I dunno man. I'm definitely a geek to some degree, and always have a 'puter nearby.... But I love a hard copy newspaper. Old skool, maybe? I dunno.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Newspapers are Dying Off
- Thread starter StyleOverShow
- Start date
I do worry about it. The lack of confidence in the news is driven by the editorial bias (Fox True Blue News) and entertainment requirement (car chases and TMZ come to mind). Working at the LA Times I saw a system in place where facts were checked, scrutinized and then the words were smythed (can't resist), polished and reviewed again by the editors. I don't know anyone that can identify 'genuine news of the highest quality' without background and research.
See Fox News above reference, and in general, most institutions are falling under the weight of their own misdeeds including finance, real estate, insurance, government and religions. Better to be informed than to write them all off, IMO.
You sound like my kids (29 and 27). It's not only about saving the trees, but the system that prepared and vetted the news. Digital has its place and certainly I spend much time online reading from all over the world on the economic downturn (is it a collapse or not?). Still there is something to say for the paper version which is portable, doesn't require wireless connections or a PC tablet to view, etc.
Yeah, its a little like steam engineers in the time of the gas engine breakout. The loss of the "Fourth Estate" will be a sad one, and I don't know if the digital replacement is an empowerment of the "Third Estate" either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate).
Thanks for your comments all.
-richard
I had to laugh at your last sentence. The non-newspaper sources people use are, on average, more biased, do less actual reporting and have far less accountability.
corporate news here in the US is no longer worth reading. at all. so, a few less daily *****ganda rags? sounds ok by me. free press is coming back in a big way right now, and it's taking advantage of technology in many cases. there's also a lot of fluff out there. but at least there's a choice of messages.
I will miss the newspaper when it is gone. Reporters had time to sit back and *think* about things. They had time to check the facts and follow up on things.
Bloggers only care about the latest nano-trend
Bloggers only care about the latest nano-trend
The point is that (particularly at the national level of newspaper reporting) there are very few journalists left who adequately check sources or do the proper homework. I think that it's funny how Fox News is always the whipping boy for those decrying bad journalism when they are all equally guilty of the same shoddy work.
Forty years ago, the top priority for news was the combination of accuracy and objectivity. Straight news stories were almost a sacred thing with great care taken to make sure that opinions and other biases were kept out. The entire profession of journalism was transformed in just a few years during the 70's and early 80's and advocacy was no longer forbidden but was actively encouraged. New writing styles and templates became the norm and every news story had to have an "angle" with a theme or narrative running through it.
It's absolutely true that a journalist for a city paper cannot write a story about a car crash that kills several people as just a straight news story and just describe what happened. It has to be about some contrived theme of ironic tragedy in order to make it more personal for the reader.
Today was John and Linda Smith's 30th wedding anniversary and Linda had a candle lit dinner set out for when her husband got home from work. He left the office twenty minutes early so he could stop and pick up some flowers - that was his fatal mistake. On the way to the florist, the car he was driving was hit head on by a fuel truck and both vehicles burst into flames. Blah, blah, blah . . . .
If a reporter tried to write the opening paragraph for this story by simply telling us about the accident and what happened and when, where, how and to whom, they would be fired. Not compelling enough.
With regard to newspapers covering serious topics like economic issues, they are appallingly incompetent, except for when they publish pieces by freelance writers who specialize in a particular area. They are so concerned with writing stories that are "accessible" that they grossly oversimplify and they become so watered down that they are useless at providing any real insight. Same thing goes for scientific issues. If I hear about some newsworthy scientific story, I know that I'm wasting my time reading about it in the paper. Specialized internet sites that cater to scientific topics are far more reliable and much more thorough.
It's been mentioned that internet sources are "unaccountable". That is true but it's equally true for ALL news sources. Journalism is constitutionally protected by regulation of any kind and that is how it should be. It's entirely up to the consumer to understand that what he is reading may be a steaming pile of hooey - whether he finds it at some conspiracy mongering website or the front page of the New York Times.
I will miss the newspaper when it is gone. Reporters had time to sit back and *think* about things. They had time to check the facts and follow up on things.
Bloggers only care about the latest nano-trend
This is no longer the case. Many bloggers spend a lot more time checking their facts and doing research than reporters.
My last sentence was an indictment of journalism as a whole.
Now, with the internet, people are better able to research what they read and aren't held prisoner by the words of their local paper or wire news. And since when has the L.A. Times or any other rag truly been held accountable for what it prints? I just answered my own question. Given the OP's post, I guess it's being done now.
Bob Lee (QSC)
In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio!
- Jul 3, 2001
- 12,668
- 2,036
- 67
- Disclosures
- Former Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
No human endeavor is. Someone has to shine the light of day on things, though.
Huh? Journalism pieces are editorial.
Bob Lee (QSC)
In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio!
- Jul 3, 2001
- 12,668
- 2,036
- 67
- Disclosures
- Former Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
Bob Lee (QSC)
In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio!
- Jul 3, 2001
- 12,668
- 2,036
- 67
- Disclosures
- Former Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
I'll be more specific by citing a random example which is more or less typical of newspapers:
A few years ago there was a woman in America who became famous for her protests of the U.S. war in Iraq. A great many stories were printed about her and I read many articles describing her background. Often, these articles contained a significant error in reprinting her erroneous claim that she belonged to a particular non-partisan organization (American Gold Star Mothers Inc) that is well respected and goes back to before World War II. She did not belong to that group but founded a politically based group of her own that had a nearly identical name.
