Context is key.
Plenty of stories require numbers, facts, and figures. It's extremely easy to take them out of context or to simply use them incorrectly. And, even if information is most likely written correctly, if a reader is left completely confused when more explaining ought to have been done, then the writer and publication deserve blame.
Let's take a look at this Associated Press story. It's extremely easy to write totals. The story was describing that people in the areas of coastal Maine and some of Canada braced for a hurricane. The story said it was the eve of the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Juan -- and that that Category 2 hurricane caused an estimated $100 million worth of damages. It might be pleasant to throw around round numbers, but I'd like to know exactly how this number came to fruition.
Is damage moving out of a home and buying a new one? Is it just areas that needed to be repaired? Also, if read closely, the story says the preparation for Hurricane Kyle is the preparation for a hurricane -- a type of weather condition that has not occurred in Maine for 17 years. So, I was thinking about Hurricane Juan. What gives?
It turns out upon closer reading that technically, Hurricane Juan touched down in Canada.
The story talks about 7 inches of rain in Maine in three days along some costal areas. This type of statement can be read in many ways. Which exact coastal areas had this total of rain? How exactly should 7 inches of rain be interpreted if it's over the course of three days? Was there just consistent downpour the entire three-day period? Other areas (some, not all, was said) just got a little less, a lot less? As a viewer, context needs to be provided so the reader can best understand the scenario. Of course, unfortunately, journalists seem to prove over and over again that they are not expert mathematicians. Important to note is that what ended up hitting turned out to be a tropical storm, which the story did.
At the end of the story, it discussed a storm in the "Northeast" that killed 700 people in 1938. Where exactly in the Northeast? Northeast Maine? I know New York and areas of New England are mentioned, but this whole different story has been about Maine. The point for this story and the couple others that will be used are not about sheer inaccurate numbers but about providing context for the reader. If more precision and research were used, there'd be a lot more knowledge.
Take a look at this simple Wall Street Journal story regarding the first debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. I was confused for a while because the story said 57 million people tuned in for the debate. But what was the rating itself? And what was the '04 first debate rating (between John Kerry and George W. Bush) that was being discussed in comparison? But this story puts things in context better. Plus, the WSJ story states as fact the most-watched debate was the 1980 one between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. But what about the 1960 debate between JFK and Richard Nixon? Many believe this debate to truly have the most watchers, though as the Hollywood Reporter points out, there was no modern rating system.
But that fact alone doesn't mean one can claim as fact that the '80 debate had the most viewers when that claim, well, might not be a fact. I think an explanation is deserved.
And finally, with this Energy Drink story, the story never explained the official line that separates energy drinks and soft drinks. Energy drinks have more caffeine -- but how much more caffeine. Is there an exact number? How is the data being collected?
If Americans spent $5.4 billion on energy drinks, more specific drinks should be cited in the story. Also, a plethora of negative health effects were thrown out there, but how much caffeine can usually lead to these effects? If someone drinks 10 "Wired X505's" in one day? 15? Or just a couple a day. And I have vaguely heard the term "caffeine intoxication" before. This health issue should be explained because many readers probably do not understand exactly what that term means.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Outsourcing copy editors
So often when having a discussion about journalism and media, people like to talk about money, revenue, entertainment, jobs, money, and money. In a global economy, when jobs get outsourced to other nations because of cheap labor, the effects are detrimental to Americans -- but not necessarily to the quality of a product if that product doesn't require much skill.
Copy editing requires a lot of skill.
And skillful copy editors from the United States that understand American culture and the English language are losing jobs to people from India.
In John McIntyre's blog story called "Getting what you pay for," he said, "The belief that local copy can be edited adequately, as well as cheaply, on the other side of the world rests on a misunderstanding of what copy editors do."
I will use my classmates' completed blogs to help me figure out what all this means.
One implication I find very unsettling has to do with the fact that copy editing is getting disrespected all around America. People do not understand the hard work put in, and without appropriate copy editing, there is a major decline in the quality of journalism.
In his blog, Scott Frankel wrote, "Copy editing is really the thing that can save journalism. Writing takes a backseat to fact, and if the facts are wrong, then the writer, copy editor and publication lose the most important thing in journalism ... credibility."
People all over have questioned the credibility of journalism, ranging from television, to newspapers, to blogs, to practically anything on the Internet. When a person sees her name spelled wrong, then that fact is disheartening. When a beat writer awkwardly tries to sound like an expert on a sport instead of just relaying the objective facts to the best of his ability, then readers will laugh. When a copy editor is unfamiliar with the culture and context of an investigative story, then the ultimate quality of the story will surely be negatively affected.
