Week 13 Blog

After reading the article "With information galore, we need news judgment," I completely agree with the author. A reader's most valuable asset is his or her attention, so journalists should do anything possible to catch it. This can mean changing online headlines to have better Search Engine Optimization, or by making sites user-friendly by giving readers the information they want to know--and fast. Infographics and easy-to-read charts help condense important information for Web browsers who are used to doing things as fast as a click of their mouse.
I also agreed with the point that newspapers cannot be afraid of change because otherwise they will fall behind everyone else. I see this at the paper I work at:
Because the board of directors are hesitating to update the layout for fear of losing loyal readers, we aren't gaining any new ones. The paper is trapped in the '70s, and advertisers are moving elsewhere to reach the young college demographic for their ads-- mainly online.

The Daily Dish's chart of the day was a graph shows a parabola on a graph with "information" on the x-axis and "confusing" on the y-axis. A little information and too much information means lots of confusion. It is a journalist's job to give the readers information in moderation. Too much can overwhelm and and too little can leave them asking asking questions-- and make them leave your publication for another publication's answers.

The articles "Thanks to technology, we may be entering a golden age of journalism" and "New age journalism" say everything I've said to critics and cynics of me being a journalism major in this day and age. Yes, newspapers have closed. Yes, journalists have lost their jobs. Yes, papers have cut costs in every way possible. But jobs are still out there. There is still a need for hard news in a world of fluff and stuff. People do care about current events. They do want to know what's happening in their neighborhood-- their city-- their state-- their nation and even internationally. I'm relying on my professors at the University of Florida to give me an advantage in the job market. The more new skills they can introduce me to, the better. The second article really focused on the salacious aspect of media these days. It doesn't surprise me that TV producers and photographers get the story, and then the facts. The balloon boy is a perfect example of this. However, journalists can't do this. It's not OK to post the story online and edit for fact errors later. Post what you know ASAP and add more as you go.

I thought the search return for "free newspapers" was fascinating. Online papers opens up a whole new can of worms. My generation is used to accessing sites for free and is used to just "Googling" for information. I won't pay to read an article online? Why should I? I can get most stories from TV, which I already pay for. It's sad to see the worth of each article to a consumer. The entire paper costs between 75 cents and $1.50. Divide it by the number of stories inside, and you got your answer to how much readers will pay-- hardly anything. Online newspapers get all their money from advertisements, not subscribers, so if they make their paper one that readers run to for answers, like The New York Times has done, then they will last. If they add user-friendly neighborhood message boards, they will find a loyal fan base.