Newspapers are dead…
On November 18, 2005, I told San Jose State’s Journalism school that my son would never subscribe to, nor read, a newspaper.
I thoroughly believe that. I’ve seen the future of newspapers (and really all printed content) and it isn’t print. Let’s talk more this summer after I can show it to you.
I told the faculty there that deep changes must be made. They haven’t yet listened (although they added one podcasting class that is pretty popular now).
Today I read all over the blogs (thanks Tim O’Reilly and Dave Winer) that the San Francisco Chronicle is rumored to be in deep financial pain.
The industry has NOT invested in its future. It is reaping the rewards of that.
How many future journalists are being trained for the online world?
I can tell you how many: zero.
When I talked with students back then about half thought they were going to work in newspapers.
I told them they were smoking crack.
The journalism industry needs to implement major, wholesale, changes. Start by reading Dave Winer’s suggestions.
What would you do if you ran a journalism school? Or, were an executive at a newspaper?
Both Bay Area major newspapers have been laying journalists off in droves. It’s so sad, but it was something that we could see coming for quite a while. The trend will continue.
Powered By 
March 24th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
The Washington Post actually has quite an online strategy (which is why they are making money and not laying off folks). Read any story and they have trackbacks to Technorati, along with about 50 bloggers, live chats, and a bunch of other neat features.
Compare that to the Web 1.0.999 NYTimes and you start to see what can be done and what shouldn’t be done.
March 24th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Andrew: yup, and I even mentioned the Washington Post in my address to SJSU’s journalism faculty (I had just met WP’s publisher at the Google Zeitgeist conference).
March 24th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I don’t think you or Dave Winer understand what real journalism is about. It’s nothing like blogging, linking, digging, or twittering. You barely need half a brain to do those things. You just need a huge ego and to be married to your computer so you can be known as a ‘hard working’ blogger.
Journalism is about getting facts and going deep. Blogs and the rest are a mile wide and only an inch deep. Real journalists uncover stories. They investigate. They do research. They check facts. They make sure they have it right.
Bloggers usually rush to be the first to post rumors or third person innuendo and then brag about how they are better than newspapers. Bloggers are way too opinionated and unobjective. No newspaper article that wasn’t an editorial would declare ‘blogs are dead’.
There is real news, then Fox news, then blogs, and then everything else. Yes, as a whole, blogs are even worse than Fox news. Unfortunately, when it comes to what is growing the fastest, the list would have to be reversed. Welcome to the zero-attention-span culture and thanks, Scoble, for leading the way! :)
March 24th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
[...] March 25th, 2007 Don’t you hate when someone tease you with something, but you will not be able to know more about it for months? Today, Robert Scoble wrote this in a blog entry about the future of newspapers: “Let’s talk more this summer after I can show it to you.” [...]
March 24th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Yup, will continue. Most of the big papers now have spectacular internet traffic so we may see some interesting things evolve from that (NYT, Washington Post, etc.).
They were smoking crack! No wonder journalism is now so crappy.
March 24th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
As a member of the San Jose State faculty I can attest that you did tell the few professors who listened that newspapers were dead.
The rest blithely went ahead with their stale lesson plans developed in a different era. Even though most of the faculty acknowledge that the industry is in turmoil most adamantly refuse to learn any skills from the digital age.
As a result, the mass media department is still based on a 1960s model: broadcast, print, advertising and public relations.
Why the department would continue to devote so many resources to a four-times-a-week newspaper and virtually nothing to an online sequence is a testament to the strength of inertia.
Beginning when you were still an undergraduate at SJSU in the early 1990s, I have proposed a series of sweeping changes, few of which were ever adopted. What the faculty did do was simply change the names of classes by adding buzz words like “online”" and “streaming videos.”
The content of these classes remains mired in the days of Ozzie and Harriet.
Faculty give various reasons for not moving ahead. Some deny the depth of the changes. Others rationalize by saying let others deal with “new” while they go on lecturing about the “old” media. Still others guiltily proclaim they would like to learn new skills but “you can’t teach old dogs new tricks.”
I, for one, know just how specious this last argument is. For the past few decades, I have struggled to stay abreast of the changing digital world.
The pay off for me has been when I talk about the new world of journalism I can do so from both a practitioner’s and an observer’s point of view.
I can use the very same devices that are feuling the digital revolution in my classroom—like publishing my own web pages, substituting online reading for expensive textbooks, bringing online audio-visual resources into the classroom, using wikis to enhance interactivity.
After years of perfecting all these practices I am aghast that so many of my colleagues are still stuck in the print world.
I hate to think it, but as Thomas Kuhn wrote so eloquently about other paradigms, perhaps attrition is the only surefire way to introduce change into hidebound institutions.
March 24th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Robert, I was one of the lucky ones. Upon nearing graduation from Cal Berkeley, I prepared two versions of the resumé. One was to be a print journalist, and the other was to be a Webmaster. Lucky for me, in 1998, there was a lot of pull into the Valley to write content online and manage Web sites. Now, I’m in my tenth year in the Valley, and my colleagues who went into print are struggling. The world of newspapers, and in parallel, that of local and even national TV news, must change.
Blogs are good, and online media is excellent. Many in old media are fighting their urges to widgetize their online sites and add comments to everything to say they’ve gone “2.0″, but there’s a lot more to it. There’s a need for rapidity and anytime publishing, two-way collaboration and transparency. But somebody must replace the newspapers’ role to fully investigate when necessary. Would your Blog have uncovered the BALCO scandal? If not, then who would? ESPN.com? Deadspin?
March 25th, 2007 at 12:15 am
I hope you are talking only about the US of A. Because, where I live (India), newspaper circulation is only growing.
I read a lot online, but I always look forward to reading newspapers every morning.
March 25th, 2007 at 12:55 am
[...] be reading too much. You will see more substance when you read influentials. Scoble always thought newspapers did not have future in print. Dave Winer has more drastic changes are required, like making journalism as elementary as [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Change, morph, and deal with the market. Nothing new under the sun.
