The point is that I would always spot glaring inaccuracies in them, including getting the names of artists wrong or posting a rumour that a band are back together and in the studio when all other evidence suggests they are in separate countries. Now I can go to websites dedicated to such bands and know that although the news (rumour) might not be any more accurate than the print press (I doubt they’re much less accurate though) the writers know enough about the bands history to at least get that part right.

If they don’t? Many websites, such as this fine one I’m currently on have comment spaces underneath the articles, allowing people to challenge so called information when it turns out to be garbage. With the print press you are limited to sending in your letter of complaint and hoping that the editor seems fit to publish it in the next issue. Even if they do how many people will buy the issue with the erroneous article, but not the following week’s?

That’s not to say there aren’t huge flaws inherent in new media as well.

I would class Wikipedia as one of the problems of the digital media, but to be fair it’s also a problem of the print media as well these days.

Front and back. with font options…maybe.

Print media that goes to new (official web sites, online subscriptions) embrace the medium but then might become even more exclusive with its membership.

Unlike the police departments that will occasionally employ the knowledge of an experienced and very successful criminal, print media does not think to call in the minds and vocabulary of unpaid bloggers, who frequently write more accurately and amusingly.

Paid film critics are shooed away so that general lifestyle writers can take their place. They write about pig farms one day and Ne Le Dis Personne the next.

… I’m glad you like

Seriously, Adam, this is the best Flowfield Unity ever. I want this on a t-shirt.

I’m afraid the day will come when I log on to the internet and all I see is a smiley face, the scary part is, I’ll be content with that, I’ll check it every five minutes, sometimes it will change to a sad face and I’ll reply with another sad face, then I’ll check it again in ten minutes and it’ll be an angry face and my blood pressure will go up at the outrage.

Oh boy I can’t wait to see what the future holds…

I always look forward to finding out what is going to replace me… I wonder what it is that will replace blogging… I suppose the short form of things like twitter, that is smaller more discreet bursts of information… but past that? I reckon that eventually it’ll be intrinsic, that you’ll have it sent straight to your brain, all that information about what your friends and loved ones are up to. It may be automatic too – you won’t have to consider what to write, it’ll just happen.

There will be no excuse for missing a post then…

I totally agree with the points you made.
You did miss the good things about printed press.
It makes great fire lighters, is good for packing glasses for a move, keeps down those pesky trees that clutter our beautiful rainforests.

The benefits of blogs vs. print media is that we put things out faster and we have greater ability to track a story through a long period of time. As for fact checking, I tend to trust blogs more than papers because most reputable blogs will include a direct link to where they got their facts from if you should want to check it out for yourself.

I will be amazed if print publications are stil prominent twenty years from now (I’m actually betting on extinction).