It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Challenge Match: TheMythLives vs skeptic1: "Internet Killed the Newspaper Star"
page: 15
share:
The topic for this debate is: "The demise of the printed newspaper can't happen soon enough, the internet is a superior source for news."
TheMythLives will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
skeptic1 will argue the con position.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit per post.
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debater must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
TheMythLives will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
skeptic1 will argue the con position.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit per post.
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debater must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
Much thanks to S-Dog (the creator) and amazing gratitude to Chissler for reopening this debate up and much thanks to the wonderful Skeptic to accept
this challenge, your debt has been (re)paid.
_______________________________________________________
Alright the topic for debate is: "The demise of the printed newspaper can't happen soon enough, the internet is a superior source for news."
And boy is that true.
What does the internet clinch that makes it better?
1) Up the minute news, also known as breaking news. The internet can give a person access to breaking news, whereas it would take a whole day just to get that exact same news in the form of newspaper which at that time is useless, because that person already knows the news.
2) Newspapers drastic decline as of late, many big Newspaper are going bankrupt and closing there doors. Soon Internet will be the only source for news.
3) Reading on the Internet is free of charge! Why spend 50 cents? or a dollar now? or a dollar 50? Just turn the internet on and news is at your fingertips.
4) Newspaper does not cover the past. Current Newspapers do not have articles of the past something that could be of value to someone. Instead of going to a library and searching through countless of newspaper archives, just load the internet up and begin to surf.
5) Newspaper Journalist are biased! This is what is important, to me at least. I want both sides of the story and then I want to find the truth. By reading just the paper you open the door to one to saide and not the other.
6) Newspaper kills to many trees:
SOURCE
Thats a lot of pure oxygen to lose. All for a dieing business like newspaper. The internet does not involve the killing of trees. To much oxygen lost by the cutting down the trees for the newspaper.
7) Annoying adds in the paper and uninteresting articles. Why waste your money on something that your not even going to read. On the internet you do not have to deal with such inconvinences.
8) A person cannot watch live-stream media in the newspaper, on the internet not only does it open the doors to written news, it also opens the doors to video news and audio news. A huge plus against the newspaper.
Alright, during the course of this debate I will elaborate further on the above and add new information to prove that not only is the Internet Superior, but that Newspapers demise cannot happen soon enough.
_______________________________________________________
Alright the topic for debate is: "The demise of the printed newspaper can't happen soon enough, the internet is a superior source for news."
And boy is that true.
What does the internet clinch that makes it better?
1) Up the minute news, also known as breaking news. The internet can give a person access to breaking news, whereas it would take a whole day just to get that exact same news in the form of newspaper which at that time is useless, because that person already knows the news.
2) Newspapers drastic decline as of late, many big Newspaper are going bankrupt and closing there doors. Soon Internet will be the only source for news.
3) Reading on the Internet is free of charge! Why spend 50 cents? or a dollar now? or a dollar 50? Just turn the internet on and news is at your fingertips.
4) Newspaper does not cover the past. Current Newspapers do not have articles of the past something that could be of value to someone. Instead of going to a library and searching through countless of newspaper archives, just load the internet up and begin to surf.
5) Newspaper Journalist are biased! This is what is important, to me at least. I want both sides of the story and then I want to find the truth. By reading just the paper you open the door to one to saide and not the other.
6) Newspaper kills to many trees:
Look at the ballpark figures behind the 1.5 million daily papers put out by the current four. It takes 12 established trees to make one tonne of newsprint, which is enough to print 14,000 editions of an average-size tabloid. That means a daily usage of newsprint of a little over 107 tonnes. Which, in turn, means the felling of 1,284 trees.
SOURCE
Thats a lot of pure oxygen to lose. All for a dieing business like newspaper. The internet does not involve the killing of trees. To much oxygen lost by the cutting down the trees for the newspaper.
7) Annoying adds in the paper and uninteresting articles. Why waste your money on something that your not even going to read. On the internet you do not have to deal with such inconvinences.
8) A person cannot watch live-stream media in the newspaper, on the internet not only does it open the doors to written news, it also opens the doors to video news and audio news. A huge plus against the newspaper.
Alright, during the course of this debate I will elaborate further on the above and add new information to prove that not only is the Internet Superior, but that Newspapers demise cannot happen soon enough.
Many thanks to SDog for the great topic, TheMythLives for the challenge, and to the readers and judges who will hopefully enjoy this debate.
"The demise of the printed newspaper can't happen soon enough, the internet is a superior source for news."
I don't think so.
The smell of the newspaper.
The snap and crinkle of the paper.
The smudges of newsprint on your fingers.
The relaxation of perusing the paper first thing in the morning or after work.
The Sunday morning crosswords.
The editorials.
The classifieds.
The time honored tradition of the American newspaper.
Is the internet a superior source for news? Maybe for some. But, the paperboy can't toss the internet onto your front stoop early in the morning. The internet isn't hometown USA. The internet isn't available to everyone, especially in small towns. The internet is beyond the understanding of some folks.
The newspaper, whether it be a big city monster or a small town rag, has a place in the heritage of this country. It will never go away.
My opponent points out several things that seem to make the internet "better" than the newspaper:
Some people don't have access to the internet. So, that "breaking news" doesn't get to them in any other fashion than the newspaper. They may hear a blurb about it on the radio or see a flash of it on the television, but the bulk of their news is gotten from the good old newspaper.
Newspapers are declining; this is a fact. Does that make them obsolete? No. It just makes them more streamlined and more efficient in the long run. Big papers will merge and small town papers will continue as they always have.
Yeah, it's free of charge until one factors in the price of a computer and the price of an ISP. Yep, that's free.
If someone wants the current news, they aren't looking for the past. This point is of little to no relevance in this debate.
And, other journalists aren't biased? Who do you think is writing the news on the internet? Journalists!!!
And, I can say that more and more are being printed on recycled paper, so that argument will be moot before long. Plus, the internet uses too much electricity and contributes to global warming, as well.
Annoying ads? Has my opponent every seen ads on news sites or the dreaded pop-ups?? Plus, newspaper ads are just on paper where internet ads can destroy a computer and cause headaches of unimaginable pain.
People have televisions in areas where they do not have computers or internet access. That neutralizes this point.
As this debate progresses, I will delve into the storied history of newspapers in the US, the impact they have had on society, and how they can better compete in the future.
The newspaper is here to stay.
"The demise of the printed newspaper can't happen soon enough, the internet is a superior source for news."
I don't think so.
The smell of the newspaper.
The snap and crinkle of the paper.
The smudges of newsprint on your fingers.
The relaxation of perusing the paper first thing in the morning or after work.
The Sunday morning crosswords.
The editorials.
The classifieds.
The time honored tradition of the American newspaper.
Is the internet a superior source for news? Maybe for some. But, the paperboy can't toss the internet onto your front stoop early in the morning. The internet isn't hometown USA. The internet isn't available to everyone, especially in small towns. The internet is beyond the understanding of some folks.
The newspaper, whether it be a big city monster or a small town rag, has a place in the heritage of this country. It will never go away.
My opponent points out several things that seem to make the internet "better" than the newspaper:
1) Up the minute news, also known as breaking news. The internet can give a person access to breaking news, whereas it would take a whole day just to get that exact same news in the form of newspaper which at that time is useless, because that person already knows the news.
Some people don't have access to the internet. So, that "breaking news" doesn't get to them in any other fashion than the newspaper. They may hear a blurb about it on the radio or see a flash of it on the television, but the bulk of their news is gotten from the good old newspaper.
2) Newspapers drastic decline as of late, many big Newspaper are going bankrupt and closing there doors. Soon Internet will be the only source for news.
Newspapers are declining; this is a fact. Does that make them obsolete? No. It just makes them more streamlined and more efficient in the long run. Big papers will merge and small town papers will continue as they always have.
3) Reading on the Internet is free of charge! Why spend 50 cents? or a dollar now? or a dollar 50? Just turn the internet on and news is at your fingertips.
Yeah, it's free of charge until one factors in the price of a computer and the price of an ISP. Yep, that's free.
4) Newspaper does not cover the past. Current Newspapers do not have articles of the past something that could be of value to someone. Instead of going to a library and searching through countless of newspaper archives, just load the internet up and begin to surf.
If someone wants the current news, they aren't looking for the past. This point is of little to no relevance in this debate.
5) Newspaper Journalist are biased! This is what is important, to me at least. I want both sides of the story and then I want to find the truth. By reading just the paper you open the door to one to saide and not the other.
And, other journalists aren't biased? Who do you think is writing the news on the internet? Journalists!!!
6) Newspaper kills to many trees:
And, I can say that more and more are being printed on recycled paper, so that argument will be moot before long. Plus, the internet uses too much electricity and contributes to global warming, as well.
7) Annoying adds in the paper and uninteresting articles. Why waste your money on something that your not even going to read. On the internet you do not have to deal with such inconvinences.
Annoying ads? Has my opponent every seen ads on news sites or the dreaded pop-ups?? Plus, newspaper ads are just on paper where internet ads can destroy a computer and cause headaches of unimaginable pain.
8) A person cannot watch live-stream media in the newspaper, on the internet not only does it open the doors to written news, it also opens the doors to video news and audio news. A huge plus against the newspaper.
People have televisions in areas where they do not have computers or internet access. That neutralizes this point.
As this debate progresses, I will delve into the storied history of newspapers in the US, the impact they have had on society, and how they can better compete in the future.
The newspaper is here to stay.
reply to post by skeptic1
And when it rains the paper is unreadable and causes more headaches than good.
That is a small number of people, people that have cells phones that allows them to get the breaking news from the internet, blackberry, and other devices that our older generation uses.
It takes a lot of time and effort to make such paper, not to mention the huge rising cost of ink, paper and machines to print these papers. Internet is the safest and eco-fiendliest supplier of news out there.
Yes, but in the news paper you only have access to ONE side on the internet you have access toother sides of the story.
Global Warming has yet to be proven and if you want to use this argumnet the newspaper factories are worse, Those machines have to use huge amounts of electricity to print all those papers as well. But Global Warming has not been proven and irrevelnt to this argument.
Well If you have a pop up blocker, you are fine and good anti-virus system you are also good. Plus we should all know better than to click those eyes.
___________________________________________
Newspaper is also transitioning to the internet. Many huge Newspapers are telling there journalist to move to the 21st century and BLOG and report news on the internet.
Newspaper going, going gone
Everything is moving toward the internet, such as comics, college, business is even moving toward the internet, with the development of online storage data, which enables businesses and other companies to keep all there records on the internet, saving thousands of trees.
I am not usre about you, but I have had many issues with Newspaper, have you ever tried to hold it and it fold backwards? Annoying. Smudges on your hands that you have to wash off, Annoying. Relaxation of pursuing a paper? More like hide and seek hell, papers go MIA after lunch time, it becomes a headache real quick, which is another reason why th einternet is amuch better source, most work places have computers with internet access to read the news. Sunday morning crosswords? Why not just play a huge amount of crosswords on the internet, or print one out and play it on your computer. You can read editorials and classifieds on the internet, craigslist for instance and other websites, like NOLA.com which is the Newspaper internet for New orleans. We are adopting a new and better tradition, the internet news, your number one stop for news!
Yes and even Skeptic1 noted that it is a possibility that it could be. There is no possibility, it is a fact.
But, the paperboy can't toss the internet onto your front stoop early in the morning.
And when it rains the paper is unreadable and causes more headaches than good.
Some people don't have access to the internet. So, that "breaking news" doesn't get to them in any other fashion than the newspaper. They may hear a blurb about it on the radio or see a flash of it on the television, but the bulk of their news is gotten from the good old newspaper.
That is a small number of people, people that have cells phones that allows them to get the breaking news from the internet, blackberry, and other devices that our older generation uses.
Newspapers are declining; this is a fact. Does that make them obsolete? No. It just makes them more streamlined and more efficient in the long run. Big papers will merge and small town papers will continue as they always have
It takes a lot of time and effort to make such paper, not to mention the huge rising cost of ink, paper and machines to print these papers. Internet is the safest and eco-fiendliest supplier of news out there.
And, other journalists aren't biased? Who do you think is writing the news on the internet? Journalists!!!
Yes, but in the news paper you only have access to ONE side on the internet you have access toother sides of the story.
And, I can say that more and more are being printed on recycled paper, so that argument will be moot before long. Plus, the internet uses too much electricity and contributes to global warming, as well.
Global Warming has yet to be proven and if you want to use this argumnet the newspaper factories are worse, Those machines have to use huge amounts of electricity to print all those papers as well. But Global Warming has not been proven and irrevelnt to this argument.
Annoying ads? Has my opponent every seen ads on news sites or the dreaded pop-ups?? Plus, newspaper ads are just on paper where internet ads can destroy a computer and cause headaches of unimaginable pain.
Well If you have a pop up blocker, you are fine and good anti-virus system you are also good. Plus we should all know better than to click those eyes.
___________________________________________
Newspaper is also transitioning to the internet. Many huge Newspapers are telling there journalist to move to the 21st century and BLOG and report news on the internet.
-80 of the nation's top 100 newspapers offered reporter blogs. On 63 of these blogs, readers could comment on posts written by reporters.
-76 of the nation's top 100 newspapers offer RSS feeds on their websites. All of these feeds are partial feeds, and none included ads.
-Major Web tools, such as blogs and RSS penetrated both the most and least circulated newspapers.
-Video was the most common form of multimedia found on the websites, and was offered by 61 of the newspapers.
Newspaper going, going gone
Everything is moving toward the internet, such as comics, college, business is even moving toward the internet, with the development of online storage data, which enables businesses and other companies to keep all there records on the internet, saving thousands of trees.
The smell of the newspaper.
The snap and crinkle of the paper.
The smudges of newsprint on your fingers.
The relaxation of perusing the paper first thing in the morning or after work.
The Sunday morning crosswords.
The editorials.
The classifieds.
The time honored tradition of the American newspaper
I am not usre about you, but I have had many issues with Newspaper, have you ever tried to hold it and it fold backwards? Annoying. Smudges on your hands that you have to wash off, Annoying. Relaxation of pursuing a paper? More like hide and seek hell, papers go MIA after lunch time, it becomes a headache real quick, which is another reason why th einternet is amuch better source, most work places have computers with internet access to read the news. Sunday morning crosswords? Why not just play a huge amount of crosswords on the internet, or print one out and play it on your computer. You can read editorials and classifieds on the internet, craigslist for instance and other websites, like NOLA.com which is the Newspaper internet for New orleans. We are adopting a new and better tradition, the internet news, your number one stop for news!
Is the internet a superior source for news?
Yes and even Skeptic1 noted that it is a possibility that it could be. There is no possibility, it is a fact.
The first continuously published newspaper in the US Colonies was The Boston News-Letter. It began in 1704, and an American tradition was
born. Almost 80 years later, the Pennsylvania Evening Post became the first daily published newspaper in America and daily newspapers have
been a part of our lives ever since.
Newspapers are more convenient than the internet. Not everyone has a computer. Not everyone has a laptop. Not everyone has reliable access to the internet. A newspaper is convenient, mobile, and accessible to all.
If newspapers were replaced with the internet, what would happen to reading levels?
People are so busy now as it is. Most only have time to read the newspaper. If that is gone, what will be read?
Newspapers may very well become less popular with newer generations, but they will never disappear.
Is half the US population small???
As of December 2008, the US had 163.3 million internet users (Source). The US has a population of 307 million....roughly (Source). So, around half of the US population can get their news from the internet.
What about the other half? They don't have access to the internet. Are they suppose to do without news?
Newspapers cater to all groups of society. You don't have to have special equipment to get the news from a paper. You don't have to be hooked up to a phone line or have access to high speed internet to get the news from a paper.
All you have to do is go to the corner store or walk out your front door, and there is the news of the day waiting at your fingertips for around a dollar.
That's all fine, well, and good. But, here's the rub. The newspapers are using the internet as a tool to go along with their hard-copies. They aren't choosing one over the other.
The newspapers appeal to a certain group of the population. The internet version of the newspaper appeals to another group.
Newspapers aren't competing with the internet, nor are they bowing down to technological advances. They are using the internet to reach bigger audiences, create more ad revenue, and expand their reach in the journalistic arena.
They aren't admitting defeat; they are using their "competitor" to keep them going.
The internet is a huge place with various points of view.....and questionable validity. With local newspapers, one knows that the story has been researched, checked, and re-checked before being published. Strict slander and libel laws demand this.
Anyone can post anything on the internet....it doesn't have to be true. So, yes, people may have access to other sides of the story, but unlike with the newspaper, there is no guarantee that any of the sides on the internet have been vetted and ring true.
