Eric Alterman's 'Out of Print' article created a looming cloud over all media that i think is not necessary or needed. The statistics are relevant and should not be set aside but used rather to find a solution to the media problem rather than forecasting the death of newspaper and all print media.
I think today we are in a critical place in the country. This looming digital revolution that people seem to be running scared from should be exciting and we should be looking for ways to leave the old models of media behind and look to new models we can create from scratch. For the first time since the invention of newspapers we have a change to create a new model, a new way to look at print mediea and all media for that fact. And it is articles like these that do not inspire such efforts but rather inspire more people to look at the media and think more negative things about it.
I wanted to scream DUH for most of the article. None of this information was new or shocking to me. of COURSE people want to go to the internet. The exact same information and stories are in teh exact same format are on both the internet and on the paper itself. Print media needs to get with it. They need to change one or the other. The Wall Street Journal is a good example of this. Their home page is filled with stories that aren't exactly on the front page of the newspaper or stories that didnt even make it into the newspaper. However, after a minute or two it is not hard to find the link to the front page of hte paper. why would people pay for the paper when they get the same thing on the internet whenever they want to for free??
None of this however is a suprise, none of this should scare us either though. People need to realize there are different ways to look these facts, there are ways to use it to fix the problems.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Last week the New York Times published a story on John McCain highlighting his shady political history, including rumors about an affair. Serious backlash about the article has forced the Times to not print just one apology, but two (on appeared the day after and the other this Sunday on the opinion page). Leaving the rumors about the affair out, the story was a good recap of McCain’s history in Washington. I had personally never heard of the ‘Keating Five Scandal’ that the story references and later explains. Not only does the story mention McCain’s wrong doings but it sums up the article by mentioning how he has managed to turn his political career around and become one of the good guys. I do think mentioning the affair was an incredibly low blow to not only McCain but his family and the woman involved, none of them deserved to be dragged into this. None-the-less the general public is disregarding the article as a whole and focusing on the affair (personally I think it is because it was in the first several paragraphs and people who read the article did not read all seven pages).
Aaron Katsman blogged about the article. He blamed the newspaper’s need for readers and circulation to go up as reasons why the article was written. “On the other hand, the paper is desperate. The readership of the paper has been in a steady decline and so have company profits.” Katsman is incredibly disappointed in the article but fails to notice what another blog has. Another Website posted said that even though most conservatives do not like McCain, most likely because of his shady political background, jumped to his defense after the article was written. The blog suggests that the article in fact boosted support for McCain among conservatives who, whether they like him or not, are going to defend him because he is one of them. I agree with this blog, I think that it is like being in a family. I can make fun of my brother or my sister and we can be in a fight and I can not agree with some of their decisions but if someone outside of my family were to say so I would jump right to my brother’s defense.
At the same time “Hoosiers for McCain” agreed, they noticed that the responses on the NYTIMES.com were not just from conservatives but from independents and liberal and democratic readers.
Another blog written by John Koblin blames the anonymous sources and the failure of the newspaper to get people on record about the affair. Which makes sense, why should people trust an article about an alleged affair when no proof is on the record? At the same time, we believe gossip, we listen to our friends when they say so-and-so did this, we read US Weekly and Star magazine and do not question what they say. The times reporting about an affair is the same thing as talking about who is dating who in US, which does lower the standards for the newspaper, what can we expect from other media outlets if one of the most influential is sinking as low as Star (no insult to the magazine, I have respect for them and what they do, but they do not have the responsibility the Times does).
One final blog says, “The concern is whether they have lost their moral and ethical compass and we need to be worried about the relevance of future lead articles. Shame, shame on the Times.”
Again, I think that people did not in fact read the whole article. I did not see it as a full blown attack on McCain, despite affair accusation it was well balanced, it looked at both positive and negative things the politician has done. It was only a matter of time before a media outlet took on a presidential candidate. Did anyone notice the article was held for months and months and was only finally published after McCain and his wife publicly insulted Obama, for his lack of experience among other things, and his wife, for her comments about pride in her country? Perhaps the article was the Times’ way of standing up for their family, for doing what Obama can not do, which is retaliate.
Aaron Katsman blogged about the article. He blamed the newspaper’s need for readers and circulation to go up as reasons why the article was written. “On the other hand, the paper is desperate. The readership of the paper has been in a steady decline and so have company profits.” Katsman is incredibly disappointed in the article but fails to notice what another blog has. Another Website posted said that even though most conservatives do not like McCain, most likely because of his shady political background, jumped to his defense after the article was written. The blog suggests that the article in fact boosted support for McCain among conservatives who, whether they like him or not, are going to defend him because he is one of them. I agree with this blog, I think that it is like being in a family. I can make fun of my brother or my sister and we can be in a fight and I can not agree with some of their decisions but if someone outside of my family were to say so I would jump right to my brother’s defense.
At the same time “Hoosiers for McCain” agreed, they noticed that the responses on the NYTIMES.com were not just from conservatives but from independents and liberal and democratic readers.
Another blog written by John Koblin blames the anonymous sources and the failure of the newspaper to get people on record about the affair. Which makes sense, why should people trust an article about an alleged affair when no proof is on the record? At the same time, we believe gossip, we listen to our friends when they say so-and-so did this, we read US Weekly and Star magazine and do not question what they say. The times reporting about an affair is the same thing as talking about who is dating who in US, which does lower the standards for the newspaper, what can we expect from other media outlets if one of the most influential is sinking as low as Star (no insult to the magazine, I have respect for them and what they do, but they do not have the responsibility the Times does).
