In Response to Blogger, Brittany Kirn's "The Great American Newspaper: Becoming Extinct?"

I applaud blogger Brittany Kirn on her defense of print journalism. For potential media professionals, her stance on death of newspapers is an uplifting one. Brittany certainly represents a still large portion of the population that finds value in print news over online (and here’s some evidence).

But is Brittany’s defense sufficient? Does the value of accuracy and true investigative journalism found in newspapers outweigh the monetary value? For newspapers to stick around—maybe for just a while- people like Brittany have to keep buying, and make believers out of the growing number of online readers.

As many people have indicated, the demise of newspapers seems to be accelerating towards us. And there might be no way to stop it. Sadly, subscriptions alone won’t keep the print in circulation. Advertising and classifieds would have to make a comeback in print form as well. Perhaps they would with increased readership?

There seems to be a willing sacrifice of quality when a person chooses online journalism over print. As much as I’d like to disagree with Brittany Kirn on the issue, I do believe the result will have lasting effects on the quality of our democracy.

Are We Really Going Green?

The transition from newspapers to digitally based media could potentially lower the need to destroy forests for paper. In response to “Internet Killed the Newspaper Star” the Internet may bring about new ways to “go green” but there is another side to the story.

How the Internet affects the environment-
Some benefits of using the Internet to reduce harm on the environment would be reducing the need for printing and paper and the delivery of these newspapers. Less transportation means lower fuel emissions. Treehugger.com says that 1 to 10 grams of CO2 emissions result from one Google search. The average computer’s use of electricity produces 40 to 80 grams of CO2 emissions.

Many new forms of technology that disperse information have become useful. But the problem is what to do with them when they become unusable. 3 million tons of commodity and electronic waste is thrown away each year in the US. Natural resources are put to waste. But some corporations are attempting to make an impact.

Take the Apple Corporation for example. Although the company is constantly introducing new and improved electronics that promise advancements from previous models, they do provide a environmental plan. 6.1% of products sold in 2005 were recycled, 41.9% in 2008.



The biggest problem is that the majority of the human race, especially the US, has become excessive consumers. In relation to the news everyone wants to be informed. Oral tradition, the most effective way to avoid harm on the environment, has become impossible due to the amount of information today and the population of the world. Is there really any solution?

In Response to " Why Pay for Your News"

It is true, today's technological world relies on the Internet for news and information. It is a good reason for the demise of the newspapers. The Internet is fast, cheap and accessible to us 24/7, way more convenient than the printed news.

Technologies offer us many options of both credible and not credible information. We are given the opportunity to choose.

The convenience of the unlimited information released for us on the internet makes us comfortable. "A paper has a sports section but there are 24-hour sports channels available that are updated by the minute"(ROGER DRAEGER). Why would i want to follow the "news" if I have what interests me the most - 24-hour channels available?

Internet is great! But we should be aware of how uninformed we become, by entering "our" zone, and not the reality of news.

Response to: I Don't Expect too Many Tears at the Funeral of Printed News

Anatoliy,

I agree with your viewpoint on the disappearance of printed newspapers. I knew that all newspaper companies were scrambling to come up with with alternatives to keep themselves afloat, but I wasn't aware of The Wall Street Journals clever scheme to to keep people reading their newspaper. I believe The Wall Street Journal may be on to something by tapping into people's disdain for ads and using it to their benefit.

Perhaps this is the way to get newspaper companies to survive? People who watch the news on T.V. or read it online have to deal with the nuisance of ads that keep popping up and interrupt their reading. Hopefully more newspapers will adapt this concept and, for a small fee, we can all read our newspapers without ads. However, there are people who would rather have free news than an ad-less internet page.

I also found your research on elderly people to be very interesting. I wasn't aware so many senior citizens were already utilizing the internet to receive their news. I assumed, as I'm sure most people did, that they were the ones still buying newspaper and would be at a loss of what to do once they became obsolete. I found a website that adds to your information about senior citizens. In it, it states how senior citizens (65+) haven't utilized the internet very much, but people just younger than them (50-64) have grasped onto the internet quite well and use it often.

