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. ADVERTISERS START CLUEING IN ON COMMUNITY PUBLICATIONS: CCNA « From the Monitor’s Desk Says:

    […] reading through Clay Shirky’s post, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” at http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/, I responded to Bill, saying that there are segments of our present societies everywhere who will […]

  2. Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks « Virtualjournalist Says:

    […] where he prescribed the same vague calls to innovation that Clay Shirky wrote about a month ago (nothing will work, everything will work). But after initially bristling at Lerer’s generalized recommendations, upon reflection I […]

  3. Düğümküme » Yeni Gazetecilikte Cevap Bekleyen Sorular Says:

    […] Mesela, Umar Haque diyor ki siz değer yaratın, iş modeli kendiliğinden gelir. Diğer taraftan Clay Shirky, günümüz medyasının ölmekte olan iş modellerinin yerini sponsorluk ve bağış modellerinin […]

  4. …words » Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable Says:

    […] Shirky has a fantastic essay on his blog about the future of newspapers and journalism: Back in 1993, the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain began investigating piracy of Dave Barry’s […]

  5. Information Marketing » The Unthinkable Marketing Industry Says:

    […] Shirky’s latest essay, that encourages us to 'think the unthinkable', set me wondering about what the marketing […]

  6. Ryktet om papperstidningens död är inte överdrivet « Nils Holmlöv Says:

    […] Anna Serner fundera på hur tidningar ska kunna ta betalt alls i framtiden. För som Clay Shirky skrev på sin blogg för en tid sedan – även om samhället inte behöver tidningar, så behöver vi […]

  7. Moving Images 2009 » Bloggarkiv » Live From New York: Clay Shirky! Says:

    […] Shirky, som är knuten till New York University som gästprofessor i sociala medier, väcker ständigt nyfikenhet världen över med sina analyser. Senast bara för några veckor sedan med sin essä om dagspressens framtid. […]

  8. Wirearchy · Two Meaty Paragraphs Says:

    […] From Clay Shirky’s excellent “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable“. […]

  9. If newspapers are dying, what about PR? : Spada Professional Services PR Firm Says:

    […] them. That is the stark, but irresistible, message of internet philosopher Clay Shirky, whose magnificent post on the death of newspapers should be read by everyone with an interest not merely in publishing and journalism but in society, […]

  10. Society doesn’t need newspapers « Misjudgement Says:

    […] {Shirky | Continue reading} […]

  11. Dan Kennedy: Newspapers won’t be saved by charging for content online Says:

    […] puzzle and advertisements is finally giving way to something else. And as the technologist Clay Shirky pointed out in a justly celebrated blog post recently, it could be a long, long time before that something else […]

  12. Top 150 Social Media Marketing Blogs - Apr 09 « Social Media Marketing, Thoughts, Facts & Data Says:

    […] Shirky made the most significant gain, (+99), mainly thanks to his brilliant post on the future of newspapers. (888 comments and counting !).   It’s amazing that this article does not comply to best […]

  13. Photomaniacal » Blog Archive » Dan Kennedy: Newspapers won’t be saved by charging for content online Says:

    […] puzzle and advertisements is finally giving way to something else. And as the technologist Clay Shirky pointed out in a justly celebrated blog post recently, it could be a long, long time before that something else […]

  14. Dan Kennedy: Newspapers won’t be saved by charging for content online | ForexZillion.com Says:

    […] puzzle and advertisements is finally giving way to something else. And as the technologist Clay Shirky pointed out in a justly celebrated blog post recently, it could be a long, long time before that something else […]

  15. Stilgherrian · Links for 20 April 2009 through 21 April 2009 Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable | Clay Shirky: A must-read article. “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.” […]

  16. More or less noise « Mr. Unexpectedly Says:

    […] noisescape. Plus, you can’t blame them–the model has to be old because, as Clay Shirky pointed out a month back, there isn’t a new model yet. Stocktwits is taking their best shot, selling noise […]

