25 Big Questions for the Future of Journalism and PR

By Scott Hepburn | Comments (98) | Trackbacks (5)

archivesMinneapolis PR man Arik Hanson recently asked me to suggest a few questions for his night as moderator of #Journchat. That got me thinking about 25 Big Questions for the Future of Journalism and PR (keep reading to see your homework assignment):

  1. Are all newspapers folding? Just some? Which ones? Why them?
  2. Plenty of people say newspapers will never die because people love the feel of newsprint. So if touch is so powerful, why are newspapers closing?
  3. Why don’t newspapers let reporters work from home? Couldn’t they cut costs significantly by firing the building instead of the people? 
  4. Many journalists cringe at the Huffington Post biz model (most contributors are not paid for their work). Where does the HuffPo model fit into the future of journalism?
  5. If every newsroom closed its doors for good tomorrow morning, what would you do?
  6. Given what has happened to newspapers in ‘08 and ‘09, what skills do you wish you had further developed?
  7. Is the blogosphere an adequate substitute for journalism?
  8. Journos: What blogs do you subscribe to?
  9. If social media could help preserve journalism, would you be willing to comment, engage, etc. more openly, even if it raises questions about objectivity and fairness?
  10. Come to think of it, are ideas like objectivity outdated? Where does objectivity fit in a world where social media makes publishing less corporate and more human?
  11. Have you ever received a social media press release? How helpful/useful was it?
  12. Does the decline of newspapers even matter? Could this actually be a blessing in disguise?
  13. Should bloggers adhere to journalistic standards when they publish information, even if they’re not trained journalists?
  14. How does the changing face of journalism change the life of a PR?
  15. Some argue a good pitch trumps a relationship with a reporter. Does the same argument apply w/bloggers, who are more “social”?
  16. How does the current upheaval in the newspaper business create opportunities for smart PRs?
  17. Given declining readerships, shrinking content and dwindling staffs, which is more important for PR: Pitching to traditional journalists or pitching to bloggers? Why?
  18. Are bloggers an effective enough government watchdog? An effective enough corporate watchdog?
  19. Will the blogosphere adhere to the same standards of objectivity, fairness and truth as traditional journalists?
  20. Who will emerge as the enforcer(s) of journalistic standards as traditional newsrooms and editorial controls vanish?
  21. If newspapers are struggling to generate print ad revenue, will they have any more luck generating online ad revenue?
  22. What industry is the next domino to fall after newspapers?
  23. Should colleges and universities still offer degree programs in print journalism?
  24. If you’re a PR and you’re not paying attention to the shifting journalism industry, how do you plan to be relevant in 5 years?
  25. Will TV news programs one day suffer the same fate as newspapers?

I told you there’d be a homework assignment, right? I want this to be a community discussion. Pick any of these 25 Big Questions and answer it in the comments. Extra credit if you respond to someone else’s comment. You in?

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader.

Tags:
Topics: Social Media
  • Samantha Shelton
    3.) Having journalists work from home wouldn't be nearly as productive and the quality of the newspaper would not be as reliable. Yes, journalists would still be doing the work, but they wouldn't have access to the resources that are available within the news office. News offices have multiple resources that most do not keep at their personal home or office. They also wouldn't have access to other reporters' ideas, angles, and information from previous articles. Other reporters have important contacts that you may not have and they may have information that could relate to your story that you have no way of accessing any other way. Other reporters also have the same mindset as you because they have gone through the same training. If you work from home, you won't be able to bounce ideas off each other as easily and it will be much more difficult to formulate new angles for a fresh story.
  • aaronhammond
    In response to Question 19:

    It will be difficult if not impossible to make sure the blogosphere adheres to the standard ethics of journalism. You can't expect an idependent party to follow specific rules pertaining to blogging, especially if there's no way to punish them. What would you do, shut down their blog? If you do that, they'll have a new one up and running the next day if not the next hour. The world of blogging is an anarchic one. It's great that the average person now has a forum to voice their opinion on any topic imaginable, but since they don't have to follow any sort of ethics, their credibility will always be suspect, which is too bad because there are plenty of honest blogs out there, but it's not easy to differentiate them from the masses.
  • stephaniebliss
    #7: Is the blogosphere an adequate substitute for journalism?

    Well, it is true that newspapers are facing serious problems and a decline due to the increase of technology and the Internet, but I do not think newspapers will be completely wiped out..at least I hope not! I feel blogs are turning into a substitute for journalism, but I'm not sure if it is the right substitute because how credible or trustworthy is a blog compared to a news story say in the New York Times? Blogs are a way for people to express their opinions or give expertise on a topic or issue which is great, but do writer's of blogs go out and ask the hard questions and get answers to questions everyone is looking for or interested in like journalists do? I do not believe blogs are an adequate substitute for journalism because they are too informal and it is hard for readers to trust a blogger over an educated news writer/reporter.
  • alamendolare
    #2: I think the sense of touch within the news is something that we, as a country (or as a planet, really) had grown so accustomed to, and now it's something that has become rather antiquated. It would seem that now that everything is so easily accessible, no one longs for the collective experience of ingesting their daily dose of the media: in this case, what's palpable. So, ostensibly, as long as we have our sense of vision (or auditory senses where TV/Radio is concerned), no one longs for the feeling of the paper. But that seems to be the way the preponderance of America was headed anyway, how many people will sit down and invest time in reading a book when they can just watch the movie (possibly on their iPhones), get it over with in a matter of a couple hours at best and still have time to take a nap?

    12: I think the decline of newspapers matters, and not just in a nostalgic sense. It would seem that the days of a spouse coming home from work and reading the paper while their significant other cooks the evening meal are long gone. (Notice how I didn't assign sexes to that scenario; take THAT irascible feminists!) Anyone living in the city will tell you that the subway is really a mobile library where people read the paper. Who really wants to lug a laptop all over the place and risk spilling coffee on it when you can just buy the paper for 50 cents and have it right there? I don't think newspapers will ever fade away completely; I think that they're just having trouble keeping up with the current trends that are getting better and better with increasing rapidity.
  • chris_ballard
    10) The notion that objectivity is becoming outdated is an extremely disturbing view in my eyes. Objectivity is the pillar of journalism; if it slowly dissipates from our major news sources, then what we're essentially left with is a world full of blogs and ill-researched "facts." We need an objective eye to display what's going on in the world, from both sides. Anyone can put their own little spin on events, exaggerating certain aspects of what occurred and trivializing others. But a subjective view, in my eyes, can't be taken as a purely factual account to what has happened. We need objectivity as a stabilizer in an increasingly diverse political, social and economic scene. Where companies are pandering to younger markets, Democrats are engaged in political battles with Republicans, there must be an objective source to state what is factual and can be believed as true to everyone, not just one side or the other.
  • Al Amendolare
    I more than agree, and I think your response to this question is so well elucidated that adding to it any further would essentially be beating a dead horse. But I had to reply to SOMEONE, so...here goes. The problem is you can't please all the people all the time, and it would seem that if you have both sides of the political spectrum, it's just as indicative of objective journalism as if neither side had any qualms. And the only medium that subjectivity is acceptable is the arts; when a certain product's value is assessed according to one's own interpretation and personal thoughts or predilections. So, in other words, I agree!
  • Al Amendolare
    Both sides of the political spectrum complaining about biases* There, that should clear up any confusion, sorry about that.
  • kylegargan
    Question 5: Well, if every single one closed tomorrow, I would initially be pretty disheartened with the cold reality that I would never be able to be a part of that experience. But other than the disappointment that would come with this kind of news, I really wouldn’t be too concerned. There seems to be a popular theory going around that the art of journalism will follow print media to the grave, but I staunchly disagree with this notion. Journalists will always be needed. While print could very possibly go by the wayside, it doesn’t mean the role of the journalist will be diminished in any way. News, events, and everything else worth writing about won’t ever change, and there will always be a need for someone to cover it. It may not be in print, but whether it will be online, broadcasted, or whatever form it may be transmitted, it will still take a skilled journalist to cover it. So if newsroom’s really were closed for good, while it certainly wouldn’t be a good omen for print, I don’t think it would really have any profound effect on journalists.
  • chris_ballard
    See, I read this question a little differently. I thought they were talking about ALL newsrooms closing for good, including TV and radio news as well. But, I do agree with your original point that journalists are a necessity. There is just no substitute for an objective source who is trained in reporting, interviewing and finding story ideas to serve the public capacity. While bloggers may add to the conversation in their own way and present different sides to the story, we need trained journalists to keep public figures and institutions in check and make sure the public is kept up to date on the latest happenings.
  • kyle_gargan
    It's entirely possible I misread this question. And for the sake of debate, let's just say I did. Either way, I really don't see how closing down the place where journalists and news reporters meet and lounge around would actually impact the art of journalism. We live in a digital age, we can transfer messages, data, just about anything through email. We can hold meetings through our computers. Frankly, there really isn't anything that probably occurs in a newsroom that we can't do with a computer from our own beds. While the closure of all newsrooms would certainly be a hit to the rich history of journalism, it wouldn't really affect the way news is reported or served to the general public. At least that's the way I see it.
  • Katherine Boswell
    21: The reason why newspapers are struggling to generate print ad revenue is because print newspapers are in decline. This doesn't mean though that people aren't still relying on the particular newspaper, they're just going to the online version instead. Because of this, advertisers may transfer their ads from print to online since the readers are transferring to online. Therefore, newspapers should be fine generating online ad revenue.

