Don't blame the Internet: Reevaluating the decline in American journalism

You may also like...

18 Responses

  1. Blame the ultra left wing bias that our popular media takes on courtesy morally/ethically white washed schools. My public school and university repeatedly punished me for citing in papers events and best selling book of all time each of which has had possibly the biggest influence on our world culture. Why would I read the local paper to have more of reality dismissed as joke ?

  2. apocalypsecakes says:

    The collapse of journalism is just another sign of The End. Why not put that newspaper down and have a cake?

  3. kiyallsmith says:

    Fabulous fabulous post! You are pointing out a key issue in the future of both government and the media.

    I am scratching my head about Nichols and McChesney’s argument that government funding can maintain a competitive, independent media. But there are surely other ways that the media is already not sufficiently independent.


  4. lillithkane says:

    Recovery? Why would journalism need to recover? As a journalist myself, I believe the career field is always moving forward!

    The fact that print media is outdated and fading is not a negative factor, but an incredibly positive one. To transition to an internet-based publication is financially smarter, and it attracts a wider variety of readers. How in the world is this negative?

    And with staff members freed up from that awful pink elephant that is layout and design, more stories and photos can be published. And the timeliness of an online publication is unbeatable. It adds to credibility.

    Also, this frees up time for blogging, which has quickly become one of the must trusted and widely-used sources of news. People don’t want to read formal statements, they want opinions and personable sources. They’d trust a user review over a magazine review any day.

    And please let me know how this is negative? This is a forward movement not only for technology but for how we as journalists reach the public. It also places the ability to become a journalist in the hands of the everyday person. All you need is a cameraphone that connects to the internet. You take a photo, post a blog and bam! You’ve got the potential [depending on readership & who actually wants to listen to you] to be a journalist.

  5. Seriously? When has inserting a governmental body into a private enterprise ever helped? Anyone? Bueller?


  6. mts says:

    It’s about time someone said it. After all, when moving pictures came out, theater survived. Television didn’t kill movies. And considering the number of channels on cable and satellite TV, the internet didn’t kill it. Radio’s been around trumping newspapers with the paperless, free, instant breaking story for 80 years already. But radio didn’t kill the papers.

    Go to your library, grab a microfilm from the newspaper morgue, and look up an edition pre 1980. Then look at one today. The difference in reporting is astonishing.

  7. Yes, the public is essential to its revival. I think journalism is moving towards a very interesting era. I continue to wonder if journalism’s entanglement with the internet is going to destroy professional journalism and lower the standards and power of the written word…

    great article.


  8. jefftravilla says:

    @Megan… You said… “Seriously? When has inserting a governmental body into a private enterprise ever helped? Anyone? Bueller? ”

    Over the past 100 years, government regulation and subsidies into the private sector have consistently helped more than hurt. FDR and the New Deal was considered borderline socialism in its time, but moved the US out of the Great Depression with “ultra-liberal” concepts like a minimum wage and child labor laws.

    To this day, government subsidizes part of every piece of food you eat to ensure that food producers yield enough crop to sustain their business.

    Those are just a couple examples. Do you want more?

    @realtynetworth… If you truly still think that the popular media takes a far left slant, you are either delusional, or have your head so far up the Bible that you can’t see straight to read it properly any longer. Jesus was a liberal… a HUGE liberal.

    Your public school and university probably punished you more for terrible grammar than your citations of the Bible, but even so, the separation of Church and State was an idea created by some pretty religious folk.

    Your post had so little to do with the article that I feel as if you just scour the internet for sociology articles and start babbling about the evil liberal media. Am I right?

  9. jefftravilla says:

    @LillithKane… Thanks for your insights as a journalist yourself. As I come from the business side of media, I would say you missed one thing… “revenue stream.” The internet media model just hasn’t figured it out yet. Increasingly less people are willing to pay for news and/or entertainment, and I think THAT, at least for now, is the one “negative” you were searching for.

  10. pj.rey says:

    Two things:

    1.) We probably ought to clarify and substantiate whether the problem is a decrease in quantity of publication, quality, or both. I think it would be hard to make the case that quantity is a problem given the endless number of blogs – many of them worth reading. As far as quality is concerned, let’s face it. So much of the media has been concerned for so long with regurgitating press releases, wire reports, and talking points that the loss of these jobs isn’t too dismaying. Also, consider the reportage Twitter facilitated during the Iranian election. These tweets became the primary sources for all the mainstream media coverage. Not that blogs can substitute for the New York Times. Its complicated, not a linear narrative of decline.

    2.) How can democracy be the solution when it’s the problem? That is, greater equality in access to the mean of reporting and publication as well as greater equality in access to journalistic publications is what has problematized the old forms of media. Precisely what differentiates new media from old media is the former’s more democratic nature. Frankly, I don’t believe for-profit media is sustainable (at least for more than the most venerable institutions). I offer an alternative solution, the NPR and BBC model, in my own post:

  11. LULA says:

    I’ve been looking all over for this!


  1. 2nd December 2009

    […] while the industry is doing it’s part, I’d like to offer a humble reflection on what I think the part of the public should be. […]

  2. 2nd December 2009

    […] original post here: Don't blame the Internet: Reevaluating the decline in American … Rate this topic: (No Ratings Yet)  Loading … Popularity: 1 views Tagged with: [ approach, […]

  3. 2nd December 2009

    […] Reevaluation or dismemberment? (blog #11) Filed under: Uncategorized — dvcoksana @ 2:11 am I was logging into my blog, still unsure of what to write about, when one of the featured blog posts on the home page caught my eye: Don’t blame the Internet: Reevaluating the decline in American journalism. […]

  4. 3rd December 2009

    […] saving journalism By readingarefun There’s an interesting blog on the Word Press main page called “Don’t Blame the Internet: Reevaluating the decline […]

  5. 3rd December 2009

    […] UPDATE [thirty seconds later, but reluctant to delete image of Dev Patel]: I found it! […]

  6. 3rd December 2009

    […] Thursday, December 3, 2009 · Leave a Comment A good article and options with regard to the decline of American Journalism. Have a look. […]

  7. 3rd December 2009

    […] the decline in American journalism « Sociology Lens In 1 on December 3, 2009 at 8:12 pm Don’t blame the Internet: Reevaluating the decline in American journalism « Sociology Lens. « Before Academe and the Decline of News Media – The Chronicle Review – […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *