Matt Bialick
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics & Society
9/20/10
Will Evolving Forms of Journalism Be an Improvement?
I think that evolving forms of journalism are a improvement. The articles in Taking Sides may be only a few years old, they are outdated. Internet sites are important because they now give you information you want. You have the choice of a specific place, or Internet sites such as AOL actually show you select News coverage. It is based upon what you’re interested in, and what you want to see. This is beneficial because you can focus on what you want to read, you don’t have to pick out a few articles from the thick Newspaper. The Newspaper can give you a broad view on a lot of issues, but with the internet, you can get a large amount of information on specific issues. Personalized News sites can give you the local News, weather and traffic. News is straight to the point, making the information you receive relative and helpful. I think that the best part of this evolving journalism is the specific content you can receive. If you go to a News website strictly for, lets say Bay Area commercial fishermen, they can find important information specific for them. Things like offshore weather or fish activity is completely irrelevant for 99% of Bay Area residents, yet most important to the fisherman. It allows people to not waste their time or money with a printed newspaper only getting a small amount of helpful information from it. It’s easier to type in what your looking for on a search engine, versus scanning the front and back of a Newspaper. David Simon feels the evolving, or evolved forms of journalism is terrible. He feels that many things have contributed to the downfall of fine journalism, but having reporters in the field, investigators, editors, and good photographers all cost money. He dislikes how the internet gives the stories away for free. He states, “And how anyone can believe that the industry can fund that kind of expense by giving its product away online to aggregations and bloggers is a source of endless fascination to me” (Taking Sides 222). In response to that, what is better than a story reported by directly from the source? I think that today’s people rather hear news direct from the source, not second or third hand from Journalists. For example, I rather see photos taken from American soldiers in Iraq, and hear how they feel, instead of a reporters most likely late taken photograph and a less gritty comment on it. Without editors and fancy camera work free and low budget news coverage gives us less polished stories. The Internet works so well today because people want first hand stories. They also want to choose how much and what they are reading, the modern reader is able to choose the specifics.
