According to Jon Meacham's introduction, what is at stake in the conflict between traditional print media and new media? Why does he care about the preservation of print, and why should we? Do you agree with him?
I think that Meacham wants to preserve print publications because he has grown up with them. However, he realizes that the will eventually become outdated. Instead, he focuses most of his energy on preserving the quality of the writings. Meacham wants the quality of articles to stay the same, no matter what the medium may be. Although he would love to keep print alive, he would rather keep the love of story prevelent in our society. I agree with him about keeping the quality of articles around. I think this is very important for both the writers and the readers. However, I do not think that print necessarily needs to be preserved. I read 2 different magazine subscriptions a week. One of them comes in print, and another comes in print and on my tablet. I prefer to read the magazine on my tablet versus the print copy. For one, all of the copies are neatly stored on my tablet. Also, there is more interaction. There are links to websites that I can click on and read more about a topic. I know that keeping print alive is very important to some people. However, for me, I wouldn't mind reading everything on a tablet.
Meachem is concerned about the way stories will be told when many people make the change from print to news media. He questions what resources will be available to reporters of this new era. Will there even be reporters? Or will we selflessly rely on trending tweets to let us know about the passing of Steve Jobs, the Casey Anthony verdict, and the Japanese earthquake? He credits these questions to not only those affiliated with magazines, but also photography, literature, and art. With autocorrect and computerized grammar fixation, what do we need editors for? Meachem does, however, realize that online media is still not the sole place for the news. He hopes that people will realize this as well, and uses this claim to support his theory that print media will live on for many more generations. I agree that the preservation of print is crucial to society. Online, everything is different. It's easier to skim an article just to find one simple piece of information, while ignoring the entirety of the article, possibly even missing its crucial claims. Print news is also beneficial because it is closer to 'set in stone' than online news. Though hackers might be able to change what we read online, I can't imagine how they would hack a printed newspaper. Not that either source is unreliable, but that newspapers, magazines, and literature hold a charismatic legend of entitlement to portraying media claims correctly.
What John Meacham finds that the struggle between print media and online media is that print media is for those who want to read well written and reflective stories, while the those who want immediate news just to know what is going on read online media. He cares for the print media because it is what he grew up with and he believes that print is more eloquent and memorable. I find this true because print media must make sure everything is perfect before printing while online media can always edit a web page. However, I believe that online media will evolve and begin to gain the same characteristics of print media that make it so memorable. I do not see the point in keeping print media when new media can well takeover.
I agree with the author that some forms of literature will stay in print forever. I think that books will be around, I just do not think that publishers will continue to print them because it is so much more cost effective of them to just make a digital copy and not have to pay for paper or printers. I also think that printing of literature will be discontinued because it will help the environment. The halting of printing paper will create a big jump in the amount of trees that will be around. I do not like the fact the the author seems to be attached to printed copies. That is what he grew up with and I think he is having a harder time excepting that not having books around will be all around better. It makes so much more sense to use something like an iPad. Literature on paper is going to die out and the publishing companies will have to stop printing because they will not make any Joey. No one wants to be carrying around a big book when they could have a pound IPad at their disposal.
He says " three centuries from now people will still be savoring the work of storytellers like our colleagues here". He wants to reserve stories and print in general because he believes they are special and contribute to the identity of an era. At the same time, he understands that he grew up in the end if the era of "a totally analog world". He knows that it is vital to not "mourn but to build". This is the division of the two medias, traditional print and new. I see it as less of a conflict and more of a transition period. Right now, the two coexist yet I feel that eventually traditional media will dissolve all together and appear on modern technology like the Internet and tablets. I can see the importance of preserving print media because it was a huge defining point in our nation's and our world's history. Print media helped us to accomplish so many thing a was a superior means of communication in it's time. While I see its significance in history, I disagree with Meacham that we should continue to preserve it for anything more than a way to look back and enjoy the past. In my opinion, the time of the printed press is ending, and the time of modern technology has come.
John meacham's article is stating that, as with many aspects of society, media is undergoing a period of evolution. As our society becomes increasingly technological, there is less demand for conventional print media. Though he doesn't oppose this change he urges for the modern generation to preserve the stories that these articles books and periodicals contain so as to be ever savored by humanity. He wishes that this change In social media will serve to improve our love of story as it has endured since Gutenberg because it has often served as a gateway to truth even in the darkest times of human history. Our love of story is ingrained in us and should continue to do so as we carve our way through the 2nd millennium.
