reply to post by ModernAcademia
Yeah, this doesn't really surprise me. I know one
person, that still reads newspapers.
However, I think it's going to be bigger than that. Pretty soon, conventional cable/broadcast/satellite television news will be replaced by the
Internet as well. No doubt, those same stations will keep some piece of that, as they adapt to having more content on their web-sites - beyond what
is already on their television channels.
The recent events of the Fukushima nuclear accidents
really drove that home for
me. The "best" source of information and interpretation of events on that specific situation (starting Thursday night/Friday morning) was frankly,
ATS. See this thread
When the Japanese PM mentioned ("casually") at the very end of his first press conference, that various nuclear reactors were automatically
shut-down because of the Earthquake, and then walked-off without taking any questions - the mainstream-media failed their job. Nobody in the
mainstream-media asked any questions, or started doing any research to figure-out what that meant.
Once it was clear there was "some issue", they failed again - by not getting subject-matter-experts involved. They rolled-out generalists (like
Bill Nye). No offense to Bill, I think he's cool. But, he's not a SME (subject-matter-expert) on this stuff - which even he was the first to
happened, there were SME's all over television. Back then it wasn't 24
hour "news" (which is not really the case any more anyway, which is why we must be "news" in qoutes now). Back then, we only had CBS, NBC and ABC
(and some "UHF" stations, for anybody who still knows what they are) - and they did a much better job at covering this story than the current
Only after the story reached "Godzilla proportions" (please forgive the analogy) yesterday, did they really start
stepping to the plate.