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. Thinking the Unthinkable Parable of the Future of News « Networked News Says:

    […] asks us, more than mildly paradoxically, to consider an unthinkable scenario. At first, he puts his scenario on offer as a hypothetical possible world, someone else’s […]

  2. If Newspapers are SO Over, What is the Fall Out? | Online Marketing Blog Says:

    […] his recent post which was blogged and twittered about online ad nauseum (albeit completely worthy) http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/) talks about the new reality of walking in a forest of content  speaks to me a gluttony of riches, […]

  3. links for 2009-04-03 : And He Blogs Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky (tags: newspapers journalism media internet technology business history publishing news shirky) […]

  4. Dodos, Fresh Milk, and Newspapers | freeryan Says:

    […] And more will be following suit. Many people are wondering why print news businesses have taken so long to get the picture. One thing is for certain in my mind, the newspaper is one of those things my daughter (now 2yo) […]

  5. Newspapers: obsolete « Andy Vaughn Says:

    […] Shirky wrote an excellent article on newspapers and the downfall of their business […]

  6. a4mani.it Says:

    I quotidiani e pensare l’impensabile « Clay Shirky…

    Un lungo e interessante post sui quotidiani e il loro rapporto con i nuovi media….

  7. Viva la journalism revolution | The Pop!Tech Blog | Accelerating the Positive Impact of Worldchanging People and Ideas Says:

    […] Clay Shirky, a guru of Internet technologies, wrote a significant piece last month about the state of journalism. […]

  8. SKMurphy » Quotes for Entrepreneurs - March 2009 Says:

    […] stuff is put in its place. Big changes stall, small changes spread.” Clay Shirky in “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” “No matter what the tax rates have been, in post WW2 America tax revenues have […]

  9. Will large-scale aggregation erase newspaper brands? | Hypercrit Says:

    […] in that liminal period, the revolution, whatever you want to call it. Things are uncertain. Things are unsettled. Things are […]

  10. Delicious Bookmarks for March 31st through April 2nd | StraussBlog Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky – "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 masse…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." […]

  11. How to sell media on the internet (and make everybody better off in the process) – RagTag Says:

    […] look anything like the old one. I think one of the wisest things I’ve read on the subject was a recent article by Clay Shirky, looking at the questions that the internet forces on Newspapers. I strongly recommend his […]

  12. Aim the gun the right way « BuzzMachine Says:

    […] his analysis to that of Joey Baker, who writes a heavy metal rendition of Clay Shirky’s already-legendary essay on the economics of […]

  13. Doc Searls Weblog · Thoughts early in the Revolution Says:

    […] only at the beginning of a great transition caused by the presence of the Internet in our midst. Here’s how Clay Shirky describes some of what happened during the last Great Disruption, and what it teaches us during the current […]

  14. TheWayoftheWeb » Age is no barrier to success… Says:

    […] from the recently published and much discussed ‘Newspapers and thinking the unthinkable‘ by Mr Clay […]

  15. Reading: April 2 « Ted Delaney’s Features class Says:

    […] someone reads, on behalf of the organization, every single comment before it is printed. We are, as Clay Shirkey argued, in the early stages of technological/cultural revolution whose ultimate shape literally no […]

  16. Medienwandel: Den Auslöser und die Implikationen verstehen » netzwertig.com Says:

    […] Shirky vom Undenkbaren für den Printjournalismus spricht, dann bedeutet dieses Undenkbare auch, dass nicht nur die alten großen Redaktionen mit […]

  17. Regiojournalistiek moet opnieuw worden uitgevonden | Jaap Stronks Says:

    […] De journalistiek moet worden behouden – niet per se de krant, citeert Twan Huys een onbekend iemand op internet – wellicht was het Clay Shirkey: […]

  18. Clay Shirky on Technological Revolution « SnowBlog Says:

    […] I just finished reading Clay Shirky’s *phenomenal* (if comprehensive — i.e. long) post on the future of newspapers journalism that everyone was talking about at SXSW a couple weeks ago. Anyone interested […]

  19. Why stay after the beatings? | fix journalism Says:

    […] know “You’re gonna miss us when we’re gone!” has never been much of a business model.” And that repeating that won’t keep readers. But, it does soothe my wounds a […]

  20. Unsecured Wedding Loans - Enjoy Your Day Without Worrying of Your Expenses | Copy Of My Credit Report Says:

    […] Comment on Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable by Helping your … […]

  21. Planning for extinction « Innovation Leadership Network Says:

    […] thinking about what is going to make your industry or firm obsolete. As Clay Shirky dicusses in an outstanding essay on the current state of play for the newspaper industry, there was a time when things seemed pretty stable in that industry as well. Consequently, none of […]

  22. Military Editors » Blog Archive » Thinking about Tomorrow Says:

    […] Read it at Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky […]

  23. AHB » Blog Archive » Media in the Age of Digital Media aka The Cloud, The Book, Shirky & Me Says:

    […] Future of Newspapers: Clay Shirky’s “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable“ Clay Shirky is a 40something professor at New York University, a writer, and a business […]

  24. (Selling) content in a networked age « electronic museum Says:

    […] the audiences worlds apart. But nonetheless, Clay Shirky’s robust (if deeply depressing) angle on the future – sorry, lack of future – of the newspaper industry needs close examination in any […]

  25. The Practicing Church » Newspapers and Still-ness Says:

    […] April 1, 2009, posted by Jeff, under The Practicing Church | | No Comments Round and round this goes, with 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. – Clay Shirky, Thinking the Unthinkable […]

  26. PhotoGeek Week#86 The Skype iPhone | Photogeek. Podcast for the geek photographer, professional, prosumer or keen beginner Says:

