We like to think newspapers will be around for awhile. You can imagine why. But we like to think you appreciate the powerful importance of newspapers, too, even as you may find great fault with them. A fundamental recognition of the value of a newspaper -- and of professional news-gathering operations in general -- may have led you to this Sun-Times blog.
What then do you make of this Salon interview with Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson, who seems to value twittering at least as much as he values the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal?
Twittering?
We're all for new social networking tools, but Anderson says it's time to dump the very vocabulary of serious professional journalism -- words like "journalism," "news" and "media."
Is Anderson's digital optimism brilliant or inane?
This blog brought to you by the Sun-Times editorial board (click on names to read bios):
From a woman whose aunt used to work at the Trib back in the day, I commend you on coming clean with that insightful observation. The trees are cheering because the demise of the newspaper-only generation means more of their family members can thrive! Will this bring more truth to the fore? I think it's too early to tell, but I do know one thing: I will be a part of it!
Yeehaw! ; )
Ellen C. Buchine
I really think the future of newspapers will be very long existing one because a great mind considers to read everyday. Two there is nothing like the keepsake photos and momoirs the newspaper shares. A real life photo could give very true feelings to many things. I would hate for the life of newspapers to vanish, because some of the journalist keep it so real.
I wouldn’t say brilliant, or inane, but somewhat prescient.
It is only now that the newspapers are rediscovering the needs of its readership. The government will not support a free press. Only a free people can. That means you must keep the people free, by doing the reporting that only a professional organization can do. You have the resources. You can expose the scoundrels that need it.
The newspaper owner has to wrestle with the fact that the status quo is no longer paying his bills. Yet it is all he has known and carefully nurtured.
Furthermore the aristocracy that is our government today is exacting its pound of flesh from us all.
The only way for an established newspaper to survive is to lead the people into this new era of information exchange. To show us the levers of democracy, to organize and encourage our participation. Perhaps to even start a new political party.
You need to expand and encourage this dialog on the front page of your paper.
Haven't newspapers reached the on-line sphere anyway and totally have they? To be honest, I don't read newspapers in their printed versions anymore. I like to be really "updated", not reading news from yesterday. BUT the journalist as it means an educated person who knows at least a little bit about its writings, should and will remain. You need those people to reflect the issue from all its sides. Not only from a personal side of view. Journalism is there to bring issues into the minds of people. Not only to tell that there is a bomb attack in Iraq or that some one had a tea fro lunch in China. That role is gone, for sure.
I see twittering and all those networks of people around the globe as a great way of connecting the world. But for me all this is and should be a supplement to the real journalism (in terms of the issue we've discussing).
Chris Anderson isn't a serious journalist and Wired isn't a serious publication. I remember them running an interview with Newt Gingrich back when he was Speaker and the interviewer proclaimed at the start of the piece that she had deliberately avoiding learning anything about the subject of her interview because she didn't want to prejudice herself!
What is journalism now? I ask this question everytime I read an article where you can truly see that there is no longer a true feeling for the craft. There was a time when a journalist was a person who wrote or spoke of an event using facts and not complete "opinion". I am hard pressed to find any area where every printed word is not based on opinion. People in general have become so convinced they have the right to color any event to prove their point. I know that at no time in history could you ever "believe everything you read". These days that is sadly the rule of thumb. Only believe half of the article, the rest is only the writers political opinion coloring the words. I guess my opinion is sadly this; Twitter or print in it black and white, is there really so much of a difference anymore?