4 ms·
I don't expect you to do anything. I was explaining why the newspaper is dying: Because people (in general, in aggregate) are preferring other forms of communic
by simplecomplex 8y ago
I don't expect you to do anything. I was explaining why the newspaper is dying: Because people (in general, in aggregate) are preferring other forms of communication. It's obvious that in a world where the newspaper is your only option for "updates on things happening that are relevant to you", that it would do better than in a world where there are many more options to fill that need.
The number of Americans reading print newspapers has been declining since the web became popular. The average age of a newspaper reader is somewhere north of 55.
- r00fus 8y agoYou keep stating your point without addressing the arguments against them. When people are being paid for the express goal of gathering such data in as unbiased way as possible - how can that be replaced by pure crowdsourcing?
- fjsolwmv 8y agoWhy are you assuming its unbiased?
- fallous 8y agoBecause the audience does not value the "gathering of such data in as unbiased way as possible" enough to make it economically viable, so instead crowdsourcing suffices. Local newspapers are dying largely due to a change in the audience they once depended upon. This isn't an argument about "better" in some objective manner but instead an observation of the reality of the situation.
- musage 8y agoThen the focus should be on how to secede the people who still care from those who apparently fucking don't. Peaceful or otherwise.
- PeterisP 8y agoIt most likely can't be replaced by pure crowdsourcing, but that doesn't mean that newspapers will stay as the mans for "people being paid for the express goal of gathering such data in as unbiased way as possible", all it means that such activity likely will not be properly replaced as newspapers and journalism declines.