Apocalypse Grey
ISHOP Alan tweets that the journalistic version of Judgement Day may soon be upon us: Could it be that the NY Times will close by May? The Atlantic writes,
It’s certainly plausible. Earnings reports released by the New York Times Company in October indicate that drastic measures will have to be taken over the next five months or the paper will default on some $400million in debt. With more than $1billion in debt already on the books, only $46million in cash reserves as of October, and no clear way to tap into the capital markets (the company’s debt was recently reduced to junk status), the paper’s future doesn’t look good.
Consider the implications of a world without print media the Atlantic asks, ironically, online. I’m of two minds: having news out there where the rest of the world can read it is a good thing. It reduces the import of the digital divide by providing an analogue bridge.
But, on the other hand, I know of no one who reads a newspaper any more. I may graze through one occasionally. We have the Times delivered here daily. But as for actually sitting down and paying attention to the damn thing as an actual source of information? No.
Anyone out there read Newspapers?
Tags: economy, media, nyc | Category: Epicaricacy, teh internets
Discussion: You came too late to this party
Share:
The Chicago Sun-Times shows up on my doorstep every day. Sometimes I will page through it, but it's really more akin to The National Enquirer than a real newspaper; if they fail it will be in part because of the poor quality of their own work. I mainly subscribe for the Sunday coupons — the paper is only $5 a month even with Sunday delivery, so it pays for itself!
Anyone? I read the Times. We get it delivered in paper and I get it in my email. I do scan the email first and read some articles there. Do I read the printed paper every day? No. Probably parts of it four or five times a week and page by page (choosing what to read) twice a week. I also clip articles – paper.
Donald –
One of my most enjoyable duties (when working for Mark Harris) was to read and clip the TImes daily for articles dealing with Asia, Pacific and the Middle East. Now, I read it in the email and on my RSS feed (along w/ the BBC, the CBC, the Hamilton Spectator and the Buffalo whatever it is). But I don't really have a relationship with the print form beyond grazing. I kinda miss it, to be honest, but I touch so many news sources now in the same amount of time… I don't know if I want to pass that up just to return to the Reading Ritual.
I read the Washington Post reasonably thouroughly, by which I mean I flip through the front page section, the metro section, and the style section, read the comics (the important part), the editorials (most of them) and any other articles that look interesting (maybe a dozen or so total).
I'm also unemployed and living with my parents, so I have nothing better to do.
I read the NYT 2x or 3x per week in the papery flesh, partially because crosswords are more enjoyable that way and partially because you can take it anywhere and have it available regardless of phone signal, wi-fi, etc. (yes, those places still exist). I also skim it every day via the web (and its RSS feed, its e-mailed-to-me highlights, etc.)
I think the real question is not about the method of delivery (people will always have their preferences) but about journalism in general. To wit, we acknowledge that a key factor in having a viable democracy/accountable officials/minimal corporate or other malfeasance is the role of a vigilant free press (with the usual caveats about what constitutes freedom). In other words, a critical part of free choice is that we be (at least kinda) informed (within mortal limitations) before we flip the switch.
So far, we don't seem to have a very good economic way of preserving that social function (not unlike the music industry and CDs) without putting a price on the moment of delivery for many people (or a hidden price, like advertising on TV) to cover the costs of supporting/training dedicated journalists (b/c doing a good job still takes time and/or risks). We have 'citizen journalists', who fill a niche by calling attention to issues otherwise off the collective radar screen via blogs, but only in rare cases can someone really devote that much effort to something which doesn't pay the bills. Moreover, the power of the internet to let 'everyone' speak too often means that nobody is heard; one key function of the NYT or other so-called newspapers of record is that they act (for good or for ill) as somewhat self-policing gatekeepers– if you read one of these, you have at least the minimum amount of current events knowledge necessary not to look like an ignorant fool around the figurative water cooler at work.
