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 with Edelman | Here comes everybody Says:

    […] loin : – Le blog de Clay Shirky et notamment son article controversé sur l’avenir des journaux « Newspapers and thinking the unthinkable » – Clay Shirky à la conférence Ted, « Comment les médias sociaux peuvent faire l’Histoire ? […]

  2. - Data Drip Says:

    […] simple act of indexing stories.    This seems misguided for both narrow technical reasons and broader business model ones: on the one hand, it is easy to opt out of Google if newspapers chose to do so; more generally, the […]

  3. Los periódicos tradicionales: un obituario | SinapsysMx.Net Says:

    […] trae a colación un artículo escrito por el profesor de NYU, Clay Shirky, titulado “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable”, una visión bastante discutida y debatida sobre el futuro de los periódicos y de la labor […]

  4. » Abt Armin versteht die Welt nicht mehr · Helge's Blog Says:

    […] Veröffentlichung sowie von Organisation in Gruppen sind auf Null gesunken. Die „Gatekeeper“ verlieren an Macht, ihre Rolle wird auf die von Multiplikatoren […]

  5. Living Code » Blog Archive » Schools of the Future Says:

    […] them, newspapers (already financially gutted by Craigslist itself) are finding that there is no economic model which lets them survive in the form they have grown accustomed to. The list goes on and on. […]

  6. Los periódicos tradicionales: un obituario | Arica City | Donde se prende Arica Says:

    […] trae a colación un artículo escrito por el profesor de NYU, Clay Shirky, titulado “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable”, una visión bastante discutida y debatida sobre el futuro de los periódicos y de la labor […]

  7. Los periódicos tradicionales: un obituario | Arica City Says:

    […] trae a colación un artículo escrito por el profesor de NYU, Clay Shirky, titulado “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable”, una visión bastante discutida y debatida sobre el futuro de los periódicos y de la labor […]

  8. Murdoch vs. Galileo | Rosenblum TV Says:

    […] is everywhere and everything and everyone.  As Clay Shirky wrote, Here Comes […]

  9. The New New C2 on the Web | C2 Says:

    […] Shirky, professor at New York University’s graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program, has compared our moment in history with that of Johannes Gutenberg and the invention of the printing press.  […]

  10. Jeff Jarvis: «Cobrar por las noticias en la red podría ser un suicidio» Says:

    […] Shirky escribió un maravilloso ensayo titulado ‘Periódicos, y como pensar en lo impensable‘ en el que argumentaba que vendrá el caos cuando los periódicos desaparezcan y antes de que […]

  11. Who does social media best – marketers or PRs? | The Best Seo Blogs Says:

    […] major differences is that PR has been a little quicker out the of the starting blocks. Sensing the demise of traditional media and the continual squeeze for column inches, PR agencies rapidly embraced the […]

  12. Follow the money | Dan Kennedy - Politic News, Videos Says:

    […] appearance at Harvard, sounded a decidedly pessimistic note. Earlier this year Shirky wrote a much-discussed blog post in which he argued, basically, that there is no hope for the news media as we have come to know […]

  13. Photomaniacal » Blog Archive » Follow the money | Dan Kennedy Says:

    […] appearance at Harvard, sounded a decidedly pessimistic note. Earlier this year Shirky wrote a much-discussed blog post in which he argued, basically, that there is no hope for the news media as we have come to know […]

  14. Digitale Notizen » Blog Archive » Weil er dich liebt … Says:

    […] im Netz. Er zitiert dabei Gordy Thompson, den ehemaligen Chef der NYT-Online, der in einem Essay von Clay Shirky zu Wort kommt und das Problem der Digitalisierung ziemlich gut auf den Punkt […]

  15. An der Flüchtigkeitsfront — CARTA Says:

    […] seinem Essay “Zeitungen – Nachdenken über das Undenkbare” beschreibt Clay Shirky, wie bei dem Zeitungsverlag Knight-Ridder 1993 Nachforschungen angestellt […]

  16. Газеты будущего: размышления о невероятном : Webmaster.by | Монетизация трафика, интернет-проектов вебмастера (издателя), заработок вебмастера Says:

    […] Университета Клэй Ширки (Clay Shirky) в своей статье Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable, перевод которой представляет сегодня […]

  17. Los periódicos tradicionales: un obituario Says:

    […] trae a colación un artículo escrito por el profesor de NYU, Clay Shirky, titulado “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable”, una visión bastante discutida y debatida sobre el futuro de los periódicos y de la labor […]

