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. Innovation, Change and Lobbying | Technology and Regulation Says:

    […] Shirky, Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable, March 2009 We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous, or more […]

  2. The Future of News: In quotes | idio Says:

    […] Clay Shirky explaining the desire of news audiences to share content: 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. […]

  3. Ashleighs Dump » Blog Archive » Up the mighty revolution Says:

    […] Excellent article about newspapers and the internet revolution. Give yourself 15 minutes to read it. Worth the effort.   Trackback  Permalink 2 Comments »  Filed under: Uncategorized 2 Comments […]

  4. Atanu Dey on India’s Development » Blog Archive » Change is Digital, not Analog Says:

    […] the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” ask Clay Shirkey in a blog post “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable.” The full implications of technological change is impossible to foresee even by those who […]

  5. Journalism 2010 » Blog Archive » Innovative Thinker Series Says:

    […] a New York University professor who is using his platform to encourage experimentation, to the over half-century Knight Foundation which awards innovative […]

  6. 5th Estate · Publishing in 2025, Part Three Says:

    […] writing, from any era, in any language or format we like, immediately, and probably for free. At a time when many are prophecising the apocalyptic end of publishing I think it is both astonishing and comforting […]

  7. Newspapers and Google News | Screenzine Says:

    […] about the iTunes model? Media analist Clay Shirky, who wrote the influential piece Newspapers and the Unthinkable, doesn’t believe an iTunes could work for newspapers. But actually there is already an iTunes […]

  8. I’ve Found Another Prophet of the Internet Revolution! – MorganWick.com Says:

    […] a recent blog post on the future of newspapers, Shirky focuses on one such comparison in particular: the printing […]

  9. Yes, I’m one more person with a media blog. Here’s why. | Mark Coddington Says:

    […] as Clay Shirky has so perceptively told us, old models don’t wait for new ones to be in place before […]

  10. Bicycle – a High Utility Vehicle | I want to ride my bicycle Says:

    […] Comment on Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable by Massive … […]

  11. Happy 150th, Oil! So Long, and Thanks for Modern Civilization | Whats New? Tech Reviews Says:

    […] among the labs and office parks of the country. To paraphrase technology pundit Clay Shirky talking about the media, nothing will work to replace oil, but everything […]

  12. Henry Jenkins on New Media and Implications for Learning and Teaching. | Sliced Bread Says:

    […] Newspapers & thinking the unthinkable […]

  13. Happy 150th, Oil! So Long, and Thanks for Modern Civilization - Technology Says:

    […] among the labs and office parks of the country. To paraphrase technology pundit Clay Shirky talking about the media, nothing will work to replace oil, but everything […]

  14. Happy 150th, Oil! So Long, and Thanks for Modern Civilization - Technology Says:

    […] among the labs and office parks of the country. To paraphrase technology pundit Clay Shirky talking about the media, nothing will work to replace oil, but everything […]

  15. :: New MediaTheory Says:

    […] makers shortly before giving up the idea altogether.  Clay Shirky, the NYU media academic, in this trenchant analysis of the dilemma newspapers face argues that the problem is more fundamental than can be addressed […]

  16. Video Games Need Journalists | CC-Blog Says:

    […] has been a question of “when, not if” ever since I read Clay Shirky’s excellent Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. I can only encourage you to take the time to read and digest it yourselves as I couldn’t […]

  17. O cenário da web social e seu impacto nos meios e no jornalismo | BlogueIsso! Says:

    […] O impacto da web social nos meios jornalísticos convencionais se resume ao seguinte: uma turba fazendo comunicação (coloque na lacuna tudo o que você entende pela palavra) por si, usando as ferramentas que lhes chegam às mãos, apropriando-se, transformando-as, subvertendo-as, enquanto uma turma acostumada em ser o centro da comunicação, as fontes únicas, perdeu a direção. […]

