The Web may pull more readers from the newspapers because newspapers sometimes give off the wrong impression about the news they print or do not print. In a recent article, New York Times defends not running McCain's Iraq op-ed by The Associated Press, the controversy is centered on the New York Times’ reason for not publishing a McCain article. The New York Times response:
“In the e-mail, released by McCain's campaign, Shipley wrote that McCain's article would "have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."
While the New York Times may be standing on good principle for not publishing the article, people still want to know the whole story. So, they might just head to the Web and get their information. With New York Times circulation down, can they continue letting the Web-jockeys grab the essence of story they desperately need?
44 minutes ago
1 comment:
An aspect of current internet availability is that you have many people from all walks of life and points of view that can essentially be acting as an unofficial army of 'lay-reporters'. You are no longer bound by a designated media outlet relying on their own pool of reporters, editing the story as they so choose to fit into whatever space or time-slot they decide to allocate to the story. People can research much more background, details, or commentary on a story depending on what aspects they are interested in. However, there is no filter or screening on this free-for-all type of reporting. At least media outlets would claim to offer some sort of professional research, verification, or ethical investigation before airing a story. However (again), because both avenues of information dissemination are available, they can serve as checks and balances to on each other to improve the overall quality and ethics of what is published as journalism.
Post a Comment