    23. Colleges and Universities should definitely still offer degree programs in print journalism because it offers the basics to all other forms of journalism. Without the foundation set by the things we learn in print journalism (such as editing, story development and research tools), the articles online through either online newspapers or blogs will not be as well written. And even though the newspaper industry is declining, there are still newspapers around who will need employees down the road. In addition, the magazine industry is still doing relatively well. Yet, we do need to acknowledge the shift in how people get their news, and therefore it is important to incorporate classes on new media and how to utilize it.
  • Greetings to the the SUNY Oswego students who have joined this conversation -- if somebody will reach out to me via email or Twitter, we could schedule a live Twitter chat on this topic during class one day soon.

    Let me know!
  • Tom Loughrey
    My response is to question #7:

    Blogs, or in proper AP style "weblogs", are not a good substitution for traditional journalism for a number of reasons. I feel as if attention to detail, grammar and AP Style would be lacking with blogs just because of its informal nature. Blogging seems like a good supplement to the world of journalism, but not a complete substitute.

    Also, anyone can blog. Although you would eventually be able to tell if someone had a journalism background by reading their content, it would become annoying to read through unprofessional blogs in search of a good one if they were the only news outlet.

    Blogs are meant to be a personal opinion of a news story. What you first need is a news story. That is, something to have an opinion on, but first there needs to be a story with reputable facts and undoubtedly some interviews. Blogging, therefore, belongs in the background.
  • aaronhammond
    I agree. There are too many bloggers who are just blogging for the sake of blogging. Too many of them are just pointless rants, that have no basis in fact. They don't care if people think they're credible or not. They just want people to know that they exist. Since saying measured, rational things doesn't get you nearly as much attention, some bloggers need to make big, grandiose, and often ridiculous statements in order to gain some kind of notoriety. It's a disturbing trend.
  • Nate Hart
    No. 6) Given what has happened to newspapers in ‘08 and ‘09, what skills do you wish you had further developed?

    Since coming to college my writing skills have improved immensely. Through journalism and creative writing classes I have learned different styles of writing. I have provided more vivid examples in my writing, learning to describe things more thoroughly which I believe has lead to more reader-friendly articles.

    However, there are many more things I wish to learn before going out into the real world. I am very inexperienced in shooting and editing video. How, you might ask have I not learned how to do such things as a modern-day journalism major? No one has taught me and only this past semester did I take it upon myself in another class to start delving into the video world. I have a Mac computer which has the IMovie program. I know how to shoot videos with the program, but have struggled with the editing portion and including voiceovers. My goal is to have voiceovers with still and/or video running at the same time.

    Does anyone know how to do this?

    My main concerns are becoming more tech savvy and diversifying myself. Employers are no longer looking for just journalists. More and more journalists are being asked to blog with video and audio. I just know I want to be prepared to translate news to viewers or readers in as many ways as possible and give them that "WOW" factor.

    Your thoughts?
  • stephaniebliss
    I am feeling the same way about wanting to become more tech savvy. I am a PR major with a journalism minor and I am very interested in learning how to incorporate video and audio into my future work. I agree employers are looking for more than just excellent writing skills. Therefore, I wish we were taught these tech skills earlier in our undergrad education -- I think all Communication department students would benefit from it.
  • Nicole Cottone
    #7- Blogs are an excellent resource, but should not replace journalism because there are certain facts that are lacking or may be highly opinionated from someone who may not be a professional.

    #25- I believe that people like seeing the news reported. Technology is always changing and something new may take over TV news programs.
  • Katherine Boswell
    In reference to 25: I agree that something may take over TV news programs but it might just be that people go online instead to watch reporters. Any major TV news station has their own web Site with clips from their broadcasts so people can just watch that in case they miss the news. This might just become the norm and eventually, entire broadcast will be uploaded instead and watched at 6:00 instead of people turning on the TV. Granted, I think this might be a while before this happens since there's still something to turning on the TV for the 6 or 11 o'clock news before dinner or going to bed.
  • polinaopelbaum
    I think it is important for the newspaper industry to focus on their online content vs. their print content. Many people refer to the internet for their daily news update. It is much easier to update breaking news online (e.g., Michael Jackson death). It is also important for newspapers to continue to fact check their stories and pieces, because as many people commented, the public may begin to doubt everything they read. However, the online content of a newspaper allows for both objectivity and subjectivity. The public can comment and write about what they just read, which is desirable for many. Another vital matter that concerns newspapers is the need to be environmentally friendly. If a newspaper puts most of its focus into its online content then it can provide a more updated and eco-friendly solution for providing its news.
  • Tom Loughrey
    This kind of goes along with what I said, in the fact that blogging is a supplement. I consider the people's comments to news stories online to be a form of blogging. When I think of the word blog I think of an opinionated piece about a news issue. I would never want to get all of my news from a blog because I wouldn't feel it to be credible.

    Great point about the updates. With the modern population's need for constant news updates and the growing popularity of Internet on almost every device it is important to have updates at the push of a button (or touch of a screen).
  • meghanschelzi
    7. No, I do not think that the blogshpere is an adequate substitute for journalism. I think it is a great way to connect people and share thoughts and opinions, but I feel that something is lacking in blogging. There is a stereotype that blogs are not accurate or based on hard facts, whereas I feel the stereotype is that people often believe what they see in print. I feel that there is legitimacy to print papers because they have been around so long and they have a reputation for being a reliable source for news. And I think because blogs are so new, not all people are so trusting of them.
  • Nathaniel Hart
    meghanschelzi,

    I couldn't agree more. I do think that blogs are a nice way for people to communicate and share their ideas, but you can't always trust them. The same holds true for newspapers, however. You earn credibility over time with great reporting that digs beneath the surface. Most newspapers have good credibility over years of experience. Blogs are relatively new to the world. Some blogs are quite credible, while others are lackluster to say the least. In this ever-growing Internet world it is your job as the reader to differentiate between well researched hard news, and the strongly opinionated blogs that exist today.
  • WarrenKelly
    I'll take a stab at #19. First, we have to remember that blogging is essentially a delivery mechanism for whatever the author wants to produce. There are plenty of blogs that hold themselves to high standards of truth and ethical reporting -- some more than some newspapers I've read. So the short answer to that question is Yes, the blogosphere will adhere to the same standards as professional journalists. The long answer is still yes, but only so far as bloggers consider themselves journalists, or want to be considered journalists.

