Post-debate, The Economist
Do you agree with the motion?
69%
31%
Voting at a glance
50%
DAY
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
Representing the sides
Defending the motion
- Jay Rosen
- The internet is improving journalism by driving towards zero the costs of getting it to people, and by vastly reducing the capital requirements for quality production. This has opened the market to more players, allowing more ideas to be tried.
- READ MORE
Against the motion
- Nicholas Carr
- The internet, by altering the underlying economics of the news business, has thinned the ranks of professional journalists. Has the net created other modes of reporting to fill the gap? The answer, alas, is equally straightforward: no.
- READ MORE
About this debate
Like many other industries before it, the news industry is being disrupted by the internet. Among other things, technology is undermining the business models of newspapers: the news organisations that employ the most journalists and do the most in-depth reporting. At the same time, the internet enables new models of journalism by democratising the tools of publishing, allowing greater participation from readers and making possible entirely new kinds of organisation, such as WikiLeaks. Do the benefits of the internet to the news ecosystem outweigh the drawbacks?
Some argue that a more participatory news system, and greater openness on the part of news organisations, offers journalists new and better ways to do their jobs, serve their communities and hold those in power to account. Others worry that the internet is hollowing out the news system, reducing funding for in-depth reporting and encouraging journalists to lower their standards and focus on what is popular, to attract traffic, rather than what is important. What do you think?
Some argue that a more participatory news system, and greater openness on the part of news organisations, offers journalists new and better ways to do their jobs, serve their communities and hold those in power to account. Others worry that the internet is hollowing out the news system, reducing funding for in-depth reporting and encouraging journalists to lower their standards and focus on what is popular, to attract traffic, rather than what is important. What do you think?
Background reading
Ideas arena: The news industry
A special report on the news industry: Bulletins from the future
A special report on the news industry: The Foxification of news
A special report on the news industry: Coming full circle
Newspapers: The strange survival of ink
The rise of content farms: Emperors and beggars
SXSW blog, day two: Journalistic nuclear physics
A special report on the news industry: Bulletins from the future
A special report on the news industry: The Foxification of news
A special report on the news industry: Coming full circle
Newspapers: The strange survival of ink
The rise of content farms: Emperors and beggars
SXSW blog, day two: Journalistic nuclear physics
Comments from the floor
Post-debate phase
Most recommended | View all (0)