McIntyre said in his blog, "Entrusting local copy to editors who know no more of your area than you do of Mumbai is apt to produce hilarious errors. Copy editing is more than just the small change of language. It also is substantive editing."
Substantive is the key word. Not everything needs genius-like thinking. If there were more copy editors catching more errors, would newspaper sales go up? Would the country as a whole truly take notice? Would people care? Maybe there would be a slight effect, and in a perfect world, there'd be a great effect.
But why not go for perfection? If you know for a fact -- based on deadlines and experience -- how important that copy editor is, then why guarantee lower quality? It's inexcusable to create a product that is guaranteed to have more errors and embarrassments than there ought to be. You need someone who is looking out for your best interests while at the same time not emotionally attached to the piece in a way that will negatively impact the editing process. You need someone to speak bluntly but who is able to convey advice that you would not have realized on your own.
Some decisions should be made based on an absolute level of what is right and what is wrong.
Laura Ude, another classmate, saw the bigger picture when she wrote, "I get a bad taste in my mouth when I think about the fact that the people who have chosen to pursue journalism and hopefully defend the demise of the English language have given up and passed the job onto people on the other side of the world."
The key there is "given up." Why give up? Why? Giving up makes no sense. Giving up is admitting to inferiority instead of superiority. Giving up is not about losing versus winning; it's about being able to look yourself in the mirror and being able to ask yourself if you are doing the best that you can. Your profession is a large part of your being, of your ego, of who you are. Giving up is not going to help with America's reputation of, as Laura puts it, being a "fat, lazy, stupid country." We know we are not lazy and stupid, but instead of giving up, it's important to fight stereotypes and show first, and foremost, that we care.
Journalists care about factual errors. They care about the substantive portions of their articles and whether their stories are interpreted correctly by the public. Those cases often hinge on a copy editor.
A differing view comes from Drake Baer, who said, "The examples (McIntyre) uses on local geography are exaggerated at best." Baer noted that a copy editor from India can track down an answer fast while the "Older Copyeditor" from the United States will use old fashioned means and that this whole dilemma is quite exaggerated.
Drake's point is well taken, but the answer to everything doesn't have to be some extension of Google. Plus, what if a person understands the language better, understands the culture better, AND has access to Google (compared to only the latter of the three)? There is something to growing up in a community and being inundated with its music, taste, language, atmosphere, human interaction.
McIntyre is not exaggerating anything. In his blog, he express concern and shows that he cares. He doesn't want to see more plagiarism; he wants to see less. He doesn't want you to get convicted of libel; he wants the problem to be stopped before there's even a dilemma.
Copy editors are most often the people who prevent the negative tidal waves from crashing down upon the writers and media outlets. If you don't care about your work, then why do you do what you do? If those special folks who do the hiring and firing do not care about copy editing, then they might as well forget about caring for journalism.
Because even if the best possible final product is not always produced due to deadline and circumstance, you should at least be able to say you gave it your all.
Copy editing requires a lot of skill.
And skillful copy editors from the United States that understand American culture and the English language are losing jobs to people from India.
In John McIntyre's blog story called "Getting what you pay for," he said, "The belief that local copy can be edited adequately, as well as cheaply, on the other side of the world rests on a misunderstanding of what copy editors do."
I will use my classmates' completed blogs to help me figure out what all this means.
One implication I find very unsettling has to do with the fact that copy editing is getting disrespected all around America. People do not understand the hard work put in, and without appropriate copy editing, there is a major decline in the quality of journalism.
In his blog, Scott Frankel wrote, "Copy editing is really the thing that can save journalism. Writing takes a backseat to fact, and if the facts are wrong, then the writer, copy editor and publication lose the most important thing in journalism ... credibility."
People all over have questioned the credibility of journalism, ranging from television, to newspapers, to blogs, to practically anything on the Internet. When a person sees her name spelled wrong, then that fact is disheartening. When a beat writer awkwardly tries to sound like an expert on a sport instead of just relaying the objective facts to the best of his ability, then readers will laugh. When a copy editor is unfamiliar with the culture and context of an investigative story, then the ultimate quality of the story will surely be negatively affected.
McIntyre said in his blog, "Entrusting local copy to editors who know no more of your area than you do of Mumbai is apt to produce hilarious errors. Copy editing is more than just the small change of language. It also is substantive editing."
