The Bleak State of the News Media

After having read the Pew Research Center's Annual Report on American Journalism, I have to agree with the article's assessment that the print and cable news industries are failing to function as the leading sources of news in America. No doubt, there is little financing to be found in print or cable advertising, and this has lead to an unimpressive, and frankly disappointing, news service.

Because the cash flow within the news industry is decreasing, print and cable news have compromised their quality and authenticity as informative and influential agencies. No wonder readers have opted to find news online, when print and broadcast journalism is so unsophisticated and trashy.

When the journalism industry recognized the deficit in advertising and funding, it should have embraced the concept of returning to basics, instead of resorting to cheap tricks to pull in a greater audience.

I find it embarrassing that a major news source such as NBC must cheapen itself to include superficial content within its programming in order to reach its audience. Certainly, the status of Mel Gibson's marriage is not comparable to a deep report into American politics and economics.

The news media should be cutting edge-- breaking boundaries and social rules in order to provide the most compelling and important information. Instead, print and cable media is a joke. Subsidizing its content with laughable material is a shame. There is so much potential within the media to question and deliberate current issues-- why doesn't the media industry capitalize on fresh and provocative ideas instead of on stale celebrity news?

Are Political Blogs the New Salons of the Twenty First Century?

During the Enlightenment and Renaissance-- the age of conversation-- men and women often congregated in salons in order to discuss politics, civility, and philosophy. Such endeavors promoted discussion and analysis, which, in some form, served as self-reflection and a polite way of checking the government.

The platform for discussing such hot topics as politics, sex, and religion has certainly changed over the past three hundred years-- salons, literary journals, protests, sit-ins, talk shows. Most recently, though, the salon has been transformed into something virtual by way of the blog.

Political blogs are becoming ever-present in American society. Like the salons of the French Renaissance, they discuss the successes, disappointments, and problems of the government and of the country.

Well, discuss might be too strong a verb. True, men and women can respond to blog posts via comments, but I would argue that blogs and comments do not make a conversation. There seems to be little back and forth, very insubstantial argument. And it is argument that brings about change and self-reflection.

Perhaps upcoming technology will advance the features of blogging to include more discussion-like opportunities. Somehow I imagine that concepts like Twitter will be integrated into blogposts so that blogs seem more like a constant conversation.

That said, though, I think the real value of blogs lies in their ideas. But men and women shouldn't have to hide behind a screen to advocate their ideas. While the Internet makes it easier to proclaim certain thoughts, if bloggers are that keen on expressing their opinions, they should step out from the computer and make their voices heard otherwise.

An advocate for conversation-- real conversation-- I fully support a return to the Age of Conversation.

Is the Church in Need of Another Reformation?

Image via Wikipedia

While reciting traditional prayers at a Good Friday service at my church last week, it struck me that things have not really changed in the Catholic Church. Although Vatican II brought about a lot of changes to the Church's practices, there is so much that has remained the same throughout its history. I'm sure that's how many expect and desire it to stay. You can't fight city hall, can you?

While the Church is reluctant to make bold changes, I am surprised, though, that the institution has not used recent media technologies to extend its thousand year old (and then some) mission of spreading the word of God. The possibility to reach a broader audience must excite some within the Church. Or so you would think.

Still, from what I've seen and from what I've experienced, the Church has not caught on. Sure, there are Masses aired on television, religious conversations on Sirius Radio, and podcasts available online-- but the Church has fallen wayside to other, more marketed concepts.

Then again, maybe that's the point. Religion has been marketed for years by missionaries and saints and martyrs, but that seems a little dated, right? Is it better for the Church to embrace its more conservative side and reject modern technology? Would it really make a big impact if the Church suddenly embraced commercialization? Would it change the meaning and intent of the Church?

Digital Immortality

Image by Leo Reynolds via Flickr

Seeking immortality is nothing new.

According to Greek myth, Tithonus was granted immortality by Zeus at the request of his wife, Eos-- but because she forgot to ask for eternal youth, Tithonus grew to be a very old, shriveled man (and maybe a cicada?).

Even in the Disney classic, Aladdin, one of the provisions that Genie puts forth is that he cannot bring people back from the dead-- "it's not a pretty."

More recently, in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named/Professor Quirrell seek immortality through unicorn blood and Nicholas Flamel's stone-- and we all know how unsuccessful they were at that.

The success rates of attaining immortality, as evident by these fine gents, is slim. Albeit a fine dream, it's pretty complicated to reverse or stop the inevitable circle of life. (Cue Lion King music.) Going back to Greek myth, the Three Fates will, at some point, cut you out of existence.

Men and women cannot fight time. However, art does not exist under the same rule.

Art is certainly a familiar tool that artists emply to escape the contrainsts of human life on Earth-- time being the most significant constraint of all. For instance, in his apostrophe Ode on a Grecian Urn, John Keats uses language to perpetuate a world of art in which human figures are “for ever warm and still to be enjoy’d, For ever panting, and for ever young."

In the poem, life is immortalized on the urn through pictures. The urn can be preserved, unlike humans, so the story of the people on the urn is similiarly preserved. In turn, the story of the people on the urn is doubly preserved in Keats' text.

