3 ms·

Whether the newspaper continues to be distributed on paper, the newspaper as a service is incredibly important. At Seeing Interactive, one of the problems we f

Whether the newspaper continues to be distributed on paper, the newspaper as a service is incredibly important. At Seeing Interactive, one of the problems we find is that people have confused an old-fashioned method of distribution with the important journalism and community building contained within. Sometimes the newspapers themselves are troubled by this very point. It has merely been a coincidence that for the last 250 years the best way to distribute news was on paper and that for the last 150 years or so it has been immensely profitable. So when people say they don't want to save the newspaper, they're merely stating a preference that they'd rather read news online than on paper.

Travis 16y ago
My two cents: I don't think much of the modern pseudo-journalism (and journalists) are worth saving. Granted, I don't subscribe to my local paper (the San Diego union is a noted piece of junk), but I can only think of a couple of writers who have the integrity and ability to call themselves journalists. Most of the content produced nowadays has been chosen specifically to elicit a strong emotional response from readers/viewers. It's not worth saving, in my mind, because I disagree with the central precept of the linked article, that the content they generate is worthwhile. Besides, most of the stuff is just reprinted from reuters anyhow. Even the comics stink nowadays. Ever read the sports section? Look at how backwards (and intentionally so!) the sports sections are (if you're unfamiliar with how wrong modern sports "journalists" are, read FireJoeMorgan). In short, journalism already has gone away. All that's remaining is to clear the husk that remains.
- natrius 16y ago
  There are plenty of non-profit news operations popping up around the country that you might find more valuable than the pageview-centric for-profits. Check out Voice of San Diego: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/ http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/

Travis 16y ago

My two cents: I don't think much of the modern pseudo-journalism (and journalists) are worth saving. Granted, I don't subscribe to my local paper (the San Diego union is a noted piece of junk), but I can only think of a couple of writers who have the integrity and ability to call themselves journalists. Most of the content produced nowadays has been chosen specifically to elicit a strong emotional response from readers/viewers. It's not worth saving, in my mind, because I disagree with the central precept of the linked article, that the content they generate is worthwhile. Besides, most of the stuff is just reprinted from reuters anyhow. Even the comics stink nowadays. Ever read the sports section? Look at how backwards (and intentionally so!) the sports sections are (if you're unfamiliar with how wrong modern sports "journalists" are, read FireJoeMorgan). In short, journalism already has gone away. All that's remaining is to clear the husk that remains.

natrius 16y ago
There are plenty of non-profit news operations popping up around the country that you might find more valuable than the pageview-centric for-profits. Check out Voice of San Diego: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/ http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/