  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
User login
Get Email Alerts!
Recent comments
- fk
Very funny!!!
Sad the
15 hours 8 min ago - Hey, how about we get rid of
16 hours 52 min ago - Love it retweeted, & shared.
17 hours 22 min ago - I hadn't even heard about
17 hours 46 min ago - Just in time for all you
20 hours 48 min ago - What I meant by the first
1 day 24 min ago - Of course, the rich are
1 day 2 hours ago - So, you shouldn't divide
1 day 16 hours ago - Horsecrap. The market moves
1 day 21 hours ago - Those tax hikes we had in
2 days 1 hour ago
Sponsored ad
News
- No sign of oil spill after Gulf platform fire
- Afghans Pull Money From Weakened Bank
- Officials Assess Damage From Blast in Gulf of Mexico
- Burger King sets sights overseas after $3.26B sale
- Hurricane Earl Nears Atlantic Coast
- Earl threatens East Coast with weekend pounding
- Line Umpires’ Job Is to See but Not Be Seen
Do Something!
Comments
I need a transcript of the
I need a transcript of the moment the two of them were speaking together at the end. The newspaper I heard saying, "Got any money for me?" I couldn't quite make out what the laptop was saying.
"Got any news for me? I'm
"Got any news for me? I'm running a little short!"
Ditto. Sounded like
Ditto. Sounded like "movies", but that makes no sense.
Over the past 40-plus years,
Over the past 40-plus years, I have watched the newspaper industry slowly, but most certainly, devour itself.
Once family-owned publications with proud heritages were sold to corporations like Gannett, which began cutting corners and staff while sucking the money they made out of the community to corporate headquarters and stockholders. Most of these same corporations tried to ignore the Internet at their own peril and then acted too late to build online communities that went instead to Internet startups like Yahoo and Google.
Instead of protecting their print content by offering unique, new content online, newspapers just regurgitated their print stories and photos online. Little thought was given to the dynamic nature of the Internet. Print deadlines became Web deadlines.
Now with the growing significance of social media, newspapers are trying to lure younger readers to their Web pages while older print readers die off.
The time newspaper CEOs thought they had to move from print to online in an orderly fashion disappeared when Wall Street collapsed.
Newspapers are now developing and considering new business models as they desperately try to avoid going out of business.
What happens now is anyone's guess.
Print media has a lot over
Print media has a lot over the internet for learning. Growing up, I could read an encyclopedia, and find not only what I was looking for; but cool stuff on the entry that came next. (Or open a page at random, and learn about something I'd never heard of.)
One of the reasons I like newspapers is that I can quickly read something on any page other than what I initially decided I wanted to read, and know that 99% of the time it was properly researched. It's also nice to know what is op-ed, and what is fact.
The internet is great for any number of things. Straight news isn't one of them.
fact is that running a
fact is that running a newspaper IS a business and it needs to show a profit. I just finished working for the Census and one of the people with whom I was canvassing addresses used to be a reporter for the LA Times. I get some daily stuff from Time magazine, but I mostly glean news from a "paper publication" and will continue to support it. It just has a more relaxed feel to it and there sure is enoough pushing at us here on-line.
Newspapers have always been
Newspapers have always been propaganda machines for the state here in America. Perhaps not as quite as vile as Pravda used to be, but ultimately stories have always been killed or at least sanitized for public consumption.
The internet is leveling the field, and this is a good thing regardless of all the crap on it.
Yeah, Pravda. How's that
Yeah, Pravda. How's that freshman poli-sci class at Buttf--k CC working out for you?
Price of Blogging STILL 24
Price of Blogging STILL 24 cents.
I dunno about that, if you think that newspapers have been full of propaganda, comrade, you obviously havn't seen the net, yet.
The internet can be pressured, censord, and altered to fit government wims even more easily then print, and better, with no hard copy to contradict it, altering older versions of a story to fit the views of your superiorsis so easy, it's "1984" at the push of a button. And if you have any doubts about that, look at the Bejing Olympics.
Price of Blogging STILL 25 cents.
Actually, even if a site is
Actually, even if a site is changed, you can see the old content... there's a site called the Wayback Machine that archives pages so that you can go back and see what was on it then. So, "retconning" can be sniffed out and countered, with even more ease than hardcopy.
I think the death of serious
I think the death of serious news organizations will be the death of a free society. It is only the persistent prodding for information and serious in-depth investigations by the fourth estate, that keeps governments honest and from becoming totalitarian in nature. Laws passed in the dark of night, behind the backs of the people, is what transforms a free society into a dictatorship.
