New Media vs. Old School

Even though I have apparently channeled Lippmann in past course discussions (sadly without having previously known his work), I have to say that I am somewhat in the middle between Dewey and Lippmann in my views. I am equally unfamiliar with Dewey beyond the few paragraphs in the Alterman article. I do agree that no one person can know everything and I agree that the professionals who get paid to focus on one aspect of the news will most likely have more understanding of the information than I do. If they were passionate about finding the information and I can rely on their professionalism, then they are providing a valuable service worthy of compensation since the average person will not have access to the same information nor have the time to assemble it into something worthwhile.

As for Dewey, I feel that there is something to the public discourse informing the thoughts of others and creating a somewhat collective knowledge base as in the case of Wikipedia. While Wikipedia is never really an end-source for information, it is a start point. If one needs the gist of something or a brief knowledge blast, then it serves its purpose well. Public opinion, i.e. the public knowledge base, provides an excellent start point. There within the public discourse lies the seed of truth, problem, or solution although I personally feel that there is no such thing as the truth, only varying perceptions of it (relativity). It is after this point that an interested journalist can expand and investigate. I would guess that the seed for most stories in journalism starts with rumor, hearsay, or opinion.

Some additional thoughts on the plight of the papers:

Based on our recent readings and discussions, newspapers seem to be failing because they are being poorly managed. They need to embrace the internet and let go of the print, reinvest the print cost savings in the internet and build their online presence aggressively. In a society being transformed by a greening economy (finally), the idea of reading something that is timely for a day is hugely wasteful, whether recycled or not. There needs to be a divorce of “news” and “paper.” There are huge profits to be made in online archived articles as well as timely readership. They need to embrace this change wisely, with a phase out of print over the period of a year, possibly two. If the investors are upset, then maybe instituting a skunk works is in order. If the quality of news is improved, the readership will follow it to the web as will a healthy bottom line, hopefully without further loss in quality reporting.

Technology and innovation changes that occur don’t generally render its predecessor obsolete, but rather transforms its usage by its availability. Painting was not sacrificed to photography, radio was not done-in by television, still photography was not ruined by video. Newspapers may need to adapt, but they don’t need to disappear. The word "print" is open enough to mean "viewed on a screen or device." Each new item is influenced by its predecessor, maybe even informed by it, but not replaced. The funny thing is, print newspapers have inadvertently created the blogosphere while trying to maintain the status quo and satisfy investors. The news gap created by their own poor decision making as the lumbering Goliath has created their own competition and the flight of their readership to the very medium they have been slow to embrace.