The Internet has taken over as the new source for major news reportings.
|Scooped by Lucig Palanjian|
Is the affect positive or negative?
The Internet has become very dominant in our everyday lives. Whether or not the web can be trusted for important worldwide events or crises still remains unanswered. So I ask, “How has the Internet affected traditional media outlets?”
Before I began my research I had a clear-cut answer to my own question: the Internet is taking over and traditional media outlets are spiraling downward. Although I still do believe that this is occurring, I found in my research the REAL reasons as to why traditional media outlets are falling.
The reason why the traditional media outlets are losing touch is because of revenue coming in from ad agencies. Sure, the Internet is part of the reason as well; it is not the SOLE reason. The Internet allows for companies to track what sites consumers are going on and what products they are purchasing, so it is easier to target those audiences, whereas, in the traditional outlets it’s harder to track and target specific audiences. I never really realized how important ad spaces in newspapers are, and after researching it allowed me to make my prospective on the downfall of newspapers to widen and realize to not blame the Internet completely.
After reading the article on the 9/11 attacks I agreed with what the author wrote, that generally when a crisis occurs we as consumers and citizens flock to the traditional outlets for a trust worthy and factual reporting. However, I remembered the Boston Marathon Bombings and how I was watching CNN and also constantly checking my Twitter Feed for new information to arrive, and in fact I received the fastest and accurate information on Twitter. CNN I think played it safe and has to follow the guidelines that they are given, whereas on Twitter whatever occurred was posted in 140 characters and trending worldwide. I’m still not completely sold on everything being reported on social network sites to be completely accurate (i.e.- the Reddit suspect scenario) but I do tend to flock more towards the social networks as opposed to popular news networks.
The USATODAY article “Nontraditional media gain ground,” touched upon important aspects of the Internet that I hadn’t thought about before. It was stated that due to the large number of platforms on the web such as blogs, social networks, etc, more people can report about certain topics and essentially do so by not checking facts or information first. That leads to people reading upon different information and when they come together they simply cannot discuss an important issue because they all read different facts.
All in all, I still do believe that the Internet has affected the traditional media outlets in a tremendous way, by taking away large audiences and revenues. I think that it will take some time before the Internet completely takes over and I also think that it will take a lot of years for the Internet reportings to become more accurate and reliable as traditional media outlets. I think that once the traditional are gone for good, they should combine efforts with the Internet outlets to maybe perform trustworthy reportings to save jobs, credibility, and sources. I might be hoping for an extreme case, but I hope one day it can happen. After all, the web is the greatest tool in the world’s history and to combine with traditional media outlets, it will increase it’s credibility tremendously.