Downward Journalism series: Do young people even care if every newspaper folded? Well, they should.

The Boston News-Letter was first published on April, 24, 1704.

Newspapers? Ha! That's so old school. I mean what's so good about them anyway? Your hands get all dry and black, they are a pain to hold and read (especially broadsheets), if they get wet the ink runs and it's ruined, what's the point if everything is accessible online?

Never in my dreams did I ever think I'd be writing about this subject.

Now perhaps, but when I was growing up as a 10-year-old kid where my mom only subscribed to the Sunday Republican newspaper, which was my only source of Boston Red Sox news from columnists Garry Brown and Ron Chimelis, I believed this was the only and best source; newspapers.

Of course there was television and radio, but when I wanted to know about prospective trade rumors, player statistics, league leaders, standings, and a classic feature, I hit up The Republican sports page. That was my "online source" back in the day and this was 14 years ago.

I wasn't able to watch Red Sox games on an every day basis because NESN wasn't a part of our cable package until 2001 so I listened to Joe Castiglione and Jerry Trupiano on WHYN-AM 560 Springfield every night and got yelled at to go to sleep because it was a "school night."

But now, I've fallen into the category where the internet and social networking trends have consumed my life and Facebook, Twitter, and blogging are the new ages of journalism, which I am on board with.

However, despite the internet craze and the downfall of the newspaper industry, which can be blamed for the economy, not just the internet where a lot of the content is free, the younger generation doesn't seem to care about how the history of newspapers.

I truly believe they wouldn't care whatsoever if every paper in the country folded and was only available online. I mean come on, with iPhones, Blackberries, iPads, and laptops, you can still get the news on the go without having to carry a bulky broadsheet or tabloid paper.

I've seen it with my own eyes with the newspaper shrinkage. My paper has drastically cut down its sports page. Every Sunday we used to run league leaders, Red Sox stats, upcoming schedule, the whole shebang, which stretched over two pages including photos of some of the players. It's so easy to forget too.

The same deal with The Boston Globe. They used to do the same thing and I remember one time a caller complained and asked why we didn't run league leaders and statistics anymore in the Sunday paper. I made an educated guess and later confirmed it with the sports editor saying they cut it because of the section shrinkage.

But young people, they think, 'oh all of the information is available online so what's the big deal?' Well the older generation who rely on that Sunday sports section, they still care, but that's not the whole point of this post.

I personally love the smell of a freshly printed newspaper (whether the fumes have done damage to my brain, well, I surely hope not). I love holding the news in my hand and by this I don't mean on an iPad. I value the effort that goes into compiling and delivering the news everyday and I don't believe that papers are the so called "dinosaur age."

Newspapers, books, media guides, you need to have hard copies, it can't all be accessible solely online. I couldn't image every newspaper in the country folding, I honestly believe it would one of the darkest days in our country.

You can't count on technology. Things happen.

Batteries die, WiFi isn't available, 3G coverage shorts out. Then what?

What the younger generation doesn't understand (which I am classified under) is the whole concept of what makes a newspaper.

There are the reporters, photographers, editors, copy editors, technicians, graphic designers, press-room workers, etc. There is a specific chain and ranking of how things get done and produced. You don't just have reporters writing stories on their own, not being edited, placed on a page, and printed.

Newspapers aren't the internet and the internet isn't a newspaper.

To be a journalist and a reporter you have to understand the value of the business, which started back in 1704 when the first continuously published paper, The Boston News-Letter was printed.

Yes way back in 1704 over 300 years ago, perhaps I do sound like I'm from the stone age and am 50-years-old, but think about it. If the world went through a catastrophic event where there was a complete blackout, no power, no internet, no WiFi, no way of communication and records and news were only stored through computers and the internet? We'd be screwed, plain and simple.

I'm not saying the Pony Express will become reincarnated.

I know that's really far fetched, but I'm just trying to prove a point. You need to appreciate where and when journalism first started before you think you can demean and write off newspapers from existence. Young people don't have the right or power to make the decision to can the newspaper industry.

I can even take it a step further.

What about local coverage in town newspapers? You mean you're trying to tell me they should all fold too?

That's where I got my first break when I got a part-time job my senior year in high school at my town newspaper covering my school's varsity sports teams. I learned a great deal there from writing, reporting, deadlines, etc. Those are so valuable and they are great stepping stones for young people to get involved with writing.

Sometimes the younger generation just thinks town newspaper coverage isn't good enough for them, they want to start at the New York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post.

That's a good one! But that's another topic of discussion for a future post.

To be continued.

Upcoming Journalism Series: The downward spiral of the younger generation of journalists

I believe the headline says it all.

I know I haven't been posting often because of my other work duties, but I feel I need to do this.

