How Do You Get Your News?

I am amazed and fascinated at the sheer speed of new media - especially within my field. More and more Americans are getting their daily news diet from the internet. After all, it's the most up-to-speed way to get news and it's user-driven. But with this instant, driver-seat access to the news, I can't help but find the trend a little discouraging from a journalistic and patriotic standpoint.

My case:

Newspapers are dying. Unable to harness ad money, papers are losing greenbacks as well as doorstep readers; New York Times circulation is down nearly 4% from last year. Most other dailies are also posting declines.

Then there's the radio. Gone are the days of getting your news from the car dial every 20 minutes. Radio budgets are being squeezed, as news organizations reallocate money into online units. Satellite radio has further complicated the scenario for radio.

Network TV newscasts are suffering too. Ratings are falling off - and I believe the average age of viewers is now 60 (Explains all those Ensure commercials, doesn't it?).

The cables, on the other hand - are kings. They're posting strong numbers, especially during sweeps - and, like the internet, it provides instant access to news when it breaks. But remember that the Cables are trying to fill 24-hours, which has given rise to the "personality" programs - like Larry King and Olbermann. They get a huge following - and thus, propel the cable channels above the traditional networks.

But what's the cost of all this instant-access? I think it's hurting us.

Back in the day - let's say even a decade ago, network news would take the time to go through everything happening in the world in forming the makeup of a newscast. The material for the 30 minute program would be vetted, heavily researched and in some cases debated throughout the day. In many cases, equal time for opposing views would be gathered - because, in essence, networks had a full day to put together a story. There would be more of a "get it on right" mantra, rather than just a "get it on" attitude.

The result of this method was that you - the viewer, would be able to take in a well-constructed story with a great deal of thought and deliberation on how it's told, where it's placed in a newscast and how much time it's allotted. You would hear both sides of a story - because that's what you were given - and thus, you would be able to get a well-balanced diet... on everything that's happening from America's schoolyards to your own backyards... even if you didn't care about either.

Newspapers too have value this way. How many times are you caught up in a story on A1 that continues on A10, and while flipping to A10 - you catch another story on A8 that you might never seek out, but find informative? Or you'd turn to your favorite columnist's rant, and catch the other two with differing views on the OpEd page - just because you were there?

The internet changes all that. After all, you can now click on the story YOU want to read - or the columnist whose thoughts YOU subscribe to. Your diet then becomes all the comfort food carbs you crave - and you miss out getting the not-so-yummy veggies.

But I happen to think there is great value and nutrition in those veggies, those stories we don't immediately click on - or the opinions we don't believe in. There comes a deeper understanding of a particular issue - from ALL sides. In this way, the viewer can aptly discern where he or she stands on a story, and connect to a deeper appreciation and loftier grasp on differing views, countries, and cultures.

I think a well-balanced diet of news is extremely important - especially in an age of such rapid globalization and divisive political rhetoric here at home.

So the next time you go news-digging on the information superhighway - get the good carbs you crave, but please also stick a fork in a broccoli spear or two!