SHARE THIS SHOW:

RELATED CONVERSATIONS:

RECENTLY ON TOL:

TOL Our Town

TAGS:

Black and White and Googled All Over

AIR DATE: Tuesday, January 27th 2009

POSTED BY: SARAH JANE ROTHENFLUCH

Download the mp3 for this show.

Photo credit: Scorpions and Centaurs / Flickr / Creative Commons

The times they are a-changing in the world of print journalism. In April the Christian Science Monitor will be the first national newspaper to switch from print to a web-focused format. The Oregonian is leading more people online as they stop daily distribution in Eugene-Springfield and other towns around the state. Then there's the likely demise of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the lively discussion about a post-print version of The New York Times. As all this news goes online what happens to journalism? How do consumer habits change? How much of the news do you hold in your hand and how much do you read on a screen?

GUESTS:

• Suzi Steffen: Performing and visual arts editor for the Eugene Weekly and adjunct instructor at the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication
• Susan Gage: Managing editor for online and community news content at The Oregonian
• John Yemma: Editor of The Christian Science Monitor

Tagged as: internet · journalism · media

Photo credit: Scorpions and Centaurs / Flickr / Creative Commons

The Internet is a fledging tool; it's far from mature; it's experiencing growing pains and evolving faster than our ability to comprehend the implications of its evolution. With the rise of the Internet we have more contributors, but the problem remains: there are few excellent journalists telling us what we need to know. How do we get out of the mess were in? Journalism attempts to impartially provide information we need to know based on: who, what, when, where, why, how. Why is what you're telling me important? Can I use what you're telling me to benefit? We need to educate ourselves; we need to put on our thinking caps to filter truth from fiction.

trurl9 — Mon Jan. 26th 11:02a.m.

Looks like it's working this time, so I'll retry my original comment.

I used to work for the San Francisco Examiner as a copy editor. Not a bad paper, but even then I got much of my news from I F Stone's Weekly and other journals. Now I get my global news from the Internet. I read the Oregonian for local news and the funnies (I think Cul de Sac is great). If I have to trim my budget the Oregonian will go.

I realize that the news I get from the Internet originates with other newspapers, a dozen at least. But more and more comes from organizations and websites and free-lance reporters. We don't need the corporate impramatur to report the news.

I used to write for the Portland Free Press before its founder died and it ceased publishing. It was strictly a labor of love for truth, and we published a few well-documented exposes. One of our best reporters was a former ostrich wrangler who was great at digging out stories.

cascadian — Mon Jan. 26th 9:34p.m.

(dave: there must be a size limit on this, posting a normal (for me) sized post just highlights the box in red and will not submit;  seems to be a regular problem since the upgrade, this isn't the first its killed.  also, your email bounces and there are no contact points on the page for TOL eddress.)

tpohara — Tue Jan. 27th 6a.m.

Pat,

I thought we'd fixed the size limit problem. (There shouldn't be a size limit.) I'll look into it again. My personal email is bouncing? You might try again: dmiller ((AT))) opb.org. I'm pretty sure it's working. As for the TOL address on this site, we're adding a contact page in help. It should be up in a day or so.

Thanks for bearing with us!
Dave

David Miller — Tue Jan. 27th 7:18a.m.

I get all my news online or on the air -- probably 40% on my computer, 50% on the radio, and 10% on TV

Andrew — Tue Jan. 27th 7:31a.m.

It's fascinating to read an article about this from two years ago -- an internet eternity -- by Michael Kinsley.

David Miller — Tue Jan. 27th 8:48a.m.

Thank god!  It's about time.  The Oregonian is not worth the trees that it's printed on.  I've noticed The Oregonian is getting worse and worse in the past few years and I dropped my subscription about a year ago.  Furthermore, blogs such as the Portland Mercury and others provide me with all the information that I am interested in.  Google News fills in the worldwide perspective and IMO a better source of news than the Oregonian.  The lack of journalistic excellence in the Oregonian can be recently displayed in their lack of coverage of the Downtown shooting and the mass coverage of the Sam Adams scandal and another is the front page after the Inaguration showing Sam Adams, not our new president.

jvandub — Tue Jan. 27th 9:15a.m.

In response to your negative comments about the Oregonian, I may agree they are not the best newspaper around, but they play their role well in our city. They found it more prominent to showcase a grand scaled, high interest story to our local community as opposed to the inauguration (they still covered it), because as the comment 2 above yours says, most of news coverage is accessed online. A new wave of the future as I it appears, local papers cover local things, large news sites cover the main events of the country/world.

osudisco — Wed Feb. 4th 11:22a.m.

Here's Walter Kirn's "The Autumn of the Multitaskers," which Suzi Steffen just mentioned.

And her own blog, which I just mentioned.

David Miller — Tue Jan. 27th 9:15a.m.