Click didn’t replace brick, Netscape wasn’t a platform, Java hasn’t killed Microsoft, eBooks haven’t killed paper. Tablets haven’t killed laptops. Video didn’t kill the radio stars. And the net won’t kill the papers.
You blame the net, others blame talk radio…whatever bite-sized nuggets suits your needs and bias. But some Dailies are thriving in both print and web, and others shine in one or another and others in neither. Blanket statements like “newspapers are dead” be foolish. And you will never get rid of the trades, WSJ, Barrons, IBD…
March 25th, 2007 at 1:22 am
I’ve been reading of the Santa Barbara newspaper soap opera posted by doc searles and others.
It’s fascinating how Wendy Mc Caw not only doesnt get online publishing, shes hell bent on destroying the paper.I know it’s a unique case,result is that SB is ripe for a good online newspaper.
March 25th, 2007 at 1:55 am
[...] Finally, Robert Scoble declares in Scoble-esque hyperbole that newspapers are dead. [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 4:12 am
one of the reasons newspapers are dying is that they confuse incremental change with change.
see http://youtube.com/watch?v=GHVbxsbECCM
March 25th, 2007 at 5:23 am
[...] Scobleizer: Newspapers are dead… Robert Scoble: “[In] 2005, I told San Jose State’s Journalism school that my son would never subscribe to, nor read, a newspaper … I told the faculty there that deep changes must be made. They haven’t yet listened.” (Read the comments) (tags: newspapers online journalism education) [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 5:30 am
[...] speculation the San Francisco Chronicle is struggling, Robert Scoble has waded into the discussion by declaring newspapers are dead. Robert, I hate to call you on it [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 5:54 am
I just went outside and got my copy of the New York Times, the’re never going away as I read them on the Web to.
In San Francisco Hotels they give away free copies of USA Today and the WSJ.
100 years ago we had 100 Newspapers in NYC, today we have 2.5
March 25th, 2007 at 7:29 am
[...] discussion today about whether newspapers are dead or merely have a flesh wound, and if only wounded what they must do to survive, reminds me of the [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 7:41 am
[...] and is laying off journalists and staff. Dave Winer wades in with a thoughtful contribution, while Robert Scoble trumpets, “Newpapers are [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 8:11 am
I unsubscribed from all my newspapers and magazines a long time ago. Everything inside of them has already been available online in one form at least weeks before it hits PRINT.
That’s the operating word: PRINT. When will they abandon it? How many people sit down with their laptop to read news while eating? For that instant news fix, I just flip in the TV. For everything else, there’s Internet.
March 25th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Let’s look at some FACTS about the industry
Here are the facts:
* Newspapers are a $59 billion industry in North America
* In the US, advertising growth is flat, with online growth (up 35% Y/Y) covering the loss (down 2%) in revenue from print
* Baby boomers have spending power of $2 trillion and 52% read a newspaper on a daily basis
* In 2005, US dailies had a 53 million Weekday circulation and a 55 million Sunday circulation, representing a change from 1960 of -9.4% and +15.9%, respectively
* Newspapers control 19% of the total advertising market in the US
* Larger dailies sell for 10 to 14X EBITDA and we have seen most transactions occur at the high end of this range
Newspapers are NOT dead and will adapt
Sure, print subscription is in slow decline, but niche properties and constantly changing demographics will always provide support. Local newspapers will always be an authority on the news for their given geography. Newspaper reporting contributes to the vast majority of news. Online is another medium and distribution method. It will not kill off newspapers. Newspapers survived Radio, Television and they will survive the Internet. They will adapt with the internet and demonstrate the value of their demographics and advertising relationships.
Newspapers have an incredible amount of value
I’m very glad no one in the NAD crowd is an executive or has enough money to buy newspapers. They would waste our time as advisors. We know for a fact that newspapers are valuable because we’ve sold newspapers to every major company in the industry. When private equity folks call us and tell us they are looking for newspapers at 3 to 5X EBITDA range, we have to laugh and have to tell them the truth.
People who analyze the industry with tunnel-vision and broad sweeping generalizations scream uninformed and demonstrate an inability to correctly understand an industry that HAS value.
http://themediaage.com/?p=35
March 25th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Infoworld to fold print edition
Update: San Francisco Chronicle is rumored to be in deep financial trouble per Tim O’Reilly.
March 25th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Re: SJSU —
I see Prof. Greene already commented, but I’ll elaborate a bit on what has changed in the journalism program.
The ‘podcasting’ you mentioned has gone from one section to three, and each prof. has their own style. One might be more video than audio, and the third might be more general, but this semester they finally got some gear: A bunch of Edirol R09 audio recorders and a handful of point & shoot video cameras.
I can’t begin to tell you how big a difference I think that makes — that someone finally made a budgetary commitment to something more than a room full of iMacs, though that’s not such a bad move either, bringing iMovie and Garage Band into the mix.
All three sections of the class are full, and one group of students has formed an emerging media club, bringing in compsci majors and others to form a campus group, not an exclusive club for journalism majors.
There are more SJSU J-Schoolers blogging now than ever (and in public, using blogger and wordpress, not just myspace and livejournal), videoblogging and podcasting, too.
I’m not going to sit here and say everything has changed, but things are obviously changing.
Feel free to take a little credit, btw, because your visits have certainly inspired the change agents in the building.
March 25th, 2007 at 9:04 am
[...] Newspapers Are Dead (Robert [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 9:05 am
[...] Evans, who has a long post here, I think Robert Scoble falls into the not-so-much category with his post about how newspapers are [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 9:28 am
The role of newspapers (and in this I mean journalism) is to provide in-depth analysis on events and give the reader different perspectives with a lot of background and factual information. Be this on paper or on a webpage.
Leave breaking news to the “news” sites.
I have the same issue with Mac magazines. Many are still trying to provide breaking news or predictions on what is to come (basically anything I can get on macsurfer.com) , instead of providing indepth tutorials and software comparisons.
I’d be prepared to pay for depth.