  18. Daily Links #89 | CloudKnow Says:

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

  19. Moving Along: My New Project « Mediactive Says:

    […] students at Arizona State University) who are proving out Clay Shirky’s observation: “Nothing will work, but everything might. Now’s the time for lots and lots of […]

  20. I shake my fist at Clay Shirky! | The Health Care Blog Says:

    […] So go read “Newspapers & thinking the unthinkable” […]

  21. Broken Atlas » Back in Newsprint, Not Really Says:

    […] one of the more thoughtful pieces out there on the existential quandry facing newspapers: Clay Shirky’s “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” (originally posted back in March when skies of newspaper confetti were falling). There’s also […]

  22. Thinking the thinkable: Clay Shirky on the future of newspapers Says:

    […] or profound in going back to the past to argue about journalism’s future? His recent article, Newspapers and Thinking The Unthinkable has provoked a global ripple of applause from technological optimists around the world, although […]

  23. Want to charge for content online? Make it three dimensional « ThreeDimensionalPeople Says:

    […] today, not yesterday. The web has taken over the many of the easy jobs that newspapers had. As Clay Shirky points out, “Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the […]

  24. The link economy is sinking fast | Dan Kennedy - Politic News, Videos Says:

    […] there a way out of all this? Perhaps not. As Clay Shirky has said, there may be nothing anyone can do to stop the collapse of the news business as we’ve known […]

  25. Photomaniacal » Blog Archive » The link economy is sinking fast | Dan Kennedy Says:

    […] there a way out of all this? Perhaps not. As Clay Shirky has said, there may be nothing anyone can do to stop the collapse of the news business as we’ve known […]

  26. The link economy is sinking fast | Dan Kennedy | discovertexarkana.com Says:

    […] there a way out of all this? Perhaps not. As Clay Shirky has said, there may be nothing anyone can do to stop the collapse of the news business as we’ve known […]

  27. 3 Novice Muscle Building Mistakes | 6 Pack Abs Says:

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

  28. Breaking up is hard to do « Big Media Hype Says:

    […] journalists understood the fragility of their “mission” and the impermanence of their position, it would be much easier to face whatever new media model […]

  29. Donato Speroni » Informazione: si rischia la crisi di abbondanza Says:

    […] un esperto internazionale che si occupa degli effetti economici di internet, in un suo recente articolo. Solo il WSJ ha trovato modo di finanziarsi facendo pagare l’abbonamento on line, ma si tratta di […]

  30. Future of Local News About More Than Paid Content « The Levisa Lazer Says:

    […] strategy comes and goes, it’ll be time to look for other solutions. I don’t believe, as some have written, that we’ve tried everything and should simply give up. In my view, there is still enormous […]

  31. Information overload bestaat niet « De nieuwe reporter Says:

    […] Shirky heeft duidelijk een voorkeur voor het vergelijken van de huidige ontwikkelingen met die in de late Middeleeuwen. Maar ook de […]

  32. Archimedes’ Hot Tub » Blog Archive » I, Qualitative Analytic Engine Says:

    […] perspective. Many believe that won’t work, like Clay Shirky, who says we need to experiment like hell to find what […]

  33. The Internet: A Parasite Slowly Killing Its Host? | Professional Services PR Firm Says:

    […] executed as this one, it may achieve the same level of popularity as Clay Shirky’s notorious Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. And, Blade would wager, it’ll be especially welcome to the executives at Guardian News & […]

  34. MaRS Blog - Innovation and Commercialization in Canada » Blog Archive » Interview: The revolutions that changed the world Says:

    […] Clay Shirky recently wrote very well around some of this and our current position in time and space. […]

  35. warsystems » Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable Says:

    […] Clay Shirky 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. Comment this post […]

  36. Shooting Shirky : trinetizen's blog Says:

    […] reading Shirky today, I can see editors lining up with their shotguns and shouting in unison — […]

  37. New Media, Crowdsourcing, and Ownership » Karl Katzke | PHP, Puppies, and other Geekery Says:

    […] tackled (to death, ad nauseum) by several bloggers over the past several months: Steve Johnson, Clay Johnson, and in the form of a compiled series of tweets, New Yorker reporter Dan Johnson. Long story short: […]

