Will Print Journalism Survive?

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

Monetizing it online has so far proven dicey, and the actual hard copy product sales have fallen off a cliff. Do you think we are moving towards a world where more people will be listening to their news and entertainment rather than reading it from a newspaper or magazine? And how can online news sources survive? 

[futureman 22566]

no. 

are you including online sources as “print”?  I’m assuming you mean newspapers/magazines.

Edited June 2, 2018 by futureman

[Macanudo 13103]

I can't stand audio news stories.   I know it's what kids crave but I just want to pull  up an online  news story and read it.    if I'm at work and need a few minutes of surfing I can't have some bubble headed bleach blond telling me if the heads dead yet.   I want to read a few paragraphs and be done.   oh well .

[miguelito 11347]

Well, in a few years, no one will be able to read anymore, and

I forgot where I was going with that.

[LebongJames 1827]

No

[phdhorn 6224]

Print newspapers are dead men walking, that's more than a given.
Other print media, largely yes if it's current events.  Books/story journals (i.e. magazines with creative content) not as quickly.
But yeah, everything in print unless enforcing some legal contract or whatnot will be largely defunct within a decade.

[Parliament 14413]

I think print/online journalism that focuses on specialized areas will be fine.  WSJ/Nat Geo, etc.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Parliament

[Neonmoon 38130]

Yes. I thought it was already dead. 

Online news journalism will still exist. 

[Trey3216 15382]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Yes. I thought it was already dead. 

Online news journalism will still exist. 

According to Igon Spangler, it was dead decades ago 

[Dewey 3315]

I think the problem with the online service is the technology moves too fast for most to keep up. Theres also the oldschool with great pride keeping print alive. Until theres a cost effective way of doing things solely online, print will be around.

[Grippe 313]

I believe knowledge content will be one of the first 'victims' of the information age (transitioning from the industrial age).

It's interesting to muse over the fact that multiple generations will be the transitional witnesses to a genuine end of one age and rise of another (Greatest Gen'ers, Baby Boomers, X'ers - I would place Millennials as the first true generation of the Information age with only a tacit life in the industrial age).

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Before the internet, you had thousands of local print monopolies. These were known as "newspapers". Naturally, each of these local fiefdoms came to think of themselves as indispensable fountains of cultural influence in their little areas. 

When the internet happened, it became obvious that Bob The Beat Reporter in Schenectady was writing an article on some event, but that there were 1000 other writers composing exactly the same stories across the country. With the internet, this makes no economic sense. Naturally, these egotistical bastards cried about the decline of journalism and the absolutely vital role they play in their community, which of course was a self serving argument entirely without merit. 

I remember watching a press conference after A-Rod admitted to using PED. There were thousands of reporters. Each of those reporters would go back the their hotel room and write nearly identical stories. Virtually none of them would realize how little value they provide to society or that their business model was doomed to fail.

There is huge unmet need for true journalism. Investigations to uncover corruption, speaking truth to power. What we've seen is not merely that more journalists are petty tyrants consumed with their own self importance. We've also seen that most of them are simply incompetent at delivering the who, what, when, where, and why of a story. 

In England, the TV journalists are not called "anchors", they're called "news readers". Walter Cronkite et al were never the conscience of the country, were never moral or cultural leaders, they're readers of a teleprompter. The sheer pomposity of trying to attribute great wisdom to someone who reads a cue card is mind boggling.  

The ability to syndicate stories could have been a great opportunity to do great journalism. As we've seen, that has not been the case. If anything it's gotten worse, focused more on pretty pictures and partisanship that uncovering important yet unappreciated truths.

TL:DR Fuck journalists they are getting what they deserve.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[Red Five 41155]

Quote

Do you think we are moving towards a world where more people will be listening to their news and entertainment rather than reading it from a newspaper or magazine?

Did you write this in 1992?

[DanRydell 799]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

Before the internet, you had thousands of local print monopolies. These were known as "newspapers". Naturally, each of these local fiefdoms came to think of themselves as indispensable fountains of cultural influence in their little areas. 

When the internet happened, it became obvious that Bob The Beat Reporter in Schenectady was writing an article on some event, but that there were 1000 other writers composing exactly the same stories across the country. With the internet, this makes no economic sense. Naturally, these egotistical bastards cried about the decline of journalism and the absolutely vital role they play in their community, which of course was a self serving argument entirely without merit. 

I remember watching a press conference after A-Rod admitted to using PED. There were thousands of reporters. Each of those reporters would go back the their hotel room and write nearly identical stories. Virtually none of them would realize how little value they provide to society or that their business model was doomed to fail.

There is huge unmet need for true journalism. Investigations to uncover corruption, speaking truth to power. What we've seen is not merely that more journalists are petty tyrants consumed with their own self importance. We've also seen that most of them are simply incompetent at delivering the who, what, when, where, and why of a story. 

In England, the TV journalists are not called "anchors", they're called "news readers". Walter Cronkite et al were never the conscience of the country, were never moral or cultural leaders, they're readers of a teleprompter. The sheer pomposity of trying to attribute great wisdom to someone who reads a cue card is mind boggling.  

The ability to syndicate stories could have been a great opportunity to do great journalism. As we've seen, that has not been the case. If anything it's gotten worse, focused more on pretty pictures and partisanship that uncovering important yet unappreciated truths.

TL:DR Fuck journalists they are getting what they deserve.

One purpose those numerous writers served was to correctly report the number of reporters at A-Rod's press conference as "roughly 200" as opposed to "thousands."

Quote

Eight days after admitting his steroid use in a television interview, Alex Rodriguez offered more details in a news conference after his arrival at Yankees spring training camp on Tuesday. With dozens of teammates standing nearby and roughly 200 reporters watching, Rodriguez said he and a cousin had obtained the drugs in the Dominican Republic and injected them for an energy boost.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/sports/baseball/18yankees.html

Edited June 2, 2018 by DanRydell

[Jameslaw121 4455]

3 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Before the internet, you had thousands of local print monopolies. These were known as "newspapers". Naturally, each of these local fiefdoms came to think of themselves as indispensable fountains of cultural influence in their little areas. 

When the internet happened, it became obvious that Bob The Beat Reporter in Schenectady was writing an article on some event, but that there were 1000 other writers composing exactly the same stories across the country. With the internet, this makes no economic sense. Naturally, these egotistical bastards cried about the decline of journalism and the absolutely vital role they play in their community, which of course was a self serving argument entirely without merit. 

I remember watching a press conference after A-Rod admitted to using PED. There were thousands of reporters. Each of those reporters would go back the their hotel room and write nearly identical stories. Virtually none of them would realize how little value they provide to society or that their business model was doomed to fail.

There is huge unmet need for true journalism. Investigations to uncover corruption, speaking truth to power. What we've seen is not merely that more journalists are petty tyrants consumed with their own self importance. We've also seen that most of them are simply incompetent at delivering the who, what, when, where, and why of a story. 

In England, the TV journalists are not called "anchors", they're called "news readers". Walter Cronkite et al were never the conscience of the country, were never moral or cultural leaders, they're readers of a teleprompter. The sheer pomposity of trying to attribute great wisdom to someone who reads a cue card is mind boggling.  

The ability to syndicate stories could have been a great opportunity to do great journalism. As we've seen, that has not been the case. If anything it's gotten worse, focused more on pretty pictures and partisanship that uncovering important yet unappreciated truths.

TL:DR Fuck journalists they are getting what they deserve.

Wut?

 

Maybe anchor men have been like you say, but Walter Cronkite was a hell of a lot more than a guy reading from a teleprompter.

[NeverMarryAStripper 22058]

Yes, more importantly he was the voice of The University