There is a lot of death talk around journalism lately. A case in point that stuck in our craw was Michael Hirschorn’s recent Atlantic piece about The New York Times: the Gray Lady might expire, he predicted, by May. We doubt it. But more alarming, to us and others, was the article’s casual understatement of the meaning of such a loss if it occurred, as well as the wider loss of newspaper ability and ambition across the country, which is indeed occurring, and fast. “The collapse of daily print journalism will mean many things,” Hirschorn writes. “And it will seriously damage the press’s ability to serve as a bulwark of democracy.” Tim McGuire, of the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State, had this reaction in his blog: “Ya think?”
McGuire continued, “Hirschorn tossed off in one dismissive sentence the most crucial potential developments for journalism and democracy since the First Amendment.” He’s not that far off. As the historian Paul Starr pointed out in the March 4 New Republic, to lose newspapers is to change our political system, and not for the better.
Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.
Heh, Pulitzer, inventor of yellow journalism.
Posted by Shii on Thu 26 Mar 2009 at 05:13 PM
Hi I just scanned the HYTimes article on the new senator and tobacco. If she had been in the pocket of Big Tobacco as was implied, the Democrats in NY and other large populated states that count on the fees from the court cases would have been all over her or she would have said no, thanks and stayed in the state senate. There are times when the editors, writers and then the readers need to stop and think--is this really as true or as Horrible as the article implies??? The earlier one on unemployment last fall was an exaggeration then also. He did back off some later(I don't remember the title, author or date). The one more should have paid attention to in March,2007 was the description of the securities and how they were cut up, mixed up and no record of the mortgager,mortgagee, amount, date etc was kept since the amounts were too small for $100million risk-free securities It was the weekend before Easter Sunday. The lack of recording should have sounded Bells, whistles and horns all over DC and the business communities but not a letter was published afterwards, let alone government action. The Democrats had been in for 3 months which is small but still the Republicans took advantagr of them because the D's did nor said NOTHING. Just like the Repulicans said nothing for 10 years about Bernie Madoff. Keep reminding them and the others--for our sake if not theirs. Have a good wekend.
Posted by Patricia Wilson on Fri 27 Mar 2009 at 06:48 PM
I just posted your article on my Facebook in hopes my friends will take action. Why are people so engaged in social networks, twitter and other internet twerps? I have no idea what is missing in their lives but I know if a reliable press is not doing what newspapers have done well for so many years I believe we will really be in a complete state of collapse . Recovering sanity and sensibility may be impossible. Yes, I did employ a social network to ask people to take action but my news of value does not come from that source. Yes, it is through the internet that I am communicating with you, the editors and other people with similar concerns. I value this connection and will drop an envelope with my small contribution in the mail in the morning. Maybe I have lived too long but the paper I hold in my hand, scan, choose and read accordingly I do not believe can be completely replaced by digital communications. Your article sits before me printed on paper. Good luck to all of us that we can find a suitable means to continue journalism's local, state, national and international leadership in providing credible information, perspectives and opinions for living effectively in today's and tomorrow's world.
Posted by MaryElizabeth McIlvane on Fri 27 Mar 2009 at 11:26 PM
Shafer disagrees
Posted by Judd Bates on Sat 28 Mar 2009 at 06:26 PM
What's going to happen to the comics and editorial cartoons? They keep folks laughing and thinking. They are a unique form of American literature. Has anyone thought about that?
Posted by Mark Soifer on Sun 29 Mar 2009 at 04:36 PM
I'd be more confident in your optimism about the transition from paper to digital if it weren't for the non-existent link to an article "on page 8".
If that's an article you're only showing to your subscribers, great, but tell us that. "On page 8" is just careless.
Posted by ryanwc on Mon 6 Apr 2009 at 03:56 PM
I'm willing to kick in a little change, but first you have to tell me what you are going to do with it. What's your plan, Mr. Editors?
Posted by Tom on Mon 6 Apr 2009 at 05:42 PM
Yes, digital technology has changed the business model for print media. There is also no question that the recession is fueling failure of once-powerful print media.
Additionally, a growing percentage of our younger citizens does little or no recreational reading. We are increasingly an aliterate society. This is obviously not a good trend for journalists.
Sadly, most professional journalists are blind to another trend. Journalists are increasingly seen as editorial writers or even "shills" for particular agendas, not "reporters."
For a number of Americans, the trust in the profession of "journalist" is gone and, as result, they are not paying for your services.
NEWSWEEK lost the trust of part of the general public and now sells opinion. That is a business, but it is not journalism.
I believe that there are only a limited number of idealogues of any stripe who feel in necessary to get regular re-enforcement. It is boring after a while except to the most die-hard people. The audiences for "opinion" media will always be very limited compared to the overall population.
Posted by Susan on Tue 7 Apr 2009 at 04:50 PM