  18. Who does social media best - marketers or PRs? Says:

    […] major differences is that PR has been a little quicker out the of the starting blocks. Sensing the demise of traditional media and the continual squeeze for column inches, PR agencies rapidly embraced the […]

  19. ‘New rules of the news’: twenty-two ideas to help transform the newspaper industry « what we've got Says:

    […] seen the trouble that newspapers are in, but unlike the recording industry who appear to be in more or less in the same boat, newspapers […]

  20. Il ReteGiornale - la Tua Voce in Rete» Libertà d'informazione » Nuovi giornalismi e nuovi giornalisti dal laboratorio della Rete Says:

    […] "Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable" by Clay Shirky March 13, 2009: shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable Ross Douthat at The New York Times: […]

  21. Il futuro dei giornali? Va cercato altrove | Apogeonline Says:

    […] c’è Clay Shirky, docente e consulente americano che già a marzo scorso ci aveva segnalato che il modello di business dei giornali non regge, e che non si sa che cosa può venir dopo. In un recente intervento Shirky riprende e amplia il […]

  22. Kataweb.it - Blog - Giornalismo d’altri » Blog Archive » Verso la conferenza ONA: qualche buona lettura per il viaggio Says:

    […] dei media e in particolare dei media giornalistici, che fa seguito al suo famoso saggio di marzo sulla rivoluzione inevitabile. E’ una conferenza dibattito a Harvard, ripresa in audio (vedi qui sotto) e in full text dal […]

  23. This week in media musings: Shirky speaks, and three new projects to watch | Mark Coddington Says:

    […] regarded for years as one of new media’s most respected thinkers. But after his March essay “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” went viral and reached an almost epochal level among journalism and new media circles in just a few […]

  24. Notes on Nicholas Carr | Hypercrit Says:

    […] dis­misses writ­ers like Clay Shirky and Jeff Jarvis, who argue that some­thing has changed sig­nif­i­cantly and irre­versibly […]

  25. A journalistic limbo until we reach The New World | Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog Says:

    […] Shirky, internet theorist and the harbinger-in-chief of newspaper death, encapsulated the problem at a recent Harvard Shorenstein Center talk: “We are headed into a […]

  26. McGuire on Media » Trying to find the right tone when "left wing technologists" grab all the attention Says:

    […] almost daily on Twitter and Mashable and there are specific analyses from wise people like Clay Shirky that newspapers are dying and on the brink of […]

  27. PBN09 Awards Ceremony @NYC « DARIUS HIMES Says:

    […] like to suggest that this “is what real revolutions are like,” to borrow the words of Clay Shirky, a brilliant social commentator. They involve slippery and exciting change that […]

  28. Clay Shirky and Accountability Journalism | test title Says:

    […] Professor Clay Shirky published an essay, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable“, that suggested that journalists needed to radically rethink the assumptions that have made […]

  29. Watchdog blog roundup for 9-23-09 | John Tedesco Says:

    […] accountability journalism in a world of declining newspapers. (Shirky was the guy who wrote this.) Share and […]

  30. Greenhoof » Blog Archive » Clay Shirky and Accountability Journalism Says:

    […] Professor Clay Shirky published an essay, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable“, that suggested that journalists needed to radically rethink the assumptions that have made […]

  31. Tipping Point für E-Books? - quillp magazin Says:

    […] Die Vorteile von E-Books liegen auf der Hand: sie senken die Eintrittsbarriere für neue Autoren drastisch, da die Vorabinvestitionen im Vergleich zu einer Druckausgabe zu vernachlässigen sind. Somit werden sie auch nicht zu einem Rückgang des kreativen Schaffens führen, sondern im Gegenteil zu einem beispiellosen Anstieg, da die Kosten des Scheitern als Haupthürde für das Ausprobieren neuer Ideen drastisch sinken. Damit stellt sich die Frage nach der Rolle der Verlage aber auch ganz neu und existenziell, da das Hauptproblem, das sie lösen – die Schwierigkeit, Komplexität und Kosten Inhalte einer breiten Masse zugänglich zu machen – in einer digitalen Welt aufgehört hat ein Problem zu sein. […]

  32. multicast » Blog Archive » First! Says:

    […] The big question if you are interested in communication is what exactly that pattern turns out to look like after the Internet.  Utopians like to talk about the long tail and how anyone can be a broadcaster (which is not true).  Instead of calling this the emancipation of information we can label the same thing pejoratively and call it fragmentation or a niche culture (maybe Joe Turow would), maybe the twilight of common dreams (Todd Gitlin) or the The End of Television (or why not add The Death of Newspapers?) […]