  17. En bra fråga - men att ta betalt av Google är fel svar — Per-Åke Olsson Says:

    […] exakt hur den ska överleva är en av de frågorna som just nu är väldigt svåra att svara på. Clay Shirky beskriver det bra när han hävdar att det uppstår ett glapp när en gammal modell dör innan man tydligt kan se vad […]

  18. Lesen in der Zukunft | Phlow Says:

    […] Koopeartion im Internet. Der Web 2.0-Soziologe Clay Shirky analysierte kürzlich in seinem Essay “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable”, wie sich der Zeitschriften- und Zeitungsmarkt ändert. Und meinte zusammengefasst – und ich lege […]

  19. Comics and publishing « Word Lily Says:

    […] of rehashing statements older than yesterday’s news, read this forward-thinking look at the publishing revolution for some hope of a positive solution. (I offered some brief commentary on the piece last […]

  20. Join the “Slow Reading” Movement « TheScionti Says:

    […] be inevitable (if you disagree read Clay Shirky’s “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/  but is nonetheless […]

  21. Probate of the Fourth Estate « The Mu Says:

    […] favorite comment about all this is still from Clay Shirky. We are definitely going through a transition and it is very difficult to know where we will end […]

  22. Thoughts on the digital revolution « Woolly Days Says:

    […] and analysis of mainstream news media output. Newspapers still do the heavy grunt work. But as Clay Shirky said, society doesn’t need newspapers. What it needs is journalism. What this means is that the […]

  23. Chris Tindal » All the news that’s fit to crib Says:

    […] media is and has been a critical component of democracy. The fact that this model is breaking, and will probably break completely before a replacement is found, is of concern. But what also concerns me is the fact that old media appears to be going out of its […]

  24. Monocultured » Blog Archive » New new journalism and its discontents Says:

    […] → Clay Shirky, newspapers and thinking the unthinkable. […]

  25. Thinking the thinkable « The Academic Wannabe Says:

    […] the thinkable April 20, 2009 — The Academic Wannabe I have read Clay Shirky’s Thinking the Unthinkable. I have read the responses, the praise, most recently from Josh […]

  26. A couple of good posts on the New Media and the Old Media’s inability to adapt to it « Thinkers’ Podium Says:

    […] commenting on the culture, ‘Clay Shirky’ shows us how the minds within the institution that were capable of adapting, were marginalised along with simple …. It’s really quite a good read, so I’ll not spoil it any further – just follow the […]

  27. Newspapers - who needs em? | mediumcoverage Says:

    […] And Clay Shirky on Newspapers and the Unthinkable […]

  28. NewBizNews: Paid content models « BuzzMachine Says:

    […] of charging for content online (here’s my reasoning). Here’s Clay Shirky’s more eloquent argument. Others believe that charging for content is not only possible but necessary; see the […]

  29. Clay Shirky ed i giornalismi possibili | giornalisticamente Says:

    […] va questo mestiere con la crisi e la carta e il web eccetera eccetera. Clay Shirky ha scritto un lungo articolo tradotto da Internazionale, assolutamente illuminante. Ma non perchè dia risposte più degli […]

  30. Talking ‘Bout A Revolution « shattersnipe: malcontent & rainbows Says:

    […] Clay Shirky on the collapse of traditional newspapers and the need to find alternative means of jou…; […]

  31. Hastening the demise of community newspapers? at Ghost of Midnight Says:

    […] decline of the newspaper industry is closely tracked and widely discussed.  Here’s one such recent piece that warrants careful […]

  32. Shirky Remixed « The Thinking Stick Says:

    […] Remixed I’ve been thinking a lot about Clay Shirky’s Blog post Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. I thought I’d remix some of his thoughts from this post into an educational […]

  33. buildblog | Was ist eigentlich eine Paywall? Says:

    […] Raum wieder zunehmend an Bedeutung, was vermutlich auf Clay Shirky´s Artikel “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” und “Why iTunes is not a workable model for the newspaper business” […]

