Question of the Day | 12/15/2008 11:00 pm
Times are changing! Internet-only journalism will now be considered for the Pulitzer Prize. What does this mean for journalism?

© Shutterstock
49 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Meh! ending a sentence with a preposition is no big deal anymore. Though Sister Mary Holycard would have whacked my 4th grade fingers if i had then lolol And Diddlededee—I haven’t heard that since the last time i watched Scarlet O’Hara do her pouting. lolololol
Our local paper always lists Celebrity Birthdays of the Day
If it is correct, today (Dec. 16th) is Lesley Stahl’s 67th Birthday.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, LESLEY! If you are indeed 67, you are one of the best looking 67’s I have ever seen…..
Best wishes!
Lily
Yes, the internet is a wonderful universe right at the tips of our fingers. It is amazing. This was bound to happen sooner or later, I thought it would be sooner. I really like my newspaper and my books, but technology pushes us forward, and the trees will be better off, and it will keep the earth cooler.
Join in the new revolution or stay stagnant. The new way the world reads the news is on the internet and I am glad to see it’s being taken seriously. I read all my news online, at times, blogging about it. Plus it’s environmentally friendly. Have a great day.
The Internet is a much-faster medium than the traditional newspaper in terms of getting news out to the public. The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press just announced some major cost-cutting moves today (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage), including the curtailment of home delivery. There is a side article to that link, including a story about how the newspaper industry is suffering not only from the current economic downturn, but in terms of the general trend away from it. Nowadays, people get most of their news from the Internet, followed closely by cable-TV.
That does not mean there isn’t a place for newspapers. It’s just that they’ll have to focus on being more in-depth, and less on being a breaking-news commodity. They’ve already been heading in that direction for a long time. Newspapers, at least in the broad-sheet format, offer better viewability than the smaller computer-Internet screens. And they can be taken to more locations in some respects, such as the dry sauna or whatever.
I started my newspaper career in 1980. I left in 1986 to go into radio, because I liked the idea of breaking news, which is something newspapers are less and less able to do. However, thankfully, newspapers are online, as well. But Gannett is laying off a ton of people at newspapers all over the country. I’ve heard that some magazines are really suffering right now, as well.
I love to read the PHYSICAL, 3D newspaper. Every morning I sit at a table at my local coffee shop with a mocha and a bagel and read the paper. I cannot imagine myself sitting at the computer for an hour browsing through the virtual newspaper everyday. So what we will have, is young people who can’t be bothered reading the paper, just going to the online paper and reading one or two main stories that pop up when they get there, and older, REAL paper readers, just giving up.
Also, if we are to lose our newspapers then they had better figure out a way to make their online papers easier to navigate.

It means that the opportunity for being awarded a Pulitzer is now available to a wider group of people.
With financial and ownership issues, and now the Grand Canyon of financial downturns, I’m afraid the future of ink-stained, newsprint page turning fingers is looking dim. I’m glad the Pulitzer people are acknowledging the internet.
But will the standards of internet reporting acknowledge the use of correct grammar and spelling? Or is this just another quickly accelerating downward spiral in form, quality and correct,confirmed information?
I attended an Obama house meeting this weekend and the subject of media delivery was on everyone’s minds. Local, national, global. More than ever, we see it as a lifeline. That’s the good news for media - and it is adapting to that demand with the fastest and cheapest solutions…That’s the bad news for print.
I also crave holding the paper or a book right here in my hands. Long live the natural senses! Technology can only take us so far - and isn’t it up to us to say when?
[Note recent news stories of Predator commuter-combat-pilots, going to their jobs in Las Vegas, from which they fire remote-controlled missiles over Iraq. These guys are going crazy; angry at their wives and depressed because they get no sensory input at work.
Good god, y’all.]
Media will likely hybridize to meet our competing needs for the tangible and the immediate. Online ventures that publish regular hard-copy portions of their papers may be the way. I don’t need to read breaking news in fresh ink, but don’t take away my sit-down ritual with the Tuesday Science Times - in real time and space.
New thinking about how to monetize media is bound to evolve. Let’s face it: when advertising crept into alternative weeklies, it was the death of much gonzo coverage.
Too many writers have been afraid to report outside the marketing box, for fear of losing their livelihoods. Most national papers are asleep at the wheel, too willingly subverted by markets. We have our ‘sudden’ global economic disaster, as a result.
Social media and the willingness of people to volunteer their time, research, to offer reports on events and analysis - what a modern miracle.
For now, there’s a trade-off for virtual/bibliophiles: if this brand new cornerstone to democracy spells dwindling paper content, that means more trips back-and-forth to the local lending library.
Addicted as I am to gleaning information from my computer, I still love the printed word on paper. Yesterday, during a snowstorm, we had a 14 hour power outage. Confined to my house and deprived of Internet and email access, I sat in front of my wood stove working the NY Times crossword, lit by a camping lantern. Then I read Daniel Silva’s latest spy novel and was so engrossed I forgot about the storm. For years, I’ve used newspapers as teaching tools for my adult ESL students who are interested in American politics. Talking points, writing exercises, vocabulary - a single newspaper article provides a rich lesson. If newspapers disappear, a set of customs and behaviors will go with them, including reading in the sun while sipping a cup of tea or coffee, laughing over “the funnies,” divvying up the paper’s sections and then exchanging them, discussing headlines and columns with a companion - the little subculture of “newspapering.” I’ll miss all that.
“Internet-only journalism will now be considered for the Pulitzer Prize. What does this mean for journalism?”
This means, My Alias - The Blog. ;)
hah
As I recently started my own literary magazine, this is not a good development. Online, as others have said, is very impersonal…I love making a page layout…ok, not when the computer deletes it, but when I post the pieces on the blog I succumbed to doing for it, it doesn’t feel like a sense of accomplishment, where taking seven hours to print 30 somewhat unprofessional looking documents does, when you staple it and smile…and notice you forgot page numbers.
Locally and nationally there has a been a growing marriage between the corporate media and politics. Who among us did not cringe when seeing the video of David Gregory dancing on stage with Karl Rove at the correspondents dinner? And who didn’t get a little sick to their stomachs to see the video of countless journalists barbecuing and taking turns riding on the tire-swing with John McCain during the recent presidential campaign?
It’s all too easy to imagine how this past election would have unfolded if it were not for the tireless bloggers, energetic YouTubers, and the small handful of clear-minded journalists who reported the day to day events rather than getting lost in narrative provided by the tone deaf media.
While most entrenched within the corporate media and political world are comfortable with this continued marriage, it’s neither good for politics nor for the media. And it’s certainly no good for democracy.

3 Comments
































