Y2K Again?

| | Comments (1)

"If newspapers die, so does reporting."

Really? Is this true? I understand it takes a lot of time and money to report, but at some point won't the websites have that money? They're the ones taking all the advertising and revenue. Won't they put it to good use? Are we underestimating those sites?

As for time, the websites can keep updating and revising their story so it will get out the people faster. In the case of the shooting, I kept checking news sites online and saw them make changes, add more information and comments, as the hours rolled by. Wouldn't this be more effiecient? (Unless you are doing investigative journalism.)

If what Kamiya says is true that "80 percent of all online news originates in print," do we really have to worry about losing all newspapers? Maybe we're making a bigger deal out of this than will really happen. Maybe we'll lose some newspapers and others will stick around, helping out reporting (if it really is going to die by the internet).

Also, like jibjab demonstrates with the invention of cable, what we consider news has already changed (for the worse). But, this is what the people want right now and the corporations have to follow or die. People want celebrities and graphics and breaking news. It's a race now for who can put the information out the fastest. Our concept of what is news is changing again with the invention of high-speed internet.

More Death of the News

P.S. I did like the shoutouts to Brave New World.

1 Comments

Jeremy Barrick said:

Websites constantly are changing overtime. That is why I think that the news will eventually change to digital, and loose the paper print.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.