When the Internet was first introduced to the public, the original users most likely had no idea what it would become. What is it? It is a huge system which links computers. But what exactly has it become? At least in the U.S., it is a huge part of every day life that we depend heavily on.
Since people of this generation have pretty much grown up with the Internet around them, it seems that they do not know a world without it. Can you honestly say that you can? Could you go for a week without logging on to Facebook to catch up with your friends or Googling something for a research paper? Our parents had to do just that. They didn’t even have cell phones to text each other and ask “what’s up?” They had to go to a telephone and dial their number, and even then it was tough to reach someone. And to do research for school, there was this thing called the library that they went to to look through endless books to find the information they needed. The point is that people had to go to much more effort and take much more care to get things done, which made the end results feel much more satisfying.
While the arguments about what the Internet has done to the world could go on, this paper is more specifically focused on what it has done to journalism. It is a sad truth to face, but more and more newspapers are going down. The flow of folding newspapers has slowed, but there has been a decline in circulation and overall existence in print media severely in 2008 and 2009. It is arguable that the social shift to the Internet is a big cause in this distressing event.
It may seem slightly ironic that this is being written for an online newspaper, but the truth is that there are few other places that people are willing to go for information. Picking up a newspaper and reading it anymore seems like a hassle when it is so much easier to click a few times and come up with an article that may seem easier to read and comes with colorful pictures. There is not so much wrong with this, but since more people are likely to go on the Internet, journalists have to appeal to a larger, broader audience.
Whereas in print, there was an audience that would take the time to find someplace quiet to sit and focus on what they were reading, the current audience to the online editions don’t have such a large attention span, and journalists have to condense the facts so as to keep their audience. Though this is not necessarily a bad thing, there is something lost in journalism when the writers don’t go to the same amount of effort to get the dirty details and edit to the extreme to make sure everything is right.
Another thing that is lost with the transfer to online journalism is the same in-depth editing that goes on for the print edition. When there is a five o’clock deadline and you need to get a story on the editor’s desk before then, writers know they have to get things done and edit their articles. Without that pressure, people put it off and lose patience more quickly. Plus, it is easier to put an article online than it is to put it on paper, so writers are less likely to say, “Hey, I’ve got some time, I’ll go ahead and edit this.” Especially if they have something to say, they will want to get it online as soon as possible.
With blogs and online newspapers, the Internet has made it increasingly possible to express one’s opinion. Because of this, anyone and everyone who feel they have something to say will write whatever they feel. This reduces the likelihood that the quality of what is put on will be high and makes sites such as this full of pretty much nothing but editorials. It used to be that journalism was the facts, pure and simple. But now the waters are muddied with opinions and “I’s” and “you’s”. Since, after all, it is hard to write anything anymore without it being first person.
It’s not only physical newspapers that are waning; novels are increasingly being published online instead of on paper. Some people have gone so far as to call book-writing a “dying” art form. Such comments are pretty devastating to aspiring novelists, myself included. In the past couple of years, there have been a slew of new products which allow one to download and read books on computer-like devices. More and more people have begun to sell their works through the internet. While this will make the access of new books easier, there will also be no way to distinguish the “good” books by serious writers from books that should or would not have been published if looked at by an editor. Freely-written novels will be most likely be packed with grammatical errors that one doesn’t want to put up with when trying to relax. Also, I don’t think that I could ever get used to curling up in bed with a nice piece of hardware. Computers are wonderful education and “equalizing” tools, but often they end up making our lives way more complicated than they should be. I,for one, hope that people continue to see the value of the printed (not just digital) word.
I wholeheartedly agree. I did not consider that portion of written art when I wrote this piece, and I think that you raise some eccelent points.
The computer was an excellent invention. It has made life more effitient in many ways. But in our quest for efficiency, I feel that there is something lost in between, like your example of the pleasure of curling up in bed with a nice book being ignored.
Also, I personally think that the Nook is a bad idea, and that the day we read, communicate, watch, and practically live through our electronic devices will be a very sad day. Wait a second… hasn’t that kind of already happened?
Thank you for your comment.
Your last comment (Amy) poses an interesting and depressingly true point. But novel writing is not near a dead art. Consider that one rarely buys a book without reading part of it, reading a review, hearing about it, or at least having previous (and good) experience with the author. Anyone can write a novel and put it on the net, but just like online news blogs, this doesn’t ensure anyone will read them.
Digital text opens many more consumers to authors. Your text could potentially sell millions more copies and get wider exposure (in addition to earning you more money) because it can reach so many more people. Books will be cheaper for readers, as it costs hardly anything to store a book online for download but costs more to print, bind, and ship books to stores.
I also hope printed text might die out (although I suppose at some point it probably will), but that day is a long way off. Even if it does, there will always be a demand for good novels, whether in paper form or in digital print.
Nice commentary. This: “It is a sad truth to face, but more and more newspapers are going down.”
Yeah it’s sad, soon, there will be no newspapers left.
That would be the worse case senario. I think what will end up happening is that there will only be the big newspapers left, and smaller community newspapers that have been around for a hundred years will cease to exist. That is the saddest part for me.
Thanks fo the kind words!
Well written, and I agree that the time of print media is coming to an end. However, I wonder if this is such a bad thing. With the advent of the internet, expression has become much more available to anyone, rather than those select few with writing spots on a newspaper. Data can be compiled much more quickly and efficiently. News worldwide can be read anywhere minutes after the event takes place. While some smaller circulations will inevitably (and have been) dying out, I’d tend to think this is a necessary loss in a period of advancement for news media.
You raise some interesting points, but because anyone can go and talk about something on the internet, people who may simply be ranting hold the same weight of those who go out and work hard to find the facts. It monogomizes journalism so that everyone is equal, but when you think about it, the quality of writing isn’t always on the same level.
But as to finding out about events moments after they happen, that is one of the positive things the internet has brought. I am not saying that the internet is all bad, but rather that people need to realize that what it has brought isn’t all good.
“Because anyone can go and talk about something on the internet, people who may simply be ranting hold the same weight of those who go out and work hard to find the facts.”
I don’t think this is necessarily true. With more information accessible to us, we simply need to develop new ways to filter it.
I’ll give an example that I learned on Tuesday during the Statistics field trip to the World Bank. They have a partnership with Google that gives priority to their reliable data. Search “united states gdp” to see for yourself. This is just one instance of what Google is doing to solve the problem. http://www.google.com/help/features.html
Here’s an unlikely way to weight information: Twitter’s “Retweet” feature. It allows you to expand your network of information providers–the people you are following–based on your current network. If I trust the Washington Post (http://twitter.com/washingtonpost) and they Retweet something from Arkansas Bob, now I have an opportunity discover a new reliable source. There are similar features embedded in nearly every blog and social network.
Everyone is not equal on the internet. But now I get to decide what sources are trustworthy, as opposed to some media conglomerate deciding for me.