Response to blog

I would have to agree with Jim about the fact that so much has changed over the last 10 years in our technology advancements. Although I personally do not read the newspaper, I can remember being a kid and always watching my dad read the funnies. Today, we dont even have newspaper at our house to start a fire. Though I can imagine life without having a newspaper, those who have become accustomed to having the newspaper brought to their doors every morning are not going to support its disappearance.

It is also true, the internet has become a necessity in almost everyones lives. Especially for students. If you think about it, we use the internet to research projects, do homework, take quizzes, communicate with fellow students, check our grades, register our classes, and even find our campus housing and jobs. Without the internet, we would struggle severely. I hate to be so careless about the loss of newspaper again but if the internet can satisfy all of our needs, then why do we need the newspaper? 

I guess I can see why you would say we rely on the internet too much. I would agree, that maybe we do, but what is the worst that could come out of using the internet frequently? In the end, there will always be news from all different mediums that will not be true, that may be far-fetched,  and that may also be very important. It is up to us to decide what we chose to believe and to understand that our world thrives on news to function.

“Serious, careful, honest journalism is essential, not because it is a guiding light but because it is a form of honorable behavior, involving the reporter and the reader." And, one hopes, the viewer, too. stated Bill Moyers in his essay on “Journalism and Democracy”. I think its interesting to note not just how important journalism is to our lives but how important it is to give honest news. But with or without newspapers, can we eliminate false news? I would say, no. 

Jenny Arth, response to ten years.

extra link

http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/159550/technology/how_technology_is_affecting_our_lives.html

Response to "The Fall of Print News"

I agree with Sam Ellingson in The Fall of Print News when he says, "Journalists need to offer something to a reader that they cannot get easier online."

Maybe not easier, as the internet is one of the easiest, laziest inventions of all time. But newspapers definitely need to offer something that their online counterparts are incapable of offering. 

But what?

Crossword puzzles? Although not as fun, they can still be done online.

Comics? Horoscopes? Reviews? Obviously, these are all quite prevelant online.

I believe newspapers need to start offering something new, something in addition to just the newspaper itself. If they want people to continue paying for their news, they have to make a change.

Perhaps include tickets, discounts, freebies along with the newspaper. Something that can be in the hand of the reader. Something the internet cannot physically give to their reader.

Change is inevitable, and unless the newspaper companies realize this they will have a very hard time surviving. 

response to newspapers uphold democracy, shaena Friedman

The decline in political participation have definitely made a crucial impact on the world of newspapers. Without the reporters adding in vital information to story's, can affect the news that is reported. Recording important information is also a vital aspect of the field of journalism. Democracy by definition is "for the people, by the people." That being said it is very important that journalist do not stop reporting the content at which the public eye needs to be educated on.

Democracy will ultimately be around the United States forever, under our constitutional rights, unfortunately the same cannot be said about journalistic reports that you can find on print. The era of dead tree reporting is slowly fading away into a abyss. The new online approach is dominant amongst americans as well as many other countries. Do to the decline in political participation in the media, the audience may get more of a partisan approach. One that would seemingly be found across the pond.

For more info regarding the loss of journalism in our democracy, check out this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/03/local-newspapers-journalism-democracy

Matt Yaeger

The decline of Americas Newspapers will not hurt us:Jenny Arth

Journalism in all forms is important to democracy because we must be informed about the world around us in order to make the most educated decisions. This shouldn't mean that the media gives us a straight forward answers as to what we should and should not believe but more so provides us with a solid coverage of information.