While the internet may have some convenience factors, it also has its downsides:
* Lack of availability (half the population of the US doesn't use it)
* Mobility (not everyone has laptops, and if they do, internet connections are not always guaranteed when traveling)
* Prop for newspapers (big papers aren't stopping printing; they are using the internet as a tool)
* Validity (there is so much on the internet, it is hard to separate truth from fiction.....not so with a newspaper)
Socratic Questions
1. Should the internet replace newspapers completely?
2. If the internet replaces the newspaper completely, how does the other half of the US population get their news?
3. If the internet replaces the newspaper completely, should it be held to the same strict libel and slander standards as newspapers are?
Newspapers are more convenient than the internet. Not everyone has a computer. Not everyone has a laptop. Not everyone has reliable access to the internet. A newspaper is convenient, mobile, and accessible to all.
If newspapers were replaced with the internet, what would happen to reading levels?
People are so busy now as it is. Most only have time to read the newspaper. If that is gone, what will be read?
Newspapers may very well become less popular with newer generations, but they will never disappear.
That is a small number of people, people that have cells phones that allows them to get the breaking news from the internet, blackberry, and other devices that our older generation uses.
Is half the US population small???
As of December 2008, the US had 163.3 million internet users (Source). The US has a population of 307 million....roughly (Source). So, around half of the US population can get their news from the internet.
What about the other half? They don't have access to the internet. Are they suppose to do without news?
Newspapers cater to all groups of society. You don't have to have special equipment to get the news from a paper. You don't have to be hooked up to a phone line or have access to high speed internet to get the news from a paper.
All you have to do is go to the corner store or walk out your front door, and there is the news of the day waiting at your fingertips for around a dollar.
Newspaper is also transitioning to the internet. Many huge Newspapers are telling there journalist to move to the 21st century and BLOG and report news on the internet.
That's all fine, well, and good. But, here's the rub. The newspapers are using the internet as a tool to go along with their hard-copies. They aren't choosing one over the other.
The newspapers appeal to a certain group of the population. The internet version of the newspaper appeals to another group.
Source
The results of our research clearly showed that America's newspapers, unlike political candidates, are generally embracing the Internet and are using new and improving Web tools to their advantage.
Newspapers aren't competing with the internet, nor are they bowing down to technological advances. They are using the internet to reach bigger audiences, create more ad revenue, and expand their reach in the journalistic arena.
They aren't admitting defeat; they are using their "competitor" to keep them going.
Yes, but in the news paper you only have access to ONE side on the internet you have access toother sides of the story.
The internet is a huge place with various points of view.....and questionable validity. With local newspapers, one knows that the story has been researched, checked, and re-checked before being published. Strict slander and libel laws demand this.
Anyone can post anything on the internet....it doesn't have to be true. So, yes, people may have access to other sides of the story, but unlike with the newspaper, there is no guarantee that any of the sides on the internet have been vetted and ring true.
While the internet may have some convenience factors, it also has its downsides:
* Lack of availability (half the population of the US doesn't use it)
* Mobility (not everyone has laptops, and if they do, internet connections are not always guaranteed when traveling)
* Prop for newspapers (big papers aren't stopping printing; they are using the internet as a tool)
* Validity (there is so much on the internet, it is hard to separate truth from fiction.....not so with a newspaper)
Socratic Questions
1. Should the internet replace newspapers completely?
2. If the internet replaces the newspaper completely, how does the other half of the US population get their news?
3. If the internet replaces the newspaper completely, should it be held to the same strict libel and slander standards as newspapers are?
Disclaimer, or Disclaimor (if your french): I do not believe and the following statements should not be regarded as my own personal belief, only
what is fact and what is fact can hurt... a lot. So this is a disclaimer/disclaimor to those of you that may or may not have health care or some other
need. Again I do not affiliate myself with what I am about to write, only what the debate calls for. If anyone is offended in anyway, I
apologize.
________________________________________________________
Alright here we go:
About the same thing that is happening now, kids, teens and young adults barely read the newspaper, they get there news from the internet.
A book.
They are already disappearing. Here is a list of the top ten that are failing and have already failed:
I also found it interesting that the only other option for these newspapers were: Be saved by a miracle or go digital. Here are a few examples:
Ah yes, but the same can go for health care, not many people have health care in this country. As cold as this may seem, they do without. They deal with it, because the majority outweighs the minority 99% of the time.
Actually they are, for instance: The Times Picayune, my paper, has an internet site called Nola.com and you can find so much more information on NOLA.com than you will ever find in our newspaper. More classified adds (which are easier to sort), editorials, and much, much more.
Validity? Shame. I guess if you call this Validity, then you are very right about how the papers check, recheck, and then publish:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a058494f36ff.jpg[/atsimg]
But bias runs through the newspaper like wild fire. It reminds me of the Scopes monkey trial where only one side was being allowed to be presented, where is the OTHER SIDE? Where are the other opinions? Some of these journalist are plain wrong. If a person reads the newspaper and believes that what was written was true, hmmmm, rephrase that, lets say that those hoaxers who found bigfoot were published in the paper and the journalist being a bigfoot believer wrote that this was an actual bigfoot, that person has just been brainwashed into believing that bigfoot was real, when on the internet they could easily check this "fact" and find out that it was not true.
Lack of availability? Interesting because I am pretty sure there are thousands of ways to get this avaiability, just go to walmart. Half the population argument again? Look at the DTV transition much more than half of the population does not have there converter box yet, and unfortunately will have to do without TV, as bad as that sounds, it is the truth.
Mobility? Nope, now there are cellphones like the apple I-Phone which allows you to get Internet almost anywhere, Verizion has there owns phones, Sprint and many others. Including blackberry and many, many more electronic on-the-go internet services.
Prop? More like they are on life support-
Another newspaper moving to Web Only.
and another one:
It appears the newspaper is losing the war.
Validity. I think we pretty much stated otherwise, the newspaper has many errors concerning validity in them.
SQ Answers:
Absolutley, this is the 21st centuary time to move away from the 1700's tradition.
Word of mouth, TV, Radio and a lot of other way. Possibly Cellphone internet news, library computers internet access, and a lot of other ways. Newspaper does not cover breaking news.
Legality, hmmm, that is a tough question. I suppose it depends on if it is a BLOG or an official News website. Do you understand what I am saying? Blogs are not held to as much liability or lawsuits, but offical news websites are. Hope I answered your questions.
____________________________________________________
My SQ for Skeptic:
1) For news that is breaking/important, what is the best way to get it, through the internet or newspaper?
2) Is the newspaper failing, since a lot of major newspapers have gone under?
3) How does the newspaper survive when so many young people today do not even read the newspaper?
4) How do you get your news (the majority of your news), through Newspaper or the internet?
5) Do you believe the newspaper is Bias? and elaborate on why or why not.
________________________________________________________
Alright here we go:
If newspapers were replaced with the internet, what would happen to reading levels?
About the same thing that is happening now, kids, teens and young adults barely read the newspaper, they get there news from the internet.
People are so busy now as it is. Most only have time to read the newspaper. If that is gone, what will be read?
A book.
Newspapers may very well become less popular with newer generations, but they will never disappear.
They are already disappearing. Here is a list of the top ten that are failing and have already failed:
SOURCE
The Philadelphia Daily News, The Minneapolis Star Tribune The Miami Herald, The Detroit News, The Boston Globe, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Daily News, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Cleveland Plain Dealer
I also found it interesting that the only other option for these newspapers were: Be saved by a miracle or go digital. Here are a few examples:
Same source as above.
The Plain Dealer will be shut or go digital by the end of next year.
Boston.com, the online site that includes the digital aspects of the Globe, will probably be all that remains of the operation.
the Herald will go online-only with two editions, one for English-language readers and one for Spanish.
As of December 2008, the US had 163.3 million internet users (Source). The US has a population of 307 million....roughly (Source). So, around half of the US population can get their news from the internet.
Ah yes, but the same can go for health care, not many people have health care in this country. As cold as this may seem, they do without. They deal with it, because the majority outweighs the minority 99% of the time.
The newspapers are using the internet as a tool to go along with their hard-copies. They aren't choosing one over the other.
Actually they are, for instance: The Times Picayune, my paper, has an internet site called Nola.com and you can find so much more information on NOLA.com than you will ever find in our newspaper. More classified adds (which are easier to sort), editorials, and much, much more.
The internet is a huge place with various points of view.....and questionable validity. With local newspapers, one knows that the story has been researched, checked, and re-checked before being published. Strict slander and libel laws demand this.
