Where do we go?
As you might imagine, we spend a lot of time around here thinking about the future of news in general and newspapers in particular. There are lots of experts out there—real and imagined, helpful and adversarial—with all sorts of perspectives, but the real truth is that nobody is quite sure what the future holds for what is politely called “content.”
Here’s one view, from Richard Posner, a retired federal judge and well-known big thinker. Also on the same blog is a shorter post about the social costs of the decline by Posner’s blogging partner, economist Gary Becker, a Nobel laureate, big thinker and devotee of the power of markets.
Their basic points are this: 1) information, like people, wants to be free. 2) behavior changes over time. It’s not clear that reading, buying and advertising habits are going to just spring back to pre-recession levels with newspapers or other media. People adjust/adapt/etc. Sort of like switching from Post raisin bran to the store brand cereal to save money. Maybe when you’re flush again, you stick with the discount brand and its lower raisin count. Or you just keep eating toast.
The questions as always are these: How will the next generation of news be delivered, and how will it be supported.
Have a safe Fourth of July.
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
The questions are not how the next generation of news will be delivered—we already know that. It will be delivered online. The only question is whether or not it will be journalism (professionally edited and fact-checked and adhering to a code of ethics). We can also surmise how it will be supported—the same way traditional media have always been supported, and that’s by advertising.
Media exist to deliver advertising to eyeballs and ears. No other reason. To gain access to those eyes and ears, they have to differentiate themselves. They have to provide content that cannot be accessed elsewhere.
I subscribe to the newspaper because it is ingrained behavior. I could get much of the content online, but since I cannot find anything on the Journal’s website, I’ll continue to subscribe to the hard copy. Perhaps that was your rationale for making your website unnavigable?
That’s a little harsh at the bottom ... I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the only reason for media is to deliver advertising to eyeballs and ears. There are several publications that do quite well with no advertising. Different models. But advertising is one way to spread out your costs and diversity your revenue base. I think the more salient point is that media that doesn’t serve the people who pay its freight aren’t going to survive.
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.