Journalism is Waning...

I also came across an opinion piece earlier today that discussed how journalism is declining because people do not value true journalistic reporting today as much as they did in the past. The writer, Michael Gerson, argues that people do not want real news, so therefore cable networks and many bloggers give people watered down versions of the news. As Gerson puts it, "Makeup is cheaper for guests than actual reporting."

He also raises an important issue that I feel is worth noting. While independent media is definitely on the rise and is a fantastic and necessary counterpart to mainstream journalism, it does, for the most part, lack something the mainstream press has: Money. While an indy news outlet can bring down government officials and expose wrongdoing here in the U.S., most do not have the finances to send a reporter into a war zone or overseas to cover a crisis. While there's much to be said about the quality of mainstream reporting from a war zone, the fact still remains, in my opinion, that any reporting is better than no reporting at all. An independent blogger with his or her own Web site probably doesn't have the money to cover a story like those, so for that reason mainstream reporters still have a necessary place in the world, despite the turn towards Internet journalism.

The Nation: How to Save Journalism

Earlier this week, an article appeared in "The Nation" titled "How to Save Journalism." In the story, the writers discuss an upcoming Federal Trade Commission hearing to address the downsizing of newsrooms nationwide and brainstorm policy measures that could end this decline. The entire article paints a dreary picture of the state of journalism - unjustly so, in my opinion.

It is obviously true that newsrooms at local newspapers and television stations have been forced to cut back in recent years. The FTC places much of the blame for these cuts on the rise of the Internet, an idea the writers of this article correctly dispel. While the Internet certainly hasn't helped most local newspapers to thrive, most of the problems they are facing began well before the Internet told hold on people.

The writers also discuss how government policies need to be enacted in order to "save" journalism. Here is where I disagree with the writers. They argue that journalism should act as the fourth estate and watch over the government. Therefore, they reason, the government should implement policies to help this estate keep watch over the other branches of government. In my opinion, however, it is not the government's responsibility to "save" journalism. It is the responsibility of journalists to adapt to our changing world and ensure that journalism never dies. Additionally, if a government agency stepped in to save, for instance, a local paper, would that local paper print highly unfavorable information afterwards? Probably not, which destroys the purpose of journalism - to keep government in check.

I also had one other final question: Who says journalism is dying? Sure, traditional print media may be declining, but online, independent journalism is thriving. The world needs journalism and it will never die out; it will evolve and change, which is what independent journalism has done when compared against the traditional media.

High-Speed Internet Needed Nationwide

Americans living in many rural areas nationwide may not be able to read this blog very easily. For many communities, they simply do not have access to a high-speed connection. For others with low incomes, they cannot afford the steep costs of a fast connection.

In fact, this New York Times article reports that 33 percent of Americans with access to a broadband connection elect not to subscribe. Finances are definitely a reason, which warrants further federal investigation as to how costs could be reduced without driving ISPs out of business. According to the article, age is another factor as just 30 percent of Americans 65 or older use broadband Internet.

Still, despite many people electing not to use their service, there is still 4 percent of Americans who do not have any access to high-speed Internet in their homes. For me, this is incredibly troubling. In today's world, access to information on this information is vital. There are many topics that mainstream news sources will not dare to cover, which is one reason that independent media on the Internet is so important. Without access to this vital information, one cannot be as informed.

Many countries, like Finland, have made access to high-speed Internet a legal right of all of its citizens. In October, Finland declared that starting next July every citizen will be guaranteed access to a one-megabit broadband connection. By the end of 2015, each citizen will be able to access a 100-megabit connection.

Americans need access to high-speed Internet. As reported here, a task force report released Friday in Minnesota is making universal broadband access a goal for that state. Minnesota is currently 24th in broadband access, but hopes to jump into the top five. The report examined the existing WiFi coverage and the state's rural areas, and made recommendations on how to achieve greater coverage by 2015. Let's hope that the federal government can come up with a similar plan of action soon and implement it to make universal broadband access a reality for the United States.

For more information on this issue, check out this blog post or InternetForEveryone.org.

Transparency is the New Objectivity

According to this article (and many others) transparency is the new objectivity on the Internet. Whereas newspaper reporters aspired to present both sides of a story in as unbiased a manner as possible, those who blog or report on the Internet should aspire to provide links and state their biases upfront, according to this writer. In fact, the writer even goes so far as to say, "Objectivity is discredited these days as anything but an aspiration, and even that aspiration is looking pretty sketchy."

