Who's Better Informed, Newspaper Readers or Web Surfers?

I think that we have to try to reduce the number of the many poeple who manipulates the information. Less poeple beter information, on my opinion.

Wow.

I'm pretty positive that most websites get their news from print media publications. Some are autonomous, but I think many people here are missing that key point: the websites, in general, rely in print media to research their stories and, essentially, do their work for them.

Also, media such as newspapers are set up to ideally serve the largest group of people possible. If everything switches online, it'd be doing a disservice to those who do not have access to internet or cable.

On top of that, well... personally, I consider someone to be informed if they read a variety of things; of course, the web offers more options -- however, think about it like you'd think about a talking head on a news station: is this reporter -accountable- for their story? If someone is factually wrong or misleading, is this person reporting the story going to have to pony up?

Generally, no. There is a loss of accountability and oversight with news such as this. Who knows who researched half of the things that are reported on television? On the internet, it's a little easier to track, but... it's essentially the same problem.

No matter where you're getting it from, you have to research a -variety- of sources. And for that to happen, local and state print media must continue to exist and learn to work with and coordinate with online publications. Until online publications can somehow raise enough money to pay reporters, this is going to be how it will have to work.

I say good riddance to print! The internet is the next step of human evolution and those who do not adapt will be left behind.

Once Fox and Similar entities die I'm sure it'll be a slightly better place in the US.

Far too many people believe in far too convoluted of information for me to feel comfortable sometimes.

I mean have you seen most of the political spam on Current? Holy crap I often wonder if these posters forget to breath on occasion or tell their bodies to breath and end up shitting instead.

It astounds me how incompetent you can be and still work a PC. Truly a testament to windows software.

Very vague article that doesn't really apply to the question asked in the title... I'm looking for statics in the article only to find yet another pissy rant about the death of newspapers.

Seriously, newspapers are going to die AND IT'S A GOOD THING! Everything comes to an end for a reason.

Someday web surfing for news will be replaced by instantaneously microchip brain interface news scrolling on the corner of your eyelids, and you won't see me bitching about that either.

You can be informed in either instance. I think you need to read and surf more than one source. When your writing a research paper you read a bunch of different books and cite them all. So reading The NY times or reading Time online doesnt make you super informed. But if you read a few prints and a few online sources, then I think you're informed.

This is a perfect reason to love Current. The information on here comes from many different places and not just one source. Even the comments are varied.

Personally, I read a bunch of sources online. Current, CNN and Google News as well as my local paper.

the onion is a great source for news

The mainstream media is an obsolete institution. It needs to die. We are the new media.

people are just not that bright.... myself included. We really need to look at who OWNS any news paper, website, TV show and what there agenda is. Love is the info evil is AFRAID of.

"...web surfers who read online newspapers?"

I agree with this for the most part...however online newspapers are incomplete, like certain stories/new's reports, classifieds, obits, comic strips, crosswords, sudoku. They may give little to none of the above... because drrr, they want you to go out and buy their paper.

So it all depends on what you're looking for.

As far as new's media in the big picture of things--ya online of course, you're going to get more content than your local paper any day of the week.

Without news papers though what would the non computer savvy do? Or people who don't even own computers, or even TV's for that matter...I think that there will always be a demographic for news papers regardless of how far we advance in technology.

For those of us that actually read the news I think the web has print papers beat hands down. And it's not the price. It's just that a print paper is one set of news from one source. The web offers countless sources. You read an article in a print paper that was taken or based from the AP for example. On the web you can visit the AP site and read the thing for yourself. Then you can try Reuters for the same story and get a different take.

Or if you like international news, as I do, then you can read what we have to say about it, followed by visiting the online news sources from where it's happening to see what THEY think about it. If you want to be informed, and take the time to do so, the web puts more tools in your hand.

I'm sorry to see the print papers go. But the oil lamp companies went too. Those that are smart are going online.

hasnt anybody noticed that internet news stories are usually posted by reporters on legitimate news sites. that there linked? people only have access to half of the news because of the reporters!