At every possible opportunity, I try to let The Oregonian know HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE their mail delivery option for me here in Hillsboro.   My fondest memory of my own mother back in Illinois is of her finding her favorite chair after her morning homemaking duties were complete and settling in for a long session with The Chicago Tribune.   Now, after a lifetime of newpaper addiction and even more so now that I have reached senior age myself, I continue to cherish my daily time with the Oregonian.  It keeps me in touch with the world, the state, my community, and Life itself, and is a virtual necessity for me.  Surely it is a blessed lifeline for many Seniors. 

Thanks for the appropro topic.   Love you all,      ~Joyce in Hillsboro

joycelee10 — Tue Jan. 27th 9:16a.m.

Hi, This is Dennis from Newberg. I've been a subscriber to the Oregonian for some 38 years and value it greatly. I have also watched it shrink, particularly in the past couple of years. I would like to grow again and, particularly, include more national and international news along with a more complete business section. For this I would be willing to pay more, perhaps twice or three times more. Thanks!

PS: I don't find reading on-line a particularly enjoyable experience.

PPS: Perhaps a service / price tiered system should be put into place. That is, like a Chinese menu. If you want more business, you pay more for that benefit.

I just heard the answer on the radio and I'm afraid that this correct, this is one case that paying more might not be the answer. However, I just hooked up this 22" LCD monitor yesterday and, perhaps, I'll change my mind after I fuss with it a bit. Thanks!

dfsmms — Tue Jan. 27th 9:17a.m.

What I want to know is what are people who don't have a computer or access to one (especially now in this depression) are supposed to do to get news, job ads, etc.?
Doesn't this further aggravate the growing digital(and economic) divide in this country?

betterwearahat — Tue Jan. 27th 9:18a.m.

All public libraries have free, secure, uncensored access to the internet. Now, more than ever, the actual ownership of a computer does not grant one "special" access to the web.

hoteipdx — Tue Jan. 27th 2:57p.m.

I live in Portland and only look at the front page print edition of the Oregonian to see what ridiculous picture they have on the cover and to see the news that they are not covering that is important to me.  It is always about Greg Odin, the Blazers, or something equally uninteresting to the world.  I go online to read the New York Times, BBC News, NPR, and the Huffington Post.  For my local news, I usually follow the Mercury Blog because oregonlive.com is a terrible, TERRIBLE website.

sourcedecay — Tue Jan. 27th 9:22a.m.

I've got to agree with the current speaker on the program. I find the Oregonian website unappealing in lots of ways. It's difficult to navigate. It has little visual appeal or interest. (The version I just found when I logged in is a vast improvement over the layout it's had since I moved here a few years ago.) When I visit the site, even now, however, I see little that makes me want to keep reading or to read things I wasn't already looking for. Surely, in these economic times in a city of hip, young, creative people, there have got to be some Web designers who'd love to help the Oregonian develop a Web presence that is effective.  As good as paper as the Oregonian is (I read the printed version daily), it should be leading the pack online, but it isn't right now.

KeithWalters — Tue Jan. 27th 9:26a.m.

My family shares the paper almost every morning and the kids fight over the comics.  When I see something that I think is important for the kids to see, I pass the paper over. A conversation results. I don't see how this kind of exchange can happen on-line.  My kids, 11 and 13, do not have the attention for news on-line.  The computer is a source of games rather than a reading/news format for my kids.

sarahkingery — Tue Jan. 27th 9:27a.m.

Hey Kids---------

If the Oregonian plans to begin dropping their print editions then they owe it to the public to dump Oregon Live and redesign the site from the bottom up.  The news pages look like they came from the 1900s and The Oregon Live classifieds, especially the employment ads, are the worst on the web.

Ciao------chazbo

chazbo — Tue Jan. 27th 9:27a.m.

Let's face it, the only way that the print media is going to survive is to attract more sensational news rather than newsworthy stories.  For example, they must keep alive the controversy of Mayor Adams on the front page and the followup on the murders of the two teens.  In other words, the same as the TV stations.  Notice that TV stations have stopped editorials long ago and stopped investigative reporting because people tune out.

I'd like to think that the Oregonian, and other papers like the Seattle PI, will survive because of quality.  Nope.  They'll only survive by catering to the lowest denominator--the Jerry Springers of the world.

I subscribe to the Oregonian, but I think it's a lost cause to think that quality will win the day. 

DKSand — Tue Jan. 27th 9:30a.m.

I am a member of the younger generation that supposedly gets most of their news online. I loathe the passing of the printed paper. I much prefer to get my news in the printed format. I think receiving printed paper connects me to my local community in a different way than reading an online paper does. It is also better suited for longer, more in depth stories, versus the internet which is needs short, attention grabbers to get readers.  I get the Oregonian delivered and the New York Times on Sundays.

ejs — Tue Jan. 27th 9:31a.m.

