Every modern technological device carries with it the distinct possibility of making obsolete something that is currently held to be valuable. The advent of the “information revolution” is proving this phenomenon to be true in multiple areas, not the least of which is the passing away of the daily newspaper. The place of the daily newspaper in Western history is indisputable; it was the primary point of in-depth reporting on global information that helped to shape world opinion for the last three centuries. Now it is facing the threat of total downsizing, reformatting to the web-based model, unique niche marketing, gradual obsolescence, or any and all of the above. Currently, daily newspaper companies all over the U.S. are either shutting down or perched upon the edge of bankruptcy.
Indeed, Carlos Slim and Rupert Murdoch have come to the rescue of giants like News Corp and the New York Times while lesser-funded local city papers are hanging on by their fingernails. They are not alone as the web-world giants such as YouTube continue to replace coffee and the morning paper, or morning television updates, with a quick look on the web at the three or four favorite sites we trust.
The Western institution of democracy itself rests upon the assumption of a relatively well-informed population and a definitely well-informed set of civil leaders. That status of “well-informed” rests upon these twin supports: 1) accurate, and accountable news and issues reporting, and 2) a regular and trusted system of information distribution. In the web-age of interactive information, where people’s “input” is of increasingly high value, possibly eclipsing the value of having specialists whose opinions are based upon focused expertise, we have to wonder where this is going.
Are we headed towards, “we feel good about this being viewed as the truth because so many people participated in the creation of it,” and away from, “here are the hard facts and the overall context of these issues from a studied and expert point of view?” “Truth” certainly has facets and perspectives, but larger numbers of people feeling “good” about it and participating “relationally” in its formation may have little to do with the actual merits of something being in fact “true.” This is no small issue and may well contribute to the on-going process of “dumbing-down” the general population and the rise of “populist” politicians who give the people what they want instead of what is needed for survival and prosperity.
“Truth” is not just an accurate picture of something; it is virtually always encased in principles of cause-and-effect and is verified by multiple examples of historically-related testimonies to it. Relational “feel good about it” isn’t one of them. God help us get clear on these differences. Our very future rests upon it.
Jaelle Hamann
said:
 |
Post Modernism And The Media Probably the underlying cause for the misinterpretation of truth and it becoming a group consensus, is that people require justification. People desire community. Other people living the way that they live helps to affirm a fundamental desire in all human beings, "I'm doing or thinking the right thing." So in an age that finds itself wallowing in all kinds of different lifestyles we can see why this level of "truth" would become appealing. Our Post-Modern Age emphasizes that no-one can actually know truth because everyone is simply a product of a culmination of life experiences. This idea opens the realm to the justification of almost anything because there isn't a standard of truth to bas anything on. Suddenly personal responsibility is thrust into the realm of impossibility and we are left scrambling to rationalize why it is we do anything, even the evil things can be rationalized using this type of thought. After all if there is no good, no ultimate standard, than there is no evil also. As Post Modernism infiltrates our culture the desire to seek grounded truth is going to shrink. People's world's are going to be shrunk down to only the little tiny things that I care about. "Why should I care about the news? That has nothing to do with me or my life?" The culture of today has everybody focused on their own agenda. A mindset that says "If you don't fit into my agenda then you're not in my life." That is why the news and hard hitting truth is becoming more and more irrelevent because an entire generation of kids can't seem too look out of their own little boxes of life to see the bigger picture. As the article mentions people are turning to the idea of relational truth because for the post-modernist it is the easiest to accept. It does what I want, it fits into my idea and my plans. There is a definitive need for major reform in the area of journalism. Because unfortunately our culture only wants to be entertained at the basest of human el levels the media is shrinking it's coverage to fit our desires. After all Media is a business run by businessmen. So really both areas could use reform. After all the media has a ginormous influence on how we think. The question is which area will come first. Will the news change the minds of the people or the people change the agenda of the news. |
Kayla Roberts
said:
 |
