3 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif
tanlight said in June 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

I’m not sure I can see newspapers in print format last as long as you do. The whole point of these forms of media was to get the story quickly. Already, we hear people comment about the newspapers delivering “yesterday’s news”. Print just can’t keep up with digital in that respect. What purpose would a print version have if all of it’s stories have been scooped and expanded upon on-line?

Magazines might have a better chance, as the majority of content is non-time-sensitive. The lure of the big glossy photos will still be there, and you don’t get the same effect online.

mygif
Jay said in June 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Actually, newspapers haven’t been the fastest way to get news out to the masses for about 70-80 years — since the advent of radio. I’d argue that radio and television news have already changed newspapers where they are much more about depth of information than speed.

It’s the interaction model that has kept and will keep newspapers alive for quite a while. McLuhan said it best: “People don’t actually read newspapers. They step into them every morning like a hot bath.” Digital media are a LONG way from replacing that experience.

mygif
Linking Local, the wikiDOMO Blog said in July 22nd, 2008 at 9:12 am

Why do we want newspapers to survive?…

Having worked for a media company, I regularly read and comment on articles and blog posts about the future of newspapers. This morning I was about to rebut a comment by my friend Jay Moonah on a post titled “Google…

Leave A Reply

 Username (*required)

 Email Address (*private)

 Website (*optional)

Please Note: Comment moderation maybe active so there is no need to resubmit your comments