web site hit counter Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy

Availability: Ready to download

In Losing the News, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Alex S. Jones offers a probing look at the epochal changes sweeping the media, changes which are eroding the core news that has been the essential food supply of our democracy. At a time of dazzling technological innovation, Jones says that what stands to be lost is the fact-based reporting that serves as a watchdog ove In Losing the News, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Alex S. Jones offers a probing look at the epochal changes sweeping the media, changes which are eroding the core news that has been the essential food supply of our democracy. At a time of dazzling technological innovation, Jones says that what stands to be lost is the fact-based reporting that serves as a watchdog over government, holds the powerful accountable, and gives citizens what they need. In a tumultuous new media era, with cutthroat competition and panic over profits, the commitment of the traditional news media to serious news is fading. Indeed, as digital technology shatters the old economic model, the news media is making a painful passage that is taking a toll on journalistic values and standards. Journalistic objectivity and ethics are under assault, as is the bastion of the First Amendment. Jones characterizes himself not as a pessimist about news, but a realist. The breathtaking possibilities that the web offers are undeniable, but at what cost? Pundits and talk show hosts have persuaded Americans that the crisis in news is bias and partisanship. Not so, says Jones. The real crisis is the erosion of the iron core of news, something that hurts Republicans and Democrats alike. Losing the News depicts an unsettling situation in which the American birthright of fact-based, reported news is in danger. But it is also a call to arms to fight to keep the core of news intact. Praise for the hardcover: "Thoughtful." --New York Times Book Review "An impassioned call to action to preserve the best of traditional newspaper journalism." --The San Francisco Chronicle "Must reading for all Americans who care about our country's present and future. Analysis, commentary, scholarship and excellent writing, with a strong, easy-to-follow narrative about why you should care, makes this a candidate for one of the best books of the year." --Dan Rather


Compare

In Losing the News, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Alex S. Jones offers a probing look at the epochal changes sweeping the media, changes which are eroding the core news that has been the essential food supply of our democracy. At a time of dazzling technological innovation, Jones says that what stands to be lost is the fact-based reporting that serves as a watchdog ove In Losing the News, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Alex S. Jones offers a probing look at the epochal changes sweeping the media, changes which are eroding the core news that has been the essential food supply of our democracy. At a time of dazzling technological innovation, Jones says that what stands to be lost is the fact-based reporting that serves as a watchdog over government, holds the powerful accountable, and gives citizens what they need. In a tumultuous new media era, with cutthroat competition and panic over profits, the commitment of the traditional news media to serious news is fading. Indeed, as digital technology shatters the old economic model, the news media is making a painful passage that is taking a toll on journalistic values and standards. Journalistic objectivity and ethics are under assault, as is the bastion of the First Amendment. Jones characterizes himself not as a pessimist about news, but a realist. The breathtaking possibilities that the web offers are undeniable, but at what cost? Pundits and talk show hosts have persuaded Americans that the crisis in news is bias and partisanship. Not so, says Jones. The real crisis is the erosion of the iron core of news, something that hurts Republicans and Democrats alike. Losing the News depicts an unsettling situation in which the American birthright of fact-based, reported news is in danger. But it is also a call to arms to fight to keep the core of news intact. Praise for the hardcover: "Thoughtful." --New York Times Book Review "An impassioned call to action to preserve the best of traditional newspaper journalism." --The San Francisco Chronicle "Must reading for all Americans who care about our country's present and future. Analysis, commentary, scholarship and excellent writing, with a strong, easy-to-follow narrative about why you should care, makes this a candidate for one of the best books of the year." --Dan Rather

30 review for Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy

  1. 5 out of 5

    Kathleen (itpdx)

