Georgie Anne Geyer has written a thoughtful piece (I found it at Yahoo! News) called "Without Newspapers, Americans Can't Understand The World." Before you read what I have to say, you should know that Know More Media's Gary Bourgeault has already written a series of posts at TheAlphaMarketer in detailed response to Meyer's article. I hope to add a little to what Gary has said.
My understanding of Geyer's article is this: She says that because Americans don't read newspapers as much as they used to, they do not oppose the war in Iraq like she thinks they should. She writes:
"While there are many reasons for this American lassitude, I think we have come upon one of the major reasons this week. Too many Americans no longer seriously read newspapers, and thus don't have any idea what is happening in the world."
I want to focus here on one aspect of Geyer's statement: the idea that the decline of newspaper reading is causing Americans to know less about current world events. I think she's missing the boat, because this fall in newspaper readership is due more to American consumers' shifting choice of news sources - that is, electronic as opposed to print - than to any trend toward ignorance.
That said, I like Geyer's thought that it is healthy to read articles that you otherwise wouldn't - to expose yourself to news that may not directly concern you. That is what newspaper reading forces upon you, because you must pass your eyes over articles that you are not interested in to get to the ones you do want to read.
Geyer also says:
"If more Americans had had a comprehensive view of the world -- the kind that is irrevocably blurred by the 80,000 new blogging sites launched every week -- it would have been barely possible for the 30 people who in essence started the Iraq war to have acted without the accord of the American people."
Georgie Anne, I don't think the skyrocketing number of blogs equates to an increasingly blurred or uninformed perception of what is happening in the world. If what you're saying is that we have too many choices laid before us and therefore are finding it increasingly difficult to identify the most important and relevant news, then I think you're right. But I also feel differently about the value of blogging than you do.
Lessons for business bloggers? One - write about a variety of topics. Your readers are not one-dimensional. Talk to them about funny things, weird things, and just plain off-topic things from time to time. Keep it rare, but use it to spice up your conversations. Newspapers may continue to be less read, but professional fact-checking and careful reporting (hopefully) will always be in style.
What do you think about Geyer's piece? What lessons about blogging can you take from this conversation?
I think she's totally out of her mind because her professional perch is creaking and ready to fall from beneath her feet. First, the idea of that outfit from Columbia being considered "nonpartisan" is patently insane.
Next, I'm able to access wire copy--just like her darling newspaper's editors--from across the globe, organized to give me news headlines in business, national, international, sports and other sections, which allows me far more coverage than any dead tree paper on the planet could ever hope to present. Hopping over to the blogosphere, i can read what's happening in pratically every corner of the planet straight from the mouth of someone that's got their boots on the ground and recounts what they see going down.
She's a dinosaur caught in a tarpit.I don't need some editor or pundit like Georgie deciding what I should be reading, what's "important." ANYTHING might be important! I spent a little over a decade in the commodities game, and that taught me that a weather report on the other side of the world might make some market go whacko by the next morning, so now I do not want anyone playing filter for me.
Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin | March 22, 2006 4:46 PM | Permalink to Comment