I like the way you end your blog, with the fact that our society has always been changing and the newspaper industry will find a way to adapt if they want to survive. It goes to show that people have had to adapt to changes before them and many more transitions are in store for the future. It reveals that although the demise of printed news is a big transition for our society, we've already gone through bigger ones and can get through this one too.

-Caitlin Eggman

Response to :You say Demise,I say Old News

"The newspaper is on its way out but like all legendary icons, its spirit will never die." Nicely put Pelzer, and you're absolutely right. Why don't we accept this change for the better and movie on, whats wrong with making a little history? The newspaper was just the beginning of this rapidly growing news industry, the internet is full blown going to win this battle, but what's the harm in that? I think we're ready for it.

For instance, Pelzer speaks of this "big Mac theory," once we take a bite of something we like we thrive for more, and newspapers are no good at fully satisfying that craving. Online news on the other hand, makes a living off that idea, its quick and conveniant. Especially for those who have wifi on their ipods or phones, its so easy to keep yourself updated no matter where you are in the world. Soon enough we will have come up with something new to override the current love for online news, but right now its newpapers that we as a society need to let go of, we can survive i promise.

In fact, Pelzer continues, "Folks, the internet surrounds and embraces us. And we love it." Indeed we do and as a result, the online news industry is growing rapidly like i mentioned before. As a result, more jobs nad companies are opening up. Therefore, this loss of job scare is nothing to fret about, there is plenty of room for more workers in the online industry, move on in!

It all comes down to moving forward, im not saying we should rush into anything, but a little change might do us all some good. The economys been on the fritz for a whole so i can understand why newspaper employees would be nervous about the Demise, but like i said, online news awaits. Get out there and get a feel for the new age! Hey, that can be the title of your first online article.. just sayin.

Response to: "Internet Killed the Newspaper Star"

It is kind of mind boggling to think that only 13% of people now purchase the local newspaper! It was so customary at one point to read the daily newspaper to be informed of the daily occurrences. Times are changing, giving way to new innovations and technological media outlets. When online companies are grossing $220 billion in a year, a 25% increase from the year before, it looks like the new trend will stick with the public.

I agree, timeliness is extremely key when deciding how you want to gather your newsworthy information. With the convenience of the internet, everything you can possibly imagine is a click away. Its nice for consumers to surf the web for news because the majority of information is free, and we only have to sacrifice some minor advertising on the right-hand side of the screen!

Google for example had a $23,650,563 revenue gain in 2009. This example shows you how profitable the internet is. This also explains how successful online corporations have been and how popular this product is. I imagine that EVERYTHING will eventually be online and a good amount of jobs will be lost because of it, but at the same time, hopefully an opportunity to create new and different jobs will arise.

Technology is obviously overpowering the print media world. This change will affect citizens positively and everyone will be benefited. Consumers will have easy access to anything and everything while the companies prosper off advertising and purchasing. I hope the newspapers can find a way to make some money by transforming their product to an online option.

I also agree with embracing the green aspect of this scenario. It is healthier for the environment and will save us money in paper production to switch from paper to online news. According to "Professor's House," they claim that the average newspaper reader consumes 3 trees a year and 200 million trees total! Now that is scary!

Sarah we are definitely on the same page, and the entire world will be soon enough. There won't be too much missed with the death of print media.

In Response and Disagreement to "In Favor of Newsprint"

No one is resorting to the Internet and I'm really not sure if anyone ever has. Over the past two decades, our generation has embraced technological advancement, including the World Wide Web, like that of a three year old boy and his teddy bear. The newspaper no longer has any kind of timeliness affect because of this advancement. By the time one can find the story, write about it and print it, writers on the net are a day ahead.

Newspapers give you a story and then wave goodbye for 24 hours. Even if we are still at the point in which online stories are not as accurate, that time is rapidly approaching. When it gets here, I have confidence that online news businesses will be able to gather the appropriate facts and conduct the necessary research that you're referring to in less than 24 hours.

I would agree that the Internet provides maybe an overload of differing perspectives on social issues. This disturbing aspect of the media has been around for much longer than the Internet has, though. For years people have had the option of a different newspaper or maybe a television news network that they prefer over others. This increase in democracy did not start with the web.

If they want to survive to see tomorrow newspapers need to change. Nytimes.com is a great example of how these businesses have adapted to the online environment. A transfer to the web by all news print businesses has been initiated and now it has to be finished.

