Thursday, January 13, 2011
When News Ceases to be New(s)
What is it exactly that gives news its appeal? That leads us to have an interest and a desire to know? In an article by John Gehl and Suzanne Douglas, they state that "News is surprise", and go on to state that there is a steady decline in this "surprise" as the world becomes more and more connected through all the mediums of communication. Could the fact that the world is so connected today though, lead to the decline of major news outlets? The surprise is gone, surely without that element of surprise, they will inevitably disappear or at least shrink in size. I can safely say that I never get all of my news in a day solely from major media outlets. Instead, I hear about something happening from an acquaintance. Or, I might see mention of some major happening on facebook, which ultimately leads me to read about that happening on cnn or foxnews, or some other site. Where 100 years ago newspapers were the first source for people to learn about an event, now these sources have adapted the model of reporting the news rather than simply telling the news. Because they are not what they used to be, they have adapted to a changing, connected world and will not be going anywhere anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As ignorant as I may sound for saying this, I think that we tend to carry exaggerated assumptions about the way things worked in the past. Perhaps some of us envision a yesteryear during which our forebears eagerly awaited their newspapers, their telegrams, or whatever - all of which were filled with compelling, significant information. Yet I suspect that our ancestors cared little more about the "news" than we do. In fact, laypeople have probably never cared much about anything beyond their noses for all of time.
ReplyDeleteIf we are going to make a case against the Internet for castrating the enthusiasm of humanity, we frankly need to look at something besides this hyped-up "news phenomenon."
@Greg
ReplyDeleteI can only speak for myself when I say that I am sincerely interested in the news of the world, but when looking at the numbers, it's hard to make an assumption that people just are not interested in the news anymore. The newspapers of the early 1900's only increased in circulation throughout the entire century, and only recently have begun to decline as a result of the internet. If people just did not care about the news, I just don't understand how newspapers would have prospered as they did.
I don't believe anybody is accusing the internet of "castrating the enthusiasm of humanity". At least I'm not. Sounds harsh. Rather, it is simply changing our expectations of what we believe the news outlets should be doing, reporting the news, rather than telling the news.
Yeah, I admit I kind of put words in your mouth on this one. I have a bad habit of modulating others' remarks to give myself a good rhetorical platform.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm not the best person to offer comment on this particular issue. After all, I am somewhat apathetic (staying informed about business and politics feels more like a duty to my sense of self-worth than an actually interesting activity.)
But then again, maybe I would have liked the news a lot more in the 1900's. I heard in school that the 'papes used to be a lot more interesting and yellow.