Thinking about Ethics
by Barbara Quinn
November 11, 2009
On Sunday, I didn’t buy the New York Times, even though reading the paper has been one of my favorite Sunday rituals since the days when I could buy an early copy on Saturday night. I read online a lot but the click of a mouse is no substitute for unfolding big sheets of printed paper on Sunday. I didn’t not buy the paper for any great philosophical reason. I just didn’t have six bucks with me and I didn’t have the time on Sunday to poke through each fat section of the Times. Besides, I knew I could go online later in the day to read the news and columns I didn’t want to miss. For that matter, I could go online the next day and see what I’d missed.
Newspapers are losing money. I don’t know the chicken from the egg in this tale. Advertisers aren’t buying as many ads, newspapers are shrinking, consumers balk at paying for skimpy newspapers and a new cycle appears. Consumers turn to websites for news, advertisers buy ads online because that’s where the consumers are, newspapers compete with websites that have more content than could ever be contained in one newspaper.
Websites have some advantages over newspapers. The news is updated almost minute by minute. You can click to an article from the previous week to check on something you only half remember or overlooked in the first place. Articles include links that lead you to original sources of materials. It’s fast: more news in less time. What could be better for a news junkie? Not much, except the printed pages. Nothing, really, other than the unexpected article on page 13 that only comes into view when you turn the page. Or the ritual of turning the crisp, neat newspaper into a messy pile of badly folded pages, leaving you with the feeling of having eaten a good dinner.
I hate the thought that newspapers are growing smaller as the web grows larger. I hate hearing that advertising doesn’t support bigger newspapers, or that overseas bureaus are being shut down, or that reporters are being laid off. I hate that so many people don’t buy newspapers. They go online for their news – just like I did on Sunday. And the Times lost six more bucks.
|
By: Labboy
Posted: November 12, 2009 2:09 PM
Print is convenient and practical. While I can look up things on the laptop, it is just not comfortable trying to balance it in the morning while starting the day handling my own waste products. Nor is it safe trying to read the laptop at the breakfast or dinner table.
The newspaper is also quite useful as a source of kindling for my fireplace or campfires. While I now use propane for BBQ, newspapers were great charcoal starter materials back in the day. Laptops are not that flammable.
Finally, there is no Internet equivalent to the funnies section. For many people, that is the best section.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy going to the WWW to gather information and staying on top as well. I think they are both tools that provide an important function. I seldom look at local news on the Net but often do in the papers.
By: Notamiracle
Posted: November 13, 2009 7:29 AM
By: Antony Hock
Posted: February 15, 2010 6:10 AM
Every newspaper is a high quality database curator in disguise. A majority of investment, across all newspaper organizations, goes into curation and maintenance of "People", "Places", and associated "Events" oriented databases.
The Web is now evolving into a Web of Linked Data where every Data Item has its own Identifier (an HTTP URI) which is a conduit to a mesh of related data items from all over the Web.
If newspaper organizations simply get on the Linked Data bandwagon by including rich metadata snippets in their Web pages that include HTTP URIs for each "Person", "Place", and associated "Event", they will realize instant re-calibration of their currently warped business models.
The prime medium of value exchange is the Web. Customers still need high quality facts, and even more, they want the data to be recombinant (mesh-able rather than mash-able). This is no different to what they sought from Newspaper prior to the emergence of the Web.
Again, the medium of value exchange is all that's broken :-)
By: Seth
Posted: March 8, 2010 10:10 AM
That was in 1999.
Today, among other responsibilities, I'm the fella responsible for much of PE's online and e-materials. Every day I focus on harnessing the Internet to bring our readers better information through that medium. So let me tell you from first-hand experience: no matter what I do, our print magazine remains our most powerful product.
Certainly, the Web has grown, but neither is print "dead," just as radio isn't "dead" because TV was invented.
Different media have different strengths. Print is tangible. It is easy on the eyes. It is more portable. It carries a prestige and embodies a greater effort because what you get is final. There is a different interaction with print.
There is a meme on the Internet for pieces that get longer than, say, 400 words: "tl;dr." It stands for "too long, didn't read."
Thing is, nobody ever said that about a piece of print. Print captures your attention longer. The tactile interface is relatively useless, when compared to the Internet, for providing short and fast info (though graphs, charts and tables belie that). And certainly the Internet wins on interactivity.
But not all information is fast. Not all points can be summed in 200 words. And for our industry in particular, the complexity of our tasks, our technologies, and our best practices, take a lot more column inches to digest. For that, print still wins.
By: yonge6h0jj
Posted: January 21, 2011 7:13 AM