Summer CE Week #2: “Reporting suffers as print media fade”
The Sunday opinion section is gone. So is the book review section. So are literally hundreds of the reporters I have come to respect over years of reading my local paper. What is happening in my hometown is happening in every city across the country. Layoffs. Cutbacks. Slow death.
Meanwhile, talk show hosts, who don’t pretend to “report,” who don’t try to be “objective,” who will tell you themselves, if they are being honest, that they are in the business of entertainment, sign record contracts. I don’t begrudge them their riches. They’re making money because their shows do. But for those of us who care about the role of a free press in a democracy, something is askew.
How many of you read the paper every day? he asked them. A surprisingly large number of hands went up. We looked at each other, puzzled. We both knew that circulation was dropping, that young people don’t buy the paper in the same numbers that their parents did. How many of you read it on paper, I asked. Most of the hands went down. They read the paper; they just didn’t buy it.
I’m not going to mourn the decreasing demand for newsprint. Let the trees live. The danger of reading newspapers online, I have discovered, is that you miss all the stories you don’t think you’d be interested in until they catch your eye as you’re turning the page. When I read papers online, I always read the political and legal stories, but I miss an interesting book review, a surprising sidebar, an obituary that doesn’t make it to the front index. The challenge for newspapers as they go online and off paper is to find a way to tell me about all the good stuff inside that I don’t know I’m interested in until I read the first few lines or see the picture.
The bigger problem goes to the question of standards. “All the news that’s fit to print,” the motto of the New York Times, isn’t really about printing, but about standards of fitness. It’s about old-fashioned values like professionalism and fairness, about good and demanding editors who take the time to make sure you’ve checked the facts and given everyone a chance to respond before they put the story in the paper. It’s about the difference between the news pages and the editorial pages, the difference between reporting the news and commenting on it, and the need to respect that line and make sure readers can see where it is being drawn.
I’m not a reporter and I don’t pretend to be. I write commentary. I offer opinions. I do so based on many, many years of working in politics and teaching law, not to mention raising kids and taking care of family. I try to be fair and I value my reputation for being honest, but I don’t pretend to be objective. That’s not my job.
But it should be somebody’s. It has always been the job of newspaper reporters and editors to live by a set of rules that ensure that when you read a “news story,” as opposed to an opinion column, you can assume that a substantial effort has been made to document the facts, to tell a story rather than opine about it, to ask the tough questions and fairly report the answers. Moreover, when it comes to news, the evening news still tends to be guided by the morning paper. If the latter declines in quality, so will the former.
Of course, some television and radio reporters try to live by these standards, as do some bloggers. The problem is that the most-watched programs on television, the reporters who make the most money and the sites that get the most hits are not necessarily the best journalistically.
In all the years I’ve done television, I can count the number of times someone has complimented me for what I said. People watch TV; they don’t listen to it. If you do well, they’ll tell you how good you looked, not how smart or knowledgeable you sounded. What’s worse, when it comes to the substance, you get attention not for being well-informed and reasonable, but for being out there and outrageous, even if you know nothing about what you’re talking about.
I want to be a political pundit, pretty young girls and boys tell me all the time. No, they don’t want to actually do politics, study politics, learn the game. They just want to get paid to look good and give opinions. Lawyers barely out of law school, who have never argued a case in their lives, decide to be legal commentators. And too many good reporters, looking for television slots and the paid speeches that come next and trying to dodge the pink slips that are everywhere, are aiming to play the same game. They may win, but the rest of us are losing.
I do agree that newspapers hold themselves to a higher standard, and are therefore more reliable than the internet. Anyone can post anything that they would like on the internet, and most people seem to take whatever is online as fact. Contrarily, the newspaper makes sure that all of its facts are legit. The writers are there to do their research, and give you an entire, objective story. They do not, or are not supposed to, cloud what they write with opinions, just expose the raw facts. This entitles the individual reader with the opportunity to give their own opinion on whatever they are reading about. If we take the objectiveness out of learning about a story, we will know only how the people who write the story feel, and might miss part of the story that is important to a “counter-argument” of their(the writer’s) ideals. But now-a-days, almost everything you read or hear has at least the slightest mount of bias in it, which cripples our ability as a reader to analyze the information for ourselves and come up with our own conclusions. Personally, I do not like to be told what to think, and a believe that this is one more step to making America dumber by releasing us from free thought.
