Death of the Newspaper
Over at townhall there is a story encouraging conservatives to not be so jolly at the thought of newspapers going belly up.
I shake my head at this. I'm not keeping a dying medium simply because a columnist on the inside (she writes for the San Fran Chron) thinks that if it's gone all reporting will be gone. Her entire column at townhall is emotional warefare. Actually, it's worse than that, it's blackmail.
"If newspapers go away, you won't know what's happening in your community."
That's simply, not true. The passing of information from person to person has been done since the dawn of time, not since the dawn of newspapers. In this country alone, town cryers, pony express, small papers published by individuals (not mammoth congolomerates), telegrams, etc. People have always found a way to share information. It just the medium for that sharing has not always stayed the same.
If newspapers go away, it's not because of me. It's because of them. If they don't adapt and change, their disappearance is their own stupid fault. You can not blackmail or coerce individuals into purchasing a product that's outdated, outmoted, and well heck guys - it's bad for the enviornment.
It's like the airlines. I'm not forcing the airlines out of business by not flying as often. The airlines are bankrupting themselves for not changing their business models and insisting that fees, fees, and more fees are the way to keep customers. They will have to find a new way of doing business, or they will go under. There's nothing I or anyone can do about that.
She also points out that advertising in paper is still more lucrative then advertising in cyberspace. I'd like to see the numbers on that because I think she is worse than wrong. Advertising in print costs more because it costs more to produce. It costs more to layout. Advertising on the internet is cheap because it costs virtually nothing to place an ad. I'd be interested to see the profit margin difference on both.
Dying industries need to realize that you can not blame consumers for their demise. If you refuse to change, adjust, and remain relevant, you are signing your own death warrant. No one mourns for buggy whips, or xerox machines (these still exist of course, but why make photocopies when I can scan it and email it digitally?), or typewriter manufacturers. And I'm sure many people lost their jobs as the world transitioned. What about phone companies? If they had remained only landline carriers, they wouldn't be in existence.
This article, this crying about the importance of newspapers reminds me of airline and music executives who are sobbing because their once high place of honor and huge pay checks have been cut in half by a populace that found ways around them. It is not the consumer that makes these industries or these products irrelevent and unnecessary, it's the businesses that insist their value is worth what they think it is, and not what consumers are willing to pay for it.
I shake my head at this. I'm not keeping a dying medium simply because a columnist on the inside (she writes for the San Fran Chron) thinks that if it's gone all reporting will be gone. Her entire column at townhall is emotional warefare. Actually, it's worse than that, it's blackmail.
"If newspapers go away, you won't know what's happening in your community."
That's simply, not true. The passing of information from person to person has been done since the dawn of time, not since the dawn of newspapers. In this country alone, town cryers, pony express, small papers published by individuals (not mammoth congolomerates), telegrams, etc. People have always found a way to share information. It just the medium for that sharing has not always stayed the same.
If newspapers go away, it's not because of me. It's because of them. If they don't adapt and change, their disappearance is their own stupid fault. You can not blackmail or coerce individuals into purchasing a product that's outdated, outmoted, and well heck guys - it's bad for the enviornment.
It's like the airlines. I'm not forcing the airlines out of business by not flying as often. The airlines are bankrupting themselves for not changing their business models and insisting that fees, fees, and more fees are the way to keep customers. They will have to find a new way of doing business, or they will go under. There's nothing I or anyone can do about that.
She also points out that advertising in paper is still more lucrative then advertising in cyberspace. I'd like to see the numbers on that because I think she is worse than wrong. Advertising in print costs more because it costs more to produce. It costs more to layout. Advertising on the internet is cheap because it costs virtually nothing to place an ad. I'd be interested to see the profit margin difference on both.
Dying industries need to realize that you can not blame consumers for their demise. If you refuse to change, adjust, and remain relevant, you are signing your own death warrant. No one mourns for buggy whips, or xerox machines (these still exist of course, but why make photocopies when I can scan it and email it digitally?), or typewriter manufacturers. And I'm sure many people lost their jobs as the world transitioned. What about phone companies? If they had remained only landline carriers, they wouldn't be in existence.
This article, this crying about the importance of newspapers reminds me of airline and music executives who are sobbing because their once high place of honor and huge pay checks have been cut in half by a populace that found ways around them. It is not the consumer that makes these industries or these products irrelevent and unnecessary, it's the businesses that insist their value is worth what they think it is, and not what consumers are willing to pay for it.
Comments