Since the emergence of television and radio, but especially since the Internet first gained popular appeal, newspaper subscriptions and readership have been on the decline. It is not a lack of interest in the news that is responsible for this trend, but instead it is the cost of a newspaper compared with finding news online. If you can find the same information online for free as you can in a newspaper for a cost, it is no wonder that the Internet is winning this battle.
Piled on top of a decline in readership are a corresponding drop in advertising revenue, the fact that the most profitable section of a newspaper—the classifieds—is now a service provided cheaper more conveniently by websites, and the unfortunate reality that internet advertising does not provide the same amount of revenue as print advertising. So, even if customers of major newspapers stop reading the print edition of the paper and start reading the online edition, the newspaper company still loses money. From every angle this has become a no-win situation. In October of last year, almost exactly one year ago, The New York Times published an article examining the state of some of the major newspapers in the United States. The outlook was predictably grim. Of the major newspapers, only USA Today and The Wall Street Journal had held their ground compared to the previous year. The two papers are first and second, respectively, with regard to weekly circulation, and maintained their numbers pretty well. Others were not so fortunate, with an average circulation decline of 4.6 percent during the week, with the most affected newspaper being The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which had a decline of 13.6 percent.
These numbers all lead to the same place, eventually a newspaper cannot afford to publish and it folds under the pressure of too many employees and too little revenue. Newspapers across the country are disappearing, among them The Rocky Mountain News and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Others are turning to online publication, which eliminates the costs of printing and delivery. Some of the largest cities in the country have only a single newspaper. In San Francisco, The San Francisco Chronicle is the only major newspaper, and even without local competition it is rumored to be having difficulty surviving in the Internet age. Were it to go under, it would make San Francisco the first major US city without a newspaper. CNN details these stories and numerous others here.
What this means is a new type of news. Print news is not going away, it is too convenient to ever truly disappear. Instead it is shifting, it is transitioning from paper and ink to screen and text. The major news sources in the US: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, will all survive and even eventually thrive on the internet, once the number of daily papers in the US is reduced to near-zero and their competition has been eliminated. But in the meantime, a more fluid form of news and journalism is developing. Website news makes money off of visitors, the more people viewing a site on a consistent basis, the more that site can charge for advertising. Therefore, attractive news becomes more valuable than important news. Hollywood and sensationalism draw readers better than Congress and Washington. The anonymity of the Internet makes credibility impossible, so it is ignored. Accuracy is not expected, instead of facts we expect rumors and speculation, but we have been conditioned for so long to expect that our news sources are feeding us the truth that in an Internet age where the story can’t always be accurate we still suspend our disbelief simply because what we are reading is called “news.” Blogs offer only instant gratification, they can offer analysis, and interpretation, but there is no inherent credibility in them. Anyone can start a blog and anyone can become famous writing a blog; that does not mean they have any more knowledge, talent, or credibility than anyone else in this world. I don’t get my news from the guy standing next to me at the bus stop, why would I get my news from a blog?
It's interesting that you question the credibility of bloggers. Of course, there are examples where the author is blatantly ignorant or sensational for sensation's sake, but that's true of professional journalists, too. Isn't the term "credible" subjective, anyway?
ReplyDeleteSilverblatt says, "Currently, there is no system of accountability for web pages and blogs..." (Silverblatt, p. 219) Are we to infer that the accountability system that is in place for mainstream journalism is infallible? What we've seen from the coverage of the aftermath of Katrina would indicate otherwise. Perhaps there is more to credibility than accountability and job title.
David Berlind offers, "Blog publishing has given rise to several questions. Among them, what's the difference between a blogger and a journalist? Answer: None." (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-140767.html). We live in a culture where the appearance of credibility is more important than credibility itself. Journalists are often considered credible simply because of their job title. That's dangerous. Likewise, bloggers receive no consideration simply because of the easy access to their forum. That's unreasonable.
Yes, anyone can start a blog and see success. However, knowledge and talent are not mutually exclusive to professional journalism. Bloggers are journalists that don't get paid. It's possible that the guy standing next to you at the bus stop is a talented and knowledgeable journalist. He's only there because he can't afford a car.