Response_to__How_to_Save_the_News_

After reading “How To Save The News,” by James Fallows, I have mixed feelings and reactions. I can agree with certain points made within the article, and I disagree with others. I think the general public can attest to the fact that the “survival of high-quality journalism is essential to the functioning of modern democracy.” The decline of the news industry has brought about a new issue to focus future journalism and business towards. The question brought about in this article is in what direction is the news industry headed' Since no one can predict this shift, the solution to this problem is difficult to devise. Historically, newspapers made a large majority of their revenue with classified ads. Many of these ads have made the move to the internet, where the cost of placing an ad is usually not an issue. The volume of people reached with one ad increases as well. Advertising dollars come into play for the reason that these ads create a target audience and space for these advertisers. These ads were bulked into one entity with all other parts of the paper. Online ads are an option, but they aren’t as valuable as their printed counterparts, due to the volume of consumers being exposed. The disintegration of the newspaper into separate entities based on topic is known as “unbundling.” Google is known as the most powerful unbundling agent of all. The fact that Google is putting so much effort, time, and money into solving this issue makes me think that they have a financial motivator. It’s something that Google doesn’t deny, however it should raise suspicion. If Google is so concerned with having interesting content for their search engines to link to that (Google) would actually produce the aforementioned content, then who’s to say that the information will remain unbiased' I agree with the notion that news information has become quite “faddish,” meaning that very few stories get the majority of coverage. Certain stories are glamorized, whereas other stories which may be far more relevant are put on the back burner. It’s certainly obvious that the news industry needs a revamp. Something needs to be done, yet the approach to go about it is still unsure. I agree with the article stating that the smartest thing the news industry can do is experiment. I disagree with the profit way Google is going about finding a solution. The idea was that wherever people choose to spend their time receiving news information, they could be “monetized.” I don’t like the idea that where I go to find news information, I will be bombarded with advertisements. I personally hate advertisements. Another point I disagree with is the idea that the move to online will be just as good, if not better as print. I highly disagree with the idea that a computer image on a screen can hold a candle to a quality image printed on high-quality paper. To conclude this discussion, I agree with the notion that the changes seen within the news industry is seen with the new up and coming generation. Whatever direction mass news media is headed, there will be young, willing, and able journalists to offer their fresh perspectives and innovative solutions to shape a modern news media industry. I do agree that the quality of journalism must be held to a high quality of standard, and that the future of journalism should be approached assertively. However, whether or not Google has a hand it in is up to them. I do not fear for the future of journalism for a lack of information for Google to link to, I fear for the future of journalism for a lack of community awareness which could lead to community blindness to significant issues.