Search This Blog

Friday, May 29, 2009

Bail Out the Press?

As newspapers drop like flies all across the United States, I can't help but wonder why I majored in print journalism at the University of Maryland.

What was I thinking? Didn't I realize that the Internet would dig the grave of the newspaper? This is what many of my professors said, especially during the last couple of years at the college (I graduated in May 2008). The answer was to be flexible and multifaceted. We were told that we would have to understand online journalism as well as print journalism if we were to make it in the field.

I have long been a fan of the Internet, so much so that you will hardly ever catch me reading a clunky old newspaper. People say the newspaper is more intimate and versatile; I say it's too thick, too messy, and too confusing for someone who wants to browse the headlines quickly and pick and choose what's worth my time. I don't like to jump pages or see ads or get newsprint on my fingers. It's a matter of style; I would rather read the online versions of those newspapers or choose from the wide array of current events coverage that only the Internet can offer.

However, I understand the importance of print newspapers, which function both as the foundation of most of the accurate, detailed day-to-day reporting in the United States and as the tool of the less technologically equipped. I do not want to see their total demise.

What I would like to see is a change - a revolution even. I approve of many solutions put forward by Free Press, whose website provides an essential body of information that explains what has gone wrong with our press and how to make it right. The fundamentals are pretty clear: We need to diversify and decentralize our media in order to foster balanced and local coverage of important events affecting all sectors of society. We need to end the for-profit model of news and seek to provide news coverage just as our society provides police officers and fire fighters (a public service, if you will). This does not imply government control - only government support - and as much as people fear anything resembling a "government-owned media," I would offer that the government has always provided some financial or other support to media, whether it be better postage rates for magazines or public broadcasting licenses. We need not fear any government involvement.

The point is that the people control the media. We don't allow the media to control us. I will add on to this entry later.

No comments: