Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable

Back in 1993, the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain began investigating piracy of Dave Barry’s popular column, which was published by the Miami Herald and syndicated widely. In the course of tracking down the sources of unlicensed distribution, they found many things, including the copying of his column to alt.fan.dave_barry on usenet; a 2000-person strong mailing list also reading pirated versions; and a teenager in the Midwest who was doing some of the copying himself, because he loved Barry’s work so much he wanted everybody to be able to read it.

One of the people I was hanging around with online back then was Gordy Thompson, who managed internet services at the New York Times. I remember Thompson saying something to the effect of “When a 14 year old kid can blow up your business in his spare time, not because he hates you but because he loves you, then you got a problem.” I think about that conversation a lot these days.

The problem newspapers face isn’t that they didn’t see the internet coming. They not only saw it miles off, they figured out early on that they needed a plan to deal with it, and during the early 90s they came up with not just one plan but several. One was to partner with companies like America Online, a fast-growing subscription service that was less chaotic than the open internet. Another plan was to educate the public about the behaviors required of them by copyright law. New payment models such as micropayments were proposed. Alternatively, they could pursue the profit margins enjoyed by radio and TV, if they became purely ad-supported. Still another plan was to convince tech firms to make their hardware and software less capable of sharing, or to partner with the businesses running data networks to achieve the same goal. Then there was the nuclear option: sue copyright infringers directly, making an example of them.

As these ideas were articulated, there was intense debate about the merits of various scenarios. Would DRM or walled gardens work better? Shouldn’t we try a carrot-and-stick approach, with education and prosecution? And so on. In all this conversation, there was one scenario that was widely regarded as unthinkable, a scenario that didn’t get much discussion in the nation’s newsrooms, for the obvious reason.

The unthinkable scenario unfolded something like this: The ability to share content wouldn’t shrink, it would grow. Walled gardens would prove unpopular. Digital advertising would reduce inefficiencies, and therefore profits. Dislike of micropayments would prevent widespread use. People would resist being educated to act against their own desires. Old habits of advertisers and readers would not transfer online. Even ferocious litigation would be inadequate to constrain massive, sustained law-breaking. (Prohibition redux.) Hardware and software vendors would not regard copyright holders as allies, nor would they regard customers as enemies. DRM’s requirement that the attacker be allowed to decode the content would be an insuperable flaw. And, per Thompson, suing people who love something so much they want to share it would piss them off.

Revolutions create a curious inversion of perception. In ordinary times, people who do no more than describe the world around them are seen as pragmatists, while those who imagine fabulous alternative futures are viewed as radicals. The last couple of decades haven’t been ordinary, however. Inside the papers, the pragmatists were the ones simply looking out the window and noticing that the real world increasingly resembled the unthinkable scenario. These people were treated as if they were barking mad. Meanwhile the people spinning visions of popular walled gardens and enthusiastic micropayment adoption, visions unsupported by reality, were regarded not as charlatans but saviors.

When reality is labeled unthinkable, it creates a kind of sickness in an industry. Leadership becomes faith-based, while employees who have the temerity to suggest that what seems to be happening is in fact happening are herded into Innovation Departments, where they can be ignored en bloc. This shunting aside of the realists in favor of the fabulists has different effects on different industries at different times. One of the effects on the newspapers is that many of their most passionate defenders are unable, even now, to plan for a world in which the industry they knew is visibly going away.

* * *

The curious thing about the various plans hatched in the ’90s is that they were, at base, all the same plan: “Here’s how we’re going to preserve the old forms of organization in a world of cheap perfect copies!” The details differed, but the core assumption behind all imagined outcomes (save the unthinkable one) was that the organizational form of the newspaper, as a general-purpose vehicle for publishing a variety of news and opinion, was basically sound, and only needed a digital facelift. As a result, the conversation has degenerated into the enthusiastic grasping at straws, pursued by skeptical responses.

“The Wall Street Journal has a paywall, so we can too!” (Financial information is one of the few kinds of information whose recipients don’t want to share.) “Micropayments work for iTunes, so they will work for us!” (Micropayments work only where the provider can avoid competitive business models.) “The New York Times should charge for content!” (They’ve tried, with QPass and later TimesSelect.) “Cook’s Illustrated and Consumer Reports are doing fine on subscriptions!” (Those publications forgo ad revenues; users are paying not just for content but for unimpeachability.) “We’ll form a cartel!” (…and hand a competitive advantage to every ad-supported media firm in the world.)

Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke.

With the old economics destroyed, organizational forms perfected for industrial production have to be replaced with structures optimized for digital data. 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.

* * *

Elizabeth Eisenstein’s magisterial treatment of Gutenberg’s invention, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, opens with a recounting of her research into the early history of the printing press. She was able to find many descriptions of life in the early 1400s, the era before movable type. Literacy was limited, the Catholic Church was the pan-European political force, Mass was in Latin, and the average book was the Bible. She was also able to find endless descriptions of life in the late 1500s, after Gutenberg’s invention had started to spread. Literacy was on the rise, as were books written in contemporary languages, Copernicus had published his epochal work on astronomy, and Martin Luther’s use of the press to reform the Church was upending both religious and political stability.

What Eisenstein focused on, though, was how many historians ignored the transition from one era to the other. To describe the world before or after the spread of print was child’s play; those dates were safely distanced from upheaval. But what was happening in 1500? The hard question Eisenstein’s book asks is “How did we get from the world before the printing press to the world after it? What was the revolution itself like?”

Chaotic, as it turns out. The Bible was translated into local languages; was this an educational boon or the work of the devil? Erotic novels appeared, prompting the same set of questions. Copies of Aristotle and Galen circulated widely, but direct encounter with the relevant texts revealed that the two sources clashed, tarnishing faith in the Ancients. As novelty spread, old institutions seemed exhausted while new ones seemed untrustworthy; as a result, people almost literally didn’t know what to think. If you can’t trust Aristotle, who can you trust?

During the wrenching transition to print, experiments were only revealed in retrospect to be turning points. Aldus Manutius, the Venetian printer and publisher, invented the smaller octavo volume along with italic type. What seemed like a minor change — take a book and shrink it — was in retrospect a key innovation in the democratization of the printed word. As books became cheaper, more portable, and therefore more desirable, they expanded the market for all publishers, heightening the value of literacy still further.

That is what real revolutions are like. The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place. The importance of any given experiment isn’t apparent at the moment it appears; big changes stall, small changes spread. Even the revolutionaries can’t predict what will happen. Agreements on all sides that core institutions must be protected are rendered meaningless by the very people doing the agreeing. (Luther and the Church both insisted, for years, that whatever else happened, no one was talking about a schism.) 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. They are demanding to be told that old systems won’t break before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that ancient social bargains aren’t in peril, that core institutions will be spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to.

There are fewer and fewer people who can convincingly tell such a lie.

* * *

If you want to know why newspapers are in such trouble, the most salient fact is this: Printing presses are terrifically expensive to set up and to run. This bit of economics, normal since Gutenberg, limits competition while creating positive returns to scale for the press owner, a happy pair of economic effects that feed on each other. In a notional town with two perfectly balanced newspapers, one paper would eventually generate some small advantage — a breaking story, a key interview — at which point both advertisers and readers would come to prefer it, however slightly. That paper would in turn find it easier to capture the next dollar of advertising, at lower expense, than the competition. This would increase its dominance, which would further deepen those preferences, repeat chorus. The end result is either geographic or demographic segmentation among papers, or one paper holding a monopoly on the local mainstream audience.

For a long time, longer than anyone in the newspaper business has been alive in fact, print journalism has been intertwined with these economics. The expense of printing created an environment where Wal-Mart was willing to subsidize the Baghdad bureau. This wasn’t because of any deep link between advertising and reporting, nor was it about any real desire on the part of Wal-Mart to have their marketing budget go to international correspondents. It was just an accident. Advertisers had little choice other than to have their money used that way, since they didn’t really have any other vehicle for display ads.

The old difficulties and costs of printing forced everyone doing it into a similar set of organizational models; it was this similarity that made us regard Daily Racing Form and L’Osservatore Romano as being in the same business. That the relationship between advertisers, publishers, and journalists has been ratified by a century of cultural practice doesn’t make it any less accidental.

The competition-deflecting effects of printing cost got destroyed by the internet, where everyone pays for the infrastructure, and then everyone gets to use it. And when Wal-Mart, and the local Maytag dealer, and the law firm hiring a secretary, and that kid down the block selling his bike, were all able to use that infrastructure to get out of their old relationship with the publisher, they did. They’d never really signed up to fund the Baghdad bureau anyway.