Jon Meacham seems to believe that print media should still be around because it allows for a calmer, more thoghtful audience. And on the flip side he believes Internet is for us, the "now" generation. I think that's almost insulting in a way. That just because we sort of juggle information electronically faster then his generation did, it doesn't mean that we aren't capable to look to the Internet for a calm, thoughtful piece that has something to say, and the Internet is incapable of even offering it. The author seems to indicate that there is this rich philosophical environment that print media offers and there is something noble about creating a print document. But can't the same be said for web pages? There are awards now for web designing but none for magazine designing? Is that a sign of our times or does that seem to say that there are more people now that care about the Internet then magazines, because I don't ever recall an award eaves being given out for magazines other then what was written in them. He also says there's something "rewarding" in print media. The ability to hold the paper in your own hands. I think that's very much an opinion. But he also doesn't really explain that feeling. Does that mean that it is indescribable?
In John Meachams introduction what is at stake between traditional print media and new media is that for traditional media is losing print because now our generation is very technology based using the new media like ipads, cellphones iPods, etc. To read the news and entertainment instead of print articles/newspapers. Meachams cares about preserving print because he said it is part of his generation but also because it is a way of storytelling, reporting and it is one of the best ways to report through print. I think we should preserve print because it has been apart of our lives as well, maybe not as long as it has been in the authors life but reading print over technology based media seems better. It looks more official reading print magazines and newspapers then going online to look at an article.
I agree with Jeff that many want to keep print media because it marks an era of time, but people need to realize that new media is the mark of a new time period and they have to accept that. I think that once the older generations start to disappear then people will be able to embrace the new age of technology in the media.
What is at stake in the "conflict" between traditional media and new media is the tangible aspect about traditional media. The fact that if you would like to read the newspaper or a magazine it would not be necessary to go out and pick up a copy but download it onto a device or read it on a computer online is what is at stake between traditional media and new media. John Meacham cares about the preservation of print because of the he grew up with print media. I believe that print media has a different affect on a person than media online. Reading it from a book or a magazine or a newspaper makes it more reliable and a little more personal I feel. Online I'm always skeptical about who wrote it and how reliable they are.
I agree with Karl that making and or saving money and being green might also play into this situation. I can see both being factors in the process. I think Karl's point on books staying around is highly plausible, especially with collectors and people who really enjoy them around. However, I still see a large portion of books to even disappear over time. This will be due to lack of people that use and appreciate them, as most people will be utilizing the technology accessible to them. Lastly, I agree that as time goes on, people would much rather carry an iPad around, versus multiple heavy textbooks, notebooks, and folders. To not embrace and use this technology would simply be a shame and clear waste of technology..
The world is getting more and more modernized nowadays, the techolonogy becomes an important part of people's daily life. Because of that,, the printed products are less favored, people prefer to read electronically than read on paper goods; that's also what John Meachem is concernng about. He cares about the printed products, because he grows up with them, that's the way he gets more used to. But, on the other hand, he thinks we should use the new electronic way to read too, since our task is not to mourn but to build. Overall, I agree with him, we shouldn't forbit the old way of reading ewhich is the paper products; but we also need to get the new way of getting informations.
The conflict between traditional print media and new media lies in the transformation of the digital technology, which is gradually occupying the market and becoming more and more popular, and "will likely displace the printed media sooner than many people once thought". John concerns whether the traditional print media, his, as well as many other people at or before his generation's favorite, will disappear in the future, as the exponential growth of digital devices, such as iPad. John describes the time as "the end of one great era and the threshold of another", like the Nuclear Age, where the world will have a huge difference before and after. Therefore, John senses a mission of preserving the traditional media that has accompanied him during the childhood, and he points out that magazines always have their advantages and unique traits even though online medium seems to be a more popular genre and resource. However, such ancient technology like magazines are more considered and reflective, which was consequent on many editors' devotion and efforts. I agree with John. Time makes masterpiece. Threatened by the new media, we should find a solution to build the traditional one stronger to adapt the environment instead of giving it up, since the values and visions of which are lasting. People shouldn't forget or abandon their old possessions because of owning a new one. What's more, classics are classics. They cannot be completely replaced by anything.
John Meacham is worried that online media sources will take over traditional media like magazines. He compares today's technologically advanced society to the way the world was after the first nuclear bombing. Meacham writes that "the world was one way before August 1945 and another way afterward." Technology has changed the way people read. He believes that traditional magazines are better than online articles because websites don't provide reflective writing. I partially agree because if I'm reading a magazine, I probably have a lot of time to spend so I can just sit there and read. If I'm reading something on my computer, there are other websites I can go to if I get bored, so online articles don't have to be really captivating. However, depending on what website the article is coming from, online writing can be just as good as writing from printed magazines.
