During the course of this paper, I will take an in depth look at how the internet, eBook readers, and smart phones are affecting the newspaper industry. To do this, I will look at three separate aspects, the first being the advantages and disadvantages of electronic news and print news. The second aspect will be a look at the enormous financial differences between the two forms of news. The last aspect of this paper will be where the newspaper industry is heading and the changes that it must make because of the three aforementioned technologies.

At a recent press event held by Google, Ahmet Singal gave his account on how he views modern news. He says that in today’s society, news is instantaneous. No longer does it take weeks, months, or even years for news to travel. A person merely needs to take out their cellphone and Tweet about something that they witnessed, and in that, a firsthand account of a news event is created. Because of sites like Twitter, the news isn’t confined to a newsroom filled with anchors, or to a newspaper with professional writers. The people are able to give their firsthand accounts, and with sites like Google adopting real time search, this form of news is becoming much more convenient and commercial (Singal, n.p.). But with the convenience of the internet and people being able to create the news themselves through sites like Twitter, WordPress, Facebook, and MySpace, there also comes the issue of whether or not what you are reading online is correct and accurate. With print based news there are teams and professionals on stories and, although the stories will come a day late as opposed to an instant Tweet, they are (for the most part) accurate (Ziming Lie, 27-30). While there are mistakes made in traditional newspapers all of the time, there is “a level of professionalism that is not found on most amateur blogs or Twitter posts” (Lie, 35). But when a mistake is made in a newspaper, “the mistake is set-in-stone,” (Lie, 57) so to speak. The fact that things cannot be changed once they are printed can be seen as a disadvantage because mistakes cannot be corrected and new developments in news stories cannot be added. In contrast, the same article on a website can be edited accordingly. But the fact that things can be changed on the internet also draws criticism because it allows an author to make mistakes without consequences. If a mistake is found, one merely needs to fix the mistake and republish the post. It is because of the internet that print news must also make itself available online for revisions when mistakes are found and updating stories as they develop (Singal, n.p.). To sum up this point, Ahmet Singal said “…news must adapt to the internet so that it can survive” (Singal, n.p.).

Print news has tried to adapt to an electronic medium a number of times. With the introduction of the television came news broadcasts and with the introduction (and adoption) of the internet came dedicated news sites (Lie, 7). But the problem with the latter is that people who are used to a print news source have trouble adopting a new medium. It is for these reasons that digital recreations of newspapers have been made for online distribution and for, more specifically, eBook readers and smart phones (Lie, 10). eBook readers take their cue from newspapers and traditional books to mimic the reading experience. eBook readers use what is called an E-Ink display. As the name suggests, the display mimics traditional paper and ink which makes for a fairly traditional reading experience. Though E-Ink displays mimic the reading experience, they do not duplicate it. Many people have problems with the “refresh rates and buttons” (Joshua Topolsky, n.p.). Smart phones, in contrast, use backlit displays which are more like televisions and are harder on the eyes. It’s for this reason that many people dislike reading news (or other items of print) on their small, bright smart phone screens (as well as their computer screens) (Michael Gartenburg, n.p.). And for most people in America, the cell phone (or smart phone) is the one thing that people have on them at nearly all times. It’s the first device one uses when they wake up, and the last device they’ll see before they go to sleep. Because of this, bringing news to smart phones is a logical step because it is always connected to the internet, and it can bring the most up to date news to the consumer at any given moment (Singal, n.p.). But the smart phone has had trouble breaking into a real mass market for news because of their small screens and because of people basic problems people have with internet-based news (Gartenburg, n.p.). But because these eBook readers feel more like newspapers, they are much more accessible to the average user who is used to print-based news. And at the same time, they are like a smart phone or a computer in that they can connect to the internet and receive new information (Gartenburg, n.p.). While this does give an eBook reader a leg-up over a traditional newspaper, it does still bring up the same problems that people have with information on the internet (accuracy and ability to make changes). And because eBook readers are pieces of modern technology, they do have their problems and glitches. These types of problems keep the “suburban housewife” (Topolsky, n.p.) away from electronic-based news. But what the many people don’t realize is that the eBook reader, the smart phone, and the internet are far more cost effective than your traditional newspapers (Gartenburg, n.p.).

