A recent post on one of the blogs I frequently read has me thinking. Of course, that's generally the point of blog postings. I'm just not certain that what I've been thinking about is what the blogger in question wanted me to be thinking about. By the way, this isn't a dig at the Hoopy Frood Dude. If you only read the article I linked to above, you won't get the full picture. You have to follow the link at the bottom of his article to read the whole thing on John's blog. There you'll find a bit more detail, like this…
Many factors are plaguing the Tribune Company at this time. The expected sale of the Chicago Cubs for one, has been delayed indefinitely, as the highest bidder, Mark Cuban faces insider trading charges. And just as the New York Times had seen, a steep decline in advertising due to both the "recession" and more readers going online rather than to the print pages has taken a toll.
Another thing that is frequently cited by conservative pundits and bloggers when it comes to the decline of the news media is their obvious bias. I'm not so certain that this really has that much to do with the problem though. For one thing, the “media” has been biased since the first publisher put ink to cellulose for distribution in this country (and actually even before that). For another, I honestly believe that most people that are seriously interested in the news are likely capable of recognizing and filtering out the bias that is presented.
The real problem is in the bias that prevents stories from being published. That's a lot harder to detect. It generally requires several news sources with differing biases to learn what media bias is hiding from you.
Ideologues have a completely different problem with “media” bias. Often they tend to dismiss any news sources that don't fit their own bias. Thus liberals often tend to dismiss a point when it's supported by a quote from Fox News or World Net Daily for example. And of course, just about everyone dismisses blogs as news sources, even when they are written by and for people working in major media outlets.
No, media bias is probably not the reason for the decline of print media. I think that the Internet and a general public apathy are largely responsible for that. I used to subscribe to several newspapers. I no longer do. I tend to read the news on the newspaper's Internet sites, and that doesn't cost me anything. I also end up having to dispose of less trash as a result. Newspaper adds bulk and weight to my recycle bin, and I get charged to use that thing. I might buy a newspaper when I'm looking for something to read and don't have access to the Internet other than through my cell phone (Have you tried reading the news on a 32x16 screen? It's almost as bad as watching the nightly news on television… or eating your meals through a coffee stirrer), but that's about it.
I love getting my news on the Internet. I read the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, The Seattle Times, The Daily Mail, The Wall Street Journal, and lots of other newspapers online. Most of that doesn't cost me a thing (other than bandwidth). I have to wonder how long that's going to last though. I know that most online news sources are supported by online advertising and I just about NEVER click on any of the advertisements, and I find the full-page ads that interrupt my reading to be annoying. When I click on a story I expect to read the story, not to have to click a link that says “close this ad.”
I also don't read the sections of the papers that require a paid subscription. What can I say, I'm cheap. Besides, if I can get similar stories for free through other outlets why pay for it?
And that, I think more than anything is what's contributing to the decline of news media today. If nobody wants to pay for the news, what incentive is there for the media outlets to publish it? Sure, they may want to push an agenda, but more than that, I think they want to put food on their own tables. If nobody is willing to pay for their product they're not likely to be able to afford to produce it.
I can't rejoice when another media outlet falls to the reality of declining revenues, even if so many of them are merely echoing one another or simply reproducing stock feeds from the Associated Press or Reuters. As more outlets fall, eventually getting the news will be harder and harder.
We all want something for nothing. Most of the time, we want our governments to provide it ala socialized medicine, social security, and government spending programs. Conservatives have been saying that that doesn't work for a long time. Are we perhaps seeing another example of the failure of the something for nothing mentality?
Internet geeks like to say that information should be free. It's the foundation of things like open source software and the like. The problem is everything has a cost. It will really be sad when the greatest medium for distributing news and information leads to a serious lack of news and information. The Internet is a great tool, but making it pay its way… that's the trick.