I agree with you on many of your points. There is a sense of connection I feel with the city of Portland when I read "The Portland Mercury," and "Willamette Weekly."

They cover things I want to hear about locally; from restaurants, places to go, outlandish local groups/organizations, and economic/political/environmental stuff that has great local importance and impact.

While newspapers that cover a broad base of things (the oregonian, seattle post intelligencer) may be dying, I think newspapers like "The Portland Mercury" will last on as a classic way of informing/connecting local communities.

osudisco — Wed Feb. 4th 11:28a.m.

The one thing that The oregonian and other newspapers need to consider is to make an edition readable by PDAs: iphones, cellphone etc.
Those devices are the future of the internet and are  already the majority surfing device in places like Japan.
Learn how to utilize this avenue and how to monetize it (via micro payment subscriptions possibly) and this could be an another way to reach more people and also pull in money in ways that Google and craigslist can't.

betterwearahat — Tue Jan. 27th 9:33a.m.

What we are losing in journalism is not just the paper that the news is printed on. With the cuts in the distribution of the physical paper, are more severe cuts to staff. Investigative journalism has been disappearing for years, but it seems that with the recent more aggressive online transition, papers are getting rid of more staff, and doubling work of remaining staff tossing quality journalism and journalists out the window in favor of online immediacy.

st

st — Tue Jan. 27th 9:33a.m.

If it matters to Oregonians, or was in the print edition, good luck trying to find it online with Oregonlive.com.

Oregonlive.com is horrible...The O uses Advance.net to create the site because the Newhouse Corp owns them, as well.

Not only can you not find stories, when you do find them online they have a different date than the printed date, you have to print the comments as well as the story.

When I need an article, I go online to the library and get the story via Newsbank - because the Oregonian's search engine is so bad and the short life of online stories both combine to undermine the concept of being the paper of record.

I get early each morning a list of all stories in the Statesman-Journal, but the O can't seem to do that 7 days a week -- why it can't go out on weekends escapes me.

It's not surprising that the paper is in financial trouble.

csheketoff — Tue Jan. 27th 9:34a.m.

I read online for short to-the-point collections of news.
But I do not have the patience to read on a screen, given how much of my daily routine involves screens, to read full-in-depth stories online. As newspapers like the Oregonian convert to shorter AP length news clips in their printed page, my reasons for subscribing to the newspaper diminish - I can't curl up with a longer story on my laptop the way I can with printed material.

I have, however, found myself with new interest in publications that specialize in longer in-depth reporting - sources like The Economist, The Atlantic, etc.
Daily newspapers make a mistake when they drop the longer articles in their printed page, switching instead to try to compete with news-flash aggregators online - they would be better served putting their time-sensitive basic rundowns online and leaving their longer articles in the paper.

PortlandMom — Tue Jan. 27th 9:35a.m.

The old newspaper culture that the journalism professor is celebrating is rooted in a world where information came from 1 to 3 sources (state paper, national TV news, chosen radio station). These days, I find my own narrative by mixing multiple on-line stories, radio, some TV, C-Span, news magazines, Slate, et cetera.

The top journalists that write brilliant multi-issue narrative exposes will always be needed. If we assume that the only way to get their stories is via print, we are losing their gifts. I have often tried to get Sy Hirsch's best work on-line when I wasn't able to make it to the store to pick up the New Yorker.

Most journalists, I'm sorry, are not very good at finding a narrative. Some are. The few true story-writers (like Sy Hirsch) should be allowed into the print publishing world with the same level of scrutiny that other writers (novelists, poets, essayists) enjoy.

Many Thanks,
Jeff in Oregon City

hoteipdx — Tue Jan. 27th 9:36a.m.

I am a newspaper reader and would miss my hard copy crossword to start the morning. As a rural Oregonian, I know internet connection can be slow. Fast internet is often not available and even always available dish connections have many drawbacks.

Wendy

wendy — Tue Jan. 27th 9:36a.m.

I live in Eastern Oregon and read the Oregonian daily.  Although I use the internet to check on news throughout the day, I relish the physical act of reading the paper with a cup of coffee at the end of the day.  I read the Oregonian to keep up with statewide news as we do not recieve Oregon news on our local t.v. channels.  I check for concerts, exhibits and upcoming events that I might want to see  the "big city."  

Dorcie — Tue Jan. 27th 9:38a.m.

As a departure from the specifics of the business of news:

As a cultural essayist, I agree it is the story telling. The need to hold the written word and gain knowledge.   I sat here in Portland and wrote my mother's obituary for the Dallas Morning News last week.  I used the Oregonian obit section to guide me as my thoughts ran rampant.  I emailed it to Dallas and received within minutes a bill for $634.  They charge by the line.  I cut my 'article' into a very small quip for $300.

