By Ankush
I don't mean to needlessly prolong this discussion about the state ofnewspapers, but, from my perspective at least, just a few more pointsare in order -- which, lazily, I'll present in bullet-form.
- Everyone agrees that specialization -- for smaller papers, localization -- is the best way for newspapers to thrive. We shouldn't obscure this agreement or suggest that the point is new. It's something of a cliche, in fact.
- Ezra rightly observes that, whatever people may say, it's not clear that folks in the media are prepared to see their outlets dramatically change. I agree, but I think many of them will see that change is the only option and will try to adjust accordingly. Bob Kuttner's punishingly long piece about newspapers and the internet demonstrates that this can happen.
- It is, in fact, possible to overstate the impact of the internet. For one, media technologies rarely die. As Jack Shafer has observed, "New media technologies almost never replace old media technologies, they merely force old technologies to adapt and find new ways to connect with their audiences."
- Relatedly on the pointof overstating the internet's impact, I see folks suggesting there's atremendous redundancy in national news reporting. Ezra writes that "The Tallahassee Reporter [ed.: the what?] can't compete with The New York Times at news gathering. And until now, they haven't really had to." Matthew Yglesias writes that "the world doesn't need nearly as much duplication of the basic national news function" and asks, "Why should your local paper be good at covering local news, and be good at covering national news [... etc.]?" In fact, most smaller and mid-size newspapers outsource pretty much all of their national news coverage to wire services and other syndicates. (See here, for just one example.) These papers left the national game quite a while back, so I don't think we should suggest that the internet is rendering obsolete a function that many of these papers gave up on before the internet was their biggest concern.
