And so far, it appears to be doing OK, in a spunky little way.
Hm.
Could newspapers save themselves by simply stonewalling the Internet?
I mean, just because the Internet is the wave of the future for some things, is it necessarily the way for everything? If credible information cannot be supported by the online model, maybe the producers of that information should withdraw and start calling the shots themselves.
To kill off newspapers and the serious practice of journalism is to destroy one of the girders of Democracy. True journalism is more important than the frothy infotainment that is the cornerstone of the Web, yet newspapers are shuffling about, hat in hand, begging the market to support them.
Screw that.
The credible news we want and need is provided by newspapers and no other institution. If the public is not willing to pay for this information online, then why should it be provided free? No, really. Why is the newspaper competing on an unprofitable playing field when they are producing a product so integral to the health of our nation that people don’t even know how much they need it?
Do you think your local TV news shows are doing the shoe leather reporting that print journalists do? Haven’t you heard your local radio hosts quote directly from the local paper? From where would the pipeline of news originate if not from the institutions that have, throughout the life of our country, provided that information?
Newspapers are in great danger and we are grossly negligent if we allow them to perish.
What would happen if newspapers shut down their online operations and re-invested in the paper product? Or simply firewalled their online versions to all but subscribers? (Aside from the fact that I would no longer be able to link to stories online.) Wouldn’t we all, ultimately, as we have in the past (cable TV), adjust, cough up and accept this free-market reality? Or, done as we always have and gone to the library? (Or library database?) Other online models might develop—aggregators of some kind, multi-subscription models—but the newspapers themselves would no longer be held responsible for keeping the nation informed without recompense.
Who do we think we are, demanding such a thing?
Who is John Galt? (Google it.)
11 comments:
Right on, Sophie. Just look at the palliative care series done in the DMN recently. That couldn't have been done on the internet. Urgently needed political reporting and investigative reporting is still most effective in hard copy. This is an essential issue.
As a person who buys two daily papers every morning, I'm increasingly pressed to find something in them that I haven't already read. If it wasn't for the state and local news, alot of which I can get from televison the night before, I would only buy them out of habit and for the crossword puzzles. I'm also an electronic newspaper junkie. No Facebook or Myspace for me. I love to be able to read a local slant on a national story which only the internet can provide. There is also the instant discussion available, much like a daily blog provides. It appears that the daily "paper" is teetering just like traditional libraries. It's neither good or bad. It just is.
Nope, I disagree with you, Steve. It is bad. If newspapers go under, then it makes no difference what you like to read--it won't be there for you.
Those local takes on national stories you enjoy reading on the Internet were produced by the local news gathering institutions that are going under.
Maybe there will someday no longer be dead tree editions, but if you don't pay for them online then they will no longer exist online, either.
I never said I wouldn't pay for them online. I don't profess to know the cost of running a traditional newspaper, but isn't an electronic edition much cheaper? Why would the entire news gathering organization have to be scrapped? People's thirst for the printed news will be slaked by someone.
Because newspapers started out giving their product away free online and now aren't sure how to start charging for it. People have gotten used to getting it free. The only publication that has a successful pay model is The Wall Street Journal. They never once gave it away.
video killed the radio star
Now you're talking. And if you disappear, I'll know where to look.
I never have figured out why they made it free for all of us - not that I'm complaining - I certainly read more than I ever did before because of it - but in the process they are losing money and the great writers that I love are jumping ships for blogs instead.
Believe me, writers aren't jumping ship for (nonpaying) blogs. They're being tossed overboard. But it's always heartwarming to hear that somebody misses them/us!
Post a Comment