Both of these articles were very simple in understanding their view on the issue. Johnson thought that the use of Internet and the diminishing use of newspapers was not a bad thing, it was just another growth in our "media ecosystem". Starr on the other hand, thought that it is going to be a problem for the way media and news is dispersed. They both brought up very interesting points from both sides, so it was helpful to be able to see from both angles. Starr thought that newspapers had been around a long time and because of it they really were the best place to for news to be spread. He thought they are the most professional news outlet and without them we would lose a very large portion of reliable media. I think the most interesting point from both articles was how Johnson classified how we use and generate our media over time. He called it an ecosystem. Some parts really strive and others change and evolve into something bigger and better, or lose value. To make it a point of not worrying about the media being lost all together, but rather how to evolve this new form of media to fit in with our culture is more important. While I do think it would be very weird not to have newspapers around anymore, I think there are some that can stay for the long haul. I also think that with the culture of this country thriving on the web, possibly transferring to digital media is not the worst thing. I think it is just the next step in a long chain of media changes.
Do you think the future of news and politics is a rocky one? If so, what should the newspaper industry do to stay relevant? What about magazines - do you think those will start to go directly to digital?