The recent decline of newspapers is primarily due to substitution by other forms of journalism. Whether or not these are the same quality and accuracy is the real question. All forms of journalism have been accused of being inaccurate at times and now with the newspapers disappearing people are stepping out trying to find reasons why the newspaper holds some kind of higher value. The big difference here is time. Sources such as the internet and TV have instant access to our minds where as the newspaper takes around a day to reach us. A site I found a lot of information is located at 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyld=101237069
I have never liked newspapers though I can say that one thing that is useful about newspapers is that once something is said and printed, it can always be proven. On media outlets such as the internet, people can hack and change around words. More than often, when someone is reading an internet source, they have to wonder how credible it is whereas the newspapers hold an abundance of established writers. However, what it comes down to is that accessing news on the internet and TV is instant and for me, easier to read. so for many, they are going to take the convenient route

I do not believe that newspapers are going to affect our democracy. In fact I find it a bit appalling that we can say that a newspaper is what leads us to be better citizens. In this article by Adrian Monck

http://adrianmonck.com/2008/12/democracy-collapse-journalism-provide-political-information/">
she talks about how our faults have more to do with our democracy than our journalism which I found to be very interesting. In one view, newspapers are thought to be what makes us wiser voters and better educated about politics, but how can that be true when a larger percentage of the public has already stopped reading newspapers? Those who don’t read the newspaper wont care so much if its gone and the only reason it is even getting this much attention is because now it may disappear. A Pew Research Center poll released earlier this month shows that fewer than half of Americans "say that losing their local newspaper would hurt civic life in their community 'a lot. Moving ahead in our times means moving ahead in our technology and this is just another new adaption.

Yamin's response to "The failing newspaper industry is hurting America's Democracy"

I’m quite troubled by your post, since you seem to contradict your own message. You do a good job of pointing out that newspapers are in fact crucial to our democracy and that “the decline in the amount of newspapers circulating in the country is due to the rise of the corporate state, and the loss of civic responsibility to inform the public.” I commend you for that message, and the acknowledgement that internet could never replace print news. You even go farther in the next paragraph, but oh, wait, what’s that you say in the end? You ask “why save a failing medium?” and “we need to embrace this new medium (the internet) and let these newspapers either die off…”

You were so right, but then you got to be so wrong. If we Americans have learned anything from allowing corporations to take over industries it’s that it harms the average citizen. Let’s take global media mogul Rupert Murdoch for example. He owns Fox, The New York Post, and many, many other newspapers and stations. The guy has immense amounts of influence, as you can see from the video on the link. He has the power to sway people’s opinions because the media outlets that he owns can spin bias on the reporting they do. The more people they can reach, the more influence they have, the less objective news you get. Is this what the media was made for?

In these economic difficulties, it’s easy to point fingers at companies and say “we don’t need that one anymore because it’s not worth saving it.” But this isn’t a car company we can do without. This is one of the most important aspects of our democracy. This is the information that you and I need in order to make informed decisions about the people that run this country and the decisions they make. The difference between watching independent news like Democracy Now and watching corporate news like Fox News is drastic, and there’s a reason why.

Michael Lambert in Response to: The Failing Newspaper Industry is Hurting America's Democracy

Re: The Failing Newspaper Industry is Hurting America's Democracy

The newspaper industry has changed a lot since it's "hay-day," but I fail to see the connection between it and Democracy. Democracy, by definition, is there for the people, not for dying industries. With the majority of people receiving their news online, or other sources, the newspaper industry has been forced to try and find an alternative.

The people in this economy are winning by not having to pay to get their news. Many sources are available other than the newspaper, as well. Television is a popular source for news, e.g. The Daily Show as seen in Lecture.

The people need a credible, and reliable form of receiving their news. They can find quicker updates, and get them on a world-wide scale. The internet is constantly becoming more and more advanced, and soon will be able to replace the newspaper printing industry as a whole.

Shaena Friedman Response to Where Will We Be in 10yrs.

I, too, am one of those people that revels in the daily ritual of a handheld newspaper.  A future without newspapers would be both a major personal and societal loss.  However, the extinction of the newspaper would not indicate that technology has gone too far, but simply that the newspaper industry has not been quick enough to adjust itself accordingly.