March 25th, 2007 at 9:59 am
I just signed up for Assignment Zero and my first assignment is to interview Dan Gillmor on citizen journalism. I’ll borrow your question about newspapers being dead. I have a friend who is 85, very hip, and even SHE has stopped taking the newspaper. She gets her news online. Admittedly she has a geek son, but still…
March 25th, 2007 at 9:59 am
[...] says newspapers are dead, Dave says we need to reform J-School, O’Reilly says the news business is in trouble, and Doc [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Robert, you worked at Microsoft for too long. You think that for (contentformat) to succeed, (othercontentformat) must fail.
Now, you’re saying that all printed format will die? Sorry, but that’s as stupid as saying that for Microsoft to succeed, Apple must die, or for Apple to succeed, Microsoft must die.
You keep thinking that because YOU hate print, everyone else must too. Well, once again, just because you live in an incestuous circle-jerk tech bubble, that doesn’t mean you have a grip on the rest of the world.
True, newspapers are consolidating. But going to die? Not until I can read the NYTimes online on a bus whereever I am in the world for the TOTAL investment of enough education to read the Times and a couple of bucks to buy it. You show me the computer that will bring me the Times for no more than basic literacy and two bucks a day.
Your magical online world still has a bit more overhead than you wish to admit.
And if you’re talking about books? You’re even more delusional. You go right ahead and read the 7th Harry Potter Book online. On an airplane. Uninterrupted by flight regulations. Without needing batteries.
You get back to me when you pull that one off.
I know you think computers are the end - all and be - all of human interaction and accomplishment, but dude, seriously:
STOP BEING BINARY
The world is analog. It varies infinitely over a nearly infinite range. It’s not black and white, and your assumption of binary in life makes you look real damned silly.
I do like Swissfondue’s point that papers and print in general need to start focusing on depth and analysis that is not made better by faster.
March 25th, 2007 at 10:13 am
[...] empezado a anunciar el principio del fin para estos medios. O’Reilly ha opinado al respecto, Scoble dice que los estudiantes de periodismo hoy en día deben estar en drogas si piensan trabajar en un [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 10:45 am
[...] big question right now seems to be: Do newspapers have a future? – Dave Winer already wrote an excellent piece on how to save newspapers, but as we have been [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Newspapers are in a position to be the dominant local news source online.
However, most of them are f’ng that up. It’s not about content delivery, it’s about content. Their content has not adapted, their stories are not interesting enough, and they are too corporate and too beholden to outside interests to be relevant or ground breaking.
People are hungrier for authoritative truth more then ever before. The info-glut has produced a world where, if you could be seen as a real source of truth, opinion and unbiased local information, regardless of where people read you (print, online, cel phone), you could make an absolute killing, plus be a beloved and important local institution. Or, in other words, be what newspapers were 50 years ago.
Robert is right on one side of the equation, which is that newspapers are ignoring the rest of the media world, which now includes anyone with the ability to type and an opinion.
But what is not in the conversation is the true problem with newspapers– they are beholden to corporate interests, and unable or unwilling to report on the real news affecting real people. They have fallen down on the job and without radical internal change, they will die.
March 25th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
[...] Evans, who has a long post here, I think Robert Scoble falls into the not-so-much category with his post about how newspapers are [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
*yawn*
Yet another sweeping proclamation from Scoble the Great, based on little to nothing.
March 25th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“Newspapers are dead”? Hardly. And you can’t assess print media as a whole merely by citing floundering Bay Area newspapers. You seem to live in a pretty sheltered world; if it’s happening in the Bay Area, it must be happening everywhere else, right?
Not exactly. On an average day, roughly 51 million people still buy a newspaper, and 124 million in all still read one. Circulation is in decline, yes, but to say that newspapers are dead is premature and flat-out wrong.
But we all know that of hyperbole is abundant on the Internet. Go ahead and cry “wolf.” The only thing you’ve done is confirm that most bloggers, as usual, show an astonishing level of idiocy, especially when it comes to passing off opinion and rumor as fact.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
When news die, newspapers will follow.
Until then you’ll see plenty of failures caused by management idiocy in general and not listening to readers in particular. However, newspapers are much too entrenched in society to die any time soon, especially since there’s nothing on the Internet to replace them. Sorry, blogs aren’t it.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
[...] I’m going at this from a different angle than Robert Scoble. [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“True, newspapers are consolidating. But going to die? Not until I can read the NYTimes online on a bus whereever I am in the world for the TOTAL investment of enough education to read the Times and a couple of bucks to buy it.”
Oh yes, there is a big market of people who want to read their newspaper on the bus …
March 25th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Not only are newspapers dead, so is podcasting. The Zune cast is the future of media. Local Wi-fi peer to peer distribution of content.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
[...] to have triggered this by his post on the troubles at the San Francisco Chronicle. Robert Scoble has taken up the theme as he did some months ago. Even the Google Guys and Dave Barry have voiced the same views in the [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Just a fact to throw in here: there’s an Economist article this week on the pulp and paper market, and it highlights statistics showing that while newsprint demand is declining in North America, it’s growing in the rest of the world at a rate exceeding the North American decline.
While newsprint demand is not a perfect proxy for the fate of newspapers, it’s a pretty good one. My takeaway: dying newspapers is a North American phenomenon. We need to remember the bigger picture, and that the US (let alone the Bay Area) is not the world.
March 25th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Kevin: true enough. The rest of the world doesn’t use high-res computer screens to the level that I’ve seen in use here (a Starbucks here sees tons of people using computers — that’s a rare sight overseas). But, I’ve noticed that usage model changing and it will continue to change.
The economics are simply against paper. Time will catch up, even overseas.
There are some places in the world where steam locomotives (and animal-pulled plows) are still used.
Those are dead industries, though, aren’t they?
March 25th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Juha: news is already dead. Or, do I need to rewind my Tivo and show you the 24-hour-a-day coverage of Anna Nicole Smith on CNN and Fox to you once more?
March 25th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
>Stephen Greene: you, and a small number of other faculty members who kept pushing the state-of-the-art, were my role model at SJSU and still are. Thank you. I wouldn’t be where I am today without you.