Validity? Shame. I guess if you call this Validity, then you are very right about how the papers check, recheck, and then publish:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a058494f36ff.jpg[/atsimg]
But bias runs through the newspaper like wild fire. It reminds me of the Scopes monkey trial where only one side was being allowed to be presented, where is the OTHER SIDE? Where are the other opinions? Some of these journalist are plain wrong. If a person reads the newspaper and believes that what was written was true, hmmmm, rephrase that, lets say that those hoaxers who found bigfoot were published in the paper and the journalist being a bigfoot believer wrote that this was an actual bigfoot, that person has just been brainwashed into believing that bigfoot was real, when on the internet they could easily check this "fact" and find out that it was not true.
While the internet may have some convenience factors, it also has its downsides:
* Lack of availability (half the population of the US doesn't use it)
* Mobility (not everyone has laptops, and if they do, internet connections are not always guaranteed when traveling)
* Prop for newspapers (big papers aren't stopping printing; they are using the internet as a tool)
* Validity (there is so much on the internet, it is hard to separate truth from fiction.....not so with a newspaper)
Lack of availability? Interesting because I am pretty sure there are thousands of ways to get this avaiability, just go to walmart. Half the population argument again? Look at the DTV transition much more than half of the population does not have there converter box yet, and unfortunately will have to do without TV, as bad as that sounds, it is the truth.
Mobility? Nope, now there are cellphones like the apple I-Phone which allows you to get Internet almost anywhere, Verizion has there owns phones, Sprint and many others. Including blackberry and many, many more electronic on-the-go internet services.
Prop? More like they are on life support-
SOURCE
"The Internet was already disrupting things and then you get this cyclical downturn which is making things worse," said John Yemma, editor of the Monitor which will replace its daily print edition with its Web site a week from Friday and put out a weekly magazine.
Another newspaper moving to Web Only.
and another one:
SOURCE
Seattle newspaper going Web-only:
Hearst Corp., which owns the 146-year-old P-I, made the announcement today, saying that it failed to find a buyer for the newspaper, which it put up for a 60-day sale in January after years of losing money....
The newspaper industry has seen ad revenue fall in recent years as advertisers migrate to the Internet, particularly to sites offering free or low-cost alternatives for classified ads.
It appears the newspaper is losing the war.
Validity. I think we pretty much stated otherwise, the newspaper has many errors concerning validity in them.
SQ Answers:
1. Should the internet replace newspapers completely?
Absolutley, this is the 21st centuary time to move away from the 1700's tradition.
2. If the internet replaces the newspaper completely, how does the other half of the US population get their news?
Word of mouth, TV, Radio and a lot of other way. Possibly Cellphone internet news, library computers internet access, and a lot of other ways. Newspaper does not cover breaking news.
3. If the internet replaces the newspaper completely, should it be held to the same strict libel and slander standards as newspapers are?
Legality, hmmm, that is a tough question. I suppose it depends on if it is a BLOG or an official News website. Do you understand what I am saying? Blogs are not held to as much liability or lawsuits, but offical news websites are. Hope I answered your questions.
____________________________________________________
My SQ for Skeptic:
1) For news that is breaking/important, what is the best way to get it, through the internet or newspaper?
2) Is the newspaper failing, since a lot of major newspapers have gone under?
3) How does the newspaper survive when so many young people today do not even read the newspaper?
4) How do you get your news (the majority of your news), through Newspaper or the internet?
5) Do you believe the newspaper is Bias? and elaborate on why or why not.
In the US, newspapers reach around 43 million households per day.
43 million households partake in the tradition of newspaper reading, crosswords, comics, editorials, classifieds, and then, maybe, lining the bird cage with it after they are done.
Can't line that bird cage with the internet.
My opponent's Socratic Questions:
Actually, it is neither. Radio and/or television are the best sources for breaking news. They reach more people. More people have continuous access to them. And, they are normally first in breaking a major story.
Not everyone is always near a computer, nor are papers always handy.
Sorry, but in reality, neither newspapers nor the internet are the best sources for breaking news for the populance as a whole.
The newspaper is declining, not failing. Newspapers are streamlining, true, but they are also taking advantage of internet resources to prop themselves up. They are not giving into the internet, they are using the internet for their own gain.
Hate to break it to you, but the young do not make the world go round. The younger generation is not the be all, end all in society today. My generation (Generation X), my parent's generation (the Baby Boomers), and their parent's generation (the WWII and Korea generation) are still alive and kicking and a lot of us prefer the newspaper to the internet.
We may use the internet, but we embrace the newspaper, too. We embrace tradition.
I use the internet, radio, TV, and the newspaper. In fact, I get 3 newspapers daily....I love to read. I would much prefer to read the papers front to back with a cup of tea than surf the net in search of the news.
If something grabs me in the paper, I may use the internet to find more information. But, the internet is not my main source for news. The internet is my main tool for research.
Big difference.
Media is bias. Television media is biased. Talk radio is biased. The internet news sites and bloggers are very biased. Journalists for papers are biased.
"Fair and balanced" is a joke. People are biased. Therefore, what they do reflects their bias. If they are journalists, that bias will come through in their work; it is inevitable.
However, due to strict slander and libel laws, newspapers have to be more factual than opinionated in their reporting. On the internet, anyone can post anything and pass it off for fact without really facing any problems.
The beauty of anonymity.
Ahhhhh.....so, who cares if some don't want to use computers or have no access? As long as the younger generation is catered to, that's the only thing that matters?
The younger generation does not fuel this country nor its economy. It is not the job of their parents nor their grandparents to sweep aside their traditions to cater to the digital age.
This country is built on traditions. Those traditions need to be held onto and honored. Newspapers are one of those traditions.
Trashing them just because it is "cool" isn't enough.
And, it doesn't run through the internet "news" sites like wild fire? Either you are confused as to what bias is or you are blind to it.
A newspaper can get sued if they knowingly print false stories about people (libel). Can the same be said of the internet? Bloggers galore have a field day with information that is no where near the truth and get away with it daily.
Where are the news standards for the internet when bloggers can print whatever they wish without the fears of repercussions??
Sites like Huffingtonpost.com. dailykos.com. and worldnetdaily.com are so biased one way or the other, it is shameful. But, people use those sites as their main source of news on a daily basis.
It is sad and scary. Give me my daily New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Atlanta Journal, and sometimes the Albany Herald. I can read those and get more news, less opinion and bias.
And, the internet is so much better?
Newspapers have a name, a phone number, an editor, and numerous journalists that are able to be contacted with the simple act of picking up a phone. If there are questions about an article, a person can call to check. Newspapers are subject to a strict editorial code. Not so with the internet:
Source
So, people may get information from the internet, but it may not always be the true news.
Socratic Questions
1. Should American traditions be given up in order to cater to a specific portion of society?
2. Should specific portions of society be ignored just because another portion of society is more "technologically advanced"?
3. Should bloggers and so-called internet news sites be subject to the same editorial guidelines and libel standards as print media (newspapers) is, especially since "bloggers" on the internet are taking the place of the "editorial columns" in newspapers?
43 million households partake in the tradition of newspaper reading, crosswords, comics, editorials, classifieds, and then, maybe, lining the bird cage with it after they are done.
Can't line that bird cage with the internet.
My opponent's Socratic Questions:
1) For news that is breaking/important, what is the best way to get it, through the internet or newspaper?
Actually, it is neither. Radio and/or television are the best sources for breaking news. They reach more people. More people have continuous access to them. And, they are normally first in breaking a major story.
Not everyone is always near a computer, nor are papers always handy.
Sorry, but in reality, neither newspapers nor the internet are the best sources for breaking news for the populance as a whole.
2) Is the newspaper failing, since a lot of major newspapers have gone under?
The newspaper is declining, not failing. Newspapers are streamlining, true, but they are also taking advantage of internet resources to prop themselves up. They are not giving into the internet, they are using the internet for their own gain.
3) How does the newspaper survive when so many young people today do not even read the newspaper?
Hate to break it to you, but the young do not make the world go round. The younger generation is not the be all, end all in society today. My generation (Generation X), my parent's generation (the Baby Boomers), and their parent's generation (the WWII and Korea generation) are still alive and kicking and a lot of us prefer the newspaper to the internet.
We may use the internet, but we embrace the newspaper, too. We embrace tradition.
4) How do you get your news (the majority of your news), through Newspaper or the internet?
I use the internet, radio, TV, and the newspaper. In fact, I get 3 newspapers daily....I love to read. I would much prefer to read the papers front to back with a cup of tea than surf the net in search of the news.
If something grabs me in the paper, I may use the internet to find more information. But, the internet is not my main source for news. The internet is my main tool for research.
Big difference.
5) Do you believe the newspaper is Bias? and elaborate on why or why not.
Media is bias. Television media is biased. Talk radio is biased. The internet news sites and bloggers are very biased. Journalists for papers are biased.
