Dominick
Oct 19th 2008, 10:07 PM
Recuperated thread:
This is an editorial opinion piece from Jack Shafer at Slate, but I think it is a darn good one!
Not that long ago, the daily newspaper was an indispensable coiner of social currency, and it gave its readers piles of the stuff in each edition. The phrase, which comes from sociology, is often used to describe the information we acquire and then trade—or give away—to start, maintain, and nurture relationships with our fellow humans.
Read More (http://www.slate.com/id/2196485/)
This seems so true. Newspapers just seem so 20th century now - a relic of the past. Pity, but time goes on. Swift moving electronic media rules our modern day, no more time for reading newspapers when we are all hunched over computer keyboards!
Well I actually spend quite a bit of time reading newspapers online. I check The New York Times every day but they do not have delivery service where I live and even if they did I might not actually pay to have it every day. I think that if newspapers really build their reputation and focus on their websites then they should be fine I think. As far as newspapers not offering information for social currency I think it is just that people think of television news as being more efficient and less work even though the quality is far lower.
Here's an article that was inspired by the article cited in the OP.
That Newspapers are the Central Banks of Social Currency (http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/2008.08.17/331.html)
An excerpt:
Newspapers have lost their once-dominant position in the provision of “social currency.” The big city dailies no longer supply, exclusively, or even mainly, the tidbits of information that we exchange with one other in the course of daily life – from news of whatever movie won the weekend box-office sweepstakes to sports scores and weather forecasts to “Did you see what so-and-so said/did?” Much the greater part of that information now is distributed and, in many cases, originated by social networks, television and radio broadcasts, websites, blogs, and all the other media, old and new, that compete for time and attention. That’s what’s eroding the critical readership base of newspapers and sending into a tailspin their claim on advertising revenues and their share prices.
I find it interesting that these two analysts both see newspapers as able to survive as major players in the cultural marketplace.
As purveyors of 'social currency' the decline in newspapers does seem to correspond with a decline in social civility and social unity.
For local news the newspaper is good. But I stopped subscribing because most of the paper went straight from the doorstep to the recycle bag. Every day. I was recycling but the newspaper itself is not fully made from recycled materials.
I would read the hockey news, a bit of local news, and that was it. I totally skipped over the world news because i had already read the articles on the web - the day before no less, and from way more diverse sources.
One of the major reasons for the decline of newspapers is the combined result of two working spouses and the web. Most houses do not have a stay at home spouse, so nobody is at home to enjoy the paper. And by the time they do get home, they have already perused the web for the daily news.
I do agree that the decline of newspapers has a negative effect on civics. Local news is not as important as it once was. International news is far more entertaining. I usually know far more about what is going on far far away from me than i know what is going on right around me.
Andrew
I see three causes of the decline in the need or want for newspapers & also magazines:
The internet is just too convenient and we're able to interact with the media and post comments much easier than writing a letter, not even knowing if it will be published or not.
Today's society has become more green conscious.
Clutter! We seem to have more stuff and less places to put it.
I see three causes of the decline in the need or want for newspapers & also magazines:
The internet is just too convenient and we're able to interact with the media and post comments much easier than writing a letter, not even knowing if it will be published or not.
Today's society has become more green conscious.
Clutter! We seem to have more stuff and less places to put it.
Not to mention most major newspapers put their content online for free. Sure there are online ads but then again there are ads in the print papers so it's not really any different.
Not to mention most major newspapers put their content online for free. Sure there are online ads but then again there are ads in the print papers so it's not really any different.Oh yeah, I left off cost!
I see three causes of the decline in the need or want for newspapers & also magazines:
The internet is just too convenient and we're able to interact with the media and post comments much easier than writing a letter, not even knowing if it will be published or not.
Today's society has become more green conscious.
Clutter! We seem to have more stuff and less places to put it.
Yes, I agree that it is the internet that is killing newspapers. News and entertainment on the net tends to be 'free' and more easily available - and instant.
Who wants to write a letter to the editor and wait a week to see it in print when one can post your comments about it on the net right now?
And yes, the big pile of stacked up newspapers 'for the garbage' is why I don't buy newspapers - it just seems so incredibly wasteful. (yes, it gets recycled, but still, electrons recycle much cheaper and easier)
Yes, I agree that it is the internet that is killing newspapers. News and entertainment on the net tends to be 'free' and more easily available - and instant.
Who wants to write a letter to the editor and wait a week to see it in print when one can post your comments about it on the net right now?
And yes, the big pile of stacked up newspapers 'for the garbage' is why I don't buy newspapers - it just seems so incredibly wasteful. (yes, it gets recycled, but still, electrons recycle much cheaper and easier)
When I was in college I had a class that required me to have a subscription to The Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately I had the smallest mail box you could imagine so if I didn't make sure I checked it every day I would have a horrible cluster fuck in it and would almost be unable to pull any of it out.
Yes, I agree that it is the internet that is killing newspapers. News and entertainment on the net tends to be 'free' and more easily available - and instant.
Who wants to write a letter to the editor and wait a week to see it in print when one can post your comments about it on the net right now?
And yes, the big pile of stacked up newspapers 'for the garbage' is why I don't buy newspapers - it just seems so incredibly wasteful. (yes, it gets recycled, but still, electrons recycle much cheaper and easier)
I subscribe to the local newspaper primarily because it's not online, but also because I save the newsprint portion (not the advertising slicks) for fire starting.
