Jump to content

Will Print Journalism Survive?


MaybeACoordinator

Recommended Posts

Monetizing it online has so far proven dicey, and the actual hard copy product sales have fallen off a cliff. Do you think we are moving towards a world where more people will be listening to their news and entertainment rather than reading it from a newspaper or magazine? And how can online news sources survive? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't stand audio news stories.   I know it's what kids crave but I just want to pull  up an online  news story and read it.    if I'm at work and need a few minutes of surfing I can't have some bubble headed bleach blond telling me if the heads dead yet.   I want to read a few paragraphs and be done.   oh well .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Print newspapers are dead men walking, that's more than a given.
Other print media, largely yes if it's current events.  Books/story journals (i.e. magazines with creative content) not as quickly.
But yeah, everything in print unless enforcing some legal contract or whatnot will be largely defunct within a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with the online service is the technology moves too fast for most to keep up. Theres also the oldschool with great pride keeping print alive. Until theres a cost effective way of doing things solely online, print will be around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe knowledge content will be one of the first 'victims' of the information age (transitioning from the industrial age).

It's interesting to muse over the fact that multiple generations will be the transitional witnesses to a genuine end of one age and rise of another (Greatest Gen'ers, Baby Boomers, X'ers - I would place Millennials as the first true generation of the Information age with only a tacit life in the industrial age).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the internet, you had thousands of local print monopolies. These were known as "newspapers". Naturally, each of these local fiefdoms came to think of themselves as indispensable fountains of cultural influence in their little areas. 

When the internet happened, it became obvious that Bob The Beat Reporter in Schenectady was writing an article on some event, but that there were 1000 other writers composing exactly the same stories across the country. With the internet, this makes no economic sense. Naturally, these egotistical bastards cried about the decline of journalism and the absolutely vital role they play in their community, which of course was a self serving argument entirely without merit. 

I remember watching a press conference after A-Rod admitted to using PED. There were thousands of reporters. Each of those reporters would go back the their hotel room and write nearly identical stories. Virtually none of them would realize how little value they provide to society or that their business model was doomed to fail.

There is huge unmet need for true journalism. Investigations to uncover corruption, speaking truth to power. What we've seen is not merely that more journalists are petty tyrants consumed with their own self importance. We've also seen that most of them are simply incompetent at delivering the who, what, when, where, and why of a story. 

In England, the TV journalists are not called "anchors", they're called "news readers". Walter Cronkite et al were never the conscience of the country, were never moral or cultural leaders, they're readers of a teleprompter. The sheer pomposity of trying to attribute great wisdom to someone who reads a cue card is mind boggling.  

The ability to syndicate stories could have been a great opportunity to do great journalism. As we've seen, that has not been the case. If anything it's gotten worse, focused more on pretty pictures and partisanship that uncovering important yet unappreciated truths.

TL:DR Fuck journalists they are getting what they deserve.

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

Before the internet, you had thousands of local print monopolies. These were known as "newspapers". Naturally, each of these local fiefdoms came to think of themselves as indispensable fountains of cultural influence in their little areas. 

When the internet happened, it became obvious that Bob The Beat Reporter in Schenectady was writing an article on some event, but that there were 1000 other writers composing exactly the same stories across the country. With the internet, this makes no economic sense. Naturally, these egotistical bastards cried about the decline of journalism and the absolutely vital role they play in their community, which of course was a self serving argument entirely without merit. 

I remember watching a press conference after A-Rod admitted to using PED. There were thousands of reporters. Each of those reporters would go back the their hotel room and write nearly identical stories. Virtually none of them would realize how little value they provide to society or that their business model was doomed to fail.

There is huge unmet need for true journalism. Investigations to uncover corruption, speaking truth to power. What we've seen is not merely that more journalists are petty tyrants consumed with their own self importance. We've also seen that most of them are simply incompetent at delivering the who, what, when, where, and why of a story. 

In England, the TV journalists are not called "anchors", they're called "news readers". Walter Cronkite et al were never the conscience of the country, were never moral or cultural leaders, they're readers of a teleprompter. The sheer pomposity of trying to attribute great wisdom to someone who reads a cue card is mind boggling.  

The ability to syndicate stories could have been a great opportunity to do great journalism. As we've seen, that has not been the case. If anything it's gotten worse, focused more on pretty pictures and partisanship that uncovering important yet unappreciated truths.

TL:DR Fuck journalists they are getting what they deserve.

One purpose those numerous writers served was to correctly report the number of reporters at A-Rod's press conference as "roughly 200" as opposed to "thousands."

Quote

Eight days after admitting his steroid use in a television interview, Alex Rodriguez offered more details in a news conference after his arrival at Yankees spring training camp on Tuesday. With dozens of teammates standing nearby and roughly 200 reporters watching, Rodriguez said he and a cousin had obtained the drugs in the Dominican Republic and injected them for an energy boost.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/sports/baseball/18yankees.html

Edited by DanRydell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Before the internet, you had thousands of local print monopolies. These were known as "newspapers". Naturally, each of these local fiefdoms came to think of themselves as indispensable fountains of cultural influence in their little areas. 

When the internet happened, it became obvious that Bob The Beat Reporter in Schenectady was writing an article on some event, but that there were 1000 other writers composing exactly the same stories across the country. With the internet, this makes no economic sense. Naturally, these egotistical bastards cried about the decline of journalism and the absolutely vital role they play in their community, which of course was a self serving argument entirely without merit. 

I remember watching a press conference after A-Rod admitted to using PED. There were thousands of reporters. Each of those reporters would go back the their hotel room and write nearly identical stories. Virtually none of them would realize how little value they provide to society or that their business model was doomed to fail.

There is huge unmet need for true journalism. Investigations to uncover corruption, speaking truth to power. What we've seen is not merely that more journalists are petty tyrants consumed with their own self importance. We've also seen that most of them are simply incompetent at delivering the who, what, when, where, and why of a story. 

In England, the TV journalists are not called "anchors", they're called "news readers". Walter Cronkite et al were never the conscience of the country, were never moral or cultural leaders, they're readers of a teleprompter. The sheer pomposity of trying to attribute great wisdom to someone who reads a cue card is mind boggling.  

The ability to syndicate stories could have been a great opportunity to do great journalism. As we've seen, that has not been the case. If anything it's gotten worse, focused more on pretty pictures and partisanship that uncovering important yet unappreciated truths.

TL:DR Fuck journalists they are getting what they deserve.

Wut?

 

Maybe anchor men have been like you say, but Walter Cronkite was a hell of a lot more than a guy reading from a teleprompter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...