My quote comes again from Immortal Technique in saying, “This puppet democracy, brain washed, just psychology.”
I agree with what the author of this article is talking about, because it does seem as though people are reading more news online rather than in actual newspapers. This is because online news is free and much faster to get, rather than having to spend three or more dollars on a paper that most people only read once. There is no build up or clutter and this also helps the environment more because fewer trees are being cut down. But getting your news online is not always reliable and most of the time the “news” stories are more like opinions. “It’s about old-fashioned values like professionalism and fairness, about good and demanding editors who take the time to make sure you’ve checked the facts and given everyone a chance to respond before they put the story in the paper. It’s about the difference between the news pages and the editorial pages, the difference between reporting the news and commenting on it, and the need to respect that line and make sure readers can see where it is being drawn.” This quote by the New York Times rings true, because today when people read news online or read parts of the newspaper, they can’t tell the difference from opinion and fact. They could be told a lie or half-truth and think that these are facts. Unlike with a real paper where editors approve what is written, online news can be written by anyone with an opinion or idea and posted as a real news story. Additionally, with the increase of online news more reporters and journalists are losing their jobs, which cause the unemployment rate to increase and also make it harder for these individuals to find new jobs. Or as the author put it “They may win, but the rest of us are losing.” The last point I would like to make is that most news stories on the internet are erased or forgotten. With a real newspaper there is evidence of important events and stories that affected people’s lives. In the future, will we look back and wonder where all our history went to? The proof is in real news journals, where people put their sweat and blood into their news stories. Not online news where any idiot can post their opinion and label it as the news. In other words, real newspapers are better and the fact that we are so addicted to the internet to get our news, shows how much our intelligence level has decreased over the decades.
The article does make a good point about the fact that less and less people take the time to sit down and read the morning newspaper, but it seems to me that the author of the article is old fashioned and unwilling to accept modern day technology. Nowadays you can go online and view the New York Times with a subscription, or get live feeds from a car accident. The possibilities are endless when it comes to the internet, television, and radio (while radio news is becoming outdated with time) and the author is being left behind. I realize that it is the article I should be critiquing and not the author, but in this case, I find it necessary. I enjoy watching the 10 O clock news since I am a night owl, and since I’m never around for the evening news at 5:30 or whatever time it comes on, I get my information from the internet, or late at night. Nearly everybody has internet, so it does tend to seem somewhat pointless to have a separate subscription to a newspaper when you have all the resources in the world at your fingertips. My point is that times have changed.
This article brings us back to the powerfulness of the media. On television, they grab your attention by music, pictures, and a whole lot of hype. The newspaper, on the other hand, can only grab your attention by pictures and bold letters but must fill the article with facts and figures. The morning news shows their stories are usually filled with one or two facts but stuffed with fluff to make it look like a full story. I am not saying I don’t like the morning news shows, they are how I get my news, and we are also one of those families that does not get the newspaper, which I truly wish we did, but I agree with the article when Syndicate complains of TV and the internet now dominating news reporting. Even he admits that on the internet he only looks into the political and legal stories. We are losing the human interest factor on the internet. I know this may sound cheesy and not have a bearing on the actual newspaper, but I always loved to read the comics. I know, I know, that is all kids ever read, but it was more than just the comics on the comics page. I would read the political comics and usually the story that was underneath it. Being a youngster, I don’t think I would have read any political articles had it not been for the comic strip above. It is not the same on the internet. You can’t just lazily flip through articles and find the one that catches your attention. You have to purposefully click on an icon in order to go to the article. There are many great things about the internet, but when it comes to the news, it is better reported in paper form.