I think that Meacham wants to preserve print publications because he has grown up with them. However, he realizes that the will eventually become outdated. Instead, he focuses most of his energy on preserving the quality of the writings. Meacham wants the quality of articles to stay the same, no matter what the medium may be. Although he would love to keep print alive, he would rather keep the love of story prevelent in our society. I agree with him about keeping the quality of articles around. I think this is very important for both the writers and the readers. However, I do not think that print necessarily needs to be preserved. I read 2 different magazine subscriptions a week. One of them comes in print, and another comes in print and on my tablet. I prefer to read the magazine on my tablet versus the print copy. For one, all of the copies are neatly stored on my tablet. Also, there is more interaction. There are links to websites that I can click on and read more about a topic. I know that keeping print alive is very important to some people. However, for me, I wouldn't mind reading everything on a tablet.
ReplyDeleteMeachem is concerned about the way stories will be told when many people make the change from print to news media. He questions what resources will be available to reporters of this new era. Will there even be reporters? Or will we selflessly rely on trending tweets to let us know about the passing of Steve Jobs, the Casey Anthony verdict, and the Japanese earthquake? He credits these questions to not only those affiliated with magazines, but also photography, literature, and art. With autocorrect and computerized grammar fixation, what do we need editors for? Meachem does, however, realize that online media is still not the sole place for the news. He hopes that people will realize this as well, and uses this claim to support his theory that print media will live on for many more generations. I agree that the preservation of print is crucial to society. Online, everything is different. It's easier to skim an article just to find one simple piece of information, while ignoring the entirety of the article, possibly even missing its crucial claims. Print news is also beneficial because it is closer to 'set in stone' than online news. Though hackers might be able to change what we read online, I can't imagine how they would hack a printed newspaper. Not that either source is unreliable, but that newspapers, magazines, and literature hold a charismatic legend of entitlement to portraying media claims correctly.
ReplyDeleteWhat John Meacham finds that the struggle between print media and online media is that print media is for those who want to read well written and reflective stories, while the those who want immediate news just to know what is going on read online media. He cares for the print media because it is what he grew up with and he believes that print is more eloquent and memorable. I find this true because print media must make sure everything is perfect before printing while online media can always edit a web page. However, I believe that online media will evolve and begin to gain the same characteristics of print media that make it so memorable. I do not see the point in keeping print media when new media can well takeover.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author that some forms of literature will stay in print forever. I think that books will be around, I just do not think that publishers will continue to print them because it is so much more cost effective of them to just make a digital copy and not have to pay for paper or printers. I also think that printing of literature will be discontinued because it will help the environment. The halting of printing paper will create a big jump in the amount of trees that will be around. I do not like the fact the the author seems to be attached to printed copies. That is what he grew up with and I think he is having a harder time excepting that not having books around will be all around better. It makes so much more sense to use something like an iPad. Literature on paper is going to die out and the publishing companies will have to stop printing because they will not make any Joey. No one wants to be carrying around a big book when they could have a pound IPad at their disposal.
ReplyDeleteHe says " three centuries from now people will still be savoring the work of storytellers like our colleagues here". He wants to reserve stories and print in general because he believes they are special and contribute to the identity of an era. At the same time, he understands that he grew up in the end if the era of "a totally analog world". He knows that it is vital to not "mourn but to build". This is the division of the two medias, traditional print and new. I see it as less of a conflict and more of a transition period. Right now, the two coexist yet I feel that eventually traditional media will dissolve all together and appear on modern technology like the Internet and tablets. I can see the importance of preserving print media because it was a huge defining point in our nation's and our world's history. Print media helped us to accomplish so many thing a was a superior means of communication in it's time. While I see its significance in history, I disagree with Meacham that we should continue to preserve it for anything more than a way to look back and enjoy the past. In my opinion, the time of the printed press is ending, and the time of modern technology has come.
ReplyDeleteJohn meacham's article is stating that, as with many aspects of society, media is undergoing a period of evolution. As our society becomes increasingly technological, there is less demand for conventional print media. Though he doesn't oppose this change he urges for the modern generation to preserve the stories that these articles books and periodicals contain so as to be ever savored by humanity. He wishes that this change In social media will serve to improve our love of story as it has endured since Gutenberg because it has often served as a gateway to truth even in the darkest times of human history. Our love of story is ingrained in us and should continue to do so as we carve our way through the 2nd millennium.
