The Atlantic released a poll today which asked members of the national news media about the effect the Internet has had on journalism:
Nearly two-thirds say the Internet is hurting journalism more than it is helping. The poll, conducted by The Atlantic and National Journal, asked 43 media insiders whether, on balance, journalism has been helped more or hurt more by the rise of news consumption online. Sixty-five percent said journalism has been hurt more, while 34 percent said it has been helped more.
Some of the journalists polled have prominent, popular blogs (see the list of respondents at the bottom of the article). I'd be curious to see how each responded. Certainly, the Internet has helped certain journalists much more than others, so everyone has their own bias. Many of those who said the Internet was hurting journalism cited the challenge it poses to the traditional news business model:
"The Internet has some plusses: It has widened the circle of those participating in the national debate. But it has mortally wounded the financial structure of the news business so that the cost of doing challenging, independent reporting has become all but prohibitive all over the world. It has blurred the line between opinion and fact and created a dynamic in which extreme thought flourishes while balanced judgment is imperiled."
FRONTLINE has been on the Web since 1995, but this Digital Nation project aims to utilize the medium differently than previous FRONTLINE sites by offering insights into our thought process and expanded reporting on the subjects we cover. In essence, we hope that the Internet helps our journalism. But I'm curious what you think: is the Internet hurting or helping journalism? Does it even matter now, if we're past the point of no return?
-Jeff
RSS
Comments