I returned to Portland yesterday, picked up the paper and to my horror I saw the obituaries had morphed into headstones. 

Who cares?  When we lose the stories of a person's life experiences, we lose generational knowledge of the stages of life; Our knowledge of what went before us is absent and we have no recall to take us forward.

Judith in NE PDX

JudithAlef — Tue Jan. 27th 9:39a.m.

Because of the negative environmental impact and the fact that the News is out of date by often days ( in the case of the Oregonian) it is time (long past) that the entire medium dies.

It is imposable to justify the daily news print media and drive a Prius.

Desolation — Tue Jan. 27th 9:39a.m.

I have been receiving my news from online sources for more than a decade.  I haven't had a newspaper in my house for years, mainly for ecological reasons.

It just seems to me that paper is simply a delivery medium.  This conversation reminds me of the debate over analog vs. digital media in the music industry.  And to say that the decline of the print delivery method will mean the decline of investigative journalism is like saying that compact discs led to the death of good music.

Newspapers are entrenched and need to adjust their thinking.

See more at http://www.thinkgoodthoughts.com

homedad — Tue Jan. 27th 9:39a.m.

I've subscribed for 28 years and it's sad to see how the Oregonian has declined.  The changes are exactly the opposite of what I expect to see.  I'd much rather see the "Living" section (now "how we live") shrink than the news, business, auto, or sports sections. 

What I find especially frustrating about the Oregonian's web site are that it's difficult to navigate.  Also, the search capability is poor.  Entering verbatim text from a published article often produces no hits online.  To access the archives, which I have done before for research purposes, requires payment.  And I've been a subscriber for 28 years!  Subscribers should have free access to what's now paid content online.  We have supported the paper and should get something back in return for that.  Now that's a model that might sell more subscriptions. 

ideaman — Tue Jan. 27th 9:39a.m.

I am concerned about all the people who are not connected to the internet.   Not only the elderly, but the poor, or low income individuals who want access to the news.

hada — Tue Jan. 27th 9:40a.m.

We dropped our subscription to the Oregonian several years ago, for a number of reasons.  
For one, the New York Times actually offered news about the world at large.  The Oregonian just reprinted Times stories that we'd read days before.  It also covered stories (for example, the abuse scandals in the Catholic Church), that the Catholic publisher Fred Stickel suppressed.
Local news was available from alternative weeklies and community papers (most free), which often scooped the Oregonian on important stories (Goldschmidt anyone?).  
And after noting the endless scathing homophobic columns by David Reinhard, another conservative Catholic/GOP flack, we decided  -  why are we paying for a biased, unreliable, rehashed source for news?
And I agree about their website  -  it stinks.

Oregon Bill — Tue Jan. 27th 9:41a.m.

I work for new media as an editor for three websites covering niche areas of the IT world. I read Twitter for work-related content, but I also get a lot of unrelated info from the microblogging format. In addition, I read Huffington Post online (which I would be willing to pay for a subscription to read), and I get the New Yorker at home and read some online. I listen to NPR and can stream anything I want online. I'm part of the shifting demographic, and you know what -- I didn't subscribe to the Oregonian because it was too focused on Portland and had too much national news for my taste. I really like my local paper to be local -- The Register Guard doesn't even fit that bill for me (the Eugene Weekly does a better job, but has too much bias in the reporting).

ORSunshine — Tue Jan. 27th 9:43a.m.

I look at news.google.com several times a day for interesting articles and choose several to read. I also read the Oregonian every day. My husband and I are tech savvy, but we agree that oregonlive.com is one of the worst websites we use. We dread getting on it because it is almost impossible to find what you want. The pages are very busy and the search engine is frustrating. I just looked at it and cannot even find a means of personalizing the home page to, for instance, get rid of the huge sports column.

dth — Tue Jan. 27th 9:43a.m.

I like the model of 'The Economist', which is a weekly. They send you a print magazine and also have an AUDIO (MP3) version of the entire magazine. My guess is that most people would be willing to pay for such a wonderful feature. They also have a rich "members only" online section which you automatically get when you subscribe to the print version.

This allows me to listen to the magazine while driving or commuting. They also have a PDF version of the magazine and I can see a future where they might even have a PDA version of the magazine.

Prashant Shah
Portland, Oregon

sprash — Tue Jan. 27th 9:43a.m.

Because of the limited comment length... my comment continued:

I grew up on the coast and we read the News Times (Newport, OR). At the time it was twice weekly, and it had the right balance of local coverage. With the internet, these big papers need to get rid of the national news that can better be covered by TV, radio, and internet and focus on the local stories that would otherwise receive no coverage at all. IMO. ;)

ORSunshine — Tue Jan. 27th 9:44a.m.