It was about ten years ago that the major newspapers went online and made the decision not to charge for their services. Currently, most newspapers can be accessed for free online.  Not that there's anything wrong, or even undemocratic, about free news.  But the newspaper industry has been slow in its strategy to remain economically viable in its printed form.  The industry needs to come up with a way to thrive on the Internet while still being able to offer their original, timeless product. 

Secondary online news sources such as AOL, MSNBC, or Yahoo are dominating the Web, providing people with less incentive to get their news from the original news sources.  People forget that without these primary sources, they would not have the democratic ability to access this information in the first place.  The newspaper industry needs to boldly emphasize its dedication to, and importance in, our society.  I'm sure this is not a new concept to those behind the wheel, but clearly more needs to be done if newspapers are going to win this fight. The industry needs to drastically reposition itself with hardcore marketing, PR, and by strategically (and I mean very strategically!) utilizing all the new conventions that seem to be bludgeoning it to death. 

For some more information and statistics, visit http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-m...n-newspapers-die-do-they-make-sound-part-1 and people-press.org

Response to A-OK!

I agree with a couple of statements that you made, but I also disagree with a couple of them. We, as americans definitely want things fast and easy and the internet is a way that we can do this. I, myself, love the internet for a variety of different reasons.

However; when it comes to the internet and newspapers, I think that newspapers are far more important. I think that getting rid of newspapers is a far bigger problem than getting rid of something like VCR's. VCR's are more of a fad, while newspapers can be traced back in time.

Newspapers are something that have been passed down generation to generation. They can certainly be a souevenir of the past, and I find them very interesting to go back and read about historical events. 50 years from now someone just like me will grab the newspaper that they saved from September 12th, 2001 and show their grandchildren a part of history.

Without the newspaper, this will not be possible in the future. If something historical happens and we do not have newspapers, than the event cannot be captured in such a way. I just don't think that the internet gives the same effect on a historical event that the newspaper does.



Jim Victor

Steve Yorio's response to "democracy needs newspapers. and better reporters"

I certainly agree with the idea that newspapers are a key aspect of our democracy. I feel this way because giving citizens the chance to speak their minds and say how they feel is a major part of what makes this country. It allows them the chance to express their freedoms of speech and press. Indeed newspapers serves as a source in which people can do this but freedom comes with consequences. Newspaper readers must always be on their toes when perusing the pages because, since people have the freedom to say as they please (within reason), there is an overwhelming potential for bias statements to be made. Bias statements create false beliefs for readers. Those reading reports need to have a strong desire to seek the truth before they simply believe what they hear.

You are definitely right when you say people do not appreciate all the things local newspapers do for a community, but we must remember that we are entering a new age of information accumulation. Even though the Princeton University study stated that fewer candidates ran for municipal office after the death of the Cincinnati Post, there could be multiple reasons for this occurrence rather than the mere fact that the town‘s newspaper was shut down. It is true that, without local newspapers, a lot of information is lost because most papers do not post their stories on the internet, and the information of every local city cannot possibly be covered in one national newspaper. If every city was covered in one national paper, or even fifty national newspapers, it would not be humanly possible to read it in one day, unless you were Will Hunting.

It is true that the reporting would decrease for things such as crime because of the fact that a national paper, or even a state paper, or a website could not report on every bit of criminal activity that happens in each city. Topics such as crime would not be covered nearly as in depth as they are today, but in my personal opinion this is not such a bad thing. I find a lot of information that I read about in newspapers to be somewhat frivolous. I think it is pointless to publish things like minor crimes, rather, reporting them in local paper is only necessary if these crimes are harming or affecting fellow citizens in any way, shape or form; often times they are not. Since we have recently progressed into this so called ‘digital age,’ I feel there must be a better, easier way to provide citizens with the information of their local worlds.

response to Democracy need newpapers...

I agree that Journalism is a key part to the American democracy. The free flow of ideas and information is key to any democracy. Newspapers and journalists play a huge part in maintaining this democratic right.