The Amazon Kindle costs $360 dollars. As of January 2009, the Times had roughly 830,000 subscribers who had subscribed for more than two years (Carlson, n.p.). Putting those number together gives a total cost of $297 million, which is “a little less than half as much as [the] $644 million” (Carlson, n.p.) that it costs the Times. In short, it costs the New York Times twice as much to print their paper than it would to send every one of their subscribers a free Amazon Kindle. The newly introduced Barnes & Noble Nook is at a $260 price point. And after doing the math with the Nook in mind, it would actually cost the Times nearly three times as much. These numbers speak for themselves and really show why the newspaper is dying (Carlson, n.p.).“The American press has the blues,” (Russell Baker, n.p.). In today’s society, the newspaper is dying. People of a younger generation get their news from television or the internet and not the paper, so it is because of this that the newspaper companies have stopped making money. Because younger people aren’t buying newspapers and the older generation that actually read newspapers are a dying breed, the newspaper just doesn’t have a future (Baker, n.p.). Russell Baker would also argue that it would be “fiscally irresponsible” (Baker, n.p.) to let newspapers survive. Nicholas Carlson of Silicon Alley Insider found that it costs the New York Times “$63 million per quarter on raw materials and $148 million on wages and benefits… just the newsroom [wages and benefits] are about $200 million per year” (Carlson, n.p.). After multiplying out the quarterly costs and taking away the $200 million for the newsroom wages and benefits, “a rough estimate for the Times‘s delivery costs would be $644 million per year” (Carlson, n.p.).

With the internet, publishing a news story, a blog post, or Tweeting can be done with just a few clicks and for, more importantly, free. Even the NY Times have a version of the stories that appear in their paper online and most of them can be accessed for no cost at all to the consumer or to the environment (Carlson, n.p.). From an environmental standpoint, the newspaper is equally as “irresponsible” because of all that must be done just to get the paper to the consumer (Baker, n.p.). The New York Times sends fleets of trucks out every day to deliver their paper to their subscribers. The carbon footprint that this leaves is vast, and the number of papers that are produced and not recycled is just as big (Carlson, n.p.). While on the internet, the carbon footprint is drastically (if not entirely) reduced. This begs the question “Is there really a future for the newspaper?” (Topolsky, n.p.).

With the internet becoming a reliable, convenient, cheaper, and more obvious choice for news, the fact that print-based news is still around “perplexes” (Topolsky, n.p.) people like Joshua Topolsky. Others, such as Ziming Lie, feel that the printed newspaper still has a place in today’s society for the time being (Lie, 117-121). Lie argues that the paper still has a life of “at least thirty years” (Lie, 119) ahead of it. He believes that the paper will die with the last generation to be raised on newspapers and after that, it will slowly fade away in the shadow of electronic-based news. “People do not want to read anymore,” (Lie, 121) Lie states in his book. Joshua Topolsky would argue against this point, even though he agrees that print-based news is dead. Topolsky is the Editor-in-Chief of the wildly popular technology-blog Engadget, and it is his belief that people will still be reading in the future, but what they will be reading on “won’t be paper” (Topolsky, n.p.).

During a taping of “The Engadget Show,” Topolsky and fellow tech enthusiast and Senior Associate Editor of Engadget Paul Miller argued with Nilay Patel about the future of the newspaper and adoption of a new medium for news. Topolsky and Miller agree that eBook readers and smartphones will carry the future of newspapers, whereas Patel believes that these devices will not be adopted for such uses. Topolsky brings up what he calls the “suburban housewife” effect and uses an example of the adoption of smart phones to make a point about the adoption of eBook readers and smart phones for news:

When the smartphone was first introduced to the world, it was for a small audience of business users. RIM (Research In Motion) dominated the scene with the BlackBerry and soon after, other companies started manufacturing their own smartphones. For years the smartphone was limited to the business man until 2007 when Apple introduced the iPhone. Apple really commercialized the smartphone and all it could do with the iPhone and it was then that the suburban housewives started to take notice of the smartphones. This is the same thing that Barnes & Noble is doing with the Nook. Barnes & Noble is going to commercialize the eBook reader, the suburban housewives are going to bring it into their lives, and the death of the newspaper will be final (Topolsky, n.p.).

This quote from Topolsky shows where the newspaper industry must head in order to survive. It must give its customers the news in a way that is modern but still familiar to the traditional newspaper reading experience or else they will fade away and “never be seen again” (Lie, 125).

There really is no question that nearly every aspect of our daily lives is affected by the internet and the products that the internet has produced. From when we wake up in the morning to when we go to sleep, there is at least some interaction with technology and the internet. When it comes to the changes in the way we receive our news, I side with Topolsky. Because of products like Amazon’s Kindle, Banes & Noble’s Nook, Apple’s iPhone, and Research in Motion’s Blackberry, getting news wherever you are is easier than ever and gives the consumer a richer, more connected experience.

