The internet will kill the quality news industry
It is no news that journalism has been a major public good in the past, being agenda-setting and, among others, taking over the role as mediator between the public and policy making elites.
Just like other industries, the adoption of internet also shows to impact the news industry. Newspapers are cutting down on staffing and print papers close. Also, journalism sees itself increasingly forced to cover popular topics in order to stay attractive to potential readers. But then again we are now able to retrieve news from all over the world and we can spread our own news stories online (think of citizen journalism).
I am interested in learning about your opinions! Feel free to explain why you think the internet will benefit or damage the quality news industry.
Will the internet kill the news industry leading to a society that misses in-depth and quality news reports?
|
On the contrary: I see the "quality" news being that of the more modern internet variety. 1.We are able to communicate and receive feedback from all over the world at a much faster rate and personal level. (Personal as in I can ask someone in China how they view a current event vs. reading what the press says China says about a current event.) 2.The internet is host to many more venues for gathering information as well as sources to reference and research. 3.The internet offers journalists and layperson alike to relay current issues, positions, and testimonies unrestricted by political/economic powers. The con would be that anyone and everyone could offer their bias on any given subject and without the proper respect to critical thought and examination; many people might be persuaded to believe in things that are propped up with clever rhetoric. Still, I see this as a negative aspect in corporate news anyway, I would consider the internet a better source however because you’re not limited to ONLY persuasive dialog and irrelevant noise like “squirrels that can water ski.” Innovation continues at a much faster rate than people are willing to adapt to, we are seeing the birth of level 1 civilization technology (the internet being a global telephone/marketing/news gathering/networking platform for example), unwillingness to accept these advances are simply the birth pains of the society confronted with the unknown. In my opinion the internet has been very damaging to quality journalism. You have already mentioned that numbers of staffing is decreasing. This results in fewer journalists at work today compared to back in the days, when the internet has not been relevant yet. This shrink does not only limit coverage, but also reduces quality. Reporters have to meet numerous deadlines of online publishing. Research found that fundamental values of journalism are changing. Standards are loosening and carelessness increases. The need for speed and immediacy does not allow thorough work anymore. ( http://tinyurl.com/pwuvsmk ) 1
point
2
points
Those companies who view the internet as competition are likely to find they can't face the competition. Those who use it as a tool and go where it leads stay relevant, perhaps even leaders in their fields. The RIAA continues to fight illegal downloads, but doesn't seem to have slowed them down much. Meanwhile bands like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails started releasing tracks for donations instead of set prices and they made loads of money for stuff they were seemingly giving away for free. Comic book sales have been dreadful for decades. Even all of the blockbuster movies with big stars haven't done much to stop that. Marvel and DC both started doing things like giving away free access codes to digital versions of comics with sales of the print comics and sales picked up a little bit. And the unique nature of news makes the internet an even better fit for it than most other industries. News is basically just information, and the internet is primarily purposed to distribute information. A newspaper is limited to the words they can fit in the volume. An online site can fit virtually infinite amounts of words and pictures. Plus, they can link to related articles to demonstrate veracity. In the old days, if a newspaper, magazine or tv news program reported a new scientific study, we would have to just take it on faith that the study/experiment was properly conducted, peer reviewed, etc. They often weren't, which is why so many people believe myths like "humans only use 10% of their brains" or "vaccines cause autism". Now, we have the ability to weed through BS and find the truth. And we can potentially do it much more accurately and efficiently online. So the papers, news programs, etc can continue to earn our trust but letting us at least have the option of double-checking. As far as the money, that does present a potential issue, as the internet provides so much free content. That is where the advertising execs come in. Trade free content for free advertising, use free content to encourage sales of apps and online subscriptions. Hire hip young kids to create memes and have those memes take people right your site. The internet moves money almost as easily as information. People just have to learn how to play by its rules in order to capitalize on it. 1
point
User-generated news content and professional journalism represent read more two distinct approaches to information dissemination and news reporting in the digital age. Each has its strengths and challenges, impacting how news is consumed and understood by the public. User-Generated News Content: Strengths: Diversity of Perspectives: User-generated content can offer a wide range of viewpoints, providing a more diverse perspective on news events than might be available through traditional media outlets. |
