Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Joseph Epstein ~ Are Newspapers Doomed?

from CommentaryMagazine.com

Everyone agrees that print newspapers are in trouble today, and almost everyone agrees on the reasons. Foremost among them is the vast improvement in the technology of delivering information, which has combined in lethal ways with a serious change in the national temperament.

The technological change has to do with the increase in the number of television cable channels and the astonishing amount of news floating around in cyberspace. As Richard A. Posner has written, “The public’s consumption of news and opinion used to be like sucking on a straw; now it’s like being sprayed by a fire hose.”

The temperamental change has to do with the national attention span. The critic Walter Benjamin said, as long ago as the 1930’s, that the chief emotion generated by reading the newspapers is impatience. His remark is all the more pertinent today, when the very definition of what constitutes important information is up for grabs. More and more, in a shift that cuts across age, social class, and even educational lines, important information means information that matters to me, now.

And this is where the two changes intersect. Not only are we acquiring our information from new places but we are taking it pretty much on our own terms. The magazine Wired recently defined the word “egocasting” as “the consumption of on-demand music, movies, television, and other media that cater to individual and not mass-market tastes.” The news, too, is now getting to be on-demand.

Instead of beginning their day with coffee and the newspaper, there to read what editors have selected for their enlightenment, people, and young people in particular, wait for a free moment to go online. No longer need they wade through thickets of stories and features of no interest to them, and least of all need they do so on the websites of newspapers, where the owners are hoping to regain the readers lost to print. Instead, they go to more specialized purveyors of information, including instant-messaging providers, targeted news sites, blogs, and online “zines.”

Much cogitation has been devoted to the question of young people’s lack of interest in traditional news. According to one theory, which is by now an entrenched cliché, the young, having grown up with television and computers as their constant companions, are “visual-minded,” and hence averse to print. Another theory holds that young people do not feel themselves implicated in the larger world; for them, news of that world isn’t where the action is. A more flattering corollary of this is that grown-up journalism strikes the young as hopelessly out of date. All that solemn good-guy/bad-guy reporting, the taking seriously of opéra-bouffe characters like Jesse Jackson or Al Gore or Tom DeLay, the false complexity of “in-depth” television reporting à la 60 Minutes—this, for them, is so much hot air. They prefer to watch Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show on the Comedy Central cable channel, where traditional news is mocked and pilloried as obvious nonsense.

Whatever the validity of this theorizing, it is also beside the point. For as the grim statistics confirm, the young are hardly alone in turning away from newspapers. Nor are they alone responsible for the dizzying growth of the so-called blogosphere, said to be increasing by 70,000 sites a day (according to the search portal technorati.com). In the first half of this year alone, the number of new blogs grew from 7.8 to 14.2 million. And if the numbers are dizzying, the sheer amount of information floating around is enough to give a person a serious case of Newsheimers.

Astonishing results are reported when news is passed from one blog to another: scores if not hundreds of thousands of hits, and, on sites that post readers’ reactions, responses that can often be more impressive in research and reasoning than anything likely to turn up in print. Newspaper journalists themselves often get their stories from blogs, and bloggers have been extremely useful in verifying or refuting the erroneous reportage of mainstream journalists. The only place to get a reasonably straight account of news about Israel and the Palestinians, according to Stephanie Gutmann, author of The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Struggle for Media Supremacy, is in the blogosphere.

The trouble with blogs and Internet news sites, it has been said, is that they merely reinforce the reader’s already established interests and views, thereby contributing to our much-lamented national polarization of opinion. A newspaper, by contrast, at least compels one to acknowledge the existence of other subjects and issues, and reading it can alert one to affecting or important matters that one would never encounter if left to one’s own devices, and in particular to that primary device of our day, the computer. Whether or not that is so, the argument has already been won, and not by the papers.

Joseph Epstein

More here

2 comments:

Jack P Toerson said...

This is a great article.

I can see why he didn't use it, but at several points I felt as if he was going to say generation-gap. That the current newspapers aren't taken up by youth (in the JSP sense) is an indication of the generation-gap (or more accurately philosophical-gap) between those running the newspapers and those reading them. Changing with the times never hindered the Manchester Guardian (at least the first time round).

In one of Private Eye's number-crunching columns last-year they had the number of column inches dedicated to The Rolling Stones correlated to the average age of editors. Which is sad, because I'm pretty sure age isn't a factor, just that there is a certain type of person at a particular age, that happen to edit newspapers.

I don't see how their outlook is relevant to the majority of readers. When they do cover any of the down-with-the-kids hip stuff they come across as hip social-science teachers that have read the NME, and use it as their bellwether.

aguy said...

Technology is isolating the individual. 1st we all went to the music hall or cinema together, then we stayed home and watched TV with the family. The studios added canned laughter to give the illusion of being amongst a large ,warm audience, then there was a telly in every bedroom and we watched alone, eating TV dinners. then there was internet and we chose what we wanted to watch. Then the internet was brought to the cellullar so that we could deny the existence of other people on train to work. These processes sell more eqquipment, which is good for the corporations, and theearphones and the video-spectacles will block out the sighing of the under-poor. Yes Jack P, a generation gap, we buy the devices for our kids so that they'll become egocentric droids with psycopathic tendancies.
So it goes, As Vonnegut used to say
By the way ,Ionesco, i like ure blog , because its high minded and makes one think.
dafka109.blogspot.com