Works Cited

Carlson, Nicholas. “Printing the NYT Costs Twice As Much As Sending EveryBaker, Russell. “Goodbye to Newspapers?” The New york Review of Books. 16 Aug.         2007. Web. 04 Dec. 2009. < http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20471>.

Subscriber A Free Kindle.” Silicon Alley Insider. 30 Jan 2009. Web. 04 Dec.

2009. < http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/printing-the-nyt-costs-twice-as-much-as-sending-every-subscriber-a-free-kindle>.

Gartenberg, Michael. “Entelligence: Of eBooks & Suburban Moms.” Engadget. 01 Nov.   2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2009. < http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/01/entelligence-           of-ebooks-and-suburban-moms/>.

Lie, Ziming. Paper to Digital: Documents in the Information Age. New York: Libraries      Unlimited, 2008. Print.

Patterson, Nathaniel. “The Digital Media Landscape: The Changes Coming.” New York:

Libraries Unlimited, 2007. Print.

Singal, Ahmet. “Real Time Search Event.” Online posting. Google. 07 December 2009.

Web. <www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXHHkROejik>.

Topolsky, Joshua. “The Engadget Show 2 – Steve Balmer, Droid, Nook, and New Macs.”            Engadget. 23 Oct. 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2009. <http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/23/the-engadget-show-002-steve-ballmer-droid-nook-and-new-mac/>.

Wright, Alex. “Glut: Mastering Information Through the Ages.” New York: Cornell
University Press, 2008. Print.

Kirszner, Laurie & Mandell Stephen. “The Pocket Wadsworth Handbook: Fourth

Edition.” Boston: Lyn Uhl. 2008. Print.

During my Junior year of high school, I learned in my Psychology class that the color red was supposed to promote anger, love, lust, and hunger. It is for that reason that so many fast-food restaurants are painted red or have at least some red in their color scheme. KFC, white and red. In-n-Out, white and red. Wienerschnitzel, red and gold. And of course the Big Daddy (I should say Big-Mac-Daddy), McDonalds is

yellow and red. Of these chains, the most successful is obviously McDonalds. With over 31000 restaurants, McDonalds is a worldwide name easily recognized almost anywhere. And from my own experiences, McDonalds is also the least appetizing. But again, that is neither here nor there.

When I looked at these chain’s color schemes and saw the pattern of red, I noticed something else. McDonalds had the most red out of all of them. The red in their symbol, on their billboards, in their restaurants encompasses the pure yellow-gold of the McDonalds arch, as well as the people eating in their restaurant. While hunger is the most obvious affect of red that McDonalds wants to have on their customers, anger, love and lust are pretty good effects as well for a fast-food chain. Love is a little obvious, make people fall in love with the food as well as the establishment. Lust is obvious as well, make people desire your food so they keep coming back.

Anger, in contrast, isn’t quite as obvious and I believe merits it’s own paragraph. If the color red makes the customers of McDonalds angry, then the customer will seek comfort; a natural response to anger. And where can people find comfort? Surely not in their friends or family. And of course they wouldn’t look to themselves. One of the first places that people will go for comfort is food. And who has the most fast-food restaurants in the world? McDonalds. So if you were to be driving in traffic and some crazy person cuts you off and nearly causes a twenty car collision, you can be assured at a McDonalds is right there off the next exit to get you your comforting fix of BigMac.

In the picture above, a black male’s face is clearly doctored into the place of a white male for the cover of this Toronto “Fun Guide.” This is done to show the diversity of Toronto. Now, if a place wants to show it’s diversity, doesn’t it seem logical to…I don’t know…actually get some diverse people for the photo? The way I see it, this picture was presented for the guide at a meeting to a room full of powerful white males. The men, seeing that there was no diversity in the picture, decided that the picture wasn’t a suitable representation of Toronto. If this picture were to  be presented, perhaps the public would think that the people who made the guide, or Toronto itself, is racist because there are no minorities on the cover! So rather than going out and taking another picture, a black man’s face is photoshopped into the picture. Seeing that there was now a minority on the cover, the powerful white men were satisfied with their decision, decided that they were no longer racist because they now have a black man on the cover, and allowed the cover to be published.

This is the problem. Trying to not be racist, is, in itself, racist. In a completely racism free society, the people in the room would’ve seen the picture, been satisfied, and published it. Because all we see nowadays is race and what is politically correct, we try so hard to satisfy all groups. In a racism free society, we would never see what the color of someone’s skin is in the first place. A person is a person is a person is a person. No matter the color of their skin, what they believe in, or their way of life.