A fine book on the history of media in the U.S. is All the News  that's Fit to Sell by Prof. James Hamilton of Duke University, and it relates to this discussion in two ways:

1.  American history has passed through many technological transitions, even in the 19th century.  All of them were disruptive but eventually resolved, with new business models and a steady demand for objective news.

2.  People will pay for news.   We don't really know, yet, how original content on the web will monetize, but it will happen sooner or later.  Someone is going to figure out how to generate original news content exclusively for the web, and make money.

ianmcd — Tue Jan. 27th 9:44a.m.

I'm an avid newspaper reader and I also check out the SF Chronicle website on a regular basis.  I also read other newspapers when out of town.  However, I find using the Oregonian's website combursome, as do members of our staff, who use it daily to search for stories from suburban Portland cities.

Bruce NW PDX

bruce — Tue Jan. 27th 9:48a.m.

Someone mentioned those not online and that is a big concern, especially for those who do not own a computer and have an ISP.

There is a class problem here in that those who are poor or homeless are exculded from the news. Going to a library with limited time on just does not work well for reading news.

Some people read the newspapers that are left at the laundramat or in the fast food places or such. Some people only buy a paper if there are/is an interesting story to read in depth.

Of course the papers need to change and make money, but what happens to class divisions?

Are we naturally growing the distance between those who have computers and those that don't?

How does this fold within a democracy?

interesting dilema.

joe-magner — Tue Jan. 27th 9:49a.m.

Do newspapers need to change their business model?  Do they need to be beholden to Wall Street?  Why not go to a privately, employee owned model so they don't have to make the profit margins dictated by share holders?

deltaforce — Tue Jan. 27th 9:52a.m.

The internet editions of newspapers do not reach everyone.
Inmates in prison do not have internet.
The daily Christian Science Monitor will be sadly missed when it is no longer be delivered to inmates.
A loss to everyone.

Mitchcan — Tue Jan. 27th 9:52a.m.

I believe that the reduced circulation of printed newspapers and transition to online versions (most significantly the Christian Science Monitor) is part of the emerging global economy. This economy will focus more on locally produced goods including news and entertainment. People worldwide are becoming more aware of the scarcity of resources and the vacuous nature of our corporate consumer capitalism driven by advertising.

I realized within a few months of starting college to study journalism in 1988 that I didn't want to work in mainstream media. My objections were rooted in the reliance of most media outlets on advertising driven by consumer culture. I worked at the college newpaper during my freshman year as well as at a local weekly newspaper. Since then I have been a staffer at a monthly newspaper and more recently I spend my time writing online.

My current daily news reads include (and these are in no particular order and not all have printed editions) Democracy Now!, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, The Nation, The Huffington Post, Slate Magazine, Z-Magazine and others. Many of these media sources have no printed editions whatsoever.

The internet allows people to filter their news and entertainment to items they are most interested in or which are created by their favorite or trusted sources. The shift to people powered media is apparent when you watch Current TV or Link TV which feature user created content from around the world. The new economy is coming, and it's people powered.

cxrfreeman — Tue Jan. 27th 9:54a.m.

I would really miss the daily Oregonian which I can read while curling up on my comfy sofa - much nicer that my computer chair.  That said, I read the NY Times on-line and really enjoy that, too.  It's easy and very informative to browse though the news.  I think we get pretty much the whole paper so investigative articles and full editorials are available.  I also like being able to follow links provided to other stories and resources, something not possible, at least conveniently, on the printed page. My fear is that newpapers are cutting newsroom staff in an effort to cut costs.  If going on-line with save those jobs, it will be worth getting a new computer chair.  It's important to keep many sources and viewpoints on a news event and not just re-publish the same wire service stories. We do need daily newspapers of one sort or another to keep an informed electorate.  While newspapers are not without bias, they are accountable and generally do at least minimal fact-checking, something I'm not sure about of internet bloggers.   I'm also not sure that increasing use of photos and sound-bites is a good thing.  In some ways we are already too reliant on visual stimulation and don't take the time to digest the words that go with the story.  Like headlines, photos can be misleading.
Dave - I like the look of the new website.  Good job!

patrold — Tue Jan. 27th 9:54a.m.

Most of the news I read is online through the websites of local news outlets and national sites such as slate.com. We do subscribe to a local paper, the Oregon City News.
I prefer to read things online for a number of reasons. First, I find the variety and quality of information more compelling as news consumer. Second, I like to interact with my news by looking through slideshows, watching short videos and clicking on related stories. Third, reading the news online eliminates the piles of newspapers on all available flat surfaces (and in our recycling bin).
We subscribe to our local paper because we've found the local outlets and oregonlive.com rarely report on what's happening in our area. I am also frequently amused (or terrified) by the police blotter. Although the editing leaves something to be desired, it is a good way to connect to our community.
I think there are many ways to receive  the "front page" honor mentioned earlier in the show. The first way is to write interesting stories. This can happen online, and, in my experience, this isn't necessarily coming from journalism school graduates. I spent a couple of years chasing my dream to become a journalist. I transferred to the University of Oregon with the intention of earning a degree in journalism, however I quickly became discouraged with the cutthroat attitude that seemed to be based more on "tradition" and a kind of J-school hazing than good writing, compelling ideas and effective pedagogy. I switched my major to English and never looked back.
There are many aspects to this topic and I thank you for entertaining the conversation. I will continue exploring the online news options as they develop!

saracoleman — Tue Jan. 27th 9:54a.m.

