David Zeeck of the Poynter Institute notes that he used to conflate newspapers and news, but that now he realizes that

“News is the ultimate manifestation of a human desire to know what’s going on, to make sense of the world, to catch up on the latest. It can be a letter from home, gossip at the water cooler, or a phone call from a friend you haven’t heard from in a while. It’s a stock pick or a wanted poster. Sometimes news comes dressed as entertainment — as in movie reviews and baseball scores.

News is information I need. It’s intelligence that gives me an edge on the competition. It’s knowledge to help me prepare for the worst. It’s facts that set me straight, trends that show me where things are headed, predictions that may (or may not) come true. It’s wisdom that helps me live better.

News isn’t, strictly speaking, a newspaper. Or a television broadcast. It isn’t an Internet site or a podcast.

Those are forms. They’re just various means of conveyance.”

This discussion of news as a concept freed from its medium isn’t difficult to swallow by any means. Journalism school, however, will also teach you that the news is objective, sterile, unbiased, fair, balanced, factual, and accurate. These ideas are refuted by Howard Owens, who argues that:

“For thousands of years, news was reported in a personal fashion — via campfire or troubadour. The printing press enabled the rise of mass media and process of reporting news from one to many. The Internet enables a return to one-to-one, personal journalism. We can now report news in the same way we did when it was over a campfire —complete with nuance, context and personal insight.

Mass media needed “objective journalism” because news was reported one to many, so it had to be generic and meet the needs of a highly differentiated audience.

Today, all news is one-to-one. It can be personal, because if you or I disagree with that personal POV, we have the means to respond, question, and provide our own facts or commentary.

Modern news will win/succeed because it returns us to our roots, our DNA, our way of being — the way we most naturally like to communicate —in a personal voice.”

I do personally take issue with this definition; yes, we are more easily interested in personal news and communications – why else would Facebook be more successful than Google News? However, personal news isn’t enough to prepare us to make decisions as members of a democratic society. There are larger events, issues, and discussions in which we must take part in order to move foward in a modern and interconnected world. We need objective journalism not because it is generic, but because it offers a base from which we can analyze and understand the world around us. Furthermore, we need a way in which to expand, discuss, and share these objective stories. We can communicate nuanced and contextualized stories, but only if we have a base of facts and knowledge that we trust.

So, news is certainly the stuff of what’s important, what’s timely, what’s relevant. It will be both communal and personal, democratic and ideological. Perhaps the question to ask is not how the idea of news has changed, but how our roles as journalists and readers have changed. News will always be news, but our changing models of communication will affect how we interact with it.

Here are some of my favorite parts:

Yet perhaps the most important factor that will ensure newspapers’ survival at least on a small-town scale involves the sheer fact that, just like a good novel, a newspaper offers a kind of intimacy. There’s a closeness involved in touching, and reading, a paper which computers never will be able to match.

For example, curling up in your favorite easy chair with the latest newspaper edition (or a good book) is a normal part of life. Curling up in a chair with a computer (even if it’s a laptop) is not practical at all.

More:

Plus, with all the great things that the digital world can accomplish, I’ve never heard of anyone placing a computer screen on the refrigerator as you can with a newspaper clipping. And computers don’t fit too well in scrapbooks, either.

Of course, a person can print out a newspaper article from a Web site, but it’s just not the same thing. There is just something more authentic about seeing a bride, a Little League team or a birth announcement on a piece of newsprint rather than a computer printout that someone might have faked for all anyone knows.

And finally:

The bottom line is that newspapers are really the only medium that be assured of reaching a mass audience with comprehensive information needed for citizens to exist in today’s society.

And just like we can expect libraries and bookstores to still be around in bad economic times, there is every reason to believe the plug won’t be pulled on newspapers, either.

First of all, I agree that newspapers aren’t going to totally die out, at least not for a long, long time. And I understand the frustration and confusion that comes with this digital revolution. But seriously? This argument is falling apart from the very beginning. I curl up with my laptop all the time. I print things out from the internet without any concern that they might be fabricated (and I hear stories about companies that fake newspaper pages for low prices, so don’t tell me that newspapers are free of misleading fakes). Oh, and did you hear about the libraries that are closing? Don’t expect all of our libraries to stay around forever, and don’t expect them to have quite as many real books as in the past.

Thinking even farther ahead, I’d like to rebuke the statement that “There’s a closeness involved in touching, and reading, a paper which computers never will be able to match.” Trust me, someday computers will match that closeness. (My computer feels like more a part of me than any other object I’ve ever owned or touched, but that’s beside the point.) One day, paper will be computerized. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that computers will always be big monitors with GUI interfaces that you hold feet away from your face and control with a mouse and keyboard. Those days will soon be over. On an even simpler level, how long do you think it will be before the door of your refrigerator is a computer screen? No need to “place a computer screen” there – it will be able to display anything you like. Lastly, since when is a problem with internet news the fact  that “computers don’t fit too well in scrapbooks”? Come on.

The bottom line is not that newspapers are the only medium reaching a mass audience. The bottom line is that you, Tom Joyce, can’t see what’s right in front of you. Start adapting now, before it’s all too much and you find yourself protesting against the Internet with your equally uninformed buddies in the streets.