    Your average cat blogger doesn't care about objectivity in their reporting, and neither do their readers. Personal journal-style bloggers also aren't as concerned with it, because they are simply chronicling their own lives and opinions. Political bloggers, on the other hand, should be VERY concerned about truth in their reporting, if for no other reason than the fact that a false statement brings their credibility into question -- and not only their own credibility, but also the credibility of "their side" in the debate. Religion bloggers also are very concerned with truth and accuracy in reporting, but aren't as concerned about objectivity. They're (I guess I should just say "We're" and be honest) advocating a position, and aren't concerned about presenting all other opinions in an equal light. But as more bloggers focus on reporting news, they will need to concern themselves with journalistic standards; otherwise, they won't be taken seriously.
  • Kwesi Asante
    2) I think it's actually the opposite. These days people want to carry around as little as possible. Hence the evolution of smart phones that can do everything such as make calls, browse the web, get stock quotes, listen to music, etc. Newspapers are bulky to carry around and I believe that is contributing to its demise. To add to this, laptops/netbooks are getting thinner every year and more people are using them as an alternative rather than carrying around a newspaper. People also don't want to pay subscription fees for news, which they can obtain for free via the Internet. In all honesty, the newspaper business deserves to die out to an extent. It was based on a bad business model. The amount of trees it takes to make the newspapers and the amount of fuel that is used in order to transport the newspapers to stores and people's doorsteps is not necessary. Out earth has suffered because of this.

    The delivery of media is evolving and newspapers that were once giants need to embrace these changes in order to survive. These days, people prefer visuals. My suggestion would be for these companies to look into delivering content via the Internet at a nominal fee. They should also focus on delivering content via television. These two areas are were people spend most of their time these days.
  • Maggy
    These questions are extremely relevant to every living individual - unless they are living without media connections such as a computer, television, cell phone, radio or paper delivery boy. In response to number 23, journalism programs at colleges and universities should be prepared to educate students with upcoming and updated versions of the art of writing and reporting; this is relative to any program of study. Science programs, specifically those involved with ecology, have weaved "new" ideas (such as global warming)
    that have evolved into large issues within the past few years, into the classroom. Journalism must evolve in the same way - educational institutes should continue to offer print journalism, alongside the "newer" versions of media and communication (blogs, youtube, online newspapers..). Sure, other media areas may suffer as online technology continues to grow at a rapid pace, but I strongly believe TV news programs will continue to air. The current popular method of retrieving news is mainly via Internet; however, online news scoops and blurbs haven't stopped everyone from relaxing with a copy of the New York Times on a lazy Sunday morning, or flipping on the television after dinner to check in on the latest news coverage. The media and reporting industry needs to roll with the punches and train the next generation of reporters and journalists to expand the old terms of "what is journalism?"
  • I feel blogs are a good start for people who are interested in journalism, but it definitely should not be limited to those who are professional journalist or people who are aspiring to be one. Social networking sites like Facebook and Linkedin have showed us that there are people out there who love to write about random things and they have readers. We aren't talking about world news, but more like people who have an interest in visiting places and writing about their experiences or even people with a love for action figures.

    Pretty much, I see blogs as a way to unwind whatever is in the authors head. Where we are in America, socially, maybe it is a good thing we can rant about anything we want on the internet instead of bottling things up and exploding in a school or a post office. Those lines at the post office can get pretty long.
  • Hannah Smith
    These questions give a hard perspective on the field and really make people think.

    There are a few ways to answer question 18. The blogger has a different perspective than the journalist. The blogger works in that industry, or office thus know the things that not even the journalist can find out. How the workers interact and how the office or company is truly run. The journalist can ask and dig but can he or she truly know if they don't work there.

    As far as for government watchdog, the blogger also has that different perspective. They may be the family that uses that government funded program officials want to shut down while the journalist doesn't because they don't use it.

    However there is the flip-side of it, the blogger may only have the sphere of influence of their family while the journalist has a readership/see-ship of an entire city or country.
  • PatOConnell
    When I read question seven I find myself thinking, 'No, it can't be a substitute'. While I read blogs, and find them to be a good distributor of the news, I do not compare them to news outlets and journalism.

    Blogs, although they have their sources and are reporting the news, just do not come off as authentic and reliable as a newspaper, or news broadcast. While there might be a blog that I will go to before a newspaper, or a online newspaper, I see them as something that in terms of legitimacy does not compare.

    To be a journalist requires education and experience, that some bloggers may indeed have, more so than those reporting the news, but that education and experience is a reliability to fall back on. However, when it gets to the reliability of blogs as a whole I just tend to think negatively upon them. Anyone can have a blog, and can have that blog get a lot of hits, but this doesn't make it a good and sufficient substitute for newspaper reporting for me.

    The history and legitimacy of newspapers and journalism outweigh the speed and availability of the blogs in terms of reporting the news, in my opinion.
  • Maggy
    I agree with your take on blogs - anyone is eligible to create their own blogs, and for the most part I always associate figures such as Perez Hilton and other Hollywood drama figures with blogs. Granted, that assumption is probably true, but not for the most part. In my opinion, blogs are not valid forms of the news; unless of course Anderson Cooper or a New York Times staff writer created the blog. Even so, one blogger is by no means equivalent to an entire news cast.
  • Stefanie Beekman
    In response to question 25, I don't believe TV programs will suffer. I think if anything, it is adding to the popularity of news today. In many instances, people watch the news and then follow up on the website for further information about the story. I think these go hand-in-hand. Some people also watch the TV version for updates the next day. Many people choose one or the other, but many people also use both.
  • PatOConnell
    I agree that TV will not be doomed the same way that newspapers were by technology, especially because of the advances in television. TV in the future may simply be like a website, but they will still be available. TV is something that people turn to for a time out, a time to relax and catch up on the news. The availability of TV removes the comparison to newspapers for me because they are a different media in themselves, and I don't think that the evolutions in society remove the visual and audio aspects from our daily use that TV gives. I think that in the future people may use the internet for video, but TV will still be important. In that sense I agree that the two go hand-in-hand.
  • The newspaper industry is not dying, it is just hitting a bump in the road. Not every paper is doing badly in today's economy. Metropolitan dailies are suffering and are having to find ways to make cuts, but they will surely bounce back once the economy steadies. Most weeklies are doing as well as they have always done or even better. Some people believe that the internet will start to dominate the way people receive their news, but I believe that they do not offer the variety and access to local news that one finds in their local dailPr
  • I like to think of this whole newspaper issue as a survival of the fittest. After a few years all the crappy papers will go away and we'll be left with some solid ones. And then once we find a way to make money again, the process will start all over again.
  • davidhertz
    Scott,

    This is a great list of questions and could trigger dozens of conversations. Many of the questions imply an absolute answer, No. 7, 18, 23 among them.

    Throughout my 20-year career in newspapers, I found that robust debate from a variety of sources was a good thing. That included responsible sources of information, be they bloggers, PR professionals, journalists or other sources. Now, as a PR professional, I still believe in the diversity of conversation. Is society losing when newspapers fold and watchdog journalism dwindles? Sure we are. But until newspapers, and media in general, devise a better business model, (and they will) we'll have to live with the loss.

    Thanks for the post!
  • christinaklenotic
    #14 How does the changing face of journalism change the life of a PR (person)?

    Journalists increasing use of social media is impacting the way I do my job as a PR professional. Consider this:

    Of print, broadcast, and online journalists
    48% use LinkedIn, 45% use Facebook to assist in reporting
    68% use blogs to keep up on issues or topics of interest
    86% use company Web sites, 71% use Wikipedia and 46% use blogs to research an individual organization
    The Society for New Communications Research and Middleberg Communications (160 sample size)

    There is more I need to stay on top of to do my job well. I follow journalists' blogs and Twitter accounts to stay on top of their interests and interact with them to position myself as a source on topics important to them. In addition, I'm helping my clients to understand that information they put out via corporate blogs, LinkedIn groups and wikis are emerging as important sources of information for the journalists who cover them.
  • Justin Moore
    In response to #10, and as a blanket statement for the importance of newspapers/journalism, I'd refer to a quote that goes something like - "The world will always need good journalism, not good journalists." (The New Yorker quote? Can't find the source now...).

    In short, the idea being presented here is that the key components of good journalism: accuracy, timeliness, relevance AND objectivity amongst others, are essential to how we present news today and should continue to be tomorrow. Do we need brick and mortar newspaper HQ? Perhaps not. But if we're going to be so bold as to claim the media for ourselves then we better be prepared to do it the right way - otherwise, we're in trouble.

    Subjectivity and self expression are highly coveted in this society, hence the surging popularity of social media. However, it's dangerous, irresponsible and - at times - just plain lazy to disregard traditional and objective news reporting. Facts are facts - I'm all for hearing your opinion on Twitter, your blog, etc., but there HAS to be an objective news source available at all times. Enter journalism. And for those who may be confused: Journalism and blogging are not always the same thing.

