Robert Scheer Quotes

The reason we have not gone to newspapers is because its a slow growth industry and I think they are dying. I'm not sure there will be newspapers in 10 years. I read newspapers every day. I even read Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.

It may be coincidence that the decline of newspapers has corresponded with the rise of social media. Or maybe not.

Anything remotely resembling news media is going to continue to migrate online until very little or none of it is produced on dead trees.

It used to be CNN and other television outlets were founded on this idea of a news wheel. You give us 22 minutes, and we'll give you the world. But that's not the way people consume news and information any more.

Most newspaper companies still have their heads in the sand, but other media companies are aggressive.

Maybe one thing that has happened is that the claims of non-partisanship of the mainstream media have been a little bit exploded. Mostly I'd say what, if anything has caused the change, are just the obvious technological changes - proliferation of easier access to getting your opinions out and the proliferation of media.

I don't want to romanticize the world in which everybody watched three networks and the Washington Post and the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal were incredibly dominant. That time has passed.

I don't think there are too many traditional media guys who really understood what the new digital media is about.

I think newspapers will survive in some form or another.

There is no doubt that the way journalism worked when I was growing up and getting started has changed forever.

Newspapers and magazines are vanishing. But science writers are not. In fact, they are becoming so adept and varied that I hardly have time to read 'Gawker' anymore.

Newspapers and magazines have been valuable to us precisely because they apply filters to information, otherwise known as editing, and often the Internet seems valuable for exactly the opposite reason: You can get your news without a filter.

People are worried about what's going to happen to journalism - and they should be. Every day, the blogosphere is getting better and print media is getting worse; you have to be an idiot not to see that.

Political reporters no longer get to decide what's news. The days when a minister gave briefings to a dozen lobby correspondents, and thereby dictated the next day's headlines, are over. Now, a thousand bloggers decide for themselves what is interesting. If enough of them are tickled then, bingo, you're news.

With the evolution of social media that includes blogging, Facebook, and Twitter, who and how information is delivered has changed tremendously. The landscape for news is a different place, and people have to accept that.

Many of us get our news from social networks, blogs, and daily aggregators.

I think we'll always have newspapers, but they'll lose influence.

One of the reasons why I think people have gone from reading mainstream newspapers to the Internet is because they realize they're being lied to.

The consumption of news is up, but the way people are receiving the news has changed

Newspapers for centuries enjoyed a virtual monopoly… Those days are gone. The trends are against us.

I get my information from the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and Fox News.

… printed newspapers on actual paper may be a luxury item. It’s sort of like … people still have horses, but it’s not their primary way of commuting to the office.

Before the web and these highly focused entities, journalists got to decide what was important to tell their audience and educated their readers. Now, journalists have to try and understand what their consumer actually wants to read and what angle they are looking for in order to keep audiences engaged in a highly competitive world.

The 'New York Times' is my homepage because it forces me to go right into the news.

We need to boycott the mainstream media, and we need to go online, and we need to find credible news sources.