OK, it’s time to move on to the big leagues. This week we’re going to read a piece from the New Yorker. It’s a story about the current and future state of newspapers in America written by media writer Eric Alterman.
Yes, it’s a long piece. Yes, it’s a bit on the academic side. But read it anyhow. And read it well. It’s chock full of history, insight and passion.
Tell me what Alterman is saying here. What is his point? And point of view? Can you find a narrative? Is there a story here? Let me know.
9 responses so far ↓
Mitch // April 1, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I am proud to say that I finished reading this article in 16 hours (without breaks.) Alterman seems to be prophetizing the inevitable downfall of the newspaper business and with it, the fall of journalism.
Maybe Sam was right to be an English major.
Alterman tells us about the chaos the world of facts and reporting is about to fall into, a chaos where there is no one conscious thought or message, but millions.
We are in an age where everything everywhere is moving constantly, ever-changing, never-resting. Without good journalism, how can corruption and evil be kept in check? Are journalists superheroes? If so, the world is on the cupst of being defended by Aquaman (yeah, we’re screwed.)
Is there a story here? Yes, and it’s a tragic one.
Caroline Stedman // April 2, 2008 at 1:34 am
Only 16? It took me a solid 18 – at least.
I agree that there is a tragic story here about what appears to be the close of an era of the watchdog press.
However, I seemed to have picked up on some hope from this piece in the sense that the media is cyclical (sp?) almost. In the early days of the U.S. many papers were opinion, much like the blogging that we see today on the internet. But that developed into the “glory days” of investigative journalism. I have to have some optimism that those days will come again, even if it is in a slightly different medium.
Eric // April 2, 2008 at 4:09 am
I came across this last week and after reading the first 8-9 paragraphs, sent it to my parents and said “this is why I don’t want to go into newspaper journalism.” And they read it and said “OK.”
I believe that the point of view is that the crumble of newspapers has begun and will not stop until someone discovers the formula that has been so elusive for those in the newspaper industry.
Alterman seems to provide all of the angles of why newspapers are collapsing that I’ve been learning about in my last two semesters, and I think this is his point of view.
I guess the narrative is kind of like a history professor intertwining the history of newspapers and answering the questions so many students ask: “How is this useful?” and “How does this pertain to my life?”
There is definitely a story here. It’s the downfall of newspapers in our culture because of the reasons he goes on to give.
Sarah Raaii // April 2, 2008 at 6:08 am
This piece definitely tells a story. Alterman skillfully weaves history with journalism and narration, telling a story that always returns to the print journalism perspective, which he paints as quite grim.
It seems like everywhere we (or at least I) turn, there’s someone warning of the end of newspapers as we know them. Yes, it is true that new technology has opened the door to new media outlets on which people depend. But at the same time, as long as our generation is alive, there will be those who value the crisp feel of newsprint and the smudging capabilities that no Internet blog or TV broadcast can deliver.
Beyond their sentimental value, newspapers can report to a greater depth than their counterparts. Take, for instance, a catastrophic news event like 9/11. Almost all of us probably turned on the television that day as soon as we heard something was up. But in the following days, newspapers delivered something unique– a lasting memorial to the event, printed on paper you can hold in your hands, keep in your records, or even pass along to your grandchildren.
Yes, newspapers may have to compete with other media outlets in this day and age. But they will always have a unique angle on the news.
Sarah Van // April 2, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I think one of the main points of this story is that while newspapers are decreasing in popularity, there are still several concrete reasons that they exist, and will continue to exist.
This story made me think of what would happen if newspapers didn’t exist- I wouldn’t get half of the news I get now. Most stories I’m completely uninterested in, but I read them because they are on the front page and therefore, obviously newsworthy and important. However, if I had to seek out news myself on the internet, I would read only the stories I wanted to read because I would be finding them myself.
I think the larger issue at hand here is why newspapers are becoming less and less popular- our culture has created and sustained this phenomeneon, buy why?
Molly // April 2, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I think there is absolutely a story here. I think Alterman is speaking about how important print news is, even if it may seem to be a dieing breed. He goes into great detail about the start of print news, where its gone, where it is today. He also goes into how important the internet has become in a news outlet for people. He goes into specific detail about how the age of newspaper readers is steadily climbing and the majority of people would turn to the internet to find newsworthy information before they would go to a paper.
Haley Metcalf // April 2, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I think the author’s point of view is that newspapers do seem to be dying out with the use of the internet. There is a quote in the article that newspapers should not view the internet as the enemy, but embrace it for their own benefit. The author seems to agree with this philosophy. I think print news media may be subject to decline, but you can’t replace having something in print and in your hands with a website. The article begins with history behind print media, then the issues its faces. The final paragraph emphasizes the importance of internet news which supports the author’s opinion.
Sara Jones // April 4, 2008 at 12:46 am
This story is basically about the history of newspaper and journalism and where it’s going in the future, with more people turning to the internet for their news source. Like everyone else said, this is describing what could be the end of the newspaper industry, but for some reasons, like being able to save certain news stories and hold them in your hands, which you can’t do with a website, newspapers might not be going anywhere.
Amanda Bailey // April 7, 2008 at 1:53 am
I think that Alterman’s point is that although the newspaper industry is being taken over by more modern forms of media (the internet, television news, etc.), it still serves its own purpose. When I think of this purpose, I think of the older Americans-those people who have just barely graduated to the hundred-odd channels on TV, let alone internet blogging and 24-hour news stations. These types of people, I think, allow newspapers to stay afloat. But myself? Of course I’m more likely to turn on the TV or surf the net than I am to pick up a copy of the Press-Citizen. I completely agree with the article: the internet offers “immediate information” in a way that is “alive.” Newspapers with websites allow for immediate updates and they also allow for readers to interact with the material. This is a serious limitation of print journalism.