I think the proliferation of online media has contributed to less desire for print editions, but I also believe that lower media confidence plays a part. Readers know they can't believe everything they read. And a stunt like the Yes Men press conference does not help.
href="<$BlogItemURL$>">
3 comments:
I think newspaper circulation has declined because people can get better access to more interesting news online. Why would I read the Helsinki Times when I can read the New York Times, or LA Times for free. No offense to the Helsinki times but I think the later uses better journalists.
I like to pick and choose my news from many sources. When you read one newspaper you're subject to that editor's story sensoring. They decide what's interesting. When you read on line you can pick what's interesting from thousands of possible articles. You have much great control. I don't know if it's necessarily a question of credibility, so much as value for money, or no money in this case. Plus some of us are just a tiny bit environmentally aware and newspapers cost tree their lives.
I think that is a product of our generation though. Readers also know to take things with a "grain of salt" so to speak. It's the same reason why people do not take everything on Wikipedia as 100% truth---we know all about citizen-journalism and need to be cautious. I do not think we can change that.
Newspaper circulation, in my opinion, has declined because we are not a "paper" generation. We are in a digital and "green" age....Again, a byproduct of what makes up this generation.
Less people are buying books, watching films in cinema, purchasing CD's etc...this I believe is mainly down to the the internet and the rate at which it is advancing. With the internet providing as much, if not more, of the information that is found within newspapers, people look towards saving themselves a few hundred dollars a year and putting in towards that yearly internet plan :)
Post a Comment