Famed movie critic Roger Ebert on why news in print is better than news online. What do you think about what he has to say? Does his argument hold water with the larger population?
Wall Street bonuses have been in the news a lot lately. Some people hate them; some people love them. Here is a well written piece articulating one of the sides of the argument. While the topic is timely and that's why I'd like you to read this piece, what do you think of the writing? The construction of the argument? The evidenced used to support the writer's claims?
Share your brilliance and ideas.
21 comments:
I think that the piece about bonuses on Wall Street is an excellent example of the kind of op-ed pieces we should strive to write. The author uses both personal experience as well as current events to drive his point home, and even better is that he analyzes history as a further example. Though the author's opinion may not be shared by his readers, the fact that Smith includes so many details and situations makes this article really solid.
I have heard from multiple writers over my three years on the Voice that they want to write opinion pieces so that they do not have to do as much work. What many people do not realize, however, is that a well-written op-ed can and maybe even should be more time consuming to write than a news story. Though it can call for less interviewing, writing opinion pieces should not call for less research. After all, who would want to read about an uninformed opinion?
I find it interesting that the Sun-Times and Ebert were able to make an article so AESTHETICALLY UNACCEPTABLE that it made me think, "hmm...maybe I would prefer reading this is in paper format because the digital version looks like an infant threw words, captions and pictures together on a screen" As i kept reading, I almost refused to let myself ignore the ridiculously horrible layout and actually focus on the article. Still, once I tore myself away from the the horror that is the layout, I realized that Ebert is chasing something I disagree with. I felt that Ebert took two angles: the first that finding news on the internet can be difficult, which is true. However, his second point I found less truth in, and that was that reading a physical newspaper is almost a cultural thing - it's nice to relax with a newspaper in a big comfy chair etc. I think that clearly people are willing to sacrifice this "luxury", because people are clearly shifting towards reading from digital screens while sitting in rigid office desk chairs. Ebert just seems to me to be harping on an issue without providing a solution (ex. simply say the HuffPost needs to fix its layout, end of story).
To quote Ebert, " I enjoy reading a newspaper. The pages follow in orderly progression. The headlines and artwork point me to stories I find interesting. I am settled. I am serene. I read, I think. I am freed from clicking and the hectic need to scroll, to bounce between links. I don't have search for the print stories. They find me.'
This is undeniably valid and beautifully stated. In a time where a myriad of generations find themselves being crammed into a small cookie cutter, a printed "real life" newspaper is understandable to all.
Newspapers cut the crap (excuse me) and provide the basics, what journalism is all about. Do we really need the excess that makes its way on to blogs and web journals. If all people want is the news, why does that never seem to be enough?
We must continue (or try) to emulate what Ebert is talking about. All though it is treated as such, this is no rocket science. Anyone with an eye that looks out for its peers can do this, and lucky for us, we have a staff chalk full of such people. Lets make sure we continue to make Eberts dreamy description a reality.
After reading Ebert's journal entry, I find myself having mixed emotions. In some ways, I agree with what Ebert says about newspapers. It's true that finding a story in a paper can be easier than online, and that the stories fall in an orderly procession. What he says about the Huffington Post website having an awkward layout is true for many other news sites as well. On those two points, I agree.
However, Ebert is missing some key elements in his argument. First, he seems to have the luxury of simply ordering another newspaper when he wants to. As he says in his entry, "However, during the election season and the Inauguration euphoria, I renewed our subscription to the New York Times and remembered, at first almost unconsciously, how much I enjoy reading a newspaper."
Many people don't have the luxury of just deciding on a whim to order a newspaper delivered to their door. It's expensive, especially in the current economic times. Having news online is one of the best ways to get stories out to the widest audience possible, which is what I believe is one of the main goals of journalism, and I would think that an experienced “newspaperman” ¬–as Ebert calls himself– would realize that.
What I also found interesting is that Ebert is writing his anti-online news and anti-Huffington Post diatribe in an online blog. He is using the same form of media that he decries in his post to get his message out to the world. I find that ironic. Ebert makes fun of the Huffington Post’s confusing layout, yet his own blog post has one of the worst layouts I’ve ever seen. The layout, to quote Josh, is so “aesthetically unacceptable” that I can hardly bring myself to finish the post.
If Ebert wants to criticize the format of online news and blogs, I think he needs to first make sure that his own blog is laid out better than the ones he’s criticizing – because right now, it’s a whole lot worse.
I read the WSJ article "Greed Is Good" by Roy C. Smith. It was very long, dense, and boring (not going to lie here) but it was undeniably well written and also very informative.
The surface level message that I have received from media sources in the past few weeks is that Wall Street bonuses are a reflection of greed and stupidity that led to this financial crisis in the first place. However, I now understand that bonuses are an important part of Wall Street culture. If the government forces an end to exorbitant bonuses, Wall Street will have to change the way it does business. Fortunately, Roy C. Smith seemed to have faith in Wall Street's ability to "reinvent itself."