Seriously, does anyone miss having their telephone tethered to a chord? Do you long for the days of only three networks on TV?
Sadly, the fact is that newspapers are businesses. And for the past 10 years, while the rest of the world evolved, newspapers stood pat because they were still making money. Now that has changed, they're trying to play catch up. Good luck.

johnnieraz — Tue Jan. 27th 9:55a.m.

A couple of months ago The Oregonian raised the Sunday price in  Bend by fifty cents with the excuse of higher priced gas. From $1.75 to $2.25 all at once. It was not believable then and now that gas has fallen back down they have not lowered their price to match their excuse.

They sure lost some credibility with that move!

Tom D Ford — Tue Jan. 27th 9:56a.m.

I primarily use radio for my news source,  since I can multitask while listening.  When it comes to print vs. online I'll go for the print version every time simply because it's MUCH easier to browse.  As to the advantages of interactivity I think it's as much a distraction as a help in this age of short attention spans. 

The biggest downside to print is environmental, but recycling helps ease that guilt.

RTzFRTz — Tue Jan. 27th 9:57a.m.

My family uses both the daily Oregonian and the internet for news.  I find it easier to sit down at the computer in the wee hours and check the local TV station's web sites for weather and other local news.  I am not one to run out to get the paper in my jammies.  But I am concerned that the writing and editing process is rushed in an effort to get the online news out faster.  I notice a lot more typos in the online news stories and this bothers me.  Does online news go through the same rigorous editing and fact checking that newspaper news has done in the past?

C. Miller

cmiller — Tue Jan. 27th 9:57a.m.

I've been contemplating cancelling my newpaper delivery and joining the online readership but I am hesitant because of the perception I have that the printed paper represents our country's freedom of the press.  It was with the printed word that our fore fathers helped spread the news about the red coats and the colonials and all through history the newspaper has brought us the news about what's going on, can I ever feel that comfortable with on-line news paper.

Wil the headlines on line grab me and get my attention to read the articles as they do with the newpaper in my own hands?  I don't think it's the same feel.

I expect that the future is going to move the news to electronic newpapers at some point just because of the expense of the printed news but I'm still reluctant to make the whole hearted change.  I go on-line to google news stories when I hear of some happening, perhpas in the future I'll go the the newpaper instead of google the news.  Still reluctant.

patconaway — Tue Jan. 27th 9:58a.m.

My father works at the Denver Rocky Mountain News as an Editor, and has been a journalist since 1972.
I think none of us know what the far reaching implications of losing this medium are. If we can lose printed journalism in a few years, what other parts of our lives will be replaced by bigger, better (yet less tangible) systems? 
The incredible archival abilities of the internet, and its role in breaking news are worth cultivating.  
but I can sum up my reluctance with one phrase. remember the expression "Yellowed Journalism"? writing that is so good you kept the article and the piece itslef yellowed with time.
This was one of the many things my father showed me about his job, one of the things he enjoyed as he posted articles to our bulletin board. Is there a digital equivalent for this lasting, aging and poetic form of storytelling?

And there is no place for my father, all the new page designers, reporters and photographers planning their lives and families around this tangible object we're funneling to a screen.

I think we are losing our connection with the stories, and it will change more than just what format we read our news.

annaclarke — Tue Jan. 27th 9:59a.m.

What has been left out of the debate is the democratic form of the print version of the news.  It is very cheap and easily accessed by those people who can't afford internet access.  Also our older generations aren't comfortable with reading on-line.  It is sad that there are those who would so cavalierly do away with this form.

deltaforce — Tue Jan. 27th 10a.m.

Hi. Got in late here, but just wanted to mention that I am one who found subscriptions to the Christian Science Monitor too expensive, yet it is such a good newspaper. So I was very happy when it went online (even made  it my homepage) and look forward to its expansion there. I also plan to check out their new weekly news magazine, which will be sort of an answer for those who do not have computer access.

cynopsis — Tue Jan. 27th 10:02a.m.

Off topic but having to do with journalism:

Now that we have changed administrations, I'd like to see NPR and the CPB throw out the Conservatives that Bush installed and return NPR and the CPB to serving the Public interests instead of the Commercial interests. They both ought to be returned to higher public funding.

