Levy, Lachlan and Higgins, March 2006, manuscript:
Internet news and information has a distinct advantage over every aspect of televised daily news, except for 24-hour cable news networks, because of the high-access levels. (Dimmick, 2004) As the internet becomes more competitive in terms of technology, it can offer more of a displacement. ‘The rich and streaming features on the internet make this medium more closely resemble what television and radio offer to the audience/listener than other traditional media.’ (Tsao and Sibley, 2004) As the line between what the internet is capable of doing and the presentation of televised media become closer together, the lack of time-restrictions on the internet may be the answer to the contemporary problem. It is the belief of the researchers of this study that, the 2006 Olympics offered the first glimpse of a situation where the internet showed itself to be as capable to report a live sporting event as televised media, and the ability to win the ‘time’ battle allowed it to become a factor in altering regular viewing habits. Several reasons may drive a user to higher use of information sources on the internet, ranging from more immediate desires for information to the high amount of control associated with interactive media. As the younger generations, which are using the internet in greater numbers (nearly 75% of children 12 to 17 are online, while 63% of those 18 and over are (Madden, 2003), gain more and more access to media, displacement is a greater possibility. (Althaus and Tewksbury, 2000)
Quite a few reporters have urged me to fight Twitter, but I think the account survives as a testament to the limits of using any social network. No one should be under the impression they own their social accounts.
Emphasis mine. And remember it.
Covering the news of it is a little more interesting, but you can’t get by a certain sub-story. This picture is worth more words than diving in on it, though:
(via Mediaite on Tumblr)
Oh, Reuters Hulk, that didn’t take long.
Context: this slightly over the top, and all caps, reaction to the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The reaction got panned a little since the other wire service counted it as a win in the other direction.
The dirty work on the NAA study, via AEI:
Total print advertising in U.S. newspapers dropped to $4.36 billion from January to March, which was 8.2% below the same period last year, and fell to the lowest level of advertising revenue since the third quarter of 1982.
To which I respond with good news: we have more news than we’ve ever had before.