Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
David Stehle is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with David Stehle and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
David Stehle is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with David Stehle and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Save the rainforest. Save a child. Save a puppy. Save a dollar. Save a seat. Save a life. Save a relationship. Save the last dance. I’ve even been told to save the receipt. Enough already! Not a single day goes by that we aren’t asked, or rather begged, to save something, someone, or some place. I for one am sick of hearing it! I’m not cold, inconsiderate, or selfish. I don’t have a black hole for a heart, but I do have a well functioning brain. And while in theory it’s nice to lend a helping hand in saving just about anything and everything in need on the planet, a logical mind will tell you this can’t possibly be done. Still, it’s a warm fuzzy thought and I applaud those that make an effort to make our world a better place. But when I read about a recent campaign to "Save Newspapers", I started to laugh. Basically they want to ban linking on the Internet with some far fetched hope that it will magically rejuvenate the dying publishing industry, thus save newspapers? That makes about as much sense as banning the wheel in order to save the horse industry. So we should screw up the entire Internet to save newspapers? Rrright.
I can understand newspaper’s fear. Afterall, nothing scares the publishing industry more than a platform that basically makes it irrelevant. So it’s no surprise that a new campaign is being launched to "Save Newspapers". The majority of newspapers are going, or already are, digital these days. Many have stopped printing their newspapers from Mon-Fri and are just printing the weekend editions. Why? Two reasons. One, it saves money. And two, because so many people prefer to get their news online these days - online publication. Most people spend a great deal of time at work infront of a computer, so it's just easier and makes more sense to get their news over the web as opposed to opening up a big inky newspaper. And with the whole "going green" theory, everyone is making an effort to use less paper on a daily basis. So not only is there no messy ink fingers, but you just allowed a tree to live! :hugs:
While reading the newspaper isn’t free, reading the news online is! So a lot of people aren't going to pay for something they can easily get free elsewhere. It’s just common sense. And while it’s true you shouldn’t believe everything you read online, there are reputable news and newspaper websites. The New York Times and The Washington Post are two sources you can trust that will deliver news based on fact and not online hearsay. Usually you'll find the exact same articles online that you would in their newspaper. Plus, often there is MORE content online (archives, etc.) on sites like The New York Times than you would find picking up their paper for today.
Now for the most obvious and critical point of all...
Traditional newspapers may be printed on a daily basis, but by the time the daily edition hits the presses and is either delivered to your doorstep or ready for pickup at the local newsstand, it’s essentially old news already. Whereas if you receive your daily news over the Internet, it’s always up date, often to the very minute! While traditional newspapers are only feeding you the news once a day, Internet news is constantly being streamed to you all day long! It is available 24/7 and you control the delivery. You also control the frequency of updates, depending on how often you revisit the website. Can’t say you can do that, can you newspaper? Simply put, Internet news offers instant gratification. It’s sort of like Internet porn, but without the sticky fingers.
To me, newspapers are only useful for two things - potty training a puppy and soaking up a muddy puddle on the street corner. So really, how could anyone argue in favor of the endangered ink laden newspaper? Along with dinosaurs and Saturday morning cartoons, newspapers are well on their way to the point of extinction. If it wasn't for the traditional, non-conforming, old farts who subscribe to newspapers because they are resistant to change and quite possibly techno-phobs, newspapers would have been dead already. And while I sit back and watch them die a slow but sure inevitable death, I smile. Yes, I smile because I don't give a shit. I will not be campaigning to "Save Newspapers" because we already have a more cost efficient and eco-friendly comprehensive alternative that will eventually replace newspapers all together.
Unlike some, I love change! I love seeing the world evolve and this is just another area in which our future is going. So stop being a hater. Get with it and roll with the times. The new era is digital. You can either choose to embrace it, or be left in its electronic dust. (Yeah Dad, I'm talking to you. It's right up there with your AM talk radio obsession.)
Here's the thing about newspapers. Its not just the physical paper that you use for potty training your dog. It's also the company that produces those newspapers. And if that company doesn't make money it goes away, along with all that free online content that you think is so great.
Think you can get that content somewhere else? Think again. All that online content about U.S. news comes from the Associated Press. And who makes up the AP? That's right, the newspapers. According to Wikipedia, "The AP is a cooperative owned by its contributing newspapers, radio and television stations in the United States, which both contribute stories to the AP and use material written by its staff journalists."
So when the newspapers go away, then the AP goes away.
And then where does the news come from?
I'm not saying that paper newspapers are the way to go. But we're eventually going to have to get away from the idea that we can get all our news free.
Why save the newspapers? Democracy. Plain and simple.
A free and vibrant press has saved America's collective behind more than once through good investigative journalism. You won't get that same level of commitment from bloggers or people who have to write for shock value to attract hits to their pages.
Your primary argument is why pay for what you can get free online. Here is why - the talents of those who write for papers are not free. To continue seeing the news we need to continue paying the writers.
Oh yeah - and what he sais above. You cannot get the free newsfeeds to Yahoo,etc. without AP, UPI, Reuters, etc., who are all paid by newspaper publishers.
Yes the problem is that most "news" (even google news, or any online free content) gets its content from the Associated Press. The problem is outlets that "link" the news, like Google news, do NOT pay fees to the AP, whereas newspapers do. So the problem is if all the newspapers go under, who is funding the AP? Nobody? Like Steve says, there goes your democracy.