Blogging... I agree with Jaelle that our culture is turning more to a postmodern view of the news. With the infiltration of blogging and the access to the media that we have, the news is turning more into a networking site of opinions. It doesn't matter as much what the news says; it matters what people think about the news. An article called "The Future of Blogging" from CNET news said, "Recently, blogs have been credited with everything from CBS News anchorman Dan Rather's departure, to unauthorized previews of the latest Apple Computer products, to new transparency in presidential campaigns. The big question is whether blogs, short for Web logs, have the staying power to become more than just online diaries." With people voicing their opinions more publicly than ever, and people valuing those opinions, it makes for a very different view of the news media. The article also claims, "Wharton legal studies professor Dan Hunter puts blogging right up there with the printing press when it comes to sharing ideas and disseminating information. 'This is not a fad,' Hunter says. 'It's the rise of amateur content, which is replacing the centralized, controlled content done by professionals.'" (http://news.cnet.com/The future of blogging/2030-1069_3-5654288.html) Now, is this content bad? In some ways yes and others no. It is great that people are able to voice their opinions. It is one of the beauties of our country! The fact that we can read something, analyze it, and talk about it is wonderful because it gets people thinking about things beyond themselves. It also allows people to firmly establish what they believe because they have to have reasons to explain those beliefs. However, there are dangers as well. Sharon Housley, the marketing manager for FreeForAll software, writes, "I have heard many a blogger say that blogging fills a need. While blogging provides a humanizing effect on news and journaling, it also opens a window into personal lives. The details shared in blogs were once only available to a select group of friends, and while blogging has become common place, it has risks that should not be ignored. " (http://www.feedforall.com/dangers-blogging.htm) With this public view into private lives, it can lead to dangerous instances of abuse and the like. Also, they can be used against someone in the future because of a belief they posted in their past. In conclusion, there are ups and downs to the "group-think phenomenon" mentioned in this article. While opinions are being expressed, dangers can follow as well. |
Kayla Roberts
said:
|
... Here is the link to the first website again: http://news.cnet.com/The future of blogging/2030-1069_3-5654288.html |
Erin Oostra
said:
 |
Newspaper Death Watch I was actually just thinking about this very subject when I saw this article. The familiar smell of a newspaper with a classic cup of coffee in the morning could be an absurd thought in the next ten years… because in these days we can get any sort of information we want within a click of a mouse. Honestly, I am not completely sure on how I feel about this. In one sense, it makes life so much easier to be able to go exactly where you want for free in a few seconds on your computer. With a newspaper, you have to pay to flip through a stack of papers, half of which you’ll never read. While there seems to be a great loss of jobs in the newspaper field, there is also a huge increase in the online jobs. I guess in the end I prefer to use the web over the newspaper. The New Yorker states, “In the Internet age, however, no one has figured out how to rescue the newspaper in the United States or abroad. Newspapers have created Web sites that benefit from the growth of online advertising, but the sums are not nearly enough to replace the loss in revenue from circulation and print ads.” (http://www.thetransforum.com/a...menon.html) So, which is really better? Is the loss of the familiar newspaper bad? Or are we just moving on to a new era? There are even sites watching the death of the newspaper! (http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/). So what are we to think? |
Ashley McCuen
said:
 |
Get It Quick We live in a “get it quick” generation. What I mean is everybody wants things fast and quick, whether it is their coffee, food, money, success or information—our generation is one where we look for the fast and easy way for just about everything. We have Starbucks drive-thrus, take out restaurants, “get rich quick” programs, and online schooling, newspapers, blogs, and well, just about everything. Now, I would agree with Erin Oostra’s comment—this can be very convenient, and I think a lot of these things are very helpful, but are we limiting ourselves? Now, back to this article, there is a something about a hard copy of a newspaper in your hand. While I think online papers and such are great, I think we cannot limit ourselves to that. The newspaper was our basis for information; it was the foundation for all the pathways of gaining facts and knowledge. Recently, the Seattle Post Intelligence newspaper stopped printing; it is now solely an online paper. It had run for about 46 years! Copy editor Glenn Ericksen, a P-I staffer for nearly 25 years, said he had mixed feelings about the closure. Most recently working as a copy editor, he said, "I'm sad the print product will go away. It's the end of an era, and I'm not sure it's a good thing.” He said the Web "lowers the standard of literacy all around. Who needs copy editors on the Web?" (http://www.seattlepi.com/busin...ure17.html). I would totally agree with this—I think the Web lowers the standard, and takes away the formality of it. To show how our “techie” generation has really come out, this article-- http://newspaperpublishing.sui...d_of_a_era -- showed how just a few years ago with the Bush administration, there were 30 people just from one newspaper who would cover an event, not to mention several other newspapers. But now, 8 years or so later, several of these papers have closed, and we are now looking at blogs and online sources and papers. Our world is drastically changing, and I ask, are we okay with this? Is it a good thing? Is it truly okay to be a “get it quick” generation? |
