Most
of the time mainstream journalism must
adhere to the basic rules of the language in which it is being
written. Internet journalism (blogging, personal sites,
etc) is not subject to these rules, and thus often degenerates into
meaningless, pointless rants, convoluted ramblings, and completely
illiterate
rubbish.
The internet has become a gathering grounds for
the illiterate, the uneducated, and the overly-opinionated cogs of the society.
However, mainstream journalism is almost impossible to
break into. Even the personal papers that people put out are
not considered mainstream journalism.
So, in that way, the web has brought great
freedom to the field of journalism.
Anyone can put out news, and everyone can report what is important to them. It is, however, more hearsey than news, as it
is not substantiated.
Mainstream and internet journalism have combined,
however, and have become one of the best available sources of news.
Mainstream journalism companies have begun to put
their literate, substantiated (and, admittedly, often "spun") news on
the web. This makes it easy for people
everywhere to get the news instantaneously.
The information on these sites is constantly updated, and is collected
in one place. This also reduces the
waste formerly created by newspapers, as it allows people to get all of their
news online.
So, there are, in my opinion, pros and cons to both
internet and 'mainstream' journalism.
Mainstream is more reliable, verified, and is generally much more
literate than internet journalism.
Internet journalism is free from the spin often associated with
mainstream journalism, but is subject to its writer's personal sentiments. It is also often poorly written, and not up
to date.
The combination of the two, however, is creating
an entirely new entity which combines the pros of both forms of journalism,
while minimizing the cons.
Back to Main page
Who says:
Ali Said Amy said Ashlee said Mike Said Larry said Shanna said Dilawar said Rehan said