March 25th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
>Would your Blog have uncovered the BALCO scandal? If not, then who would? ESPN.com? Deadspin?
Nope, and there is the great condundrum. We’re already losing many of our local newspapers to consolidation. What happens when they totally disappear (or, get sucked into a New York Times local edition)?
I don’t have those answers. That’s why I wish journalism schools would push its graduates to be more entrepreneurial and to focus more on the online side of life. When I talked with Washington Post’s publisher, he told me he’s trying to move all future investment over to the online side of the ledger.
There is money out there to be made. I believe that audiences will reward great journalism online, just like they did on paper.
Also, the great scandals might be reported by people inside via anonymous blogs. Look at Mini Microsoft or the EA Spouse blogs for evidence of that. Improprieties inside organizations can get reported now by anonymous whistle blowers.
So, I’m not too worried about our future. As long as humans get outraged by things the news will get out, particularly in this YouTube age.
March 25th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
@20 Thanks for that. Now, if only the people that think they know what they are talking about could offer such analysis. If any newspaper publisher is worried about blogging eating their lunch all they have to do is stop by here.
How come I get more analysis in Scoble’s comments than I do in any of his posts? No wonder this guy dropped out of journalism school. I guess research was just too hard.
March 25th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
The only thing keeping newspapers in business is sheer momentum. More and more people are looking for “narrowcast” information sources, good or bad.
Years ago, I worked for the dominant publisher of targeted print journals for the tech industry. It didn’t take a rocket surgeon to see that more and more of our value was going away as “trusted information sources.” The same is true of all print media. To the extent that electronic media gains more and more credibility, the print publications lose.
An interesting parallel to this is the interaction between Jon Stewart (of “The Daily Show” fame) and John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN. Bolton made a claim that Stewart’s understanding of President Lincoln’s cabinet composition was flawed, and stated it in a matter-of-fact manner that caused Stewart to be taken aback.
Within two days, Stewart had contacted several history professors who countered that it was Bolton’s understanding of Lincoln’s cabinet that was flawed. Bolton, in “old school media” style, suggested that he should be listened to, simply on his reputation. Stewart, representing the likes of bloggers and “pajamas media,” showed that his understanding of history was, in this case, deeper than that of our former Ambassador.
Similarly, the Britannica versus Wikipedia comparison showed similar error rates upon first examination. On the next day, Wikipedia’s error rate went to zero, while the Britannica will have to wait for the next printing (when they will, no doubt, introduce new errors).
Kyle’s EBITDA numbers, while impressive, say nothing about the trend. They are only a snapshot, just as a printed page represents a “dead” snapshot of events.
Now Guttenberg’s printing press was a fabulous thing, and I love it (as evidenced by the plethora of books in my house) to my core. To suggest that newspapers, in print form, will survive the increasing penetration of technology awareness among the general public (where fear of tech is what keeps print alive today), is simply being myopic. - Tim
March 25th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
The economics are simply against paper. Time will catch up, even overseas.
Only if you define “all the uses of paper in media and printing” to be “only newspapers”. Which you are doing, because when you factor in books, that rate of death is kinda not happening. Again, on the consumer end? The economics and overhead are much more favorable to paper.
There are some places in the world where steam locomotives (and animal-pulled plows) are still used.
Those are dead industries, though, aren’t they?
Only if you’re ignorant about the reasons behind things. Steam locomotives are not any worse than Diesel, and, if you are in an area without a lot of support for Diesel, are cheaper to operate. All you need is wood. Wood’s a renewable resource. Actually, all you need is stuff that will burn at a steady rate. Wood, coal, it’s all good. Diesel has a higher overhead, and if you compare it to wood, is far trickier and more dangerous to store and transport. You can’t just grow diesel for free or on the cheap. There’s not too many places where you can’t get native wood. (heheheh…I said “get wood”…heheheheh)
Animal pulled plows, while not as efficient on a large scale as industrial farm equipment, is still pretty efficient on a small scale, and a damned sight cheaper on every level. Go price tractors and combines, and then think about this:
Animals are self-reproducing.
Animal waste can be reused for fertilizer and fuel, even building materials. So in a sense, an animal - pulled plow is helping you keep your soil fertile.
Animals don’t require nearly as many dangerous chemicals to keep running.
Barring major disease or injury, animals are self-repairing.
You never have to rebuild an animal.
When the animal dies, or can no longer pull the plow, depending on local customs and mores, you can turn it into food and clothing.
Animals can graze. no need for fuel storage, fuel purchases, and the rest.
You know, you really should try and do some research every so often. The reality of things could be rather interesting.
Juha: news is already dead. Or, do I need to rewind my Tivo and show you the 24-hour-a-day coverage of Anna Nicole Smith on CNN and Fox to you once more?
If THAT’S your standard, then dude, blogs are even deader. Look at the S/N ratio of all the blogs in the world. Compare to CNN.
CNN doesn’t look so bad all of a sudden. But then, you and winer both subscribe to “any fool can be a journalist”. It’s not true, but it gets you both a lot of attention.
Stephen Greene: you, and a small number of other faculty members who kept pushing the state-of-the-art, were my role model at SJSU and still are. Thank you. I wouldn’t be where I am today without you.
NOW we know who to blame for your inability to check a fact.
March 25th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
>How come I get more analysis in Scoble’s comments than I do in any of his posts?
The audience is far far smarter than I am and always will be. Especially if Stephen Greene is in the comments.
March 25th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
[...] While this is true in some cases (no consumer revival of telegraph services is likely and maybe newspapers are gone too), I argue that it’s incorrect in just as many (and, as Postful demonstrates, I think mail is [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Jojo made a very insightful comment at #3. Not long ago I watched part 3 of Frontline’s ‘NewsWar’ series (you can watch it online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/) and they made the excellent point that when it comes to the *real* news - the hardhitting stuff that requires time, effort, and work to dig out - just about everybody is feeding off of the indepth work done by the newspapers.