And I have noticed a rash of history revisionism by Republican Conservatives on NPR, just last week Neil Conan, on Talk of The Nation, had on Amity Schlaes and then Doug Feith, both spouting revised history to fit Conservative ideology and it just reminded me of the way the old Soviet Union did the same.

It was like the "fair and balanced" Fox news presenting ideology, instead of factual honest journalism.

Tom D Ford — Tue Jan. 27th 10:05a.m.

Two reasons I will never subscribe to the Oregonian (or most any other newspaper): environmental impact and advertising.

to get that newspaper in your hands:
trees are cut down
trees are carried in a log truck to a pulp mill
pulp mill turns trees into newsprint
newsprint is carried by truck to newspaper
newspaper is printed and distributed by trucks

This is a truly absurd way to get your news.  news via the Inter- Web is a far greener and more sustainable model.

Advertising:  the Oregonian is absolutely crammed with ads for worthless crap that I will never buy.  There are far more advertisements than actual copy that I'm interested in, all of them printed on wasteful paper.  When I read news on the Web, usually on the excellent New York Times site, has skipped over the ads in an instant and read the substantive news that I'm after.

and, related to web sites, I agree with the Eugene woman this morning that Oregon live is a lousy web site.  For you Oregonian staffers that are reading this, I suggest you model your site after the New York Times.

johngo — Tue Jan. 27th 10:26a.m.

Print newspapers are a push medium with a fixed spatial size and patterned structure and design elements.  They have an order and hierarchy of information that is imposed on them by professional editors.  Some of these things are matters of convention -- in some early newspapers front pages looked like classified ad pages today. 

It is not just professional journalists but professional editing that we get, affecting both the content of the articles and the ordering of the newspaper.  The restrictions of the physical form and the forcing of choices often has benefits. 

Another aspect of the physical form is visual scale.  The Oregonian is 23.5 inches across spread out, and the print columns fit within eleven inches across on each sheet.  Print space runs just over 21 inches top to bottom.  The visual field one scans quickly is both broad and high; headlines give visual cues. Contrast that to the endlessly scrolling 5 inches wide of this comment column. 

Web based news is a "pull" or maybe better a "reach" medium.  For people already inspired to reach out, it can be superior, you can look for related stories from multiple sources & points of view, & as guests mentioned more primary or closer to primary or more detailed information may be available via the online "papers" themselves.  Readers can escape the restraints imposed by editorial judgments that may reflect prejudice or preference or mistaken professional standards of "newsworthiness". 

There is a trade-off of the scope of information available with the meta-information of ordering that professional judgments provides.  Online journalism will improve as it finds ways to reassert in less restrictive but still informative ways the information of editorial judgment about relative importance.  Re-creating in new form that value added by editors may be tied to the funding issue. 

Scrolling interacts in a bad way with attention span.  I am not sure why.  If you are in college writing a paper, two pages double spaced (500-600 words) is a short paper.  In a paper it is a short-form op-ed or short story.  On-line it is a very long text indeed.

----

On the ecology question, the production cycle for newspapers includes raw materials for paper, industrial paper making, raw materials for ink & inkmaking, raw materials for presses & fabrication of presses, raw materials and fabrication of tools needed for writing and photography, including transport for reporting, actual printing of the paper, waste in all those processes, transport of all those items including raw material & fabrication of vehicles used, plus final delivery of papers to homes or distribution/sales points, plus recycling.

However, reading news online is not costless.  The elements related to content creation probably aren't that different.  Servers stand sort of where printing presses do.  Computers (or PDAs etc.) have their own production & distribution cycles & involve quite toxic industrial materials and processes, many not easily recyclable, not to mention reliance on petroleum-based plastics for basic structure.  They also have short life-cycles and frequent replacement partly for technical but partly for marketing reasons.  Likewise with transmission wires &/or wireless broadcast equipment using low-level radiation whose possible health consequences are debated.  Re the computers, a key question is whether "people would have them anyway" so that attributing their ecological costs shouldn't be down to papers, vs. how much of demand for computers etc, and for ever-newer & faster ones, in fact relates to desire for "news" and other information searching (as opposed to personal communication or data processing).  I'd say the proportion is quite high. 

Chris Lowe
SE Portland

amanzi — Tue Jan. 27th 11:11a.m.

I think the overall quality of news journalism has gone down the tubes....it's all fluff.  There is a lot of important stuff going on all over the world that affects America and goes unreported on. We hear the same stories over and over.  The really juicy inside stuff that decides foreign policy and NWO/Globalization information is not there. ....the public is kept in the dark by design,...by the corporatocracy in order to maintain control over political and economic events.  What is the Counsel on Foreign Affairs doing?What are the voting records of Congress?...publish them !! Report on the corporate sponsorship of members of Congress !! Why aren't people on Wall Street going to jail ?? What are missions of our military bases abroad ?? Mainstream electronic media is just white noise, and newsprint is police blotter stuff....the BBC is probably the best of the lot with any value. Independent web sources are the only place to get real news.