The Bill Moyer report of journalist of misrepresenting, fabricating, and not being thorough in reporting of the news is appalling. Doing that, they violated their responsibility of truth seeking which is an atrocity to all citizens. It is hard to live up to the idea of being completely objective but to be down right malicious in reporting or to flat out lie is unthinkable.

Journalists representing newspapers or any other media should focus on getting the story right and should never twist it for any reason. That's the unspoken oath you take when becoming such a key player in a democratic society.

-Matrinna-

Marla; Response to Beth Wood's Blog

Overall, I agree with Beth's argument. By stressing the importance of the editorial/opinion section of newspapers, she demonstrates her value of the general public and their opinions. I believe a strong characteristic of newspapers today is that they allow for newsworthy information and localized opinions from the general public. Additionally, newspapers supply the public with government/public policy information that otherwise would not be known.

However, I find the sudden attention drawn to the topic to be a bit too indulged. With the current newspaper calamity, journalism has been under scrutiny in relation to defending democracy. As well, in the past people have more often been disappointed with the poor work journalists deliver due to uncovering skewed and insignificant information for entertainment value. Suddenly, critics defend the honorable and deeply valued newspaper industry. Jack Shafer clearly explains the abrupt drama revolved around the demise of democracy within the newspaper industry.

Interestingly, a Pew Research Center poll states that less than half of Americans "say that losing their local newspaper would hurt civic life in their community a lot. " With this in mind, it's easy to see that while newspapers do provide insightful and newsworthy information, more than half of Americans can easily live without their daily newspaper. I believe a more accurate way of analyzing the current newspaper situation is to look further into the way daily news stories strongly impact the democratic nature of Americans today.

New ways of reporting causing problems for American Democracy

The newspaper industry has changed dramatically from the way it used to be. Chris Hedges explains how the decline in the amount newspapers circulating the country is due to the rise of the corporate state, the loss of civic and responsibility to inform the public. The internet played a role in this because information has moved away from being displayed as print and is now it is portrayed through the use of rapidly moving images. Even though the internet has played a big part in the declination of print news, it could never fully replace it. The process of gathering news cannot be done completely by the internet, although, the way of doing this now must compete with the newer, bigger, ideologically motivated group that rules the way views and information are distributed.

Newspapers help to keep citizens everywhere informed about what is going on in their communities as well as activities and events all over the nation. Internet news runs into problems when providing local news because not every community can be accounted for. A newspaper for each local community provides much more information about occurrences in that particular area. Another issue with internet news sources is that not everyone has the means to access this information. The internet, however, is making it increasingly difficult for newspaper companies to succeed in an online format because, according to Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, sites like Google can profit more because it can sell advertising very cheaply, it doesn't have to employ legions of editors, journalists, photographers, etc, it uses servers and algorithms to publish content. The business model of newspapers, which based on the papers’ circulation and advertising revenue, has become ineffective due to the internet’s growth in popularity.

This has proven to be a travesty for our country’s newspaper industry as well as our democracy. Television and the internet’s ability to instantly report news has nearly destroyed the existence of print based media. Since electronic news sources have created great convenience in terms of acquiring information, the question at hand is, why save a failing medium? The world is progressing into a new, electronic way of providing news to citizens. We need to embrace this new medium and let these newspapers either die off, or find a way to unite them with the internet. It does not make sense to put more money into a failing industry.

The failing newspaper industry is hurting America's Democracy: Steve Yorio's view

The newspaper industry has changed dramatically from the way it used to be. Chris Hedges explains how the decline in the amount newspapers circulating the country is due to the rise of the corporate state, the loss of civic and responsibility to inform the public. The internet played a role in this because information has moved away from being displayed as print and is now it is portrayed through the use of rapidly moving images. Even though the internet has played a big part in the declination of print news, it could never fully replace it. The process of gathering news cannot be done completely by the internet, although, the way of doing this now must compete with the newer, bigger, ideologically motivated group that rules the way views and information are distributed.