Yes, they need to find their way online. But most importantly - they need a solid revenue model to *pay* for all that work. AdSense alone isn’t going to do it. We can crow about how dead they are … but I think we may badly regret the loss of their valuable skills if we don’t find ways to help them rise from the ashes - or at least pass on their skills, dedication, and most of all *patience* to a new generation of web-aware writers.
March 25th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Robert, Why are you TiVoing Fox? Are you telling us that in addition to producing your show, and blogging, twittering, photowalking and conferencing 24/7, you’re also following the Anna Nicole Smith saga on Fox News? I’m frightened.
March 25th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
This discussion eerily reflects the challenges facing the print and tv media today. Often a large media and entertainment company is split in two. And I mean split, in every way. Physically in geographically seperate buildings, floors and offices. Funding, fighting against each other for every dollar.
The ‘offline’ department treats ‘new media’ with disdain. Refusal to offer up content in a timely fashion, hiding behind closed, legacy systems and ‘where’s the money?’ arguments. New Media in turn are frustratingly vague and arrogant, threatening (but rarely delivering) to implement new untried strategies with gay abandon. OR people with traditional media bodies who respond to new media in an old media way.
None of this is the fault of the Dialogue is Content posse. But if the creative consumer hadn’t of come along, these two overweight, bloated competitive brats (print vs online) would’ve still survived, even though cannibalising their own audience.
Incidentally, does anyone have the stats for growth of radio (post TV)? That could be an interesting area to research… (Ack, don’t you have WordPress PREVIEW enabled, Robert dear?)
March 25th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Michael: I didn’t really Tivo it. I’ve only watched TV news a couple of times in the past six months and both times Anna Nicole was on. Really scary. Even scarier is that they know this stuff is getting awesome ratings. So, enough humans were watching for them to keep showing it to us.
March 25th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Re: “Real journalists”
I wish that journalism, as JoJo commented earlier, was all about “getting facts and going deep.” Pardon me while I get partisan for a moment…but if that’s the case, how did we end up in Iraq? It’s taken the news media more than four years to start getting to the bottom of some of the lies that got us into that god-awful mess.
Re: SJSU
I wish I was as optimistic as Ryan is about changes in SJSU’s journalism program.
On the one hand, I am encouraged that the school has invested in some Edirol recorders, microphones and camcorders for our students. I am thrilled (truly, that’s not too strong a word) that a group of students from our fall “new media” class has organized an emerging media club and blog.
But I’ve also worked on the syllabus for what’s supposed to be the more permanent version of this “experimental” class. I’ve watched it get watered down to the point where it’s more of a software class (InDesign and Photoshop, anyone?) than a new media class. Discouraging.
It seems that every time we try to take a couple steps forward, we get dragged back.
March 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I’ve been blogging for a long time. I use blogs as scratch pads for the newspaper. I was actually hired by a newspaper and radio station because of my blogs. Regionally, blogs are becoming a big deal…
http://bransonmissouri.blogspot.com
March 25th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
A must read from James Governer:
Why defend those that would fire you in a heartbeat? On journalism
March 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
oops…truncated the link:
Why defend those that would fire you in a heartbeat? On journalism
March 25th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
[...] Newspapers are dead… On November 18, 2005, I told San Jose State’s Journalism school that my son would never subscribe to, nor read, a […] [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I’m enrolled in a journalism school. And the problem right now is that a lot of the online technology compromises traditional journalistic values. Part of this is the blogosphere, which is somehow being considered ‘journalism’ nowadays; I highly disagree.
For some reason, many people - especially those who are in support of a more technology-driven style of journalism - are forgetting the fact that journalism is not necessarily at its best when it is minute-by-minute, in-your-face and exploding with minute details. This is especially due to the fact that the type of journalism I just described is very easily satisfied by superficial stories; things like Anna Nicole Smith’s death (sorry, Anna Nicole fans) and Britney’s lack of underwear. Our society knows these people by their first names, and the only remotely important figures referred to by first name are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; yet are journalists getting too carried away with those two as well?
Journalism, especially the kind that makes a large impact, relies upon people who examine it in a long-term sense and understands that even the things that occur in a split second have days, weeks, years — even decades — of importance that deserves to be recognized.
Nevertheless, I don’t mind blogging in essence; I mind that it is being included in the world of journalism in such a way that any blogger is being lumped in with journalism, and that is just not acceptable. We are far from having a proper definition and idea of how blogging should legitimately, if at all, play a role in “journalism.”
I believe that newspapers are not yet dead, they merely need to adjust to the world that picks up an actual (physical) piece of paper for different reasons now. There is still an attached legitimacy to a piece of paper; it has been shown that information distributed via printed material is, generally, trusted more than spoken word. And the Internet is not yet a luxury for everyone, although many Westerners have that idea.
Personally, I anticipate lesser sheets in a newspaper, a more compact size (already happening with many newspapers), and less entertainment but more practicality (such as less Anna Nicole and more recipes, household tips and other signs of a self-occupied society) in the new generation of newspapers. It’s happening a lot elsewhere; for example, the tabloids in Sweden tend to release extended entertainment and sports material in magazine form alongside their newspapers.
Anyhow, newspapers have much more control over Internet usage than you think. They know that many readers still prefer paper, and will control their online content to the extent that not everyone will be persuaded to subscribe to Internet material. The downside? Many people will discontinue following all of the news. It’s not like that hasn’t already happened, but it will not be something that can erase newspapers. Newspapers will most certainly survive, perhaps lesser in quantity, but they aren’t going away anytime soon.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
[...] employee. He knows stuff. But he’s getting a lot of publicity today for his assertion that Newspapers are dead. That’s fine. It’s his opinion. But he makes at least one claim that is - quite frankly [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I love how there are two SJSU journalism school professors in here commenting.
March 25th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
When Was The Last Time You Brought A Newspaper?
