I have been reading the press more regularly than others over 50 years and it seems to me that there are things that have changed in the press that have changed its character.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I don't think journalism changes. It's about digging into stories and telling them well. The basic tenets of great reporting stay the same while things around it change. Technology has made reporting easier, but it has also caused job loss. Social media has increased discussion around topics, but it has its own challenges at times.
There's not a lot of original ways to get attention in the press.
The press these days should be rather careful about its role. We may have acquired some tendencies about over-involvement that we had better overcome.
The written tone and the spoken tone change and the reporters' disbelief in the veracity of the government spreads to the readers and the viewers.
The fundamentals of what journalism is about don't necessarily change. What will change is the delivery of news.
A lot of the changes are so gradual that they don't even qualify as news, or even as interesting: they're so mundane that we just take them for granted. But history shows that it's the mundane changes that are more important than the dramatic 'newsworthy' events.
The press is still investing itself, it seems to me, in a sort of cynicism. It comes out better for them if they can predict hard times, bogging down, sniping, attrition.
Why does it appear that interested readers so often attribute flaws to 'the press' rather than taking particular issue with particular reports?
In a time of transition for journalism all around the world, it's reassuring to know that some of the old ways endure.
I have never quite grasped the worry about the power of the press. After all, it speaks with a thousand voices, in constant dissonance.