Newspapers help to keep citizens everywhere informed about what is going on in their communities as well as activities and events all over the nation. Internet news runs into problems when providing local news because not every community can be accounted for. A newspaper for each local community provides much more information about occurrences in that particular area. Another issue with internet news sources is that not everyone has the means to access this information. The internet, however, is making it increasingly difficult for newspaper companies to succeed in an online format because, according to Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, sites like Google can profit more because it can sell advertising very cheaply, it doesn't have to employ legions of editors, journalists, photographers, etc, it uses servers and algorithms to publish content. The business model of newspapers, which based on the papers’ circulation and advertising revenue, has become ineffective due to the internet’s growth in popularity.

This has proven to be a travesty for our country’s newspaper industry as well as our democracy. Television and the ability of the internet to instantly report news has nearly destroyed the existence of print based media. Since electronic news sources have created great convenience in terms of acquiring information, the question at hand is, why save a failing medium? The world is progressing into a new, electronic way of providing news to citizens. We need to embrace this new medium and let these newspapers either die off, or find a way to unite them with the internet so as not to hurt our democracy. It does not make sense to put more money into a failing industry.

Democracy Needs Newspapers. And Better Reporters

There is no doubt that Journalism is an essential part of the proper functioning of any democracy. In any circumstance that citizens can affect the outcome of government decisions, it is important that they are provided with a venue of reliable, accurate information. So why is it important to have newspapers in democracy, as opposed to online publications or blogs? Many argue that the internet will replace newspapers and the outcome will be no less effective. But the reason we need newspapers is clearest when we zone in to the local level of reporting.

A Princeton University study shows that as a consequence of shutting down The Cincinnati Post, “fewer candidates ran for municipal office in the suburbs most reliant on the Post, incumbents became more likely to win re-election, and voter turnout fell.”

What most people don’t realize is that local newspapers provide more for us than we can appreciate. With all of the local-level reporters getting their articles in and covering the happenings of the city, citizens have a venue of information to turn to when in need. The Cincinnati Post was probably a crucial part of the information the area citizens relied on for candidate details. Without the Post, most citizens may have not even bothered to realize that an election was going on, much less consider which candidate to vote for. But there is an article I came across in which the reporter identified himself as a lifelong journalist, but one that apparently may not be so disappointed with the fall of the newspaper.

David Simon, a former crime reporter for a Baltimore newspaper, describes the difference between crime reporting when he was in the field, and the way it is now. “Half-truths, obfuscations and apparent deceit -- these are the wages of a world in which newspapers, their staffs eviscerated, no longer battle at the frontiers of public information.” According to Simon, reporting has become so washed out in many instances, that reporters no longer go after their stories with the vigilance they once did. Bill Moyers reported in 2001 that over a quarter of journalists admitted to not covering a story or leaving information out due to the management of their newspaper of agency.

The issue of the newspapers’ importance in democracy is one that is deep and controversial. The important thing is that we realize that the newspaper, even if underreported at times, offers information that is vital and sometimes inaccessible through other venues. This sole purpose makes it a worthy asset. But if the newspaper and reporters in general are really failing to do the jobs citizens rely on them for, maybe we should be reconsidering all of news itself, and not just picking on our ailing newspapers.

A-OKAY!

Yes, newspapers are struggling to survive in the age of internet dominance. We are a culture that loves things cheap and we want it fast, which explains the success of fast food restaurants like McDonalds. The internet provides us with news that is extremely timely, almost up to the minute, and visiting web pages is cost free. We no longer have to rumble through huge sheets of fragmented articles. To keep reading, all we have to do is scroll down. Nowadays we don’t even need an unwieldy computer or a laptop; I use the net right on my cell phone.

John Stuart of the Daily Show, jokes about the internet destroying the newspapers on his show, he says “The internet is destroying newspapers; now I’m gonna go read about it on Yahoo!” It’s funny when you think about it but, that is the mindset of American society. We turn to the internet to get what we need to know, when we need to know it. We don’t have to walk to the store, or wait for it to be delivered because it’s always there 24 hours a day.