While I agree with Anjuli about writing informed op-ed pieces like "Greed Is Good", I do not think we should pursue subject matters such as Wall Street bonuses in the Voice. I know that we have published op-eds about world issues in the past but I personally prefer op-eds like Adam's from the last edition because it was directly relevant the MA community.
I am amazed by the progression that Ebert had to take in order to get to the desired article about the generals. I have felt his frustration myself when trying to track down certain stories only to be fed to a headline or even an abstract of the article.
What scares me is that Ebert believes that this loopy way of getting to an article is the newspaper's attempt to get readers to spend more time on their website and visit more pages in their quest to find a specific article. The online news industry seems to be more concerned with selling advertisements and increasing the length of visits to the site than with actual news distribution.
This leads me to wonder if the core motives of the news industry itself have fallen by the wayside as newspaper companies try desperately to "make a go of it" on the web. Actual news and reader accessibility should never be sacrificed for profit on the internet although the web landscape of the industry invites this sort of behavior. Readers of print newspapers wouldn't want to see advertisements covering up headline stories when they sat down with the paper on a Sunday morning just as readers who rely on the internet want immediate access to stories.
Roger Ebert's Journal "I'm reading the newspaper again"
I agree with Michael's point about the irony of using an online blog/journal to explain why he is so fond of the printed word. Although perhaps this reinforces his opinion; the random pictures of various people reading the newspaper and unclear captions which broke up the text of the article certainly made it more confusing to read than it needed to be.
I have a mixed opinion on this issue. While I love reading actual newspapers (the newsprint, the nice layouts...), there is no way to get past the fact that blogs/online newspapers are convenient and free to anyone who has internet access (or a local public library).
- Julia
"Greed is Good" Roy C. Smith
I think that both Anjuli and Sara make good points about the pros and cons of op-eds that are either relevant or not directly relevant to MA. Personally, I enjoy reading op-eds about issues that affect people in a larger community than just MA, because issues like bonuses offered to CEO's do educate our small community about pressing problems. I think that a balance between directly MA issues and larger issues can and should be found.
One thing that really struck me about this article was the strong concluding paragraph. Smith concluded his argument in a direct way, and addressed the opposite opinion without clichés or generalization.
After reading Ebert's piece on the superiority of paper newspapers, I realized that much of the reason that I am partial to "real" newspapers is that I like the ideal that they fit into. The image of curling up on a comfortable chair in the morning with a cup of coffee and reading about what is going on in the world is something that I think many people cling to. It is a very cultural thing. Newspapers contribute to the American culture and when they are transferred to the internet they are removed from many of the associations that come with newspapers.
I also realized even more so how important layout is. A newspaper staff puts a great deal of effort into creating a choesive paper that guides the reader to the most important stories. They also include the images that work best with a story in the right places. With an online paper a lot of this craft is lost. Not only can reading an online newspaper be much less enjoyable, but a lot of information can be lost when a newspaper is transferred to the internet.
- olivia powers
Like Michael, i thought it was interesting that Ebert is using an online article to talk about how much he likes newspapers. The thing is, I think reading newspapers will always be something that people will enjoy. However, with the current economic situation some people have to cut back on things like newspapers. They have to let go of so called luxuries in life. Articles found online are an easy access. Looking at the comments after the article, one person mentioned that everything he has read lately has been a link from a friend. So, as long as there are more technologies coming out, I believe that many people will contiinue to turn to online articles. However, I think many people will still find comfort in newspapers.
While I do enjoy lying in bed with the paper or settling into a comfy chair, I don't think there is anything especially bad about online news. In fact, I generally find it easier than an actual newspaper. It is easy to scan the list of headlines and find interesting stories. I rarely read the Huffington post so I can't really speak to Ebert's experience but I have very rarely had similar experiences. It seems that he took one bad experience and turned it into a rant about the horrors of online news. Online news is faster and more up to date generally making it better minus the reading experience.
I think the piece on wall street bonuses is excellently written. It brings an opinion that I haven't really heard before and it is obviously very well researched. The evidence is also presented very clearly and methodically. Smith draws from a wide variety of sources including statistics as well as personal experience. He backs up every argument extremely thoroughly and conveys his point excellently. This is the kind of research and support of points that we should strive for in every op-ed piece and every article in general.
Like Ebert, I much prefer to read a hard copy newspaper over an online news source. He touches on why I think print news is superior: the most important stories are right there, easily accessible, and the best features (even if they are on obscure topics) are nicely presented to attract readers. However, I think a large portion of the population would disagree with Ebert and me on grounds of convenience. With so many phones having internet capabilities, online news sources offer a needed way for busy people to catch up on the world around them while on the go or during a rare spare moment. The sheer amount of news available is also incomparable, and people can find stories on things they are particularly interested in through search bars (however this is not necessarily a good thing because then people are not getting as much variety in their news). For these reasons, I often resort to online news, but nothing beats sitting at the kitchen table with a cup of tea and the Sunday newspaper.
