. Until about the time Hearst figured out how to make money out of buying up papers, there were hundreds of small run papers, many full of partisan vitriol. It was the internet without a net.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    3. Re:it is a shame too. by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depends on the source and it depends on how they present it.

      I take great time to fact check, ensure human sources are valid and have proof of their whistleblowing, and provide all documentation procured from the agencies as evidence.

      Just because some bloggers don't, doesn't mean that signal to noise ratio is high, it just means you aren't paying attention to the right sources.

      ----

      As for making money and burning out. Yeah, it sucks. My site makes some money (and rarely any from political posts) but I don't do it for that. I do it because I enjoy the topic, I enjoy doing data analysis, and I like having a hobby.

      YMMV.

    4. Re:it is a shame too. by Nikker · · Score: 2

      The vast majority of blogs or "news sites" don't even make enough to cover their domain registration. If you are one of the few that get enough to consider which way to go then we have progress. Out of the few (which in internet terms is still in the hundreds/thousands) that are passionate enough about producing news content then I think that is amazing and beneficial for us all, provided you take the leap and devote your self to it rather than just moon lighting.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    5. Re:it is a shame too. by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      a citizen journalist is going to be less careful about sources and fact checking

      Often stated, rarely proven. "Proper" news organizations aren't exactly paragons of virtue here, as anyone with detailed knowledge of a complicated story will tell you. Sometimes, they'll just publish anything at all - this example by CBS is just one of the most egregious.

    6. Re:it is a shame too. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      a citizen journalist is going to be less careful about sources and fact checking

      Often stated, rarely proven.

      Here's a recent story that might support your view, where the international got all excited over dozens of bodies supposedly discovered in a house in Texas, even though the only evidence was a psychic who called in a police tip.

      On the other hand, from what I've read in the aftermath of this story, what caused this story to spread initially was lax standards about who could post to a Twitter feed at a local news organization; Reuters read the Twitter feed, and the rest is history. By the time the local news station had checked its sources and decided not to run with the story on the air, the story was everywhere.

      If relying on a Twitter feed that didn't go through official approval channels at a local news station could cause this much crap, do we really think that relying on random Twitter and blog posts by a group of unvetted people many times as large will result in greater accuracy?

    7. Re:it is a shame too. by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2

      I don't think anybody got lazy. The local beat reporters got laid off because the local newspapers were hemorrhaging money. If they got a job covering the celebrity beat, they would consider themselves lucky to be able to put food on the table.

      This story has nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with market forces. Craiglist and eBay killed the market for local classifieds, Monster et. al. killed the local job postings, and Google ate up the advertising dollars that used to go to print.

      The only newspapers left solvent are large national papers, and even those are barely so for the most part.

      I pay for a dead tree New York Times subscription because we need journalism to continue as an institution and a public good. The problem is in an era of free-on-the-margin information, it's mighty hard to get people to pay to cover the fixed costs of reporting, and the number of people willing to pay shrinks massively when you are talking about a local rather than national scale.

    8. Re:it is a shame too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, a citizen journalist is going to be less careful about sources and fact checking. The citizen journalist is going to blog their suspicions and air unfounded allegations.

      Perhaps you missed all the "mainstream" media coverage of Palin last week. She said something about Paul Revere, which was easy enough to look up, and they all blasted her for being an idiot and getting the story wrong (This includes the "perfect" NPR as well). Once they began their follow ups the next day with experts to corroborate how stupid Palin is the experts all told the media Palin was right.

      You seem to think professional journalists fact check when they can't be bothered when smearing women in politics, or blacks in the GOP either.

    9. Re:it is a shame too. by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful


      So if there was a quality newspaper in your jurisdiction doing hard reporting and research

      I'm 55. I'm also a voracious reader. I've read many, many US newspapers, certainly all the really big ones -- and I've never seen such a thing. What I see are papers that won't address the real issues, papers that kowtow to the superstitious, papers that throw up "the other side" even when there's absolutely no facts on the ground supporting the other side, etc.

      Newspapers have a conflict of interest: They have to make money; and in order to make money, they have to leave a very large number of readers content with what they've read. So they can't honestly address political corruption, unjust wars, affronts to liberty, superstition, the fact that the legal system has devolved to corporate and moneyed-group serving process, and no longer even pretends to implement justice for the citizens at any level... I could go on, but the point is made: newspapers are pap-filled rags written for the lowest common denominator in their audience.

