Are these poll results yet another sign that news on "dead trees" is being replaced by internet-based, citizen journalism?Fifty-two percent (52%) of Americans say they go online and use the Internet every day or nearly every day, and most of those adults now find online reporting comparable to that in their local newspaper.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of these daily Internet users say that reporting from web sources is at least somewhat reliable while 69% say the same about local newspaper reporting.
Among all adults, 65% consider reporting from Internet news sources to be at least somewhat reliable. Seventy percent (70%) say the same about reporting from local newspapers.
Also noteworthy from this poll is that "only 30% of Americans now say they read a print version of their local newspaper every day or nearly every day." For people under the age of 40, the share of people who read the daily newspaper is just 15%. In short, the "dead trees and ink by the barrel" medium appears to be dying out, while the "pixels by the gigabyte" one continues to rise.
As someone who grew up reading the local newspaper every day but who, for the past 5 years, has been an active participant in the online world of information, I have mixed feelings about these poll results. In an ideal world, I'd prefer to see the rise of new media paired with a thriving, "traditional" press. Ideally, I'd prefer to have a large number of highly professional, well-trained, knowledgeable, hard-nosed, courageous journalists working full time (if not overtime) to expose corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and other shenanigans. I'd prefer to see extensive coverage of international, national, state and local news (including culture, sports, science, etc.). I'd prefer to have a common resource and reference point for the entire community, not just for one particular niche or sub-group. Finally, I'd prefer to see this all pulled together in one place, in a format that's portable, simple to use, and which encourages serendipity (e.g., you're looking for news on the Redskins but then you see this really interesting headline about your local school system or whatever).
On the other hand, the rise of internet-based news has opened up (potentially, at least) tremendous possibilities for citizen-based journalism, for a multiplicity of new and diverse voices to be heard, for the rapid dissemination of tremendous amounts of information, for increased participation and interaction by individuals and communities, and for a new kind of serendipity - the serendipity of links. For all this to work effectively, however, will require that people consume their news as critically as ever - if not more so - than they have in the past. It will require that individuals carefully weigh the relative merit, credibility, reliability of online sources (with newspaper readers, weighing the credibility and biases of reporters and sources is crucial as well).
For the online news model to work well, participants will also need to be aware of the potential for "echo chambers," wherein like-minded individuals essentially say "ditto" to each other all day. Of course, newspapers - or radio, TV, etc. - can be as biased (or unbiased), unreliable (or reliable), or echo-chamberish (see the Washington Times of Examiner, or listen to Rush, for instance) as any internet-based source of news. Overall, it's not that one medium is inherently better than the other; I'd say they each have their advantages and disadvantages, as with any technology. My main concern is that, as we increasingly get our news from blogs and other online sources, we know what we're getting ourselves into and how to function in this brave new world.