Substantive is the key word. Not everything needs genius-like thinking. If there were more copy editors catching more errors, would newspaper sales go up? Would the country as a whole truly take notice? Would people care? Maybe there would be a slight effect, and in a perfect world, there'd be a great effect.
But why not go for perfection? If you know for a fact -- based on deadlines and experience -- how important that copy editor is, then why guarantee lower quality? It's inexcusable to create a product that is guaranteed to have more errors and embarrassments than there ought to be. You need someone who is looking out for your best interests while at the same time not emotionally attached to the piece in a way that will negatively impact the editing process. You need someone to speak bluntly but who is able to convey advice that you would not have realized on your own.
Some decisions should be made based on an absolute level of what is right and what is wrong.
Laura Ude, another classmate, saw the bigger picture when she wrote, "I get a bad taste in my mouth when I think about the fact that the people who have chosen to pursue journalism and hopefully defend the demise of the English language have given up and passed the job onto people on the other side of the world."
The key there is "given up." Why give up? Why? Giving up makes no sense. Giving up is admitting to inferiority instead of superiority. Giving up is not about losing versus winning; it's about being able to look yourself in the mirror and being able to ask yourself if you are doing the best that you can. Your profession is a large part of your being, of your ego, of who you are. Giving up is not going to help with America's reputation of, as Laura puts it, being a "fat, lazy, stupid country." We know we are not lazy and stupid, but instead of giving up, it's important to fight stereotypes and show first, and foremost, that we care.
Journalists care about factual errors. They care about the substantive portions of their articles and whether their stories are interpreted correctly by the public. Those cases often hinge on a copy editor.
A differing view comes from Drake Baer, who said, "The examples (McIntyre) uses on local geography are exaggerated at best." Baer noted that a copy editor from India can track down an answer fast while the "Older Copyeditor" from the United States will use old fashioned means and that this whole dilemma is quite exaggerated.
Drake's point is well taken, but the answer to everything doesn't have to be some extension of Google. Plus, what if a person understands the language better, understands the culture better, AND has access to Google (compared to only the latter of the three)? There is something to growing up in a community and being inundated with its music, taste, language, atmosphere, human interaction.
McIntyre is not exaggerating anything. In his blog, he express concern and shows that he cares. He doesn't want to see more plagiarism; he wants to see less. He doesn't want you to get convicted of libel; he wants the problem to be stopped before there's even a dilemma.
Copy editors are most often the people who prevent the negative tidal waves from crashing down upon the writers and media outlets. If you don't care about your work, then why do you do what you do? If those special folks who do the hiring and firing do not care about copy editing, then they might as well forget about caring for journalism.
Because even if the best possible final product is not always produced due to deadline and circumstance, you should at least be able to say you gave it your all.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
There is no line
Would you blog a 3-year-old's funeral? What would motivate you to do something like that in live time? Why would you do it? Would you ask yourself ethical questions? Would you have pause? Would you care? Would you dare? What if you were a reporter for a professional newspaper and Twittered the 3-year-old's funeral anyway?
Then you would be Berny Morson, a reporter for the Rocky Mountain News. And you'd be wrong for doing what you did.
Marten Kudlis, the toddler who was in the wrong Basking Robbins at the wrong time, was killed as a result of an SUV hitting a Mazda truck, then the pickup hitting a utility box, then the utility box horrifically and tragically ending the 3-year-old's life (the CBS-Denver story says the toddler was 2, but all other news outlets found say the child was 3). Two others, both of whom were in the pickup, were killed as well.
Of course, to put things in perspective, since it is easy to get extremely emotional whenever someone leaves us too soon, the brunt of the real anger ought to be aimed at the alleged hit-and-run driver, Francis Hernandez, who is 23. The driver, thought to be Hernandez, fled the scene on foot but was arrested, according to police.
Funerals are usually reported in an appropriate, sensitive way. And publication occurs after the funeral is completed. That standard was not followed and outrage ensued. How desperate do you have to be for a story to blog LIVE via text messaging from a 3-year-old's funeral?
But not all viewed Morson's texting in a negative light.
"The technology is there to offer people the opportunity to keep people bang up to date with developments, whether that be the minutiae of live [sic] or something more serious," Tech.Blorge's Dave Parrack said. "All Morson was doing was utilizing the technology in the way it was ultimately intended."
Yes, Dave: Technology was ultimately intended to carelessly text/blog live at the place where a 3-year-old's family is devastated, where the realization sets in that life will never be the same, where sobs of crying reverberate, where cheeks are red and tears can be tasted. That type of circumstance epitomizes the environment in which technology ought to be used for instantaneous gratification.
