Investigative journalism

Online news websites make a lot of sense because they are less expensive to run, but one difficulty not mentioned in the article is that people tend to distrust websites more than traditional media, simply because anyone can pretend to be a legit journalist. Thus I feel that websites linked with real newspapers and news stations will always get more hits. Fewer hits means fewer advertisements, which means less money. Private monetary support can only last so long, and how likely is it really that the government is going to provide money for “journalists” to investigate them? So unless the sites somehow really catch on, I don’t see how they could ever come close to surpassing more traditional media.

Nonetheless, these sites are far more inspiring than sites like washingtonpost.com that are essentially replicas of their offline counterparts. With concerns already prevalent about corporate ownership and the shrinking pool of viewpoints, what good are extra news sources that say the same things? Investigative sites that explore different ideas and aren’t afraid to ask different questions are a good thing. People that uncover scandals and thefts can only better their societies, so by all means, let them continue.

Also, newspapers and news stations are limited in what they can cover by their sponsors. A certain bloody burrito story comes to mind. If these investigative journalism sites are not sponsored by McDonalds and used car lots, then they have the freedom to speak the truth about them. But then again, if they plan on applying for government grants, their watchdog status might have to change if they want to keep that monetary support coming.

I agree that at least a good chunk of future journalism will be online, because of its accessibility, lower costs and more options for functionality, but I also believe (have to believe) that the traditional media sources will always be there as well.