Newspapers and thinking the unthinkable
Some quotes from the piece in case you’re wondering if it’s worth the time.
“It makes increasingly less sense even to talk about a publishing industry, because the core problem publishing solves — the incredible difficulty, complexity, and expense of making something available to the public — has stopped being a problem.”
“That is what real revolutions are like. The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place. ”
“Ancient social bargains, once disrupted, can neither be mended nor quickly replaced, since any such bargain takes decades to solidify.
And so it is today. When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a revolution.”
““You’re gonna miss us when we’re gone!” has never been much of a business model. So who covers all that news if some significant fraction of the currently employed newspaper people lose their jobs? I don’t know. Nobody knows. We’re collectively living through 1500, when it’s easier to see what’s broken than what will replace it.”
And this one might be my favorite: “Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism.”
(Photo Credit: gwjcompany.com)
Update: Tim O’Reilly thought so too. Clay Shirky’s…
As did Jeff Jarvis: No January 20 for newspapers
And, Blodget either hasn’t read it or doesn’t buy it. Either way I don’t see how this works. New York Times Mulls Online Subscription Fee