Being a democratic and capitalistic country, citizens should decide if newspapers should stick around through buying behavior. Yes, our newspapers will be missed if they ever become extinct, but what’s obsolete is obsolete. We didn’t keep VCRs around just to keep them around. We let them go when something better came along. As long as we’re discerning enough to recognize credible places to gather info on the net, the internet is A-Okay!!!

-Matrinna Woods-

Where Will We Be in 10 Years?

It is scary to think how far we have come in the past 10 years. I am one of those people who really enjoy reading the newspaper, and I cannot imagine life without it. However; im afraid that in 10 years this will indeed be the case.

The thing that really scares me is how far we have come in the past 10 years. I remember as a little kid, how big of a deal it was to be able to "surf the web". Nowadays, there are so many more things we can do online, and we are all expected to be able to do this., especially in college.

The Internet has become so accesible, that I am beginning to think that people are relying on it too much. If newspapers want to stay in business (which I hope they do), they shouldn't have so much information on their website. Sure, I like getting national information (like from the NYpost), when I can't get it anywhere else, but having all of the same information online gives people a reason to save money.

There are many opinions about the demise of newspapers, but in my opinion, the day newspapers are gone, is the day that we have gone too far with technology. I hope that when I am at an old age, I will still be able to walk outside in the morning to get the paper, because it means so much more than just that.


Jim Victor

Marla Fabishak; Newspapers Affect on Democracy

Unfortunately, today we are verging on a society without printed news. Citizens are looking to the internet for information though they are more likely to find "false information" than elsewhere. Due to the internet's easy accessibility, newspapers including The Boston Globe are losing readership and revenue. Since many believe that a democracy requires a well informed society; it is important that newspapers thrive on.

Assuming newspapers disappear, citizens must depend on alternative ways to be informed. These ways, such as TV news programs and the internet, do not fill the same intellectual quotient that newspapers fill today. TV often portrays news in an entertaining fashion through flashy graphics and subsequently limited information. TV news programs, such as CNN, are often looking to entertain rather than depict newsworthy stories in the way that print journalism reports information. Finally, information acquired via the internet has no guidelines or rules on the accuracy of content. It is not accountable to the general public nor is it meant to keep in mind the public's best interest.

Democracy and printed news demonstrate similar qualities, including:
- meant for the public's best interest
- in general, allows for trustworthy information
- creates the basis for knowledgeable decision-making

Society cannot rely on the media for meaningful information. Due to this, printed news is the fuel for a productive democracy.

Shaena Friedman, Newspapers Uphold Democracy

 Sociologists and economists warn that the loss of the newspaper would have dire consequences for our democracy.  It is proven that the removal of a community's primary newspaper impedes civic involvement in the political process.  A democracy relies on the votes of it's citizens and cannot risk to lose one of its most prominent defenders.  To lose political participation at the most local level is to impede the democratic process. 

In the year after the closing of the Cinncinnati Post, a study done in the surrounding suburbs showed a remarkable decline in political participation.  The difference in both the number of those running for office and the reduction in voter turnout was directly attributed to the absence of the primary newspaper.  The advent of the Internet has made retrieving the news faster and easier, but those that think the newspaper is obsolete are forgetting the ability that a local publication has to connect with it's citizens.    

 The newspaper gives its community a tangible voice.  It aids the political process by reporting on important community information at the most accessible and local level.  It upholds the checks and balances within the governmental process and within the media.  The disappearance of the newspaper would literally (and literarily) be democracy slipping from our fingers.

For more information on this topic go to http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/03/26/23165 and http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a4e2aafc-cc92-4e79-90d1-db3946a6d119 

Beth Wood: The decline of newspapers will hurt America's democracy

Fewer newspapers means fewer opinions expressed. According to Tim Crosby, in 1923, 502 U.S. cities had access to at least two local newspapers, and since then the number of cities has been on the decline, so by 2003, only two dozen cities across the country had such a thing available to them. Opinions are especially important when it comes to things like elections. According to Hallock, the heart of any newspaper is it's editorial or opinion pages, and not being able to have people express their opinions and ideas about the upcoming local elections and the candidates seriously hurts America's democracy.

