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. Noticias Edición Digital » Blog Archive » Coming to Grips with the “Unthinkable” in Publishing Says:

    […] While much of the Twitter chatter this past weekend was about the annual South by Southwest festival and conference, there was quite a bit of “retweeting” of links to a post by Clay Shirky: […]

  2. Brown Bourne: My Reading List (NOW WITH DROP DOWN LINKS!!) Says:

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

  3. Infovore » Bookmarks for March 17th through March 18th Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky "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." Late to link to this, but as everyone else who has done already would point out: it's great. (tags: technology media publishing printing journalism newspapers internet clayshirky businessmodels ) […]

  4. The funeral for analog news… by Clay Shirky | The Long Now Foundation | Alphaverse.com Says:

    […] multitude of tweets from people like Tim O’Reilly and Nion McEvoy pointed me to this excellent piece on the end of analog news by (past seminar speaker) Clay Shirky.  Not to be missed, here is an […]

  5. Phawker » Blog Archive » WORTH REPEATING: Journalism Will Survive The Death Of Its Institutions And Nothing Can Save Them Says:

    […] [T]here 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.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. MORE […]

  6. Twilight of the publishing monolith « Clem’s Blog Says:

    […] of the publishing monolith By clementmunns Recently I read a blog post by Clay Shirky that made me think long and hard about what I teach to my students about information and the role […]

  7. Paure e speranze nel futuro delle news - Vittorio Pasteris Says:

    […] Shirky spiega che la crisi economica dei giornali deriva soprattutto dalle enormi spese per le rotative e per la gestione del cartaceo, e ancor più […]

  8. Where Do You Get Your News? | Beatrix Coles Says:

    […] booking a talk for a client today about the Future of Newspapers reading this Clay Shirky article seems all too timely. And thanks to Jolisa over at Public Address for the […]

  9. Crying Wolff?: News As We Knew It Dies -- In 8 Years. | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com Says:

    […] There’s some other recent ammunition that feeds into the apocalyptic sturm and drang. If you haven’t yet, you might want to take the time to read New York University adjunct professor Clay Shirky’s recent post, Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. […]

  10. Watcher of Weasels » AIG Outrage: The Obama Administration Should Look in The Mirror Says:

    […] Submitted By: The Glittering Eye – Clay Shirky – Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable […]

  11. I giornali visti dai libri – destynova Says:

    […] fattori in gioco sono molti, gli articoli da leggere ogni giorno di più, come le variabili di cui tener conto: modelli di sostenibilità […]

  12. The Decline and Fall of Newspapers? @ A Curious View of the World Says:

    […] view is Clay Shirky (author of “…) who has written an interesting blog post called Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. The focus of this article is on the effect of the Internet on changing business models for […]

  13. ‘Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism’ « Outside Looking In Says:

    […] analysis piece — and I’d add the adjective “definitive” to that — “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable.” It’s an insightful piece that I won’t bother to repeat here; you should go and read it […]

  14. Thinking the Unthinkable « The Errant Æsthete Says:

    […] Clay Shirky […]

  15. Someone Noticed Says:

    […] about the value of legacy media here’s the way Clay Shirky put it in an excellent piece called “Newspaper and Thinking the Unthinkable:”  “Print media does much of society’s heavy journalist lifting from flooding the zone – […]

  16. pitbullmedia.ca » Blog Archive » It’s not about print, it’s about journalism Says:

    […] Shirky tackles the issue in his blog which you can read here. It’s a long, overly long, academic and somewhat dry treatise on the paradigm shift of media […]

  17. What does Green Mean? » Two Left Interwebbed Feet Says:

    […] passing scenery has begun to repeat like the same bunch of clouds and mountains, documented in the incredibly shrinking newspaper sense, here. Maybe cartoon language is one of the few we still understand. It’s got to have something to […]

  18. stevendkrause.com » Two modest observations about the jounalism biz Says:

    […] interested in the opinions of other “experts” (actually, I am in this case), check out this post from Clay Shirky and this one from Steve Johnson. Both are also excerpted in this NYTimes op-ed piece. All good 444 […]

  19. Newspapers Are Dead, Long Live the News - PSFK.com Says:

    […] models, media cartels – in the face of economic turmoil, some thinkers – Steven Berlin Johnson and Clay Shirky among them – believe that this attempt at life support is only delaying their inevitable demise or […]

  20. It’s the price of bread, stupid | Media Money Says:

    […] himself urges that we must allow a thousand technological flowers to bloom — in the hope of finding a route to the “democratization” of […]

  21. Fluid Imagination Says:

    […] Clay Shirky’s Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable: With the old economics destroyed, organizational forms perfected for industrial production have to […]

  22. Wednesday Links: 3-18-09 | Chamber Four Says:

    […] As hard-copy newspapers continue to die, and digital publishing continues to take off, innovative content distribution models are starting to pop up for all kinds of print media. One such model is ThomasFree, a system that packages paper books with their ebook and audiobook versions. Joe Wikert, on his blog, has an idea about a magazine distribution subscription service. Plastic Logic plans to rent 100 ereaders to newspaper customers in Detroit; we already know ereaders would be cheaper than newsprint. And here’s Clay Shirky on newspapers and revolution. […]