      A blogger doesn't have to be dependent upon how many people read. zero, one or a thousand, it's all the same. So they can -- and do -- say whatever they think. Then we, as netizens, simply find the ones that are thinking clearly. The difference is that there are actually things worth reading on the net. In newspapers... not so much. I can point you to quite a few blogs where the reading is interesting, informative, pertinent, and well thought out, and few, if any, subjects are "off the table." I can't point you to even one newspaper where the same is true.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    10. Re:it is a shame too. by DeadDecoy · · Score: 2

      I believe that's partially correct. While selecting the correct source can lead to a wealth of information, it can also result in a biased selection. For instance, if the Fox news website happens to get some of their information correct, or at least the circumstantial facts, they might be labeled as a good source. However, if the dialogue around those facts are tightly controlled they can provide information in a way that is not entirely honest. A good example is the early drafts of the healthcare bill had a clause discussing end-of-life procedures which ended up being conflated into death panels. That clause was subsequently removed or neutered. In this manner, it's important to have a news site present objective facts and analysis to everyone, which you may not get if you self-select your source.

      Given that, I still think traditional media has failed in this task and I'm not sorry to see them paying the price of having to compete with alternative sources.

    11. Re:it is a shame too. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      " papers that won't address the real issues,"

      Correct. I grew up during the Viet Nam war. I graduated the year our soldiers came home. Every day, reports of body counts, in towns, villages, and provinces with unpronouncable names - but NEVER a question about "WTF are we even doing in some insignificant jungle country?"

      Again, correct. We've been reading all our lives about the evil of drugs. The papers parrot the government's stance on drugs, report arrests, report numbers of deaths, report convictions and sentences. Never once does a newspaper ask, "WTF is the government doing outlawing an entire genus of plants, then killing and imprisoning people who come into contact with that genus?"

      And, again, correct. Today, that "war on drugs" has claimed in excess of 40,000 casualties in Mexico. Which newspaper and/or news site and/or channel has reported such horrific details? To get such details, one must read them in Spanish, on Mexican news sites, of go to borderlandbeat.com CNN won't carry the news, Fox won't carry the news, even the BBC won't carry the news.

      The newspapers have been irrelevant for decades. If they were relevant at all, they would KEEP public officials honest, rather than exposing dishonest officials. At the local, state, and federal levels, the reporters should be in-your-face with tough questions all the time, ensuring that officials vote as they promised their constituents to vote, ensuring that funds are properly spent, ensuring that every little lie is exposed.

      Phhht. Corrupt officials aren't exposed until they step on the wrong toes, or they get so brazen that they just don't care any more. Newspapers aren't worth wrapping fish in, anymore.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:it is a shame too. by gambino21 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nonsense. Political corruption is the bread and butter of media because it sells. As noted in the first linked article, the LA Times investigated and broke the Bell corruption story.

      Nonsense right back at you. Stories about the tweets and love lives of politicians are the bread and butter of media because it sells, and it creates distractions from the real issues. Actual political corruption, such as Obama secretly negotiating with Health care companies, running a covert war in Yemen, and then lying about it, and of course I shouldn't even have to mention all stuff that went on under Bush. Actual corruption gets very little, if any, coverage.

    13. Re:it is a shame too. by downhole · · Score: 2

      Oh, it's even worse than that - that sloppiness is fueled by blatant political bias. I don't think they even really care about the issues anymore, as long as the current Democrat party gets and keeps power. Anything that slams a Republican gets published with little to no fact-checking, as long as it has nothing to do with any actual issue. And anything that slams a Democrat gets ignored no matter what the facts are until there's so much attention on it that they'd look like complete idiots not covering it, if that ever actually happens.

      So if the old media is dying, goodbye and good riddance.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
  4. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Flat Earth News published in 2008 goes into this in great detail from a British point of view. Interestingly, it's not the internet that started the rot but massive cost cutting - which for ten years created huge profits - started in the mid-80s. By the mid to late 90s serious journalism and local news were already dieing. The internet merely savaged the corpse.