    This book is Alex Jones' perceptions of the current state of journalism in the US. His background and main focus is newspapers. He puts news reporting in four categories: 1) bearing witness 2) follow up 3) explanatory 4) investigative Each one, progressively, takes more time and is therefore more expensive. He explains the history of newspapers in the US--that up until about 100 years ago they were about advocacy rather than balance. Newspaper publishers saw that if they were neutral and inexpensive t This book is Alex Jones' perceptions of the current state of journalism in the US. His background and main focus is newspapers. He puts news reporting in four categories: 1) bearing witness 2) follow up 3) explanatory 4) investigative Each one, progressively, takes more time and is therefore more expensive. He explains the history of newspapers in the US--that up until about 100 years ago they were about advocacy rather than balance. Newspaper publishers saw that if they were neutral and inexpensive that they would attract more readers and therefore more advertising dollars and those advertising dollars supported the more expensive types of journalism that also attracted readers. Jones also divided journalism into four types based on their commitment to: accuracy, balance, accountability, independence and checks on profit. The four types are: traditional, tabloid (which seeks to maximize profit), advocacy (which is not balanced and makes accountability it highest value), and entertainment (not accurate, balanced or accountable). He places local TV news in the tabloid category, which explains why I find it so unsatisfactory. Jones makes an impassioned stand for traditional newspaper journalism as the foundation for an informed electorate and strong democracy.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Jack

    An amazing and insightful examination of the state of contemporary news, most notably the print edition of big-city papers. Alex Jones, a friend and distinguished journalist, heads the Shorenstein Center at Harvard. His latest book should be required reading for anyone who cares about the state of modern reporting. His analysis begins with a detailed study of the importance not simply of daily print journalism, but most especially long-term investigative reporting, a field which has suffered huge An amazing and insightful examination of the state of contemporary news, most notably the print edition of big-city papers. Alex Jones, a friend and distinguished journalist, heads the Shorenstein Center at Harvard. His latest book should be required reading for anyone who cares about the state of modern reporting. His analysis begins with a detailed study of the importance not simply of daily print journalism, but most especially long-term investigative reporting, a field which has suffered hugely during the dreadful years of newspaper consolidation, mass layoffs, the explosion of e-news and blogs, and the ever-dwindling revenue for print advertising. This deadly combination of factors has led to the evisceration of many esteemed reporting staffs, including the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and others. The Chicago Tribune's parent company has virtually gutted the LA Times, and the Boston Globe barely escaped folding earlier this year. Jones looks at all of these frightening trends with a clear eye and a keen insight into the threat posed to the common good. He's also a wonderfully clear writer, detailing his theories with prose that is both clear and engaging. The subject is daunting, but Jones' writing is always specific and to the point, accessible to the layman reader. This may be one of the more important books i have read in all of 2009.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Barb

    This is not what I expected it to be. I thought Jones would be talking about the news and who controls what the average American sees and hears as news. But what Jones focuses on specifically is what he refers to as the 'iron core' of news, journalism itself and the fate of newspapers. He's obviously very well informed and has many interesting anecdotal stories and insights having grown up in a newspaper owning family. He traces the impact of technology as well as the economy on news and newspap This is not what I expected it to be. I thought Jones would be talking about the news and who controls what the average American sees and hears as news. But what Jones focuses on specifically is what he refers to as the 'iron core' of news, journalism itself and the fate of newspapers. He's obviously very well informed and has many interesting anecdotal stories and insights having grown up in a newspaper owning family. He traces the impact of technology as well as the economy on news and newspapers. And while this wasn't what I thought I was getting it was still very interesting and well written. Overall I enjoyed it especially the history regarding how we Americans have come to appreciate and enjoy 'free speech' and 'freedom of the press'.

  4. 4 out of 5

    April Helms

    For those interested in journalism, and particularly newspapers, I recommend The Death and Life of American Journalism… and this book. Combined, these two books excellently sum up the history of newspapers as well as the current dilemmas in the profession. While the book is mostly about newspapers, it delves a bit in other media formats as well. Well worth the read.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Stan Lanier

    Although published over ten years ago, this remains, I think, an important book. While he could not predict precisely the future, Mr. Jones helps one to think about what constitutes news and why "news" might be worthy of attention. I found this book to be hopeful and inspiring. His case is compelling. Although published over ten years ago, this remains, I think, an important book. While he could not predict precisely the future, Mr. Jones helps one to think about what constitutes news and why "news" might be worthy of attention. I found this book to be hopeful and inspiring. His case is compelling.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Evelyn

    Both informative and well-informed, and engaging to the extent that, even with ample distraction, I managed to force myself through it even after a several-month-long hiatus. Alex Jones knows his stuff.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Jennifer Rauch

    This 2009 book didn't tell me anything about the state of the news that I didn't already know. This 2009 book didn't tell me anything about the state of the news that I didn't already know.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Robert Geoghegan

