Do We Really Need Daily Doses of News?

There must be an ongoing tally somewhere of the number of stories in newspapers about the future of newspapers. In the grand scheme of things, the number is no doubt tiny, but there is an aura of self-pity (inflated by self-importance) about it.

I don't mean to suggest newspapers aren't important or interesting; compared to my peers, I might be characterized as a dinosaur for still having--what?!--print subscriptions. But the demise of news in general (many individual newspapers will survive) might actually be a good thing for us in terms of perspective. Let's start, first, with the present and future of newspapers: media aren't going away, but everyone seems to have a singular concern about newspapers. Why? The usual course of things is that if an industry can't give people what they want (and the desperation move by many mid-size city newspapers to have lots of short stories with three-inch headlines is pretty ridiculous), it will either adapt or die. 

Such a fate is unthinkable to many regarding newspapers, however, because newspapers--we're told--have a special place in democratic self-rule. It's the Fourth Estate, after all. This would indeed be the overarching concern if it were the case that the government itself was shutting down newspapers. It has before, and newspapers quite literally died. But not this time. This time it's the market. And yet it's also not the case that the demise of newspapers means the demise of news and information. Quite the contrary--it's sufficient to say here that the future of news and information is quite bright. 

OK, fine--most blog readers will agree up to this point, but note that I haven't adequately addressed the question of newspapers and democracy--aren't we losing an essential piece of democratic self-rule? Is the ruthless market destroying democracy? Not really. The nature of daily news is probably more corrosive of democracy than it is supportive. I'm not suggesting that daily news coverage is totally corrosive and totally non-supportive of democracy, simply that it's probably a little more of the former. 

How can I say this? What about Watergate? The Pentagon Papers? What about the ties that bind us together as democratic citizens? The main reason daily news, as manifested by newspapers but also by other sources, might corrode democracy is that it telescopes our gaze almost completely on the here and now. The media has long been obsessed with exploring the present-centered weltanschauung of modern life--a state of affairs that the media, including newspapers, largely helped create. If newspapers are to be believed, each day is simply worse than the day before. Daily helpings of news distort one's perspective because they focus your eyes and brain on the moment, largely composed of detritus that will in time wash away and mean nothing to your life or to history writ large.

There is little room for reflection in the daily news, notwithstanding the superficial weekly attempt in the Sunday editions to reflect on the prior week's event and what they might mean for the future. The daily news is, by and large, superficial. This doesn't mean journalists are superficial--it's the nature of the subject matter, not the interlocutors. And there are exceptions, of course: in-depth stories, long features, etc, are all more helpful and more interesting than the daily news.

A democracy doesn't depend on constant, up-to-the-minute news any more than it depends on 100 percent voter participation. But don't we need newspapers to hold our elected officials accountable? If that's the primary raison d'etre of newspapers, then it's (a) a thin reed, and (b) they've done a pretty poor job of it during the Bush and Obama (so far) administrations. But what would we talk about at cocktail parties and conferences if not for newspapers? Maybe the demise of newspapers will prevent people from thinking they're smart simply because they read that day's Times or Journal. In fact, they might be smarter for having ignored them. And look, if something really big happens, you'll find about it.

Oddly, for all these reasons, blogging might offer a much better epistemology in terms of the flow and digestion of news. (I'm speaking generally here, about blogs qua genre--not all individual blogs will fall into these generalizations.) Bloggers often take the daily or weekly news and piece it all together in a larger narrative that is much more informative and useful than newspaper coverage. Because blogs can focus solely on a niche, they can offer much deeper analysis, which is the true stuff of democracy, not the story itself. Again, I'm speaking generally here, and a quick glance at my Google Reader demonstrates innumberable items that passionately dissect the minutiae of what Speaker Pelosi or Rep. Boehner said this morning. Still, on a possibly frivolous level, I have little doubt that sites like Fangraphs and Baseball Analysts are far more helpful for baseball fans than SportsCenter or the daily sports page. The same principle applies for more serious news.