Hubertg — Tue Jan. 27th 4:59p.m.

Hello, It was very dismaying to learn that Eugene cannot get copies of the The Oregonian.  I was wondering why they can't send them via bus or train for a minimal price, or make some other arrangement to deliver them.  We were in Enterprise, Oregon earlier this year and concerned at that time that we couldn't get an Oregonian anywhere.  All Oregonians need access to Oregon news, and not everyone has a computer.

Also, I agree with Suzi Steffen that the Oregon Live web page is below par in design and usability for news websites.  I use it only as a last resort as it's often difficult to find information.

mjingalsbe — Tue Jan. 27th 6:15p.m.

Are people really that shocked by this paperless transition? It's been inevitable for a long time now. I think the character "Egon," from the movie Ghostbusters, said it best. "The printed word is dead." That movie came out in 1984. Personally, I've never once sat down and read a newspaper, not counting my school's, which is more of a social thing, but I digress. I have so many more efficient mediums from which to capture news (my computer, iPhone, TV, etc.) that I don't have the need for a heap of dead trees and ink to get connected to the world. I understand how some people are traditional or have a nostalgic appetite for print media, it's just not for me, or the majority of my generation apparently. Switching to paperless mediums is a good idea for the environment too--think of all the resources we can save. Going paperless seems like a great idea all around. I am definitely a paperless person.

acquinn — Sun Feb. 1st 7:55p.m.

Are people really that shocked by this paperless transition? It's been inevitable for a long time now. I think the character "Egon," from the movie Ghostbusters, said it best. "The printed word is dead." That movie came out in 1984. Personally, I've never once sat down and read a newspaper, not counting my school's, which is more of a social thing, but I digress. I have so many more efficient mediums from which to capture news (my computer, iPhone, TV, etc.) that I don't have the need for a heap of dead trees and ink to get connected to the world. I understand how some people are traditional or have a nostalgic appetite for print media, it's just not for me, or the majority of my generation apparently. Switching to paperless mediums is a good idea for the environment too--think of all the resources we can save. Going paperless seems like a great idea all around. I am definitely a paperless person.

acquinn — Sun Feb. 1st 7:55p.m.

Although the Internet seems to be the way of the future, there will always be print media in some form or another. As with every new media, people believe that it will completely replace the other preexisting forms of media and communication. This has never been the case -- the TV did not replace the radio, the book did not replace the teacher and the Internet will not replace the newspaper. Newspapers are here to stay and although they may not be as prevalent as they once were, they will always be around.

People seem to have a fondness for physically holding a newspaper and many comments seem to express a feeling that they would buy newspapers again if the quality returned to a high standard. Maybe this issue has more to do with the decline of quality in newspapers than the rise of the Internet?

Furthermore, how many people went out and bought a newspaper when Obama won the Presidency or September 11th happened; compared to how many of you printed out an online article? I’m willing to bet most of you bought a newspaper because there IS something to be said for a physical copy of a newspaper.

The bottom line is, print media is the freest media we have. Radio, television and even the Internet have more restrictions and limitations than print media. Once the Internet becomes more and more regulated, censored and restricted...I have a feeling people will revert back to good old-fashioned newspapers.  

JT12345 — Tue Feb. 3rd 8p.m.

Most of the news I get comes from online sources so I would not be opposed to having even more news sources online. However, the idea of not being able to sit down at a coffee shop or even in between classes to read the paper is scary. I think taking away print sources will have a dramatic and possibly devastating effect on print news agancies. The ads in papers will also be ten times more annoying once they're online.

KatJack — Wed Feb. 4th 1:11p.m.

I think there is definitley a debate to be had over this issue. While holding a hard copy of something tangible in your hands is a nostalgic, traditional method of recieving news, there are obvious benefits to making this form of paper-use obsolete. Sure, without the constant demand of paper-printed news comes the approval of those environmental well-wishers, but what about American culture? Will we sink our teeth further into a world of technology and Kindles? A world where we no longer have to lift a finger to turn a page, but only have to click a mouse to read about Obama's latest policies on CNN.com?

And what about local news? While the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times may be able to successfully broadcast the world's happenings via the all-subsuming internet, what will become of the publications of news that happens close to home...within our own backyards? What this nation needs is not a rejection of all tradition, however nostalgic those traditions may be, but an embrace of some of the little things that make us who we are. Print news is a fundamental key to our nation's well-being and livelihood... would we so carelessly toss that away into the recylce bin of new technology?

cdcaldwell — Wed Feb. 4th 6:47p.m.

Comments are now closed.