b-to the-l-o-g
i've recently been inspired
two of my fellow nyu publishing peeps blog almost every single day whether it's short, long, sentimental, funny or just plain babbling (i love it just the same) and it's always interesting (to me at least) - to get a window into what it is they're up to or how it is they're feeling
so today i turn over a new blogging leaf. since media/publishing and writing and editing are all things i want to be a part of, i figure i should be doing some of it on a fairly regular basis. i'm not making any promises that i will blog every.single.day BUT i will do my best to write something - if even for a few short sentences - as often as i can. some of it will still be creative stuff and some of it might just be randomness but hopefully some of it will be thought provoking enough that you'll comment (i'm not even sure who "you" are but i'm hoping you're out there)
here goes nothing...
newspapers are not dying
This article bothers me.
It's an opinion piece and everyone is entitled to their opinion but what Mr. Shafer is saying seems to be a pretty flaky argument to me.
Essentially he says that social networking sites (i.e. Facebook), instant messaging, microblogging and e-mail are killing the social currency newspapers once held.
Shafer writes, "For as long as anybody can remember, the newspaper has been the primary info-hub through which people interacted... nothing could beat the newspaper as a source for socially lubricating conversation." Now, Shafer says, "You no longer need to rely on a paper for the social currency that a weather report, movie listings, classified ads, shopping bargains, sports info, stock listings, television listings, gossip, or entertainment news provide." I agree with this statement, people today tend to rely on a number of ways to get the information they need (all of which can probably be found on the Internet) however, that has not replaced what a NEWSpaper does - report on weather, movies, sports and entertainment. True, the Internet does play an important role in many of our social realms - especially within our generation but things like e-mail and Facebook haven't killed the newspaper or taken over the social currency of the newspaper.
The newspaper is alive and well - circulation might be down, yes, but if it weren't for those physical newspapers being printed, the number of newspapers with content online would not exist. Just to be clear, it's my belief that the online newspaper is an extension of an actual paper which can enhance the reading experience for the audience through interactive technology. Those working for a newspaper and those for the online version essentially work as a team to bring people the news and whether it's in paper or electronic form, people are reading the newspaper. According to this article from March 2008, readership of online editions of daily newspapers has grown by 11% since 2006, with 17% of adults reading a daily newspaper on the internet (Canadian stats). In the US, the average monthly unique audience figures for newspaper Web sites grew by more than 3.6 million in 2007.
Shafer writes, "Other institutions do far better jobs at issuing social currency these days." That depends on your definition of social currency. If your circle of friends and co-workers are talking about what happened on the latest episode of The Hills, then yes, Facebook does a better job at issuing social currency. However, if your friends/coworkers are looking for a little more in-depth conversation (I like The Hills but we can't always be worried about LC and Lo), chances are they're going to reference what they saw on the cover of the Globe and Mail or the Star before they'll reference a Facebook posting and in my books, that's worth much more social currency than trying to play a game of who's friends with whom in the Facebook world.
The article asks, "If one of the great attractions of the newspaper was that it brought people together to rub noses, how can it compete for readers' time with sites like Facebook, which can also give you a real-world news dump if that's what you crave?" How often do you and your friends link to real news items on your Facebook account? Do you do it on a daily basis? Probably not and if that's the case, THAT'S how newspapers can compete - by offering you DAILY news (and I'm not talking about 'newsfeeds').
Granted, in conversation, you're more likely to hear Joe Blow make a comment about a social event he saw his friend post on Facebook than a social event he read about in the pages of the Toronto Star but when it comes to long form journalism and what is going on in the world, people are far more likely to get their news from an online newspaper or the actual paper than they are by twittering or surfing Joe's wall and I don't know about you, but it's that type of social currency, provided by a news agency, that I want to be exchanging.
read.a.paper.
two of my fellow nyu publishing peeps blog almost every single day whether it's short, long, sentimental, funny or just plain babbling (i love it just the same) and it's always interesting (to me at least) - to get a window into what it is they're up to or how it is they're feeling
so today i turn over a new blogging leaf. since media/publishing and writing and editing are all things i want to be a part of, i figure i should be doing some of it on a fairly regular basis. i'm not making any promises that i will blog every.single.day BUT i will do my best to write something - if even for a few short sentences - as often as i can. some of it will still be creative stuff and some of it might just be randomness but hopefully some of it will be thought provoking enough that you'll comment (i'm not even sure who "you" are but i'm hoping you're out there)
here goes nothing...
newspapers are not dying
This article bothers me.
It's an opinion piece and everyone is entitled to their opinion but what Mr. Shafer is saying seems to be a pretty flaky argument to me.
Essentially he says that social networking sites (i.e. Facebook), instant messaging, microblogging and e-mail are killing the social currency newspapers once held.
Shafer writes, "For as long as anybody can remember, the newspaper has been the primary info-hub through which people interacted... nothing could beat the newspaper as a source for socially lubricating conversation." Now, Shafer says, "You no longer need to rely on a paper for the social currency that a weather report, movie listings, classified ads, shopping bargains, sports info, stock listings, television listings, gossip, or entertainment news provide." I agree with this statement, people today tend to rely on a number of ways to get the information they need (all of which can probably be found on the Internet) however, that has not replaced what a NEWSpaper does - report on weather, movies, sports and entertainment. True, the Internet does play an important role in many of our social realms - especially within our generation but things like e-mail and Facebook haven't killed the newspaper or taken over the social currency of the newspaper.
The newspaper is alive and well - circulation might be down, yes, but if it weren't for those physical newspapers being printed, the number of newspapers with content online would not exist. Just to be clear, it's my belief that the online newspaper is an extension of an actual paper which can enhance the reading experience for the audience through interactive technology. Those working for a newspaper and those for the online version essentially work as a team to bring people the news and whether it's in paper or electronic form, people are reading the newspaper. According to this article from March 2008, readership of online editions of daily newspapers has grown by 11% since 2006, with 17% of adults reading a daily newspaper on the internet (Canadian stats). In the US, the average monthly unique audience figures for newspaper Web sites grew by more than 3.6 million in 2007.
Shafer writes, "Other institutions do far better jobs at issuing social currency these days." That depends on your definition of social currency. If your circle of friends and co-workers are talking about what happened on the latest episode of The Hills, then yes, Facebook does a better job at issuing social currency. However, if your friends/coworkers are looking for a little more in-depth conversation (I like The Hills but we can't always be worried about LC and Lo), chances are they're going to reference what they saw on the cover of the Globe and Mail or the Star before they'll reference a Facebook posting and in my books, that's worth much more social currency than trying to play a game of who's friends with whom in the Facebook world.
The article asks, "If one of the great attractions of the newspaper was that it brought people together to rub noses, how can it compete for readers' time with sites like Facebook, which can also give you a real-world news dump if that's what you crave?" How often do you and your friends link to real news items on your Facebook account? Do you do it on a daily basis? Probably not and if that's the case, THAT'S how newspapers can compete - by offering you DAILY news (and I'm not talking about 'newsfeeds').
Granted, in conversation, you're more likely to hear Joe Blow make a comment about a social event he saw his friend post on Facebook than a social event he read about in the pages of the Toronto Star but when it comes to long form journalism and what is going on in the world, people are far more likely to get their news from an online newspaper or the actual paper than they are by twittering or surfing Joe's wall and I don't know about you, but it's that type of social currency, provided by a news agency, that I want to be exchanging.
read.a.paper.
posted by Jennifer at
12:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home