The net was flooded over the weekend with various stories writing the epitaph of the humble newspaper. I actually can’t remember the last time I brought a newspaper it’s been so long. When I was growing up I never brought a daily newspape…
March 25th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Journalism is not Dead, but Newspapers are Dying
Indeed, traditional journalism is a dead man walking, but don’t confuse newspapers with news. Reporting news on the other hand, is thriving in ways never before possible thanks to blogs, communities, networks, everywhere messaging, and everything els…
March 25th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
[...] Dave Winer suggest that we reform journalism schools, and Robert Scoble seconds that idea. [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
DOWN with print media…Power to the Bloggers!
(or something like that)
March 25th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Interesting ideas, but I would have to disagree, for most of the reasons already listed in other comments.
Proper, intelligent, skilled journalism sells itself, whether its print, radio, on the Internet or on television. Give me three good, dedicated reporters and a modem and I can run any corporate-run profit-driven media outlet out of business in a year.
When the newspaper industry realizes it had it right in the first place, and goes back to pure and proper journalism, it’ll start climbing out of the hole media corporations dug for it.
March 25th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
[...] trackback The blogosphere is buzzing about the future of the newspaper industry (here and here) — circulation is down, years of layoffs have really hurt the quality and depth of coverage [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
@54 “It’s taken the news media more than four years to start getting to the bottom of some of the lies that got us into that god-awful mess.”
How do you know we’ve “gotten to the bottom of it?” Do you really we are getting the COMPLETE story? Both GOOD and BAD? I mean, seriously. It seems most journalists in D.C. today want to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. They are no better than tabloid journalists…looking to see the next scandal they can break or politician they can take down. Despite the “god awful truth” we’ve supposed gotten around Iraq, I seriously doubt even now we are hearing “the truth” Every journalist has an agenda. No journalist is unbiased. Hell, even every blogger has an agenda. Even Scoble. He will rarely,if ever, listen to a or consider a contrary opinion about blogging. So, IMHO, journalism has been “dead” since Watergate.
March 25th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
[...] Scoble: Newspapers are dead… (And make sure you read the [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
[...] newspapers, internet. trackback A post by former Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble arguing that newspapers are dead has provoked the expected flurry of discussion [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Re-entering a thread that has gone through 70-odd permutations is daunting.
Let’s see if we can get back on track for a moment.
The fact that newspapers seem to be going through a period of consolidation seems indisputable. For example, my hometown Santa Cruz Sentinel plans to shut down its presses and take its printing over the hill to San Jose where the Media General bosses are outsourcing much of the composition work to India.
Whether this represents the death throes of journalism or just smart business practices is open to debate. Clearly the internet and its attendant opportunities to present news in many forms has impacted the established press.
Craigslist has all but wiped out classified ads. Bloggers have challenged journalists’ monopoly on news gathering. Fat profits in the newspaper industry have dwindled of late and heads have rolled at papers of all sizes across the country.
Yet some newspapers are expanding while others retract. The New York Times seems to get stronger every month with an ever expanding local home delivery system in farflung places like Santa Cruz.
This indicates to me we’ll soon see a weeding out of the industry. Certain large newspapers like the Times will survive while the medium to small ones like the San Jose Mercury News will contract and become shells of what they once were.
There will still be newspapers in the short term future, but fewer of them. Not all cities and towns will still have one of their own as is the case today. Bigger ones will regionalize and try to fill the void by printing special editions for select areas.
I don’t see this retrenchment strategy succeeding in the long run. The costs of print—including the machinery, paper and personnel—combined with the costs of delivering and recycling the product everyday represents a tremendous obstacle.
Moreover, the reading habits of the populace seem to indicate newspapers will dwindle. The best newspaper readers, 45 and above, are dying out. The next generations have not been habituated to the practice.
For me, it’s not a matter of “if” but “when” newspapers will die. That is why it is so important for journalism schools like SJSU to rise to the challenge.
We have to educate both practitioners and the public how to interact with the new media environment. Bloggers have to learn the benefits of truthful, incisive story telling. The public has to learn how to separate rumor from reason.
As the recent Frontline series pointed out, much of this nation’s hard news still comes from the minds of its newspaper reporters. Without them, our daily budget of what to think about could soon consist of ever more shallow superficial items.
March 25th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
“Also, the great scandals might be reported by people inside via anonymous blogs. Look at Mini Microsoft or the EA Spouse blogs for evidence of that. Improprieties inside organizations can get reported now by anonymous whistle blowers.”
But isn’t Mini-Microsoft just a coward (I think I read that here)? We’re putting faith into people who do not have an institution, let alone lawyers, to back them up? And with what agenda? If someone - government, corporations, whatever - shakes the cage of an anonymous blogger, that voice will go silent. A newspaper writer can at least aim for awards and recognition and know that a whole profession supports the writer and the risks the writer is willing to take.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Proper, intelligent, skilled journalism sells itself, whether its print, radio, on the Internet or on television. Give me three good, dedicated reporters and a modem and I can run any corporate-run profit-driven media outlet out of business in a year.
Give me three good BLOGGERS …
I simply can’t tell the difference anymore. Sorry. Most reporters interview committed, articulate, passionate, skilled, professionals … who now blog.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
[...] More: continued here [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
camccune at #54 basically asked ‘If the print media were so good at going deep, how did we end up in Iraq?’ (yes I paraphrased that).
It’s a great question! It hints at a world where no one is really going deep, checking facts. Where collossal blunders are the result of a few master media spinners are able to keep a myopic press dancing to their tune with juicy tidbits and constant misdirection so that the public never really sees the big picture.
So, my counter question to camccune is: what if Iraq is just the *first* sign of the decline in depth journalism? How much *worse* can it get, if we shutdown the papers and feed daily at the blog trough?
March 26th, 2007 at 12:42 am
[...] Read the full article here: Newspapers are dead… [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 4:20 am
Give me three good BLOGGERS …
I simply can’t tell the difference anymore. Sorry. Most reporters interview committed, articulate, passionate, skilled, professionals … who now blog.
