Read and Blog April 3

As we have seen from all of the readings of this semester, the Internet is redefining the way we do journalism. What the readings for this week brought to light for me was the ferocity of the debate surrounding this rapidly occurring change. Several of the readings were a response to a long report about how the Internet is changing journalism, and these three individuals had quite specific, and negative, opinions on what was said. Langeveld said that the world of online media is a fractured environment because of a plunge in reader loyalty. He suggested news media organizations from umbrella organizations under which they can share information. I think that while sharing information is a good idea, earning money off this system would be difficult to coordinate. I do think his suggestion of having "geek squads" at news media organizations would be a great idea. These teams can help create the organization's identity in the Internet journalism community. Schaffer had negative view on what the report said as well. She said news media should pay attention to what readers are saying about them and seriously consider if the tradition ways of doing things in journalism will be effective in our new technological world. She thinks it would be important to ask how the public would define journalism and then use that definition to create a stronger, more productive product. Finally, Starr thought the report was good, but definitely had his additions to make. He thinks journalism is likely to become more partisan, which is something I agree will happen, but I'm not happy about it. Journalism helps a democracy be successful. Journalism needs to remain strong for our country. If that means a shift from writing articles with a pen and notepad to making topic pages on journalism websites, so be it I believe. More information does cause more confusion, but journalists must work through that confusion to find a solution.