"Fair and balanced" is a joke. People are biased. Therefore, what they do reflects their bias. If they are journalists, that bias will come through in their work; it is inevitable.
However, due to strict slander and libel laws, newspapers have to be more factual than opinionated in their reporting. On the internet, anyone can post anything and pass it off for fact without really facing any problems.
The beauty of anonymity.
Ah yes, but the same can go for health care, not many people have health care in this country. As cold as this may seem, they do without. They deal with it, because the majority outweighs the minority 99% of the time.
Ahhhhh.....so, who cares if some don't want to use computers or have no access? As long as the younger generation is catered to, that's the only thing that matters?
The younger generation does not fuel this country nor its economy. It is not the job of their parents nor their grandparents to sweep aside their traditions to cater to the digital age.
This country is built on traditions. Those traditions need to be held onto and honored. Newspapers are one of those traditions.
Trashing them just because it is "cool" isn't enough.
But bias runs through the newspaper like wild fire.
And, it doesn't run through the internet "news" sites like wild fire? Either you are confused as to what bias is or you are blind to it.
A newspaper can get sued if they knowingly print false stories about people (libel). Can the same be said of the internet? Bloggers galore have a field day with information that is no where near the truth and get away with it daily.
Where are the news standards for the internet when bloggers can print whatever they wish without the fears of repercussions??
Sites like Huffingtonpost.com. dailykos.com. and worldnetdaily.com are so biased one way or the other, it is shameful. But, people use those sites as their main source of news on a daily basis.
It is sad and scary. Give me my daily New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Atlanta Journal, and sometimes the Albany Herald. I can read those and get more news, less opinion and bias.
Validity. I think we pretty much stated otherwise, the newspaper has many errors concerning validity in them.
And, the internet is so much better?
Newspapers have a name, a phone number, an editor, and numerous journalists that are able to be contacted with the simple act of picking up a phone. If there are questions about an article, a person can call to check. Newspapers are subject to a strict editorial code. Not so with the internet:
Because the World Wide Web has exploded so quickly, there are no guidelines for material that is published in the medium. The world of print has evolved a set of guidelines through editorial processes and review boards so that readers can expect a certain quality with published works. When a reader purchases the New York Times or a National Geographic, there is a certain expectation about the type of material that will be included. On the Internet, anyone can publish whatever they desire.
Source
So, people may get information from the internet, but it may not always be the true news.
Socratic Questions
1. Should American traditions be given up in order to cater to a specific portion of society?
2. Should specific portions of society be ignored just because another portion of society is more "technologically advanced"?
3. Should bloggers and so-called internet news sites be subject to the same editorial guidelines and libel standards as print media (newspapers) is, especially since "bloggers" on the internet are taking the place of the "editorial columns" in newspapers?
reply to post by skeptic1
SQ's First:
Yes and it has been done. I think we all remember the Great Turkey Move? If you do not it was when Thanksgiving was moved up 1 week.
But who did Roosevelt Cater to? The Busniess owners, because they feared they would lose money, after all they were in the great depression. And Roosevelt moved Turkey day up one week, to increase Christmas sales! While there was an uproar, what had been done, was done and people had to deal with it.
Yes and we have seen this happen and will continue to see this happen. Cellphones, a lot of people still do not have cellphones, but rely only with there landline. Now what happens to those people when they are on the street? or when they are in a mall? How do they call for home? or better put: Why DID they call for home? With a payphone.
Payphones are dieing, here in New Orleans, or at least within my general area, we only have one payphone and it is 20 miles away.
The newer and better products replace the old and out of date products.
This is a tough question. Bloggers would probably be free to do as they please, in accordance with the First amendment and internet speech acts. However, Internet news sites and affliants with that news sites will recieve strict laws, infact I am almost certain that they already have this strict provision.
_____________________________________________________
Now for the rebuttal:
43 million? Interesting, how many use the internet?
WOW! That is a lot. When were these states recieved? March 31, 2009- that is a very recent number and puts the paper to shame with the amount of users that use the internet. I suppose the newspaper will be used for lining the cage only.....
Does not fuel this country? Does not fuel the economy?
I think Obama would differ as that may have sealed the deal for him, in winning this election:
That is a lot of young people, they are obviously fueling something.
It appears that they care more and if they care they will make smart decsions and in making those decisions free us from this economic trouble.
Your right its not the parents or older peoples job to cater, its there job to deal with what is coming. The Digital age is going to affect many elderies Televisions, a lot of older people like the old TV's and the old TV's do not work with the new converter box? But what are they going to? They have to deal with it.
Again the Bias issue. I'll explain it again.
Again lets go with Bigfoot:
Lets say that those hoaxers who found bigfoot were published in the paper and the journalist being a bigfoot believer wrote that this was an actual bigfoot, that person has just been brainwashed into believing that bigfoot was real, when on the internet they could easily check this "fact" and find out that it was not true.
With the Paper you only get ONE side, the internet opens the possibility of other sides. Bias is greater in the Newspaper, because on the Internet a person can find other articles about the same thing and find out all the points of views. Then they can expose the truth.
So do websites- email, editorials email, comment on articles and a lot of other things.
If you go a .edu, .gov, or news website you will probably find excellent information. I hope that nobody would read i-lie-to-you-in-the-news.net, I mean seriously using good judement and good web resources instead of the trash that idiots like to make up, you will find a huge massive volume of factual and up-to-date news.
Socratic Questions:
1) Why should the majority listen to the minority in a capitilist society?
2) Is it true that all good things come to an end?
SQ's First:
1. Should American traditions be given up in order to cater to a specific portion of society?
Yes and it has been done. I think we all remember the Great Turkey Move? If you do not it was when Thanksgiving was moved up 1 week.
Turkey Day moved? Say WHAT!
They asked Franklin Roosevelt to make Thanksgiving one week earlier. President Roosevelt ignored those concerns in 1933, but when Thanksgiving once again threatened to fall on the last day of November in 1939, FDR reconsidered the request and moved the date of Thanksgiving up one week. Thanksgiving 1939 would be held, President Roosevelt proclaimed, on November 23rd and not November 30th.
But who did Roosevelt Cater to? The Busniess owners, because they feared they would lose money, after all they were in the great depression. And Roosevelt moved Turkey day up one week, to increase Christmas sales! While there was an uproar, what had been done, was done and people had to deal with it.
2. Should specific portions of society be ignored just because another portion of society is more "technologically advanced"?
Yes and we have seen this happen and will continue to see this happen. Cellphones, a lot of people still do not have cellphones, but rely only with there landline. Now what happens to those people when they are on the street? or when they are in a mall? How do they call for home? or better put: Why DID they call for home? With a payphone.
Payphone Trouble
There's no denying the decline in public phones. Five years ago, there were 2.1 million coin-operated phones in the U.S. By 2003, that number had dwindled to 1.5 million, according to the most recent figures from the Federal Communications Commission. That year, U.S. pay phones generated $1.06 billion in revenue, less than half the $2.22 billion generated in 1999. Some believe those numbers have fallen even further, with the number of phones as low as 1.3 million.
Payphones are dieing, here in New Orleans, or at least within my general area, we only have one payphone and it is 20 miles away.
The newer and better products replace the old and out of date products.
3. Should bloggers and so-called internet news sites be subject to the same editorial guidelines and libel standards as print media (newspapers) is, especially since "bloggers" on the internet are taking the place of the "editorial columns" in newspapers?
This is a tough question. Bloggers would probably be free to do as they please, in accordance with the First amendment and internet speech acts. However, Internet news sites and affliants with that news sites will recieve strict laws, infact I am almost certain that they already have this strict provision.
_____________________________________________________
Now for the rebuttal:
In the US, newspapers reach around 43 million households per day.
43 million households partake in the tradition of newspaper reading, crosswords, comics, editorials, classifieds, and then, maybe, lining the bird cage with it after they are done.
43 million? Interesting, how many use the internet?
Internet Users: 251,290,489...........Population Percentage using Internet: 74.4 %
WOW! That is a lot. When were these states recieved? March 31, 2009- that is a very recent number and puts the paper to shame with the amount of users that use the internet. I suppose the newspaper will be used for lining the cage only.....
The younger generation does not fuel this country nor its economy. It is not the job of their parents nor their grandparents to sweep aside their traditions to cater to the digital age.
Does not fuel this country? Does not fuel the economy?
I think Obama would differ as that may have sealed the deal for him, in winning this election:
An estimated 22 to 24 million young people voted in this election, an increase in youth turnout by at least 2.2 million over 2004, according to CIRCLE.