    An exciting insight into journalism and the fears of what would happen to newspapers.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Jenny

    I had to read this for comm 10

  10. 4 out of 5

    Keith Blackman

    Well-balanced critique of what's happening to the traditional media, and why it's bad Well-balanced critique of what's happening to the traditional media, and why it's bad

  11. 4 out of 5

    Bart Breen

    The Good Old Days with a Strong Look to the Future Take a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who is third generation in a newspaper-owning family and throw in journalism generally in a state of complete upheaval and you have a recipe for either a strong book with a lot of insights or a lot of nostalgic hand-wringing. In this case, though you get a pretty strong balance of both. In what is overall a strongly reasoned and well thought through presentation, Jones touches on many themes and issues. Pre The Good Old Days with a Strong Look to the Future Take a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who is third generation in a newspaper-owning family and throw in journalism generally in a state of complete upheaval and you have a recipe for either a strong book with a lot of insights or a lot of nostalgic hand-wringing. In this case, though you get a pretty strong balance of both. In what is overall a strongly reasoned and well thought through presentation, Jones touches on many themes and issues. Prevalent throughout however, is also a steady diet of self-admitted denial that Newspaper journalism as it has been in exercised in the past is over and the future at this time is uncertain. Jones weaves a consistent metaphor from the very beginning embedding the book upon the concept that there is within all journalistic output, an iron core of factual news which informs the populace and is the bedrock of democracy. Jones sees this as the "iron core". Not surprisingly, as he analyzes the source of this "iron core" he equates it more with newspaper journalism that from any other source, and it is the rapid diminishing of newspaper journalism that has him most alarmed about where the news will come in the future that provides democracy with the fundamental knowledge to maintain an informed electorate. Upon this platform, Jones precedes to explain how he understands the first amendment to have functioned in the past and currently. There is a good deal of insight here that injects a fair measure of realism and avoids a simple statement of faith based upon an overdeveloped sense of nostalgia. Jones is realistic and points out the progression of the concept to where it rests today. Further, Jones is realistic about the state of journalism today. In addition to the core of objective news, he recognizes that there are other elements of news which wrap around the core if you will. In particular there is advocacy news in which predetermined positions are advances based upon the editorial decisions to filter the news to fit the desired position. This is often in the form of editorial comment within a newspaper and in televised news . Entertainment exists within this context as well. Again the major premise of the book sees the growth of these elements as revenue producing enticements that are maintaining while serious news is neglected because the basic economic model that supports it has shifted significantly. He laments the diminishing of real, hard core news which was supported in the past through a model of advertising support. With the advent of the internet and newspaper advertising and circulation diminishing, and especially exacerbated by the recent downturn in the economy is leading to the consolidation of outright closing of newspapers. Where, Jones laments, will the iron core of news come from? Further, generational changes are coming and this newer generation is not wired to receive and examine news in the same way. Real substance; real digging, seems destined to become a rare commodity which may stay in the domain of those educated and rich enough to realize its value and pay for it, while the general populace lags behind and democracy suffers. After a meandering course through these issues, and Jones memories he provides his insights as to how things may play out and that things, while serious and unknown at this time as to how they will finally resolve, are not so very different than pivotal changes in the past. The model may change, but the news must continue to play its pivotal role in democracy itself. While the resolution is not in itself so satisfactory and despite Jones' disclaimers that he's not simply indulging in remorse over the "good old days" the value in this book is not so much in the destination as in the journey. The book is a good primer for those interested in the journalism industry and where it's been. I enjoyed it and can recommend it. 4 stars. Bart Breen

