Raise the Hammer
The internet changes not only how the news is conveyed - digitally or on paper - but also how our perception of the news is changing altogether.
By Ramzy Baroud
Published May 27, 2010
The debate is no longer confined to a few academics in distant universities. It is now a widely prevalent, mainstream topic of discussion.
How will the news of the future be distributed? The jury is still out, but not completely. Increasingly, we are driven to believe that the future will be paperless. Some argue that the "paper" will be taken out of the "newspaper" within a few years. Their logic might have come across as far-fetched in the late 1990s, but it can hardly be dismissed in 2010.
Two American intellectuals added their voices to the chorus of those predicting that the print media would not continue to define the news for long. In October 2009, Leonard Downie Jr., vice president at large and former executive editor of The Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, professor of Communication at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, co-authored a 98-page paper entitled, "The Reconstruction of American Journalism."
Here, they made the assertion:
Newspapers and television news are not going to vanish in the foreseeable future ... But they will play diminished roles in an emerging and still rapidly changing world of digital journalism, in which the means of news reporting are being re-invented, the character of news is being reconstructed, and reporting is being distributed across a greater number and variety of news organizations, new and old.
The idea is not a new one. In August 24, 2006, The Economist published an article entitled, "Who killed the newspaper?," which claimed:
Of all the 'old' media, newspapers have the most to lose from the Internet. Circulation has been falling in America, Western Europe, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand for decades ... in the past few years the Web has hastened the decline.
While we freely refer to the digital media revolution as "new media," few dare classify print newspapers as "old."
The Economist did, nearly four years ago. Considering the speed at which the digital media world is moving - with the introduction of new gadgets and the level of Internet penetration throughout the world - print papers are now most definitely old and aging.
The magazine also made an interesting reference to Philip Meyer, whose works include, Precision Journalism: A Reporter's Introduction to Social Science Methods and Newspaper Ethics in the New Century: A Report to the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
In his most recent book, The Vanishing Newspaper, Meyer calculates that "the first quarter of 2043 will be the moment when newsprint dies in America as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition."
More, digital media are making waves not just in the constant improvement of news and information technology, but also influencing the level of trust readers have in the new media. Indeed, it is not just about how the news is conveyed - digitally or on paper - but how our perception of the news is changing altogether.
American intellectual and best-selling author John Mearsheimer didn't neglect to refer to the Internet in one of the most important and honest assessments on "The Future of Palestine." In his recent speech, he stated:
The Internet is a game changer. It not only makes it easy for the opponents of apartheid to get the real story out to the world, but it also allows Americans to learn the story that the New York Times and the Washington Post have been hiding from them.
Those familiar with the book Manufacturing Consent, by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, understand well that traditional media coverage of news is largely determined by "filters" which allow competing interests to determine what we read and watch, and thus our perception of the world.
The Internet, despite all its shortcomings, is much more equitable and democratic. That should not discount the fact that poorer countries still do not have the kind of Internet availability, speed and access that is common and widespread in the developed world. But the fact that an online community newspaper has a fighting chance, like any other mainstream newspaper, is certainly worth celebrating as an achievement.
There is also another reason why we will continue to go digital, and why it will only be a matter of years before the pendulum turns in favor of paperless media world.
The latest Climate Change conference in Copenhagen failed to set limits on carbon emissions or to come up with any serious or binding agreements.
It was a colossal disappointment, but that failure was political more than scientific. Very few still argue that global warming is a hoax, or believe that the environment is sustainable, considering our long-unchecked way of life. More, recycling is no longer a fad.
Some countries are debating laws that make recycling mandatory, and to punish violators. Considering all of this, it is difficult to imagine that years from now we will continue to use and discard newspapers so readily, as if the paper on which news is printed doesn't come from trees, and as if discarded papers don't constitute landfill.
Bob Dylan continues to be right. The times they are a-changin'. And it's time that we also appreciate that change, not resist it; work with it, not against it.
There is no shame in embracing change. When the first commercially successful trans-Atlantic telegraph cable was completed in July 1866, some must have thought that humanity had reached the zenith of achievements as far as the field of communications was concerned.
Now telegraphs are only found in museums and are coveted collectors' items. Instead, hundreds of millions of people routinely and conveniently send texts, sounds, images and videos through their cell phones without much fuss or excitement. Although the concept is still the same, the medium has changed dramatically.
The same can be said about news. The news industry will never die; in fact, in a globalized and interconnected world, we will seek news more than ever before. But the medium will inevitably change, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
It is telling that the most featured and best-selling item from Amazon.com is the Kindle digital reader, and that iPad has been topping news related to publishing technology all around the world.
