Apple

Its been 25 years but I still remember covering this in university.

You can tell a lot about a newspaper by looking at the placement of a story (front page, above the fold, below the fold, following pages), and by the amount of space given to it (column inches).

It would be interesting to see if both papers are giving these stories prime real estate or relgating them to back pages, and if they devote more space to them than say world affairs.

James

I might suggest that the Internet is an information source -- and an information force -- that actually rivals the more traditional media. The Internet is, along with talk radio, actually cutting into the monopoly the traditional media has had over the decades.

When it comes to comparing the methods of delivery, the depth of its content, or any balance that may or may not exist, I don't believe one can accurately be compared to the other. And this even includes the Internet sources owned and controlled by their more traditional media counterpart.

Moreover, I'm not sure how many people would claim to "get their news" from Internet sources. People like you and me, Julian, certainly get a good deal of our "news" from the Internet, but probably not all of it. I still read the newspapers and watch network news. Recently a local newspaper published their endorsements for the candidates running for the U.S. House of Representatives in our state. There are seven seats up for grabs, and six endorsements were for the Democrat candidates; the lone endorsement for a Republican candidate was one whose district is EXTREMELY safe, and whose primary issue is illegal immigration, a current "hot-button" issue, and one that this very same newspaper criticized this guy for in the past (and the first time they've endorsed him over the past dozen years.) And these are the editors who both write and approve news stories, and they determine story placement as well as write the headlines.

Major TV networks, all liberal leaning, which are ABC, CBS and NBC, have 20 times the viewership than the more conservative FOX News, but it's FOX News that gets labeled as "partisan". The print media, most of which is picked-up from the AP, the New York Times, or the Washington Post is much more favorable to left-leaning issues and candidates than right-leaning.

I'd be interested in seeing a reliable poll (or is that an oxymoron?) about the percentages of people who get their "news" primarily from the Internet versus the more traditional news sources. Only then can we "compare" what the Sydney Morning Herald (or any newspaper, for that matter) might put on it's Web page to what it might put on its front page.

As a side-note, I also might suggest that the "media" we see in the United States is vastly different from what you folks might see in other parts of the world. For example, I can't tell you how many times Oz has made the claim the our media is favorable to the Bush administration, even to the point of being "controlled" by them. He makes that determination by what he sees (and presumably reads) in the Canadian media. I always wonder what planet he's living on when he makes such a ludicrous comment. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Or perhaps he's just yanking my chain!)

I don't think it really matters where (or rather, how) people get their news these days - radio, television, internet, newspapers - they will always gravitate to what's the most sensational.

Why? I think it's because people in general are either too bored with their lives (and crave a little excitement) or they're so stressed out they only have time for the sensational highlights.

Whatever the poor old journalist serves up to his/her editor, and even whether editing is then applied, it's the reader/viewer who dictates what our news tells us, not the journalist/writer.

Which means that even stories of low interest, everyday mediocrity or real seriousness need to be somehow 'sensationalised' for anyone to take note.

Who wins? It's a catch-22.

Gret

I read a commentary that reminded me of this post. So here I post a link to it: http://www.startribune.com/562/story/769285.html

The article is about celebrity worship, though its focus is on USA, I think this is an Universal habit of people.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=203201&messageID=2115209

Since time immemorial, people have loved to gossip, and love gossip. It's as simple as that. Even Mrs Noah did it!!

Serious stories don't promote 'gossip', so they are discarded. Only 'gossip' counts, especially if it's about other people.

You've only to watch some of our TV sitcoms and soapies to know that 'gossip rules'. And no matter what we do, we're never going to do away with it. It's too entrenched.

So don't blame the poor journo; he/she's only doing what the public wants to hear.

Gret