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. Max Design - standards based web design, development and training » Some links for light reading (24/3/09) Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable […]

  2. musicNeutral : Beyond Free Music Culture » Blog Archive » Lessons from the Newspaper Industry: Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. Says:

    […] this week Clay Shirkey wrote a related piece about the cosmic myopia of the newspaper industry: The problem newspapers face isn’t that they […]

  3. Colunista menoriza conclusões de “gurus” informáticos sobre jornalismo tradicional « MFJEP - Movimento a Favor do Jornalismo Escrito Pago Says:

    […] publicado a 20 de Março no San Francisco Chronicle, a perspectiva e as soluções propostas por Clay Shirky, consultor para os efeitos económico- sociais das tecnologias de informação, Steven P. […]

  4. The Medium Is (still) the Message - Matthew T Grant Says:

    […] media were first formed through consideration of the “Gutenberg Galaxy.” As Clay Shirky recently pointed out, to describe the world prior to or following a completed revolution is relatively easy – describing […]

  5. Kateri dnevnik bo prvi sledil Indirektu v onostranstvo? at razgledi.net Says:

    […] dovolj temačne, jih drugi ameriški tehnološki ‘guru’ Clay Shirky zlahka preseže. Nič, nič ne bo delovalo, česar so se časopisi doslej naučili in kar so poskusili, sploh pa nekakšnega enotnega […]

  6. Mark Morford sintetiza conclusões de “gurus” sobre jornalismo tradicional « MFJEP - Movimento a Favor do Jornalismo Escrito Pago Says:

    […] publicado a 20 de Março no San Francisco Chronicle, a perspectiva e as soluções propostas por Clay Shirky, consultor para os efeitos económico- sociais das tecnologias de informação, Steven P. […]

  7. Autoscopia » Clay Shirky’s Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable Says:

    […] even now, to plan for a world in which the industry they knew is visibly going away.” Read Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky This entry was written by Brad, posted on March 24, 2009 at 1:10 pm, filed under Culture, Front […]

  8. Idea Peepshow » Blog Archive » What’s Next for News Says:

    […] newspapers in particular. Several have gotten a lot of attention as they made the rounds, including this one by Web theorist Clay Shirky, which has been cited on dozens of media blogs and Web […]

  9. IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: March 23rd, 2009 - Part 2 | Boycott Novell Says:

    […] and Thinking the Unthinkable < http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/ne&#8230; > Old journalism is […]

  10. The nature of crazytimes change | communicatrix Says:

    […] a really, really good piece by Clay Shirky—the guy who wrote Here Comes Everybody, among other fairly colossal […]

  11. Massive change. | Uneven Distribution. Says:

    […] reveals itself as will come from experimentation. Clay Shirky summed it up brilliantly in his post Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable: “Experiments are only revealed in retrospect to be turning points….Nothing will work, […]

  12. Oliver Gassner Says:

    links for 2009-03-24…

    Kooperationssysteme (CSCM)
    Die twittern jetzt dann bakld auch, "The Cooperation Systems Center Munich unites researchers from Informatics (Computer Science), Information Science and Economics at Bundeswehr Universi…

  13. Healthy Living Navigator Says:

    […] may find out soon, because the number of failing newspapers is piling up. Clay Shirky has written an essay about how the internet is shredding newspaper business models. According to Dr. Shirky, it wasn’t […]

  14. links for 2009-03-24 « Where is my towel? Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky Greast text on why newspapers will die and journalism will live. "That is what real revolutions are like. The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place. " (tags: media newspapers zeitungen pepers journalism journalismus clay-shirky *****) […]

  15. kon3ah's me2DAY Says:

    곤삼의 생각…

    Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism….