In Response to: You say deminse, I say old news

It's true!!! Newspapers are now considered old news.  Is that good or bad?  Well, I'm in agreement with you that the death of the newspaper has disadvantages, such as loosing many jobs.  Yet, like you have mentioned, there are many advantages of not using the newspaper anymore.

World Wide Web.  What an invention!  Now newspapers can be online, allowing for more updating and more availablitliy at a faster pace.  Like you have mentioned, people now can find out the second a breaking news story hits instead of 24 hours or even longer after.  This fast pace can sometimes be subject to lack of fact-checking; however, the web is designed for the ability to update and correct as time passes.  

An example of how it benefits to use online papers is with the problems in Haiti right now.  Pick up any news paper on January 12, 2010.  It might say something about what's going on in your city, politics, deaths, or it might say Haiti is expected to be hit by an earthquake.  Might be? People want to know what is happening, so they turn on the tv or they go online.  Online newspapers allow news to be current. 

Can the newspaper prevail?  In economist.com, as you've mentioned, is this logic that the newspaper just has to change it's ways.  It's true, instead of fighting the change, the newspaper industry needs to embrace it because either way it is happening.  Since papers like The New York Times are available online, the industry needs to find a creative way to still make money from doing this. 

Yes, the newspaper will always be remember and it will never fully disappear, but its time to realize that as technology progresses, so shall we.  The image of sitting at breakfast with an ink filled paper and cup of coffee can still exist, yet instead of the paper a lap top will be sitting there.  Is there something so wrong about that?

Kylee Flister

The younger, hotter sister is easy -- but you're looking for something long term

In response to "Sorry newspaper, we like your younger, hotter sister"

The internet. The newspaper's hotter younger sister. At first, she's wonderful. She's flashier than the printed newspaper, she's easier, and and everyone else wants her too. She flaunts her features in a way that puts her older sister to shame. She's really good, for awhile.

Then, after some time with her, the newness wears off. You begin to realize that keeping up with her is a lot of work. She doesn't always tell you the full story, and you must dig through multiple sources to get the full truth.

She is also gossipy. She thrives on being the first person with new information. She floods you with information about Britney Spears and Tiger Woods, and other things you really don't care about.

In the long run what you're really looking for are two things that she can't promise you: dependability and consistancy.

Eventually, you decide to cut the crap. You run back into the arms of her older sister, the newspaper, who's been patiently waiting for you all along.

Your relationship with the newspaper is better for you because it is well rounded. She gives you the full story right away, not just bits and pieces. She challenges you by providing crosswords and word searches. She makes you laugh with her comics. And you know your relationship is in it for the long haul.

All the older sister has to do is revamp herself. Maybe a makeover would help. The newspaper isn't out of the picture yet, and here's a few good reasons why.

So don't don't fret, newspaper. We'll come back to you.

Response to "Internet Killed the Newspaper Star"

Not going to lie, I can't remember the last time I picked up a newspaper, other than bringing it from the mail box to the house. It's not necessarily that I don't have an interest in it, I wish I would open it more, the truth is, it just doesn't fit into my lifestyle. Growing up with the internet, it just seems like unnecessary work to open a newspaper and deal with the paper when I could just simply read it on the internet, which I'm bound to be on at least once a day. However, relying on the internet for news is no substitute for the newspaper.
Though many people would argue that the internet is much more convenient, it's true that you can use it virtually anytime, anywhere via technology, I believe there is a price we pay for avoiding the paper. When people use the internet for their information, they generally bypass things they are not interested in to directly link themselves with news stories of their interest. Avoiding these stories puts citizens at a disadvantage of missing coverage of prevalent current events. With the physical newspaper, you are directly confronted with these news topics; you are held accountable to face uncomfortable stories. Whether you read them or not, you are at least made aware of them and have the basic knowledge in mind; things you would miss simply searching on the internet.
If you think there are advertisements in the newspaper, just take a visit to any one news website. Advertisers swoon over internet news sources and often use unavoidable scrolling boxes that follow you down the page forcing you to be aware of it.
Besides the obnoxious advertising, the information citizens receive off the internet is often no more credible than what a high schooler could report to you. The internet, as well as many news websites, are littered with blogs. The problem with blogs is that they are mainly opinion and ranting versus actual reporting. They lack significance and act as uninformative commentary that provide no substance or knowledge on the news topic.
I'm not going to lie and say that I read the newspaper everyday, or ever, but it's not as if I'm not concerned for it's continuing demise. Technology is envitably going to attract the majority of society, however, as we shift our media context, we should also shift our way of thinking. Newspapers have held us accountable for decades, whereas the internet has allowed permission for corruption. Internet has not only killed the newspaper star, but also the integrity of news. As we go forth in our culture, it's our civic duty to preserve the honesty of news whether it lie in newspaper or via screen.

