Recommended by Readers | 
Asterisk Denotes Breaking News |
Chris Fordney: Ewoks mess up the news
Related News |
One of the biggest headlines in newspaper these days is:
"The end is near for newspapers."
The problem, of course, is that young people don't read newspapers. They get their news from such Web sites as Google News, not noticing, perhaps, that many of the stories are drawn from newspapers.
Some people say we run too much bad news. But somehow I don't think people want to get up every day and see the headline: "Everything OK, don't worry."
The saddest part of all this in our region is the decline of The Washington Post, which has gutted its newsroom and gotten rid of many copy editors, considered the most expendable cohort in the newsroom.
It shows, such as when a sports column got into that paper recently with something like 20 typos, grammatical errors and misspellings, according to the paper's ombudsman.
A huge amount of institutional knowledge has gone out the door of The Post with the various buyouts and reductions, and you have to wonder if we're losing the national watchdog as a result. No media outlet has more diligently held the government's feet to the fire when necessary than this newspaper.
The only silver lining for newspapers is that small papers are doing relatively well because they focus on local news and don't face as much competition from online sources.
This isn't a new story, of course, although the slant has changed. There used to be a tsk-tsk tone to the decline-of-the-newspaper story as we lamented the loss of interest among readers who do not consider it a civic duty to read one every day.
Now the tone is: Please buy the paper and save our butts.
But you can't blame people for passing up a 40-inch newspaper takeout on the new president of the Russian republic of Ingushetia when they can instead watch the video clips, "Drunk Ewoks ruin 'Today' show," or "Suri has public meltdown."
The former is being described as the "most embarrassing Ewok-related incident since the Christmas Star Wars special" and could have used a copy editor to change "drunk" to "drunken." One television news channel also could have used a copy editor or the TV equivalent when it ran the following ticker: "Experts agree: Bin Laden is alive or dead."
This trend of visuals over print is also taking place with magazines. I've had trouble focusing on the Newsweeks that come to my mailbox ever since my daughter got a subscription to Us Magazine. Instead of wading through yet another George Will column about global cooling, I now read about celebrities who are "Just like Us!" as "Their laptops are scanned at security!" or "They take pre-natal yoga!"
Then I had to spend 15 minutes examining then-and-now close-ups of Lindsay Lohan to see how excessive partying and lack of sleep has, sadly, aged her beyond her years.
The headlines are big, the stories are short, and in some cases there isn't even a story, just a headline and a photo. This is much easier than actually reading an article.
And this is probably the wave of the future as people send in their photos and one lonely editor comes up with headlines.
But there is a drawback. The other day I came across the headline, "Firefighter fired for fighting fire with fire."
Unfortunately there was no story to read with it.
Contact Chris Fordney at cfordney@nvdaily.com
Newspapers are not declining because of the Internet. They are declining because they have an agenda and no sense of impartiality. If their newsrooms were so great and people wanted to read them, papers would be bragging about their online readership and they would be able to charge for their online editions which they can't do because no one would pay to read them there either. If the NVD charged for their online edition, I would stop reading it all together as I refuse to pay for the print edition now that my dogs are no longer puppies.
I'm inclined to agree with the Fire Eater about what's killing papers such as the New York Times, L.A. Times, The Boston Globe, and others of their ilk. The feeling one often gets reading them is they're trying to kid us. This also the reason a number of TV news channels and major news magazines are losing viewers and readership. The outlets that are doing well are those preceived to be more given to reporting both sides in a story. The Wall Street Journal and Fox News are doing quite well because of this (as much as it outrages the better people).
Up in Pittsburgh, the old, established Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is losing readership and has been passed by the Pittsburgh Tribune Review (contemptously referred to as "that little Greensburg paper" by the fast disappearing Post-Gazette). My opinion, the Trib's readership accepts the fact that the Trib's opinion is to the right, but they trust that it stays on the Opinion page and the news coverage is generally unbiased.
Me, I read four Valley newspapers (including this one) and look over the Richmond Times-Dispatch online each morning. I'll also catch the Winchester TV news broadcast online. The four Valley papers seem reasonable as does the Times-Dispatch usually (it does have its moments on occasion).
The idea wafting its way out of Washington that the Federal government should bail out those too ideological to survive only confirms some of the citizenry's opinion that these are merely outlets for one party's propaganda.
Walt Kelly, Sherwood Anderson, and Hodding Carter Jr. would sneer.
Both are contributing to the decline of newpapers. They're not as convenient as the Internet for most people and there does seem to be a political connection.
And there's the instant interaction with other readers, too. That's a huge plus for the Internet.
Leave a comment