That is a lot of young people, they are obviously fueling something.
Young people and economy
They (young people) are so worried about the future of the economy, according to a new survey from Charles Schwab, that they say making better choices about managing money is more important that strengthening family relationships or improving personal health and nutrition. They also said financial education in schools is even more important than sex education or physical education.
It appears that they care more and if they care they will make smart decsions and in making those decisions free us from this economic trouble.
Your right its not the parents or older peoples job to cater, its there job to deal with what is coming. The Digital age is going to affect many elderies Televisions, a lot of older people like the old TV's and the old TV's do not work with the new converter box? But what are they going to? They have to deal with it.
It is sad and scary. Give me my daily New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Atlanta Journal, and sometimes the Albany Herald. I can read those and get more news, less opinion and bias.
Again the Bias issue. I'll explain it again.
Again lets go with Bigfoot:
Lets say that those hoaxers who found bigfoot were published in the paper and the journalist being a bigfoot believer wrote that this was an actual bigfoot, that person has just been brainwashed into believing that bigfoot was real, when on the internet they could easily check this "fact" and find out that it was not true.
With the Paper you only get ONE side, the internet opens the possibility of other sides. Bias is greater in the Newspaper, because on the Internet a person can find other articles about the same thing and find out all the points of views. Then they can expose the truth.
Newspapers have a name, a phone number, an editor, and numerous journalists that are able to be contacted with the simple act of picking up a phone. If there are questions about an article, a person can call to check.
So do websites- email, editorials email, comment on articles and a lot of other things.
So, people may get information from the internet, but it may not always be the true news.
If you go a .edu, .gov, or news website you will probably find excellent information. I hope that nobody would read i-lie-to-you-in-the-news.net, I mean seriously using good judement and good web resources instead of the trash that idiots like to make up, you will find a huge massive volume of factual and up-to-date news.
Socratic Questions:
1) Why should the majority listen to the minority in a capitilist society?
2) Is it true that all good things come to an end?
First, my opponent's Socratic Questions:
They shouldn't always. It all depends on the issue. If the majority believed that slavery was good, should the minority listen to them and bow down?
I mean, slave wages are better for "capitalism" than working and/or living wages, right?
Just because something may appear to be better for capitalism does not make it right.
Not necessarily. Again, it depends on the situation.
Newspapers do not have to die out due to the internet. They can do like they are beginning to do now and use the internet to their advantage.
So, how exactly can newspapers survive the internet?
Well, the same way they survived the advent of the radio and television.
They will rely on their traditional value and they will adapt.
The convenience of picking up the paper and reading it on the commute is not going to go away. It isn't very comfortable to read large quantities of text on a mobile device; that 4 inch screen is no where near big enough. And, some people may not want to carry a device like that. If and when they want something to read, they can pick up the paper, read it, then toss it.
Papers can adapt by increasing the quality of the writing within. Newspapers don't need to try to emulate blogs; dumbing down is never the answer.
Newspapers can continue to move online to use the internet to their advantage. They can still print daily editions or weekly editions and use the internet to prop up their actual papers.
All newspapers are not declining. Some are growing. They just have to adapt and use the internet.....not compete with it or bow down to it.
And, we see how well that is going so far.
The young tend to lean towards what is new and shiny. New and shiny doesn't always mean "best".
Yeah....like the websites are gonna call themselves that. :shk:
But, that is the problem. Anyone can post anything on the internet. It doesn't have to be true. It doesn't have to be backed up with journalistic sources. It isn't subject to editorial checks and control.
It is just there.
Newspapers are more reliable due to years and years of trial and error. Newspapers are more reliable due to years and years of standards and practices. Newspapers are more reliable due to editorial checks and balances and control.
You can't print anything you want in a newspaper the way you can on the internet.
True, the internet is a great thing. It dumbs things down for most people and caters to the younger generation's attention span.....which is about as long as the life span of a fruit fly.
It has a world of information....some of it true, some of it utterly false. And, unless you do some serious digging, you can't always be sure of which is which.
It has broad access......to all kinds of people (good and very bad) and all kinds of viruses and bugs that can destroy a computer in minutes.
Just because it is new and fast and condenses every thing down into 20 words or less doesn't make it better.
Newspapers know this and are using it to their advantage by implementing the internet into their journalistic process and using the internet to broaden readership.
They are adapting, not admitting defeat. The internet has not won....not by a long shot.
1) Why should the majority listen to the minority in a capitilist society?
They shouldn't always. It all depends on the issue. If the majority believed that slavery was good, should the minority listen to them and bow down?
I mean, slave wages are better for "capitalism" than working and/or living wages, right?
Just because something may appear to be better for capitalism does not make it right.
2) Is it true that all good things come to an end?
Not necessarily. Again, it depends on the situation.
Newspapers do not have to die out due to the internet. They can do like they are beginning to do now and use the internet to their advantage.
So, how exactly can newspapers survive the internet?
Well, the same way they survived the advent of the radio and television.
They will rely on their traditional value and they will adapt.
The convenience of picking up the paper and reading it on the commute is not going to go away. It isn't very comfortable to read large quantities of text on a mobile device; that 4 inch screen is no where near big enough. And, some people may not want to carry a device like that. If and when they want something to read, they can pick up the paper, read it, then toss it.
Papers can adapt by increasing the quality of the writing within. Newspapers don't need to try to emulate blogs; dumbing down is never the answer.
Newspapers can continue to move online to use the internet to their advantage. They can still print daily editions or weekly editions and use the internet to prop up their actual papers.
Source
Newspapers will not disappear…they will just have to adapt. The Pew Research Center recently published an article saying that 40% find their national and international news online, 35% find it in newspapers, and 70% find it online (people were allowed to vote for more than one option). From ’07 – ’08 the Internet gained an astounding 25%. Newspapers grew by 5% and television decreased by 11%.
All newspapers are not declining. Some are growing. They just have to adapt and use the internet.....not compete with it or bow down to it.
I think Obama would differ as that may have sealed the deal for him, in winning this election.
And, we see how well that is going so far.
The young tend to lean towards what is new and shiny. New and shiny doesn't always mean "best".
I hope that nobody would read i-lie-to-you-in-the-news.net, I mean seriously using good judement and good web resources instead of the trash that idiots like to make up, you will find a huge massive volume of factual and up-to-date news.
Yeah....like the websites are gonna call themselves that. :shk:
But, that is the problem. Anyone can post anything on the internet. It doesn't have to be true. It doesn't have to be backed up with journalistic sources. It isn't subject to editorial checks and control.
It is just there.
Newspapers are more reliable due to years and years of trial and error. Newspapers are more reliable due to years and years of standards and practices. Newspapers are more reliable due to editorial checks and balances and control.
You can't print anything you want in a newspaper the way you can on the internet.
True, the internet is a great thing. It dumbs things down for most people and caters to the younger generation's attention span.....which is about as long as the life span of a fruit fly.
It has a world of information....some of it true, some of it utterly false. And, unless you do some serious digging, you can't always be sure of which is which.
It has broad access......to all kinds of people (good and very bad) and all kinds of viruses and bugs that can destroy a computer in minutes.
Just because it is new and fast and condenses every thing down into 20 words or less doesn't make it better.
Newspapers know this and are using it to their advantage by implementing the internet into their journalistic process and using the internet to broaden readership.
They are adapting, not admitting defeat. The internet has not won....not by a long shot.
Closing Statement
So true, I couldn't help but laugh. Nice comment.
__________________________________________________________
I asked if all good things would come to an end and Skeptic stated that:
Interesting, because according to science, everything tends toward disorder. Once something is made and its all good, that something is doing its groovey thing and then slowly but surely, it begins to die and die, until it is done and dies out. All according to the second law of thermo-dynamics, the entropy law- it states that:
If I remember correctly from a book I read about a year ago "The Vanishing Newspaper”, by Philip Meyer calculates that the first quarter of 2043 will be the moment when newsprint die in America as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition. I actually calculated much sooner:
This is for people who only read the newspaper for their news puposes:
Dividing your numbers of 43 million people who still read the paper (which I have rounded to 45 million) and dividing the internet users which is 250,000,000. We get a number that looks like: .18 now lets take .18; now I did this to get a figure of how many people use both the internet and the newspaper which is about 18 million folks that do both. Seeing that number decline to people who use both the internet and the newspaper, we can easily find the amount of people that only use newspaper by dividing 18 million by 2 (why 2? because for people who get paper everyday and people who get it every other day) we get this number: 9 million people. 9 million people who both get there news only by newspaper! Only 9 million people use the Newspaper as there only source for news. This is not adding the people who use TV's, Radio's, or some other source. Only The People that use the Newspaper as there ONLY source for news. But take 9 million and cut it in half by 5 years and you get 4.5 million and give that about 10 years and you get 2.5 million and by this time if the economy is worse or something else. Newspaper could very well be gone before 2030.
