Starr/Johnson- Blog/DQ for Monday

| No Comments

At first I didn't really see how Steve Johnson's or Paul Starr's articles were going to impact me in any way, but after a few paragraphs in Johnson's, I was really intrigued, and I went right into Starr's and I forgot I was even reading the articles for class. It was pretty interesting, and saddening. Print media is something that I want to consider for a career, but after reading these, is it worth it? Will I be able to get a job, or hold one for very long? When Johnson looked back on his college days, it reminded me of when I talk to my mom and we compare our college days. It's crazy how much things continue to change!! It makes me think I should make a turn off my path and look into different careers, something more reliable.
Even though these articles were written on the same topic, I got a different feel from both. (Is that wrong?) When I was reading Starr's article, I feel like he was almost questioning any kind of positive outlook. For example, he talked about "the non-market collaborative networks on the web," which could be "an alternative way of producing information as a public good." He makes a good point as to why this can potentially fail. He says that these "entries" on the web rely on other sources, the writers are "parasitic" because they "feed off the conventional news media." He also says that online sites usually give more opinion than factual information. Both of these things are scary, our information will be less and less accurate, true, and unbiased if we lose newspapers. Starr made a good point too when he said, "But without a local newspaper or even with a shrunken one, many other people will learn less about news than ever before." He said it was better than me, but that's kind of the scary thought I am talking about!
Johnson talks about "two worst case scenarios" which are: the newspaper business disappearing and that important information is going to disappear with them. He says that the web brings out more perspectives, and that it is the "new growth" of old media. He also seems to be arguing against what Starr says when he writes, "But no reasonable observer of the political news ecosystem could describe all the news species as parasites on the traditional media." Either way, Johnson came off as more optimistic. What do you guys think? Do you think that the change is positive or negative? Do you agree with either Starr or Johnson?

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Kelci Bryant published on November 30, 2012 4:02 PM.

Everything New is Old Again was the previous entry in this blog.

Johnson & Starr "Old Growth Media..." Blog & DQ is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.