  12. 4 out of 5

    Bill Sleeman

    In a Simpsons’ episode from 2001 Grandpa Simpson meets a newspaper columnist and exclaims “You're in the newspaper business? Something that's going to die before I do.” Unlike Grandpa Simpson author Alex Jones in “Losing the News: The Future of the News that Feeds Democracy“ (2010) doesn’t seem to be sure if he is worried about the death of newspapers,the death of objective reporting or the perfidious influence (my words) of the Internet or perhaps all three? This lack of clarity is unfortunate In a Simpsons’ episode from 2001 Grandpa Simpson meets a newspaper columnist and exclaims “You're in the newspaper business? Something that's going to die before I do.” Unlike Grandpa Simpson author Alex Jones in “Losing the News: The Future of the News that Feeds Democracy“ (2010) doesn’t seem to be sure if he is worried about the death of newspapers,the death of objective reporting or the perfidious influence (my words) of the Internet or perhaps all three? This lack of clarity is unfortunate as I think the author has the kernel of a good idea with what he calls in chapter 1 the Iron Core of news – that there is a need and a demand if we are to be informed citizens for objective hard news reported in a balanced manner - but then he loses this good idea and his focus on why this core is so necessary by launching into what can best be described as an extended lament on the dangers of the Internet. He goes on to couple this with numerous complaints about the dangers of too few people willing to report news events objectively and the influence (primarily negative) of the ‘citizen journalist.’ As the author is Director of Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, one might expect, at least I did, a more balanced analysis of the future of news and the role of the Internet. Instead readers are subjected, not once but repeatedly to stories of how wonderful life was in the old newspaper age, with a particularly tiresome focus on the newspaper that the author’s family ran which it seems was located just one city over from “Mayberry” but was equally bucolic and plucky. Jones does make an effort, following his own advice, to try and be fair-minded when he reviews the work of journalists and journalism students who, in his estimation, successfully employ the Internet to communicate news. But his examples are hardly enthusiastic and read more like someone trying to disguise their own dislike: “I’m not opposed to the Internet, why some of my very own friends use it…” he seems to be saying. In fact, Jones’ animus towards the role of the Internet in providing news is only thinly disguised throughout the work and in places – as on page 205 – he drops this disguise altogether: “A newspaper should be distinctive in its sense of place and character, reflecting its town and region and tailoring itself its readers without pandering. And if those readers want to read the newspaper’s articles online, they can. But the job of reporters will be to report and write, not to try to also be a Web jockey. If there needs to be a cell-phone sized version, let a specialist in cell phone-sized news write it, not a newspaper reporter.” Are we to assume as Jones apparently does that a professional newspaper reporter should not write for the very small screen or does he think that anyone who does write for a mobile web platform isn’t a journalist? Jones has a lot to say about the importance of objective news reporting and the role of newspapers – when he writes about the dangers of newspapers cutting professional staff to meet the financial bottom line he writes from experience and is right on the mark - but overall the author is only mildly successful at communicating his ideas. His repeated use of the same few examples – how many times do we need to be told that President Roosevelt’s Fireside Chats represented a change in news distribution and reception – suggests a lack of attention to supporting details and instead a desire, in my opinion, simply to go on about the Internet and those misguided folks who instead of using good old-fashioned newspapers use the Internet as their source news. A more concise analysis of this same issue can be found in an April 2011 article on the Washington Post website by Tom Rosenstiel - "Five myths about the future of journalism."

  13. 4 out of 5

    Michael

    Jones, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, takes us on a journey through the trials and tribulations faced by top shelf journalism in the face of the increasingly dwindled profits of today’s newspapers (apparently anything south of TWENTY percent is just not enough for those NYSEers who now control many of the papers). Of course the internet, with all it’s splendid content, is the latest threat to “real” news – defined roughly as objective-as-possible, bias and agenda free reporting. Jones brie Jones, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, takes us on a journey through the trials and tribulations faced by top shelf journalism in the face of the increasingly dwindled profits of today’s newspapers (apparently anything south of TWENTY percent is just not enough for those NYSEers who now control many of the papers). Of course the internet, with all it’s splendid content, is the latest threat to “real” news – defined roughly as objective-as-possible, bias and agenda free reporting. Jones briefly charts the course of journalism through US History to show how it has evolved from the days of amateur political libel to more responsible, balanced reporting that, in his mind, shores up the democratic principals on which this nation was founded by promoting transparency in governance, big business practice, and other areas of frequent abuse. Important for any prognostication about what the future holds for such journalism in the face of non-pedigreed web rants and our latest economic meltdown, he deals with the impact of other threats to newsprint in the past –First Amendment rulings, radio, television, and CNN – to promote the idea that newspapers are likely to remain. The question is what form they will eventually assume in order to compete and remain solvent. Will serious, balanced reporting ultimately swim with the fishes? I apparently represent one target audience for this book. My ever-expanding skepticism has led me to believe that much of what passes for news is doctored up supplementary advertisements for things, politicians, untested medical statements, or propitiation of the latest, statistically dubious hysteria. Admittedly, much of this perception is the result of frequent, unwanted exposure to local TV news affiliates and the Today Show. The author is obviously on the same page as he dismisses these programs as televised tabloids and one of his main points is that similar crap, as well as basic sports coverage, society and local interest stuff, crossword puzzles, and the like are what keeps newspapers financially afloat. This is the dilemma that continually nudges (or rocket launches) the best journalists, foreign affairs reporting, and serious investigative units out the door. I did find it a bit interesting that he only culled up about a half-dozen examples of exemplary newspaper coverage – heavily leaning on Watergate and the Pentagon Papers – and probably twice that in reference to dismal journalistic failures such as the Jason Blair debacle. And who can’t think of dozens more examples of glaring incompetence off the top of their head? All in all, however, I’m drawn to the author’s understated, reasoned approach to this. Absent are bombastic proclamations about what the future holds or unbridled diatribes about how the philistines of Wall Street and Blogville have destroyed the legacy of the “iron core” news that promotes the public weal. This stuff is the basis of the book of course, but thankfully Jones approach is more analytical, rather than pontificatory (is that a real word? I’ll scan the NYT).