  38. Breaking news » Archive » De nye mediers evangeler Says:

    […] via @ingridod) “Bibel for nye medier: Evangeliet etter Torry (skill nett og papir), etter Clay (fokus på annonser), og etter Umair (sats […]

  39. “Mijn toekomst en de journalistiek” (2) « De nieuwe reporter Says:

    […] zo recent zijn, is het debat over de toekomst van de journalistiek in beweging. Het bevestigt het verhaal van Clay Shirky. We leven in een transitieperiode van print naar digitaal, vergelijkbaar met de […]

  40. The Reframing of Success : Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, social transformation, left organizing and internet activism - how they all connect Says:

    […] our news will come from when there is no income engine powering the present model.  Rich cites Clay Shirky, who goes into more detail, comparing the present transition to the switch from long hand to the […]

  41. Datachondria » Blog Archive » Zero tolerance for silence, or the literalization of “Writers write.” Says:

    […] newspapers die away, it’s going to be increasingly important for writers to establish credibility based not on […]

  42. The Transformation Of News Distribution In Pictures — .@* Says:

    […] to ask the question that @cshirky would say we can’t answer: what’s next? Another layer? Possibly. I’m not sure what the diagram would look like […]

  43. The New Media Rags (bit of a rant) | Ross Duggan Says:

    […] Excellent related article written by Clay Shirky that I just came across via @eamonnfallon. var addthis_pub = ‘rossduggan’; var addthis_language = […]

  44. Science Report » Blog Archive » The end of news, the end of reason Says:

    […] the internet, there are actually not a few who think that it heralds the demise of the newspaper (Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable, Shirky, 2009) and even of journalism (Filling the Void, Nature editorial, 2009). Sure, why bother trying to […]

  45. Science Report » Blog Archive » The end of news, the end of reason Says:

    […] the internet, there are actually not a few who think that it heralds the demise of the newspaper (Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable, Shirky, 2009) and even of journalism (Filling … Go to […]

  46. Stephen Laniel’s Unspecified Bunker » Signaling price fixing among the web’s newspapers Says:

    […] It’s possible. I’d need to be convinced, and thus far I haven’t been. So at the moment I’m stuck in the same place that Clay Shirky is: […]

  47. Hamburg Declaration: Google Embarrasses Whiny Euro Publishers | Peter Bihr on Social Media, Web 2.0 and Digital Life Says:

    […] here handle the ongoing transitions. It’s not easy, that’s clear for everybody. Clay Shirky speculates if newspapers are even important for the future of journalism: For the next few decades, journalism […]

  48. Pleidooi voor publieke media « De nieuwe reporter Says:

    […] Het is nu drie weken geleden dat het rapport De Volgende Editie verscheen van de commissie Brinkman. Het rapport inventariseert de toestand en toekomst van de gedrukte pers in Nederland en geeft adviezen aan de overheid. Een daarvan was een internetheffing, waarbij internetgebruikers een opslag zouden betalen bovenop hun abonnement om innovatie te financieren. De heffing werd breed uitgemeten in de pers en gebruikt als stok om het hele rapport mee te slaan. Onterecht want het rapport snijdt wezenlijke kwesties aan en wijst met zijn adviezen in de goede richting. Wat wel jammer is, is dat de commissie vrij specifiek naar één sector heeft gekeken, die van de gedrukte pers. Dat was ook haar opdracht, maar er staat meer op het spel. Het gaat niet om de toekomst van de dagbladen maar om de toekomst van de journalistiek. […]

  49. New York Times Considers $5 Monthly Web Fee: Bloomberg « UK Tech News Says:

    […] notion of beginning to charge for content that has always been free is extremely controversial. Some media observers simply think it cannot work and some industry professionals think it must absolutely […]

  50. meshula.net » Nothing will work, but everything might Says:

    […] Quoted from this awesome article here. […]

Comments are closed.