Displaying all 18 posts.
The Economist Online is hosting a debate on the news industry at http://econ.st/p9l5yKand we would like to hear your thoughts on Facebook.
about a week ago · Report
Like many other industries before it, the news industry is being disrupted by the internet. Among other things, technology is undermining the business models of newspapers: the news organisations that employ the most journalists and do the most in-depth reporting. At the same time, the internet enables new models of journalism by democratising the tools of publishing, allowing greater participation from readers and making possible entirely new kinds of organisation, such as WikiLeaks. Do the benefits of the internet to the news ecosystem outweigh the drawbacks?
Some argue that a more participatory news system, and greater openness on the part of news organisations, offers journalists new and better ways to do their jobs, serve their communities and hold those in power to account. Others worry that the internet is hollowing out the news system, reducing funding for in-depth reporting and encouraging journalists to lower their standards and focus on what is popular, to attract traffic, rather than what is important. What do you think?
To read all of the opening comments from our moderator and debate speakers, join the debate on our website at: http://econ.st/p9l5yK. You can also share your thoughts in our discussion forum below and your comment could be highlighted on The Economist's online debate hall."offers journalists new and better ways to do their jobs" No, because the issue is that the quality of the journalism has fallen... so there are no better ways, just shortcuts that lead to bad/inadequate reporting.
about a week ago · ReportIt doesn´t matter if many editorial´s fall, the one´s that perssist and endure will prevail in this media era.
about a week ago · ReportThe quality of the service it doesn´t matter cause ur in the net.
about a week ago · ReportWe still have choice. Net or print, there are gd and bad offerings in both arenas & all channels do cheap things for ratings/readers/traffic. Personally I hated the idea of losing print at first but now I like the interactivity of the net (like here, for example! Entering a debate is not 'passive'; I couldn't do this reading a magazine on the train)
about a week ago · ReportThe feedback aspect is undisputed Miah Tolha. But we are not journalist; we can say whatever we want about whatever we want. With no checks, no research just from our guts. That is not how journalism should work. Yes we can discuss the effects of news and how it will affect us as a people/community or whatever else you might want to discuss. However the information must be of the utmost quality. So I am of the opinion that the quality of the information is paramount... just so the ensuing debate can be that much better. Perhaps it is just paranoia or just some sort of base fear that I have that so many people inputting how they feel and putting it forward as news will detract from the conversation and the truth.
about a week ago · ReportFrom the time Newspapers became the servants of particular group including governments, They lost their readers. If a Newspaper is so independent, there will always be a lot of readers who do buy for its independent journalism. When a Newspaper is not, it will go down to the ditch and disapear from publishing its daily/weekly editions and the journalists will have no options but go online looking for a Paragraph-Reader instead of a reader to the whole articles and News.
about a week ago · ReportOur current online debate has reached the rebuttal stage, with 69% agreeing that the internet is making journalism better, not worse. Our debate moderator comments:
last Friday · Report
"Jay Rosen points to reasons to be optimistic about new forms of internet-powered journalism; Nicholas Carr observes that it is results that matter, and so far, despite the optimism, the new entrants have failed to deliver. The motion under debate, however, is whether the internet "is making" journalism better or worse, so what matters is the trend. Even if internet-powered journalism has not filled the gap so far, are there signs of progress in the right direction?"
Read more in our debate hall on The Economist Online at: http://econ.st/p9l5yK or share your views below.
What do you think about the prospect of online hacking replacing the less cyber-savvy methods of the fallen News of the world?
last Friday · Reportthe difficulties of maintaining a selective voice with prioritising *necessary educational weapon structures ... is without question an objective probable which should delineate the subjective discourse of yesteryear's journalistic operatives. the inclusive formatting with marketing directives is a challenge most news groups have had a luxury to ignore prior to the internet's communal directives. our past was shrouded in deceptions and technology is bringing forth authenticity with these reports. the modern-day broadcaster of news is coupled with the challenges of admiration for iconic idols and disdain for the illiterate in masses. there are one too many voices which need to regulate an audience discourse before taking credence or accomplishment over technological surplus.