  14. 5 out of 5

    Josh McConnell

    Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Alex S. Jones has a vested interest in the future of journalism and the news. For multiple generations (at least three or four), his family has worked for and/or owned print journalism organizations -- specifically, newspapers. Jones has also worked for the NYTimes, hosted PBS' Media Matters and teaches journalism on a university level, among other titles. So before we continue... No, he isn't the controversial American radio host of the same name. All of this sai Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Alex S. Jones has a vested interest in the future of journalism and the news. For multiple generations (at least three or four), his family has worked for and/or owned print journalism organizations -- specifically, newspapers. Jones has also worked for the NYTimes, hosted PBS' Media Matters and teaches journalism on a university level, among other titles. So before we continue... No, he isn't the controversial American radio host of the same name. All of this said, Jones brings forth a very compelling case for advocacy journalism and its necessary presence to have a true democracy in our society. Jones takes us through the history of journalism, the various epochal transformations that have taken place and presents ideas of how true journalism can survive in this technological day and age. The book is very detailed in its overview when considering its small size and provides a serious argument for Jones' views -- views further credible and validated through his history in the industry. Jones also touches on a few side issues such as why 'balanced' journalism as it is known today is not necessarily a good thing, as most organizations do a poor job at being balanced (eg: simply throwing in one paragraph for 'the other side' in an article). Whether you are interested in news/journalism or not, this book is a must read. Not only will it urge you to join the cause, you'll understand the fundamentals of where we are today and how we got here. In Losing The News, Jones makes it difficult to refute the need for true, hard-hitting journalism in society. Pick this one up.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Karen

    3.6 Well-thought out and interesting, but about 100 pages too long. The stories were fascinating to read, and I learned a lot about the history of news, as well as some justifications for my lifelong love of journalistic work. The explanations of landmark First Amendment court cases and history of the author's family's involvement in the newspaper industry were my favorites. However, after a while, Jones' alarm call about the "decline of iron-core news" got old. I'd rather learn about the news in 3.6 Well-thought out and interesting, but about 100 pages too long. The stories were fascinating to read, and I learned a lot about the history of news, as well as some justifications for my lifelong love of journalistic work. The explanations of landmark First Amendment court cases and history of the author's family's involvement in the newspaper industry were my favorites. However, after a while, Jones' alarm call about the "decline of iron-core news" got old. I'd rather learn about the news industry than hear a repetitive soapbox speech. Finally, the book was somewhat strangely organized, with the history of news given towards the end of the book, and some more academic theory work in the middle. Although this book was written in 2009, it was remarkable how astute the author's observations were. Ten years later, this book is still relevant. (Update one year later: I still think about this book a lot. I guess it taught me something, if it wasn't riveting.)

