It would be great if you could do my survey which will really help me gather primary research on this particular topic
thank you
please click >> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Tu4Sy7cpm...

I need as many people as i can reach!!!

“While technological and economic forces certainly battered newspapers, journalism also delivered a one-two punch to its own jaw.

First, financially strapped newspapers undermined their comparative advantage by replacing audience-attracting local exclusives with cheaper national content. Then, the providers of that national content diverted resources from tough-to-report investigative journalism that builds loyal readership and into paparazzi-like birdcage liner that unconvincingly portrays politicians, CEOs and their minions as celebrities.

The most preventable tragedy was the deterioration of quality. Downsized local publications were all but forced to rely on more national content, but that content didn't have to become so vapid.”
—————————-
Sirota is speaking of the USA, with an eye particularly on Washington DC. He is a progressive voice who was a steady and effective critic of the Republican administration. I agree that newspapers have been damaged severely by decline of quality local content. Radio broadcasting is the same. Spreading common content across a chain is understandably desirable for the operators but does not serve the consumer well.

However, the owners of traditional media are working to reduce choice. Three times this week, my browser reported that the content I wished to view was not available in Canada. By example, someone has decided that I cannot watch clips from Jon Stewart's Daily Show from Comedy Central's website. Instead, I must look for the material at Canada's The Comedy Network.

Will Canwest Global or Bell Media convince authorities that I shouldn't be reading articles from the NY Times, the WA Post or The Guardian online but should only read them in Canadian papers, if they choose to publish those articles?

Perhaps the news industry's collapse is self-inflicted, but I suspect some strong structural forces are at play. Moreover, I'm sure some big players will survive (and possible evolve beyond recognition).

Most importantly, no one is arguing that there is going to be a glowing democratic utopia – just that the future is going to look different, and that democracy isn't going to collapse if newspapers disappear. That really is the specific offensive claim we were targeting.

As to your broader argument, I can speak, as a working newspaper journalist for nearly 30 years, of endless brain-dead corporate decisions and the publication of appallingly stupid and shoddy prose. The collapse of the newspaper industry has a pronouncedly self-inflicted element.

That apart, I'm afraid that I'm dubious about your glowing hopes for the new democratic age. As a copy editor, I have been fighting a rear-guard action these 30 years to ensure that the newspapers for which I worked published rpose that was factually accurate and clear. What newspapers offer is information that someone has made an attempt to verify. The uncertainty of verification is what leaves me suspicious of many blogs, Internet site, Wikipedia entries, and other manifestations of the New Order. “Messy like democracy” glosses over this point. To make informed decisions, people need reliable information.

But this is besides the point. Your comment doesn't engage the thrust of our argument – that the constitution does not state that the news media (or even journalism for that matter) is necessary for democracy. It says that freedom of speech is. Yes, newspapers enjoy that freedom – like the rest of us – but that doesn't mean they are necessary.

The Founding Fathers may only have had Gutenberg's press to refer to but they weren't stupid.