The Future of Journalism

In my opinion, the credibility of news is steadily decreasing. With modern technology allowing us to do our own research and allowing anyone to post anything as true, rumors are ever so present, as seen in the recent presidential campaigns.
What can be trusted? In 10 to 15 years, I believe there will be incredibly strict regulations on what can be publicly announced, even on the internet. It may be dangerous to even post blogs about news that has not been verified and is inaccurate information.
Because of the direction that journalism is taking now, I do believe steps like these will be taken to prevent the complete deterioration of journalism's reputation and to prevent mass misuderstandings. However, it may very well be the case that these regulations stifle certain news that the public needs because of the red tape journalists may not want to deal with.
I cannot possibly describe any future news outlet, just as generations before me could not have ever known that one day people would be getting their news from an image box or, better yet, a monitor that allows worldwide communication. However, even if another news outlet is invented, in 10 to 15 years it probably still won't be widely recognized as the major news source.
I believe the internet will be the most common news source--at least in America. As the older generations die off (for lack of better terminology) then my generation and those that follow will probably tend to mostly lean towards to the quicker-to-get news: search engines and websites. We have been brought up as impatient people, wanting to get what we want when we want. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that important, elaborate stories regarding politics and other more complicated matters may be greatly ignored. Without a people too concerned with keeping up-to-date with governmental affairs, comes a government not greatly concerned with sticking to the rules. It's up to journalists to spread the message in the most effective way possible.
As an aspiring public relations specialist, I do not foresee as much trouble as actual journalists working with the news media, other than the fact that corruption in America is steadily growing. Take the recent bail out efforts for example--some businesses are learning that with enough money and political influence, they can do they want and still be given a helping hand from the government. I hope to one day work for a large corporation, and unless something is done about maintaining good ethics and punishing misconduct, my job is going to be a lot harder.
However, I think the biggest problem (much like many of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press) is going to be financial difficulties. The economy is looking grim, and the future of print media is being stomped by the rise of the internet.
As far as emerging business models are concerned, journalism may become more of a service rather than a product. Advertising will be much more abundant (which could serve as another problem as journalists may struggle to please their advertisers under the pressure of the economic turmoil). Furthermore, conglomerates will probably emerge all over, as each corporation struggles to improve all aspects of their product and to stay in business. This of course would mean less competition--something that the United States never wants to see.

Interview question for Shirley Raines:

"What is your view on the proposed 12-hr. cap for next school year, and do you plan on doing anything in protest?"

Lead Assignment

Hard Lead:

KABUL, Afghanistan — A foretaste of what would be in store for President Hamid Karzai after the election of a new American administration came last February, when Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a senator, sat down to a formal dinner at the palace during a visit here.

Between platters of lamb and rice, Mr. Biden and two other American senators questioned Mr. Karzai about corruption in his government, which, by many estimates, is among the worst in the world. Mr. Karzai assured Mr. Biden and the other senators that there was no corruption at all and that, in any case, it was not his fault.

I liked this lead for the most part, but I think the author should have included what country Hamid Karzai is president of (for those who don't know). It mostly got to the point, giving the people involved, where they were, and what they were talking about, but some pointless information--like what they ate--distracted the main points.

The most important aspect in this article appeared to be that Karzai is not recognizing the obvious corruption in his country.

Anecdotal:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/07/tigers-dominate-gonzaga-68-50-victory/

SPOKANE, Wash. — You only get so many chances at the University of Memphis to show the country what you are, to find out how far you’ve come and to put yourself in position to be called a contender for — yes, it’s OK to say it now — the NCAA title.

So this was the place on Saturday, in an arena that had been sold out for months, against a Gonzaga team perceived to be of equal or better quality, with a national television audience on ESPN waiting to be convinced.

It was okay, but I could see how it could be offensive to the University of Memphis: "You only get so many chances at the University of Memphis to show the country what you are..." What's that suppose to mean?

And Gonzaga wasn't perceived to be of equal or better quality. We were ranked #15. They were ranked #18.

However, it got the point across even if the wording wasn't great, and was an interesting anecdotal lead, so I suppose it was effective in getting the message across.

The most important aspect according to this lead? That Memphis beat a great team on ESPN.