  5. ... and little of value was lost by dlcarrol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure there's an objective, non-sensationalist, just-the-facts reporter working somewhere, but to pretend that the internet is the reason these jobs are going away is silly. They're going away because the local reporting is, in the main, just as vacuous as national reporting and probably less well-edited. Factor in that with local reporting we're still getting more government waste, more local corruption, and less effective schools with these programs been cheered on by most of those in journalism, and this seems to boil down to "if that fox stops guarding the henhouse ..."

    I agree that the Fourth Estate (right?) is important, but its value is historically overstated, and it is easily co-opted for outright propaganda.

    1. Re:... and little of value was lost by thomst · · Score: 2

      I'm sure there's an objective, non-sensationalist, just-the-facts reporter working somewhere, but to pretend that the internet is the reason these jobs are going away is silly. They're going away because the local reporting is, in the main, just as vacuous as national reporting and probably less well-edited.

      The fact is that small-town newspapers are doing pretty well, compared to the big boys - but it's not because they're paragons of journalistic virtue. In fact, by and large, they stink at journalism. What keeps them afloat is local ad revenue - advertising mom-and-pop businesses and coupon specials for grocery chains and the like.

      Meanwhile, the reasons their reportage sucks wind and blows air are:

      • 1. their publishers (mostly chains, like Gannett) fear the revenue impacts of investigative reporting on businesses,
      • 2. their reporters fear the access impacts of investigative reporting on local politicians and public safety personnel, and
      • 3. their pay rates are so laughably meager that they can't attract high-quality writers, and can't keep 'em, if they're lucky enough to hire talented beginners.

      In other news: none of the above is news.

      --
      Check out my novel.
  6. Poor newspapers by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gosh, I'd almost feel sorry for newspapers, if they hadn't ruthlessly used their mainstream media status to advance personal and political agendas, both through their choice of stories to report as well as deliberate omissions ("that's not a story"). Bizarrely, journalists still cling to the "we are heroes and white knights" self-narrative, and still in the year 2011 have not had a heel realization.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  7. Bullshit. Simply bullshit. by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where I live the local news has rarely ever exposed anything. In fact, they gloss over the details, fail to provide links to documentation for the reader to learn for themselves, and use so many quotes from the elected officials or city staff members that no true analysis can be done.

    One professional reporter suggested to me privately that the public, "read between the lines," in order to see what's really being said. While that's great for someone in the know, it doesn't work for 99.9% of the population.

    What has helped are local, non-professional sources who take the time to do what reporters used to do. Researching documents, providing them to the public and going back to school to have an even better understanding of how local government is supposed to work.

    While I don't want to toot my own horn or even step on the toes of the pros, the work I do actually does expose the issues in local government and shows their general incompetence when compared to how they are supposed to act.

    I am going to school for Public Administration, I use my skills as a data analyst to provide crime dashboards to aggregate data, and I post public documents requested and researched for MONTHS so that the public can ignore my own analysis and do their own if they so choose.

    The rise of the Internet has done nothing to change the business model of the print papers. They're still pushing out 500 word blurbs of city council meetings instead of 1000+ word analyses. They are the ones at fault here, not the Internet and shame on the FCC for stating anything else.

  8. Media consolidation..? by andy1307 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FCC approved media consolidation had nothing to do with this?

  9. Why by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I stopped watching the news many years ago and never did get a paper. It wasn't because of the Internet. It was because I got tired of hearing nothing but trivial, shallow, or sensationalistic crap. I don't care who slept with whom and soundbites don't do anything any good. Plus, since I live in an area with many connected cities, invariably the remaining content usually didn't apply to my locality, anyway.

    Quite frankly, the national news isn't much better in many ways. To me, the fact that there was some conflict in the Middle East is simply not news, it is life. Yes, gas prices are high. Republicans did X and Democrats did Y. Some other bill just passed that either raises taxes, takes away state's rights, stomps on the Constitution, or takes away citizens' personal liberty.

    I hope that doesn't make me irresponsible. I do try to stay informed. And usually the things that do matter somehow reach me. I am just burned out from negativity, information overload, and feeling completely apathetic about government in general.

  10. Re:475 Page by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not a waste, since that's not the results of the report. Let me help out.