last Friday · ReportI think the only real difference is the availability and the immediacy of the written word, rather than a change in quality of all content. If I wish to read an opinion piece in the broad sheets , you have to pay on the net or your reading device,the same as if you walked into a newsagent, what's the difference. The only real difference I see here, is that the publisher saves a fortune in manufacturing/distribution costs.
last Friday · Report
The technology that allows me to consume fine writing is a great enabler, not a restriction. My iPad and browser now offer up an array of quality material that was simple not available before. I have several in-depth magazines delivered electronically that are as good today as ever, but what has changed is the immediacy of the transient news, which is now available instantly, and there I would not expect the same quality as before. Newspapers are never going to compete with Twitter, Facebook or Google+ for speed , but they must offer more thoughtful and reflective content later.
Post Deleted
last FridayI think it is unfortunate that print newspapers are not read as widely as they once were. I think you get an experience reading a physical paper cover to cover that can't be duplicated with digital media. You get a continuity of story and there are many things that are covered in print that will be read if one reads the entire paper that can be easily missed in the headline focused digital medium.
last Saturday · ReportI think that the Internet has helped cases such as the Ian Tomlinson death at the G20 protest, as it was the public's access to YouTube that got the evidence out there to a large audience. In a sense, the Internet is providing people with a platform to voice opinion which I think is a good thing. I'd say that it's improving the quality of the reporting as it's preventing journalists from reporting sensationalised, inaccurate information.
on Wednesday · ReportOur debate on the internet's impact on journalism is coming to an end with closing statements in from both speakers. It is your final chance to vote and influence the outcome of the debate, so vote now and tell us the thinking behind your views. Our moderator opens his comments with:
23 hours ago · Report
"Perhaps it should not come as a surprise, given that this is an online debate, that the voting tally has been consistently in favour of the motion, and by a large margin (roughly 70% in favour, 30% against). Jay Rosen may be right to suggest that the internet's beneficial impact on journalism seems obvious, at least to some people; but Nicholas Carr may also be right to suggest that only news junkies, of the kind who attend online debates, see things that way. As you consider casting your own vote, if you have not done so already, you may want to ask yourself: are you a news junkie? And if so, do you think the internet has improved journalism for everyone—or just for you and other news junkies?"
Where do you stand? Vote now and post your views on either The Economist online:http://econ.st/p9l5yK or here on Facebook.The underlying issue is that the quality of the so-called journalists has become so degraded that most of the content is merely opinion, not news. There is no argument that the volume is increased but the quality is diminished to the point of unreadability. If you take a sample, it is rehashing the same few ill researched bullet points that do not tell the story.
20 hours ago · Report
Couple all this with the polarized opinions of the "news" organs themselves and you are left with garbage.
The basics of spelling and grammar are not being taught in schools because the "new" media is supposedly catering to the young and hip who cannot spell or construct a decent sentence either.
I used to read a newspaper because there was an effort to dig into the facts and present all the information so that I could formulate my own opinion about a news item. Now it is all headlines and little or no facts and the slant is already applied for me. If I am a typical internet sheep then this is fine. Unfortunately I would rather make up my own mind.
The other problem is that there is rarely any follow up on a story. SInce internet news has to be relevant, (read "immediate"), yesterdays story is never heard of again.
By the way, blogs are not news.What would Marshall McLuhan say? Oh, he already said it. Today would have been McLuhan's 100th birthday. (I couldn't be sure if he was a subscriber of The Economist. We could ask one of his sons.) But he was indeed big on participatory anything, even in his teaching style, so he'd be quite happy today were he to observe these goings-on and pseudo-debate. Journalism has already changed in the way that writing has already changed. To journos: Just get to the truth, is all, howsoever you get to it. Journalists tend to assume the worst of the public -- their most instant failing -- forgetting that vacuity creates a vacuum.
19 hours ago · ReportWhich came first, the vacuum or the vacuity? We've seen all the arguments for why the degradation of language is an OK thing, and the upshot is that fragmented phrases and tweets leave the message in a massaged medium. McLuhan would probably have been happy watching today's mess. That doesn't mean Marshall's message was foretelling a good thing, merely that he was a good forecaster.
17 hours ago · Report
No comments:
Post a Comment