I couldn't agree more with
I couldn't agree more with your statements... If you want a good example of this, look at France now.
There is little left of things like "freedom of expression" or "media freedom" and what is the result? Democracy's receding by the day...
A little story to back that: a journalist working at the number one private TV channel (and I'd like to emphasize _private_) expressed his personal views in a personal letter to his deputy and those views were something along the line of "I cannot agree with the latest law you voted for"...
What happened? Said deputy transferred the letter to the government, government told the _private_ TV channel and, guess what, the journalist got fired! Reason? "Expressed views contradicting the general opinion of the channel-or-whatever".
There are so many things in that story that scream "totalitarism" I cannot bear to count... I'm scared for my country.
What is this newspaper you
What is this newspaper you speak of?
The web isn't killing
The web isn't killing newspapers. Their crummy business models are.
Win! I'm glad someone
Win! I'm glad someone outside the field realizes this. Most of the failing newspapers people hear about are the massive ones that attempt to pull 25 or 30% profits and service a national or regional audience. Local papers that are about selling news rather than ads are still doing fine. But when people can get the news they want free on the web without the ads in every other page of the big papers, why would they not go digital?
Talk to me via Twitter! Are
Talk to me via Twitter! Are newspapers getting killed by the web? Check out the latest animation and let me know what you think. (And tweeting isn't mandatory, it just gets you inside the cartoon a bit more:-)
-MF
> Are newspapers getting
> Are newspapers getting killed by the web?
Yes.
That, and their increasing inability to report actual 'news'.
Since the initial castration in the 1980's, many papers have become vehicles of such peripheral rhetoric that readers are just as likely to get an accurate story from a tin-foil-hat blogger working out of his apartment. And a lot of people are taking their chances.
A wise cartoonist once coined it as 'the rising swamp of journalistic mediocrity'.
To the newspapers' credit, print media still haven't succumbed to the folly of the blogosphere: where any hack can synthesize and redistribute complete fiction, accountability-free. The winners are the most hyperbolic 'niche' blogs, whose viewers can safely participate in one-sided discussions without having to fear any dissenting opinions creeping into their enclave. Newspapers, still (arguably) being in the business of reporting reality, don't offer this kind of protection.
It's one of the reasons I like editorial cartoons. Many cartoonists have a tendency to sporadically offend everybody, making it difficult to ghettoize the discussions on the content.
And unfortunately, Mr. Fiore, you're showing your age by jumping on the Twitter bandwagon.
It is beyond me to know why a sane individual would opt to monitor the daily banalities of a person whose life (as evidenced by the sufficiency of time for said person to put together bullet points of their daily activities) is ostensibly less interesting and less consequential than the person monitoring it. (Apologies, Mr. Fiore, since unlike many Twitter users, you are known to have a life.)
Still, in a topsy-turvy OppositeLand kind of way, it is my hyperconnected kinfolk (the gen Y-ers and gen-texters) who are resisting Twitterization, citing 'it's stupid' and 'whatever' in an unusual but welcome bit of digital wisdom. Demographics show that Twitter is dominated by the Boomers, perhaps making a last-ditch attempt to look 'cool' for the kiddies before slipping into the fugue of old age.
This of course confirms two things. The first: that 'old people' apparently can lose their minds to the evanescent whims of the Internet like the rest of us. The second: that Twitter is probably the digital version of the Macarena--a fad that Mr. Fiore and cohorts will no doubt deny having embraced when the hype has faded.
Thanks for the short and... um, I guess 'animated'... cartoon.
Ah come on! You didn't like
Ah come on! You didn't like the Macarena!?
:D
As for Twitter, Facebook, MySpace.com etc
Who cares. Just noise IMHO.
Increasing. I agree as most
Increasing. I agree as most generation Y'ers I know of (including me) have no interest in telling all about my daily activities. I have never used twitter myself and find no reason to waste my time doing so. If I give you the impression that I am against such gadgets in general, I am not. Far from it; I have custom designed server that runs many aspects of my home, and serves as my media/workstation.
I prefer a certain confidentiality about my daily life, that's all.
To the individual who commented that encyclopedias serve as good browsing material I have to counter and say that the browsing or 'surfing' strength of the online material is greater, depending on the quality of the site, and it's availability of unbroken links.
Post new comment