AJR, the American Journal Review, has a fascinating little article, which simultaneously predicts the demise of newspapers as we know them, and also suggests a new format for papers of the future.
Philip Meyer, a professor of journalism at the University of North Carolina, suggests that, while newspapers are going out fast, there is hope for them yet, albeit in less conventional means.
Meyer suggests that in order to survive in any sense of the word, newspapers will have to adapt to the new ways people receive information: that is to say, theatrically, and in vivid color.
He says that newspapers will publish less frequently, come in smaller packages, and be filled with editorials, analyses, and investigative reporting. The internet will be for the common people; only those who are perhaps a bit more traditional and better educated will look for the kind of detail these "new newspapers" will offer.
I like Meyer's idea, for a few reasons. The first is that I like the suggestion that good, old-fashioned printing will not go out of style any time soon. There's just something about the tactile experience of a newspaper, the smell, the way you get their cheap ink on your fingers when you're scanning the classifieds or doing the crossword. I wouldn't want to miss out on that, even if print journalism did become more sensationalist.
The second reason I like this proposed change is because those parts of the news Meyer mentioned above--the editorials, or the investigative reporting--are the parts about a newspaper that I, personally, enjoy reading the most. I can hear headlines from friends; I can glance at webpages to get the quick and dirty side of the news. But when I want to hear all sides of a story, or the details that weren't considered important enough to run as a headline on CNN, that's when I head to a newspaper.
If this is the future of newspapers, then my feelings are generally positive towards the change. While I would be sad to lose some of the traditional news reading I have always loved to do, I think that newspapers have always been changing and adapting to fit the times. Gradually, papers have become more colorful and narrower as it is, so this just seems like the natural progression of things.
How does everyone feel about this proposed path for papers? Does anyone have any better ideas? And does anyone feel that, in taking this route, we might lose something in the media?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree that newspapers definitely need to change. It's time. Altogether they are just inconvenient compared to the many other sources we have for news. It will be interesting to see what changes actually begin to take place. For one thing, they can start by making them a lot smaller.
I'm a little torn between the change and the traditional aspect of newspapers. Typically, I am a fan of change and I think that it's important, but there is something about old-fashioned newspapers that I will miss if they do go "extinct". The new, revised newspaper idea is a good one, but I'm hoping that it won't take the news out of the newspaper. We will see as new ideas develop how it will unfold.
I believe that newspapers do need to be revolutionized. I won't be surprised when newspapers become more flashy like you said the article suggests or are filled with more editorials. As people are able to get their own figures deeper into the newspapers flesh, more people will be draw to the paper again. In a blogging world, people will post their opinion where the can because they can. If newspapers open up to the public, the more subscribers they will gather.
Even though I am very old-fashioned in a lot of different ways, even I recognize that newspapers need to change in order to remain viable. Even though I feel now that I will miss them in the future, I'm sure that 10 years from now, I'll love whatever changes have been implemented, and my memory of newsapers will be just that: a memory.
Post a Comment