Newspapers keep their citizens informed of not only what is going on around them locally, but nationally as well. Of course, people could go online or turn on the television and watch what was happening, but not everyone has access to the Internet or television. In the case of the news on the Internet and television, it is more of a national news then it is local. People want to know not only what is going on nationally, but they want to know the stories and topics that hit close to home. Newspapers seem to be the only thing that really does that.

Residents want to be deeply informed about candidates, policy, and government responsiveness in their own communities, and the local newspapers were doing just that for them. As a result of having that kind of information in the newspapers, better candidates and policies came out of it. The competition is what strengthens the democracy. You take the healthy competition away, and your going to start to have unjust and corrupted politics. We all know that politicians are considered "liars," so if you have two politicians competing against each other, the truth will eventually come out, and that right there is the a major reason why we need to keep newspapers around; to save America's democracy.

Matt Yaeger , Journalism in a Democracy

Many people in today's world are slowly fading away from the old ways. Waking up in the morning and having fido bring you the daily times, to enjoy with a cup of joe. Instead, we now have the opportunity to get all of our news straight from the television or a online source.

Society is starting to revolve into a online media based organization, going away from the dead tree type. Many newspapers are declining in popularity because of the internet's easy accessibility as well as convenience. Journalism will always exsist because of the need for reporters in the field. But the prited newspaper will pressumably fade away in the near future as more poeple get accustomed to the new age of technology. You can get hard news from your cell phone, computer, i-pod, and on and on.

Newspaper's are becomeing extinct. A good example of this in effect would be the Seattle Intelligencer, Denver Cronicle, and the Boston Globe. All of theswe papers are on the edge of thier seats, trying to keep afloat. These is in direct corilation with the online features, people can easily use.

For more information regarding this topic you can check out this website, http://http://adrianmonck.com/2008/12/thoughts-journalism-democracy-2/

Here are three reason the print news will slowly dissapear.

• Convenance- very easy to access
• Timeliness- you can quickly read a headline via your cell phone
• Affordability-It cost nothing to find information online.

Matt Yaeger

Michael Lambert

Declining Newspaper Industry

What does this mean for democracy?

It is easy to see that the newspaper industry has gone the way of the dinosaurs. With the world-wide web, it is now simpler and easier than ever to get news for free. Who want to pay for a physical copy of a newspaper that will eventually clutter up your garbage, soon after it is delivered? Nobody. This way of receiving news will soon be completely extinct.

Not only is it harder for newspapers to keep up with free Internet-based articles, it has become nearly impossible. Just a few reasons why people choose web-based news over hard-copy newspapers:

• Convenience- It is much easier to log on to your computer than wait for a newspaper
• Cost- Web-based articles are free. Important in today's economy
• Updates- Internet articles are updated minute-to-minute

What does this mean for Democracy? Is this the end of a legacy by way of "new-fangled technology?"

This technology, and loss of an old testament, can only be a good thing for any consumer in a democracy like ours. With the recession, and economic hardship, who can afford to pay for news when it is so easy to receive for free? We get up-to-date news, it's free, and convenient. The people have nothing to lose.

But the newspaper industry does. They are losing customers by the minute, and are scrambling to find a way to still charge us citizens for the news. Their newest plan is to attempt to charge visitors to credible news sites. This will end up like itunes and free music. There will always be free news out there, and the people will choose it over news that costs them money.

Some claim that this is a sign of a democracy failing, I believe that this is a sure sign of a healthy democracy. Free news is for the people's benefit, and we deserve to know what is going on in this country as well as around the world without having to rely on ancient methods like newspapers.


Here is a link to the full version of Missing the Link: Why Old Media Still Doesn't Get the Internet.