The Times They Are a-Changin'. And we'd better change accordingly.
By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted May 27, 2010 at 13:16:21
After my fiance and I moved in together, her grandmother was horrified that we weren't receiving a newspaper. We tried to explain that neither of us have time in the morning to read it and that by the time we get home it's literally old news but she signed us up for it anyway. Now each week, we have a stack of unread papers that need to be recycled.
As more people grow up having the latest news instantaneously available I can't see any format that doesn't provide (close to) real time information as viable. In order to thrive again news outlets need to be more responsive and provide greater interaction, both between related articles and between readers and authors.
By nobrainer (registered) | Posted May 27, 2010 at 14:09:24
This should help. Daily Prophet, anyone?
By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted May 27, 2010 at 14:23:29
^Sorry, but what's a "pencil"?
It's sort of like typing except the font is often unreadable.
{Insert Comic Sans joke here...}
By woody10 (registered) | Posted May 27, 2010 at 15:19:53
I know it's old school but I love reading the paper, don't know why, just do. Maybe because I can read it, put it down, come back to it, cut out articles etc... I know it's all bad but....
By Kiely (registered) | Posted May 28, 2010 at 13:14:09
I know it's old school but I love reading the paper, don't know why, just do. Maybe because I can read it, put it down, come back to it, cut out articles etc... I know it's all bad but... - woody10
I do too, but I also read the back of shampoo bottles when sitting on the can.
I get about the same amount of unbiased information from both sources... "rinse and repeat" : )
By BobInnes (registered) - website | Posted May 28, 2010 at 14:28:19
I find that newspapers are an excellent source of good stuff when they have aged a few years. One automatically discards the dross, the articles still of interest are often worth reading. Sort of like wine, excellent at the cottage.
Urban Renaissance - if you have a cat, you'll find the Spec is suitable for lining the medium size litter box!
By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted May 28, 2010 at 14:47:58
if you have a cat, you'll find the Spec is suitable for lining the medium size litter box!
Actually my sister in law just got a new puppy so this week's stack is being donated to her!
I do too, but I also read the back of shampoo bottles when sitting on the can.
I get about the same amount of unbiased information from both sources... "rinse and repeat" : )
Kiely that made me laugh so hard, you win the thread.
Comment edited by UrbanRenaissance on 2010-05-28 13:48:28
By Kiely (registered) | Posted May 28, 2010 at 15:46:11
Kiely that made me laugh so hard, you win the thread. - UrbanRenaissance
WOO-HOO!!! I never win anything!
; )
By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted May 28, 2010 at 20:23:35
@ Kiely
You're welcome! I'm always happy to award humour on the internet. (I'm not just all about coming up with really pretentious names to post under, ya know.)
In all seriousness though, if someone made a news reader using the tech nobrainer linked to, with real-time updates that would go a long way to bring me back into the newspaper fold.
By The View From Up Here (anonymous) | Posted June 01, 2010 at 13:07:09
Sorry, but this article is comment is no longer relevant. The future it predicts has already come and gone. Newspapers have not dominated the dissemination of news since Kennedy defeated Nixon in a televised debate. Newspapers have had to adapt to stay relevant at least since then. It has just taken many a long time to die, largely because advertisers have been slow to adapt. They got radio and TV, but digital media have moved more quickly than the average media buyer.
A major cause of this failure is evident in this commentary's view of "the internet" as a single medium. In fact various digital media and formats have risen and receded in the past twenty years. Last year was Facebook. This year is Twitter. Cell phones gather and disseminate news. YouTube has numerous immitatators. Whither e-mail, yahoo, your own web-site? It is the lack of a single dominant replacement medium that has allowed newspapers and television networks the illusion that they still dominate the dissemination of news even as their circulation numbers have declined, and their client advertisers and political systems to ignore their own effectiveness right up to the recent economic collapse.
But most importantly, it is not the failure of newspapers that most effects how our lives will be lived. It is the end of concensus. Without the information oligopoly it becomes more difficult to build the mass markets that support the mass manufacturing characteristic of the industrial era. With out dominant media through which to manufacture concensus, there is no political "truth", no "public record" and little chance to convey notions of justice on which our democratic system has relied. Official, authorized versions are constantly undermined by people with cell phones. As our daily lives are less and less about direct experience, and more and more are media mediated, communities that believe their local newspapers or any other single medium are increasingly out of touch.
You must be logged in to comment.
There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?