  16. Newspapers vs. the Internet - Deathmatch! « The Things on My Mind Says:

    […] probably fail too and be replaced by those who will learn from their mistakes. Clay Shirky said it best: For the next few decades, journalism will be made up of overlapping special cases. Many of […]

  17. The End of the Newspaper or the Beginning? « Anthonysanderson’s Blog Says:

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

  18. Run, Run, Run, Run, Run, Cycle, Cycle Too » Mindshare 24 March Says:

    […] fact happening are herded into Innovation Departments, where they can be ignored en masse.” – Clay Shirky. He’s talking about the train wreck in the newspaper world, but this bit could be applied […]

  19. Newspapers, Advertising, and Printing Presses « The Droning Inquisition Says:

    […] Advertising, and Printing Presses This is a wonderful post on the current trend of the newspaper industry and its origins over the past 20 years. (Hat tip to […]

  20. plusle's me2DAY Says:

    plusle의 생각…

    뉴욕주립대 클레이 셔키 교수가 자신의 블로그에 잠언록처럼 올린 Newspaper and Thinking the Unthinkable ..셔키 교수 정도가 한 말씀 하니까 좀 다르게 들리네~…

  21. Marc Cooper » Blog Archive » Don’t Mourn — Publish! Says:

    […] now it is time to move Clay Shirky’s “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” to the front page. No coincidence that I have argued publicly in many of the same terms that Shirky […]

  22. Submetering Meeting Results « Seize the Moment of Excited Curiosity for the Acquisition of Knowledge Says:

    […] blog post by Clay Shirky is a great description of the situation newspapers are facing. The goal should be “save […]

  23. The 50 day moving flavel index at all time blerk « birdsong Says:

    […] a recent New York article, Emily Nussbaum quotes from Clay Shirky’s elegy of the news industry, in which he says “Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism.” […]

  24. O’Reilly’s success with iPhone: The Missing Manual means nothing « Kindle 2, Kindle Books Reader 2.0 - Amazon Kindle 2 Review Says:

    […] in the midst of a revolution – in both newspapers (great article by Clay Shirky) and books. And creating user manuals for cellphones, no matter how popular, is just being in […]

  25. The Real Adam – Decoupling newspapers Says:

    […] So I’ve been wondering about this whole newspaper business collapse would work out. Clay Shirky’s got an important point: Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives […]

  26. Getting Paid to Blog? Not yet. February Income Statement - nonpretentious Says:

    […] Am I surprised that I saw numerous retweets of Clay Shirky’s post entitled “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable?” […]

  27. Clay Shirky’s excellent thoughts « Some thoughts from Craig Branson Says:

    […] Shirky’s excellent thoughts 22Mar09 Clay Shirky has an excellent analysis of the current state of newspapers and one that I really identify with. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)What is an […]

  28. A Look Back At The Worries That Google Would Never Make Money | The-Informer Says:

    […] week, in response to Clay Shriky’s wonderful look at journalism business models, I wrote a post about the fact that you can’t wait for the perfect business model. I was […]

  29. A Look Back At The Worries That Google Would Never Make Money | CHARGED's Digital Lifestyle at Work or Play Says:

    […] week, in response to Clay Shriky’s wonderful look at journalism business models, I wrote a post about the fact that you can’t wait for the perfect business model. I was […]

  30. The newspaper biz and changes « Later On Says:

    […] in Daily life, Media, Technology at 8:52 am by LeisureGuy Clay Shirky in his blog has an interesting post: Back in 1993, the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain began investigating piracy of Dave Barry’s […]

  31. Link love for 2009-03-23 — Sympathy for the Robots Says:

    […] Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism, by Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. […]

  32. DJCline.com » Blog Archive » Papers Dead, News Not Says:

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

  33. Business & Finance Blogs » Blog Archive » Jan Chipchase Responds To Clay Shirky About Micro-Payments Says:

    […] Nokia researcher Jan Chipchase makes a simple reaction to Clay Shirky’s recent thought piece on the newspaper industry where he suggests that micro-payments don’t work: “One […]

