Steve Otto is a great guy.
He’s been around these parts for a mighty long time, and has covered all the ups and downs of Tampa Bay. He gives of his time and well-recognized name to a bunch of charitable organizations, and is always somewhere doing something for someone.
But it sure is tiring hearing about how the old newspaper days were so much better. It seems that once a month he is going on about the old Tampa Bay Times afternoon daily, and how the community is suffering since less paper ends up in a garbage dump.
His latest is another complaint about how the blogosphere is helping to kill newspapers.
The American Amateur Press Association showcased a panel discussion on the future of newspapers and the printed word, and newspaper types were typically irritated:
There was plenty more to be gloomy about, not just declining circulations but also the growing realization that it is not just that younger readers are getting their news elsewhere as it is that they aren’t getting news at all.
[Context] is what newspapers have provided: a thoughtful, organized context to the news instead of the scattered who-knows-where-it-came-from stories off the Net.
Then he provides the zinger:
I remember in 1961 when then FCC Chairman Newton Minow said TV had become a vast wasteland. We would be hard-pressed to argue it has improved in almost half a century.
I wonder what he would think of the blogosphere.
Hey Steve, check it out:
There are hundreds of TV networks. A great majority of them are certainly a waste of time. However, there are a significant number of them that are quite marvelous, and can keep you up to speed on those things that are important to you. I think we can make a great argument that TV has improved since 1961.
Like TV, the blogosphere landscape includes much wasteland as well as oases of wonderful. The beauty is that you can choose to visit those websites that you find relevant to you, and ignore the others.
As to the demise of newspapers, that is a natural progression. A newspaper is simply a way of delivering content. Just because over the past 40 years, the best journalism has come from newspapers, does not mean that paper is still the best way to deliver that important news.
I don’t think Steve really laments the loss of “newspapers,” but rather “journalism.” And instead of blaming the internet, I believe his complaints should be directed toward Media companies in General. Of course, someone at the AAPA meeting had already pointed that out to him:
“I’m saddened what’s happened to papers. They seem to have adopted a can’t-beat-them-let’s-join-them attitude with the ‘them’ being cable TV that features sensationalism and celebrities’ misery. I see it on a daily basis. I have had to take at least 10 calls this week about the son of Hulk Hogan.”
Hmmm. Seems like an impartial observer might say that newspapers are a vast wasteland.
Diverting journalists to stories like this, media conglomerates chose to go after bigger and bigger audiences, instead of focusing on delivering important news to those who care. And those who do care about that important news are moving on to other providers, including radio, television, and, yep, the blogosphere.
The truth is, in order to find that “context,” citizens can no longer count on the “newspaper” to provide it. Like Steve Otto, we are now forced to spend valuable time and take several avenues to learn it on our own, from any media available.
That we are able to make an “honest attempt to tell the story of a community and the world around it” by publishing online is a good thing, not a waste.
Loading ...