    Happy news consuming!
  • moniquewilson
    Will the blogosphere adhere to the same standards of objectivity, fairness and truth as traditional journalists?

    The blogosphere will and will not adhere to the same standards of objectivity, fairness and truth as "traditional journalists." I say this because as a blogger, one is offering his/her heartfelt opinion on an issue, which may or may not have facts. While as a journalist, one is expected to cast his/her own personal opinions aside and offer reports on an issue that needs the support of facts and figures. The blogosphere at times can offer insight into many issues, adhering to journalistic standards, that some journalists might think twice about delving in. There are many bloggers who want to express their views and do so in an objective and fair manner, as well as those that feel the need to write whatever they please regardless of whether or not it is objective, fair or true. This also ties into question 13, which ask if bloggers should adhere to the same journalistic standards when they publish, even if they are not trained. I think not. A blog is a blog and not a journalistic piece. A blogger is not necessarily a journalist, but should specify. And if a blogger is a journalist, then I would expect him/her to be objective and truthful.
  • danneligh
    17. I think it's safe to say that, in general, PR folks should continue to pitch to traditional journalists rather than bloggers. While the number of blogs and blog followers continues to grow, their reader/viewership is still substantially less than that of traditional media outlets when taken in summation. Further, it is often the case that a PR representative has to pitch their story to an individual or small group of individuals that represent larger news outlets--to reach an equivalent number of viewers, a PR rep would have to talk to hundreds of bloggers, all with comparatively small readerships. There are certainly some possible exceptions--if, for example, an unsuccessful local newspaper was reaching a smaller audience than a popular blog, then it may be best for PR people to court the bloggers. Same story if the issue the PR rep is trying to pitch coincides nicely with the same demographic that reads a particular blog. But for the most part, sticking with the old-fashioned media would be best.
  • mallorykydd
    23. Should colleges and universities still offer degree programs in print journalism?

    The skill sets that print journalists have are the same ones that broadcast journalists need to have as well as PR and digital. Many of the classes offered at the Walter Cronkite School for print and other J-mediums cross over.

    "Print Journalism" is not dieing. It is merging, it is changing. It is merging to a new platform and that is being called digital journalism. The courses that my classmates take in their print major are extremely beneficial to their journalism career because they are cultivating their writing skills.

    The broadcast journalists now have to write their own stories, maintain blog and tweet. All expertise of a "print journalist".

    The major itself will eventually be weeded out- but the classes and skills taught in this field need to stay and be passed on to future J-students. It is too soon to give a definite, YES, because we still are printing newspapers, magazines and books.
  • adam_goering
    12. Does the decline of newspapers even matter? Could this actually be a blessing in disguise?

    This is an interesting question. The shift from print to online media sources does allow for easier and more complete access into the news, not just locally but throughout the world. Up until this point in the world of journalism the decision to publish a story has been left to those covering the news and the editors they report to. And while they would obviously select the most interesting and relevant stories for print as a means of selling papers and increasing revenues, stories that an editor may deem unimportant or that reporters had no access to would go unreported and unread. In this new age of online media the number of voices relaying the news to the world is infinite. No longer does a news organization have to fund a reporter traveling deep into Africa for the world to learn about what is going on there. Anyone can share their news with the world, and anyone who is interested can be a consumer of it. The most readily available example occurred during the recent turmoil following the Iranian elections. Almost all of the news coming out of Iran was being shared by ordinary people who happened to have first hand accounts of the situation. And although I don't really support Twitter as a news source, the principle that more news can reach more people faster online cannot be refuted.

    However the loss of newspapers does make the role of being a professional journalist a risky endeavor. Until a model can be discovered that would allow news agencies operating solely online to at least break even, let alone make a prophet, the number of professional journalists working as strictly internet reporters will never be very high. And I am afraid that if society loses professional reporters because it isn't financially viable, then the more in depth reporting that newspapers allow will go to the wayside and news consumers will have to rely on bits and pieces of news posted by various people and try to formulate things for themselves. As long as TV news doesn't follow newspapers into oblivion there will still be a few reporters working in depth for broadcast, but it seems that the reporters and potential reporters lost along with newspapers would be a critical blow. Online media must find a way to keep professional reporters employed in order for this shift to be entirely beneficial.
  • danneligh
    I completely agree with your statement about in-depth news. It seems as though investigative reporting, for example, is destined to diminish and die off. When Jim Lehrer came to visit the Cronkite school last year, I asked him what he thought was going to happen to investigative journalism knowing that it was in such a downward spiral, and he said it was likely going to become the work of journalists hired by private research institutes and whatnot. A frightening thought, I think.
  • laceewentworth
    I'm going to take a stab at number 25. Will TV news programs one day suffer the same fate as newspapers?

    I believe this question has an obvious answer which is the fact that TV news programs will NOT one day suffer the same fate as newspapers. If you think about it, until TV news programs came out newspapers were quite successful. People like to know news and what is going on around them. Most people prefer to have someone tell them news than to read it. TV news broadcast programs are something that can not be replaced, and that means even by the internet. Newspapers are failing for one reason because they can now be found and read for free on the internet. And with today's technology more people would rather go to their TV for free to get the news, or even computer than to their driveway to pick up the paper they just paid around $1.50 for per day. With TV news programs however, even if they were broadcast online, I think people would still choose to watch them via television on their couch where the news is fed to them, rather than on their computer where they would have to navigate and direct their news choice. I think it is safe to say that TV news programs are around for good.
  • I would have to agree with your for the most part about televised news. I believe that the local nightly news programs will continue to flourish and be relevant, but I have my doubts about the fates of the 24 hour news programs. It may just be wishful thinking but with the economy going the way it has been, will a network be able to afford to hire the necessary employees and employ them at a reasonable rate. I believe that the large 24 hour news networks will have to change their format sometime in the future and offer something other than news on their stations. Pr
  • Jake
    22. What industry is the next domino to fall after newspapers?

    Television!

    With online services such as Hulu and Boxee and less legitimate offerings from other sites that allow, or are unable to fully prevent, the uploading by individual users of copyrighted material, I feel that broadcast television in its current, traditional format is--or will soon be--on the decline.

    I think the migration to streaming on-demand entertainment, and to a lesser extent news content, is to advertisers and to viewers at least, of substantial benefit.

    From the perspective of an advertiser, it makes more accessible target demographics as well as niche markets where traditional broadcast media offer only the broadest audiences. Additionaly, viewers are probably more likely to pay attention to targeted advertisements.

    The audience will benefit for obvious, albeit self-serving reasons. The main benefit is that viewers get to watch what they want, when they want. Want to check out season 5 of Entourage without subscribing to HBO or even paying for the DVD boxsets? Vinny and the boys are just a Google search away. All of your friends see Transformers 2 when you were working late? Stream a bootlegged version online (as long as you don’t mind the Japanese subtitles.)

    For the sake of survival, I think studios and networks must begin to realize the inevitability of their content ending up on the internet in one form or another and begin to work with advertisers to develop new and innovative ways to monetize online viewership.
  • Hannah Smith
    The bad thing about this is that not every company wants to put their content online. We all know that once it is on one website it is everywhere regardless if the website is sponsored by the company or bootlegged. It is not a question of if the audience will benefit from it, it is a question of regulation.
  • jacklynangel
    13. In regards to question 13, I believe bloggers should adhere to journalistic standards when publishing postings. A blogger may not necessarily be a trained journalist but the obvious standards should be considered. Standards such as truth are not hard to consider when publishing information. One can easily remain transparent by checking sources and using more than one source, and of course, using a reliable source to begin with. People should have the responsibility to be as accurate as possible knowing the blogs are public and are available to the world. Accuracy is important not just for the sake of the readers, but for the sake of the blogger's credibility. On that note, it is also important to consider what kind of blog we are referring to. I've come across blogs where the life of the blogger is being documented for mainly entertainment purposes rather than informative purposes. If the purpose of the blog is to inform the public, yes; a blogger should follow journalistic standards.
  • sheilaburns
    Plenty of people say newspapers will never die because people love the feel of newsprint. So if touch is so powerful, why are newspapers closing?

