OT: Shot in the arm for web journalism

[dondada]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100412/te ... a80c0.html

I know only a few of you on here might be interested in this but there have been regular debates on here about the future of print publications in the face of web-based ones.

Personally, I still love print too but I think the above link might indicate a little significant shift.

[Poncey]

Does anyone know if The Enquirer won for it's scoop?

[m1kee50]

For some reason I thought this was going to be about someone getting shot, in the arm, for something they wrote for a website. Silly me.

[dondada]

Additionally, there are very few people who are prepared to report the truth anymore. Everybody seems petrified of litigation. John Pilger (although not really on my side of the fence) used to be an awesome journalist; sadly he has become a bit of a parody of himself in recent years but I'll always respect him for refusing to march to anybody else's tune. The new breed should use that renegade approach without fear of consequence; without it, journalism is dead.

Hear, hear, Macho - well, to almost all of it. I was reading a brief piece in a law journal really which said that libel settlements are going to be drastically reduced in many cases which will hopefully deter at least some carpetbaggers desperate to shut people up. The whole law needs reform.

I was reading a piece recently about a news meeting at a very respectable newspaper where the editor had to turn round to his staff and say 'Can we lay off the oligarchs for a bit?' They were simply using up too many resources and time fending off letter after letter.

As for the new breed using a renegade approach without fear of consequence - this would be brilliant but in the current state of play is somewhat idealistic. Look at the chap who was taken all the way by the group of pseudo medics for saying they had no proof their methods worked...on the whim of a court he was looking at a 200k loss, bankruptcy, etc, for sticking to a point of principle. Fortunately he won. But your suggested approach is only for the very rich or those backed by someone prepared to support this all the way.

[Deserter]

The decline of print journalism is obviously going to continue. As such, events like the one Ian linked to are going to become more and more common.

There is very little decent investigative journalism carried out nowadays. Smaller budgets and twenty four hour news have both contributed to that. Also, why bother spending thousands and months of research time on an ongoing issue in SE Asia - or wherever - when a photo of Jordan's knickers (tabloids) or Samantha Cameron ('qualities') and a few hundred words will do for the readership time and time again.

The vast majority of the public know very little about what is going on globally; even the ones who think they know usually don't. This is a shame. Websites like 'newsnow' that source news from all over the world are fairly good but there is zero quality control and therefore often too much stuff to wade through. I believe there is a niche for a real global news website that isn't marred by celebrity and Murdochesque agenda.

Additionally, there are very few people who are prepared to report the truth anymore. Everybody seems petrified of litigation. John Pilger (although not really on my side of the fence) used to be an awesome journalist; sadly he has become a bit of a parody of himself in recent years but I'll always respect him for refusing to march to anybody else's tune. The new breed should use that renegade approach without fear of consequence; without it, journalism is dead.

Great post. Though worth mentioning The Economist as that rarity of a print publication that has increased its circulation significantly in the past decade - proves there can still be a market where you're prepared to invest in quality journalism serving a clearly defined niche.
The decline of local newspapers, by contrast, has huge implications for the democratic process - who's going to hold corrupt councillors to account, for example?