That number to me is amazing, it really shows that number is low and that newspaper is dieing. The internet can adapt like the newspaper cannot, can a newspaper show you a video clip? can it play you audio from a speech said by the president? can it be at your fingertips nearly all the time? No, but the internet can....
This should honestly tell you something readers, if the internet is starting to become the bases for newspapers, then it is not JUST using the internet to its advantage it is going to be with the internet, it is already preparigng itself to morph into the internet and get rid of paper.
I am sure that the people who gave nearly all there money to Bernie Madoff felt the same way, he's reliable, he's been through everything the works- the system, he's gotten people money. Then bam! There partner that they had been with was nothing more than a fraud and a lier. The newspaper could very well be that friend, must I show that picture with Dewey Defeats Truman again?
Fine, I have never used this before, but I will now. Adaptations will lead Newspaper to evolve to survive and if it does not natural selection will weed out the weak and out will rise the new...
With that statement I have finished my closing by proving that the Internet is the superior source for news.
______________________________________________________-
Much thanks to Skeptic for an awesome Debate, your debt has been paid and hopefully we can debate again real soon. Much thanks to S-Dog for the great choice in topic. Much thanks to Chissler for setting the debate up and taking the time to do so. And finally much thanks to the readers and to the judges
the younger generation's attention span.....which is about as long as the life span of a fruit fly.
So true, I couldn't help but laugh. Nice comment.
__________________________________________________________
I asked if all good things would come to an end and Skeptic stated that:
Not necessarily. Again, it depends on the situation.
Interesting, because according to science, everything tends toward disorder. Once something is made and its all good, that something is doing its groovey thing and then slowly but surely, it begins to die and die, until it is done and dies out. All according to the second law of thermo-dynamics, the entropy law- it states that:
Entropy Law
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends towards disorder
If I remember correctly from a book I read about a year ago "The Vanishing Newspaper”, by Philip Meyer calculates that the first quarter of 2043 will be the moment when newsprint die in America as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition. I actually calculated much sooner:
This is for people who only read the newspaper for their news puposes:
Dividing your numbers of 43 million people who still read the paper (which I have rounded to 45 million) and dividing the internet users which is 250,000,000. We get a number that looks like: .18 now lets take .18; now I did this to get a figure of how many people use both the internet and the newspaper which is about 18 million folks that do both. Seeing that number decline to people who use both the internet and the newspaper, we can easily find the amount of people that only use newspaper by dividing 18 million by 2 (why 2? because for people who get paper everyday and people who get it every other day) we get this number: 9 million people. 9 million people who both get there news only by newspaper! Only 9 million people use the Newspaper as there only source for news. This is not adding the people who use TV's, Radio's, or some other source. Only The People that use the Newspaper as there ONLY source for news. But take 9 million and cut it in half by 5 years and you get 4.5 million and give that about 10 years and you get 2.5 million and by this time if the economy is worse or something else. Newspaper could very well be gone before 2030.
That number to me is amazing, it really shows that number is low and that newspaper is dieing. The internet can adapt like the newspaper cannot, can a newspaper show you a video clip? can it play you audio from a speech said by the president? can it be at your fingertips nearly all the time? No, but the internet can....
Newspapers can continue to move online to use the internet to their advantage. They can still print daily editions or weekly editions and use the internet to prop up their actual papers.
This should honestly tell you something readers, if the internet is starting to become the bases for newspapers, then it is not JUST using the internet to its advantage it is going to be with the internet, it is already preparigng itself to morph into the internet and get rid of paper.
Newspapers are more reliable due to years and years of trial and error. Newspapers are more reliable due to years and years of standards and practices. Newspapers are more reliable due to editorial checks and balances and control.
I am sure that the people who gave nearly all there money to Bernie Madoff felt the same way, he's reliable, he's been through everything the works- the system, he's gotten people money. Then bam! There partner that they had been with was nothing more than a fraud and a lier. The newspaper could very well be that friend, must I show that picture with Dewey Defeats Truman again?
Newspapers know this and are using it to their advantage by implementing the internet into their journalistic process and using the internet to broaden readership.
They are adapting, not admitting defeat. The internet has not won....not by a long shot.
Fine, I have never used this before, but I will now. Adaptations will lead Newspaper to evolve to survive and if it does not natural selection will weed out the weak and out will rise the new...
With that statement I have finished my closing by proving that the Internet is the superior source for news.
______________________________________________________-
Much thanks to Skeptic for an awesome Debate, your debt has been paid and hopefully we can debate again real soon. Much thanks to S-Dog for the great choice in topic. Much thanks to Chissler for setting the debate up and taking the time to do so. And finally much thanks to the readers and to the judges
Closing Statement
Newspapers are not dead. Not by a long shot.
The internet can be used as a tool by the newspapers to keep them going and provide another outlet for their product.
My opponent states:
Some things never go out of style.
Baseball.....
Mom's Apple Pie.....
Founder's Day Parades.....
Football.....
Cookouts....
American traditions don't go out of style. Newspapers are an American tradition, and while the internet may force the newspapers to adapt, they won't force them to fold.
You misunderstand. The internet is not the basis for newspapers. Journalism is the basis for both, and newspapers have always had a better class of journalists than any other news medium.
Plus, the "free" internet may soon come up against some problems:
So, the internet is basically stealing the news from the print media. Not very ethical is it?? They can't come up with their own "news" so they have to steal the news from the newspapers.
Sad.....very sad.
And, newspapers are taking steps to do this as we type. They are streamlining. They are using their "enemy" to expand their readership and subscription base. They are taking steps to ensure that the internet no longer gets away with stealing their news stories.
They are adapting and starting to play hard ball with the tech boys.
The internet is here, true, but it is no where close to totally defeating the newspaper.
The newspaper will survive......it's not admitting defeat and nowhere near being on life support.
Newspapers are alive and well and will remain an American tradition for years to come.
.....many thanks to TheMythLives for a great debate, to SDog for a great topic, and to the readers and judges who I hope enjoy this as much as we did....
Newspapers are not dead. Not by a long shot.
The internet can be used as a tool by the newspapers to keep them going and provide another outlet for their product.
My opponent states:
Interesting, because according to science, everything tends toward disorder.
Some things never go out of style.
Baseball.....
Mom's Apple Pie.....
Founder's Day Parades.....
Football.....
Cookouts....
American traditions don't go out of style. Newspapers are an American tradition, and while the internet may force the newspapers to adapt, they won't force them to fold.
This should honestly tell you something readers, if the internet is starting to become the bases for newspapers, then it is not JUST using the internet to its advantage it is going to be with the internet, it is already preparigng itself to morph into the internet and get rid of paper.
You misunderstand. The internet is not the basis for newspapers. Journalism is the basis for both, and newspapers have always had a better class of journalists than any other news medium.
Plus, the "free" internet may soon come up against some problems:
Source
US newspaper owners, their advertising revenue evaporating, their circulation declining and their readership going online to get news for free, are fighting mad.
The enemy? Websites that use their stories without paying for them.
"We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it any more," said the chairman of the Associated Press, a cooperative of over 1,400 US newspapers, borrowing a line from the anchorman character in the 1976 movie "Network."
"We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories," Dean Singleton said at a meeting this week of the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) in San Diego, California.
Singleton's battle cry came just a few days after News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch launched a broadside against Internet giant Google, whose Google News website is one of the most popular news aggregators on the Internet.
"Should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyrights?" asked Murdoch, the owner of newspapers in Australia, Britain and the United States, where his holdings include The Wall Street Journal and New York Post.
"Thanks, but no thanks," the News Corp. chairman said.
Robert Thomson, the managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, used even harsher language than his boss in describing the situation.
"There is no doubt that certain websites are best described as parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the Internet," Thomson said in an interview with the newspaper The Australian.
So, the internet is basically stealing the news from the print media. Not very ethical is it?? They can't come up with their own "news" so they have to steal the news from the newspapers.
Sad.....very sad.
Fine, I have never used this before, but I will now. Adaptations will lead Newspaper to evolve to survive and if it does not natural selection will weed out the weak and out will rise the new...
And, newspapers are taking steps to do this as we type. They are streamlining. They are using their "enemy" to expand their readership and subscription base. They are taking steps to ensure that the internet no longer gets away with stealing their news stories.