    Although some newspapers are folding, I do not see them ever dying off completely. Many people have started to depend on the Internet to get their news online, however there are some people who have been reading the newspaper for several years who do not have the desire to get their news from the Internet.

    Today, there are so many bloggers and people who believe themselves to be journalists, that "news" from some websites could quite possibly be completely false. There is so much more credibility coming from a newsroom because the people writing the articles are held accountable for what they write and who they affect through their stories. Most people on writing on the Internet on the other hand, will most likely not be help responsible for what they write.

    Even though newspapers are closing, the touch and general habit of being able to physically read a newspaper has a lot of impact on people that have been familiar with the daily ritual for years. Some people believe that computers are for work and being able to hold and read something is subconsciously related to the relaxation of reading for entertainment. This alone will hopefully keep newsrooms working for years to come.
  • jacklynangel
    I totally agree with sheilaburns. It is fact that newspapers are folding, but newspapers not existing? Never. It is hard to break traditions and picking up a newspaper and reading it has been tradition for quite a while now. Also, the prestige and credibility of such form journalism is also what people like about print journalism. The use of the web is phenomenal, green (no trees are sacrificed), and free, but the setback of getting news strictly from the web is that ANYONE can publish anything and call it "news" now a days.
  • Jake
    What about legitimate journalists who happen to blog? The Washington Post has an extremely popular collection of blog pots written by Post journalists. What happens if people just start to look to more respected media outlets online (i.e. reading the NY Times online as opposed to the paper copies) and ignore the rest of the self-published bloggers.

    Also, I'd like to make the point that it evokes a more objective view by the audience; If someone is reading a blog and aware that there is a possibility of inaccurate information, they may be more likely to do their own fact checking than if it came from a more "respected" source.

    That being said, I agree completely, that sitting down and reading a newspaper is far more relaxing than reading it on my laptop or phone.
  • shannonbeaver
    In response to number 19, I don't think that the bloggers will adhere to the same standards as journalist do. The reasons journalist stay relevant is because the are trying to report to uphold standards. They are creditable, fair, and most of the time unbiased. But the same can't be said for bloggers. In a blog you are able to write whatever you want and however you want to say it. A lot of the time bloggers will write information without checking facts, which makes them not reliable. Plus, they might have a motive for putting some of the information that they do out their. Blogs are interesting but not as reliable. Journalism, for the most part, has ethics behind it and has someone that can fire them if their information is not correct. Blogs, in my opinion can't ever erase true journalism and doesn't hold the same standards.
  • laceewentworth
    I agree with the fact that bloggers should not be upheld to the same standards as professional journalist should be, but sometimes it is hard for the reader to differentiate between the two. Bloggers do not have to be fair, creditable, or even correct for that matter! Journalists should adhere to the standard like you were saying and be honest, unbiased, and factual! Bloggers can state their opinion, where journalist should never show their opinion or take a side of any issue in most situations. Journalist should also not cause harm or hurt others with their reporting and be ethical at all times, where as many commentators or bloggers often do not and should not have to adhere to this standard, they should always be allowed to express their open and honest opinion without scold, because if they were not allowed, journalist they would basically be.
  • carolineausterman
    19. I do not think that the blogosphere will adhere to the same standards as traditional newsrooms. I believe that this change will result in a lack of key journalistic principles, such as fairness, objectivity, accuracy, and reliability. I think that over time, we may begin to not trust some blogs or online newsrooms.

    This lack of standards is already happening online because bloggers openly express their opinions and ideas on their blogs without any fear of being held accountable. Even though it is only an entertainment blog, a good example of this is PerezHIlton.com. He is constantly writing false and extremely defamatory statements and there is no one to hold him accountable.

    I believe that as time goes on and newspapers continue to die out, we will be forced to get our news online.
  • gardeniacoleman
    Quesiton 6: Because of what's happened to newspapers recently I have changed my focus to Broadcast/PR. It's really a shame not many people read the newspaper anymore. I feel very fortunate to be @ ASU now because I can focus on the changing skills I'll need for a career in journalism. I believe it's important for journalists in training to be skilled in all areas of media. All this technology is a stretch for me but at the same time very exciting.
  • hyattromeo
    Is the blogosphere an adequate substitute for journalism? That depends on how you look at it. The blogosphere provides an unprecedented amount of access free-flowing information, opinions, and ideas. The problem is, with this amount of people, information, and opinion, it can become hard to discern between information that is valuable and reliable, and information that is tainted with inaccuracy and personal bias, a potential flaw with certain blogs. One has to take a look at what information they are looking for, and get it from a source willing to put their name on their work, and supplement their work with facts and links to information relevant to the topic. I think this is the only way that the blogosphere could be an adequate substitute for journalism with regards to hard news, because otherwise it's just blogging, not journalism.
  • gardeniacoleman
    I agree with you. If someone is not willing to put their name on their work and supplement with facts and links it may just be opinion. There are no real rules for blogging. That's why I think blogging can supplement but not substitute journalism.
  • juliaannawb
    In response to question #12:

    It's true that newspapers were the first source of formal news brought to the public, but it doesn't have to be the only source, or even a source anymore. The purpose of newspapers was to get news to the public in an easy mobile way. Now televisions and websites can do the same thing, so would the decline of the newspaper really affect news at all? With the mobility of smart phones, laptops, and online video, news is more transportable than ever. The decline of the newspaper is definitely a shift in the world of news, but it isn't necessarily the death of journalism as we know it. Newspapers should just cut their losses, stop producing the paper, and start finding other ways to finance their pursuits.

    Newspapers used to put out a morning and evening edition of the news, but now all of them stick to one edition. With technology these days, we can find out about something almost immediately after it happens. Websites update immediately, television stations rush to cover it, and you can even have a text message sent to you informing you of breaking news. By the time a newspaper reaches your front step, chances are you have heard about most of the news.

    I think newspapers should make the shift from reporting to commentating. Instead of telling people what they already know happened, they should put more social commentary into the papers. they should provide useful background information that might not have been pertinent at the break of the story, and introduce opinions that may help readers become educated on the different viewpoints and reactions.
  • dayneventrone
    12. Does the decline in newspapers even matter? Could this actually be a blessing in disguise?

    It is obvious that the future of distributing information is taking a huge turn toward online distribution as the amount of newspapers begins to decline. The benefit in this is that information can be distributed at a much faster rate than in the past, but I see a huge negative effect brewing here. In the past, to write for a newspaper the reporter needed some kind of education or background in journalism. Today, anyone can get a blog and start distributing information. The problem is that the standards that were held previously in journalism will deteriorate and the respected field of journalism will turn into a bunch of bloggers with no rules. It is a problem that newspapers are decreasing and if it continues to happen, we could definitely see some negative consequences.
  • patrickomalley
    People bring this point up a lot when talking about the internet. I think we can bypass this by starting a trend of placing a section of your Journalism or blog site for credentials. We could even boycott any bloggers that have no credentials, and boot them off the internet for wasting our time.
  • astolarz1
    6. Given what has happened to newspapers in ‘08 and ‘09, what skills do you wish you had further developed?
    Right now there are a lot of skills I wish I knew. I’d like to be a well-rounded multimedia journalist. For one I definitely wish I knew html. I also wish I knew how to operate all types of camera and video equipment. I have a general idea of how to work cameras, but I want to have a better understanding. I need to sharpen my skills on computers and how to communicate and design online. That’s what this class is for though ☺
  • mallorykydd
    These are also skills that I, as a broadcast major, wish to further develop. Right now we need to keep on pressing to keep up with the changing scene of digital media. I agree that I need to sharpen my skills on how to communicate online. I am looking forward to exploring all the avenues of social media.
  • zachfort
    Ken Lerer, who worked as an executive at Time-Warner before helping to launch the Huffington Post, says it's not about the money. Lerer says the exposure bloggers receive is, in essence, their payment, and that paying bloggers is not in the "financial model" of the company. You can relate it to something like an unpaid internship. Is that internship the most desirable for the intern? Probably not. But why don't the companies pay their interns? Because they don't HAVE to. Just like the Huffington Post, these companies feel that the association with their name is payment enough. And on a website with celebrity bloggers like Alec Baldwin, Bill Maher, and John Cusack, it doesn't seem like the HuffPo is hurting for "volunteers".
  • Sara_Fogel
    7. Is the blogosphere an adequate substitute for journalism?

