The subcription secret

I know that newspapers are having a hard time keeping subcribers ... but this tactic is just going too far....

Got me thinkin'

Doing all this research on state capitol reporting and the decline in recent years in coverage of the statehouse has really got me thinking. The relationship between reporters and politicians is a funny one --- symbiotic, actually. We need them to do our jobs and they need us to do theirs.

So what if reporters stopped covering the statehouse completely? What would really happen? Would state legislators simply cease to exist? Would they sit out on the Captiol steps, wailing about how they can ever be expected to do their work effectively without reporters conveying their wants and needs to the public, and having the public's wants and needs conveyed to them?

I doubt it. But that doesn't mean we should continue to pull manpower from the Capitol. The media has a very large influence on the issues that most Americans think about everyday. And without the media a lot less information about a lot more important issues would never be disseminated.

That's why the slim press corps at the statehouse now is a perfect remedy for politicians - they still get what they want out of reporters, but they know that watchdog element of journalism likely isn't there.

Sure, the daily grind of statehouse proceedings aren't always sexy or scandolous, but come on ... this is where the action happens, where taxes are raised, where laws are implemented, where aspects of our daily lives are dictated.

So we should pay a little more attention, that way we can do more than just report the obvious.

PBS doesn't like the smack talk

PBS is defending its decision to partner with Al Jazeera English to provide news coverage from around the world.

In this statement, Marc Rosenwasser, executive producer of PBS' Worldfocus, talks about the benefits of pairing with different global news outlets "to help provide American viewers with a unique perspective on international news."

Certainly no one can deny the inherent bias that all news organizations have - despite their efforts to shy away from such biases. It's human nature right? No matter how hard we try, we can never truly be impartial. 

That's why real news mongers who want the truth usually seek out multiple articles on the same subject to get a well-rounded view. 

So maybe the partnerships that the execs at Worldfocus are fostering are a sign of what's to come in the future of news. 

Facebook for Dummies?

I just ran across this crazy article about Facebook users having lower overall grades than non-Facebook users.

Of course, participants in the survey - which also found that Facebookers studied significantly less than non- Facebookers - defended their use of social networking sites. And researchers in the study were quick to say they weren't proposing a direct correlation.

But it's an interesting factoid, considering that 85 percent of undergrads use Facebook, compared to 52 percent of grad students. And let's not forget the massive push toward social networking sites by news organizations across the globe struggling to attract younger audience members. Maybe this is something they would want to tuck away in their little audience profile.....

But what does it really say? Well you can look at it in a few ways: 

1. Nerds aren't on social networking sites

2. It's too hard to keep your grades up when you're focusing on all those darn status updates

3. (And seriously speaking) Young people today are flooded with a number of distractions and social activities both in the real world and online  ****hint: In order to get their attention online, news sites have to be that much better

After seeing this, I knew print newspapers were still good for something......

Some of my favorites? Hardy-Harr and Wacker-Dailey

Good news is better?

Apparently, the man behind the Good News Network is claiming his Web site is prospering in light of all the bad news that is taking over newspapers pages, radio airwaves and television news screens these days.

I don't know about you, but I'd like to see some stats to back that up.....

Now you've gone and made 'em mad

Looks like this week's meeting of the Newspaper Association of America has brought out the fighting spirit in newspaper executives across the nation.

Their no. 1 beef: big business Web sites like Google that aggregate their works without actually paying for it. 

How nice of them to bring up ----- now what?

It seems a bit late for newspaper moguls who've been dealing with this issue for years to want to take action now. Not to mention that to be fair, sites like Google aren't the only ones "stealing" content, if you will. If organizations like the NYT and AP start charging highly trafficked Web sites to use their content, are they going to do the same for the small-time bloggers that sometimes cut and past chunks of news articles that clearly aren't theirs?

It's easy to say there's no reason to scold the little guy --- they're not making any money, right? But there's still that issue of copyright - if that really is the issue, of course.