    How the Internet Has Improved Journalism
    ---
    Greater Depth
    Improved Quality of Commentary and Analysis
    Enabling Citizen Engagement
    Speed and Ease
    Expanding Hyperlocal Coverage
    Serving Highly Specific Interests
    Cheaper Content Distribution
    Cheaper Content Creation
    Direct Access to Community and Civic News

    Sound different from TFS?

    Yep. Same report. Time to fork slashdot to make it less inflammatory. They took the only concern, "lack of clarity how well trained bloggers are" and made it into a siren favoring Big Media.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  11. IMO: misleading by Froze · · Score: 2

    Right?! Because it is not news if I choose to subscribe directly to things like the county school board news letter instead of watching/reading commercial laden media hype.

    Trying to imply that the Internet is to blame for the downfall of investigative journalism is ridiculous, I have seen more expose's as a result of rapid information spread on the Internet than I ever saw from some local yokel reporters drek on how bob's bakery was vandalized last night.

    If anything this means that the FCC should be pushing the protections afforded to journalists toward the more independent sources like bloggers and whistleblowers.

    --
    -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
  12. Grab your ankles... They're after freedom or money by WCMI92 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Statements like this by gigantic Federal bureaucracies always leads to some move against freedom.

    They will look to either restrict the ability of the internet to report news (which the government would love, the ruling democrat establishment would love nothing more than to shut down Andrew Britebart and Matt Drudge amongst others). Or they will be after confiscatory taxes on the internet, on news sites, on bloggers, to subsidize "local" news.

    As others have said in this story, the lack of support for local news couldn't have anything to do with the fact that businesses aren't local anymore like they were 50 years ago... 50 years ago every town had more than one newspaper. Every radio station had a full airstaff AND a news department. Why? Because local advertisers PAID for this.

    The FCC realizes that it's reason for existence (over the air radio and TV) is coming to an end because it's being overtaken by internet broadcasting. They also realize that the chink in the 1st Amendment that was created for them in 1934, the fact that radio spectrum has limits, ie, there is scarcity, which paved the way for the Feds to decide who could broadcast and who couldn't, is mooted by the fact that the Internet has NO LIMIT of channels.

    So they have to invent some other form of "scarcity" to give them some toehold on the Internet.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  13. Because it used to be so much better by Moe+Taxes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Before the Internet local schools were all awesome, local politicians were honest and dutiful, and the zoning board members could never be bought off, because everyone was cowed into sincerity by the local newspaper.

    Or am I delusional.

    This not a loss of local control, we haven't had that since the 1860's, it is loss of central control by big media companies who are pulling desperately on the strings they still have.

    --
    It took a real world war to end the airplane's patent wars. - Fâché Rouge -
  14. Re:Don't forget the inherent bias of the communiti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whining about biased sites while posting to Slashdot? LOL *head asplodes*

    While your opinion is probably perfectly valid, and in fact may be reality, such a viewpoint does not match well with the biases and precognitions of the fanatics at such social media sites.

    Just because someone said something negative about Apple does not mean it is probably valid. It is very likely to not be valid considering the rabid anti-Apple nuts. All you've done is expose your own bias.

  15. Re:Problem? by paiute · · Score: 2

    So long as Fox News is the first to go, I fail to see a problem here.

    Except that outlets like Fox News - which are essentially company newsletters, not put out to make a profit but to support an ideology - will be the only survivors.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  16. Re:475 Page by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not a waste, since that's not the results of the report. Let me help out.

    How the Internet Has Improved Journalism --- Greater Depth Improved Quality of Commentary and Analysis Enabling Citizen Engagement Speed and Ease Expanding Hyperlocal Coverage Serving Highly Specific Interests Cheaper Content Distribution Cheaper Content Creation Direct Access to Community and Civic News

    Sound different from TFS?

    Yep. Same report. Time to fork slashdot to make it less inflammatory. They took the only concern, "lack of clarity how well trained bloggers are" and made it into a siren favoring Big Media.

    Time to insert a Bill Hicks quote - I'll leave it to those with brains to work out the relevance to TFA:-

    By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show.

    "You know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar, that's a big dollar, a lot of people are feeling that indignation, we've done research, huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scumbags, quit putting a godamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!