They are adapting and starting to play hard ball with the tech boys.
The internet is here, true, but it is no where close to totally defeating the newspaper.
The newspaper will survive......it's not admitting defeat and nowhere near being on life support.
Newspapers are alive and well and will remain an American tradition for years to come.
.....many thanks to TheMythLives for a great debate, to SDog for a great topic, and to the readers and judges who I hope enjoy this as much as we did....
We have a unanimous decision, skeptic1 is the victor.
Well, I want to first take the time to thank everyone here, especially TheMythLives and skeptic1 for going at it for us. Schro Dog gets some props too for the topic. GRATS MAN!
This was a hard debate to judge, as both of you guys were adept at making your points. I've broken down the judgment into groups based on post. So you both will see a breakdown of each of your posts, and a point value of either -1, 0, or +1 assigned to each post overall. The one with the most points at the end wins.. So, without further fanfare, lets begin!
TheMythLives:
INTRO: Decent job here. You establish what it is that you aim to prove, and begin to lay out your argument. (+1)
REPLY 1: Solid reply. You cover all of your opponent’s points adequately, but don’t really expound upon your own argument any.
Also, good references! (+1)
REPLY 2: You make a statement about how easy it is to get internet via wireless providers. It’s often cheaper for customers to get a local ISP than it is for them to find a wireless one for a reasonable price. Most wireless providers, like Verizon for example, charge upwards of $100 per month to simply access their web service remotely. This doesn’t make it very equitable for those that can’t afford regular internet.
Decent Socratic Questions!! They continue to establish your argument rather well. (+1)
REPLY 3: Nice rebuttal on the 1st SQ!!
Overall, decent rebuttal. It addressed all of the major points of skeptic1’s post. (+1)
CLOSING: Average closing statement. In the future, it might be helpful to format it in such a way as to reference the opening post. The reason I say this is because you want to draw the reader right back to your opening post, to show them that you’ve indeed shown them what you set out to, and throughout your debate, you’ve managed to prove each point clearly. (0)
TOTAL POINTS: 4
skeptic1:
INTRO: Pretty good open, although I do have one concern here. You state that, “If someone wants the current news, they aren't looking for the past. This point is of little to no relevance in this debate.” And yet, the debate is: “The demise of the printed newspaper can't happen soon enough, the internet is a superior source for news.” No where in there does it say anything about the timeframe that one is looking for. Perhaps someone is looking for some background info on an event in the paper. Wouldn’t it be nice to have that available to them while they read? It would help them to get a better picture of how things are.
The comment, “And, other journalists aren't biased? Who do you think is writing the news on the internet? Journalists!!!” was SPOT ON! Kudos!!
Your rebuttal to TheMythLives’ point 6 was accurate. Well done!
Generally, your opening post was all reactionary, in response to TheMythLives opening. You don’t provide any outline of an argument other than to say at the end that you will expound upon the “storied history of the newspaper”. It’s quite alright to respond to your opponent, I just don’t recommend making it your priority. You have an argument of your own to set up. Remember this, and you will do just fine! (+1)
REPLY 1: In this reply, you make the statement about how the newspaper is more convenient than the internet. Here would have been a good place for a well-placed source to substantiate what you claim.
GREAT use of statistical analysis with regards to the numbers of people using the web!!
GREAT Socratic Questions!!! (+1)
REPLY 2: Excellent answer on that first Socratic Question!!
You did not answer the 4th Socratic Question one way or the other. Per the rules, that has to be answered.
WOW!! Excellent SQs at the end of that post!!! (+1)
REPLY 3: Good answer to the SQ’s!! I especially liked the 1st answer. Well done!
Nice sourcing! You supported your point that not all newspapers are declining to online venues well by using that source. Well done! (+1)
CLOSING: Nice source link!!
You have an excellent closing, which brings everything together, and succinctly makes the point that you were shooting for all along!! (+1)
TOTAL POINTS: 5
Ok, as can be seen, this was a VERY close debate, and one that I truly enjoyed reading!! To be totally honest here, I was leaning more towards TheMythLives earlier on, but skeptic1 just came by and took it away towards the end.
Congrats skeptic1!!! I vote for you!!!
And again, congrats to BOTH of you for a superb debate. I want to see another between you two soon!!
Thanks for that!
After reading the debate, the win goes to skeptic1.
TheMythLives
TheMythLives attempts a valiant effort to make his/her case. However, he made three critical errors in his opening statement that pretty much crippled his argument straight off the bat.
3) Reading on the Internet is free of charge! Why spend 50 cents? or a dollar now? or a dollar 50? Just turn the internet on and news is at your fingertips.
There is no such thing as a free ride. Once the cost of the computer and ISP service is factored in, it is painfully obvious that access to the internet is anything but free. In fact, a daily subscription to a newspaper for a full year is much more cost-effective overall. Unless, of course, you visit a public library that offers internet access – in which case, news via newspapers or the internet are both free.
4) Newspaper does not cover the past. Current Newspapers do not have articles of the past something that could be of value to someone. Instead of going to a library and searching through countless of newspaper archives, just load the internet up and begin to surf.
Point one: false. Point two: false. Point three: huh? Sorry, just can’t swallow this argument at face value. Especially since none of these points are supported at all throughout the course of the debate.
5) Newspaper Journalist are biased! This is what is important, to me at least. I want both sides of the story and then I want to find the truth. By reading just the paper you open the door to one to saide and not the other.
This is quite a statement to make. Once again, no supporting evidence is provided at all throughout the entire debate to back this line of reasoning.
As TheMythLives progressed through the debate, he did very little to strengthen his position.
skeptic1
I was disappointed with skeptic1’s opening statement, as he/she offered only the following:
The smell of the newspaper.
The snap and crinkle of the paper.
The smudges of newsprint on your fingers.
The relaxation of perusing the paper first thing in the morning or after work.
The Sunday morning crosswords.
The editorials.
The classifieds.
The time honored tradition of the American newspaper.
This is hardly what one would consider to be a steadfast argument for maintaining newspapers are a superior source for news. In fact, the entire opening statement was pretty much a deflection of the points made by TheMythLives opening statement. I must admit I was left scratching my head at this oversight.
However, throughout the course of the debate, skeptic1 was able to deftly swat away the majority of the opponent’s argument by homing in on the three above stated weak spots. All in all, it was interesting to watch this battle unfold. In the end, though, the win goes to skeptic1.
Wow. I did not expect to win this debate at all.
Many thanks to the judges and readers. Many thanks to SDog for such a great topic. And, many thanks to TheMythLives for such a great debate.
Many thanks to the judges and readers. Many thanks to SDog for such a great topic. And, many thanks to TheMythLives for such a great debate.
reply to post by skeptic1
Nicely done Skeptic1... Nicely done. Maybe I will beat ya next time..lol.. Anyway congrats on the win and much thanks to S-DOG for the topic and Chissler for setting it up.
Nicely done Skeptic1... Nicely done. Maybe I will beat ya next time..lol.. Anyway congrats on the win and much thanks to S-DOG for the topic and Chissler for setting it up.
new topics
-
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat: 34 minutes ago -
Half-Life 2 is 20 Years Old - its Also Free on Steam until the 18th
Video Games: 4 hours ago -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People: 8 hours ago -
Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden administration overtime rule
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
Don't cry do Cryo instead
General Chit Chat: 15 hours ago, 12 flags -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People: 8 hours ago, 12 flags -
Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden administration overtime rule
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 10 hours ago, 7 flags -
Tariffs all around, Except for ...
Dreams & Predictions: 17 hours ago, 6 flags -
Half-Life 2 is 20 Years Old - its Also Free on Steam until the 18th
Video Games: 4 hours ago, 1 flags -
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat: 34 minutes ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
WATCH LIVE: US Congress hearing on UFOs, unidentified anomalous phenomena
Aliens and UFOs • 98 • : putnam6 -
President-elect TRUMP Picks MATT GAETZ for his ATTORNEY GENERAL - High Level PANIC Ensues.
2024 Elections • 78 • : RickinVa -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People • 45 • : Oldcarpy2 -
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat • 0 • : Shoshanna -
President-Elect DONALD TRUMP's 2nd-Term Administration Takes Shape.
Political Ideology • 208 • : fringeofthefringe -
Mike Tyson returns 11-15-24
World Sports • 67 • : argentus -
The art of being offended
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 52 • : argentus -
Mood Music Part VI
Music • 3703 • : underpass61 -
Old School Punk
Music • 560 • : underpass61 -
Don't cry do Cryo instead
General Chit Chat • 9 • : Myhandle
5