There’s a debate currently raging across the internet, and in the boardrooms and staff cafeterias of newspapers worldwide. It all centres around the dwindling circulation (and therefore profit) of the newspaper. And what are they debating? Well, those in the boardrooms with investments ( or employment) in the newspapers are debating ways to save the newspaper. On forums and blogs across the web, they’re debating whether it should be saved.
This debate piqued my interest because – as mentioned in one of my previous entries – I don’t read the paper any more. This is because my family insist on buying one that is little more then a comic with a semi-nude girl on page three (don’t get me wrong, I like naked ladies – but the newspaper offends me!). So, for the last few months I have been getting my daily blurb of news solely from online sources – Previous to that I was supplementing the little news given in the aforementioned comic buy looking online – and I’ve discovered this is infinitely better than the old style printed wad of paper that drops onto my door mat every morning! And why is it so much better? Well I’m glad you asked…
- You choose what news you want to read. If I’m browsing the Times website on FA Cup Final day, I don’t lose half the space normally allocated to real news because it’s been given over to talking about an overpaid sportsman. I can read about the latest developments ion science and technology, or the latest theatre reviews, or the latest developments in Iraq, or whatever. I’m not force-fed pap about another celebrity taking Cocaine, and what her aunt’s hairdresser has to say about it!
- If a story interests me, I am mere keystrokes away from reading more about it. I’m on the internet, possibly the largest collection of Human knowledge ever. I can read more on the subject from an academic point of view, then get different opinions from multiple sources (this without consulting the endless flow of blogs on almost every subject!). I’m not confined to the half-page story somewhere in the middle of the paper.
- I can get the news as it’s happening, not fourteen or so hours later when the paper is finally delivered to me
- It’s free (or at least a lot cheaper). For the limited information and applications of a newspaper, I’d pay between 20p and £1 per day, which over the course of a week is between £1.40 and £7. Which over the course of a year is between £72.80 and £364. My internet connection costs me £15 a month. And it doesn’t just give me a handful of select, biased news reports every day. It gives me full, unfettered access to the whole damn internet.
So, you’ve probably realised which side of the debate I come down on. I think it’s time the newspaper industry embraced the shift in available mediums. Thirty years ago, the printed newspaper was indespensible. It was the best, most cost effective way to disseminate news to the masses. but thirty years ago VHS was the best way to watch film. But you don’t settle down to watch Quantum of Solace on a Saturday night on your VHS player – we use our DVD and Blu-Ray players. You don’t use a horse and cart to get to work, because that’s what you have a car for. And you can put away your abacus too…
Why should the newspaper be saved? With other mediums, and in other markets, out-dated technology and mediums have been allowed to fade away, and the people using those obsolete formats embraced the new ones. And nowadays, everyone’s racing to be greener than thou. Well, if how many trees are mulched up every day to make the paper that these newspapers are printed on? And don’t give me all that rubbish about the electricity running my laptop – these people would be using their PC’s or TV’s anyway, whilst reading their paper!
So, should the ailing newspaper be saved? Or should it be retired like the cassette tape?