I agree with a lot that this article said. I realize that by reading the newspaper articles online, though it may be more convienent, you tend to miss some of the stuff that some people find important. Like it said in the aritcle, you don’t have a specific link to get to the obituaries, which my mom would hate, seeing as the obituaries are literally the only thing she reads out of the paper. I can also see why it may not be such a good thing that hardly anyone is getting information from the printed version of the papers. In this day and age, there are so many sites that make what they say seem true, but it really isn’t. If there was some way to sort out the real sites and the imposter ones, getting information online probably wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Since there isn’t, however, people just need to watch out for things like that. I have to say, I do like that we have the choice to read the paper online. It saves trees and it’s easy. Television also has some news coverage, as we all know, but even the news doesn’t give you the articles that the paper has.
Seeing as they can send the paper to you by foot, why can’t they send papers through email?
I think that this author is just too narrow minded and biased herself when it comes to the media. I suspect that she has a certain sentimental affinity to reading a clean and crisp newspaper, just like “the good ol’ days”. (She was born in the early 50’s…) There is nothing wrong with getting your news on the internet. The reason that this method of online reading has taken off so well is that it’s free, easy, and accessible virtually everywhere. Susan Estrich is partially right when she speaks of the biased nature of online publications; when a reader goes to sources like Fox News or only watches The Colbert Report for their news, they are bound to run into biased publications. They’re bound to. Those sources are out to entertain and make money, because entertainment sells. But when a reader is truly looking for news and facts, they will reach out for those creditable sources. And it doesn’t matter how those readers get their news, as long as it’s legitimately factual. To be honest, I think someone is a little mad that people aren’t watching her show…
I myself have a very difficult time reading the paper. It’s inconvenient. It’s loose and too bland for me. I know what Rachel is saying (above) when she says that she likes it just for the comics. When it comes down to it, the paper is just too unappealing. I can still get the same news online.
I agree that many local papers are hurting for business. We get the paper every day as does most of my family. It seems like we can’t have a family get together without having some discussion about either politics or how biased the paper has gotten or how annoying Stephen Colbert is. I personally don’t care for all these people trying to be funny when reporting what is going on across the nation. I want to know what is going on with out having to try and figure out whether the person I’m watching is a reliable source. Its shows like the Colbert report and the daily show that constantly make fun of politics and everyday life that make this country corrupt. I also have noticed that the paper is going more digital, as technology advances the paper is also able to advance, though I think they need to include everything in the paper for the less computer savvy people such as the older generation. That is who complains the most about the paper going away. I also feel that papers like the Spokesman review should not be so biased you can tell how that person feels on every subject and they are supposed to be the ones that are neutral and they don’t seem to be.
Amanda Eagle, I don’t agree with you. Shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report make fun of politics because it’s funny. They don’t corrupt the country by making jokes and they aren’t to be taken seriously. A whole lot of people watch those shows not because they want to get the scoop but because making fun of politics and politicians is amusing to them. And it isn’t those shows that hurt local newspapers. My advice is to not watch those shows if you don’t like them. Watch the real news or read the newspaper instead.
And how is the Spokesman Review biased? I don’t think it is. Most of the articles are about local stuff and are neutral.
As technology increases it is true that more and more people tend to move toward easier and more accessable ways to live. That includes surfing the web to find news rather then buying a news paper and flipping through to find an article. Estrich makes a good point that in doing this, the reader misses those catchy articles or “an interesting book review, a surprising sidebar, an obituary that doesn’t make it to the front index.”,etc.
As much as I love technology like any other teenage kid, it sadens me that more people are being laid off for the place a “machine”. This takes us back to the earlier days when industrial machines took place of well-trained industry workers. Reporters have put much time and effort to contribute these articles to the public that seem to be less and less read.
