New Yorker takes a look at the industry
- Thread starter BRoth
- Start date
Frank_Ridgeway
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 7,706
That was a good, long read. But I wouldn't call it reporting. And he seems very sure of himself in predicting what the future holds, and of course some technological change five, 10 years hence could alter everyone's course.
One thing that baffles me is that suddenly we've moved from the notion that readers are pressed for time to a belief that they not only have time to choke down the essentials but to read hundreds of comments from other readers on each story and engage in such a discussion themselves. I don't think that can possibly be true in a general sense. There are idiot savants who dedicate themselves to a specific topic, but there's no way they have the time, knowledge or energy to engage on a variety of topics. People who value being well-rounded and having a grasp of the world in a broad sense are going to need something a lot more efficient and digestible than what's being described as the future in this article.
One thing that baffles me is that suddenly we've moved from the notion that readers are pressed for time to a belief that they not only have time to choke down the essentials but to read hundreds of comments from other readers on each story and engage in such a discussion themselves. I don't think that can possibly be true in a general sense. There are idiot savants who dedicate themselves to a specific topic, but there's no way they have the time, knowledge or energy to engage on a variety of topics. People who value being well-rounded and having a grasp of the world in a broad sense are going to need something a lot more efficient and digestible than what's being described as the future in this article.
henryhenry
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2006
- Messages
- 849
okay, it was analysis - not reporting - so what?
and has been written before - big deal..it needs to be written over and over because it's not going away and it's hugely important.
frank's point is a good one - who has the time to read through all the public comments..
democracy is so fragile...and this transformation of media is unsettling...who do you trust...the huffington post prints something about katrina survivors eating corpses...judith miller gives us WMD in iraq...
the part about an uncomprehending public really hit home...where is the outrage about the Fed's bailout of bear stearns...why are taxpayers bailing out the billionaire partners of bear stearns...and now hillary clinton proposes a $30 billion bailout of the sub-prime lenders and borrowers...and nobody seems to mind...
this country is docile as sheep...asleep at the wheel
doesn't appear that the 'new media' is making much of a difference...and the decline of old media allows the Darwinists to cannibalize us..
the politics are grim - good things are happening in science and arts - but the politics - our ability to govern ourselves for the common good - just get more grim
and has been written before - big deal..it needs to be written over and over because it's not going away and it's hugely important.
frank's point is a good one - who has the time to read through all the public comments..
democracy is so fragile...and this transformation of media is unsettling...who do you trust...the huffington post prints something about katrina survivors eating corpses...judith miller gives us WMD in iraq...
the part about an uncomprehending public really hit home...where is the outrage about the Fed's bailout of bear stearns...why are taxpayers bailing out the billionaire partners of bear stearns...and now hillary clinton proposes a $30 billion bailout of the sub-prime lenders and borrowers...and nobody seems to mind...
this country is docile as sheep...asleep at the wheel
doesn't appear that the 'new media' is making much of a difference...and the decline of old media allows the Darwinists to cannibalize us..
the politics are grim - good things are happening in science and arts - but the politics - our ability to govern ourselves for the common good - just get more grim
I think the problem is that newspapers have long tried to be all things for all people. What the Internet has proven is that niche-media can thrive and collectively take down the behemoths
This is especially true in politics. Ninety-five percent of the country might think Rush is a total idiot but that 5% is incredibly loyal and then there's another 3% who listen because they hate him. On the Net, that becomes viral: You get a small audience hitting Joshua Micah Marshall every day but then you have an exponential amount of other voices linking to him on both sides of the aisle.
This is especially true in politics. Ninety-five percent of the country might think Rush is a total idiot but that 5% is incredibly loyal and then there's another 3% who listen because they hate him. On the Net, that becomes viral: You get a small audience hitting Joshua Micah Marshall every day but then you have an exponential amount of other voices linking to him on both sides of the aisle.
Nice read. I thought the Lippeman vs. Dewey frame of context was kind of interesting. I hadn't read that in other news industry analysis. I also like the fact that, unlike many other stories about the industry, it doesn't dismiss the value of traditional journalism simply by saying "newspapers need to embrace and interact with their readers" and that while it takes the position that increased content and input from readers is key to newspapers' survival in terms of business, it doesn't neglect to point out that much of reader-generated content can be junk.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2003
- Messages
- 19,271
Frank_Ridgeway said:
Very well said.
