Rolling through my daily reads I came upon a post by Robert Gorell of FutureNow. Newspapers, as I’ve been discussing lately, seem to be leaning toward increasingly irrelevant forms of getting news. Robert brings up an interesting point concerning publishers; are they growing weary of newspapers being given a run for their money by online news and television? One has to wonder if those holding ownership and investment, albeit a great deal of investment as in Warren Buffett’s case, will ultimately be the death of the paper news medium. Are they willing to risk their money to try and hold out against the internet onslaught? Nahhh– They will just convert their paper to pixels. I.e.– see USA Today, embracing the social media craze and a revamped website. But there are others such as philanthropist Eli Broad concerned about the future of newspapers, specifically the L.A. Times, "I believe that a newspaper is a great civic asset and that ownership
is best in the hands of foundations or wealthy families that want to
own it for reasons other than maximizing profits… I also believe newspapers should remain in local hands." See article by USNews.com.
Publishers these days have the assets to keep a newspaper going which is bringing in less than significant numbers. Money makes the world go round. Will their money keep the papers rolling around the world???
More to come later, got some paperwork to get through.
The press and media are peculiar entities. The right to free speech de facto is essentially what it means to be a journalist. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In this document, the founders of our country recognized the press as a collaboration independent of government. They are the critics and analyzers of governmental action and non-action. Our freedoms and liberties ensure that we are able to keep the government limited in its powers. We are to be doubtful and skeptical of government because that is what makes this country a democracy. The presumption that our voice will be heard is key to the democratic process. I am not saying that government is wrong but I am saying that power can grow and become an unruly and uncontrollable evil. Limiting government limits the potential of any one group having an excess of power. We call this federalism and under which the separation of powers within the government was based. The press is our method of scanning all that government does and letting the people know how and why their government is acting or not acting. The press is our insider on that which we control. We are the shareholders in this business, the United States of America. The executive officers are the White House and Congress while the media acts as the board of directors. In this way we, as citizens, run this country. If an executive or director does something we don’t like, we first hear about it from the other directors and then take action in the form of a vote to decide what should be done. Now that I’ve reiterated the base of our democratic process… the topic of discussion follows as such.
Being independent of government, what "rights" are specific or should be specific to the press and media? From the perspective of a reporter, they need sources and access in order to obtain their information. The sources may want to remain anonymous or in secret. To the rest of the world the source is supposed to be nothing more than a wayward voice speaking from the darkness. If a journalist reports on criminalities in say government, does the source who "leaked" pertinent information or who acted criminally as a result of government deserve to be held accountable? I am not too sure on this subject. It is difficult to rationalize out a fair answer. If "sources" had no protection they would have no reason to go to media unless they were willing to turn themselves in which in most cases is not the case. These people want to protect their job and family and life. "Sources" who quit going to the media would restrict the flow of information between government and its citizens. The independent voice of the media would no longer exist because it would have no substance to report on. The reporters would no longer have a job. Now this leads me to my next point, that the government needs to have regulations on taking press to court for acquisition of their content.
The journalist would not want to reveal there source because that would break the entire realm of source protection, sources would no longer talk to the press, and reporters/journalists would lose their jobs. Losing there jobs means eliminating the independent criticisms towards government which defines democracy and our country as a whole. The sector which helps us citizens to keep the government in check would be no more. What now is to keep the government from deceiving the citizens? How are we to know which statements from government to believe, which studies to trust, which laws are "good" for us? However, a case which requires the testimony or identity of a source as relevant evidence to a judicial trial is required to present ALL evidence to the courts no matter the severity of submitting such evidence. This exact principle is exercised in the prosecution of Josh Wolfe, a California journalist, who has served 6 months so far in jail for his refusal to submit his video footage of a protest as evidence in a case of civil unrest. His reasons for refusing are that if he were to willingly turn over the video it would be inviting the government to further probe into the identities of his "sources" and others in the video. We all know very well by now that if you give the government an inch, they take a MILE.
Similarly, in the Plame Affair, of which the investigation into the leaked name of an undercover CIA operative, resulted in many reporters being told they must hand over the names of their sources as they were pertinent witnesses to the case. Naturally most of the reporters refused, and one Ms. Judith Miller actually spent 80+ days in prison on account of "protecting her source". The case, which delved into all matters political and ethical, really meant to the reporters that if they gave up their source it would result in a breakdown of the media-government independence. Both Wolfe and Miller fought and are still fighting, Josh is stuck in prison until the proceedings of the grand jury, to keep this journalistic privilege and to protect democracy. The undeniable uniqueness and difficulty of the Plame Affair only brought more in support of each side, government and media, to the floor. Miller claimed that her source informed her that it was alright for her to give the information to the court. Other reporters however reluctantly released their information because of the pressure of jail-time. Many, many cases have involved the press getting hold of confidential information and releasing it to the public. Some that come to mind off hand are the release of the Pentagon Papers during Johnson’s presidency and the media recently releasing information regarding a confidential government wire-tap program enacted in the U.S. with intention to weed out terrorism within the country. In cases such as these the government responded to the media’s content as being unjustified and a breach of national security.