* * *

Print media does much of society’s heavy journalistic lifting, from flooding the zone — covering every angle of a huge story — to the daily grind of attending the City Council meeting, just in case. This coverage creates benefits even for people who aren’t newspaper readers, because the work of print journalists is used by everyone from politicians to district attorneys to talk radio hosts to bloggers. The newspaper people often note that newspapers benefit society as a whole. This is true, but irrelevant to the problem at hand; “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. The internet turns 40 this fall. Access by the general public is less than half that age. Web use, as a normal part of life for a majority of the developed world, is less than half that age. We just got here. Even the revolutionaries can’t predict what will happen.

Imagine, in 1996, asking some net-savvy soul to expound on the potential of craigslist, then a year old and not yet incorporated. The answer you’d almost certainly have gotten would be extrapolation: “Mailing lists can be powerful tools”, “Social effects are intertwining with digital networks”, blah blah blah. What no one would have told you, could have told you, was what actually happened: craiglist became a critical piece of infrastructure. Not the idea of craigslist, or the business model, or even the software driving it. Craigslist itself spread to cover hundreds of cities and has become a part of public consciousness about what is now possible. Experiments are only revealed in retrospect to be turning points.

In craigslist’s gradual shift from ‘interesting if minor’ to ‘essential and transformative’, there is one possible answer to the question “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” The answer is: Nothing will work, but everything might. Now is the time for experiments, lots and lots of experiments, each of which will seem as minor at launch as craigslist did, as Wikipedia did, as octavo volumes did.

Journalism has always been subsidized. Sometimes it’s been Wal-Mart and the kid with the bike. Sometimes it’s been Richard Mellon Scaife. Increasingly, it’s you and me, donating our time. The list of models that are obviously working today, like Consumer Reports and NPR, like ProPublica and WikiLeaks, can’t be expanded to cover any general case, but then nothing is going to cover the general case.

Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism and to strengthen newspapers have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That’s been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we’re going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism instead.

When we shift our attention from ‘save newspapers’ to ‘save society’, the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.’ And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.

We don’t know who the Aldus Manutius of the current age is. It could be Craig Newmark, or Caterina Fake. It could be Martin Nisenholtz, or Emily Bell. It could be some 19 year old kid few of us have heard of, working on something we won’t recognize as vital until a decade hence. Any experiment, though, designed to provide new models for journalism is going to be an improvement over hiding from the real, especially in a year when, for many papers, the unthinkable future is already in the past.

For the next few decades, journalism will be made up of overlapping special cases. Many of these models will rely on amateurs as researchers and writers. Many of these models will rely on sponsorship or grants or endowments instead of revenues. Many of these models will rely on excitable 14 year olds distributing the results. Many of these models will fail. No one experiment is going to replace what we are now losing with the demise of news on paper, but over time, the collection of new experiments that do work might give us the journalism we need.

1,219 Responses to “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable”

  1. Что может спасти прессу. “Абсолютно ничего,” отвечают эксперты « Блог Алексея Парфёнова ("Радио Ё") Says:

    […] Шёрки опубликовал интересную статью, речь в которой идёт о “невероятном” будущем […]

  2. We are in the midst of a revolution — Eat Sleep Publish Says:

    […] Shirky has written another blog post that makes my entire blog look like amateur hour: When someone demands to know how we are going to […]

  3. The Long Now Blog » Blog Archive » The funeral for analog news… by Clay Shirky Says:

    […] multitude of tweets from people like Tim O’Reilly and Nion McEvoy pointed me to this excellent piece on the end of analog news by (past seminar speaker) Clay Shirky.  Not to be missed, here is an […]

  4. Что может спасти прессу. “Абсолютно ничего,” отвечают эксперт « Блог Алексея Парфёнова ("Радио Ё") Says:

    […] Шёрки опубликовал интересную статью, речь в которой идёт о “невероятном” будущем […]

  5. Citizen Media Watch » Twitter as news source, and the unthinkable Says:

    […] long and insightful look at past media revolutions and the one we’re going through right now, Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. Tags: Established media, future […]

  6. The news medium has a message: "Goodbye" | Says:

    […] by the high cost of the printing press and the radius of delivery trucks there was a natural local monopoly to these things. And indeed, […]

  7. “Society Doesn’t Need Newspapers” at FURIOUS nads! by The One True b!X Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable by Clay Shirky […]

  8. Warum Zeitungen nicht wichtig sind - Björn Sievers Says:

    […] Nicht nur für Zeitungsjournalisten: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable […]