Response to “In Favor Of Newsprint”

The newspaper was a beacon of thought and analysis. It stimulated cognition and positive skepticism about the country’s affairs, it called forth respect. Nowadays, together with other mass media, it evokes cynicism. The newspaper’s big business affiliation, sensationalistic approach, and distortion of facts alienate readers.

The rise of popularity of online news is natural. This medium places a reader in charge of gathering and, most importantly, verifying the information. A variety of online sources soundly beats a single paper subscription. Allesha questions accuracy of online news, and thinks the print has better chances of speaking the truth - I disagree.

First of all, most newspapers converge and integrate in the online sources (if they want to survive). Therefore, the same principles and journalistic conventions will carry on. Secondly, are we absolutely sure that the newspapers nowadays present readers with accurate and credible information? I really doubt it, and here are some examples.

How about the two articles by Brian Thevenot about the Hurricane Katrina, which we have read during this class (click for "10000 bodies,” click for “Myth Making”)? It is a paper print, but can it be called credible and accurate? Thevenot misrepresents and misinterprets facts in the first piece and then goes on and on in his never-ending story about myth making feeding us his excuses! Moreover, his explanation article has come out more than a year later!

Now imagine how much paper, ink, and electricity this reporter has used to engage readers in this piece of garbage. If such text appears online, I bet anyone will spend less than an hour to verify this information through alternative sources.

Here is another example - Reuters News publishing fake photos (warning – graphic images) of civilian victims in Gori, Georgia during the Georgian-Russian war in August 2008. The same man is depicted in different poses and non-related settings several times (read about and see more flaws). Such junk has been published in the accredited papers all around the world...

Considering the situation the newspapers are currently in, it is amazing how they steadily hasten self-destruction making such mistakes. It obviously doesn’t improve their image, and neither does it evoke compassion to their destiny. Diversified information attainable in the shortest period of time through multiple sources is the key to balance out credibility and accuracy in a modern world.

What did the Hamburgler ever do to you? A response to "In favor of Newsprint"

"Just like drive-thru meals at McDonald's sacrifice taste, we are sacrificing accuracy via internet"

Come on now, what did he ever do to you...

You bring up a valid point about accuracy, however, I disagree with you on the sole principle that the internet allows you to correct errors faster with far less people knowing of the mistake. You are correct in your assumption about "How can the internet outlets get a story, gain facts, conduct interviews, check for accuracy, edit and post the article online within a short period?"

However, you may not know it but I spelled two words wrong in that paragraph when I published it at first. However, the Internet allows for anyone that wrote an article to go back and change errors. Which is good because when someone does make an error, they are usaully called out on it, and they correct it.

Hence the watchdog is still being watched.

Still the BBC brings up a valid point. In the United States they did a test to see if sites like Facebook and Myspace are creditable, if at all.

Even if you look back with the Katrina project that was done this year even articles in print can be wrong. Thevenot was in a rush but still went ahead and printed the story without checking facts.

The demise of the newspaper isn't really a problem.

I disagree with some of the points made in Zhanet Bochukova’s post titled, “Problem’s with Journalism.” The decline of newspapers may lead to many jobs lost. However, if more news sources are available with technology then new jobs are opening up. I think that overtime, if the newspaper industry diminishes entirely, the other news sources taking over will make up for that loss.

With the current economy, job stability in other areas of employment is questionable as well. Online news sources are flourishing and new jobs are opening up. If a journalist is capable of writing for print then they are capable for writing for online news.

