Social Question

stanleybmanly's avatar

Will the collapse of print journalism result in unprecedented political corruption in our country?

Asked by stanleybmanly (24123points) 2 months ago
17 responses
“Great Question” (7points)

Can there be any positive benefits to the suffocation of investigative journalism?

Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0

Answers

kritiper's avatar

Oh, heck yes. What will we ever do without the comics and puzzles?

Zaku's avatar

Seems to me the decline of journalism has already had that effect, and the more it declines, the worse the corruption will tend to be. The decline had been great, but it’s not simple, and there have been some good developments in journalism, as well.

JLeslie's avatar

Yes, but what really is the biggest problem is the increased use of internet and cable news. People who used to not read the news, and who didn’t pay attention to politics in general, now are bombarded with information. Previously, these people were basically clueless altogether and disinterested in politics. Clueless might have been better than full of false and inaccurate information. That’s how I see it anyway.

kritiper's avatar

@JLeslie People may be bombarded with information, but it doesn’t mean they’re paying attention to it.

JLeslie's avatar

@kritiper A shit ton of people are paying attention to it. Look how upset so many people were/are that the information is being deleted from facebook.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I agree that news is no longer news unless it’s salacious, tawdry or sensational. THAT’s where the money is. And I suppose it’s only fitting that the demise of the newspapers should coincide with the overall decline of literacy as a goal worthy of attainment.

filmfann's avatar

Local news reporters do a lot of the heavy lifting on investigating local corruption.
Matched with network right wing media pushing conservative lies, it’s a substantial threat.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I couldn’t agree more @stanleybmanly. Sad to see.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I don’t think so. The majority of people get their news online anyway. Last time I got a newspaper it was to use for packing.

kritiper's avatar

@JLeslie But not as many as before, I’ll bet…

JLoon's avatar

Good question. Losing traditional print news reporting won’t help anyone.

But the real issue is what standards for fairness, objectivity, and fact finding will survive? Can broadcast and internet journalists recognize and purse real public interest in their reporting, or will it all degenerate into propaganda & sensationalism ?

Nothing is for sure yet.

lastexit's avatar

I agree with @Zaku that the decline of journalism has already had that effect. My parents had two newspaper subscriptions that arrived daily. They religiously read them both front to back after dinner every evening, although If I’m honest I’m pretty sure my mom didn’t read the sports section. They were aware and knowledgeable about current news abroad and at home and were able to form opinions based on factual information.

I don’t possibly see how there can be any positive benefits from the suffocation of investigative journalism.

Dutchess_III's avatar

CBS, ABC, BBC, etc. and what ever newspapers your parents subscribe to will still be available online.

flutherother's avatar

People seem more accepting of corruption and stupidity in their politicians than ever before. Being corrupt and or stupid is almost a necessary qualification in order to be popular. It isn’t the lack of investigative reporting that is the problem so much as people being unwilling to accept truths that threaten their beliefs. If you don’t like one truth then you can easily find another one on the Internet. If politician A is corrupt, it doesn’t really matter because politician B is even more corrupt. Truth has become no more than self-confidence. Whoever can tell a lie the most convincingly wins.

Dutchess_III's avatar

^^^ and those who aren’t willing to accept it feel powerless to do anything about it.

AngryWhiteMale's avatar

I think print journalism has already largely collapsed, and will continue to deteriorate over time. I have no real solutions to this.

On a national level, corruption is already present, and yes, the decline in print journalism isn’t helping. On a local level, it depends on what media is present in that particular market, and this is where the decline of newspapers and local media is the most troubling. Newspapers used to cover all kinds of goings-on: council meetings, street repairs, social events, obituaries, new and departing businesses, school board meetings, etc., etc.

As newspapers cut back on publication (my hometown newspaper, for example, now only publishes three days a week. While it does its best to offer a lot of coverage of the examples I gave above, the limited space on the days it does publish means inevitably a lot doesn’t get shared with the public.), more and more of what happens in our local area either doesn’t get coverage, or it is shared on websites where the information can be distorted, upvoted/downvoted, relegated to a lesser-seen link or page, etc., etc. The move to online news also exacerbates the divide between those with access to computers and those that don’t.

This loss of access to news tears a hole in the political and social fabric of the community, and increases the risk that only a certain number of people will be engaged in what’s happening in their own area.

It also doesn’t help that both local and regional newspapers do not invest in their national news desk, and instead rely on wire stories from AP or Reuters. This means someone who only subscribes to their hometown newspaper gets fed only a certain number of stories, news items that are restricted by a number of factors (what AP/Reuters, etc. chooses to cover; what the local papers are willing to pick from the national news feeds; and finally, space in the newspaper. I used to work in a newspaper composing department, and quite a few stories would get chopped, usually from the bottom up, to fit the available space. So what’s originally written and disseminated is not what you see at the end (this is probably one of the few advantages of the internet; the story in full can be easily published)). So that means their comprehension about any number of topics becomes restricted even further.

Add to that the increasingly smaller number of owners of newspapers, radio, TV, etc, and the monopolies these owners have been allowed to build. So while it may not be “corruption” per se, you definitely will get slanted or limited coverage in a large regional area (a market that is largely controlled by Sinclair, for example, will add additional conservative bias to a region, whether it is already conservative to begin with or merely sympathetic to such a worldview).

The era where a city had more than one newspaper, radio station, etc., and there was a real competition and incentive for strong news reporting, investigative reporting, and just generally providing as much local and regional coverage as possible is over, and we are all the poorer for it.

DanaEdwards's avatar

The government states there are many grids and that already happened in world war 2, Vietnam etc. In kept government grids they will always have virtual and paper news. Only in anarchist cells and hell cells will they not just like in world war 2 and Vietnam. Hacking is not allowed in America and eventually people altering press get blocked like in World War 2 when tons of news was made up on TV, radio and paper. Nothing new

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

Mobile | Desktop


Send Feedback   

`