Thursday, November 5, 2015

Week 6 Blog Forum

TOPIC ONE -- Newspapers: Avoiding the Noose

I think the first thing newspapers need to do to stay in business is to report for multiple platforms, prioritizing the web. In many cases, newspapers' website news seems like an afterthought. The majority of their ad revenue is coming from print, leaving websites lacking in some areas.

The revenue from their websites isn't going to be higher until it's priority is made so too. Journalists need to focus on what their reporting is going to look like online, in social media, and in print; probably in that order.

I'm 16 years old, therefore I really don't pay much attention to the news (gasp!). My dad read the Capital Press religiously, and my brother is an avid Economist reader, but other than that my family just doesn't do much news. What little I do know that's happening in the world comes from the internet, and I know that I'm not the only one.

The only people I know who get a physical newspaper anymore are the old men that I see in the coffee shops early in the morning. The middle-aged people I know that pay attention to the news are getting it the same places I get mine: Facebook, twitter, and newspaper websites. Again, probably in that order.

A newspaper company in Delaware isn't going to send print to my house in Scio. If they write about something that I really need to know about I'm never going to see it. But if they post their article online and have it tagged with keywords I'm typing in, I can read it all the way from Oregon. The coverage is going to be so much broader.

Next I think that newspapers need to go niche. I'm sure Jeff Jarvis would agree with me here. Newspapers could individually decide what they're good at covering. Print less frequently, charge a little more, and there you have it.

I think newspapers should take on a sort of magazine approach. Stick your time-sensitive news online where you can edit and converse with readers, and stick the other stories in print to provide context, perhaps, or just a more analytical approach.

That's not to say that the website should be treated like a dump for news, either. You've still got to keep the stories unique and satisfying.

Keep the experts experting, eh?

Take Albany, for instance. If the Democrat Harold printed once a week, or even twice a month, they could produce a high quality paper full of the stories that consumers are going to really enjoy. Maybe the "breaking news"could be posted to their website.

I love the Statesman Journal's calendar on their website where people can add events. It keeps changing and improving to keep everyone updated, and that is genius.

The Capital Press is a great example of a niche newspaper. They have also done a great job building their online presence!  They are able to keep going because they have their own unique thing going for them! People in agriculture can relate to almost everything in that paper, so it's at a much higher value to them.

Overall I think it's all about what goes where and not treating everything the same. I think visualizing the best platform for the stories is the most important element of the future in newspapers.


TOPIC TWO -- Where the Media may have done messed up:

The Charleston shooting that happened in a church in South Carolina this summer is an example of a time where I think the media didn't live up to my expectations in covering a story.

I spent a lot of time commuting to my waitressing job and driving tractor this summer, so I had the radio on a lot. No matter what station I turned to (granted I was about 60 miles off the end of the earth and there are like five stations), all people were talking about was the shooting. My heart broke for the families involved, and for the church where it happened, but it broke even more when I realized the media had granted that terrible man exactly what he wanted.

Here I was, some kid across the nation, and I knew his name. I heard him being talked about more than any celebrity, more than any other world issue, and it made me sick.

This article by CNN gives us details about the man's life, and mentions that he wanted to start a race war. Why the hell give a psychopath a platform for their ravings?!

One thing I did really appreciate was that the media did show the victims' families' message to the killer. That was so far beyond anything I have ever seen, and I think it was a good message to other people out there who wanted to become the next shooter. I think it may have even prevented some people from becoming shooters. It's hard to say.

This is a really hard issue to try and solve because we need to stay informed, but on the other hand we need to keep the shooters, the stabbers, and the rioters quiet. I feel like a better approach to the story on these incidents would be to just give the basics. Say a shooting in such and such location happened where a number of people were killed, then play up the story about the victims' families extending grace, but don't glorify the actions of the criminal.

No comments:

Post a Comment