Will someone please tell me why journalists feel that ripping off another writer's story is dignified? I'm sure you might have noticed if you have some kind of news toolbar on your computer that some of the articles sound like remixes of others. You know, a cut, a paste and another media site later, and in essence you still have pretty much the same story.

For example, today (February 18th), I saw a Time article citing a Cornell University junior recounting his personal experience with JuicyCampus.com. This would be news if another article (by the Guardian, I think) hadn't covered the exact same subject using the exact same source. It's as if time didn't feel the need to get any new information. Admittedly, The Associated Press likes to syndicate stories, but you'd think someone would at least put a few new details in there to make it more personal. If I remember correctly, the slogan is supposed to be "No news like bad news" and not just "No news."

Another one of these Associated Press oddities is when the Guardian ran an article about tornados in Prattville, Ala. To clear this up for those who don't know, The Guardian is a British newspaper. There really is no reason to believe that the only people who could cover the story are those who are isolated by several thousand miles of water. It wasn't even that big of a story. Tornados aren't even infrequent occurrences in the region. I'm not entirely sure why this would show up on The Guardian's radar, being as it was regional news from a region they aren't even involved in.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: I feel that the spirit of journalism has lost its way somewhere between the advent of television and the ascent of the Internet. Now with communication technologies as they are, anyone interested will find it immensely simple to find out news about any region no matter how far they are removed from it and no matter how minor the story is. There just isn't a reason to republish articles all over the world when most of the world is a click away.

Newsprint always seems to be like a deer caught in the headlights, always trying to move without any sense of direction. At this rate, it is going to be gone in the next couple decades. It all started with TV — that is to say, newspapers tried their darnedest to make reading more like watching. During that period, the length of articles has decreased, the number of color photos has increased and "creative use of whitespace" is seen as important instead what it actually is (trivial). With the rise of the Internet, print originally saw a Web site as more of an electronic archive for their subscribers and over the years has turned it into a machine designed to profit from advertising. That at first seems to makes sense, but an independent media research organization produced a study with alarming results. The organization determined that the vast majority of "clicks" (which ad prices are based on) were from a small minority who represented a low-income bracket. Furthermore, the study found very little correlation between the number of "clicks" and sales. This supported the theory that the constant clickers are rarely the ones who made purchases. It looks like Web advertising might be in for a shock.

All in all, the media business always seems to be a few steps behind the market. No matter how hard they try to rethink their business, they are constantly confronted by obstacles that they sweep under the rug. In the end something has to change, or the news will no longer be new.