Well Carlyle made his post about the situation with the newspapers and blogs. I too have to agree that newspapers are a dying breed. But I would like to remind everyone that this is a double edge sword. There are good things about this transition and bad things. I'll start with the pros of this new digital age.
Instant f***ing news.
We don't have to wait for the next day to know about what happened today. Now why is this important? Let's just hypothetically say that the election is tomorrow. You were going to vote for one guy, but you just read a well-trusted blog about some crap he pulled that day ([extreme example] he does cocaine). Thanks to that information you can make the informed decision the next day. Whereas you'll probably not touch the newspaper for the news of yesterday because you don't want to read anything in the morning. Too awkward of an example? How about this? You read about a political figure/celebrity who died. Now originally you had a joke you were going to tell about that person, but because of reading this news, you avoid it to prevent the stink eye from co-workers. So instant news can improve our decision-making skills and societal skills.
Lady on the left believes these two to be psychics when they knew news that wasn't in the papers till tomorrow.
You will be more likely to read the goddamn article.
I like to ask a question. How many magazine and newspaper articles do you read? Okay, now how many blogs or online articles you read in comparison? I thought so. Computers allow us to multi-task more easily, so while reading about the latest stimulus package, you're downloading your possible pirated movie while listening to spill reviews. It's something about the human mind that wants to do many things at once.
"While reading this article about economy, I managed to do my taxes, do brain surgery and find the cure for cancer."
These people are not dependant on cash flow or political reputation. Mostly (theoretically) they print post the damn news. Like Carlyle said, there is less worry about access to the white house or certain figures.
Pictured: A blogger who does care what you think of him
The Full Story
You are no longer dependant on just the newspaper's word. When you read a blog post, you can use the internet to actually look up the article. One blog article says one thing? Check another blog in 5 seconds flat. Or use information databases to verify the legitimacy of the article. Hell, websites like Media Matters posts full transcript to back their articles.
"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
There was once a time where you needed witnesses (a gaggle of them) to prove something. During these old times, you needed several witnesses to actually prove a certain person (such as a politician) said or did something. Not anymore. Now all you need is a camera. Hell these days we have politicians saying crap one day and other crap the next day. These days we happen to have technology such as a camera or archival footage to make that politician look like a two-faced dick (not sexual innuendo).
"Yes Governor, a question. What is your opinion on the accusation you're full of shit?"
A recent example of this was during a protest in New York, where the protesters were biking around. One of the cops tackled one of the bikers. Originally the cop said that the biker swerved towards him to attack and charged the guy with assaulting an officer and resisting arrest. Before the digital age, that would have been the end of it. But since this is an age where we have cameras on our watches, we get footage like this for all of the world to see:
"I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome my brutality is."
Now all of that sounds cool, but like I said, there is another side.
What was you say? What about my praise about bloggers not worrying about access to politicians? Know why? Because they have little to none. Look at the White House press corp. How many blogging sites do you see? How about wars? During the invasion of Iraq the number of newspapers and tv reporters outnumbered any website source (cannot recall the number exactly, but something like 70 to 2 reporters). So who's going to cover our wars? It was reporters who ended the Vietnam war. Without access to the battlefield, blog reporters sources about the war amounts to this:
"This war is fucking awesome!"
None. There is no liability when it comes to the internet. Even less when in anonymous. Just look at 4chan. For the love of god don't look at 4chan. What happens when a newspaper or tv reporter gets the news wrong. They usually submit another report or article to say that it wasn't true. If it's bad enough, that reporter could get fired. Why? Because being believed that they are not legitimate, means less business. Blogs don't worry about business. They can simple delete the story and pretend they never posted it, but the news still roams around as rumours (Obama's birth certificate started like this). They can post news so biased that even Fox News would have to call bullshit.
Average Blogger. Who doesn't even need an office. Or pants apparently.
Most of the time do you know if the blogger has an education? To get into the news industry, you at least had to have a high school education. These days anyone can make a blogging website. Here's the writer of the newest blog site called politiciansarepoopyheads.com (not actual site):
"Not yet mommy! I'm writing about political corruption."
Know how most blogging sites stay open? From either donations or sponsorship. Sponsorship usually comes in the form of ads. Most online ads are designed to grab your attention. Not to mention all of the internet meme out there. These distraction can prevent us from knowing what the hell is going...