    The blogosphere is a mecca of editorial commentary fueled by the masses. Blogs are based on the foundation of having an opinions and getting your point across, whether the audiences likes it or not. The 'blogosphere' is almost a platform for open conversation and discussion regarding any point or idea: from something profound and newsworthy to something as trivial as celebrity scandal or what you ate for lunch that day. To me, this type of media is not an adequate substitute for journalism.

    Journalism is the dissemination of facts and stories that educate the public and affect the masses. News is not subjective, it is based upon fact and truth and does not waver in those principles. I believe that blogs are more focused on social commentary and personal beliefs, whereas news is deep-rooted in finding and reporting truth. Both are outlets of journalism, however I do not think that blogging equates to the same type of journalism as a newspaper or news program.
  • moniquewilson
    Well said! There is no way that the blogosphere will ever be an adequate substitute for journalism. Most people use blogging as an outlet, as a way to say what is on their minds without being held accountable, journalist understand that whatever you publish you will have to be able to back it up with facts, and report on things that people want to know about. Not just ranting and raving, which(no offense to serious news blogs) many blogs are about.
  • hyattromeo
    I agree with you, and I think that the blogosphere is an excellent way for people to relate with each other and discuss issues going on in their lives. The blogosphere should be the place for people to disseminate the information given to them by journalists, not the place for people to find info they need to make informed decisions. I think that "traditional journalism" and blogging are both great, and are both going to have to evolve in order to complement each other successfully, as a way to obtain objective information and discuss issues.
  • astolarz1
    Although some blogs are focused on social commentary and personal beliefs, I believe there are blogs that can be focused on truth-finding. In some cases I think blogs can equate to the same standards of journalism as a newspaper/news program. I don't think blogs are an adequate substitution, but I think they're on their way there. Blogs can also educate the public and affect the masses without using opinions. Blogs can be all fact driven Many print journalists are required to keep blogs dealing with the news, and they're able to withstand their opinions.
  • Danee Garone
    Newspapers began in this country as opinionated publications and were certainly about getting a point across - just like many blogs are now. However, over time, newspapers evolved into the respectable, fact-based, objective media that everyone is accustomed to. Why can't blogs do the same? There already are a variety of objective, accurate blogs aimed at disseminating news and fact. And there are still newspapers that are biased, inaccurate and aimed at niche audiences.
  • I agree. I do not think that blogs are an adequate substitute for journalism. The fact that people can oppose your opinion on there is my reason being for agreeing with you. It's not like you can call up the television station and get on the air with the anchor and have a disagreement with what they are saying. That's why I prefer to get my news from a credible station....I know the facts are correct. Half of the time, we do not know who it is that is talking to us on the internet. How do you know if they went to school and received a degree in Journalism? So simply put, having a blog does not give them the right to give their opinion on the matter and call it news. It's just not a substitute.
  • Danee Garone
    In response to point 20, I believe that the concern over editorial control in the digital age is overblown. The concern seems to exist more with those who are accustomed to newspapers and the rigid standards and methods that they have adhered to for decades. But what first gave rise to the consistent and reliable methods and standards employed by newsrooms will again influence new media such as blogs and news websites.

    Organizations and people who adhere to a consistent and controlled models succeed because this approach breeds familiarity and trust. A news blog, for instance, that shows signs of being edited by multiple people for content, accuracy and/or objectivity will more often succeed in drawing serious and trusting readers. A gossip column that often proves unfounded may very well draw large numbers and attention (like tabloids) and may thrive, but will probably not be trusted on a large scale for consistent and accurate information.

    The greatest enforcer of standards is the free market and the people. Only the best and brightest survive and this will continue to be the case for journalism no matter what the medium. New media that establish and adhere to a set of standards that more people and readers will identify with and accept will be more successful in the long run.
  • patrickomalley
    Question #2
    The days of picking up your paper and knowing what's going on in the world are over. It is so much easier to turn on a TV and have someone telling you what's going on. Those two sentences are very overstated facts but they're true. So the question is why am I going to buy a newspaper when I'm paying for cable? The thing I believe Newspapers can capitalize on is the "meat and potatoes" of a given case. As much appeal as TV has it is lacking in giving informative content. Newspapers and journalists, I believe, need to understand that it isn't about them! At the end of the day everyone really only cares about themselves, so If I can pick up a paper and get a mouthful of straight facts and historical clarity I am going to be so happy. I don't care about your opinion, no one does, honestly unless the person is up your alley, your mind is already SET. That's why we cal it a mindset. I'm hesitant to share my opinion on this because I want to capitalize on it, but if newspapers would focus less on opinion and more on informing the public, people would rush to pick up a paper.
  • I will take #25 - I do not think that TV news programs will suffer the same fate as newspapers have. My reason being for that is because 98% of viewers still get their news from the television, which means over time the shift to online has only affected 2% of people. I think the convenience of going online to get the news is there, I certainly do it on my iPhone multiple times a day, but that's because I am not at home. When I am at home, it is a ritual to turn on the news and find out what has been happening in the state/world and I truly believe that will not change as we progress further towards everything streaming off of the internet.
  • shannonbeaver
    I agree. Television is still the biggest medium that people use to get their news. Certainly the internet has created more efficient ways for people to get their information, but I don't think TV will suffer the way newspapers have. Online media just basically replaced print news but its can't replace TV the same way it did print.
  • dayneventrone
    I disagree that TV news programs won't suffer the same fate as newspapers while I agree with you're point that for some turning on the news when they get home is a ritual. I think it is a generational thing and as the years go by, more and more people will get there video news online. You made the point yourself that you go online on you're iPhone when you are not home and I think our generation is heading toward that. I think we will see a steady decline of people using television for news as our online media progresses.
  • juliaannawb
    I agree with Lindsay. Television has become just as much a ritual as reading the newspaper was in the past. I think that while there certainly is the convenience of pulling up information anytime you like on your computer or phone, people also enjoy the format of tv news. It's comforting to have the same person telling you what has happened day after day, it almost becomes a conversation the more familiar you get with a reporter. I also think that with the high-stress life people feel they have, they enjoy having information given to them instead of seeking it themselves via an online article or newspaper article.
  • zachfort
    I see what you're saying, but you can already see the way the TV News in being affected by the ever-changing empire that has become online media. Do Brian Williams and Katie Couric carry the same clout as Walter Cronkite did? Is Charlie Gibson considered "the most trusted man in America?" Of course not. Not to mention local TV stations, who are having to cut staff and send photographers out to report on stories because of the lack of money and viewership at their particular stations. It's not even that people have completely stopped watching the local or national news, but when more and more advertisers are going elsewhere (cable news networks, websites, etc), the stations are finding themselves in a world or trouble. Will TV news ever completely dissolve? No. But is it already decreasing in relevance and importance to the new generations? Absolutely.
  • Wow..as a Communication graduate student no. 23 is interesting. Some version of print journalism will undoubtedly need to be taught (magazines may b here forever) but the focus of these courses will be different going forward I believe. Good journalists learn how to take the who, what, where, when and why questions and translate it for the readers. In a world of quick info. and with a news model that's online however, other writing skills may need to be honed. A full degree in Print Journalism may become obsolete though as univ. realize the need for convergence of traditional journalism departments with multimedia. Hopefully when I get done with my finals on Thursday I can get back to this post as these are some fascinating questions.
  • Stefanie Beekman
    I agree!! I believe that it is important to keep this "old fashioned media" alive. You must remember that people still read magazines, as well as newspapers. "Print" does not only apply to newspapers. Magazines are still in high demand and many students interested in print are interested in working at a magazine company. I have not heard anything about declining magazine readers. If, at the very least, print journalism classes should continue to be offered. After all, the base of journalism started from print. For example: I am a JOURNALISM major, with a CONCENTRATION in broadcast. The root of my major is essentially journalism.
  • Chelesa Lamberson
    I think the worry about newspaper companies is a serious one because our generation is so Internet and technology focused. Now, students not only can read homework assignments and newspapers online, but they can also read books online. People are even watching television on their computers now. Doing all of these actions on computers is very anti-social. In my opinion this is a negative thing for our society, it makes people require less social and people skills because they are doing more and more over the Internet and from the comfort of their own homes, or offices. I think all your questions about the possibilities as to what's going to happen if newspaper companies shut down are valid and worrisome. I hope at least some of our generation still enjoys the moments they get away from their computer, because I surely do.

