News-Record.com

Wheeee!, look, no hands!

Whatever your point is, Sun, don't forget this one.

John -- my point is this: the MSM has reason to fear competition from everywhere, and that reason is the factual decline in their core business metrics. I have no idea what your point is: the data to which you link is not tied to the MSM and includes everything from blogs to new media companies. What I see is a whole lot of people whose agreed-upon performance metrics are in free-fall decline lecturing others about the nature of that decline. You and the N&R have said "we don't know exactly what we're doing, but we're going to stay in motion and figure it out along the way." I admire that. The more prevalent MSM sentiment is to explain why Betamax is better than VHS -- and we know how that story ends.

Thanks, Mr. Sun, for the links to that very informative site. At the bottom of the left column, one will find links to the similar charts and graphs for online media (as well as other media).

John, yes, some swing first and report never. Those posts are like some letters to the editor in the newspaper (without the length and frequency restrictions).

I saw the point, John.

I'll keep my question short (for Roch). Your counter-point was a graph on the "percent of Internet users who access the news online" . . . presumably noting that the N&R does indeed "get" the point of Mr. Sun's graphs on MSM (TV news and newspaper) decline.

Perhaps you are saying that by diving in to the blogosphere, the N&R has that tiger by the tail???

Your graph doesn't say WHERE those Internet users go online to get their news. Your task is to get them to come to you - or Mr. Sun's graphs will trump yours.

Uh, what's the question?

I personally don't see the established media and the blogosphere as being in competition. Nor should they be compared to each other IMO. I did find the article and side links interesting however.
The decline in newsPAPER readership can easily be accounted for by the pace of our lives; who has time to sit down and read a newspaper? Mornings are too rushed and the tv is faster and easier in the evenings. It was interesting to note the increase in radio as a news source, and again easily deduced based on our present needs for long commutes to and from work as the only “free” time available for most of us to catch up on the news. As for the use of the Internet, it is the convenience of grabbing a few minutes here and there to read an article of interest or check one of your set ‘Alerts”. In this way the N&R tries to help filter news with their afternoon e-mail summaries. The Internet also allows for a greater, really world wide, source of news. To summarize the article IMO: Time and our faster pace of living has changed our way of keeping ourselves informed.

Blogs are so varied and IMO not used by most of us as a source of news. As a relatively new blogger in the beginning I tried to read a wide variety to see just what was out there, what others were writing about. They are so diverse! I noticed however that a good many of the more “popular” blogs are really just excerpts from some legitimate (not a blog) news source that the blogger then puts out for general discussion. They give as their source the link to the original article and because it is from a commercial, or as I said “legitimate” news media organization, that fact alone is considered verification for the accuracy of the article. No other verification is deemed necessary. I question this method of “verification” and always have. We have a tendency to believe anything we read. If it is written down somewhere, anywhere, it must be true! Hog wash! I am much more apt to believe, and use as my sources for my commentaries, government or private studies that I assimilate then incorporate with my understandings of past studies and experiences to formulate my own opinions. Just my personal opinion of reliable sources of course, others may have their own methods.

Sorry, Sun. I understand your point now and agree with it. My confusion was caused by trying to link it to the original post.

Uh, Roch, did you not see the question marks? There were three.

On the "Randolph is Talking" blog, Rob Abinder related that, during the recent blogging seminar in Asheboro, one of the attendees asked the question, "Is blogging like writing a Letter to the Editor?". (I made the observation that in Asheboro, that question is probably borne of frustration with the local newspaper.)

Rob's response was very good. He told the newbie yes, it was . . . "with none of the time to mail/e-mail, wait for Editorial approval, meet a specific length, or give your mailing address."

Over 20 years ago (Roch), I wrote a "Letter to the Editor" about a local school administrator. My Mom was a teacher, and I had watched this guy behave like the worst of bullies - really making the lives of my Mom and her colleagues miserable - and getting away with it because no one in authority questioned what he did. The letter took almost an entire page. Back then there were no restrictions on length - and certainly not nearly so much concern about political correctness or content. The letter served as a catalyst for other mere "plebes" to break their silence about what was going on, the truth came out, and the administrator ultimately resigned. Journalism did what it was supposed to do.

Years later, after encountering corrupt administrative behavior at the local hospital that makes the school guy look like the lightest of lightweights, you can't get a "Letter to the Editor" published that does not agree with (1) the local Chamber of Commerce (2) the Economic Development Corporation (the Director of which is married to the newspaper publisher) and (3) the local Republican Party. You've got to have a decoder ring.

These days, my boyfriend will read something in the paper and tell me about it. But almost always I already know about it . . . and he's three days behind.

If local newspapers are going to stem the (revenue) tide of people relying on other sources for their news, they are going to have to wake up and smell the roses. The News & Record deserves credit because it is one of the first local papers to dive into the blogosphere. But the fact that it was one of the first is not going to mean a hill of beans unless it really does something that says to people, "We will go the extra mile". I'm telling JR the same thing I told that administrator: Climb down off the mountain.

Yes, I saw the question marks. The were at the end of a declarative sentance, so I wasn't clear what the question was. But if you are asking if I agree with your supposition or not, the anwer is no.

Which supposition? The one observing that the N&R appears to think it has the online-media tiger by the tail by being the first in the blogosphere (as long as it hangs on for dear life)? Or the one that suggests that, to stay in the (revenue) game over the long haul, the N&R will have to do more than be first? Or the one that makes the point that not everything is done "justice" in heavily-edited, editorial-board-approved 250 words or less (ala Letters to the Editor)? Or the one that suggests that print is the paper's first and purest obligation, and the "innumerable choices" for a lot of people in Randolph County add up to three - with all of the limitations Rob Abinder noted.

Never mind. Not thoughtful enough, I suppose. Mr. Sun had better luck swinging with no hands.