  34. Democracy, Publishing and Money - Undercurrents Says:

    […] these thinkers seem to be considering the social ramifications at play here. Shirky, for instance, punts in his latest blog post. But if anything is clear, it’s that the development of a commercial […]

  35. Another print edition bites the dust « Mel Poluck Says:

    […] Shirky the US writer covers the exodus to online publishing on his blog here if you’re interested in reading more about this. And if you don’t, this paragraph sums […]

  36. the Figurines video 2 | Enesco Figurines Says:

    […] Newspapers as well as Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky […]

  37. Newspapers wonder: why aren’t we more like the beloved and successful recording industry? « Paperhouse Says:

    […] search engines as the enemy in the latest attempt at saving a newspaper business model that only ever worked because of the economics of the printing press, that’s why: Last Monday The Associated Press announced at its annual meeting that it would […]

  38. link dump - The Personal Universe Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable […]

  39. Alchemical Musings » Semantic Connections Says:

    […] Newspapers and the Unthinkable Clay Shirky does as great job of explaining the uncertainty in the midst of a revolution. […]

  40. homoludo » Keep it for the birsds and bees Says:

    […] It’s  a big deal.  It relates to this. […]

  41. GoodGNUs » Blog Archive » Quality from semi-brokenness Says:

    […] to, and some decide that the whole thing is not relevant to them – but for knowledge workers (see Clay Shirky’s recent post on the Death of Newspapers), this is the territory we’re […]

  42. Innovate or Die: Newspapers and Advertisers in the Post-Advertising Age | The Pop!Tech Blog | Accelerating the Positive Impact of Worldchanging People and Ideas Says:

    […] Has it finally arrived, the post-advertising age? Advertising Age, nomen est omen, recently ran a story on the blurring line between commercial and editorial content, as media companies are facing a fiercely competitive marketplace amidst declining advertising budgets (according to the Newspaper Association of America, advertising revenue in 2008 decreased by 17%, to $38 billion) and the looming crisis of the news industry as a whole (see Clay Shirky’s seminal essay on “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable“). […]

  43. Publishers need to think like Games Developers « Digital Business Says:

    […] The publishing world is going mad. Digital technology is disrupting everything that they used to hold dear. Newspaper publishers are seeing their printed paper circulations dropping,  along with the advertising revenues that went with them. At the same time, having given away their online versions for free and keeping them subsidised by the online advertising, the online revenues are not keeping pace with the decline of the offline versions. This is not news and it is will documented in the well written article about the demise of the newspaper as we know it by Clay Shirky.  […]

  44. Digital News and Diverse Voices | ISTE’s NECC09 Blog Says:

    […] (paper-based) texts while many younger people seem more adept and familiar with digital forms. Clay Shirkey reflected on the HUGE costs of traditional printing, which contrast sharply with the costs connected to […]

  45. Disruption and the “mythic” technologies of education « The Weblog of (a) David Jones Says:

    […] draws upon this blog post by Clay Shirkey. I’ve heard a bit about this post in the blogosphere, but hadn’t read […]

  46. links for 2009-04-09 | Señorita Murrell Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky (tags: no_tag) […]

  47. Photomaniacal » Blog Archive » Clay Shirky: Society doesn’t need newspapers, it needs journalism Says:

    […] This is an extract from Clay Shirky’s article, Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. The full essay can be read here. […]

  48. GenevaLunch » Blog Archive » The bank ate my newspaper Says:

    […] Shirky, “Newspapers and thinking the unthinkable,” 13 March […]

  49. connecting the dots at Marketing Blog Says:

    […] current troubles. And while it’s a major factor, online is not what is killing newspapers. Newspapers saw the Internet coming way before you had your first AOL account. The trouble was that their first line of defense […]

  50. Use Print article to read the online article at different pages on a single page | PC tips and tricks Says:

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

Comments are closed.