  16. 5 out of 5

    Dale

    "the nation's traditional news organizations are being transformed into tabloid news organizations..." (p. 51) Alex S. Jones is a journalist who has just about seen it all: he has owned and managed a paper, he has written features, he won a Pulitzer Prize, he has taught journalism, he has done radio journalism and he has written several books. He knows of what he writes. Jones is concerned about the evolution of news gathering services (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines) from expensive investigat "the nation's traditional news organizations are being transformed into tabloid news organizations..." (p. 51) Alex S. Jones is a journalist who has just about seen it all: he has owned and managed a paper, he has written features, he won a Pulitzer Prize, he has taught journalism, he has done radio journalism and he has written several books. He knows of what he writes. Jones is concerned about the evolution of news gathering services (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines) from expensive investigative work to nonsense tabloid stuff (this week it is Tiger Woods - thanks to serious news organizations I know more than I've ever wanted to know about his wife, his doctor, etc. - but just go out and try to get some solid info about the health care debate!) He bemoans a number of trends, including... Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2010/...

  17. 5 out of 5

    Shannon

    Jones brought up some very good points. At first I thought this book would be similar to the Kovach/Rosenstiel book on Principals of Journalism, but it was not. Jones, unlike Kovach/Rosenstiel, offered more examples of specific newspapers that were in financial trouble, as well as news organizations that addressed solutions to the problems failing papers faced. I also enjoyed how the book was interwoven with Jones's personal narrative of his family's experiences with the Greenesville Sun, making Jones brought up some very good points. At first I thought this book would be similar to the Kovach/Rosenstiel book on Principals of Journalism, but it was not. Jones, unlike Kovach/Rosenstiel, offered more examples of specific newspapers that were in financial trouble, as well as news organizations that addressed solutions to the problems failing papers faced. I also enjoyed how the book was interwoven with Jones's personal narrative of his family's experiences with the Greenesville Sun, making it a compelling story as well as a strict set of facts. However, I did think that while all Jones's concepts went together, he sometimes jumped from example to example without directly relating them back to the current challenge facing newspapers that he was discussing at the time.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Kevin Cecil

    Some of my friends run a great blog called "read this not that" (http://rtnt.tumblr.com/). I was reading their mission statement and freaked when it included a quote from Alex Jones. I only knew of Alex Jones, the conspiracy nut job, and immediately questioned why a site for advancing in depth journalism would quote someone more delusional than Glenn Beck. The editor quickly replied and educated me on the non-crank Alex Jones. The one who wrote this book, which I totally would have avoided due t Some of my friends run a great blog called "read this not that" (http://rtnt.tumblr.com/). I was reading their mission statement and freaked when it included a quote from Alex Jones. I only knew of Alex Jones, the conspiracy nut job, and immediately questioned why a site for advancing in depth journalism would quote someone more delusional than Glenn Beck. The editor quickly replied and educated me on the non-crank Alex Jones. The one who wrote this book, which I totally would have avoided due to his name. So at least my ignorance has a silver lining. And please check out their blog, it is really great! http://rtnt.tumblr.com/

  19. 5 out of 5

    Jason

    Alex S. Jones draws to light what many of us already know... good reading thus far... Jones is objective as a mediator of the truth and candidly relates small-town newspaper takeovers as well as the larger circulators. He knows the history and shares it well. Hopefully more people take notice. Accountability news is beyond necessary in a democracy. Without it, we lose many of our freedoms and get robbed by those in public service and corporations. This is a must read book.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Lynn

    Interesting discussion of the newspaper and its history. Very good and very accurate. So far there is no replacement. News from TV and the web generally originates with newspapers and newspaper journalists. In depth news almost exclusively comes from newspapers.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Sharon Beers

    A good look at the consequences of the demise of print journalism.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Michael

    Fascinating, but most likely because I'm interested in the topic so much. I learned so much from this. Fascinating, but most likely because I'm interested in the topic so much. I learned so much from this.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Jean

    4.5 Interesting and thought provoking.... Similar ideas to the future of libraries..... lots of information, but what is valid? How does all this affect democracy?

  24. 5 out of 5

    Adam

    Intelligent analysis of news business, but too much skewed for my taste through a prism of despair about the future of journalism.

  25. 5 out of 5

    Marjorie

    Spotlight study group

  26. 5 out of 5

    Michele

    Very thoughtful.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Eimear McHugh

  28. 4 out of 5

    Tom

  29. 4 out of 5

    Ron Rabakukk

  30. 4 out of 5

    Loren Bailey

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.