Over the course of probably the next 14 weeks (maybe more, maybe less) I'm going to be writing about different topics/arguments about how the new age of journalism is evolving through the younger and upcoming generation, which was sparked by my visit to Boston University and being a guest speaker for Frank Shorr's Sports Journalism class.

I feel that the younger generation of journalists aren't realizing the basic integrity and concepts of journalism anymore. It makes me wonder if they are still teaching Journalism 101 and learning about the printing press, the Pony Express, and Yellow Journalism.

The most ironic is probably Yellow Journalism.

This is very upsetting to me because I fall into this bracket and I believe I know and have better values than most 20-something-year-olds who are in the same field as myself.

I'm going to try and write an article a week. I don't know I'll generate any buzz or comments, but I'm going to sure as hell try. Prove me wrong. If you disagree with anything I write, feel free to visit the comments section.

I'm looking forward to this. Thanks for reading.

-Amanda Bruno

Reflections from my guest appearance from Frank Shorr's Sports Journalism class at Boston University

I had the opportunity Thursday to make a guest appearance for Frank Shorr's Sports Journalism class at Boston University to talk about media criticism.

Thanks to Ken Fang of Fang's Bites, who wasn't able to make it and referred me over to Frank.

At first I wasn't sure if I'd go or not, but made the decision that it could be a good opportunity for me.

I got the chance to meet Keith Thibault of the Sports Media Journal as he was the other guest.

I'm so glad there was two of us. It beat being drilled with questions upon questions for two straight hours.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure if I was perhaps the best guest of the topic chosen. If I had to grade myself on my performance I'd have to give myself either a C+ or a B-.

It's been over a month since I've posted here on my blog. At the beginning of September I started a Boston Bruins blog for MassLive.com, the online home of The Republican in Springfield, Mass. Since starting that, I haven't had time to update Batter-up with Bruno much. I could, but I wouldn't really have much of a social life.

Because it's been a while, I was a bit rusty with the whole "media criticism" and I'll admit I wasn't fully prepared with the firing of questions. Some, I didn't even know how to answer and it was apparent, but I did the best I possibly could.

What I should have done was read my Top 10 posts/stories of 2009. This would have been perfect, but Frank told me just to show up and I didn't need to prepare anything. Boy wish I didn't listen to him (no offense Frank!) and I should have known better.

I did talk about The Boston Globe and its possible shutdown in April of 2009 dragging all the way until June and mentioned some media movement with Mike Reiss leaving to join ESPNBoston, perhaps the biggest blow to the Globe. But I failed to even mention Chris Forsberg, who in my eyes started the whole high school sports video craze. Boston.com was first and now everyone is trying to copy them including ESPNBoston who launched its High School Sports page over the summer.

Another person I failed to mention was Boston Red Sox beat writer Gordon Edes. He left the Globe joined Yahoo! Sports to be the National Baseball Writer, then came back as the Red Sox beat reporter when ESPNBoston was launched. Clearly, he missed covering the Sox.

I'm not sure what the students thought of me, but I think some might have been taken back when I expressed my disliking of the sports tabloid website Deadspin. Wish I said it like that last night, "sports tabloid website."

Keith backed me up, but that was eminent. I think the students were expecting me to praise the site because of my age and the new movement of sports journalism, but I honestly cannot stands those sites. Deadspin, Sports by Brooks (yes now I'm awake), those are all about hit counts.

Boston Sports Media Watch, Fangs Bites, those are legit and clean (and completely different styled sites) and I visit them quite often.

So I'm sorry, not all 20-something-year-olds love tabloid sports websites. I'll admit I am old-school in some ways, like when I briefly mentioned about newspapers dying off. I like to hold the news in my hand and I'm not talking about on an iPad. I said sometimes it's easier having the newspaper to find certain content than on the site. I think it'd be devastating if say, 20 years from now, everything would only be accessible on the web.

Unfortunately this really can't happen unless poverty doesn't exist anymore, which will never happen. You still need newspapers and media guides, and books. If the world were to have a blackout and everything was digitized, we'd be in a lot of trouble.

Anyways I'll conclude with this. If Frank Shorr's class ever has a discussion about why or why not newspapers will eventually die off and only be accessible online, I'd love to come back and debate why they cannot die off. I couldn't imagine not having my town newspaper (which gave me the opportunity to get into the industry only as a senior in high school) let alone The Republican, The Boston Globe, and even the Boston Herald. How would inspiring journalists start off? You have the work your way up. No one just starts working for ESPN, NESN, the Globe, The New York Times, etc. and I'm not sure if some of Frank's students understand this since I wasn't able to really take that argument that far.

But I'm glad I was able to be a part of last night's discussion and I hope I wasn't disappointing to anyone. There were a few students who didn't look too engaged, but that happens everywhere unfortunately.