Today (March 18) marks the one-year anniversary of the "online only" edition of the Seattle P-I. I read a blurb in the Seattle Times this morning, then discovered this commemorative issue of the last printed P-I on my desk beneath some other incredibly valuable stuff (Yes, I am something of a packrat). I read that the once powerful news staff has been reduced to two dozen people. Ugh. I read that blogs (such as this one) are news partners of the new online P-I. Again, ugh. An online metro daily is better than no daily at all, but I'm wondering what others feel about this technology/culture induced decision to try to make a go of it online only?
Yes, it is disturbing. When I started working in TV news in 1970, we covered a lot of public meetings because it was information we thought the viewers "should" know. It evolved into the "if it bleeds, it leads" syndrome. Papers continued to give us objective, balanced coverage. Competition has caused information entities to give the consumers what they want, not necessarily what they need. Reasonably, you might assume they need balanced coverage of issues, not emotional reactions to issues. The problem is that information now gets diffused through the digital strainer. The cultural trend seems to place more importance on having opinions on issues than actually understanding the issues. Let's just hope that objectivity becomes marketable. We are in a cultural transition. It might hurt, but it will be interesting to watch what happens.
ReplyDelete