By Alyssa Laube
As the world advances further into the technological age, news organizations continue to struggle. The threat of their extinction is imminent, since print is dying and online content is difficult to monetize. However, it is crucial that they stay afloat because of the importance of news organizations in a democratic society. Not only do they “play an important part in promoting and sustaining the arts at a local level”, but also, they act “as a source of trusted and accurate information” on more serious, breaking news. Being able to trust a news organization is incredibly valuable at a time when it is becoming increasingly easy to rewrite history via social media. While some may argue that media has offered the title of Citizen Journalist to anyone with a smart phone, therefore rendering news organizations useless, the opposite is true. More than ever, the public needs a credible, unbiased source of information amidst countless Twitter and Facebook rants. Overall, newspapers give the people “a true picture of our surroundings…enhance our knowledge and broaden our vision”.
Art is an incredibly important aspect of any vibrant, thriving community. Without them, there is little opportunity for fun in a city, and fun brings people together. However, most artists do not have the funds to support themselves and build a reputation on their own. For generations, newspapers have been giving them a platform for exposure. Journalists and reporters attend arts events such as concerts, plays, and film screenings. They interview the artists and give them much-needed press. News workers search for local and international talent to show to their audience. Without the role of news in the arts, it would be considerably more difficult to have a thriving arts scene. Artists would struggle and many would likely quit out of frustration. At the same time, the global community would miss out on the opportunity to connect to art that they enjoy.
As previously mentioned, the expansion of the internet has made it difficult to tell what's fact and what's fiction in regards to news. This is particularly true on social media such as Twitter and Facebook, where users have no obligation to tell the truth in their posts. Since "46% of people get their news online at least three times a week", this can create a lot of confusion as to what really happened, due to a lack of "editorial scrutiny". As said by Roy Greenslade, "it's the very abundance of information and news now available to everyone that makes the role of the local newspaper even more important." Certainly, official news outlets fix the problem of inaccurate online news by acting as a reliable, fact-checked, edited, and professional source. A reader can trust that a well-known paper will live up to its reputation by providing quality, accurate news.
Some argue that online news is an improvement in communication that renders traditional publications obsolete. Because it is immediately, constantly, and easily accessible, it's easy to assume that it is superior to waiting for the daily paper. However, while it is true that a blogger could theoretically spend hours sifting through the internet to fact-check their status for accuracy, very few do. Frankly, the average citizen doesn't have the time for that, which is why news workers do it for them. Teachers don't have the time, either, which is why many use newspapers in the classroom to educate their students on current events and open up class discussions. This wouldn't be possible if there was any doubt about the accuracy of the news. There is also "no hierarchy of rage, no modulation of tone, [and] no admission of uncertainty" with social media news; often, emotions get in the way of honest reporting when the citizen is under no obligation to be unbiased. Overall, while internet news is easily accessible and immediate, it just isn't trustworthy.
Some argue that online news is an improvement in communication that renders traditional publications obsolete. Because it is immediately, constantly, and easily accessible, it's easy to assume that it is superior to waiting for the daily paper. However, while it is true that a blogger could theoretically spend hours sifting through the internet to fact-check their status for accuracy, very few do. Frankly, the average citizen doesn't have the time for that, which is why news workers do it for them. Teachers don't have the time, either, which is why many use newspapers in the classroom to educate their students on current events and open up class discussions. This wouldn't be possible if there was any doubt about the accuracy of the news. There is also "no hierarchy of rage, no modulation of tone, [and] no admission of uncertainty" with social media news; often, emotions get in the way of honest reporting when the citizen is under no obligation to be unbiased. Overall, while internet news is easily accessible and immediate, it just isn't trustworthy.
It is undoubtedly a challenge to fight against the death of official publications, particularly newspapers. Their demise can be almost entirely attributed to the growing use and development of technology. Because news is being forced online due to demand, and online content is difficult to monetize, publications are struggling. However, there are solutions, some of which are already in place. In the case of many popular papers such as the New York Times, this could be putting up a paywall on their site. Smaller publications with less traffic might opt for a donation model, while news giants like CBC take tax dollars. Then there is the suggestion of a grander notion: pressuring the government into putting money into supporting papers. Supposedly, keeping them afloat would benefit the government because of newspaper's ability to maintain a healthy democracy by educating and listening to the people. In fact, it has been proven that civic engagement drops when local newspapers are closed, thereby harming the health and productivity of the community. Politicians also gain a fair portion of their support through endorsements and sponsorships with publications, so they have a reason to fight against their fall.
However, it's unlikely that any considerable donation will be made. Even if money is put into journalism, it won't be enough to salvage the papers forever. Rather, as citizens and readers, we have a responsibility to help support our favourite papers. We can donate to the publications that we believe in with money, certainly. But it's also crucial that we talk about them, encourage our neighbours to read them, and spread the name of struggling papers. The readership is truly what runs the paper, and the readership must assume a role in helping save them.
However, it's unlikely that any considerable donation will be made. Even if money is put into journalism, it won't be enough to salvage the papers forever. Rather, as citizens and readers, we have a responsibility to help support our favourite papers. We can donate to the publications that we believe in with money, certainly. But it's also crucial that we talk about them, encourage our neighbours to read them, and spread the name of struggling papers. The readership is truly what runs the paper, and the readership must assume a role in helping save them.