  9. RevenueTwoPointZero » Thinking the unthinkable Says:

    […] Shirky teaches about the social and economic effects of Internet technologies at NYU. In a post today, he explains why newspapers cannot survive. The piece is long, but worth reading. Here are […]

  10. Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky « The Image Says:

    […] via Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky. […]

  11. can the news consumer’s surplus save public broadcasting? « mg Says:

    […] look at this new market, they may very well be seeing an unsustainable future (as Clay Shirky explained so well).  They can’t even change what they do to address new market gaps, because the only gaps […]

  12. Software Sports » Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. Says:

    […] Clay Shirky: Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism and to strengthen newspapers have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That’s been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we’re going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism instead. […]

  13. The Chutry Experiment » Newspapers, Mumblecore, and More Says:

    […] Clay Shirky has an important blog essay on the state of the newspaper inustry.  What I like about Shirky’s article is his reading of […]

  14. Zeitungen: Was geht - und was kommt? « ostroplog - Das Weblog von Philipp Ostrop Says:

    […] Er hat gestern sehr scharfsinnig darüber gebloggt, warum Zeitungen nicht überleben werden und wesh… Seitdem wird seine Analyse im Web als brilliant gefeiert. […]

  15. Just trying to get through the Internet revolution alive, is all « SMARTING OFF Says:

    […] at 4:34 pm · Filed under Freelance, Publishing, Smartness, The news biz Take a gander at this blog post. It’s well worth your time if you give any kind of a damn about the future of […]

  16. Time To Take Off The Shades « Notes From The Cave Says:

    […] second article I read is a blog post by Clay Shirky on the newspaper industry. The gist of this blog post is that newspapers are going away, to be replaced by what, we […]

  17. Clay Shirky is Thinking the Unthinkable Says:

    […] Shirky’s blog post “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” was linked to by a few different people I follow on Twitter, so I was compelled to give it a go and […]

  18. Revolution? « A Venture In Media Says:

    […] http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/ […]

  19. Future of publishing « toni.org Says:

    […] Toni 9:03 am on March 14, 2009 | 0 Reply Great post by Clay Shirky about what’s happening to newspapers and publishing as we transition to an increasingly digital worl…. […]

  20. Hypercrit » Revolution and the unthinkable scenario Says:

    […] We are living through a revolution, writes Clay Shirky, just like the one that Gutenberg started around 1500. And all revolutions are more or less the same, he writes: “The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff gets put in its place.” […]

  21. Tensegrities » Blog Archive Says:

    […] Clay Shirky on newspapers — definitely worth reading! — here’s a few choice quotes: Back in 1993, the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain began investigating piracy of Dave Barry’s popular column, which was published by the Miami Herald and syndicated widely. In the course of tracking down the sources of unlicensed distribution, they found many things, including the copying of his column to alt.fan.dave_barry on usenet; a 2000-person strong mailing list also reading pirated versions; and a teenager in the Midwest who was doing some of the copying himself, because he loved Barry’s work so much he wanted everybody to be able to read it. […]

  22. Pflichtlekture du jour(naliste) - bluelectric.org Says:

    […] Pflichtlekture du jour(naliste) Gepostet von Konstantin Klein am 14.03.2009 | Kein Kommentar  For the next few decades, journalism will be made up of overlapping special cases. Many of these models will rely on amateurs as researchers and writers. Many of these models will rely on sponsorship or grants or endowments instead of revenues. Many of these models will rely on excitable 14 year olds distributing the results. Many of these models will fail. No one experiment is going to replace what we are now losing with the demise of news on paper, but over time, the collection of new experiments that do work might give us the reporting we need. Clay Shirky in shirky.com […]

  23. Wirearchy · Clay Shirky Unfolds the Newspaper .. Says:

    […] . Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable […]

  24. An Eclectic Mind » Why Print Publishing is Doomed Says:

    […] blog post, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable,” was by Clay Shirky. It summarized what has brought us to the middle of a revolution in […]

  25. Shirky: "What will replace newspapers?" is a plea to not be living through a revolution | www.schweingehabt.at Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable Previously: […]

  26. The Times, they are a-changin’ « Markkeating’s Blog Says:

    […] there are consequences to this paradigm shift. Clay Shirky writes: Print media does much of society’s heavy journalistic lifting, from flooding the zone — […]