I still find that if I need to know more about the weather, I have to go to TV. Too often also, items on the internet are not dated, so there's no obvious way to know if they are fresh. I chafe at the lack of accurate local information (most often relegated to a weekly or monthly neighborhood newsletter)– even though the technology is always 'right around the corner' to update me on a road blockage, etc.
So– are we seeing something with the job of 'journalist' that's functionally equivalent to the job of 'pastor' within an emerging congregation? A tension between specialized knowledge/dedicated time and the inevitable need to be able to put food on your table somehow?
I've been thinking about your last paragraph for the last couple of days. It kinda strikes home in a couple of waysL: as a Blogger, I aspire to be a source of information, albeit in a niche market. And as someone in vocational discernment in an Anglican context (but emergent culture) I doubt I'll ever have a paying job as a "pastor". Instead I increasingly see "paid pastor" as a throwback to the image of a priest as the "spiritual expert" in the community instead of a community organiser – to borrow a presidential parallel.
In that light your comment paints, for me, a picture of a journalist who – back in the day – was seen as this totally impartial "voice" through which "the word of the news" was spoken. To this Reporter, especially in the "high media" (NY Times, World News Tonight, etc) we would each bow and listen intently. But now we are moving into a place where a reporter is a nice thing to have a round, but not required, I think.
Or is that how we're going? Maybe I shouldn't have drawn the parallel so closely?
I don't think all gatekeeping is bad, actually– an awful lot of my students (who are adults) don't seem to be very adept at finding some rational balance between believing everything they read on teh internets and refusing to take in anything new at all– but if we (collectively) want to have some institutional or semi-institutional news sifting experts, we should acknowledge that usefulness with some kind of viable economic reward structure.
I think the days of Walter Cronkite are over, and that's OK. As we know, news, like attention, works largely by virtue of leaving out a lot of stuff (I notice the person walking in the door right away, because I have chosen on some level to ignore the pretty pattern of dust on the light fixture) and in retrospect, we might not have made the same choices not to report events in the lives of African-Americans or poor people or Mexican immigrants etc. At its best, news blogging can provide a balance to the selective attention of the institutional gatekeepers. However– I think of Watergate, but that's hardly the only example– it takes resources in order to dig up certain things that should be dug up, and I wouldn't think we would want to abandon that social role entirely to private lawsuits and the occasional conscientious whistleblower.
Likewise, w.r.t. pastors, we have this question of whether and how to match financial support structures to the usefulness and scope of the job. In a denomination with really clear centralized polity and exclusivity claims, the answers seem fairly obvious (whether or not they're 'right'). But as we get more and more congregational, and more and more 'priesthood of the baptized' focussed on individual spiritual experience, the question of (financially) supporting whatever you take to be your religious authority becomes more and more a matter of discernment. For example, the Baptists pay their pastors, even as they profess a sola scriptura model of spiritual growth stressing a lack of professional intermediaries between the believer and Jesus. Their polity is congregational, though, because even if they don't exactly support the idea explicitly, they know on some level that there is value to community. Would we ever learn anything as teenagers or adults if it didn't challenge us on some level to go beyond what we learned as children? How do we come to acknowledge the value of those "hard" teachers and experiences?
In some ways, we can't draw the parallel (journos/pastors) totally cleanly, because on a policy and institutional level, we would need to resolve the question of church and state cleanly first, and that's a bitch (not saying nothing about female dogs, since there's one asleep in the living room right now). But both cases are instances where not everyone has enough hours in the day to self-educate themselves from scratch on questions that matter to them (Was the church in Ephesus like mine? Can the output from this power plant hurt me? Is this politician corrupt? Is my Jewish coworker headed to hell?)
So maybe we can rephrase: Does the Truth/truth need an advocate?
In the case of Truth, we often say no… God will provide in the long run. But are there more immediate needs we can meet or alleviate if we try not to be totally quietistic about it? Pastoral needs, for example? And must every priest become a barista in the meantime? ;-)