“Less than one in five believe what they read in print,†the 2007 “State of the News Media†report, issued by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, concluded. “CNN is not really more trusted than Fox, or ABC than NBC. The local paper is not viewed much differently than the New York Times.†Vastly more Americans believe in flying saucers and 9/11 conspiracy theories than believe in the notion of balanced—much less “objective‗mainstream news media. Nearly nine in ten Americans, according to the Sacred Heart study, say that the media consciously seek to influence public policies, though they disagree about whether the bias is liberal or conservative.
I loved this passage. Sad, but somewhat true.
I loved this passage. Sad, but somewhat true.
BRoth said:
Because more and more people are much more informed/sophisticated about the concept of "spin". They may disagree on case-by-case interpretations, but
neverending "spin" attempts are uppermost in the minds of many, many folks.
SF_Express
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,166
I thought there was a lot of good, interesting stuff in there, much of it new to me at least.
E
EE94
Guest
playthrough said:
when they can do it from work computers, it makes it easier.
web traffic is highest between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. and dips significantly on the weekends
W
WaylonJennings
Guest
Interesting piece - the "Huffington Post" model is interesting. Have actual, pristine, reported news pages. Let the loonies slug it out in the back room together. Everybody wins.
One thing I never understand is why new media pioneers have so much contempt for the traditional media. They not only want a place at the table. It seems they won't rest until they bring the whole thing crashing down.
It's frustrating. It really is. People are more apt to believe "Loose Change" than they are the New York Times. I'm not sure people even look at, say, the NYT before they decide it's a MSM rag not to be trusted. I mean, 99 percent of the stories in the paper are enlightening, informative, well-informed and not even concerning subject matter that would open itself to bias even if the reporter wanted to inject it.
Evey time I read one of these stories, BTW, about how the Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo are going to take over the world, I still wonder how many independent bloggers are going to rush to cover the Podunk City Council meeting on Tuesday night, where they plan to duke it out until 10:30 p.m. over whether to add another stop sign to the Locust-Cricket streets intersection.
The HP and TPMs of the world have this idea that everybody in the MSM is covering national politics, because that's their obsession. Same thing with all their posters. The media's very, very important function in local communities is scarcely touched upon - not sexy enough, I guess.
One thing I never understand is why new media pioneers have so much contempt for the traditional media. They not only want a place at the table. It seems they won't rest until they bring the whole thing crashing down.
It's frustrating. It really is. People are more apt to believe "Loose Change" than they are the New York Times. I'm not sure people even look at, say, the NYT before they decide it's a MSM rag not to be trusted. I mean, 99 percent of the stories in the paper are enlightening, informative, well-informed and not even concerning subject matter that would open itself to bias even if the reporter wanted to inject it.
Evey time I read one of these stories, BTW, about how the Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo are going to take over the world, I still wonder how many independent bloggers are going to rush to cover the Podunk City Council meeting on Tuesday night, where they plan to duke it out until 10:30 p.m. over whether to add another stop sign to the Locust-Cricket streets intersection.
The HP and TPMs of the world have this idea that everybody in the MSM is covering national politics, because that's their obsession. Same thing with all their posters. The media's very, very important function in local communities is scarcely touched upon - not sexy enough, I guess.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2008
- Messages
- 8,013
playthrough said:
I suspect that this notion is more a result of wishful thinking and hope because, as this article points out, collective "community," and not independence -- of either reporting, or reader thinking -- is becoming the new model.
Not saying that what, how or why this is happening is right. But it is happening, whether it's in anyone's best interests, or not.
The two most telling and frightening parts of this whole article were this statistical note:
"Only nineteen per cent of Americans between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four claim even to look at a daily newspaper. The average age of the American newspaper reader is fifty-five and rising."
And this paragraph, referencing the parasitical nature of the relationship between other internet sites/blogs, and the newspapers they often rely on, to find, generate and argue their points:
"And so even if one agrees with all of Huffington’s jabs at the Times, and Edsall’s critique of the Washington Post, it is impossible not to wonder what will become of not just news but democracy itself, in a world in which we can no longer depend on newspapers to invest their unmatched resources and professional pride in helping the rest of us to learn, however imperfectly, what we need to know."
Sobering and scary stuff.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Open Championship 2026: Crowning the champion golfer of the year
- Latest: I Should Coco
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