This is an editorial opinion piece from Jack Shafer at Slate, but I think it is a darn good one!
Not that long ago, the daily newspaper was an indispensable coiner of social currency, and it gave its readers piles of the stuff in each edition. The phrase, which comes from sociology, is often used to describe the information we acquire and then trade—or give away—to start, maintain, and nurture relationships with our fellow humans.
Read More (http://www.slate.com/id/2196485/)
This seems so true. Newspapers just seem so 20th century now - a relic of the past. Pity, but time goes on. Swift moving electronic media rules our modern day, no more time for reading newspapers when we are all hunched over computer keyboards!
Well I actually spend quite a bit of time reading newspapers online. I check The New York Times every day but they do not have delivery service where I live and even if they did I might not actually pay to have it every day. I think that if newspapers really build their reputation and focus on their websites then they should be fine I think. As far as newspapers not offering information for social currency I think it is just that people think of television news as being more efficient and less work even though the quality is far lower.
Here's an article that was inspired by the article cited in the OP.
That Newspapers are the Central Banks of Social Currency (http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/2008.08.17/331.html)
An excerpt:
Newspapers have lost their once-dominant position in the provision of “social currency.” The big city dailies no longer supply, exclusively, or even mainly, the tidbits of information that we exchange with one other in the course of daily life – from news of whatever movie won the weekend box-office sweepstakes to sports scores and weather forecasts to “Did you see what so-and-so said/did?” Much the greater part of that information now is distributed and, in many cases, originated by social networks, television and radio broadcasts, websites, blogs, and all the other media, old and new, that compete for time and attention. That’s what’s eroding the critical readership base of newspapers and sending into a tailspin their claim on advertising revenues and their share prices.
I find it interesting that these two analysts both see newspapers as able to survive as major players in the cultural marketplace.
As purveyors of 'social currency' the decline in newspapers does seem to correspond with a decline in social civility and social unity.
For local news the newspaper is good. But I stopped subscribing because most of the paper went straight from the doorstep to the recycle bag. Every day. I was recycling but the newspaper itself is not fully made from recycled materials.
I would read the hockey news, a bit of local news, and that was it. I totally skipped over the world news because i had already read the articles on the web - the day before no less, and from way more diverse sources.
One of the major reasons for the decline of newspapers is the combined result of two working spouses and the web. Most houses do not have a stay at home spouse, so nobody is at home to enjoy the paper. And by the time they do get home, they have already perused the web for the daily news.
I do agree that the decline of newspapers has a negative effect on civics. Local news is not as important as it once was. International news is far more entertaining. I usually know far more about what is going on far far away from me than i know what is going on right around me.
Andrew
I see three causes of the decline in the need or want for newspapers & also magazines:
The internet is just too convenient and we're able to interact with the media and post comments much easier than writing a letter, not even knowing if it will be published or not.
Today's society has become more green conscious.
Clutter! We seem to have more stuff and less places to put it.
I see three causes of the decline in the need or want for newspapers & also magazines:
The internet is just too convenient and we're able to interact with the media and post comments much easier than writing a letter, not even knowing if it will be published or not.
Today's society has become more green conscious.
Clutter! We seem to have more stuff and less places to put it.
Not to mention most major newspapers put their content online for free. Sure there are online ads but then again there are ads in the print papers so it's not really any different.
Not to mention most major newspapers put their content online for free. Sure there are online ads but then again there are ads in the print papers so it's not really any different.Oh yeah, I left off cost!
I see three causes of the decline in the need or want for newspapers & also magazines:
The internet is just too convenient and we're able to interact with the media and post comments much easier than writing a letter, not even knowing if it will be published or not.
Today's society has become more green conscious.
Clutter! We seem to have more stuff and less places to put it.
Yes, I agree that it is the internet that is killing newspapers. News and entertainment on the net tends to be 'free' and more easily available - and instant.
Who wants to write a letter to the editor and wait a week to see it in print when one can post your comments about it on the net right now?
And yes, the big pile of stacked up newspapers 'for the garbage' is why I don't buy newspapers - it just seems so incredibly wasteful. (yes, it gets recycled, but still, electrons recycle much cheaper and easier)
Yes, I agree that it is the internet that is killing newspapers. News and entertainment on the net tends to be 'free' and more easily available - and instant.
Who wants to write a letter to the editor and wait a week to see it in print when one can post your comments about it on the net right now?
And yes, the big pile of stacked up newspapers 'for the garbage' is why I don't buy newspapers - it just seems so incredibly wasteful. (yes, it gets recycled, but still, electrons recycle much cheaper and easier)
When I was in college I had a class that required me to have a subscription to The Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately I had the smallest mail box you could imagine so if I didn't make sure I checked it every day I would have a horrible cluster fuck in it and would almost be unable to pull any of it out.
Yes, I agree that it is the internet that is killing newspapers. News and entertainment on the net tends to be 'free' and more easily available - and instant.
Who wants to write a letter to the editor and wait a week to see it in print when one can post your comments about it on the net right now?
And yes, the big pile of stacked up newspapers 'for the garbage' is why I don't buy newspapers - it just seems so incredibly wasteful. (yes, it gets recycled, but still, electrons recycle much cheaper and easier)
I subscribe to the local newspaper primarily because it's not online, but also because I save the newsprint portion (not the advertising slicks) for fire starting.