The fans of the Tech world are ruthless. When something new is released, they rip it to shreds and state with a fury everything that is wrong with it. When Vista came out, there was a lot to shred. When Leopard (a Mac OS) came out, they ripped it to shreds (although much less so that Vista). And now with Windows 7, the fanboys are silent. Sure, there is still a loud voice or two among the crowd stating flaws, but the general consensus is that 7 is a great OS with much less problems that it’s predecessor. Snow Leopard (the most recent Mac OS) seems to now be the butt of all the “flaming.”

Now as a die-hard Mac user, I upgraded to Snow Leopard mere days after it’s release. SL promised to be a faster, cleaner, and more streamlined version of Leopard. For me, it did just that. My computer runs more efficiently, has some nice new features, and I have peace of mind knowing that I’m not behind in the tech world. Even with my experience, people still point out the flaws. It is my theory that because SL was a very incremental upgrade to Leopard, people were upset. There were no major design overhauls or noticeable on the surface changes. For most people, what you see is what you get. But for me, it’s a lot of what you don’t see is also what you’re getting. Windows 7, in contrast, DID do some major design changes and DID improve upon it’s predecessor in an easily noticeable way (the new “Super-Bar”, the less transparent menus, the lack of WARNING window pop-ups). Because people can see and work with these changes, they are happy. Because they can SEE them. In the SL upgrade, many of the changes you COULD NOT see. This is why people scream and cry to the moon about the flaws of SL; because they can’t focus on the new good things because they can’t see them.

This whole situation got me thinking about the thought process that Microsoft had when they released 7 (which is basically Vista SP2 with a better task bar). They knew that if people can see the changes, then they’d be happy. If their OS looks a little better and runs a little faster, then they’d be happy. It’s those two key points that Microsoft honed in on. And they accomplished their goal. SL and Apple on the other hand focused on just one of those points, and that made people angry. Even Apple’s popular Mac Vs. Pc ads can’t keep the fanboys at bay.

The average person probably won’t notice this kind of kicking and screaming. The average person will probably just see the I’m a Mac ads and the Windows 7 ads and that’s all they really know on the subject. But there’s a whole world of angry people who are always sitting and waiting at their computer to flame the next new product release. And I hope this small post shed some light on that world.

This Is It is a documentary of sorts about Jackson’s final concert series extravaganza. From the clips I’ve seen of this film, it seems like it’s going to be portraying Jackson in an almost God-like light. Some people think this is a good way to portray him, others think the contrary. For myself, it doesn’t really matter because I’m fixated on the marketing campaign for this film.

As a young man who is a self proclaimed pop culture aficionado, I noticed something peculiar in the marketing for this movie. Of all the television I watch, the websites I surf, and the billboards I see in a single day, a poster, trailer, or web-ad for This Is It is almost rare. But if you were to go to Fandango.com right now and look on their top-grossing pre-sale tickets, This Is It would top the list. This is to be somewhat expected with the release of the film just a few days away, but three weeks ago when this film still topped the list, that was an interesting observation. This film, which doesn’t have all that much marketing behind it, topped the pre-sale list more than a month ago. With such limited marketing, this wouldn’t be expected.

But I started thinking. With Jackson’s death still a hot topic for tabloids and mass media, marketing for his film doesn’t have to be grandiose. When every magazine has Jackson’s name on the cover, when every pop culture website has something related to Jackson, and when every news broadcast brings up Jackson’s death or the antics of his family, this is all free publicity. Even without these mediums directly saying Jackson’s film’s name, they are still imprinting that he has passed into our minds. This, in turn, makes us think, “Michael Jackson is dead. The news said so. I’ve heard he has a film coming out. I will go see it.” This is the perfect marketing campaign. They don’t have to pay for any of this. It all comes from our media and how obsessed with celebrities we as a society are.

Now that we’re all up to speed, I have to side with Mr. DeFranco on this topic. For a man to do this to a woman of thirteen is disgusting. And the fact that there are so many people coming to Polanski’s defense awes me. For so many people to just say, “It was a long time ago and he’s made such great work since then” is no excuse at all. In fact, I can’t believe that people would even think of coming to his defense. What this man did was a crime. He fled from this crime, which in itself, is a crime.

Roman Polanski, I love The Pianist, and I respect your talent, but I hope that justice is served in your case.

First off, I was not watching Conan on television. I was watching his television show online, on my own time, with very limited advertisements. I watch a lot (probably 80%) of television online. (Could that be considered ironic?) Conan’s one hour, fifteen-minute show can be watched in about 45-50 minutes online with the limited commercial interruptions. That is thirty-minutes of my life that I wouldn’t get back had I watched his show on NBC. This change towards the internet is the next step (in this writer’s opinion) for television. I do not watch nearly as much television as I did a few years ago. Is this because I’m busier now? No. (Unfortunately.) It is because I can watch my shows online, on my own time. It is also because there is other, equally entertaining content on the internet to be wasting my time on.

