> What gets printed in them doesn’t change with how you print them This isn't true. More specifically, if you substantially reduce the cost of printing, you al

> What gets printed in them doesn’t change with how you print them This isn't true. More specifically, if you substantially reduce the cost of printing, you also reduce the bar to competition. Similarly, if you substantially reduce the time it takes to get from thought to publishing, in a competitive market, you'll need to get more thoughts published. And the death of hot metal printing, followed by the rise of internet publishing, has hugely affected what is published, when and by whom. However, this whole rosy tinted rubbish about hot metal printing is comical. It was the least efficient, most expensive, nepotistic, ineffectual closed shop industry. It held back journalism (not exactly a hot bed of activity at the time either) for years. It almost destroyed the news industry before there was a reasonable replacement. Of course "grown men were crying". They could see the end of their short hours, high pay, minimal work jobs that had been passed down father to son. The only reason it lasted as long as it did was that there was no effective competition. Once that changed, costs had to come down and journalists had to start writing what folk wanted to read not just what they wanted to write. Now it's a little unfortunate that what most people want to read is celebrity tat but such is life. I'd also question just how much better journalism was versus today (although I'm on shakier ground here). There was a lot less of it, of course, and it is likely that the signal to noise has dropped appreciably. But most journalism was filler then as it is now. Sure we remember the great scoops and uncoverings but that's because we remember them. I'm sure, in 30 years, we'll recollect Snowden more than Kanye and look back fondly too.