We can't let Online be the news norm

The Independent front covers (Image: independent.co.uk)

I was nine when I started developing an interest in reading newspapers. My father was (and still is) a keen reader of Cardiff's South Wales Echo during the week and Daily and Sunday Mirrors in the weekend and as a young boy in the late 1990s, I felt that getting updated with the latest stories through print journalism was the way forward to understanding the world. And with this (among other inspirations) came my interest in pursuing a career in the newspaper industry.

However, it wasn't until my godfather who, when visiting the family, always brought a copy of The Independent with him, and that got me hooked on reading papers. The journalism on that newspaper at the turn of the century was sublime and instantly I wanted to be a sports reporter. With my love for particularly football at the time, I waited in anticipation on what James Lawton was to write about the bigger sporting talking points. I read intently to what he and other football correspondents wrote at that time - the analysis, the match reports, the build-up, the exclusive interviews. With my pocket money during my teenage years, I couldn't wait to buy The Independent.

So hearing earlier in the year that the paper I fell in love with over 15 years ago was to cease print activity saddened me no end. On Saturday 26th March 2016, after nearly 30 years of being a national newspaper, The Independent was to be exclusively an online news source, somewhat emulating The Huffington Post. I have to be honest today, and as a member of The Times, my focuses of late weren't to be on The Indy - although I did pick up a final copy that Saturday and reminisced on the paper that got me interested in journalism as a child.

"We saw it coming," - that's what many have been saying about The Independent's future. Their circulation had declined rapidly in recent years. Recent figures suggested that barely over 50,000 bought an edition on a daily basis. The costs of printing the paper was proving too much. Yet meanwhile, their online presence has proven hugely popular. On Facebook for example, over four million users 'Like' the publication and they constantly share new content and grip the new generation of budding journalists with stories that'll inspire and, perhaps, aspire.

During my University studies, where I did a Journalism degree, we were often informed that 'the print is dying'. Perhaps not put bluntly as that, however, with The Independent resorting to just sharing their stories on the internet, many wonder if another big-name paper would follow suit. Sure, regional papers are deciding to print weekly, or some monthly, as opposed to daily. But, would it be only a matter of time until online becomes the only source?

Of course, I'm not only talking about newspapers here - magazines are on a considerable decline in the UK too. Statistically, according to Campaign Live last August, currently two magazines have a circulation of over a million - TV Choice, and What's On TV. Television and radio stations may be holding their heads above deep water, their future is being debated behind closed doors. The print industry has been in denial about its decline for a long time and the closure of The Independent as a print source has just gotten people in the industry cottoned on about the reality of the internet's dominance.

Online journalism has certainly become overwhelmingly popular. People nowadays only get their news sources on the internet, particularly on social media. Some perhaps would be avidly following a news website and click on so many stories, so they're aware of the world we're currently living in. Mail Online certainly has that effect on people.

Actress Julia Roberts reading tweet from 'troll' (Image: Ora.tv)

Users want things instantly. News stories, fashion tips, celebrity whereabouts, international conflict - you name it, anything that happens is in your pocket, just like that. My smartphone, gives me Breaking News from The Guardian and CNN almost every hour, regardless of its significance to the world I live in.

As a media junkie, I often get sunk into debates about the future of news, where and how we retrieve it. I am personally daunted by the internet. We often hear how scary and exploitative it can be for young people, how standards of journalism has reportedly dropped because many sites want to be the first to break the news. This sense of urgency has given the overall impression that the news must be instant. The need to react to potentially 'juicy' tweets directed at household names, so they can get their name on the news or popular talk shows like The Jimmy Kemmel Live! programme (see Julia Roberts above). Everything nowadays is needlessly scrutinised and this has been fuelled by online. Apparently if it wasn't for social media, Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't have won the Labour leadership race last year. The print industry used to have this influence but never to this effect.

Online news has its benefits. Without it, people like myself wouldn't express ourselves through blogging. Young people are getting interested in the news when, say 15-20 years ago, many wouldn't have taken much notice. We can choose what stories to read rather than a newspaper giving us 70 pages or more telling us what they believe is newsworthy. The internet has shaken up the news industry and while many think it's wonderful, I can't help but being a traditionalist about it.

I am a true believer of print journalism's potential in the 21st Century and can see the core value of it, but with reports of online supposedly 'killing' newspapers, I won't allow myself to support that notion. Once online news settles into becoming a mainstream source of information, how will it shape the world? Online news and social media hype has already influenced our choice of potential leaders, some even radical enough to build walls and point guns towards those who want to make a better life for themselves. Does that truly represent how the globe is feeling?

In addition, online news and social media hype has opened the door to an overwhelming number of 'trolls' - suddenly judging people for the way they look, their political views and policy (if judging ministers) is the new norm. It may be freedom of expression but it's frightening that some of the users' intentions was to receive some attention or self-satisfaction.

The Sun, 1992 (Image: The Conversation)

Newspapers and magazines also offer that hype, I'm not denying that. You can argue that neither John Major in 1992, Tony Blair in 1997 nor David Cameron in 2010 would have been Prime Minister if it weren't for The Sun. As a whole, the more respected UK newspapers have been largely balanced and championed diplomatic debate. I can see they have adapted to the online world and interpreted whatever is trending with greater thought. Some may argue Daily Mail or Daily Express offer a more extreme outlook, but isn't this healthy? We have a choice of editorial views to look at and come to our own conclusions, through somewhat rational thinking, without that instant emotional reaction that online offers.

The print can't die. Imagine a day we are unable to visit a newsagent to pick up a crisp newspaper and by the end, even recycle the paper for further use! If radio managed during the music download phenomenon a decade ago, then I'm sure the print industry can thrive too in the future. In the meantime, let's mourn the death of The Independent newspaper and remember the fantastic journalism it offered.