Zhanet also brings up the problem of credibility of news today. With the example of this blog, anyone is able to publish his or her opinions on the Internet. Avid bloggers will speak up if they think someone is posting false information. The beauty of blogging is that citizens are able to participate in the news, which strengthens our democracy. Credible news sources such as the New York Times even has a blog section.

If people still don’t trust some online news sources and feel that professional newspapers are more credible that’s not a problem. Newspapers now are available online, which is one of the main reasons for their decline. It’s easy for readers to check multiple sources with the abundance of news everywhere. Readers no longer need to wait for the paperboy to deliver tomorrow’s newspaper. The click of the remote turns on a news channel, or the click of a mouse opens an online news source.

Zhanet mentions that online news sources cause people to ignore what they aren’t interested in. It’s just as easy to flip the page of a newspaper and ignore certain articles while favoring those in a different section. With more news sources though, people can be extremely informed about what is going on in society.

“The world does not need newspapers. It simply needs good journalism. And that shows no sign of going away.”

-Lauren Krueger

In Response to “Problems with Journalism” (Written by blogger Zhanet Bochukova)

After reading your initial claim (that the decline of newspapers creates problems and new choices in journalism) I definitely would have to agree. Having previously written an article myself on the decline of newspapers, I noted firsthand that many citizen journalists called the demise of journalism a “rebirth of journalism.” And, it’s no contest that the internet and new technologies give more options to society; with faster speed, cheaper use, and keeping up-to-date with the Jones’, many people are turning to these technologies.

Zhanet Bochukova stated that: “Journalism will improve after newspapers die in some ways,” I agree – to an extent. The half that I agree with is that citizen journalists will have the home-field advantage, blogging and updating anytime, anywhere. The half I don’t agree with? – The fact that newspapers will completely die out. I don’t think that we, as American citizens and consumers, will truly let go of something tangible – we need to physically be able to flip the page or hold the paper closer if our eyesight is poor. Maybe we’re just shallow and can’t see to lose something that we grew up with, no matter if we actually participated in the reading of the paper.

I think that opinions backup facts; this is too say, though, they are not always as credible. However, I don’t think that the hard work of producing a blog or twitter is not credible. Credibility lies in the morals of a truth seeking, meticulous reporter, willing to go to any lengths to “get the facts.” And these reporters can be found both in internet reporting and the “old-fashioned” reporting of newspapers.

I also think that people that chose to get their news on the internet generally direct themselves to those news sights that appeal to their ideology. But, that’s not to say they won’t look around to see what the competition has to offer. I do think that both of these concepts are present in print and television media, but often not as applied because of the speed of finding differing views.

Overall, I would agree that citizens who choose to read their news via internet are very informed by credible sources. Of course, they could always be better informed, but who couldn’t? The internet poses a threat to newspapers, but I don’t think that newspapers will ever truly die out; our generation doesn’t want to be responsible for a mass extinction that rivals dinosaurs. Instead, we will be content to updating our Facebook status, blogging, and twittering; we’ll leave that “old-fashioned” reading for our grandparents.

IN REsponse to In Favor of Newsprint

Who is to say that the printed news is any more accurate than the internet? What gives the journalists of a printed newspaper more creditabilty than journalists on the internet? Friend I respect your views but don't be afraid of technology.

Just because the internet is so huge and there is so much information in it, doesn't mean that the information is false. The one downfall if the internet is that anyone can post something on it. There are alot of credible journalists out there you just have to find them.

The internet makes reading your news easier and more efficient. When I want to know something I can look for exactly what I want right when I want it.

I understand that papers have been around forever and there is somethin special about them. The internet is something new and its hard to let go of something we have had our whole lives like papers. The internet by far works way better than a paper. But sometimes you just have to say good bye.....check ya later newspapers.

In response to “Sorry newspaper we like your hotter younger sister.”

I definitely agree with J. Lubus in regards to the Internet killing newspapers because they are cheaper and faster. I also believe convenience and today’s youth play a large role.


Americans want to know things “right now” not “in a minute” or tomorrow morning. This puts newspapers at a severe disadvantage. Sure immediate news can have occasional drawbacks but most will make the sacrifice for instant news. Its just more convenient and its free!


