Mon Sep 14th, 2009 at 05:02:50 AM EST
There has been some (not undeserved) glee about the decline and fall of the mass media industry. However, what happens when newspapers do go under?
I realised recently that other than newspapers, most of my reading matter is either directed by or sourced from newspapers or related press (we don't have a TV). I read blogs on topics I find interesting, but the ones I visit regularly are either personal lives of people who write interesting stuff, or more commonly, news aggregators.
ET is an example of such a collection, would enough people read it if it didn't have commentary on current affairs, as mostly presented by the existing media empires?
Diary rescue by Migeru
At this stage the optimists will point out that we can use the power of the Internet to collate and disseminate events and link intelligent commentary to them directly. To these people I present WikiNews headlines from today:
Accident at Russian hydroelectric plant kills ten
Hurricane Bill gains strength over Atlantic, moves toward Bermuda
Four injured after three earthquakes strike Sumatra, Indonesia
English Wikipedia publishes 3 millionth article
Of these 4 stories, which were provided by eyewitnesses, and which were simply taken from the news media? (I'm guessing only the last was contributed by a primary source)
What mechanisms exist to bring up news of note? We have things 'going viral', but they seem to mostly be amusing news, the sort of thing that gets shown at the end of the TV news. Dancing at weddings, rickrolling large events, ugly scottish women being played to by media.
Have there been any news stories that got attention despite the newsmedia? Perhaps the Iran election violence? Why Iran and not Zimbabwe or Burma?