My assignment to record my news-reading during the past three days stressed me out a bit.  Writing quick blogs about what I read wasn’t difficult, but as the days passed I began to realize, I’m no Monica Guzman.  The task was to record our habits without altering them.  To be honest, I usually don’t spend time glancing at stories online, but with this assignment in the back of my mind all weekend, headlines suddenly seemed more interesting…

My results didn’t surprise me.  I’m aware that I don’t spend a lot of time catching up with current events.  I spend four days a week reading the P-I, and that is enough for me.  I’m always able to stay in the loop through the work I do at my internship, and therefore post-work, I tend to avoid news discussion.  However, as I noted in yesterday’s post, I never thought about myself as a poor consumer.  People are always saying that our generation isn’t involved, and I always thought that was a ridiculous statement.  Now I’m not so sure.

After reading over my own habits and skimming a few of my classmates’ blogs, I noticed that few of us are really spending time devouring news sites (even fewer reading an actual paper).  Most people, myself included, are only reading articles that are put right in front of them and then only pieces of the articles are read.  We may all be great at producing content, but are we also contributing to the death of newspapers?  We’re not spending time on news sites; we’re not helping them get new advertisers … maybe we’re not involved.

Is there hope for our generation yet?

For the news industry to thrive, all of us have to put in effort.  I do enjoy fluff pieces, but I’d hate to see newspapers start posting silly articles and sensational headlines simply because their young readers aren’t taking a genuine interest in the world.

Perhaps this week I’ll start unfolding the free Seattle Times newspapers that stack up untouched on my counter at home.

Photo credit (Fair use):