Readings for wednesday, August 29

Both readings seemed to relate in the sense that there was a lot of talk about "filtering", if you will. The two chapters from the book should pretty much be burned into everyone's minds at this point, seeing as they were the first things we ever learned about journalism. The inverted pyramid is something that we have all been exposed to and have had practice doing. This time, however, I realized how heavily the inverted pyramid style relies on simplifying a news story. For example, the inverted pyramid structure was created because of the telegraph during the Civil War. Messages were paid for by word, so the most important information would be sent first. From this we got the inverted pyramid; the most important information goes first. However, this doesn't exactly show newspaper readers or even journalists and editors as valuing good writing.
I know that in the second chapter there was a lot of emphasis put on grammar and writing clearly, it just still seems cynical to me. For example, our book at one point states "a news story doesn't end; it stops." To me, every story should have a good ending, including a news story. Leads are also defined in our book as not encouraging the reader to read the whole story, that is why the most important information is presented first; it isn't expected that the audience will have any intention of finishing what you write.
In addition, the journal raises a number of questions about the future of journalism and whether or not journalists will even hold the same importance that they do now, if any. This is confusing to me mainly, because my idea of good journalism is good writing. And who would be better suited than journalists and writers? The prospect of online media, in my opinion could be something amazing. It would open up more opportunities, offer more opinions, and be more accessible to a generation that heavily relies on computers and the internet. In addition, statistics show that most forms of print media [with the exception of ethnic press] are declining, while online, the rankings are improving. However, as the reading points out, how much of this information presented online will be devoted to providing news? While the newspaper industry is dying as far as print circulation grows, it is still thriving online, but how much longer will this news continue to be of the same caliber as print sources. Also, will online newspaper sources ever consider using their availability and space to create more in-depth stories?
In my opinion, journalism is about providing the public with the most important stories, giving the whole story, and presenting the story in the best way possible. In my mind, cutting stories and presenting information online is somewhat insulting to the audience. I understand that journalism is not the same as it was in the past and that new technology is changing it rapidly, but I believe that the core values should still involve providing the best information in the best way possible, honestly and completely.