One final blog says, “The concern is whether they have lost their moral and ethical compass and we need to be worried about the relevance of future lead articles. Shame, shame on the Times.”
Again, I think that people did not in fact read the whole article. I did not see it as a full blown attack on McCain, despite affair accusation it was well balanced, it looked at both positive and negative things the politician has done. It was only a matter of time before a media outlet took on a presidential candidate. Did anyone notice the article was held for months and months and was only finally published after McCain and his wife publicly insulted Obama, for his lack of experience among other things, and his wife, for her comments about pride in her country? Perhaps the article was the Times’ way of standing up for their family, for doing what Obama can not do, which is retaliate.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
In the section, ‘I blog, therefore I am’, David Kline suggests the power over and influence of blogs on the mass media outlets. I’ve known since the infamous Dan Rather incident that blogs are a powerful media and in this specific case their influence resulted in the firing of Dan Rather. However, I was surprised to see Kline reference them with such high regard. I was not aware their power and influence has grown over the past several years.
The fact that newspaper circulation is decreasing is no new phenomena. But that does not mean people are not getting the news through another outlet. In these days of fast paced life and the “I want what I want now” attitude of many young people, no one has time to sit down and actually read the newspaper anymore. It is much easier to go to a website, read the bullet points at the top of the story and get a general idea of what is going on, then continue with your day. I did agree that the media outlets have been trying to keep up with bloggers. News people such as Katie Couric have their own blogs, this summer when I interned at CBS in Philadelphia the weathermen and women had their own blogs. That being said, they are still members of the “biased” media and if people don’t trust the news, why would they trust a blog written by people who write about the news? I personally think it is very silly to abandon mainstream news media outlets for personal blogs where it is completely, 100% biased. Bloggers talk about what they want to talk about; they aren’t grappling with whether or not what they’re saying is ethical, truthful, etc. And they rely on the mainstream news, as Kline said, to get their news that they blog on.
Take Perez Hilton for example, he blogs about celebrities all day long. He chooses who he wants to talk about, and whether or not he likes someone has a huge impact on the people who read his site. He’s had such an impact that he’s been given his own show on VH1 and appears on The View. But what he does and says is always biased.
I think as a journalist it is impossible to ignore blogs because they do have a significant impact on people. But giving to much credit to them adds to the power and significance they already have. It’s like the bully in school, you can react to him/her and continued to get bullied but if you ignore them they eventually move on and leave you alone.
The fact that newspaper circulation is decreasing is no new phenomena. But that does not mean people are not getting the news through another outlet. In these days of fast paced life and the “I want what I want now” attitude of many young people, no one has time to sit down and actually read the newspaper anymore. It is much easier to go to a website, read the bullet points at the top of the story and get a general idea of what is going on, then continue with your day. I did agree that the media outlets have been trying to keep up with bloggers. News people such as Katie Couric have their own blogs, this summer when I interned at CBS in Philadelphia the weathermen and women had their own blogs. That being said, they are still members of the “biased” media and if people don’t trust the news, why would they trust a blog written by people who write about the news? I personally think it is very silly to abandon mainstream news media outlets for personal blogs where it is completely, 100% biased. Bloggers talk about what they want to talk about; they aren’t grappling with whether or not what they’re saying is ethical, truthful, etc. And they rely on the mainstream news, as Kline said, to get their news that they blog on.
Take Perez Hilton for example, he blogs about celebrities all day long. He chooses who he wants to talk about, and whether or not he likes someone has a huge impact on the people who read his site. He’s had such an impact that he’s been given his own show on VH1 and appears on The View. But what he does and says is always biased.
I think as a journalist it is impossible to ignore blogs because they do have a significant impact on people. But giving to much credit to them adds to the power and significance they already have. It’s like the bully in school, you can react to him/her and continued to get bullied but if you ignore them they eventually move on and leave you alone.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Cowboys Defeat
Mark Cuban recently blogged about the loss of the Cowboys last week, saying he understood the pain that the players and coaches and fans must have felt. But, as a Philadelphian, the cheers that rang across the city in those last few seconds of the game could not have been more joyful and reluctant. T.O., I'm sorry, i just can not stand.
But enough about the game, Cuban went on to talk about the media frenzy that would soon occur. How the media would want to ask silly questions and bother everyone on the team. He also said he wanted to "beat some sense into them".
I'm sorry, but did i miss something? Is it not the media's job to get those responses, to find out what the players and coaches are doing, what they plan to do next year? isn't they're responsibility to find out for the thousands of fans across the country? And also, one who puts themselves in the spotlight, like Cuban, his team, and the Cowboys, can not complain about the fame and attention they get. For one day it will be questions you do not want to answer, for one day out of the whole wonderful season they have had. I think they'll manage.
But enough about the game, Cuban went on to talk about the media frenzy that would soon occur. How the media would want to ask silly questions and bother everyone on the team. He also said he wanted to "beat some sense into them".
I'm sorry, but did i miss something? Is it not the media's job to get those responses, to find out what the players and coaches are doing, what they plan to do next year? isn't they're responsibility to find out for the thousands of fans across the country? And also, one who puts themselves in the spotlight, like Cuban, his team, and the Cowboys, can not complain about the fame and attention they get. For one day it will be questions you do not want to answer, for one day out of the whole wonderful season they have had. I think they'll manage.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)