See, with being plugged in 24/7, there needs to be more thought, more reason, more discretion. Ask: Am I being ethical? What if positions were reversed; would I be okay with what this reporter is doing?
If it's wrong in most cases to text from class and the movies (I have broken both of those codes of conduct many times over), then texting from a funeral is out-of-this world, insanely inappropriate. And selfish. The act shows a lack of compassion and very little trace of humanity.
Journalists have a very difficult job. They have to go to the event no matter what it is -- where the people can be as nice as ever or as hostile as an aggressive pack of wolves -- and do their duty. It's not easy to ask a coach why she put this player in the game instead of that player when her team lost by one. It's not easy to ask the one who is responsible for the budget where all the money went. It's not easy to put your microphone close to a relative of the deceased and ask what the departed meant to the world.
It's not easy to cover a funeral. Somebody has to do it. And technology and media are evolving. Different kinds of decisions must be made. Sometimes you don't know where the line is until it has been crossed.
But in the case of the death of the toddler at the ice scream store, the line was unquestionably crossed. Twitter can be a great addition to society, as it has around 2.9 million members and keeps individuals informed like never before. Great reporting has been done via Twitter. But enough is enough. Are we not sensitive enough to let the sanctity of someone's life be for just a little bit longer? Is there a way to report something so sad in a more appropriate medium?
Reporters ask themselves ethical questions all the time. With blogs and devices where anybody can be a "reporter" at any moment, there is less room in this world for privacy. But if you are a professional, you should know better. I cringe at the thought of doing what the Rocky Mountain News reporter did.
There needs to be a larger discussion in media of, quite frankly, doing what is right, having empathy, and being ethical. At 10:20 a.m. on Sept. 10, 2008, I would not have texted, "rabbi recites the main hebrew prayer of death" (and I would not have lowercased Rabbi or Hebrew). At 10:22 a.m. that same day I would not have texted, "earth being placed on coffin." I would not be able to live with myself.
In journalism nowadays, the speed of the delivery of information is more important than anything else, apparently. And in this case, I'm sure that the information provided was accurate. But would you want someone blogging your child's funeral? Some questions that need to be asked must do with the human condition. They must do with the heart.
Because if those ideals leave us when it matters the most, then what will be left of journalism?
Then you would be Berny Morson, a reporter for the Rocky Mountain News. And you'd be wrong for doing what you did.
Marten Kudlis, the toddler who was in the wrong Basking Robbins at the wrong time, was killed as a result of an SUV hitting a Mazda truck, then the pickup hitting a utility box, then the utility box horrifically and tragically ending the 3-year-old's life (the CBS-Denver story says the toddler was 2, but all other news outlets found say the child was 3). Two others, both of whom were in the pickup, were killed as well.
Of course, to put things in perspective, since it is easy to get extremely emotional whenever someone leaves us too soon, the brunt of the real anger ought to be aimed at the alleged hit-and-run driver, Francis Hernandez, who is 23. The driver, thought to be Hernandez, fled the scene on foot but was arrested, according to police.
Funerals are usually reported in an appropriate, sensitive way. And publication occurs after the funeral is completed. That standard was not followed and outrage ensued. How desperate do you have to be for a story to blog LIVE via text messaging from a 3-year-old's funeral?
But not all viewed Morson's texting in a negative light.
"The technology is there to offer people the opportunity to keep people bang up to date with developments, whether that be the minutiae of live [sic] or something more serious," Tech.Blorge's Dave Parrack said. "All Morson was doing was utilizing the technology in the way it was ultimately intended."
Yes, Dave: Technology was ultimately intended to carelessly text/blog live at the place where a 3-year-old's family is devastated, where the realization sets in that life will never be the same, where sobs of crying reverberate, where cheeks are red and tears can be tasted. That type of circumstance epitomizes the environment in which technology ought to be used for instantaneous gratification.
See, with being plugged in 24/7, there needs to be more thought, more reason, more discretion. Ask: Am I being ethical? What if positions were reversed; would I be okay with what this reporter is doing?
If it's wrong in most cases to text from class and the movies (I have broken both of those codes of conduct many times over), then texting from a funeral is out-of-this world, insanely inappropriate. And selfish. The act shows a lack of compassion and very little trace of humanity.
