Response to Fuller's, "New Rhetoric for News"

"Time and again people arguing about the future of news have made the distinction between what people want to know and what they need to know," said Fuller. I believe this is one of the most difficult issues that journalists face, "what do people really care to know"? It has been within the last decade that information that the public doesn't necessarily need to hear, is really what they care to read and know about. People are turning to People Magazine and E news to find out the weekly news, rather than tuning into local or national news. From Fuller's article two things really stuck out to me; the fast-paced era we are in, and the need for scandal.

One reason that these sources of news have become so responded to is something that Fuller states in his article as, "cinema's use of jump-cut kinetic imagery". A lot of the substance that is written for these publications really have little substance. We hear how Kate Gosselin did this, and how the Kardashian sister's are at it again, but none of those stories require much in depth thought or much response at all from the audience. The reader simply reads it, and absorbs it without putting any thought into the subject matter. Within these past few years, this is what news audience's have become accustomed to and transitioning back to the so called torturous task of reading a three page Time Magazine article seems too not worth our time, and too much pressure to acquire whats being said. Fuller's jump-cut theory is exactly what is cutting-edge to us. We, as a literate population, would much rather read short snippets and get on our way, than dwell in the literary workings of a lengthy article.

This brings us to another point in Fuller's story; the switch to Tabloids. It is only common knowledge that a journalist for the New York Times differs from Perez Hilton, hollywood gossip writer. Both are popular writers for publications that people do indeed read, but what Hilton has over the journalist for the NYT is catchy and scandalous attention grabbers. Hilton has a much easier time bringing the reader in by using juicy and eye-catching words. It seems hard for serious journalists (not claiming that Hilton is not one) to turn to these non-traditional ways of journalism. It is a hard transition because how should a journalist come off as serious while trying to use phrases like, as Fuller uses, "Pornographic Pornography", to grab a reader into reading a serious article on archaeology.

I think all of these changes are relevant to time, and within that time journalists have not yet uncovered the best way for transition. I think it is a learning process for not only the journalists, but also the readers to find a happy medium in what we decide to write and read. Although it seems like we are on the downward slope to more unintelligent news, I do not think that is the case.