  23. Why papertrane ? « All the News to Web Says:

    […] 18, 2009 · No Comments In the essay Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable, Clay Shirky lays bare the undeniable truth at the core of the crisis in the newspaper business: […]

  24. » Linkfest: March 17th - March 18th >>Nostalgia For Infinity: Literature, Gaming, Punk Rock (and all that) Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky – When reality is labeled unthinkable, it creates a kind of sickness in an industry. Leadership becomes faith-based, while employees who have the temerity to suggest that what seems to be happening is in fact happening are herded into Innovation Departments, where they can be ignored en masse. 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. […]

  25. Paxton’s Point of View » Blog Archive » Five Ways that Insanity Has Become the New Normal in America Says:

    […] unsupported by reality, were regarded not as charlatans but saviors.” — Clay Shirky in an explanation of the downfall of the newspaper business that also describes what’s […]

  26. People Won’t Pay for News. What Will They Pay For? Says:

    […] is a great article here by Clay Shirky on the plans of major newspapers to counter the trend of sharing information […]

  27. The future of news: doom or boom? « City Bloggers 09 Says:

    […] Clay Shirky: why newspapers are doomed: “Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know […]

  28. the Figurines video 1 | Enesco Figurines Says:

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

  29. Copyright and Service « The Scholarly Kitchen Says:

    […] the most meaningful change in publishing is that it is no longer based on a scarcity model — as Clay Shirky put it recently, “the core problem — the incredible difficulty, complexity, and expense of making something […]

  30. Apogeonline » Paure e speranze nel futuro delle news Says:

    […] Shirky spiega che la crisi economica dei giornali deriva soprattutto dalle enormi spese per le rotative e per la gestione del cartaceo, e ancor più […]

  31. pligg.com Says:

    Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky…

    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….

  32. Games Shop Online » GameSetLinks: Pimp My… Blockparty? Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable « Clay Shirky Tremendously important in the game biz, too: 'Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism.' […]

  33. Crazy Changes, Man! | RobotSoup.com Says:

    […] Changes, Man! March 18, 2009 • by Ian I’ve been reading lots of articles like this, and my head is still chewing them […]

  34. Not a problem : Binary Law Says:

    […] Shirky eloquently states the problem facing the newspaper industry: People committed to saving newspapers [are] demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what […]

  35. Two--Four Says:

    […] doesnt need newspapers. What we need is journalism.”Clay Shirky drops the facts on the dinosaurs. Mar 18, 09 | 12:53 am AxeBitesVarious guitars I see floating […]

  36. Ma webdiffusion de Michelle Blanc sur l’avenir des médias au Third Tuesday Montréal - Christian Aubry | Web Vidéo Communication | Montréal, Québec Says:

    […] Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable (Clay Shirky, 13 mars 2009, 450 commentaires) […]

  37. connecting the dots « Chris Houchens Says:

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

  38. The Chutry Experiment » Tuesday Links Says:

    […] more measured observations I’ve seen.  Tom picks up on many of the points raised recently by Clay Shirky, adding that with the demise of newspapers, we will be in anger of losing those “small” […]

  39. Newspapers as a business model. « Rortybomb Says:

    […] 17, 2009 · No Comments This essay is getting around quite a bit about newspapers and business models and the […]

  40. The future, always in motion and so difficult to see « Fabius Maximus Says:

    […] those discontinuous events called revolutions.  As Clay Shirky explains in this look at “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” (13 March 2009).  He discusses journalism, but his lessons are applicable to the world of […]

  41. Assigned reading: Newspaper industry | Societrends Says:

    […] Lengthy, but good, look at newspaper industry […]

  42. A Monck’s take on Shirky | The Evolving Newsroom Says:

    […] is one I like because he’s so, well, pragmatic. Anyway, he’s rejecting quite a lot of Clay Shirky’s post about the future of news which I referred to in a post earlier this […]

  43. read this and wonder if there aren't some parallels in skateboarding... Says:

    […] is good. And when I get the same story ten times, I take notice. Be sure to read the following: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable Clay Shirky I know it’s long, but this is the story of the music business too. The goal was to bring the old […]

  44. fishwrap : LikeItHateIt Says:

    […] article on the future of newspapers, if you can be bothered reading it “….The curious thing about the various plans hatched […]

  45. Eine BILD von einem Mann « Angelegenheiten Says:

    […] Clay Shirky denkt. re:publica widget Thor Steiner an arabische Investoren […]

  46. Essay: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. « Silicon Dreams Says:

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

  47. Chad Perrin: SOB » We're asking the wrong questions. Says:

    […] When a 14 year old kid can blow up your business in his spare time, not because he hates you but bec… […]

  48. Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable — Somewhere out there! Says:

    […] is something that everyone should read about the publishing industry: With the old economics destroyed, organizational forms perfected for […]

  49. | Inside Digital Media Says:

    […] ignore reality, then the research results are misleading. Clary Shirky cogently makes the point in Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable. Like the record labels, newspapers saw the Internet coming 10 years ago. But they could not permit […]

  50. Clay Shirky - Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable | Ian Aleksander Adams Says:

    […] Clay Shirky, someone who everyone should be reading, has another good article about Newspapers, the internet, revolution, etc. […]

Comments are closed.