  33. Clay Shirky: Let a thousand flowers bloom to replace newspapers; don’t build a paywall around a public good » Nieman Journalism Lab Says:

    […] the future of accountability journalism in a world of declining newspapers. Even for those of us familiar with his ideas, he brought in a few new wrinkles, which have already been the subject of commentary […]

  34. Clay Shirky y el periodismo transparente o responsable | Denken Über Says:

    […] de Ethan Zuckerman, uno de los cerebros más interesantes a seguir y, el ensayo original de Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable que son dos piezas fundamentales para cualquiera que quiera entender el cambio de los medios y el […]

  35. Accountability Journalism and New Media Models | Climate Vine Says:

    […] Professor Clay Shirky published an essay, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable“, that suggested that journalists needed to radically rethink the assumptions that have made […]

  36. Greenhoof » Blog Archive » Accountability Journalism and New Media Models Says:

    […] Professor Clay Shirky published an essay, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable“, that suggested that journalists needed to radically rethink the assumptions that have made […]

  37. Media Nation » Clay Shirky’s bracing dystopianism Says:

    […] past March, the author and media futurist Clay Shirky wrote a provocative blog post that encapsulated and defined the dilemma facing professional journalism, and especially the […]

  38. Green Design » Blog Archive » Accountability Journalism and New Media Models Says:

    […] Professor Clay Shirky published an essay, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable“, that suggested that journalists needed to radically rethink the assumptions that have made […]

  39. Accountability Journalism and New Media Models | test title Says:

    […] Professor Clay Shirky published an essay, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable“, that suggested that journalists needed to radically rethink the assumptions that have made […]

  40. …My heart’s in Accra » Clay Shirky and accountability journalism Says:

    […] Professor Clay Shirky published an essay, “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable“, that suggested that journalists needed to radically rethink the assumptions that have made […]

  41. Did we ever pay for content? | News Innovation Says:

    […] an essay that, on first blush, ranks near to Clay Shirky’s seminal thinking-the-unthinkable think piece, Paul Graham argues that we never paid for content: In fact consumers never really were paying for […]

  42. Did we ever pay for content? « BuzzMachine Says:

    […] an essay that, on first blush, ranks near to Clay Shirky’s seminal thinking-the-unthinkable think piece, Paul Graham argues that we never paid for content: In fact consumers never really were paying for […]

  43. newslife site » Aspen FOCAS Reminds ‘Information Also Wants to Be Expensive’ Says:

    […] of the Seattle Times, summed it up best in remarks Tuesday morning quoting Clay Shirky: “Nothing will work, but everything might. Now’s the time for lots and lots of […]

  44. A Post-Journalistic Age | nyn9 com Says:

    […] A critique and conclusion of where journalism is headed | One of the most insightful and valuable things that I have seen written about the direction of […]

  45. På rullande sten växer ingen mossa « Same Same But Different Says:

    […] kan utnyttja nätet, har jag lärt mig utanför skolväggarna. Nästan allt jag har hunnit läsa om hur framtiden kanske kommer att te sig för branschen hittar du inte i kursplanens obligatoriska läsning. Så ska det inte behöva […]

  46. Businessweek: What can we learn? | idio Says:

    […] Clay Shirky wrote: “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: […]

  47. Revolutions in the media economy (1) – the context of crisis | David Campbell -- Photography, Multimedia, Politics Says:

    […] was simply a function of those ads requiring a large print format that was expensive. Clay Shirkey has put it succinctly by noting: The expense of printing created an environment where Wal-Mart was […]

  48. The ‘Internet Manifesto’ bucks a trend and gets mainstream media attention - Partytow Says:

    […] for monetising web content. On the other hand, innovative media experts like Cory Doctorow, Clay Shirky or Jeff Jarvis rarely get that much attention on the big media, although they are very successful […]

  49. Podcast #67 - Blog – Stack Overflow Says:

    […] Joel and I disagree about the future of professional journalism; I think the newspaper business model was fundamentally flawed. It is tempting to blame Craigslist for the downfall of newspapers, but if it wasn’t Craigslist, someone else would have done the same thing. For a thoughtful discussion of the topic, check out Clay Shirky’s article Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. […]

  50. What death of newspapers says of software development « thoughts on entrepreneurship Says:

    […] has been said of the impending demise of newspapers. The chief force behind this change is the dramatic shift in the economies of distributing […]

Comments are closed.