I believe in protection of sources as a testament to journalistic integrity. If a reporter is holding information that is pertinent to a trial it should only be release on grounds of without such would directly endanger lives. I believe that the more I know as a citizen of what my government is doing, especially during a time of war, is the greatest service I would be able to do for my country. I also believe that my privacy is sacred and protected within the rights of the constitution, meaning unless a court ordered warrant is provided to me no one is able to violate my privacy. Whether or not I have something to hide is not of relevance, it is the rule and making exceptions to the rule leaves room for more exceptions in the future. I will state it again, give them an inch and they take a mile.
Stay tuned for more discussion on the rights of privacy and what effect it has on business today.
The era of the newspaper seems to be dying out. But I wonder if there is actually any real danger to the life of this industry with the onset of major news being read through an online medium. I wonder if newspapers will become extinct. Many questions arise when trying to decide whether or not the online era will replace the paper era. I ask these questions in light of a documentary that I have been following by PBS Frontline called News War. It is a 4 part series on the forces affecting news media today.
Another focus the documentary accounts is the growing disparity between our government and the press. This is also a major topic which I will make a follow-up post on as soon I can. For now lets focus on what exactly is causing newspapers to retreat and how they can remain as much a part of culture today as they have been for many years past.
First, newspapers need an audience or else they cease to exist indefinitely. The audience one would argue have been those people who want to read the news. People who want to read the news range in age from those just beginning to read to those losing their eyesight. I do not think we can accurately portray a set "class" of society to read newspapers overall. Let us rule out those who do not need, persay a newspaper to read current news. At home we use personal computers, televisions, and radios; the former of the three being the most widely accepted today. When we go to work we have our cellphones, pda’s, laptops, car radios, etc to give us live news updates by the minute. "What if I take the subway where none of those devices can receive a signal?", you ask. Well, my answer to you is to store your news on a pda, cell phone, ipod, or other mobile device with a hard drive before you leave home. At work, we now have access to a network which provides an endless stream of news via the internet and broadcasting. On the way home from work we have similar means as going to work. In our daily lives we have no NEED for a newspaper. Even on vacation there is no need for a newspaper. Increasingly the entire world is becoming networked. Now we can say that the people who NEED newspapers are the people who do not have these conveniences. That right there is a stable audience because there will always be someone who doesn’t have the means or desire to use and acquire these devices. Finally, the rest of the audience would consist of those who want to have a physical paper to read by mere preference. I know people who swear by reading pixel news and I know others who remain faithful to print news. It is similar to the contesting between cable and network news channels. There are some who are true to FOX, there are others true to CNN, there are others true to NBC, there are others true to ABC … you get the point. So there are two areas in which print news will find an audience, those who don’t embrace technology and those who just like to "read the paper".
Now that we have an audience, we can begin selling our paper. Wait! We need content for our paper. [Generally these two, audience and content, go hand-in-hand. They need each other symbiotically and you can't have one before the other.] Content. Hmm… Content entails generation, interpretation, and reproduction. Generation of the content would be the reporter, journalist, discovering what is important "news" by obtaining information from sources and observation. The next step is to interpret the information. Form it into content by giving it foundation, relevancy, and purpose. Finally the information must be reproduced in auser-friendlyfashion.
Now one question… is there any way that content would be abolished or not allowed to function? Looking at the process I do not see any method of destroying content besides allowing a dictatorshiptorestrict and regulatethe method of content. This would abolish the "free" nature of content, not necessarily content itself, implicating not only news"papers" but also news"pixels".
With a content and an audience to view it there will always be an outlet to convey news via paper medium.
The concept of a generation of young people ushering in a time of
change is on many minds these days. I can honestly say that I am
embracing this endeavor in order to further the progression of our
world. A young person living and breathing a world of community and
innovation is key. I see this young man or woman challenging the once
stable precendents laid down in areas of medical care, social security,
immigration, and public policy as a whole. Shel states:
It
is true that this new generation has little need for television,
newspapers, magazines, and in some cases books. The internet is the new
mall, the new bowling alley, the new playground. It is where those, who
so recently have been able to influence the greatest of minds and
businesses, gather to share ideas and information. YouTube is growing
larger and larger everyday. Until a few months ago I was using YouTube
merely to view interesting videos; now I link videos to friends and
colleagues in an effort to spread a message. Social media is taking
this world by storm and the users, the "New Now" generation, are
feeding it ever more.
I can honestly say as a young person myself that I cannot help but
notice the passion and drive in my peers and even in myself to change
and progress as a community of humans. Humanity is the key and we
realize this. With the onset of green technology and policy reform, the
next step may even be a worldwide social equity reform. We are all
linked across the country and across the globe via social networks such
as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, LinkedIn, and the rest of the
blogosphere. A growing community of diverse minds and spirits are in
store for the coming years.
Long post, I know. Leave some comments and link away. I’d appreciate it as a beginner in this blogging world. –KP