    […] Good article about the possibility that nothing will save newspapers nor will anything fill the gap. […]

  27. PhotoGeek Week#86 The Skype iPhone | Photogeek. Podcast for the geek photographer, professional, prosumer or keen beginner Says:

    […] Good article about the possibility that nothing will save newspapers nor will anything fill the gap. […]

  28. Rock, Paper, Internet « pcbritz’s Blog Says:

    […] Clay Shirky puts a stronger emphasis on the outside influence on newspapers in the same month that the PI printed its last edition. For him, the internet has “broken” the “old system”. […]

  29. Response #1 « Snordq’s Blog Says:

    […] decades of quality investigative reporting and public service. However, reading Clay Shirky’s article and listening to McClure gives me hope. I think people still want the whistleblowers and watch-dogs […]

  30. Misschien kan design kranten dan wel redden | Blog Interactiv Says:

    […] om kranten te redden. Schrijver en nieuwe-mediadocent aan New York University Clay Shirky verwoordde de kern van de discussie treffend op zijn blog: niemand weet wat de oplossing is, experimenteren is […]

  31. Jim Coyer’s Weblog » Blog Archive » On Newspapers and the Printing Press Says:

    […] Wow. […]

  32. The Industry that was Eaten by the Internet « PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net Says:

    […] Clay Shirky, has provided in his essay, Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable, a brief history of the relationship between the Internet and traditional newspapers. In the spirit […]

  33. grockwel: Research Notes » Blog Archive » Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable Says:

    […] across Clay Shirky’s excellent analysis of what’s going on with newspapers and the web, Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable . Some of the salient […]

  34. Porqué sonrío cuando cierra un diario | Sicrono Says:

    […] miedo de haber completado un horrendo sermón, cierro este post citando a Clay Shirky: “When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really […]

  35. Favourite posts: The future of the magazine/newspaper | idio Says:

    […] Newspapers and thinking the unthinkable – Clay Shirky […]

  36. Thorstena » Runterkommen bitte Says:

    […] sehr wohl, auf Papier gedruckte Presserzeugnisse aber nicht unbedingt bräuchte (Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable) und alle nur noch darauf zu warten scheinen, wann mit der New York Times eines der Flagschiffe des […]

  37. Go narrow and do 1 thing well « Loo.me Says:

    […] was again struck with this thought this morning when i read Clay Shirky’s great post about newspaper and the change they are going through.  He too talks about Craigslist saying: Imagine, in 1996, […]

  38. 奇正童话 » eBook: Book end? Says:

    […] Shirky这位著名的评论家在他评价报业未来的走向这篇博文中,唯一重复的一句话是:“If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” […]

  39. Public Relations, It’s Time To Be Schooled | The Full Spectrum Says:

    […] to beat a dead horse (again), but newspapers are living through the “unthinkable scenario” where the future is uncertain. These unprecedented changes have raised a number of questions, some […]

  40. Links for today - with questions! | Links para hoje - com perguntas! « O Lago | The Lake Says:

    […] a post titled “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable,” Clay Shirky, who teaches interactive telecommunications at New York University, makes what many […]

  41. nrcnext.nl » Misschien kan design kranten dan wel redden Says:

    […] om kranten te redden. Schrijver en nieuwe-mediadocent aan New York University Clay Shirky verwoordde de kern van de discussie treffend op zijn blog: niemand weet wat de oplossing is, experimenteren is […]

  42. Dev Blog AF83 » Blog Archive » Veille technologique : A la une, Méthodes, Outils, Javascript, PHP, MySQL, Performances, Wallpapers Says:

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

  43. The Next New Networks Blog » Blog Archive » The revolution will not be televised. Says:

    […] Shirkey blogs about “Thinking the Unthinkable.” While his brilliant thesis is prompted by the 2009 meltdown of newspapers across the world, […]

  44. The Praized Blog » Blog Archive » The Innovator’s Dilemma Says:

    […] thing, can lead whole industries to catastrophe. What should media companies do? As Clay Shirky said recently “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” The answer is: Nothing will […]

  45. Family Holloway » Blog Archive » Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable Says:

    […] Shirky’s Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable has already become a classic essay about the times we’re living in and the changes in media […]

  46. The New New Thing. at JG etc. Says:

    […] social equity, and the content will naturally fall into place. Two good posts along these lines: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable – Clay Shirky Outside.in Saves Newspapers – Mark […]

  47. Just so you know, TV isn’t dead « People like to share Says:

    […] The people saying TV is dead are as idiotic as the people saying TV is fine. This whole argument has me thinking about Clay Shirky’s newspaper post from a little while ago. In it he says this when talking about the demise of newspapers: […]

  48. Ezeket olvastad? Says:

    […] szép lassan kihalnak a nyomtatott lapok. Zsombor a bejegyzésben összefoglalja Clay Shirky friss esszéjét, azt az írást, amiről most minden kiadónak, újságírónak, médiastratégának vitatkoznia […]

  49. Biztos, hogy menthetetlenek a napilapok? Says:

    […] már nem képesek feladatukat hatékonyan ellátni. Talán ez Clay Shifry nagy port felvert esszéjének legfontosabb mondanivalója. Valami rémlik hajdani iskolai tanulmányaimból: A francia forradalom […]

  50. SUNfiltered : Fresh culture daily. » Blog Archive » Clay Shirky on the Death of Newspapers Says:

    […] the writings of New York University professor Clay Shirky are a must-read. His recent blog post “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” has been widely linked to, and if you missed it, here’s a taste: “When someone demands […]

Comments are closed.