Ahh, the power of words!

While traditionally this process of immortalization has been done in plays, poems, novels, treatises, and the like, online/digital writing is accomplishing the same task by cementing thoughts and stories and ideas through words. In fact, it could be said that ideas or people are more immortal online because so many more people access online material than printed material.

Although I'm not sure Keats would agree that online blogging or writing is an art form, I think he would be so proud of this perpetuation of life.

Commodification of Literature

Image via CrunchBase

Today in my Latin American Literature class, we discussed the history of the American book industry. In retrospect, we've come a long way since the very decentralized printing industry of pre-Civil War America. Without transportation or commercial presses, the printing, marketing, sale, and distribution of books was pretty non-existant.

However, after the Civil War (after the construction of the railroad and the revitalization of many American cities), the book industry was quickly centralized. The desire to unite the country through literature was apparent as books of all sorts, whether about manners, politics, or romance, found their way into the homes of American men and women.

This commodification of books was beneficial to society because it provided a more regular and faster exchange of ideas and thoughts. The better availability and accessibility of books to people of all classes and races democratized this exchange-- something previously monopolized by American genteel.

Since then, the book industry has become even more centralized. The genteel may no longer have a monopoly on ideas, but the book industry sure does. The major bookstores have completely standardized the experience of buying and reading books. Think about the last time you stepped into a Borders or Barnes and Noble. The stores are arranged in the same manner, right down to the sort-of nice furniture, the trendy coffee drinks, and the background music.

What does this mean for such companies? Profit. They have book selling down to a science; the lack of guesswork means fewer economic losses. It also means customer loyalty: shoppers enjoy the familiarity of these mega-book stores.

Theses stores certainly cater to the needs of the customer, an idea explored in Everything is Miscellaneous's discussion of Staples. But isn't this kind of shopping boring and predictable?

Sure, it's advantageous for the shopper to be able to get in and out of a busy store... but isn't there a certain appeal to "window shopping" and discovering new and great things?

Maybe this is why I like to shop at small bookstores, ones that carry special editions and rare finds. I'm not crazy though, I'm guilty of shopping at these superstores myself. After all, they are more affordable... I'm a college student, let's be real here.

Good Manners Be Damned?

Image via Wikipedia

As I get ready for Spring Break (THANK GOD), I've had to get in touch with a relative in Florida whom I'm visiting for a few days. While calling her on the phone would certainly be more personal and much more my style, I've resorteded to using the Internet as my primary means of communication. It's convenient, yes, but kind of tacky. I can send her my itinerary and plans, but when I thank her for letting me crash at her house, it doesn't really seem really heartfelt. And trust me, after the past few lousy weeks, the opportunity to be anywhere outside of College Park has made me especially thankful.

Against everything I stand for, or want to stand for, I've compromised quality for convenience-- something most people do in these modern days. Many modern technologies embrace this compromise-- and rightfully so in the busy world we live in. Such technologies as the Internet allow for immediate sharing of information, which is key, especially my last-minute attempt to make plans for vacation.

But as we embrace this convenience, we turn our backs on each other. Instead of easily interacting with each other, which the Internet is supposed to encourage, we hide behind the words we write on a computer screen. I don't suggest using the mail as a more personal means of communication-- God knows the USPS does not understand the concept of haste-- but why not embrace an older technology, the telephone.

The power of the human voice is remarkable. Inflections, pauses, and connotations reveal so much more than the emoticons on your computer. In my case, a phone call would really reveal how much I appreciate the opportunity to get out of College Park and on to the beaches of Florida.

It's a little late for me to pick up the phone now, but I think next time I will reach for my cell before heading to the computer. Besides, I can make up for my lacking manners with a personal note and some fresh flowers.

The Future of Print Media

Image by ClintJCL via Flickr

Seeing as it's past midnight, it's as good a time as any to curl up with a good book (see previous post) and head to bed. Of course, first I have to finish the requisite and perfunctory tasks: brushing teeth, washing face, and in this modern day, checking my email one last time. As I close my Gmail window, I decide to check out one more site: The New Yorker's website (as displayed so enthusiastically on the website roll to the right).

I glance at the major sections, but stop when I see an interesting blog on the state of the newspaper business. A brief article on the present and future of print media called "News You Can Lose," the New Yorker reports that the newspaper industry faces problems that are the result from a perfect storm: the combination of decreased readership and advertisements.

The demise of newspapers is nothing new, but considering the recent claim of bankruptcy by Tribune Company and the anticipated layoffs of hundreds of newspaper employees nationwide, I have to wonder what the role of the newspaper will be in the coming years.

Many men and women have already made the transition from print to online news sources, but there are still those who have held out-- whether for their favorite column or the daily crossword. So what should these traditionalists expect? My guess: an increase in cost and a decrease in selection. The most successful newspapers will probably still be relevant news sources in the future-- I'm thinking the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.

But what will be the effects of such an oligopoly? Worse quality? More bias? A select range of opinions and ideas?

Maybe the future of the industry isn't as grim as I anticipate, but I'm not holding out. Back to my book-- something that I think will last a lot longer than the dailies.