    Sincerely, Chelsea
  • patrickomalley
    This is a great point, technology has certainly allowed people to get all of their social addictions filled online.
    Do you believe if we used the Internet as more of a solid source of reliable information that we would be more social and intelligent?
  • Jay Pinkert
    "Journalism" and "PR" are no longer useful categories. We should be discussing the future of content and those that produce, aggregate, distribute and promote it.

    Think Federated Media, not the Tribune Company.
  • I love this point, Jay. Thinking in terms of "content creation" and "content dissemination," etc., seems like a better reflection of publishing today.

    It'll be interesting, though, to see where "journalism" and "PR" fit into the lexicon. It's a fascinating time to be in this arena!
  • Does the decline of newspapers even matter? Could this actually be a blessing in disguise?

    Some argue that print industries should be protected but we didn't protect cassette tapes when CD's came in, and how many stamped their feet when typewriters were replaced by computers? So why should we do the same for print? The public want to move with the times and use the most advanced technologies to improve communication. Let them have it. Even my 78-year-old granny uses the web for news content!

    What has been the biggest disappointment is that journalists have been keen to learn about podcasting, video production, blogging and writing for the web - we want our stories to be read and consumed by as many people as possible - so why wouldn't we want to learn? The problem came when managers were too slow to respond to the demand of the reader. They couldn't or wouldn't invest in the training of staff or new software to improve their online platforms. their marketing strategies and sales teams were too slow off the mark, and before they knew it the big bad wolf was at the door huffing and puffing, ready to blow the house down. Sadly, many newspaper managers have put their stakeholders first with little regard for anyone else. It's been a slow and painful demise but as the question itself suggests, there is a silver lining.

    The move to online should be exciting but the industry is still dipping its toes in the water, and it's cold in there!! Few print newspapers are making great money from the web and that's the big headache. Yes, online could be a blessing in disguise, but only when someone figures out the best business model to achieve revenue, plus, readers have to ask themselves if they'd be prepared to pay for online content?
  • I'm the CEO of a software company, and there's a critical business statement to be made about the web, blogs, twitter, etc: these communications are an order of magnitude more *cost effective* as business communication vehicles than traditional PR and media. And as a result, traditional PR MUST evolve in order to survive.

    2 years ago, I decided to blog. It was an experiment, and I was skeptical, because in my eyes, most blogs suck. But I figured if I kept my writing balanced, interesting, and, at times, funny, that people might read. Wow, did they ever! The blog attracted 60,000 unique visitors in the first year. My employees read it. I was able to respond to news events in real-time. My customers read it. My prospects read it. OK, a downside is that my competitors can read it, too - but that can be kind of exciting!

    Over time, the blog became more effective than my "traditional" PR agency. My ideas were transmitted more faithfully. It's real-time. Blogs are more efficient for reporters, who can check out my opinion in 2 minutes, rather than taking an hour coordinating and doing an interview. I reached reporters my PR firm had trouble reaching - the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Financial Times via the blog.

    But here's the punchline: the blog costs $19.95 a month (plus my time and effort.) The PR agency costs $10,000 a month. A year later, I fired my agency. Don't get me wrong, I still think traditional PR still has a place. But for me, blogging is more effective than an traditional PR and free - a no-brainer of a business decision.

    Which leads me to question #24... how can PR firms evolve and remain relevant in 5 years? I think there's a great opportunity for PR firms to dive head-first into the online world and provide tremendous value. The industry today is littered with old-school "my job is to have a relationship with the journos." That approach is dead to me. A new guerilla approach is needed that attacks the online social network. A new PR approach would help me monitor the news and help me react to it in real-time, tap into other industry experts and get them injected to my content, suggest interesting and creative things to twitter, help me create interesting content like surveys and creative web-oriented writing (which is much different than writing for print!). All these services far eclipse the traditional value proposition of a PR firm which boils down to "I'm buddies with the writers and talk to them daily." Big deal - tell them to read my blog posts and tweets and get to work!

    But it all comes back to the content. By my count, 1/2 of your questions boil down to one simple principle: Content is King. People don't prefer newspapers because they like the "feel of paper" (question #2); they like newspapers because the content is good. Traditional journalism will survive because the content is good! The reason lots of blogs suck is a lot of the content is not good. And so on.

    - Mark Palmer
    CEO, StreamBase Systems
    http://streambase.typepad.com
  • WillReinier
    re: 9
    I think that people would engage a more socialist approach to journalism, and to some effect we are seeing that now with a comment section online such as this one. Here is the problem: If we all make the effort to engage, it can and will become too overwhelming for the journalists to keep up. If 30 people are asking questions about an article, it will become so time consuming that eventually, writers wouldn't be able to write new stories and would have to reply over and over and over. So while this would seem like a great idea, I think it would be bad in the long run. The journalists responsibility is to provide content and allow the readers to debate the content.

    @reinier44
  • Nicola Gibb
    Short and sweet opinions!

    1+2) Some newspapers will fold and it will be the ones who don't keep up to date. But in my opinion they won't disappear completely. Nothing compares to the relaxation of sitting down with a paper and relaxing. For me, and I believe a lot of people, computers mean work; if I want to read to relax, I won't read online.

    7) The blogosphere contains the opinions of many, a newspaper is the aggregator of many opinions. Journalism that is truly discursive and balanced will always have a place.
  • carolineausterman
    I agree with you. I think that people will always enjoy reading newspapers and they will not all die out. I know that I would much rather read a newspaper than read the news online- it's relaxing.
  • Elidet
    1. Plenty of people say newspapers will never die because people love the feel of newsprint. So if touch is so powerful, why are newspapers closing?

    The news paper industry is dying because none of them really ever believed in marketing and advertising.

    Most newspapers will tell you that they have to cut costs, content and staff because ad revenue is down. That is the first mistake.

    If my car has a flat tire, I should fix the flat tire In this sense, the newspaper industry is fixing the windshield wipers.

    If ad revenue is DOWN, the thing to do is bring ad revenue UP. I work in advertising and my motto is:

    "It's easy to sell ice cream when it's hot, marketing means I found a way to sell it when it's snowing."

    I have a publication myself, and the thing to do is make sure my advertisers are being taken care of. I help design their marketing campaign and ad concepts to make sure it's the most effective it can be.

    The second way to fix the newspaper industry is to make sure their online content complements the print content.

    Instead of having the same stories, the print content should focus more on investigative stories, while focusing more on "breaking" or "new" stories online.

    Instead of cutting staff writers, they should take advantage of their journalists.

    In this sense, this is why I also believe Huffington Post will be successful, because they figured out the journalism part already.

    For the record, newspapers were supposed to die when radio and then television were invented. It didn't, all it did was change formats. Time for more change.

    @elidet
  • brenna_sowder
    I was inspired to comment on #10 - I would say emphatically that objectivity is NOT outdated. On the contrary - I think we need it now more than ever! With such a flood of information out there, the process for separating rigorously researched fact from lazy half-truths needs to be number one on any reporter/editor/blogger's priority list. I must point out that there is a significant difference between adding drama and spin to news for wow factor and the "subjectivity" provided by insightful analysisof well-researched fact (i.e. The Economist). Without a doubt, there is a way to add human elements and responsiveness without sacrificing objectivity. Present your facts and analysis with equal transparency. Anyway, one more opinion to add to the mix. Love these questionst! Look forward to seeing some of them on future journchats!
  • Sara_Fogel
    I agree with Brenna_Sowder that objectivity and transparency should take an overwhelming priority in the newsroom - however, I don't think that the question to #10 was really answered. My opinion is that YES, objectivity seems to become more and more outdated as time progresses. Online media is providing a technological world in which any person, news-related or not, can disseminate 'information' to the masses - making things like objectivity go out the window. Nowadays it has become more and more important to not only tell the story, but to be HEARD. Television programs such as the O'Reilly Factor address news-related topics, however Bill O'Reilly spends the entire show ranting and raving about his opinions on those topics rather than remaining neutral. No one is Switzerland - and although I believe that the news should remain as objective and fact-based as possible, it seems more and more inevitable that pure and total objectivity will soon be a thing of the past.
  • brenna_sowder
    Sara, I think that we agree, but have responded in different ways. You to seem to be responding to the question from the perspective of people that are producing "news" believing that objectivity is outdated, and I responded with the opinion that objectivity is NOT outdated -- or rather should not be -- and remains an essential component of quality news. In practice, those many news media outlets seem to be making objectivity a lesser priority. But who is responsible for saying whether objectivity is outdated or not? Do we, the consumers, no longer demand that of our news sources and prefer drama and entertainment value? It is more and more the responsibility the consumer to find news sources that approach objectivity. By the way, I think that there never was "pure and total objectivity" in a news source, but at least it seems many outlets used to try a little harder.
  • My answer to #17 - Given declining readerships, shrinking content and dwindling staffs, which is more important for PR: Pitching to traditional journalists or pitching to bloggers? Why?

