I don't work on fleet street, but I find this assertion hard to believe.
Firstly, the Internet most certainly is the enemy of the printed publication. In the sense that printed publications are dying because of the Internet. I'm not sure if the printed newspaper or magazine will exist at all 50 years from now, but if they do it's somewhat reasonable to assume they'll be a tiny fraction of the industry they are today.
Note I said _printed_.
Will journalism survive? Yes, there probably is a place for journalists, even on the Internet. However with the barrier to entry being near zero, and getting lower all the time the role of a traditional journalist will need to change substantially. There's a place for pay walls, and that will help existing news organizations survive, but their audience will be tiny compared to what say a popular blogger might get.
The value of a many-to-many communication system is that it allows people to communicate their opinion with zero barrier to entry. No degree. No fact checking. No paycheck. (Indeed much like this comment itself.)
50 years ago an article in the newspaper might generate some letters-to-the-editor, a select few of which might be published. Today literally everyone can comment and all replies are published, and indeed a conversation on the article ensues - whole sites (like hacker news) exist to promote that conversation.
This freedom of expression is dangerous to those who used to control public expression. Namely old-style "news" organizations and government. The one calls on the other to create more legislation.
The Internet is not the enemy of the printed news, because that war has alredy been lost. The Internet is the enemy of the professional journalist though who now has to compete with everyone to be heard. There are lots of good journalists who have successfully made the transition, but many will find it hard to compete out here in the colonies.
The internet isn't the wild west. It's the new world.
I don't see printed media dying any time soon. Television never killed radio; radio just changed tactics. Every time a new medium came out, it meant the end of the others and it never really happened.
That said, what I'm saying is essentially what you're saying. Many in the news business (which should really be called the advertising business) see their futures online and are transitioning their core business to it.
It's not like they can, or should, do it overnight, though. There's still a lot of money to be made on the sun-setting industry.
Comments
I don't work on fleet street, but I find this assertion hard to believe.
Firstly, the Internet most certainly is the enemy of the printed publication. In the sense that printed publications are dying because of the Internet. I'm not sure if the printed newspaper or magazine will exist at all 50 years from now, but if they do it's somewhat reasonable to assume they'll be a tiny fraction of the industry they are today.
Note I said _printed_.
Will journalism survive? Yes, there probably is a place for journalists, even on the Internet. However with the barrier to entry being near zero, and getting lower all the time the role of a traditional journalist will need to change substantially. There's a place for pay walls, and that will help existing news organizations survive, but their audience will be tiny compared to what say a popular blogger might get.
The value of a many-to-many communication system is that it allows people to communicate their opinion with zero barrier to entry. No degree. No fact checking. No paycheck. (Indeed much like this comment itself.)
50 years ago an article in the newspaper might generate some letters-to-the-editor, a select few of which might be published. Today literally everyone can comment and all replies are published, and indeed a conversation on the article ensues - whole sites (like hacker news) exist to promote that conversation.
This freedom of expression is dangerous to those who used to control public expression. Namely old-style "news" organizations and government. The one calls on the other to create more legislation.
The Internet is not the enemy of the printed news, because that war has alredy been lost. The Internet is the enemy of the professional journalist though who now has to compete with everyone to be heard. There are lots of good journalists who have successfully made the transition, but many will find it hard to compete out here in the colonies.
The internet isn't the wild west. It's the new world.
I don't see printed media dying any time soon. Television never killed radio; radio just changed tactics. Every time a new medium came out, it meant the end of the others and it never really happened.
That said, what I'm saying is essentially what you're saying. Many in the news business (which should really be called the advertising business) see their futures online and are transitioning their core business to it.
It's not like they can, or should, do it overnight, though. There's still a lot of money to be made on the sun-setting industry.