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.

184 thoughts on “Newspapers are dead…

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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?)

  8. 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?)

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. >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.

  14. >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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. @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.

  20. @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.

  21. >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.

  22. >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.

  23. >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.

  24. >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.

  25. 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?

  26. 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?

  27. 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?

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. “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 …

  33. “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 …

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. “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.

  37. “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.

  38. *yawn*
    Yet another sweeping proclamation from Scoble the Great, based on little to nothing.

  39. *yawn*
    Yet another sweeping proclamation from Scoble the Great, based on little to nothing.

Comments are closed.