Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Media The Internet

The Net's Effect on Journalism 149

An Associated Press article about the impact of the internet on journalism has a few interesting findings. A few years ago, it was expected that the internet would democratize news coverage. While print media is being rapidly reborn online, web-based news appears to be constraining the number of conversations instead of expanding them. "The news agenda actually seems to be narrowing, with many Web sites primarily packaging news that is produced elsewhere, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual State of the News Media report. Two stories - the war in Iraq and the 2008 presidential election campaign - represented more than a quarter of the stories in newspapers, on television and online last year, the project found. Take away Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, and news from all of the other countries in the world combined filled up less than 6 percent of the American news hole, the project said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Net's Effect on Journalism

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Exactly (Score:5, Informative)

    by IBBoard ( 1128019 ) on Monday March 17, 2008 @08:27AM (#22772090) Homepage
    No, it's right, the American 'news' is a big hole that anything from outside disappears in to without a trace!

    I was actually surprised at how little external news the US seems to get. I stayed in Colorado a couple of Christmases ago and the only way to get any form of news about the outside world was the BBC World Service. Yes, it's a big nation with a lot of its own news, but here in the UK we get news about the Middle East, Europe, politics, America, the Tsunami, Australia becoming America's lap dog (although nothing about us doing the same first), etc, so we know there's an outside world and that stuff happens in it.
  • What I see... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Notquitecajun ( 1073646 ) on Monday March 17, 2008 @08:33AM (#22772130)
    I'm seeing a gravitation of most news efforts towards what everyone cares about (we're seeing more economic news, btw) from news organizations on the extremes (pick your favorite kook and conspiracy website) and mainstream media. It's a bit of a stating the obvious, but everyone wants to break news - no matter what the source, report on something, and state an opinion.

    What we are ALSO seeing - which TFA doesn't comment much on - is the watchdog nature of the internet and how EVERYTHING gets fact-checked, particularly major news items. It led to the downfall of Dan Rather, who assumed everyone would believe him (and may actually have had a credible story) and had such a hot line that he forgot he was a journalist. John Kerry's "swiftboating" was the opposite - he has never been able to effectively disprove claims, despite everything at his disposal.

    BTW, as an aside, I'm a history guy, and never liked journalism's tendencies to ignore history and leave conflicting facts out of stories.
  • Well DUH (Score:3, Informative)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Monday March 17, 2008 @08:59AM (#22772278) Journal
    An Associated Press article

    The AP reporting on journalism, and we're supposed to believe they're unbiased and objective?

    "The news agenda actually seems to be narrowing, with many Web sites primarily packaging news that is produced elsewhere"

    1997 called and it wants its blogs back. Where has AP been for the last fifteen years? Uning their trusty old Underwoods?

    Two stories - the war in Iraq and the 2008 presidential election campaign - represented more than a quarter of the stories in newspapers, on television and online last year, the project found. Take away Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, and news from all of the other countries in the world combined filled up less than 6 percent of the American news hole, the project said."

    What planet are these people from, anyway? If it doesn't affect me, it's gossip rather than news (and that includes Britney Spears). Were Friday's Tornados in the UK's Guardian? Of course not (and of course I probably picked a bad example and someone will link a Guardian story about it). Local news is the most important, followed by regional news, followed by your country's news, THEN world news - if there's room.
  • Re:What I see... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17, 2008 @10:41AM (#22773148)
    i.e. people with PHD's believing they could 'shock' their mentally ill patients and "cure" them

    I was under the impression that electroshock therapy actually does work in certain cases where all else fails. This pubmed abstract [nih.gov] seems to support that case.
  • by Bent Mind ( 853241 ) on Monday March 17, 2008 @01:20PM (#22774852)

    Before someone comes in and talks about the 'stupid consumer',...
    I can think of a few reasons why the readership wouldn't care about the news quality, without calling anyone stupid. The first one off the top of my head is that they don't recognize it as low quality. Without a direct effect, the reader only knows what they are told.

    People who want to destroy private industry always make the claim that profit undermines quality, as if consumers don't want quality.
    Who is the customer? Who paid for the publication? Most news services use an advertising-based model. The customer is the business paying for the advertising. Now, you can argue that ad-space is worthless without readership. However, from the reader's point of view, the publication is free. Therefore, reduced quality is acceptable. It only becomes unacceptable when news that directly impacts a large portion of the readership isn't reported.

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Working...