  27. Michele McLellan » Facing the future Says:

    […] Shirky has written a piece that is at once brilliant and devastating. In “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable,” Shirky argues, as I have, that we must uncouple the fate of journalism from the fate of the […]

  28. TPNx - Australia’s Social Media Production Company » Blog Archive » Why Newspapers Died Says:

    […] clipped from http://www.shirky.com […]

  29. Metaprinter Says:

    The Newspaper Industry, The Dip, Seth Godin…

    Seth Godin’s book, The Dip, is all about quitting.  It’s about learning WHEN to quit and WHEN not to quit.  It’s also about learning WHAT to quit, and WHAT not to quit.  As one of the many examples he gives for quitting, he gives t…

  30. What/Who Will Follow Newspapers? | Flack Me Says:

    […] Shirky has a long, thoughtful, keenly observant piece on the future of newspapers and his conclusion is that it’s 1500, a time of epochal change, […]

  31. Realists vs. Fabulists in Media « Revenue Traction in a Startup World Says:

    […] equating it to the introduction of the printing press 500 years ago. Take a few minutes and read Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. Revolutions create a curious inversion of perception. In ordinary times, people who do no more […]

  32. Random Tangent Says:

    […] Shirky thinks the unthinkable about the future of newspapers in his latest blog post:  When someone demands to be told how we can replace newspapers, they are really demanding to […]

  33. Core77 Says:

    Newspapers and thinking the unthinkable…

    Clay Shirky published an excellent essay on his blog on newspapers in the digital age. Trying to understand an industry that hangs on to wishful thinking not connected with the reality around us, Shirky evokes a previous revolution –……

  34. Fresh From Twitter today | ME3 Design Says:

    […] RT @huey: Great new post up on newspapers in the digital age by @cshirky http://bit.ly/unthinkable […]

  35. Not for the first time we walk into this revolution with the thoughts of Mr Shirky in one hand, an Apple iPhone in the other. It’s 1500 all over again… » Out With A Bang Says:

    […] as I read Mr Shirky’s latest magisterial tome… http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/ … it was clear that we’re still wandering down similar paths; looking at the world […]

  36. Here comes everybody « Says:

    […] comes everybody Published March 14, 2009 Uncategorized Once again: yesterday, music; today, newspapers and magazines; tomorrow, publishing […]

  37. Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable · Clay Shirky quotes Gordy Thompson, who managed the web side of the NYT in the mid-nineties: “When a 14 year old kid can blow up your business in his spare time, not because he hates you but because he loves you, then you got a problem.” […]

  38. Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky at Peter Kaminski Says:

    […] out of the age of newspapers, and into the age of new sorts of journalism in his blog post “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable“: chaos and […]

  39. Things falling apart :: writing after the collapse of print publishing Says:

    […] never reached this elegant conclusion on my own (slaps forehead). This is Clay Shirky on newspapers but the principle applies across the board. He continues by talking about the chaos ushered in by […]

  40. Thinking the Unthinkable | lab Says:

    […] Kleine Wochenend-Lektüre Epfehlung. Auch wenn man nicht bei einer Zeitung arbeitet: Clay Shirky […]

  41. John Griogair Bell’s Blog » links for 2009-03-14 Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky "When a 14 year old kid can blow up your business in his spare time, not because he hates you but because he loves you, then you got a problem." (tags: history technology media business) […]

  42. lindgren.pp.se » Blog Archive » Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable Says:

    […] Link […]

  43. Plain Truth « Sprechblase Says:

    […] Clay Shirky in Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable […]

  44. גם-שם » ארכיון » אין מודל, אין פיתרון Says:

    […] כאן […]

  45. Shirky: "What will replace newspapers?" is a plea to not be living through a revolution - Crapazon Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable Previously: […]

  46. A Contrarian View « WiredPen Says:

    […] both Clay Shirky and I wrote this week, the economics of newspapering have been shattered by digital technologies. […]

  47. Scott Rosenberg’s Wordyard » Blog Archive » Shirky sets the wayback machine to 1500 Says:

    […] Shirky has a new post up titled “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” that is really about as cogent a summary of the state of affairs in the land of dying newspapers as […]

  48. heisel.org > Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky Says:

    […] News­pa­pers and Think­ing the Unthink­able « Clay Shirky – Long read, but well worth it. […]

  49. popurls.com // popular today Says:

    popurls.com // popular today…

    story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…

  50. Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Financial Blogger Says:

    […] Continued here: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable […]

Comments are closed.