Everyone's doing multimedia so we shouldn't we?

(And if anyone is wondering about the reference, yes I was a Cranberries fan.)

After leaving class yesterday, I felt pretty panged as to what I think newspapers should be doing. There are two options. Option number one would be to continue the way they operate but to focus on making the content more clear, and stylish and easy to read - almost like magazines. Option number two would be to try to post lots of video and multimedia online and pray that people catch on. After they caught on, then the newspaper could have enough of a following to invest in better quality cameras and video stories. However, I feel as though the broadcasting industry is the main way people get their news. It's not as intellectual to watch the tv compared with reading a newspaper, but broadcasting sells ads and sells them well. It would be silly for newspapers to try to mimic what the news done every night. However, what papers could do, would be to focus more on the local angle rather than the national. Newspapers, if they took the multimedia route, could make videos that focus on local news, not national. I think there's a big need for that sort of multimedia. More and more people are disconnected from their bug news stations because it's not relevent to their lives, their area.

The only way newspapers without multimedia will survive is unless the papers are stylish, informative, and more thorough than anything online can give. The last card the newspapers hold is credebility. Newspapers may not be the fastest way of getting information, but it could be the most thorough and well-written news source.