As I log on to post this blog, the top of my Firefox browser is inundated with online news. Latest headlines from an RSS feed. Bookmarks to newspaper websites. A New York Times widget.
The Pew report mentions that the average online consumer of news spends 32 minutes perusing the web, signaling a broad but not too deep audience. With a newspaper, there is a single option – read as many stories as you can, and fold those pages carefully. With online news, RSS feeds and news widgets are allowing consumers to read up on local and national happenings in a matter of minutes, without even signing on to an Internet browser. In that short amount of time, with a single line capturing the gist of a story, how many words and points does the reader even consume?
Even television news consumption faces loopholes. Pew reports that 48% spend at least 30 minutes consuming TV news. But with “bottom-line” feeds flashing across CNN, and news programs often repeating stories hour by hour, is there any way to decode the level of attention that people pay to their screens? As for sports news, I know that I leave the TV on for hours without spending a full 30 minutes listening intently. ESPNEWS repeats its half-hour reports in six to 12 hour stretches, without changing a single story. By the time the report ends, I am fixated more on the opening highlights that have entrenched my mind several times than the top stories at hand.
But with online news, who needs to rely on television for breaking stories? The Internet provides rapid changeover on both ends. Stories are uploaded around the clock and can be read around the clock. Yet, surprisingly, the growth of online newspaper readership is not from the youngest age bracket. While 12% of 30-49 year olds report reading the paper online, just 9% of 18-29 year olds do the same. With the ease of attaining online news, one would expect a large jump in consumption by younger viewers. In actuality, online news spurs exposure rather than depth, which is discouraging for aspiring journalists looking to capture a youthful audience.
As for myself, I am an outlier, with several large domestic newspapers lining my bookmarks on my Firefox browser. But when it comes to local papers, has the presence of online news done more harm than help? Pew reports that just 46% of the readers who went to newspaper websites yesterday visited the website of a local newspaper, compared with 92% of those who read only the print newspaper. This is a product of the hidden factor of news convergence. Albeit younger viewers are somewhat apathetic, cuts in newspaper staffs affect online news as much as the print copy, if not even more so. When searching for information on Barack Obama’s campaign run, large national papers like the Chicago Tribune and New York Times provide exclusive coverage. But on smaller, more concentrated issues like former NBA star Tim Hardaway’s controversial comments on gays, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution and Seattle Times hold the same Associated Press story. Is it necessary to catch up on news in the Chicago suburbs by skimming headlines and AP stories on the Daily Herald's website? Or do I gain more by popping a quarter in the bins at O'Hare Airport, where I often spend 2 hours reading several sections cover to cover. The online option is questionable.
The goal of online news is to foster a knowledgeable, informed readership among the general public? But if I’m able to recite the lines from the same story appearing across multiple online platforms, I’ll stick to the print copy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment