So Much for the Newspapers

The only accurate news today is on Comedy Central.

Jon Stewart is rated as the #1 newsman.

wish to disagree with you as Jon is a comedy guy. Can never be called a News man.

News man is one who delivers News as they happen. Not to make a fun of it to serve his channel

Jon is not a 'News man' if by that you mean a reporter. He is clearly a 'News man' if that category includes commentators. News 'facts' without context are not always useful. Stewart's show provides context in spades, and is targeted toward people who already know the big news stories of the day but are looking for context. I think he is one of the best in the field at doing this. That's why so many reporters and commentators watch the show, and hope maybe they can come on as a guest. I can't watch him (or Colbert) every night so I tivo it. Getting your news from the internet is pretty dicey if you don't already have a pretty wide knowledge base and well developed critical thinking skills. There is a lot of agenda driven BS out there. Make sure you get lots of your news from foreign sources. The US news biz is pretty introverted and myopic. Foreign news has its biases, but it helps you fill in the 'blind spots' in the national media. For the most part the commercial news media try to do an honest job on the stories they cover, but they are part of 'big business' and share many of the business world's biases. They are also primarily in the business of selling advertising time to large businesses. They provide attention grabbing news presented in an attention grabbing way so that you'll stick around and watch the commercials.

I don't create national statistics. it is simply a reality that more people consider Jon Stewart the number one best source of news in America. full stop.

I suggest that the style of critique (ironic humour) that he brings to news issues is what makes him so popular.

Chris

Not all newspapers are dying. Here in Panama, we have 5 major dailies (each with a slightly different editorial slant) and a couple of not so major papers, all doing well. They are competing very well with modern media. Why? Because they are providing the information that people are looking for. If you are trying to publish a newspaper and no one is reading it, the first question you should address is the appropriateness of your content for your targeted market...

...."content for your targeted market"

That's the problem and why journalism is dead. News based on a target market is not news or anything really but commercial muck or pandering.

One does not see "commercial muck or pandering" in most of the newspapers in Panama- that is reserved for the glossy magazines. What one gets in Panama newspapers is actual reporting of news, and critical analysis. Different segments of the community are looking for different news focus- one has political reporting, one has crime reporting, one has an international focus, the others have different focuses. Depending on what one's interests are, one tends to favor a particular paper. When I refer to "targeted marketing", I am referring to the consumer of news, not the consumer of products. If you want to sell newspapers, you have to ask, "What information do the readers want?"

Over the years, I have seen US newspapers focus less on real reporting, and relying more on wire services and material submitted by others (i.e., "freelance writers" that are paid by sources with vested interests)...

The reason people feel they are less informed then there were 10 years ago is because they are, due in-part to the proliferation of the 24-hour news channel.

It use to be that a news broadcast was mostly boiled down to facts due to limited time requirements with a small portion of the broadcast ear-marked for commentary.

And with newspapers being the other major news source prior to the 24-hour cycle, they also had to limit the size and scope of their reporting in order to cover everything. Again, the news paper had a dedicated section for commentary, inferring the balance of the paper was factual driven rather than opinion driven.

The opposite is true these days. I am dumbfounded by the sheer amount of commentary driven news stories. But how else are you going to fill 24-hours a day, 7 days a week?

Regardless of what the present day reporters want to call themselves… as soon as they begin to voice opinion, they are no longer reporters but rather commentators. It is high time the general public learn the difference.

I loath the fact that I have to watch CNN, FOX, NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC, and Al Jazeera just to figure out what really happened somewhere.

You want to know why people are less informed these days? It's because most people don't have the time or desire to take on a second full-time job of sifting through commentary and rhetoric to find the facts.

JavaHead

Are these non-traditional sources of news really any better than newspapers?

The question of "betterness" depends on what is being measured. Are they better in terms of the accuracy of content? I do not believe so. Are they better in terms of variety of content? Definitely. With online news sources I can now get more information about a wider variety of subjects than I was able to relying on traditional newspapers. Local web sites still give me regional items of interest, but additional sources (like CR4's news links) help keep me abreast of technological developments. RSS work gives me the chance to gather information on topics of interest to me that local and regional newspapers rarely carried.

Are they better in terms of the quality of content? No. News is still basically professional gossip whether in print, online, or broadcast. Like amateur gossip, it usually has a grain of accuracy and often has a high degree of accuracy, but the stories that are reported, the order in which they are presented, and the facets of them that are left unreported are nonetheless chosen to get strong reactions from readers or to promote an editorial agenda. But, just as we produce and consume amateur gossip around the water cooler or dinner table, we will continue to produce and consume professional gossip.

67% of the people say they are better informed today than they were ten years ago!

That we are better informed is probably true, but have we considered taking the analysis one level deeper--Better informed by whom about what? I expect it means we get to choose from a greater variety of professional gossip on the topics of most interest to us.

Imagine the evolution of "news", for example, a trading post along a trail used by early settlers and fur trappers as a central point for exchanging news by word of mouth, and the effect this had on the actual facts and accuracy. Would the owner of the trading post as an agent of the news, have influence on the facts if it where to his/her advantage (especially politically)? Has anything changed?

I subscribe to my local newspaper. That is the only source of news for the local Annapolis area. You get nothing of substance from the networks or the DC or Baltimore area news outlets (paper, radio, TV, internet etc.)

Plus, the paper is much easier to read on the throne.

Mark Twain said "that who don't read the newspapers are uninformed and those who do read the newspapers are misinformed."

The biggest problem with most of the news dispensing organizations, whether by print, audio or video, is that they have more of a desire to promote an agenda than to present historical fact. They present one-sided documentary for the purpose of influencing thought rather than presenting the facts of what actually took place and letting the "reader/watcher" come to their own conclusion. They seek to make the news rather than report the news.

This is often seen in the effort to either support or discredit a particular view of government. Partial, one-sided facts are given to elicit a response from the consumers of the "news", which isn't really news. It is propaganda.

We have to avail ourselves to a variety of sources of information and then decide on our own what is correct and not some airhead reading "copy" that was given them or off a teleprompter or what some reporter says and is usually just his interpretation of an event or person seen through his/her personal bias.

It is intersting to see that print media and the big 3 major networks are tanking because people see through their obvious slant on the news and go elsewhere for their information. And it isn't just because of the bias but it is also attributable to some technology shift where we aren't the captive audience that we once were.

Does this mean that newspapers are the only traditional source of news? What about radio and TV? TV news has been around for about 70 years and radio much longer. I think that should be long enough to establish a tradition.

I get most of my news from the Television as it is as instant as it can get with today's instant electronic access to anywhere in the world and journalists spread out so well that one of them can be most anywhere in a very short time. Interviews and pictures by cell, satellite phone or other computer methods make "See it now!" really mean "NOW". Also, live TV news is available in your home 24/7.

It used to be that newspapers gave you more "In Depth" coverage than network TV, but that is less so today than ever before. As newspaper circulation has dropped advertising, once the main income for newspapers, has also dropped causing the dailies to cut expenses and personnel, which would cut into their ability to do the coverage that they once did. That advertising money has shifted to TV and the WEB; it will follow public interest.

The result is that "couch potatoes" dedicated to following current events on TV can become extremely well informed.

With newspapers you had to wait to get the news, with television you have to wait to get the news, but you get "teasers".