Another point, is that the internet is not always truthful. People can post anything at anytime and others will believe it. Plus, as Estrich said, internet articles happen to be one-sided or more opinionated then you would find in a regular article (not including opinion secion) of a local newspaper. Lets face it, humans can be persuaded very easily, where does this leave room for your own opinion?
Newspaper reporters work very hard to get the scoop and in doing that they have to get the facts. That is what is printed, the facts. This gives the reader and opportunity to judge or pick one side or the other.
I can’t provide a solution to this problem because I believe it will only get worse. As much as I would not like to admit it, I tend to find myself flipping through the channels, occasionally watching Entertainment Tonight rather then picking up a newspaper to learn about world events.
In one sense, I can understand the author’s point of view in relations to the simplicity of the pre-Internet era. Way back before Internet dominated the free world as we know it, there was a time and place where families and friends could gather to read the morning news, discuss politics and recent events, and share a cup o’ joe. Those days have been long over since the introduction of the world wide web. I will even plead guilty to accessing a few news stories by internet throughout the week. What is the sole cause of the digression, not in favor of the true reporters? Lack of awareness, mostly in the form of short-attention span and flashy hyperlinks. It’s pretty hard to deny that the Internet has revolutionized the way we think, act, and even process information. How can the newspaper editors possibly compete with such a powerful media mogul? I can also relate to anyone who said they had enjoyed the comics strips in the papers (or hopefully still do). Innocent as my intentions may be, I still find myself overwhelmed with childish excitement over the “double-stacked” comic section in the Sunday paper. Furthermore, as much as I take pleasure in advocating a gradual shift away from global warming (Save The Trees!), I can still imagine the pain felt by the newspaper editors who find themselves in critical circulation ranges due to drastically unattractive supply-and-demand rates.
I agree with the author when she speaks of how the newspaper is sort of fading out. People want what they want and they want it now. It is just easier to go online to check out the major stories than to have to read through a ton of small side note stories first, even though most people probably do like them and did not realize it. It is like commercials, everyone just wants to get right to the show. The people of TV and the news, etc. are becoming less intelligent sounding and flashier looking. Unfortunately we cannot blame them. They do what they do to earn a living and to do that they have to keep up with the public’s interests. If the public doesn’t like them then they do not get paid. Simple as that. It is terribly disheartening to learn that we the public have turned into superficial dim-wits that only care about what they are going to wear tomorrow, or better yet, what Brittany Spears is going to wear, than being interested in what the locals in our area have going on or maybe even what is going on in a small country like Guatemala. I certainly hope that we realize that money is not what makes us happy and that we cannot look perfect forever. This way we have more time to focus on issues that really matter in the world.
Newspapers, news in general, it’s all in decline. The people to whom the world listens are absolutely radical, like Ms. Estrich states. No one can look at anything objectively anymore; no one can take the middle of the road. If you’re not far left or far right, you’re a freak. If you’re under age 25 and you’re not a liberal (far left, not classically because it would be cool to have Wealth of Nations as a manifesto), you’re also a freak. Isn’t that ridiculous? Why would anyone want to be as polar as the people to whom we listen are? It’s no good for this country, and it’s unhealthy. This addiction to radicalism that our nation has is disgusting. The media, except for a few who are called racist and completely unbalanced in their political coverage, adore Barack Obama. And they should be able to adore him, in the privacy of their own homes. As the media, they have a responsibility to describe both candidates equally so that the American public can do, by law, what they are supposed to do: choose their next president. But no one knows the real truth about anything because everyone in the media is completely biased one way or the other. Newspapers vanishing along with media accountability is really no surprise with this sudden “green” frenzy we’ve been having. Put things on the internet and save the trees. But even the newspapers left don’t tell the truth (the New York Slimes, excuse me, Times). All the print is turning into rags. And all the live media are just making money and scheming. If these foolish pundits want to make things unrealistic, they should be honest about it. Call it fiction. And for these newspapers that are vanishing, times change, as does technology. Holding back won’t do any good. Evolve. It’s not just for non-Creationists anymore.