  17. Local news has been dead/useless for years by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    Local newspapers rarely have the stones or interest to actually go after local corruption. For example, in the case of Ryan Frederick, the local news was basically regurgitating the local police reports until Radley Balko dug into it and found that it was full of corruption. Much of that corruption, I might add, was just barely concealed beneath the surface.

    The fact is that the local media outlets have been compromised for a long time. It's not because of "teh corporashunz" it's because they're both too lazy and too afraid of risking local relationships with key officials who might shut them out of future scoops.

  18. The Press has been catering to the LCD soo long by harrytuttle777 · · Score: 2

    that there is nobody left that can take the news seriously. I can be better informed watching sponge Bob Square Pants for .5 hours that I can watching the local news. The one shining light in the sea of trash journalism is the PBS TV News. Not the Radio, the radio program is just as biased and uninformative as Fox or CNN.

    Actually the PBS TV programs are a real breath of fresh air. No fancy graphics. Just professionals talking about the news. It is kind of like the rest of the news outlets used to be 20-30 years ago. I can actually watch the program and not think everyone on the program is retarded.

    The Major new outlets say they just cater to what the public is buying. Well, I guess they are not buying it anymore. Even if the argument was valid, it would kind of be like one of those faggety ass drug dealers saying, 'well i am just selling what the public wants'.

    -The owner of this post is a fagot

    -Nancy Grace.

  19. No, It's Not by DakotaSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's killing all press (from local to world) isn't the Internet -- the Internet is just what's replacing the press.

    What's killing the press is that the industry is laced from top to bottom with ignorant Statists capable of neither investigating nor reporting accurately on the events of the day. Almost every news story in existence originates with some Google search by a flunky desperately seeking something for the talking head to say so as to keep butts in the seats and hands off the remotes.

    Amazingly, the entire industry is so insular and elitist that is neither capable of seeing its own obvious incompetence nor or recognizing the truth about their entire industry:

    That is now nothing more than a batch of scandal sheets and hack-rags, and its former customers are starting to figure that out. Result: they're no longer buying what the press is selling -- because the press is selling total bullshit.

    For thirty years, I've made a hobby of de-bunking the press. In the age of the Internet, give me any press story, Google, and fifteen minutes, and I can usually prove that the story never occurred in reality. There's typically a kernel of truth, but it will have been sensationalized and transformed to the point where it bears only a tangential relationship to reality.

    Mark this and mark it well: the world beyond your immediate experience isn't what you think it is. Do not assume that anything the press reports is accurate -- in fact, it's a good bed that every report is made up of almost whole cloth.

    --
    Microsoft leads to Bluescreen; Bluescreen leads to downtime; downtime leads to suffering.
  20. BS by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Local news was killed in suicide decades ago when they stopped reporting actual facts and switched to 'commentary'.

    Internet is just helping clean the mess up.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  21. Content sells by __aaaehb3101 · · Score: 2

    When "local" news stops being a recap of AP wire stories, and when "commentary" stops being a mix of advertising and thinly veiled slander maybe I'll watch a "local" newscast. Most "local stations" or owned and operated by media conglomerates for the sole purpose of selling advertising space. Actual local news in TV always seems to open with a violent crime, followed by a car chase, followed by pre-weather then a commercial. Then it's part of the weather, sports, cute story, and then the weather recap. There is no "reporting" there is political spin, reporting the news stopped years ago and the public has finally caught on. Now the "local" stations are complaining that the "regional" stations are unfair competition. Well the "local" stations help create the short attention span of the public now they have to live with it.

    Yeah, lets force the government to $upport "local news" that will fix the economy and everything.

  22. Allow me to toss this in. by taxman_10m · · Score: 2

    From Ted Koppel on the death of news.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html

    To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. The three major broadcast networks pointed to their news divisions (which operated at a loss or barely broke even) as evidence that they were fulfilling the FCC's mandate. News was, in a manner of speaking, the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.

    On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable.

    Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its "60 Minutes" news magazine in 1968. When, after three years or so, "60 Minutes" turned a profit (something no television news program had previously achieved), a light went on, and the news divisions of all three networks came to be seen as profit centers, with all the expectations that entailed.