There is so much media now with the Internet and people, and so easy and so cheap to start a newspaper or start a magazine, there's just millions of voices and people want to be heard.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think people are sort of waking up to it now, how probably the biggest change in Internet media isn't the immediacy of it, or the low costs, but the measurability. Which is actually terrifying if you're a traditional journalist, and used to pushing what people ought to like, or what you think they ought to like.
The dilemma for early 21st century journalism is this: Who will pay for the news?
People are worried about what's going to happen to journalism - and they should be. Every day, the blogosphere is getting better and print media is getting worse; you have to be an idiot not to see that.
People want to have a voice and a say in what is news.
People can get their news any way they want. What I love about what's happened is that there are so many different avenues, there are so many different outlets, so many different ways to debate and discuss and to inquire about any given news story.
I don't know how television or radio is going to survive without newspapers because that's where they get all their news. It's going to be hopeless.
The Internet is king. Newspapers are dead or dying. Magazines are shrinking every day. Ad budgets are being cut. The bottom line is now the only line in advertising.
From the beginning on, newspapers have prospered for one reason: giving readers the news that they want.
We don't go into journalism to be popular. It is our job to seek the truth and put constant pressure on our leaders until we get answers.
Think of it: television producers joining with newspapers to tell stories. It's journalism of the future. Advertising will follow the crowd - the 'crowd' being viewers and readers, of course, which could bring revenue back into journalism.
No opposing quotes found.