While I agree that it seems impossible for writers to be truly objective, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still aspire to that standard. The Internet makes it very easy to link to sources one interviewed, provide links to Web sites that offer further information and state one's biases upfront. In fact, Web articles that do not include links to sources seem fabricated or slanted incredibly to one side.

Still, this doesn't mean that the standard of objectivity should be eliminated. I think writers should still try to present both sides of a story, even as their biases put them personally in favor of one side over another. One should state their biases at the top of the stories, but still make every effort to include sources that go against their personal views.

Lend Me Your Ear Buds

This November 2007 article from the L.A. Times reported on the first full-length feature film to be released exclusively to iTunes and the Web. "Purple Violets," by Edward Burns was the film, which could be downloaded for $14.99 and played on your iPod, computer screen or television. Obviously, there were some benefits to this online-only release. The main benefit, of course, was the wide range of people who had immediate access to the film. Burns' previous films were premiered to limited audiences in New York and Los Angeles, but this film was premiered to the entire world simultaneously on the Internet. Furthermore, by allowing these people to download the film to their iPods, they could take it anywhere and spread the film to others easier than it could be spread on movie screens. However, I still feel there is something to be said for the timeless experience of seeing a fantastic movie on the big screen. Even watching a DVD in your own home doesn't compare to the experience you receive with the surround sound and giant wide screen at the multiplex. While online releases certainly aren't going away, I also trust that releases to movie theaters also won't end either.

J-Students: What Kind Of Job Do You Want?

I was emailed this article recently so I thought I'd pass it along. The story from 2006 quotes a 2004 study that found that most journalism students in colleges and universities across the U.S. sought jobs in print media than in online journalism. (20.6 percent for TV news and 19.5 percent for newspapers versus 6.5 percent for Internet positions.) These figures were in spite of the fact that starting salaries at online-based jobs were substantially higher than comparable positions at traditional media outlets.

I wonder if the numbers would be similar today or if more students are embracing the possibility of an online position. I mean, after all, our generation does consume online news far more than we are reading traditional newspapers or magazines. Personally, I came into college convinced that I was going to work in print media. My dream job is still to become an editor at a top men's magazine or entertainment magazine. However, I could definitely see myself working for an online news source. In today's world, journalism students have to be open to the possibility of working on the Web because jobs in print or broadcast media are shrinking everyday. It would be interesting to see updated statistics on the types of jobs journalism students seek immediately following graduation. (My quick Google search elicited no helpful results, but maybe you're a more savvy searcher than I am.)

The article also touches on another important issue: journalism education's slowness to embrace online media. If students aren't being taught how to report for the Web or develop a Web presence for themselves, how can they be expected to feel comfortable searching for Internet jobs? At my school, Ithaca College, I've definitely received some great instruction in Internet journalism, but broadcast and especially print media are still very much the emphasized mediums. Journalism programs must incorporate online news into their curriculums so that their students can embrace the possibility of someday working for online media.

Arianna Huffington Comes to Ithaca!

Tonight, Arianna Huffington spoke in Emerson Suites at Ithaca College. The co-founder of the Huffington Post gave her thoughts on the state of journalism and new media. One of the first points she made about the strengths of independent media is its tendency to present more than just the fact. Whereas many newspapers adhere to a strict inverted pyramid style, indy media sites aren't afraid to present news in other ways, such as with satire, video or dramatic flair.

She also applauded our continuously developing linked economy. She called it a "cause for celebration." Consumers of traditional media are passive, often picking up a newspaper and merely glancing at headlines or simply filling time. Independent media users, however, are active participants who follow links, investigate topics further, donate to causes, organize themselves around a political candidate or movement, or even donate to the reporting itself. "You consume new media galloping on a horse," she said.

Huffington also shared her thoughts on the decline of the print media. It was very refreshing to hear her shift the discussion from the future of newspapers to the future of journalism itself. While newspapers may be declining, what's more troubling for me as an aspiring journalist has been the subsequent decline of things like investigative reporting. Furthermore, as Huffington said, print media can never die out. Magazines, for instances, are popular with people heading to the beach, on a flight, or looking for a specific topic.

I think Huffington's strongest point came when she said the discussion is not about new versus old media, but instead about today's media versus yesterday's media. Regardless of their primary form of publication, all forms of media need an online footprint. Newspapers, magazines and broadcast stations all need to have a strong web presence that offers something their print or broadcast product cannot.

For more on Arianna Huffington, I recommend reading some of her blog posts on HuffPost. Her speech was great and I'm definitely glad I got to hear her speak here on campus.