Anyway, I probably sound pretty curmudgeonly here, and I'm certainly not the first one to make these points. Nassim Taleb reserves a special place in his diatribes for newspapers. The point is that life will go on even when newspapers as we know them are gone. And life and democracy would still go on if the daily news disappeared or was greatly reduced in size. (But keep the op-ed pages--they're the best part.)

Comments

[gregorylent]

thanks for saying this ...

a deeper truth is that one doesn't need any news at all, but only mystics would agree with me ...

and what is news? mostly a cry for help that no one ever answers .. it is what went wrong today, ignoring what went right .. a bias tilted towards negativity and hopelessness ..

less is surely more ..

[Keith Mays]

I think it's important to make a distinction between newspapers, the physical medium and newspaper reporters, the individuals who hit the pavement or make the phone calls that uncover the little discrepancies, the small abuses of power that every once in a while turn into stories we all really should know about. Sure, there is a lot of content in newspapers that is essentially filler. But, I don't think it is a stretch to say that without newspaper stories, there would be even less substance to television news and certainly bloggers wouldn't have much to write about. If all the stories that originated in newspapers went away tomorrow, it would have a catastrophic effect on the news ecosystem. This is not to romanticize what reporters do -- though many of them do it quite well -- it is, as much as anything, a factor of the sheer number and distribution of them around our country. (Though that coverage is getting more sparse by the minute).

That being said, I have no doubt that newspapers as a physical medium will seem quaint before too long. My only hope is that there will still be a role for the reporters who do the news gathering grunt work that doesn't seem to be appreciated.

[Dane Stangler]

Keith,
Good points, but I'm talking about something more general than the question of what would happen if newspapers went away. The effect on the news ecosystem would be deleterious, but my point is that we should welcome it-that the news ecosystem itself is corrosive of democracy and that without it, we would be better off, or at least not any worse off than right now. Perhaps I take the analogy from the in-depth baseball blogs too far, but their success has zero relation to whether or not this morning's sports page exists. I suspect the same thing will/would happen in news with the appearance of new business models. Politico might be News Future 1.0 in this sense. There are other new ventures out there on the horizon too that will continue to proliferate.

[louis vuitton]

The comments seem to be talking all around the question but not addressing the heart of the entreprenurial debate. The issue should be: How to get state capital around the financial logjam and into the hands of the entrepreneur.

[Minnesota Twins jersey]

First of all thanks a lot for the great and informative entry. It is really useful and cool to me, I will recommend to my friends. thanks

shop here for MLB Baseball Jerseys Minnesota MN Twins 7# Mauer alternate home blue 2010 Jersey shop here for MLB Baseball Jerseys Minnesota MN Twins 22# Gomez alternate home color blue Jersey MLB Baseball Jerseys Minnesota MN Twins 33# Morneau alternate home color blue Jersey shop here for MLB Baseball Jerseys Minnesota MN Twins 7# Mauer home color white blue stripe 2010 Jersey shop here for MLB Baseball Jerseys Minnesota MN Twins 22# Gomez Home color white blue stripe Jersey shop here for MLB Baseball Jerseys Minnesota MN Twins 33# Morneau Home color white blue stripe Jersey

[ghd iv mini styler]

I read many blogs on a daily basis and under most situation, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say GREAT blog!I'll be checking in on a regularly now.Keep up the good work!

[puma shoes]

I couldn't agree with you more! And thanks for the blog award! I'm just thrilled to receive this award from you. I'll be sure to keep this blog an interesting place for my awesome readers, such as yourself, to keep coming back to!

[replica watches]

It’s true that we don’t know what we’ve got until we lose it, but it’s also true that we don’t know what we’ve been missing until it arrives.

[nfl jerseys]

If all the stories that originated in newspapers went away tomorrow, it would have a catastrophic effect on the news ecosystem. This is not to romanticize what reporters do

[NFL Jerseys]

If all the stories that originated in newspapers went away tomorrow, it would have a catastrophic effect on the news ecosystem. This is not to romanticize what reporters do