The New York Times vs. Tumblr (Blog Post #9)

The New York Times used to be available at Juniata and I thought that was really cool to offer the paper for free to students at campus. Professors in classes would mention reading the Times as a way to getting informed and I would pick the paper every so often so I could see what was happening in the world. My Intro to American Government class required me to read the New York Times so I saw the benefit of having a nationally recognized newspaper on our campus.

When I got the e-mail that Juniata would no longer be receiving the newspaper because of funding purpose, I was sort of upset by this information. Not only would students be able to get news in the world, The New York Times is charging for people to view their articles. The increased costs of publishing and the lack of readership could be leading to this push. As more people start to get their news stories from alternative sources such as blogs and social media networking sites, traditional news sources have to find creative ways for their audience to stay interested.

In my last blog post, I mention how relying too heavily on social media is wrong. The fact remains is that going to primary sources such as the newspaper, television news, or radio news would be more accurate because they are going to be edited, edited, and edited again. Most of the articles have been researched and interviews have been conducted. The purpose of news is to remain objective as much as possible.

Some of the blogs have backed up there points with relevant outside sources to help. However, most of the blogs are highly opinionated with bloggers inputting their personal biases to make their point.  In social media and blogs, you are not getting a well-rounded discussion. Even though people are looking for different subjects that contrast from what is being printed, you will receive accurate and better information in newspapers than blogs and social media.

Newspapers are battling to keep people reading their newspapers as digital formatting comes into play. An article in the Wall Street Journal discusses how newspaper circulation is decreasing and is slowly going digital.

“During the latest period, digital editions accounted for 15.3% of overall U.S. circulation, up from 9.8% in the year-earlier period. USA Today kept its No. 2 spot with 1.7 million readers, though that represented a decline of 3.9% from a year earlier. The New York Times retained the No. 3 rank at 1.6 million weekday readers, an improvement of 40%, and continued to have the highest Sunday circulation, at 2.1 million, up 28%. The Times' circulation increases reflect the publication adding paid digital subscriptions,” ( Wall Street Journal).

I feel that digital formatting is good for newspapers to keep in business but for many people no one would want to pay money to read news when they can go to free mediums. I agree that it would be fine for newspapers to not charge for online viewing. I do still believe that I would rather have to pay to get quality news than look at blogs. I prefer to have my information provided accurately and fairly. I could never see YouTube replacing the six o’clock news. I think that traditional media will have to find ways to target people in creative ways while still trying to remain in their format of news. I understand the convenience of having blogs where you can find a funny yet informative spin on the topic. I wish that we could try to remain a balance with how people get their news. For now, I will stick with trying to get most of my information from news that I can trust.

Works Citied:

Stynes, Tess. “U.S. Newspaper Circulation Slips Further.” Wall Street Journal. Date Pub. 30 Oct 2012. Date Acc. 04 Nov 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203335504578088643882363414.html