    We have no say here. We just need to recognize how news is moving and who is moving it. Don't focus on where they work or who they write for. Find the influencers wherever they are. A handful of key relationships for you and on behalf of your clients should create the credible exposure that makes a difference. Don't worry about what's traditional or not. Do the right research up front, and you will find the answer.
  • Leah
    YES, fire the building, not the employees! It works.

    A few unsubstantiated theories:

    - Social media already has taken over. People are happy with this for now, but may miss journalism once they realize that there are no standards; no one to trust. (Did we trust journalism? At least we sort of knew which was conservative, liberal, etc.) The pendulum could swing back, but that could take a decade or more.

    - The lowest common denominator will take over. That is, those with the lowest level of understanding will force government, leaders, etc., to speak at their lowest common denominator level. Let's put this in the context of sports. If you LOVE football, and you want to talk to football fans, who can keep up with you, you won't be able to skip long tedious explanations of how football is played. The "beginner" or "distanced" fans will force you to explain from the beginning again, over and over. The nature of social media is that when people are unhappy, they rant. Rants spread, and thus misinformation spreads, and so communicators will be forced to constantly educate their publics on what is really going on. In that way, it's possible that the public will keep government even more accountable. It's also possible that government (or other communicators) will drown behind the extra workload this requires.

    In a way, we see this already. One local news show seems to get the same questions from viewers over and over again. And they address them. And a year later, the same questions come in, and repeat.

    PR has always been out there responding to lowest common denominator issues. But now it seems to be even more important, and time consuming.

    - Some say that "pay for partial subscriptions" is working. Isn't this what the Christian Science Monitor is doing? It means that online viewers can access a portion of content for free. If viewers want ALL the content, they have to become a paying subscriber.

    - The new "newspapers" may be issued by corporations that are motivated to keep misinformation or negative info from spreading. Rather than have city newspapers, for example, a food company may be forced to create something more elaborate than a newsletter or magazine. They may find that if they don't take the lead, misinformed groups will. Therefore, they may see a benefit to providing quality, journalistic-style info to the public. They'd cover industry news as well as the owner company and its products.
  • Is the blogosphere an adequate substitute for journalism?

    This is an interesting question and can be answered a number of different ways. A short answer for this would be no, not in its current state. The blogosphere is a step in the right direction in my opinion but is far from being the legacy of journalism.

    Right now blogs are just opinion pieces for a number of different individuals. There is no cohesion to the entire thing...yet. You can see that this is changing though in many ways especially in the technology focused blogs. Look at Mashable and Ars Technica in many ways they have replaced their printed brothers and are now the standard for technology journalism.

    There is also a lack of credibility and accountability for blog right now. The great thing about the New York Times and other giants of the industry are people expect them to be true. If you read something from them, many times you take it as fact. Blogs in general are the opposite. When people come to most blogs on the web they are reluctant in believing what they read.

    Also blogs in general do not have the same caliber as writers in the Washington Post have. There is something to be said about people who are trained in the art of telling a story and reporting the news. Being able to concisely give opinion and distilled information is an art form that currently most blogs cannot touch.

    BUT

    Blogs will win in some form of fashion. I whole heartily believe the industry we see today will collapse on itself. That is not saying tangible newspapers will disappear but they will not be operated in such a corporate fashion.

    As the newspaper industry crumbles all the things I have noted above will be challenged and eventually changed. Imagine the landscape by the end of the year when many senior journalist and editors will be laid off but still have need to write and report. What if these people realize that through some type of co-op of reporters they can challenge the giants of news. Imagine if you had a "blog" of both trained journalist and people in community who want to be active in telling the story of the community. We will have a resurgence of local news coverage that has been abandoned recently.

    You could have a blog that is committed to journalistic integrity and transparency. Have a news outlet that is driven by those who are passionate about the news whether they are trained professionally or have a knack for writing.

    I have no doubt that in the next decade the news industry will be turned on its head. I am not sure if blogs will replace it but I see blogs as being the father to people will eventually rely on to getting their news from day to day.
  • jacklynangel
    I definitely share views of blogs not having the credibility and accountability at this point in time. Sheilaburns also makes a great point by saying the opinions of the bloggers are at most times present in the posts. This is where the traditional form of reporting news and the newly booming blogsphere differ and traditional form defeats the blogs we know today.
  • adam_goering
    Although the fact that blogs are unreliable and cannot really be policed for accuracy is a major issue facing news consumers in the coming years, there is also another issue that I think will have to be confronted as online news sources become more and more the primary source of society's news. The fact is that with newspapers the editors and reporters collect all of the news of the day and filter it, selecting the stories they think the readers will find the most interesting and which will sell the most stories. Even online it is news sites like new york times and washington post where people find their news. Although the filter can result in some stories not being reported or arguably less important stories being over-reported (see Michael Jackson), all of the news is still consolidated and is all available at one place. I worry that this new breed of media consumer, if required to look all over the place for their news as opposed to in one or two verifiable sources, will neglect to be properly informed about the world in which they live. Therefore, the issue of reliability aside, although specialized blogs are interesting, I don't think they will ever be able to effectively take the place of more professional news sources. Hopefully we can find a way to make them financially viable.
  • sheilaburns
    It is definitely true that blogs cannot be held accountable for legitimate news. Much of the information provided through someone's blog could be true, but there is so much opinion involved in these types of personal websites, that the credibility is not that great.
    Having the opportunity to blog about personal interests, hobbies, or information is a great addition to the web for people to be able to express themselves, but I do not think it will or should ever be a substitute for journalism.
  • These are great, thought provoking questions that I think of a lot of PR people and journalists are asking themselves every day. I’d like to take a stab at number 17.

    I don’t think it makes sense to concentrate PR efforts into only one bucket – be it traditional journalists or bloggers. A comprehensive communications program will approach both audiences in distinctive ways to best serve the client or company, just as a well-built marketing program should contain advertising, PR, grassroots outreach, social media etc…Any PR or marketing pro who recommends you throw all your efforts into one tactic simply wants to take your money and isn’t considering your overall brand strategy.

    It is true that news consumption has moved significantly to the Web, giving many more people a platform for sharing thought and inciting discussion in the form of blogs. Because the Web allows for multi-way communication more so than say a newspaper, the opportunity to incite that viral, word of mouth endorsement is significant, making outreach to bloggers critical. In addition, I think a lot of people read blogs because they feel the writers are their peers and are likely to listen as they would in a group of friends.

    Does that mean traditional journalism is dead? Absolutely not. A great way to see how the two mediums complement each other is by comparing a traditional journalist’s columns to his blog – Stephen Baker, BusinessWeek writer, author of The Numerati and blogger, is a great example. I’ll read his BusinessWeek columns for in-depth analysis of technology and business, with third party perspectives, case studies and multiple examples. I’ll read his blog to get shorter, more frank conversation starters on things he observes – and gets me a little deeper into his head. I also follow him on Twitter to get his 140 character thoughts on just about everything. Each one is as important to me, my clients and the world of information as it is different and unique. To put more importance in one simply isn’t strategic.
  • I'd take the one you pinged me on ("good pitch trumps relationship") but you know my answer.

    I'll take #7 ans imply say- Blog is a great content distribution tool, but the answer is no if they can;t make it pay
blog comments powered by Disqus