Today, you chose whether to pick up the newspaper or to read it online. Whether you’re reading ink or pixels, you are shaping the future of media’s changing form.
Print media has been compared to travel by horse and carriage, and print’s death to the Protestant Reformation.
But is print media really breathing its last breath or simply undergoing massive reconstructive surgery? Either way, the way you get your news in 10 years will not be the same.
Already, many publishers are cutting back and shrinking content. Rather than rant about how I’ll miss the musky smell of crisp, yellowed pages in old books or how many trees we will save by not printing, I propose questions that our community should consider as we witness the birth of a new media age.
Say books and magazines disappear altogether. What do we lose besides nostalgia? For some, it’s an aesthetic pleasure—the feel of a glossy magazine or being able to fold the crossword to fit into a briefcase. For others, it’s what they’ve grown up with. I’ve tried to convince my grandparents to get a computer.
“I could talk to you every day! Share pictures and stuff!”
But they’re happy with their small-town headlines and the obituaries. Old habits die hard.
On the other hand, Computer Vision Syndrome is a real medical condition. Look it up.
What do we gain with digital media? I see the upside to whipping out an iPhone instead of tackling a newspaper crammed in the backseat of a subway just to read headlines.
You gain time with easy access to articles you want to read. You stay informed. A funky, bright, interactive webpage can be more entertaining to sift through than a block of printed text.
Now comes the question of literacy and attention span.
Your print opinion columns will soon shrink to 300 words instead of 500 or 700. While this will force reporters to write more concisely, it will also limit reading content.
But how else can a media source help itself in an economic downturn? Does technology’s cost equal the time and trees we save by reading online?
I’m thinking about the gas that trucks guzzle to carry papers across the country, but also the electricity it takes to power my MacBook. I’m no energy expert, but I’m sure there’s an argument here.
A recent article on TheBusinessInsider.com explains how it would cost The New York Times more to print its paper than it would to supply every subscriber with an Amazon Kindle — a wireless reading device.
While I think these little gadgets are quite nifty, I like the accomplishment I feel when I turn a paper page.
I can’t choose digital over print or the other way around. Maybe we don’t have to.
What do you think? Would you rather strain your retinas or ink stain your fingers? Do we have to choose?
To utilize a perk of online journalism, continue the debate at the opinion desk blog at http://oudaily.com/weblogs/opinion-desk-blog/.
Or, you can slip a handwritten note into one of the newsroom mailboxes. Either one will do.
-Lindsey Allgood is a professional writing senior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
jw190m 3 years, 2 months ago
One thing that I hate is paying for a magazine subscription and then watching said magazine become smaller and smaller with every issue due to putting more articles online. It is one thing for me to go online for free article like this one. But if i was paying for the daily i would want it in print. Also remember that it is much more uncomfortable to read a computer screen in the bathroom than it is a paper magazine.