Newspaper just not relevant

[zastrazzi]

A little while ago I saw the following on Twitter:

How many of you bought a newspaper today?....just what I thought. Thanks. Now my kids don't get Christmas.

I'd be hard pressed to tell you the last time I bought a newspaper. These days even if there is a free one kicking around in a coffee shop I can't be bothered. Why flip through page after

Comments

[junkmale]

I wouldn't be too pleased with the status quo. All that free information online comes from somewhere, and a lot of it is from journalists, who are getting laid off as this model carries forward

[sagaciouslu]

All that free information online comes from somewhere, and a lot of it is from journalists, who are getting laid off

Too true.

I remember seeing an interview years ago, I think it may have been with Cronkite, who was asked if he had to sacrifice either television news or the newspaper, what he would do without. He smiled wryly, and said that he would miss television...

When asked why, he noted that newspapers had the ability to provide consistent, thoughtful and in-depth examinations that television, both in terms of time allowable and rating wars, does not. Now, that's not to say that newspapers actually DO that, but it is still done. And, there are days when I have no greater pleasure than reading the Sunday edition of the New York Times or The Guardian.

For what it's worth...

[junkmale]

That actually reminds me of another story I saw recently in a paper--and online too--about the coverage of the bodies of dead servicemen returning home. The story was about how the press had fought to get access to the bodies being returned and how, over time, as more bodies returned, the number of news organizations covering the flights went down from something like 137 for the first one to something like 60 for the second and on down until now, only one reporting team, always from the Associated Press, shows up

[zastrazzi]

I think it was Bill Keller at the Times who made a comment recently touching on the hacker ethic: information in general may want to be free, but accurate, timely, truth-tested information wants to be paid for.

I don't know about paid for, but it does want to be rewarded or otherwise compensated. My experience with and in the open source and security communities is that there are already accurate, timely and truth-tested information available at no cost. The dependability of the information is determined by multiple end users (where those same end users may also develop or contribute).

When it comes to information security news, *all* of my trusted sources are free, accurate, and extremely timely.

[shuffledog]

I'm as worried about the death of well-written, prejudice-free news as the next person.

However, it's not my job to subsidize someone else's job. Period. I'm not going to weep about someone bitching about the death of their industry.

If I'm going to buy a newspaper, it'll be because the information inside is relevant, interesting, and I have time to read it. Not because I feel guilty about the poor folks who are writing it.

Also: did you notice that some papers moved all their popular comics online and only print crap comics with a headline, 'Check out our online comics!'. Shooting themselves in the foot, I'd say...