Roger Ebert
While the brevity of online news is slowly taking over print, there will always remain a place for the printed news through time. Similar to the battle between digital and film photography, digital photography will eventually take over film in the consumer and professional market, but there always will exist a group of purists that long for the smell of fixer. Ebert brings up a good point with his questioning of the IPS however. Personally, I am often guilty of hurriedly glancing over a news headline on an RSS feed or my nifty News application on my cell phone, but never even caring to check where the news came from; this is where I think newspapers can be considered a more credible and complete source.
Ebert seems to prefer his news simple and void of technology, but those that are savvy enough to avoid the “rabbit-holes of hyperlinks” will find comfort in the ones and zeros of the Internet. So analog and digital news sources will always cater to two different groups of people, and printed papers will remain in the news world as a “luxury”, but printed papers will definitely not go away as the ability to place digital news in our pockets gives us an ephemeral technology-high.
-Tiras
Sent from my iPhone
Wall Street Bonuses
While I agree with the thoughts posed above and while I understood the general point of the op/ed, I think that my lack of knowledge in the world of economics may have left me a little confused about some parts of the article. (Maybe I should have taken AP Econ over the summer?)
However, I think that this is also what makes this article successful. Smith is obviously in educated in the subject matter, and his use of personal experiences and solid statistics makes it apparent that the writing of this article took some research. He does however clarify the more confusing parts “in layman’s terms”, and clearly explains his beliefs about the benefits of bonuses; this is a sensitive topic to address, but his clear points and non-attacking tone convinces the reader easily.
-Tiras
Sent from my iPhone
I read the WSJ article about bonuses. Although I know the Journal tends to be conservative and business-oriented, it surprised me to see an argument for corporate bonuses, but in retrospect it makes a lot of sense. Of course it makes sense that we should reward successful employees. I tend to agree with the author that bonuses shouldn't be prohibited when they are legitimately helpful to a business. The trouble will be drawing the line between useful and excess compensation.
This is obviously a very slanted argument, and I have a hard time critiquing it without knowing a whole lot about finance... clearly I'm not the target audience of the WSJ. Yet Smith did a good job supporting his beliefs – he gave an impressive amount of the history behind executive compensation, examining the press's criticism of bonuses, and then laying out the relevance of these practices. I think he may have taken too much of a middle-of the-road approach. I'm afraid neither proponents or opponents of bonuses would have an easy time identifying with the author's arguments. I wonder if op-eds like this are better off when they take a side and stick with it or if they should be informative and even-handed.
I think that Roger Ebert's opinion on the superiority of print newspapers was very interesting. While I myself get the majority of my news from the internet, I am sometimes amazed at how little I am taught about the world from my internet sources. On the weekends, I sometimes go through print newspapers (usually the New York Times), and, like Ebert says, I find a much more ordered, more thoughtfully layed-out source of information. When I am given a homework assignment to find some piece of relevant news, I first turn to the internet. However, like Ebert says, finding news on the internet can be tricky. I have spent wasted minutes looking through the web for a piece of news when, if I had bothered to look in the more organized New York Times, I probably could have found something much more quickly.
Another point that Ebert made that I thought was interesting was the idea of Ebert's "trust" of the editors of print newspapers. He expressed frustration at the lack of explanation of certain acronyms in the internet news story. One of the reasons print newspapers attract me is because I feel safe that I am getting the true story. However, when I read a story on the internet, while the basic facts may be true, I often get a feeling that they are missing something. Editors of online news sources just don't have the type of accountability that print editors do.
I am only a day late with this post because I thought it was a leap year, anyways...
I did not really enjoy Ebert's piece about online and print news sources. I found it boring and repetitive. A more appropriate title would have been Ebert's unsuccessful online adventures.
The only thing that I gout out the article was the point that it is hard to find the news that you want online. Ebert needed to make other points about why print news is better than online news.
I also agree with Josh that solutions need to be provided if you are going to complain about an issue. I personally do not see any issue with online news and do not think that print will ever become completely obsolete. For me, print news is less overwhelming and is easier to navigate. It is a daily publication that can always be depended upon to provide the essential news.
Same as Adam
In response to the article about the students in Iowa, the one thing that struck me was the persistence and audacity of the students. Despite countless reprimands and threats, they continued to wear the arm bands. Such extreme resistance to authority has seemingly died since then. Sure, there have been a few Brian Wilson's, but other than that, people usually tend to stop at the first opposition from an authority figure. Whether that is as a result of a greater fear or a lack of passion for whatever cause may be in protest, it's a shame that we cannot bring ourselves to get more involved and not back down.
In response to the Wall Street Bonuses article, I thought it was pretty well written. The thing I liked most about it was the intoduction. The writer gave a personal experience of the topic at hand, which helped for the reader to be put in his shoes and relate to his situation. Another key element of the article that I liked was the manner in which he was biased. Clearly, he was advocating the bonuses, but at the same time showing how others could believe that the bonuses were a bad institution. The way in which he was able to get his point across while at the same time show the other side of the spectrum was done very well. I feel like this is something we could do a better job of in the op-ed pieces that we publish in the voice.
Post a Comment