Young news consumers also should be credited with an assist in newspapers decline. They are much more likely to get their news from the Internet than older consumers. This fact makes it nearly impossible for newspaper’s to make a comeback.


The newspaper industry will undoubtedly not go out without a fight. They will take on challengers like Google to attempt to turn things around. The industry will undoubtedly try to adapt and still could, but my moneys on the Internet.


I don’t have much pity for newspapers because they were told to adapt long ago. Perhaps if they would have listened they wouldn’t be in danger now? However, I think this day would of come eventually.


At this point the Internet is like Rocky Balboa. Sure he has some flaws but who would bet against him. The newspaper has more of a Little Mac feel. The little guy is trying so hard but the odds are against him. Maybe I should just give him the code to Tyson.


Ultimately the end is likely near for newspapers but not without a musical score. As a parting gift, here is the worlds smallest violin playing just for the newspapers.

A Response to "Is the Demise of Newspapers Good for All Americans?"

Should we forget about the older generations that aren't as technology efficient? Yes, we should. They are demographic that doesn't need to exist. The preservation of outdated media such as newspapers is the only thing allowing this group to flourish.

As I pointed out in my original blog post, "I Don't Expect Too Many Tears at the Funeral of Printed News", surveys show that only a very low percentage of seniors stand by excuses such as "I don't trust technology" and "I'm too old to learn how" (5% and 13%, respectively). While many seniors would rather gather their information from paper, it's ignorant to say that they would not be able to learn how to use computers.

There are efforts all across the nation to raise the number of seniors behind the keyboards and mice of computers, and older people really have no excuse other than stubborn preferences. Once the availability of newspapers declines, older generations will have no shortage of willing assistants waiting to teach them how to use the internet for news. Like I said, there are a plethora of groups trying to do that even now.

As stated on Generations Online, the number of adults over the age of 65 surfing the internet increased from 7.6 to 9.6 million from 2002 to 2003. While that was just 11% of America's population over the age of 65, these numbers are from 2003. In the 7 years since then, America has become much more internet friendly and that number is sure to have risen. Some seniors even find it offensive that the younger generations assume they're incapable of adapting.

I can list all the statistics in the world about seniors over 65 using computers, but that surely won't change the life expectancy of these citizens. That's right, I'm going there. In the years it will take for newspapers to disappear from American culture, these internet refusing seniors will almost surely mostly perish. That means the 11% of Americans over 65 is rising not only because more seniors are accepting their binary commanded overlords, but also because the ones dying off are about 9 times more likely to be ones that don't use the internet.

So, yes Brittany Kirn, you may have a point about the decline of newspapers not being the best outcome for all Americans. The simple truth is that the vast majority will prefer this course of events, and the voice of a democracy doesn't have to be unanimously decided. It just has to be the opinion of the majority.

Reponse to "The Newspapers may find itself in the Obituary Section"

I agree that the idea of newspapers going into extinction will cause devolution. I think that by removing newspapers we will in fact lose apart of our culture. Even though "46% of Americans don't read the newspaper during the week," we can't forget about the 54% that do. Obviously, these Americans choose to read newsprint, on a daily basis, even though online news is available.

I also agree that if we remove newspapers from circulation many people will not be able to conveniently receive the news due to lack of technology. In 2003, about 55% of Americans had computers in their homes, that of course is half of the population, but we still have to be considerate of the (less than half) people that don't have a home computer. These people are still apart of our democracy and should be able to easily receive news.

In regards to the idea of online news being credible, I am skeptical of whether it can do proper "fact-checking." It is not proven whether online news is less reliable than newsprint, but it is said that 64% of journalists sometimes use web news in their reporting. And 90% say that Internet impact how they perform their jobs.

I can also count the number of times I have read the newspaper, but unlike many people in my generation I have always thought that I was missing something by not reading the newspaper. I always felt as if I was less of an American. I also felt that I contributed to the decline of newspapers and feel guilty because of that.

RE: Blog News Travels Fast

You said: "Is the newspaper dying effecting our democracy? Yes it is! But it doesn't have to negatively effect us. A democracy is directed by or for the people, so instead of having it be for the people, lets do it ourselves and use online newspapers and blogs to speak our minds about what is going on in our world. "

Now, I think you were right when you said that being online and able to speak our minds promotes democracy, but I don't think the newspaper's death will bear any negativity upon our way of life significantly. For people who have been used to the newspaper their whole life is going to have some troubles, but they're old anyways, right?

