Editor’s note: The Daily runs a media literacy column by Sarah Cavanah, interim executive director of Oklahoma Scholastic Media and former Daily staff writer, every Tuesday to give readers a behind-the-scenes look at The Daily and media coverage in general.

The media aren’t dying. At least I don’t think they are.

You’ve probably bumped into the idea once or twice. Newspapers are closing. Network television is telling Congress it needs to be on cable (which you pay for) rather than broadcast (which you don’t). Newsweek magazine was sold for $1 and now is going to be run by a second-tier blogging site.

I have no doubt the media will change. I don’t think much of it will look like it has in the past in the very near future. Newspapers, I’m sad to say, are probably on their last legs, at least in the printed form. I’ve literally seen people choose to log on to oudaily.com rather than walk 5 feet to pick up a free copy of The Daily. That’s not a good sign.

Newspapers seem to be slowly finding ways to exist and make a profit online, and I think they have a better chance than broadcast news of doing so. (I really think the two will merge, despite some recent failures in that area.)Advertisers have problems with paying substantial rates for online advertising, but they have an even bigger problem when everyone is getting their content from Netflix. By definition, advertisers need a place to advertise, and that’s a good sign for online media.

Society also needs the kind of content only news media produce. You may get most of your news from posts on Facebook, but when someone mentions an injustice, an astonishing occurrence or an unexpected sports score, where do they link to? Often a news media site. The need is obviously there.

I even think there’s a chance that media will find a way to break off from almost complete dependence on advertising. Some experiments are going on now. ProPublica, a non-profit news producing outfit specializing in investigative reporting, shared the Pulitzer Prize last year. The website Spot.us allows journalists to pitch stories directly to the public. They give their idea — or someone in the public can request coverage — and they say how much it will cost to produce. Readers can then choose to give as much as they want to specific stories. Once the journalist has enough money, he or she goes out and produces the story.

I, personally, wonder about an iTunes for news. The music industry hated iTunes at first. They lived off producing bloated albums that forced the consumer to buy a bunch of lackluster songs to get the one or two singles they really wanted. Now, many music critics believe the death of the album may have actually improved the quality of music.

News media are very similar. I really don’t want to read about royal weddings or what self-torture Lindsay Lohan is putting herself through today. But if I pick up a paper, I pay for that coverage. What if I paid a penny a story for what I really did want to read? We used to pay a quarter for a newspaper; I don’t think it’s unreasonable for pay a quarter for 25 stories I really want to read.

It’s just an idea. There will be many, and one or more of them will work.

So, let’s hold off on the wake for now.

— Sarah Cavanah,
professional writing and journalism graduate