Journalists have a very difficult job. They have to go to the event no matter what it is -- where the people can be as nice as ever or as hostile as an aggressive pack of wolves -- and do their duty. It's not easy to ask a coach why she put this player in the game instead of that player when her team lost by one. It's not easy to ask the one who is responsible for the budget where all the money went. It's not easy to put your microphone close to a relative of the deceased and ask what the departed meant to the world.
It's not easy to cover a funeral. Somebody has to do it. And technology and media are evolving. Different kinds of decisions must be made. Sometimes you don't know where the line is until it has been crossed.
But in the case of the death of the toddler at the ice scream store, the line was unquestionably crossed. Twitter can be a great addition to society, as it has around 2.9 million members and keeps individuals informed like never before. Great reporting has been done via Twitter. But enough is enough. Are we not sensitive enough to let the sanctity of someone's life be for just a little bit longer? Is there a way to report something so sad in a more appropriate medium?
Reporters ask themselves ethical questions all the time. With blogs and devices where anybody can be a "reporter" at any moment, there is less room in this world for privacy. But if you are a professional, you should know better. I cringe at the thought of doing what the Rocky Mountain News reporter did.
There needs to be a larger discussion in media of, quite frankly, doing what is right, having empathy, and being ethical. At 10:20 a.m. on Sept. 10, 2008, I would not have texted, "rabbi recites the main hebrew prayer of death" (and I would not have lowercased Rabbi or Hebrew). At 10:22 a.m. that same day I would not have texted, "earth being placed on coffin." I would not be able to live with myself.
In journalism nowadays, the speed of the delivery of information is more important than anything else, apparently. And in this case, I'm sure that the information provided was accurate. But would you want someone blogging your child's funeral? Some questions that need to be asked must do with the human condition. They must do with the heart.
Because if those ideals leave us when it matters the most, then what will be left of journalism?
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Wrong major
An individual who majored in journalism – a profession that idolizes facts and truth – has a chance to become one of the most powerful people in the world and arguably the most powerful woman in the world. Sarah Palin, who graduated with the mentioned degree from the University of Idaho in 1987 (college took her almost five years and also five colleges), is currently the talk of journalists and America
By the way, McCain is 72 and has had cancer, so there is even a greater chance that Palin can be president.
Palin was largely unknown and then suddenly transformed herself into ubiquity. (Well, there is this from back in the day.) We journalists (at the very least, student journalists who want to make a difference in the world) should be dancing from mountain tops, singing toward rainbows, and darting through glass ceilings. Some probably have those feelings.
I don’t.
I’m troubled by the fact that Palin majored in journalism at all. Whenever I write a story to be published or have a responsibility that can possibly affect others, I try to make sure that what I make part of our cosmic wash has truth and can be verified. I’m scared to death about getting a fact incorrect or saying something correct that can be misinterpreted.
Palin doesn’t hold herself to those standards. If I didn’t hold myself to those standards, then there’d be a couple of college or high school athletes’ moms angry for a day or two that her kid’s golf or basketball statistic was just a little off in the paper. If Palin becomes even more powerful than she is or the leader of the free world, there’s a chance that women would be on their way to having practically no reproductive rights – or that a misguided war can continue to be rationalized as “a task that is from God.”
“Our national leaders are sending (U.S.
If the war in Iraq
In the world of journalism, using pragmatism is crucial. Belief is one thing and belief is great, but evidence is a whole different matter. In today’s world, reason and justification are of the utmost importance. How else can there be any accountability? If a journalist wrote something as fact that is unsubstantiated, he or she can be short a lot money and out of a job. We journalists as a whole try to do what is right and honest, using very strict methods and guidelines.
Palin has shown again and again that truth does not matter. And that truth hurts because, even though she is a journalist no more, she might be my vice president and then possibly my president. Take what she said as part of her speech at the Republican National Convention. And for those who might not know, before Palin was governor, she was the mayor of a small town in Alaska
“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities,” Palin said in comparing her service to America
Aside from the fact that the statement was rude, mean, belittling, and bad for hardworking community organizers across America
The Bloomberg piece by Peter Robinson makes it very clear that Palin has a strong relationship with the Lord. But it might be more important to have empathy for young girls who get raped and impregnated in the most unfortunate circumstances. Palin not only stands against abortion on principle (which isn’t a unique view); she stands against choice, in any stage, even in cases of rape and incest. Having that view seems to me incredibly irresponsible. I would not want to be a 13-year-old girl who is put in the most difficult circumstance.