This test doesn't allow online readers to read any articles from newspaper websites, including links/reposts on Current, Reddit, Digg, Huffington Post, etc. For everyone that says you have more access to news online - how much of your online news is supplied by newspaper companies?

The web FOR SURE!
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
http://www.svpvril.com/nwo.html

" To deny ourselves 50 c or a buck, we will be denying ourselves crucial knowlege we need to be informed citizens of a Democracy " If there's martial law declared, and they shut down the internet indefinitely to black out the news perhaps. But then what would happen to newspapers in that instance ? Wouldn't they be so heavily censored that you'd get the obit column to read and the weather report interspersed with doublespeak propaganda ? The Internet News was invented to supercede the pitfalls of obsolete newspaper printing so that you could use your own printer at home. And to expand the Freedom of the Press to supercede corporate Censorship. That Red Scare Menace immage the RIAA has posted in CD shops is more appropriately reflective of what the corporatization of the news has done to our Democracy in the first place. The only paper I ever regularly read is the Syracuse, New York New Times. They have one edition a year posting the 10 most Censored news stories. That censored news is commpnly posted on Current.com. So when horse hocky becomes the next Olympic sport will I ever be sorry to see the last of papers in print. Electrons don't produce oxygen like the trees they routinely slaughter to produce paper. Now if they produced paper from industrial hemp, perhaps it would make a difference. But how soon do you expect that to happen ? As for knowlege, I have to laugh at that. 40 % of the most fearful, ignorant people this World has ever seen in all its history voted for the wrong people in the last election, as they did for Dubya SuperWeasel and his band of SuperVillians and their predecessors back to 1980. So unless Fahrenheit 451 replaces our usual scene any time soon, I'll stick to digital. Besides, when you realize how the Internet and organizations like Current.com have expanded knowledge by expanding
the number of citizen Journalists and their motivation to become involved in their civic duties as citizens in a
true, and evolving Democracy, as with colonial times,
then we are headed in the right direction. Soren Kirkegard once said: "Life is a phenomenon which must be lived going forwards, but can only be seen
looking backwards" At least for those who don't choose to face the future anyway. Einstein knew that
since we are allways passing through space, even if we individualy are standing still, we must also then pass through time too. So he said: " Immagination is always more important than knowlege, because knowlege is limited, yet immagination encompasses the entire World" I'm not the level of brainiac he was yet, but that too is a work in progress. Since my computer even at Web 2.0 is way smarter than I am, I still have faith, even if the newspaper people don't.

Online because the online reader has a greater amount of resourses for cross reference.

When I was a kid we got two newspapers a day. As an adult I don't subscribe to any newspapers.

When I was a kid we had no internets and no cable, now I have all the cable news channels and i constantly surf the news (that's how I found this cool place - current),.

My surface knowledge has increased drastically, but the depth of my knowledge is often shallow.

I rarely read newspapers. Being a resident of New York City, I have, ironically, few options for quality journalism.

Newspapers have a certain quality that, if executed properly, merit their value. One thing I am personally attracted to them for is their portability. Technology is circumventing this, but I dislike carrying more items than I need.

Online news is fast, presents options newspapers cannot, and is available worldwide. I also like the element of interactivity.

Printed media can only survive if it provides a service and a quality online media cannot. At a guess, this may involve something akin to artistic beauty. This, especially,with books.

Regrettably, people are becoming less and less inclined toward beauty; trading it for a cheap expediency.

It depends, what is the SOURCE!~

Online news is great if you want to be one step ahead; the breaking news stories, that appear online within seconds, are totally changing how print news is viewed.

Print is definitely dying, an its lifepan is shrinking as each year goes by. I myself prefer online news more than any other format; It is easier to access specific categories and there are more news sources to chose from, besides the regular prit publications (who often have the same recycled stories).

...web surfers who read online newspapers?

I've always been curious about this. I read both, so does that make me super duper informed?

Lol no one

Web surfers are, to a point. You have to filter so much on the web, and once you've learned how to tell the good from the bad I think you are much more informed than newspaper readers.

On the downside, I can't do a written crossword to save my life, so maybe I'm biased.