I agree with Ankush that newspapers will have to change to survive, and that many of them will. But, working in media, it's almost impossible to overstate how resistant they are to that process. The degree to which folks appear to believe that every newspaper is a special little snowflake, its value incalculable and its presence critical, is remarkable. I can't tell if this is straight rationalizing for a situation that, as Matt says, "is very good for newspaper writers," or because of some odd status quo bias, or simply the internalization of journalistic mission statements, or what. Hear it often enough, though, and you begin to wonder if these institutions have even a hope of changing enough to survive.
But the old ways really do need an overhaul. Take coverage of presidential speeches. We do not actually need 40 different reporters from 26 different outlets writing the same story according to the same stylistic conventions about a useless address. Six would do just fine. Particularly in an age where the transcript -- and the reports of the other six -- can be easily accessed online. It's now much cheaper, easier, and more possible for a large slice of the population to directly access the primary documents, transcripts, and video clips that could, before, only be provided by on-location reporters and newspaper distribution systems. That leaves the newspapers adding less value than before, and it means we need fewer of them
Having fewer of them is something that many people appear desperate to head off. And I think it's possible, if not terribly likely, that most will survive. But only by becoming something different. The Tallahassee Reporter can't compete with The New York Times at news gathering. And until now, they haven't really had to.