Monday through Thursday my favorite YouTuber, Phillip DeFranco, username “sxephil,” posts The Phillip DeFranco Show on his YouTube channel. This show delivers the news-of-the-day in a comedic, sarcastic, and sometimes cruel way. And I love every second of it. Everyday Shay Carl posts a vlog on his “SHAYTARDS” channel. This channel is very family friendly and hilarious. It is these types of user-generated shows that keep my attention. These are just funny people producing great content for all of the internet to enjoy. And the best part about TPDS or “SHAYTARDS” is that I can watch their shows on my own time from wherever I have internet access (which is nearly everywhere these days). These types of shows are going to keep popping up on YouTube because people enjoy them. Sure, Phillip DeFranco isn’t as well known as the Kardashians, but with this shift towards the internet as the primary source for entertainment and information, he very well could be.

Lastly, I’d like to talk about Twitter. Twitter gets a lot of shit for being a completely pointless website where people share what they are doing or their opinions about stupid gossip. Let’s face it, this is true. I do use Twitter, and I do post what I am doing on occasion as well as my opinions about stupid gossip. But Twitter has another use for me. It is a surprisingly good place for news. For example, a few days ago in the “Trending Topics” section on Twitter (this sections analyzes Tweets for keywords that are being used over and over across the sight), I saw “Paramore – Brand New Eyes.” Paramore is a modern rock band who I am a big fan of, so I clicked the topic. From the Tweets, I gathered that their new album was now available for streaming on their website. If it wasn’t for Twitter, I wouldn’t have had this knowledge. Another example, just half an hour ago I saw in the “TT” section, “Get well Conan.” I clicked the link, and learned from the tweets that Conan fell during a skit and hit his head and is, apparently, hospitalized. Without Twitter I would’ve had to wait a whole ten hours to hear this news! Shocking, I know. My point is that Twitter is a very fast paced way to hear about what is going on in the world through, not a news broadcast, but the people.

Seeing how far this single program has come in nine years made me start thinking about the entire world of technology and how much it has changed in that same nine years. Nine years ago, if you had a computer with 16 megabytes of RAM, you had a fast computer. That was enough RAM to do your basic computer tasks such as email and internet browsing without problems. Now? If my computer had 16 MB of RAM it wouldn’t turn on. Technology has come so far in such a short amount of time that it’s almost impossible to see where it is going. Nine years ago people would have never guessed your cellphone could browse the internet or be able to take pictures. Where are our cellphones going to be nine years from now? Is the Apple iPhone going to have a 32 Megapixel camera and two terabytes of storage? Anything is possible.

I realized that the evolution of technology has affected so many part of our lives. Namely, media. YouTube and Hulu are growing faster than any of the major networks: ABC, NBC, FOX. With this shift towards the internet as people’s primary medium, the way companies advertise their products or services is also changing. This leads me to this video:

This video speaks volumes for itself. It shows how the internet is changing the world of advertising, social networking, media, and our lives as we know it. I highly recommend that anybody who might be reading this to watch the whole video. You might just learn something about the internet and where it may be going.

KFC. (Formerly Kentucky Fried Chicken.)

Somebody at this company decided it’d be a great idea to put all of these into a single dish. But this isn’t a typical KFC meal. This is not deep-fried chicken with a side of bacon and cheese. No. This is a sandwich. But this isn’t your typical sandwich either, for there is no bread. There is only chicken. Chicken has taken the place of the bread on this fried masterpiece. Yes. This sandwich goes: chicken, bacon, cheese, and chicken. This is the new, KFC Double Down Sandwich.

When I saw the advertisement for this “sandwich,” I had some very strong feelings. It made me think that in an age where people are trying to stay healthy, why anyone would put out such a monstrosity? When America has about 30% of its population considered obese, is this really the best idea for a product? Now don’t get me wrong. I love me some unhealthy food. A #1 with cheese and ketchup at In-N-Out is my favorite meal of all time. But this Double Down Sandwich is…for lack of a better phrase, a $3 heart attack.

Another thought that arose while watching this advertisement above was how the product was marketed. The people in ad above (although hard to hear) are going crazy for this sandwich. Now, obviously, this is what ads are supposed to do; make people want a product. But in this ad, something struck me as odd. The people are being a little crazy. Almost to the point of being too over-the-top. And I thought that maybe they had to be crazy to sell a product that was as ludicrous as the Double Down.

I for one, know I’d have to be as crazier than the actors in the above ad to eat one of these.