The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Customer Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out

  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Times News Services
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Алекс Овечкин
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
    • Donne Travels
    • Lives Common
    • National Pastime
    • Politics 101
    • Stories of Faith
    • Civil War
    • Middle - America
    • Chicago Blue State
    • Zadzooks
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Inside the Beltway
    • Inside the Story
Home > News > National

How traditional media lose audience to the Web

By Matthew Sheffield | Thursday, August 14, 2008

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Print
  • [-][+] Font Size
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Tell a Friend
  • Got a Question?
  • You Report
  • Click-2-Listen

Over the past 10 years or so, one of the most commonly asked questions in media circles is why the public seems to be increasingly tuning out and unsubscribing from America's establishment media.

Various reasons have been offered, including the emergence of interactive media, increased work hours, more commuting - all of which aren't without merit.

One explanation that usually isn't discussed is that, just maybe, the public is sick of the media picking and choosing what they think is news.

While it is amusing to see journalists who oppose government media intervention on behalf of the public arrogating that privilege to themselves, we'd all be better off without the laughs because it is frustrating the national discourse.

Instead of reporting the news, far too many journalists have now taken it upon themselves to protect the public from it.

In the recent past, media self-censorship was pretty near impossible to get around, except in towns where two or more newspapers with differing ideologies circulated.

With the advent of the Internet, however, dissatisfied news consumers have a world of alternative sources. And they're leaving in droves.

Who can blame them? If you wanted to see good news from Iraq until very recently, you pretty much had to turn to the blogosphere or read the official government reports on the Web.

If you wanted to see the brutal decapitation of Nick Berg by Islamic radicals, you had to go online.

Ditto if you wanted to find out the party affiliation of Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced former Democratic governor of New York. Bill Clinton's infamous affair with Monica Lewinsky was buried news until Internet impresario Matt Drudge brought it to light.

Continue reading 12Next

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Bookmark and Share

Comments

Read Comments

Post your comment:

Please login or register to post a comment

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

Advertisement

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. Senate delays climate bill until September
  2. Inside the Ring
  3. Iranians resume protesting election result
  4. GOP hits Obama using his own words
  5. WH communications director leaving
  6. Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
  7. Freddie Mac acting CFO found dead
  8. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
  9. NRA raises concerns over Sotomayor
  10. Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' words

Most Shared

  1. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  2. HOLMES: Deja vu on dictators, double standards
  3. EDITORIAL: Return of the Black Panther
  4. Israeli know-how
  5. EDITORIAL: The fate of FedEx
  6. Bloated deficits endanger dollar's global status
  7. EDITORIAL: Dancing with the bear
  8. YON: Girl with no future
  9. LETTER TO EDITOR: Coming to grips with Palestinian guilty trips
  10. EDITORIAL: Rewriting economic history

Most Commented

  1. Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
  2. WH communications director leaving
  3. Freddie Mac acting CFO found dead
  4. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
  5. Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' words
  6. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  7. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  8. Gibbs: Pay no attention to what Rahm said
  9. Politics' Talking Heads Highlight Speaker Series
  10. Fleecing Mike Ditka

Poll

Do you think the G-8 is still effective in today's times?

Market Data

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.