For as long as I can remember my father always wakes up to a cup of cup of coffee and a newspaper. Every morning he sits at the table and reads every page front and back. Sometimes as he reads he nods in approval other times he just smiles and turns the page. I grew up understanding that newspapers were the end all, be all way to staying informed with current affairs both nationally and internationally.
Similar to my dad I too wake up to a cup of coffee and the news, minus the paper. He sits on one end of the table and turns each page nodding and smiling. I sit on the opposite end of the table and slide my finger across the screen of my iPhone nodding and smiling. My dad and I represent to generations of readers we represent two different generations of citizens trying to stay informed with society. On one hand my dad gets his news from the same source every morning: the newspaper and its journalist. On the other I pick and choose where I’m going to get my information from whether it be NYT.com, or my new favorite blog.
My vision of the future of journalism is both bright and dim. The light at the end of the tunnel for journalism comes from all the new media outlets that are being developed on a constant basis. Twitter, iPhone applications, and YouTube are just some of the new ways news is reaching the masses. Twitter alone has turned news into an instant event. Once upon a time news traveled by word of mouth and eventually made its way on to print form and from there was distributed for all to read. Now President Obama can declare a war on North Korea and the entire United States can know about it in as little as a few seconds via Twitter. Incredible.
The shadow that lingers around this light is cast by one of journalism’s basic principles. Integrity. Without truth the foundation of journalism wouldn’t be concrete. Stephen Glass, and James Frye are examples of journalists who not only have tainted the image of major news publications but have also diminished the credibility of journalism.
Editors filter what journalists report and they ensure that what citizens read in the newspaper is in no way shape or form a fabrication. What would happen if editors didn’t do their job? What would happen if journalist were allowed to report and write on anything they deemed appropriate without being questioned? What if everyone became a journalist but there were no editors?
Blogs, social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, and websites like Wikipedia have empowered and motivated everyday citizens to become journalists. Anyone can observe, report and share information in a moment’s notice. What’s scary is that without any type of regulation who’s to say that what’s being reported is actually true? What good is it to have a lot of outlets to share information if the information being shared is false? Citizen journalism is a double edge blade, on one side everyone being a journalist is good because the reality of life is that news can happen anywhere at anytime and having a lot of journalists reporting means no news will go unreported. However, with so many citizen journalists who will their editors be?
Magazines have an advantage over newspapers in that they don’t report on day-to-day events but rather feature articles that focus on in depth analysis and details. This type of reporting takes more time to produce and requires more research than the average citizen journalist is willing to conduct or even knows how to gather. This process eliminates the threat of everyday citizens replacing magazine journalists.
Subscriptions are the biggest threat to the magazine industry. Subscriptions not only provide revenue for the magazine but its number indicates how popular the magazine is amongst readers. Having to keep up with the changing times has driven magazines to provide a lot of their content for free online. Even though some articles are available for free subscription customers benefit from receiving their magazines on a regular basis at very low rate. Some magazine subscriptions cost as little as $12 a year.
Newspapers will never cease to exist but how many copies are printed each day will change. The number will die down drastically as younger generations concerned with the environment and concerned with finding a more efficient way to receive news discover the lasting benefits of mobile news. Magazine subscriptions will remain the same or change very little. I do believe that the number of magazines geared towards niche audiences will change. For example there won’t be two or three magazines geared towards men’s fashion. Magazines with smaller subscriptions will not be able to survive the harsh economic times.
The biggest change the media industry will experience will be an ownership change. The owner of media will slowly but surely be the government. This economy holds no prisoners and the media is no different. Without government aid and intervention the media industry will be swimming against the current. The government owning the media will not affect the news being reported. Readers will begin to think that the government will regulate what gets reported on and how but in reality the government’s only effect on the industry will be to help keep it a float which in turn will keep the American people hopeful that all will not be lost in this on going recession.
Your post brings up a lot of good points, and the anecdote at the beginning was a nice touch– it was great how you showed the old and newer ways of getting the news, side by side. It set the tone for the overall message in your post– which, if I’m not mistaken, is that both mediums will exist side by side, the older way of getting news rusting with antiquity but still somehow surviving.