  34. You must read this « The social media revolution (in 15 minutes) Says:

    […] March 23, 2009, 2:38 pm Filed under: Uncategorized This article by Clay Shirky is a must read – http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/ – it cuts to the heart of what thwe social media revolution is all about, i.e. the separation of […]

  35. ProjectKNOW » Blog Archive » CORRECTION: The Change is Here! Says:

    […] the newspaper industry is broken. There is an excellent article written about this by Web theorist Clay Shirky on his blog. What he points out is that the basic architecture and functions of the internet are the undoing of […]

  36. Curious Inversions of Perception | The Unapologetic Mexican Says:

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

  37. Jan Chipchase Responds To Clay Shirky About Micro-Payments - PSFK.com Says:

    […] Nokia researcher Jan Chipchase makes a simple reaction to Clay Shirky’s recent thought piece on the newspaper industry where he suggests that micro-payments don’t work: “One […]

  38. Open Video Conference: June 19-20 Says:

    […] made waves early last week when he sounded the death knell for newspaer publishing. In June, he’ll share his forecasts for the online video medium and how individuals will use […]

  39. Two opposing views on the death of newspapers | Broadcasting Brain Says:

    […] Shirky wrote about the current age of chaos the world media are entering as newspapers are starting to collapse, with no obvious replacements in sight.  He compared the current dilemma that some newspapers […]

  40. Fascinating To See How Journalists React To Clay Shirky’s Thoughts On Journalism | The World in one site Says:

    […] still a ton of buzz going on around Clay Shirky’s wonderful discussion on business models and changing markets that we discussed earlier in the week. If you haven’t read Shirky’s post yet, do […]

  41. Clay Shirky in italiano | RaccoltaBlog Says:

    […] è discusso in Rete nelle scorse 2 settimane. Per chi preferisse la versione integrale in inglese, questo è il link. Inoltre è uscito in italiano, sempre di Clay Shirky, un libro che indaga le nuove forme di […]

  42. Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Ben Rowe’s Blog Says:

    […] and Thinking the Unthinkable Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 by Ben Rowe Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable – Clay Shirky’s really intelligent thoughts about the future of newspapers, summed up by this […]

  43. links for 2009-03-23 » Johannes Kleske - tautoko weblog Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky Essay von Clay Shirky zur Zukunft der Zeitungs- und Verlagsbranche. Viele gute Zitate dabei. (tags: journalism media internet business publishing culture via:mento.info) […]

  44. » The uncertain future of newspapers Says:

    […] a young journalist who stumbled upon Clay Shirky’s latest blog post, Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable, I cannot ignore the truth of his statements. Shirky, who describes himself as a consultant, writer […]

  45. blog.kevintom.com » Blog Archive » clay shirky: institutions versus collaboration Says:

    […] touching on some things that Marc Andreesen spoke about on Charlie Rose, in this blog post Clay Shirky talks newspapers and their futures. (or rather non-futures, the model is broken, evolve […]

  46. The Decline of Print Marketing « HeartBeat Films Says:

    […] Shirkey writes in “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” “… If you want to know why newspapers are in such trouble, the most salient fact is […]

  47. Geektronica.com » Blog Archive » Bookmarks for March 22nd Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky – A 2,700-word masterpiece by Clay Shirky on the current revolution in journalism. "Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism." Comment […]

  48. emretsson.net » Blog Archive » Hur klokt som helst Says:

    […] klokt som helst 23 mars 2009 3 views No Comment Det har surrats en hel del om Clay Shirkys essä Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable de senaste veckorna, och med all rätt: Det är bland det bästa som skrivits om det nya […]

  49. Link-Tipps der letzten Zeit | Leander Wattig Says:

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

  50. adaptive path » blog » Adaptive Path » Signposts for Week Ending March 20th Says:

    […] leave you with an excerpt from one of our favorite posts this week by Clay Shirky about newspapers and thinking the unthinkable. … Round and round this goes, […]

Comments are closed.