Getting back to facts, or even in this case, well researched and thought out theories, Palin has another troubling view. She wants creationism to be taught in public schools. If one believes in creationism because of religious reasons, then that is great and there is room for those personal beliefs; what is not great is teaching as possibly fact something that is grounded in belief and not rigorous evidence.
Getting back to facts, or even in this case, well researched and thought out theories, Palin has another troubling view. She wants creationism to be taught in public schools. If one believes in creationism because of religious reasons, then that is great and there is room for those personal beliefs; what is not great is teaching as possibly fact something that is grounded in belief and not rigorous evidence.
Sarah Palin might have the degree many of us are seeking, and she indeed has made a name for herself and has become nationally prominent in a way that most of us will not even come close to. Sometimes, surprises happen. At the end of the Bloomberg article, Palin’s biographer noted that when entering politics after caring so much about sports and sports journalism, Palin’s family went, “Oh, really?”
Well, and this is difficult to repeat, Sarah Palin majored in journalism.
Oh, really?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Newspapers in decline
Vin Crosbie blasted the newspaper industry. He certainly has a pessimistic view of where newspapers are headed. Crosbie brought up a plethora of concerns and explained why some of the traditional excuses for the decline of newspaper circulation are not valid. For the individuals who blame advertising, Crosbie says, “A newspaper with readers will attract advertisers but a newspaper without readers will not. Readers ultimately support and sustain the newspaper business.” The implication is that there are far, far fewer readers of newspapers than there used to be.
Even with population increasing in the
Of course, much of what Crosbie has to say is unfortunately accurate. It’s unfortunate because, even though I have full confidence that there will always be a place for an American journalist, there is a certain respect -- perhaps in the future a certain nostalgia -- to a newspaper hot off the press. Holding the text in your hand. Folding the pages. Getting the ink stained on your fingers. The crisp smell and easy placement. There is a certain comfort level with a newspaper that is not yet there in cyberspace.
One can’t argue with pure statistics. If the McClatchy Company (30 dailies) goes from $74.30 to $3.78 in stock, it seems that trouble is on the rise. If the population goes from 203 million (1970) to 304 million in today’s society – yet the circulation from 62 million to 53 million – then the decline in newspapers are close to catastrophic, and that decline rightfully initiates discussion.
Crosbie bringing his research and opinion to the forefront is a very good thing, but aside for the concrete statistics, I find some of his conclusions and opinions unsupported. He said more than half of the 1,439 daily newspapers in the
He is clairvoyant, sees the future and deems that newspapers like USA Today and The Wall Street Journal will not even be in print by that time frame? Some would argue that Crosbie is correct. But with advertising and the threshold of journalism expertise in newspapers and with newspapers' storied histories (even if one of them was founded in ’82), one might hope newspapers will meet a better end than what Crosbie has proposed. He made too many absolute statements.
When Crosbie brought up microeconomics, he was very insightful regarding WHY. It's unquestionable that decline in circulation has occurred. He helped explain why people choose what they purchase or read, and bringing up supply and demand makes us all realize that when certain commodities are readily available, why would people actively choose to limit themselves or enslave themselves to content when more instantaneous information is out there, even if that information is lower in quality? It is more important to be in the know than to simply know.
What I find disagreeable is the way Crosbie goes about explaining. Sure, there has been cable TV and the World Wide Web; news has gone from “relative Scarcity” to a "certain surplus." But Crosbie ridicules the newspaper industry that has been around for a very, very, very long time, that has helped countless people, that has been there through thick and thin, that has done amazing investigative work to make his world and mine a better place. Though what Crosbie says is sharp, he’s also exhibiting the hindsight bias. So, perhaps what the newspapers are doing will not save them. But who knows? I, for one, am not ready to take away a newspaper’s credibility. People will still always have a need for local information. If a newspaper continues to publish such online and do the best it can with its circulation, then there is still a place in this world for it. I do not have as pessimistic a point of view as does Crosbie.
And, even though numbers have indeed dropped, they’re not at a point to simply fold up the tent and walk away. Sure, the times are changing, but Crosbie really is giving too much blame to those who run newspapers. Like they could have predicted the multimedia boom? They could have controlled common interest and YouTube? What Crosbie has effectively done is point out numbers and why they are what they are. He said completeness is no longer necessary, as a viewer will accept part of a story online, even if it is a one-liner from a blog. But will everybody turn away from newspapers? Is there nothing that can be done? Is the time they are wiped clean off the face of the Earth going to be by the end of the next decade? I’m going to be a hypocrite (just say a conclusion) and simply state that I think the answer, at least by the next decade, is still going to be a resounding NO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)