> When the budget cuts came down over the past ten years, > newspapers could've figured out a way to focus on a local model. Instead, > they tried to remain the main source of all this content that is so easily > available online for free.
The problem is that actual news won't remain behind a paywall. Even if it's just people summarizing the original story, the information will find its way out. (This list is a pretty good example. Even if you don't click on links, you still have a good idea of major TV news, and that's without payment being an issue.) For me, the advantage to a good dead-tree newspaper is that stories are reasonably well-selected, and you can read as much or as little of any story as you want. Reading two paragraphs of something online requires loading the whole story. The big problem, of course, is that if we lose professional reporting, what's left will be much less believable. It's not obvious to me how that's going to be economically feasible as things continue to move online. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