ReplyDeleteJon Meacham seems to believe that print media should still be around because it allows for a calmer, more thoghtful audience. And on the flip side he believes Internet is for us, the "now" generation. I think that's almost insulting in a way. That just because we sort of juggle information electronically faster then his generation did, it doesn't mean that we aren't capable to look to the Internet for a calm, thoughtful piece that has something to say, and the Internet is incapable of even offering it. The author seems to indicate that there is this rich philosophical environment that print media offers and there is something noble about creating a print document. But can't the same be said for web pages? There are awards now for web designing but none for magazine designing? Is that a sign of our times or does that seem to say that there are more people now that care about the Internet then magazines, because I don't ever recall an award eaves being given out for magazines other then what was written in them. He also says there's something "rewarding" in print media. The ability to hold the paper in your own hands. I think that's very much an opinion. But he also doesn't really explain that feeling. Does that mean that it is indescribable?
ReplyDeleteIn John Meachams introduction what is at stake between traditional print media and new media is that for traditional media is losing print because now our generation is very technology based using the new media like ipads, cellphones iPods, etc. To read the news and entertainment instead of print articles/newspapers. Meachams cares about preserving print because he said it is part of his generation but also because it is a way of storytelling, reporting and it is one of the best ways to report through print. I think we should preserve print because it has been apart of our lives as well, maybe not as long as it has been in the authors life but reading print over technology based media seems better. It looks more official reading print magazines and newspapers then going online to look at an article.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jeff that many want to keep print media because it marks an era of time, but people need to realize that new media is the mark of a new time period and they have to accept that. I think that once the older generations start to disappear then people will be able to embrace the new age of technology in the media.
ReplyDeleteWhat is at stake in the "conflict" between traditional media and new media is the tangible aspect about traditional media. The fact that if you would like to read the newspaper or a magazine it would not be necessary to go out and pick up a copy but download it onto a device or read it on a computer online is what is at stake between traditional media and new media. John Meacham cares about the preservation of print because of the he grew up with print media. I believe that print media has a different affect on a person than media online. Reading it from a book or a magazine or a newspaper makes it more reliable and a little more personal I feel. Online I'm always skeptical about who wrote it and how reliable they are.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Karl that making and or saving money and being green might also play into this situation. I can see both being factors in the process. I think Karl's point on books staying around is highly plausible, especially with collectors and people who really enjoy them around. However, I still see a large portion of books to even disappear over time. This will be due to lack of people that use and appreciate them, as most people will be utilizing the technology accessible to them. Lastly, I agree that as time goes on, people would much rather carry an iPad around, versus multiple heavy textbooks, notebooks, and folders. To not embrace and use this technology would simply be a shame and clear waste of technology..
ReplyDeleteThe world is getting more and more modernized nowadays, the techolonogy becomes an important part of people's daily life. Because of that,, the printed products are less favored, people prefer to read electronically than read on paper goods; that's also what John Meachem is concernng about. He cares about the printed products, because he grows up with them, that's the way he gets more used to. But, on the other hand, he thinks we should use the new electronic way to read too, since our task is not to mourn but to build. Overall, I agree with him, we shouldn't forbit the old way of reading ewhich is the paper products; but we also need to get the new way of getting informations.
ReplyDeleteThe conflict between traditional print media and new media lies in the transformation of the digital technology, which is gradually occupying the market and becoming more and more popular, and "will likely displace the printed media sooner than many people once thought". John concerns whether the traditional print media, his, as well as many other people at or before his generation's favorite, will disappear in the future, as the exponential growth of digital devices, such as iPad. John describes the time as "the end of one great era and the threshold of another", like the Nuclear Age, where the world will have a huge difference before and after. Therefore, John senses a mission of preserving the traditional media that has accompanied him during the childhood, and he points out that magazines always have their advantages and unique traits even though online medium seems to be a more popular genre and resource. However, such ancient technology like magazines are more considered and reflective, which was consequent on many editors' devotion and efforts. I agree with John. Time makes masterpiece. Threatened by the new media, we should find a solution to build the traditional one stronger to adapt the environment instead of giving it up, since the values and visions of which are lasting. People shouldn't forget or abandon their old possessions because of owning a new one. What's more, classics are classics. They cannot be completely replaced by anything.
ReplyDeleteJohn Meacham is worried that online media sources will take over traditional media like magazines. He compares today's technologically advanced society to the way the world was after the first nuclear bombing. Meacham writes that "the world was one way before August 1945 and another way afterward." Technology has changed the way people read. He believes that traditional magazines are better than online articles because websites don't provide reflective writing. I partially agree because if I'm reading a magazine, I probably have a lot of time to spend so I can just sit there and read. If I'm reading something on my computer, there are other websites I can go to if I get bored, so online articles don't have to be really captivating. However, depending on what website the article is coming from, online writing can be just as good as writing from printed magazines.
ReplyDelete