It's just a paradigm shift that's all, and once people learn to enjoy the superb ease of consuming information online through various sources instead of one bulky newspaper this discussion will be done.

You also stated that online news is more apt to make mistakes when reporting because they are eager for speed, instead of fact checking. But a wonderful feature that often can be seen on breaking news stories (like earthquakes, terrorist attacks), are updated pages. Instead of posting a brand new story to retract or redefine what they had said earlier, the news organization will just edit the original page with fresh information. Newspapers can't do that.

I remember old movies about the future and they always showed newspapers having videos and interactive stuff, and I laugh because we have all that cool stuff now and more, just not in paper form.

True Life: I Don't Read the Newspaper, Do you?

I do not find myself engaging in the daily newspaper, which gives me no empathy towards its potential death sentence. However, I was able to gain perspective of the issues of loosing print news after reading Jeffery Brennan’s post Are Newspapers Expiring?

Jeffery said that, “In order for the newspapers to die I believe online news will have to become more profitable. I also believe this is true after reading about the future of the news. A flower needs water and sunshine in order to prosper, and this is also true in the case of media outlets. If there is no profit coming in to the newspaper there will be no money for workers, which would ultimately end in with the newspaper failing.

This not only is losing people jobs, it also has viewers questioning the credibility of online news stories compared to the newspaper. An article by a professor at the University of Illinois wrote an article on a study he did on online news credibility, and it brings up the issue that people citizens are less likely to read the press if they do not believe it. The problem here is if the newspaper eventually dies out and citizens feel online news is not credible, then people are going to become less and less informed.

Even if I do not find myself picking the newspaper every morning, the people who do should continue to support the newspaper and everything it represents.

"Not Enough Facts"

The blog, "Problems with Journalism" caught my eye when it said that printed news is more credible. I believe that is correct because a lot more credible facts go into the newspaper rather then what you find on the internet.

When you surfing the web you can come across a lot of information that does not necessarily inform you. You may read the news worthy things for awhile but then lose focus. If we stop producing newspapers I feel that people would get lazy and not know anything thats going on in the world.

I feel like reading the newspaper takes more effort then just going on your computer. It's part of our culture. People would just get to wrapped up in mindless things that you can do on the web.

We need to save the newspaper or people will become too wrapped up in information with no credible facts and all the nonsense that fills the internet.

Is the Demise of Newspapers Good for All Americans?

In response to, “Are Newspapers Dying?”.

Yes, it is true the newspapers are failing quickly. The country’s great regional dailies, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, are in bankruptcy. Is this good for ALL citizens of the United States?

I agree that with Jeffery Brennan that online news makes sense with the growing age of technology and many literate internet users. However, should we just forget about the older generations who aren’t as technology efficient?

Online news is good because it reaches consumers fast and is free.  However, not every American has internet

connection.  Yes, I suppose they could go to a library to access the internet, but what if they really don’t know

how to use the World Wide Web. Only 27.7% of those 65 and above are online today, eMarketer says.

If they do not know how to use the internet and there are no newspapers, how are they supposed to be informed citizens and get news? I suppose they could get their news from TV or the radio, but those news sources don’t contain as much hard news anymore. These news sources concentrate mainly on celebrity and weather-based “news”.

I also agree that although online news is convent, free, and we can interact with each other, there are many distractions when trying to get news from the internet. Readers can get distracted from actually reading the news by advertisements and other “infotainment” distractions. In newspapers there are not these distractions because the ads are in newspapers cannot pop out at you or play loud noises to get your attention.

I believe that because of all the distractions and room for advertisers to target consumers, some new values are lost on online news. Headlines can change by the hour online; versus a newspaper’s headlines remain the same for an entire day. Like Jeffrey Brennan said, “Currency is important, but is it taking precedence over things like impact? It can be difficult to grasp the most valuable news when it’s changing as fast as the internet moves”.

So in the end, I agree that online news is a good thing- but not for ALL Americans. Young, technology literate citizens like reading news online, but we still need newspapers for older generations. Newspapers also enforce the core news values where the internet may lack.