In a chapter entitled "A New Rhetoric for News", Jack Fuller speculates on the future-- or, potentially, the lack thereof-- of journalism. He acknowledges the field's shrinking audience, but remains positive. Decreasing readership doesn't spell death for journalism; just the need for a facelift. Opponents of the digitalization of our culture argue that relying on the internet over print and televised sources breeds mediocrity and destroys journalistic integrity. This is a rather extreme and sensationalistic view, in my opinion. History should be proof enough that it is possible to adapt with the times without sacrificing these elements. The forms of literacy that survive are the ones that pay attention to what the general public wants. It may require journalists to swallow their pride, but it's possible. Many would probably blanch at Fuller's suggestion to borrow design concepts from tabloids, but I doubt anyone can deny the success of their methods. It's not about pandering to the lowest common denominator the way the National Enquirer does, but rather presenting the news in a more interesting and attention-grabbing way.

Simply put, the news in its current form is too dry. I think what Fuller is alluding to when he suggests more vivid, compelling cover photos and humorous titles is an infusion of personality. This could account for the rising popularity of blogging over traditional journalism. People like reading blogs because they can connect to them. I know that when I scan the articles of a news source, I’m usually drawn to the ones that are the most human. I’ll read the human interest stories, the editorials, the arts and culture, and then I’ll move on to the bare-bones “this is what’s happening” news features. And even then, I mostly read them because I want to be what is happening in the world, not because I find them particularly compelling. I don’t mean to generalize, but I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who enjoys the experience of reading a news article. I would assume most people who do pay attention to the news simply enjoy being informed.

Of course, with the 2012 election looming just around the corner, there are plenty of outrageous “look at what our idiot politicians are doing now!” types of articles, which are usually pretty excellent for holding public interest. People love drama. And of course, I’d rather our politicians didn’t do and say things that require this type of reporting, but the reaction it gets is something to consider. Fuller suggests that investigative reporting take cues from the police procedural genre. This could add a theatrical element to real-life, important information, making reality a little more like television. This would be good for increasing readership, but would require the utmost degree of journalistic integrity, lest writers fall into the tabloid trap of, as Fuller puts it, “declin[ing] to let the truth get in the way of a good story.” (169) A happy medium would be the facts explained with voice. In other words, journalists, for whom being a good writer is a requirement, should tap into their creative side, and inject some humanity into their work. Otherwise, maybe the digital age will come to replace them with robots, if it means we’ll get the same results without having to pay anyone.