NOTE from Diane: [Diane's News Clips / OpEd DIARY]
Blind Publishers Walking
Print News as always in all ways, user unfriendly
Maybe someone can explain to me why newspapers are so completely behind the times. (No pun intended). Forget for a moment America's endangered journalists and reporters
who actually report the news, (you are out there,) and if you can, for a moment, what seems to pass for 'the news.'
In too fast-paced and often small-spaced environs, readers have little precious time to find locations to accommodate large awkward page turning, bypass full page ads and
then have to hold the behemoth up, or for that matter, down, to read. Who wants to
do this?! And then having to find a place to wash, if you're not comfortably situated at home, in order to remove the ink from your smudged hands? Are the, using the word sparingly, publishers, so awfully dense they don't get that hassling the reader IS a problem?
More and more advertisers are grazing in greener pastures anyway.
These organizations bemoan the across-the-board drop in readership because of the
(so far, uncensored) Internet, yet do squat to progress in a way that might make a difference, and arguably the difference in the organization's bottom line. And because they're tunnel-eyed hard-nosed elitists, they don't 'get' actual real progress as opposed
to their interpretation, i.e., climbing the ladder of success wrong by wrong.
.
So now they're paying attention, but they're still blind men walking, or climbing over.
Everything changes, everything. It's the one constant in the universe, (even water that lays becomes stagnant,) but not how print news is delivered, same as two hundred years ago, (the delivery, not the integrity of the content). I don't know if its two hundred years ago, something like that, but it's not important, the point, (problem,) seems pretty clear to me, at least. The news is supposed to be in the forefront, not last in the line of progress. It
truly is not rocket science! in my opinion.
The way I see it, the content and delivery need to be refocused and sized or otherwise -taking the lead; e.g., strong inspirational stories next to hard news (in the same category) is a workable concept. When hard news titillates day after day after day, it becomes and is, a large part of the problem. It affects the reader, the public, ultimately, the news organization itself, with tentacles reaching into very dark places.
Do you recall as a child watching a bloodless heroic film or video so inspirational you wanted to emulate those actions? I'll wager you did and felt it in your bones, desiring
some secret download quick into your own DNA. Wasn't that feeling strong and lasting,
as strong and lasting as anything negatively titillating and, I suggest, with the same lasting
imprint? I've asked these questions of family, friends and associates and there was not one who did not agree one hundred percent!
Hey, yaba daba doo, it really is time to leave the stone age. :) Imagine that.
Blind Publishers Walking
Print News as always in all ways, user unfriendly
Maybe someone can explain to me why newspapers are so completely behind the times. (No pun intended). Forget for a moment America's endangered journalists and reporters
who actually report the news, (you are out there,) and if you can, for a moment, what seems to pass for 'the news.'
In too fast-paced and often small-spaced environs, readers have little precious time to find locations to accommodate large awkward page turning, bypass full page ads and
then have to hold the behemoth up, or for that matter, down, to read. Who wants to
do this?! And then having to find a place to wash, if you're not comfortably situated at home, in order to remove the ink from your smudged hands? Are the, using the word sparingly, publishers, so awfully dense they don't get that hassling the reader IS a problem?
More and more advertisers are grazing in greener pastures anyway.
These organizations bemoan the across-the-board drop in readership because of the
(so far, uncensored) Internet, yet do squat to progress in a way that might make a difference, and arguably the difference in the organization's bottom line. And because they're tunnel-eyed hard-nosed elitists, they don't 'get' actual real progress as opposed
to their interpretation, i.e., climbing the ladder of success wrong by wrong.
.
So now they're paying attention, but they're still blind men walking, or climbing over.
Everything changes, everything. It's the one constant in the universe, (even water that lays becomes stagnant,) but not how print news is delivered, same as two hundred years ago, (the delivery, not the integrity of the content). I don't know if its two hundred years ago, something like that, but it's not important, the point, (problem,) seems pretty clear to me, at least. The news is supposed to be in the forefront, not last in the line of progress. It
truly is not rocket science! in my opinion.
The way I see it, the content and delivery need to be refocused and sized or otherwise -taking the lead; e.g., strong inspirational stories next to hard news (in the same category) is a workable concept. When hard news titillates day after day after day, it becomes and is, a large part of the problem. It affects the reader, the public, ultimately, the news organization itself, with tentacles reaching into very dark places.
Do you recall as a child watching a bloodless heroic film or video so inspirational you wanted to emulate those actions? I'll wager you did and felt it in your bones, desiring
some secret download quick into your own DNA. Wasn't that feeling strong and lasting,
as strong and lasting as anything negatively titillating and, I suggest, with the same lasting
imprint? I've asked these questions of family, friends and associates and there was not one who did not agree one hundred percent!
Hey, yaba daba doo, it really is time to leave the stone age. :) Imagine that.