I personally still read paper news, but online or off like everyone said a real journalist needs to be paid. I fear a time when all news organization have to offer their journalists up for grabs to lobbyists because they are not making money.(WAPO last weeks scandal)
Eventually they will come up with a digital model that works well, the model might be different for local news than for national and international news, and I don't know where it will go or how much it will end up costing the public as opposed to the advertisers.
I'm not worried about saving paper newspapers as much as I'm worried about saving journalistic integrity. What would bloggers do after all if they didn't have real news to opine on?
I do think it will be some time before newspapers are completely a thing of the past, but I still feel they are a dying industry. And they will need to reinvent the way they deliver news, which many major newspapers have already begun by delivering the weekday news online and only printing weekend editions of their paper. There are newspapers that DO make you pay for their online content and perhaps that is how they and their advertisers will survive in the future – making the public pay for online news.
So I’m not saying get rid of news reporters and let Joe Shmo report the news online however he sees fit. Because like everyone is saying, reporters and writers need to get paid and we want to maintain that integrity in their stories. However, they simply need to do their job differently by delivering their stories in a new form of media.
I see newspapers much like I see the Pony Express of the 1800s. Sure it got the job done, but it wasn’t the fastest and most efficient means in doing so. Thus, the US Postal Service was born. And these days, even though the US Postal Service is still used, e-mail and fax have taken over a HUGE part of what the mailman used to do. Face it, electronic communication is where it's at and where the world is headed. It’s the future and it’s what younger generations have been brought up on, love and want to use.
So while my Dad may still cling onto his daily newspaper, his son (me) will not. And I will be ontop of late breaking news as it unfolds all day long, while he is still reading what the news WAS when it went to print earlier that morning. In a sense, he will be behind the times, while I stay current and in-the-know.
"If it wasn't for the traditional, non-conforming, old farts who subscribe to newspapers because they are resistant to change and quite possibly techno-phobs, newspapers would have been dead already."
"Reading the paper" isn't always about the news; it's about the experience. For some people it's magazines, for others its books, and for some it's the paper. Should we discontinue all those as well? Many people read the paper before work or during a commute, and precisely because they're in front of a computer all day, they do not want to have to be glued to a blackberry or a laptop. It is a gross overstatement to assume those who do not get their news online are old fart ludites.
I'm torn on this because I love newspapers and it's sad to see them dwindling. At the same time, I think news delivered fast and immediate (e.g. Twitter, blogging) is where I gain my news, ahead of anyone who reads the newspaper. I still appreciate journalists, AP and writers but they exist in other places besides just the newspaper. It's also not environmentally friendly or efficient (money-wise).
I'm not saying they should die and I won't stop linking to save newspapers, but it's sort of similar to the fact that I do not want a Kindle because I love reading books.
You should check out (http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/) for a blog commenting on all this ...
I think you have completely missed the main point, which some other people have alluded to above. Newspapers and a fair press is the cornerstone of democracy and rule of law. Without an impartial press and reporters being hired and paid to do a good job, and without training people in properly reporting the news, we won't have news that's as good. It's that simple, and this undermines rule of law and eventually democracy.
@Akhila Newspapers aren't the cornerstone of democracy, but perhaps free press is. So long as I am allowed to go out and investigate, interview and report on what's happening, then it's free press. We don't particularly gain anything by paying people to do so and then have it printed on paper. There's nothing inherently democratic about that.
To me a book is different because it’s something you want to hold, store on a bookshelf, pass around and pick up to read again later.
A newspaper however is something you don’t want to hold due to the inky fingers. And nobody in their right mind would store old newspapers and later pick them up to read or pass the old news around! Nobody wants to read yesterday’s news, let alone news from last week, last month or last year!
So to me, book are on a whole different level and I do love books. Obviously, I'm not so fond of newspapers though.
Dave - maybe I'm taking the following statement out of context but I definitely disagree with - "Nobody wants to read yesterday’s news, let alone news from last week, last month or last year!"
A couple of years ago I was doing a fair amount of genealogical research and it was the information in the local newspapers that proved to be invaluable. Also in the process I found it interesting to read history and get a glimpse into the thoughts of people at that time. Maybe I enjoyed reading old news on certain subjects because I enjoy history but I can't believe I'm alone here. The history found in books is filtered and condensed in my opinion. It was a lot of work and time consuming to find and read microfilm but it was worth it to me. I will say I wish it was digitized though.
David I am right there with you. My favorite part ... "Yeah Dad, I'm talking to you."
What's so funny/ironic about all of this is I wonder how many of these "Save the Newspaper" people have purchased an actual physical newspaper lately. If people were buying them we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's so silly - it's time for a change the supply doesn't meet the demand any more and suddenly people want to "save" something they aren't using.
Now this is not to say I don't think journalists should work for free either. I'd gladly pay for online news subscription, especially if that meant the Dallas Morning News would stop calling randomly to ask if I want to order the paper.
and PS - the 3rd thing newspapers are good for: packing. I'm moving in a few weeks.
This just in...
The Printed Blog just announced today that they are ceasing publication.
http://blog.theprintedblog.com/?p=339
Newspapers just aren't working in today's modern/digital world.
Email
Print
