Same Old Argument?

While both authors present valid arguments for and against the internet improving journalism, I agree with Mr. Rosen and feel that the internet is improving journalism. While the facts Mr. Carr uses in his argument cannot be refuted – the production of news on the internet has cost thousands of reporters their jobs – I believe the industry should take some responsibility for continuing to employ a business model that became unsustainable with the growing popularity of digital media. By using the “loss of trained staff” as the only point of support for his argument, Mr. Carr limits his discussion points. As Mr. Rosen rightly pointed out, the internet has improved journalism by, “driving towards zero the costs of getting it to people…” The internet virtually removes any overhead costs involved in the printing and distribution of news to an audience. Eliminating costs in a business model is a good thing; however, these cost decreases don’t offset the loss of revenue from, as Mr. Carr points out, “…advertising, subscriptions, and news-stand sales…” in the shift from print to digital news. The business model that supported this revenue structure in print doesn’t work in an online environment. When decreases to these revenue streams were becoming more apparent, the news industry should have discussed alternative revenue sources or the possibilities of different business models for the industry. Although lost revenue resulted in lost jobs, and the ability of reports to cover local material or as Hirschorn argues practice quality journalism, I believe the internet provides more benefits to journalism that outweigh the job loss within the industry.

The decreases in the overall cost of getting news to consumers has enabled more online news organizations to enter the market due to the decreased barriers to entry. This benefits consumers by providing them with increased options for content. An increased amount of content available to consumers also allows them to become more active in their media consumption. Active consumers tend to be more informed consumers, and this serves as an incentive to increase the quality of content produced. More news organizations, which allows for more news content, also enables individuals producing journalism in the age of the internet have the potential for their content to be consumed by a larger audience. These individuals will also be able to communicate to their readers through multiple mediums on an almost immediate basis. The internet isn’t bad for journalism, it has simply changed it. As long as people continue to consume online content, there will be a need for journalism, the question then becomes how do you pay for the production of content. Should you subsidize journalism as Shirky suggests? Make it a non-profit industry? These are the questions that journalism faces in the age of the internet.