Because as much as mainstream media can be lazy and tends towards being an echo chamber the “blogosphere” is nigh-infinitely worse. The “oh, i saw it in a blog, I’ll quote it and assume it’s true” stuff that happens all the time is bad enough now.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:24 am
[...] live the deadwood edition March 26th, 2007 — shyam Only if you were to believe Scoble, Dave, Don and countless others have to say on the matter. The problem is not as simple as it [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 5:35 am
[...] Robert Scoble says, “Newspapers are Dead” and that his son will never “subscribe to, nor read, a newspaper.” He’s probably right. Most people my age and younger get their news online or from news/entertainment shows like The Daily Show. I’ll admit to reading papers daily, but that’s because it’s a part of my job- Otherwise I’d get all of my info online, as well (and I consider myself to be a total news junkie). [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Interesting point of view to generate debate - I once went to a presentation to hear the Australasian CEO of Coca Cola Amatil. I went up to meet him after the presentation as he was being interviewed by two journalists.
The first asked, “are you interested in the milk brands of xyz company?”. The response was, “well, we haven’t been specifically looking at it, but if it were a fit with our strategy, and the price was right, well, we’d consider looking at it..”
The next day the headline read, “Coca Cola Amatil eyes off XYZ Company Milk brands”.
Are newspapers dead? Not yet - people like the tactile format. I think that it is complementary information delivery, and the consumption of information has vastly grown. However, much of the consumption still lies in trash journalism - and much of the web content consumption is the same.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Like many others have said, newspapers are extremely valuable in the sense that they provide a level of depth that online news sites or blogs will never match - they perform a watchdog function rather than an offering an information blitz.
The nature of internet news is that it’s fast and quickly digestable - but in this hasty format the important nuances and details of a story will inevitably be omitted.
This notion that all print media will die out is quite frankly silly - people will always want something they can carry with them, they like the aesthetic of the paper and the magazine; it holds a certain artistic quality.
Your theory is based on the assumption that since the internet is blowing up now it will always continue to do so - but media change, and so do people’s preferences.
Indeed, traditional news may feel the sting of the Internet boom, but it will adapt - and as long as someone enjoys sitting in the cafe getting newsprint on their fingers - it will coexist.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:05 am
It would be said if there were no journalists and newspapers. I like read printed newspapers. Internet, blogs, podcasts or portals aren’t the same as real newspaper.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:32 am
there was a saying around my university’s newsroom when i worked there–you never know where you might find journalists, but it almost assuredly won’t be in the journalism department. the only people involved with that paper, one of the largest college dailies in the country, with any affiliation with the journalism dept. were either double-majors with something else or journalism minors. journalism majors were famous for coming down to the paper two weeks before graduation expecting to get assignments so they could get clips. you might have been talking to the wrong crowd, robert.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:04 am
[...] Scoble believes that his “son would never subscribe to, nor read, a newspaper” and doesn’t hold [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 9:19 am
The thing is in this country every corporation and media company thinks that the general public is stupid. I do not think I can really blame them, as the general public has time and again proven it’s stupidity by believing people like Bush. Everyone in the world believed that there was no reason for Iraq before it started, but, for some ungodly reason people in US chose to believe him and supported this disaster. Look at most of the print media that’s dying. Believe it or not, a zookeeper dying is not news. Worse, because the zookeeper died from her own mistake, she’s not a hero. There are bigger heroes in the world. People who go to Africa and know the risk of dying out there, but choose to do so anyways to help people, they are heroes.
Journalists are those who bring you REAL news, not what/who Anna Nicole was. Newspapers like NY Times succeed because they print a broader view of things, they provide you with REAL news. With all the problems in this country and the world, who cares about stupid stuff like Anna Nicole. Turn on BBC and see what is happening in the world.
Robert, the reason print will not die is because it gives people a sense of legitimacy. If your name in printed in NY Times, what will you do? You will go and buy a copy and then cut out the article and stick it somewhere. That right there is the reason, it will not die. Regional views will die, and that has nothing to do with just print. I live in Denver and stopped subscribing to the Denver Post a while back, because I wasn’t getting any news. Their online edition is the same, no National news. I switched to NY Times because it tells me National news, I am not interested in useless stuff like there was a bomb scare. It was a scare, nothing happened there, move on. That is not news.
This is the spelling of conundrum, check yours. This is the reason, newspapers are not dead. Blogging gives people easy access to a lot of news in real time, but, the actual newspapers have quality. Publications like NY Times and media outlets like BBC give you a world view on things. The give you news as well as enhance your reading skills and vocabulary. The crossword is something you do with the family. It is an easier way to teach your children language skills and a variety of topics. Things like this is why the print is NOT dead.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:58 am
[...] jysäytti pommin viikonloppuna, juuri silloin kun luulimme olevamme turvassa. Hän sanoi, että sanomalehdet ovat kuolleet, ja ettei tulevaisuudessa esimerkiksi hänen poikansa tulisi koskaan tilaamaan saati lukemaan [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
[...] this posting by Tim O’Reilly re: some possible financial problems at the SF Chronicle. Many are again saying newspapers are dead but I think the best reply so far has been this posting from [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
[...] Those of you who are informed of the current web 2.0 sensation and how some pundits are declaring the decaying of the media and newspaper industry. Here’s a nice article by Robert Scooble which i picked on Don Dodge’s blog The next Big thing (yet another testiment to the success of blogs!) http://scobleizer.com/2007/03/24/newspapers-are-dead/ [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
[...] recent discussion about the death of the newspaper. Much of the discussion on this has treated the newspaper’s death as a given and even the dissenters from that opinion have treated the paper part as [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
[...] there was the troubling news about the SF Chronicle. Then Scoble made a ridiculous, uninformed hyperbole claiming “newspapers are dead.” I’ve already written [...]
March 26th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Of course there is pushback to the changes going on in Journalism education at SJSU and they are damned frustrating. Not all the pushback is from faculty in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications, we are getting a lot of pushback from the students themselves.
One would think the students would come into the classes knowing how to use the basic software we use in preparing content for on-line distribution, but most do not. There is a need to provide this training. Without this basic computer literacy it is hard to move forward as far as I would like to in the class.
