This week I was again only able to attend Wednesday. On Wednesday we discussed the future of media, specifically print media, and whether or not we are heading towards a future that is good for said media. Johnson's article discussed the possibilities of the many outlets of print media, and that the newspaper is simply evolving, allowing many people to connect faster, more efficiently, and all around better. Starr argued that this media progression is in fact ruining media, and could eventually lead to corrupt government and corrupt media.
I definitely can see both sides of the argument. On one hand I know that with more people participating in what we called "citizen publishing", the media itself can be changed dramatically. It has two sides of course: The first is that, yes, corruption and mistakes can occur. The people are not trained to write or report, so the stories they write or comment on could be worded poorly, as to be misunderstood, or they could also intentionally write misleading things which is also not good. The other side of this is that we as a people could get more up to date information faster.
The amount of people on this planet who carry a smartphone is increasing every day. The camera function is key for America and other countries around the globe to get accurate information quickly. With internet also on the phone, information is literally shared with everyone instantly. I have to side with Johnson on this argument by saying that the possibilities are endless and we as a people just need to be more aware of what we are reading on the web and even in print. In the end, "citizen publishing" will help everyone become more informed.