Comment My only problem... (Score 1) 336
with this article is that it was kind of minimalist. Cory has been talking about this exact thing for a long time--so I'm not totally sure why it's news now, but I feel like he's done it better in the past. For those who disagree with his assessment based on this article; I advise you to read "Content", a collection of speeches that he's given where he talks about just this type of thing (it's free to download just like all of his other work).
The one thing that I think puts traditional print newspapers in danger of going under that I did not see mentioned in this specific article is that the internet puts them further behind the curve. Television news made "Breaking News" stories possible. The internet made "Breaking News" universal. Where television news can't afford to interrupt their programming every time a new story breaks it's on the internet immediately. Where traditional print media had an advantage over television news (which allowed them to co-exist) is that it allowed for more information, a five-page story in the times contains more data that is relevant to the story than a 5 minute television spot (which would actually be a pretty long spot--not that I've ever seen a five-page story in the times). The ease with which stories can be found on the internet actually allows for even more information than is available in print media. With the internet, I have the option to drill-down on the story, I can read stories about: the author of the story; the city that it took place in; the culture of that city; historic events that may have lead to this; etc.
So internet news does everything that print AND television news media does -- only better. I can get my information faster, on my own time, with more depth and the freedom to research and discover the story in the ways that I think are relevant. It's not like those traditional companies are going away -- there will still be a "New York Times" 20yrs from now--hell there'll probably still be a printed version of it--but most of the content will be online and since it'll still be coming from the "New York Times" you'll still have the same amount of trust (or dis-trust) for that information as you had before.
Cory's article was not about telling everyone that he has the answers; that he is culturally relevant and they are not. It was a warning to traditional media outlets about possible pitfalls in a future economy. As a science-fiction writer, one of Cory's job titles is "futurist", and just like Robert Heinlein before him, it's not a question of whether or not he's one-hundred percent accurate. What's more important is that he speaks with the voice of the present day. I'm sure that he won't be totally correct in his assumptions--because who ever is(?)--and I don't believe that he expects to be completely accurate either (and I say this as an admitted fan of his) but at least he said his piece.
p.s. Just before I wrote this, a representative of Amazon.com was on the today show talking about their e-book reader and how it's one of the main reasons that they're not slowing down in the weak economy. (print media what?)
The one thing that I think puts traditional print newspapers in danger of going under that I did not see mentioned in this specific article is that the internet puts them further behind the curve. Television news made "Breaking News" stories possible. The internet made "Breaking News" universal. Where television news can't afford to interrupt their programming every time a new story breaks it's on the internet immediately. Where traditional print media had an advantage over television news (which allowed them to co-exist) is that it allowed for more information, a five-page story in the times contains more data that is relevant to the story than a 5 minute television spot (which would actually be a pretty long spot--not that I've ever seen a five-page story in the times). The ease with which stories can be found on the internet actually allows for even more information than is available in print media. With the internet, I have the option to drill-down on the story, I can read stories about: the author of the story; the city that it took place in; the culture of that city; historic events that may have lead to this; etc.
So internet news does everything that print AND television news media does -- only better. I can get my information faster, on my own time, with more depth and the freedom to research and discover the story in the ways that I think are relevant. It's not like those traditional companies are going away -- there will still be a "New York Times" 20yrs from now--hell there'll probably still be a printed version of it--but most of the content will be online and since it'll still be coming from the "New York Times" you'll still have the same amount of trust (or dis-trust) for that information as you had before.
Cory's article was not about telling everyone that he has the answers; that he is culturally relevant and they are not. It was a warning to traditional media outlets about possible pitfalls in a future economy. As a science-fiction writer, one of Cory's job titles is "futurist", and just like Robert Heinlein before him, it's not a question of whether or not he's one-hundred percent accurate. What's more important is that he speaks with the voice of the present day. I'm sure that he won't be totally correct in his assumptions--because who ever is(?)--and I don't believe that he expects to be completely accurate either (and I say this as an admitted fan of his) but at least he said his piece.
p.s. Just before I wrote this, a representative of Amazon.com was on the today show talking about their e-book reader and how it's one of the main reasons that they're not slowing down in the weak economy. (print media what?)