It is human nature to resist change because change is hard work. But, I am encouraged there is so much interest on the part of students, faculty and staff in the new media classes. It was thrilling to walk into my class at the beginning of this semester and see 14 students waiting to add.
March 26th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
The XYZ-Is-Dead-Mantra
Not long ago Nicholas Carr was constantly declaring the death all new trends (see an old post of this blog).Michael Arrington and Robert Scoble are still doing the same with the old trends.I’ve never understood the purpose of all these
March 26th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
[...] a lot of discussion going on the websphere about the death of newspapers and print journalism lately. Although many are starting to believe that the dawn of newspapers and [...]
March 27th, 2007 at 1:50 am
[...] around the blogosphere, Dodge shows us that: Robert Scoble declares newspapers are dead. PaidContent says InfoWorld Magazine is dead. TechMeme has collected lots of blogger stories on the [...]
March 27th, 2007 at 6:05 am
[...] 27.03.2007: Newspapers are dead… … und niemand traut es sich ernsthaft mit dieser Tatsache auseinanderzusetzen. Sagt zumindest [...]
March 27th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Vonage - You Should Thank And Cheer For Them
It is one thing when someone like Jim Cramer jabs Vonage constantly for business reasons, that can actually be pretty humorous. What is not funny is the possibility of once again paying inflated prices to telephone companies due to Verizon’s
March 27th, 2007 at 7:05 am
The Death of Newspapers
Robert Scoble’s Newspapers Are Dead post has generated quite a bit of commentary but I don’t see anyone talking about the State of the News Media Report I mentioned yesterday. The report would seem to be a nice framework for discussing what…
March 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
As a long-ago J-school grad of SJSU, it seems to me that 99 percent of what I learned there - long before the Internet - is utterly transferable to the Net. The mechanics of getting the news in front of people is a peripheral issue. Learning how to dig for a story and write an honest story is what is invaluable about J school. And in that realm, the established media have it all over bloggers in getting the story.
If newspapers concentrate on doing that right, they have a good future. If they decide to make their newswriters into editorialists, they are wasting and devaluing their main asset.
Bloggers are mostly linkers and editorial writers. What do they link to and editorialize about? Generally stories from the mainline media, and that’s where the mainline media shines … or, at least, can shine.
I think newspapers can make the transition to the Net - though it’s going to hurt - if they go back to writing fair, evenhanded, fact-supported articles. While I think some critics go overboard in attacking the evenhandedness of the mainstream media, they have no lack of examples when they shout, “Bias!”
March 28th, 2007 at 8:13 am
[...] you know how people will react to things you write about. Take into point the recent debate about newspapers going dead. Now it takes someone like Tim O’Reilly and Robert Scoble to make those things headlines. But [...]
March 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
The wisdom of writers on publishing
http://kentsimperative.blogspot.com/2007/03/wisdom-of-writers-on-publishing.html
….we think we need to defense to support our contention that one should always watch the leading edge of those who make their living solely by the public sale of the written word as a bellwether for all who work in information industries. After all, the publishing sector is among the oldest of all such endeavors, and the changes wrought by the digital era that impact us all are felt most keenly there…..
March 28th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
[...] a mock funeral at one of the many “churches”/ schools of old-school journalism and his thoughts are here. On November 18, 2005, I told San Jose State’s Journalism school that my son would never [...]
March 29th, 2007 at 9:40 am
[...] recent posts covering the demise of printed newspapers: Scoble O’Reilly [...]
April 1st, 2007 at 11:48 am
[...] Read his blog post about it and then read the comments. What do you think? Add your comments. [...]
April 1st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
[...] Read his blog post about it and then read the comments. What do you think? Add your comments. [...]
April 4th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Kudos to Scoble for saying it; I agree.
In fact, I just finished a book called Print is Dead: Books in Our Internet Age, which will be published later this year by Palgrave Macmillan.
You can visit the book’s blog at:
http://www.printisdeadblog.com/
Cheers,
J
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:51 am
[...] totally disagree with my friend Robert Scoble who says that newspapers are dead. There’s always been too much made of death in the tech world, in [...]
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Wow, you are totally clueless about how this? Just because your reading habits are limited to 2 lines of poorly constructed prose — which you call “journalism,” well, excuuuuuuuse me. Then again, you’re just a lamo coder. Please leave the social philosophizing to somebody who actually knows something.
May 27th, 2007 at 5:50 am
[...] a bit. He wrote this a couple of days ago. I totally disagree with my friend Robert Scoble who says that newspapers are dead. There’s always been too much made of death in the tech world, in [...]
December 4th, 2007 at 3:23 am
[...] media will need a strategy to survive. While I wouldn’t outright be so quick to say that newspapers are dead because I do think that they still do play an important role and thus have their place in society, [...]
December 15th, 2007 at 10:37 am
[...] targeted. Experiment with other types of advertising such as banner ads.Scoble may say that newspapers are dead (and by extension, I assume he means print publications) but more pragmatic folks believe, and I [...]
January 1st, 2008 at 9:57 pm
It must be comforting to pontificate from the mountain top when lesser humans live below. Many of your statements are “shoot from the hip” diatribes against journalism schools and newspapers. Yet you would never have acquired the content to write you early blog posts without traditional news media. Like the moguls in broadcasting and cable, who predicted the demise of the printed word, you speak without any reference to history or any definitive studies that prove your case. Newspapers, magazines and other print media are not dead, nor are they dying. They’re transitioning into a new age of collaboration between electronic and printed media. Rod Steiger of the Wall Street Journal recently wrote an article that covers the rise and fall of newspapers, but he does it with fact and reason. I suggest you read it.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:23 am
News papers are following emerging trend in order to increase their circulations and also maximizing revenue. Most of the publishers are using the services like http://www.pressmart.net to digitize their print publications. Through digitization, publishers can publish in online, RSS syndication, pod casting, etc.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
[...] list is the recording industry, television broadcasting, in-store movie rentals, the yellow pages, print news, traditional realty, and some others. It’s all over in the news, and we are nowhere near the [...]