Whenever any story appears online (whether it originated in a newspaper, in broadcast or elsewhere) it is nearly instantaneously linked to by thousands of discussion forums and millions of sites. Eager participants can't wait to fact check every tidbit and want to be the first one to catch the original source making a mistake. I remember quite a few newspaper journalists printed the protest woman's false affiliation with the Gold Star organization and they were inundated with complaints to run corrections. The fact is, the journalists who ran the flawed stories were not adequately fact checking and they could have easily discovered their error had they simply taken a few minutes to go to the Gold Star web site and read a statement they had put up regarding that very issue.
This type of error is a common occurrence, and traditional journalists often take shortcuts and assume that re-quotes are accurate and that statements made to them by persons they are interviewing are factually correct. Reporters used to do a much better job at this but for whatever reason, this has become less of a priority. I could provide countless examples of this, limited only by my willingness to sit at my computer and type.
Of course, this happens online as well, but I'm not comparing the average quality of journalism online versus traditional journalism (online would easily lose in that category). I'm comparing the highs and the lows. The quality of traditional journalism, including newspapers, tends to stick pretty close to the average, and it never gets much worse or much better than barely mediocre. Online journalism is all over the place; from the most tin foil hat wearing, rambling garbage to the highest quality, most objective, extensively researched and cross-referenced information.
I've found that if you want the highest quality, you need to seek it out online but be prepared to do a lot of weeding.
The problem with todays news is that it is no longer news. It is entertainment first, news second.
The problem with todays newspapers is that more people get thier news from the internet now. This means that papers will eventually die. I say they should DIE, because it is a waste of resources to print them these days anyway.
The problem with the news we do get online, is that it is bought and paid for by the corporations and businesses that pay for the adds in them, NOT the consumer. So the stories are being chosen and written with the customers' best interests in mind, not the readers.
If you want to bring back news that is not total BS, skewed, or total spin, then you need to start subscribing to an online news provider of your choice when they all start chaning over to a pay to read strategy (This is comming very soon weather you like it or not). If they do not change their ways, or listen to your complaints about what you get for your money, then take your money to their competitors. This will force this industry back into submission, and eventually we will start to get good honest reporting with integrity again some day soon.
Otherwise, tomorrows news will be nothing more than propagana, lies, spin, and only stufff that politicians and the corporations that own them want you to read... Just like what we have right now, except 100 times worse!
Just my 2 Euros!
The problem with todays newspapers is that more people get thier news from the internet now. This means that papers will eventually die. I say they should DIE, because it is a waste of resources to print them these days anyway.
The problem with the news we do get online, is that it is bought and paid for by the corporations and businesses that pay for the adds in them, NOT the consumer. So the stories are being chosen and written with the customers' best interests in mind, not the readers.
If you want to bring back news that is not total BS, skewed, or total spin, then you need to start subscribing to an online news provider of your choice when they all start chaning over to a pay to read strategy (This is comming very soon weather you like it or not). If they do not change their ways, or listen to your complaints about what you get for your money, then take your money to their competitors. This will force this industry back into submission, and eventually we will start to get good honest reporting with integrity again some day soon.
Otherwise, tomorrows news will be nothing more than propagana, lies, spin, and only stufff that politicians and the corporations that own them want you to read... Just like what we have right now, except 100 times worse!
Just my 2 Euros!
BINGO!
The tendentious McClatchy newspapers are desperately sucking wind and don't get that their ceaseless political spin on EVERYTHING gets on the nerves of a large majority of the community that has grown tired of being preached at.
A newpaper has to eventually choose whom they wish to serve: Their community or a political party. You make your choice and rise or fall with it.
Nothing could make me happier than to see their demise...which seems imminent.
Never mind that the broadcast media is very nearly as bad.
Wow, you must have bad newspapers. Except for the tabloids, I can't think of any papers that sink as low as the TV or radio news.
Yes it is, but it's yesterday's news.
No, it's propaganda first, news second. Every story is both selected and spun to fit the editorial agenda. From what I gather, European papers are even worse in some countries.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Reducing the amount of trained and professional journalists actively providing us with information is not good for a democracy. Centralized, large papers despite having biases also had the ability to perform a major checking power. I know I'd fear having the NY Times write a scathing piece on me more than some nobody blogger.
Our local paper here in San Diego, the Union Tribune has been slowly going under for a couple years now with constant layoffs, employee retirement buyouts, and rumors about sales. I won't miss the heavily conservative slant, but I will miss the function it serves here.
Our local paper here in San Diego, the Union Tribune has been slowly going under for a couple years now with constant layoffs, employee retirement buyouts, and rumors about sales. I won't miss the heavily conservative slant, but I will miss the function it serves here.
At the Times such an error would have resulted in a page 2 correction, but more importantly, the reporter and/or editor would be reprimanded and if it happened often enough (recent memory is a good measure) then they would be fired. I knew reporters who cleaned out their desks and were escorted out of the building for following petulant causes instead of the story.
Yeah, but how do you know what is garbage and what is smokable (weeding)? Building 7 of the 911 event is an excellent example of this, or the alleged missile fired from Arlington that slammed into the Pentagon and not an airliner going 600 miles per hour 3 feet off the ground. How do you know?
-richard
